“Sociology is one of the youngest and most comprehensive sciences about society.” The desire to understand, comprehend society, and express one’s attitude towards it was characteristic of humanity at all stages of its history. Usually the word “sociology” is associated with conducting surveys and studying public opinion. A survey is an important research tool in sociology, but the main task of sociologists was considered to be the analysis and understanding of problems associated with the functioning and development of both society as a whole and individual social groups and institutions.
Any sum of people’s knowledge about the world around them can be called science only if there is a clearly defined subject of research, a system of knowledge relating to this subject, as well as a categorical apparatus that describes the essential foundations of this subject. Most modern sciences formed their subject and system of knowledge as a result of a long historical period. At the very beginning of this path, we are faced with thoughts and ideas that describe the subject of science exclusively at the level of ordinary knowledge. However, in the future, this knowledge acts as the foundations of science, the sprouts of new directions in the development of human thought.
Theoretical sociology consists of many scientific schools, but they are all based on two main approaches to the study and explanation of society - positivism and humanitarianism. Positivism arose and began to dominate in the sociology of the 19th century as opposed to speculative reasoning about society. This is a rational approach based on observation, comparison, experiment. His initial positions boil down to the following: a) nature and society are united and develop according to the same laws; b) a social organism is similar to a biological one; c) society should be studied using the same methods as nature. Positivism of the twentieth century is neopositivism. Its initial principles are significantly more complicated: naturalism (the commonality of the laws of development of nature and society), scientism (accuracy, rigor and objectivity of social research methods), behaviorism (the study of a person only through open behavior), verification (the mandatory presence of an empirical basis for scientific knowledge), quantification (quantitative expression of social facts) and objectivism (freedom of sociology as a science from value judgments and connections with ideology). On the basis of positivism and its second wave - neopositivism, the following directions of sociological thought were born, functioned and exist: naturalism (biologism and mechanism), classical Marxism, structural functionalism. Positivists and their followers of the twentieth century view the world as an objective reality, believing that it should be studied by discarding their values. They recognize only two forms of knowledge - empirical and logical (only through experience and verifiability) and consider it necessary only to study facts, not ideas. Humanitarianism or phenomenology is an approach to the study of society through understanding. His starting positions are as follows: a) society is not an analogue of nature, it develops according to its own laws; b) society is not an objective structure standing above people and independent of them, but the sum of the relationships of two or more individuals; c) the main thing is the decoding, interpretation of the meaning, the content of this interaction; d) the main methods of this approach: ideographic method (study of individuals, events or objects), method of qualitative analysis (understanding a phenomenon, not counting it), methods of phenomenology, i.e. knowledge of the causes and essence of social phenomena, for example, the linguistic method (the study of what is accessible to language), the method of understanding (knowledge of society through self-knowledge), the method of hermeneutics (interpretation of meaningful human actions), the method of feeling, etc. Most representatives of humanitarianism are subjectivist, rejecting “freedom from values” as impossible in sociology, a science that affects the interests of people. Modern sociology is a multi-paradigm science. A paradigm is understood as a method recognized and accepted by the scientific community for solving a certain range of scientific problems. There are three main paradigms of modern sociology: structural-functional, which views society as a relatively stable system of interconnected parts, based on widespread agreement about what is morally desirable, where each part of society has functional consequences in relation to society as a whole ; conflict-radical, which proceeds from the fact that society is a system that is characterized by social inequality, when some categories of people benefit more from the structure of society than others; at the heart of this inequality is a conflict that contributes to social changes; symbolic interactionism - in contrast to the first two paradigms, society is presented as a constant process of social interaction in specific conditions, which is based on communication through symbols, while individual perceptions of social reality are unique and changeable.
Unifying paradigms are postclassical paradigms that reveal the interconnection of social structures and active social agents.
Recent decades in the development of modern sociology have been marked, on the one hand, by the emergence of new social networks. concepts, a further strengthening of their diversity, on the other hand, an increasingly clear desire to overcome the traditional gap between macro- and microsociology, theoretical and empirical approaches to the study and understanding of social. reality. This desire began in the 30s, but it was in the 70-90s that it acquired the character of a stable, dominant trend. The significance of unification attempts lies not only in the fact that they themselves bring significant new social benefits. significance, but also that the successful solution of this most important task may mean a transition to a qualitatively new stage in the development of theoretical sociology. We are talking about a tendency to move towards more than one and only general social theory, excluding social pluralism. paradigms, but about ensuring unity and diversity, in which the persisting pluralism did not exclude, but assumed the convergence of various methodological approaches to the study of social sciences. reality. We are talking about the need to create a wider and higher social network. a scientific system capable of summarizing the best achievements of various areas of modern sociology.
Integralist, unifying tendencies in modern sociology are clearly manifested in particular in the newest concepts of “communicative action” by Habermas, “structuralist constructivism” by Bourdieu, “structuration” by Giddens, “neofunctionalism” by Alexanders and others. German philosopher and sociologist Jurgen Habermas in his works “The Theory of Communicative Action” ”, “Factuality and Significance”, etc. made an attempt to combine the concepts of structural functionalism and the concepts of phenomenology, to achieve the integration of the theory of action and the theory of systems. The creativity of these sociologists is associated with a qualitatively new stage in the development of sociological science.
In this case, you can turn to the work of G.V. Osipov “Sociology and Socialism”, in which the following paradigms were defined:
— social facts (structural functionalism and the theory of social conflicts);
— social definitions (symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology);
— social behavior (exchange theory and psychological reductionism).
The paradigms of modern sociology are defined differently in Western scientific literature. In particular, the prominent English sociologist E. Giddens highlights the following:
- functionalism and structuralism;
- symbolic interactionism;
— Marxism;
— conflict theory.
Quite interesting is the point of view of N.A. Polyakova, who in her works “Modern Western sociology: classical traditions and the search for a new paradigm” and “From a labor society to an information society: Western sociology on the changing social role of labor” offers a new look at this problem . She proposes to distinguish only the classical and modern paradigms, arguing that the first is based on recognition:
— labor as the most fundamental principle that determines the processes of creation, functioning and development of society, i.e. traditional labor society;
- “man of labor” - the main character of the labor society.
The second is built on completely different foundations, based on features characteristic of social systems of the late 20th century:
— “information” society, when the determining factor is not the production of things and goods, but the information itself;
- not a “working man”, not an “economical” person, but the individual with his needs comes to the fore above the utilitarian, above the material.
So, it should be noted that modern Western European sociological thought is characterized by its increasing convergence with social philosophy and its orientation toward solving large-scale social problems. Thus, English sociologists focus on the study of social strata and classes, problems of social stratification. Sociological science in the United States, which is more applied in nature, continues to make more efforts to study the problems of individual mobility and is moving closer to the behavioral sciences.
In this work we will consider 5 main paradigms of modern sociology:
- The paradigm of sociological factors (Emile Durkheim: structural functionalism).
- The paradigm of sociological definitions (Max Weber: it is not the facts themselves that are important, but how they are determined by man).
- Paradigm of sociological behavior (George Homans: people base their behavior on equivalent exchange).
- The paradigm of socio-historical determinism (Karl Marx: the social-class division of society is the basis for differences in people’s lifestyles).
- The Lifeworlds Paradigm (Alfred Schutz: stable social practices emerge in people's everyday experiences).
Paradigm of sociological factors
The evolutionary path of institutional changes is described in most detail in sociology by supporters of structural functionalism (G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, etc.), who characterize it by the fact that, firstly, the transformation of institutions is carried out gradually and, as a rule, almost imperceptible for a specific historical time, secondly, evolutionary changes are adaptive in nature, that is, caused by the need for society to adapt to objective physical or social conditions, thirdly, the formation of each institution is caused by the objective needs of people and society, and the emergence of new ones is the result of the legitimation of informal , that is, legally unsecured social practices. This approach, in general, reflects the main characteristics of this process.
For example, Spencer definitely states “that industrial orders for a long time seemed the same as in the old days,” and also emphasizes that the largest and most vital features of the social system arise not from the thoughts of any individual, “but from the personal efforts of citizens to satisfy their own needs." All social changes should be attributed not to individuals, “but to social causes,” while the social (political) body itself should be compared with living organisms, “and not with an artificially created mechanism.” He is also confident that the entire industrial organization, from its main to its smallest features, became like this “not only without the help of legislative leadership, but also to a large extent in spite of legislative restrictions.” That is, the English sociologist is convinced that the effectiveness of the functioning of institutions is most fully manifested when the subjective interests of individuals and especially power structures are independent from coercion.
E. Durkheim is also convinced of the objective nature of social changes and sees their causes not in the individual, but in the social environment. Institutes of science, art, economic and other human activities develop due to the need to adapt to the changing conditions of not only the physical, but also the expanding social environment. Increasing population density and the volume of society forces individuals, for the purpose of self-preservation and survival, to work more, strain more, and specialize more.
However, people are not passive witnesses to their history. Human reflection is able to control the movement of causes of change. At the same time, “although society is nothing without individuals, each of these latter is more a product of society than its culprit.” And society is not a secondary, but the main source of progress, it is “a reality that is as small a work of our hands as the outside world; we, therefore, must adapt to it in order to be able to exist, and since it changes, we must change.” The French scientist, like G. Spencer, emphasizes the gradualness of evolutionary changes and speaks of “slow evolution.”
The main problems of sociology, Durkheim emphasizes, are to study “how political, legal, moral, economic, religious institutions, beliefs, etc. were formed, as well as what reasons gave rise to them and what useful purposes they correspond to. The only tool for analyzing these phenomena in sociology is the comparative method.
T. Parsons, in his concept of evolutionary change, identifies the most important processes for an evolutionary perspective, “strengthening adaptive capacity either within society by generating a new type of structure, or through cultural penetration and the involvement of other factors and combinations with a new type of structure, within other societies and, possibly, , in later periods."
The American sociologist identifies three necessary components of the process of evolutionary change - differentiation, integration and assimilation of a specialized value system. The first means that a certain element or system is divided into elements and systems (usually two). The second is that increasing the number of systems or elements requires certain efforts to coordinate their actions. And the third component of the change process is associated with the need to adapt the general value system to the differentiated system (element). For differentiation to lead to greater development of the system, each separated system must increase the adaptive capacity of its primary function.
He illustrates his paradigm of evolutionary change using the example of the development of peasant farming organized by kinship. Initially it is both a place of residence and the primary unit of agricultural production. Gradually, this set of roles and teams is differentiated, that is, most of the work is done in specialized places, and the people employed in them are also members of the household family. Now the head of the family, employed in a producing organization, cannot play a role determined by kinship, so it is necessary to develop a system of authority in production, that is, the creation of an integration factor. Production and home teams must be coordinated within a broader, for example, local, social system. Adaptive enhancement requires that specialized functional abilities be free from prior prescriptions and be based on generalized resources free from ascriptive sources. It is also necessary to formulate a specialized sample of the value system, and at a higher level of generality, in order to ensure a wider variety of goals and functions of the units.
Parsons is convinced that the state of any society is “a multi-component resultant of progressive cycles involving these (and other) processes of change. This result, in the context of any more general process, will produce a fan-shaped spectrum of types that vary according to different situations, degrees of integration and functional position in the wider system." Moreover, in this diversity, some societies will be prone to additional evolutionary development, others, on the contrary, will be blocked by internal conflicts or other obstacles, which will be difficult to maintain or even collapse. But among these latter there may also be societies that are most creative in generating components that have long-term significance. He believes that among the diversity of societies there will be a "breakthrough" process of development and, as he believes, "the process of innovation will always correspond to our paradigm of evolutionary change." Such a breakthrough will provide society with a new level of adaptive capacity.
Parsons does not hide the fact that evolutionary changes as an increase in adaptive capacity were borrowed from the theory of organic evolution. At the same time, he emphasizes that he does not consider evolution as a simple, continuous, linear process, although he claims to identify certain general levels (stages) of advancement. He distinguishes three broad evolutionary levels - primitive communal, intermediate and modern. He makes watersheds between stages based on changes in the code elements of normative structures. During the transition from primitive to intermediate society, language plays a key role, and from intermediate to modern society, the institutionalization of codes of a normative order inherent in the societal structure and associated with the legal system.
If writing promotes the independence of a cultural system, then law promotes the independence of the normative components of the societal structure from the coercion of political and economic interests, as well as from personal, organic and physical environmental factors. Modern industrial societies occupy the highest stage in Parsons's stage scheme. It is clear that they are more differentiated, the political and economic systems are separated from religion and the legal system. Their effectiveness and viability is confirmed by the fact that they are increasingly spreading throughout the world, replacing previous types of social order.
Thus, according to Parsons, social evolution is a process of progressive differentiation of social institutions. The main factor and condition for the effectiveness of changes in institutions is adaptive strengthening, that is, greater adaptability of new institutions to fulfill their functions, and, consequently, to meet the needs of society.
Although structural functionalism has made important contributions to understanding the evolutionary development of institutions and societies, it must be recognized that not all aspects of their views are accepted by other scientists. For example, E. Giddens believes that the absolutization of adaptation as a factor of social change for sociology is of little value, and the extrapolation of this biological phenomenon to social processes is incorrect, since in biology it has a precise meaning and refers to the method “by which randomly manifested characteristics some organisms contribute to their survival and influence the genes passed on from one generation to the next.” At the same time, in our opinion, it is impossible to completely exclude the factor of adaptation in the process of transformation of social institutions. If institutions arise to meet the needs of people, and needs are their reaction to the surrounding natural and social environment, then external changes one way or another force a person to reconsider his needs and adapt to changed conditions through, among other things, institutions that organize social life. Another question is that, apparently, one should avoid absolutizing this factor, since it is not the only reason for changes.
In our opinion, it is also time to abandon the classification of societies like biological organisms according to their degree of complexity, and even more so to make verdicts on the unconditional replacement of more ancient ones with modern ones. It is necessary to recognize and appreciate the uniqueness and originality of surviving institutions and cultures in order not only to avoid ethnocentrism, but also to understand the diversity and diversity of existing societies, in each of which an innovative civilizational breakthrough can occur, and it is possible that it will be different from the model and trajectory of modern industrial society In other words, the functionalist Parsons could argue with the words of the functionalist Durkheim, who warned that one should not judge the place occupied by a society on the social ladder by the state of its economy, since it can only be an imitation, a copy and hide the social structure of a lower kind. We must pay tribute to structural functionalism (B. Malinovsky, A. Radcliffe-Brown, etc.), as well as representatives of cyclic theories (A. Toynbee, N. Danilevsky, P. Sorokin, etc.), who became the founders of a pluralistic paradigm of culture that recognizes in contrast to evolutionary concepts, the plurality and individuality of world cultures.
And, of course, despite the recognition of the objective nature of evolutionary changes, one cannot help but recognize the fact that man is increasingly becoming the subject of changes in social institutions. A convincing example, in our opinion, is given by D. North, who emphasizes that the destruction of the institution of slavery, which was profitable and viable for many centuries, took place thanks to the ever-growing aversion of civilized people to human ownership. That is, the once socially accepted system was legally or constitutionally abolished not because it ceased to be effective, but due to the inability to maintain its legitimacy despite public opinion, which recognized these social relations as inhumane and therefore unlawful. This indicates that humanity is increasingly becoming concerned not only with survival, adaptation or satisfaction of its material needs, but also with higher-order values.
Paradigm of sociological definitions
Max Weber is considered the founder of modern teachings on social action. Sociology itself, in his deep conviction, “is a science that seeks, through interpretation, to understand social action and thereby causally explain its process and impact.” Weber defines action (whether it is manifested externally, for example, in the form of aggression, or hidden within the subjective world of the individual, like suffering) as that behavior with which the acting individual or individuals associate a subjectively posited meaning. An action becomes “social” only if, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, it correlates with the action of other people and is oriented toward it.”
To consider Weber's theory of science, we can take as a starting point the classification of types of social behavior. Pareto comes from the antithesis: logical - illogical. As for Weber, he proceeds - although this is not a classical form of presentation - from the division of the concept of value-rational (wertrational), affective. Or emotional, and finally traditional.
Rational in relation to the goal, goal-rational action approximately corresponds to the “logical” action of Pareto. This is the action of the engineer who builds the bridge; a speculator who strives to make money; a general who wants to win. In all these cases, goal-oriented behavior is determined by the fact that the subject sets a clear goal and uses appropriate means to achieve it.
However, Weber does not argue, like Pareto, that an action performed using inappropriate means due to error in knowledge is irrational. The purposefulness of an action is determined by the experience of the subject, not the observer. But this should rather be the Pareto definition.
A value-rational act was performed, for example, by the German socialist Lassalle, who was killed in a duel, or by the captain who drowned after refusing to abandon his ship. The action turns out to be value-rational in this case, not because it is aimed at achieving a specific, externally fixed goal, but because not accepting the challenge or leaving the sinking ship would be dishonorable. The subject acts rationally, taking risks not to achieve an externally fixed result, but out of loyalty to his own idea of \u200b\u200bhonor.
The act, which Weber calls affective, is determined solely by the state of mind or mood of the individual. A mother may hit her child because his behavior is intolerable; a football player hits another player during a match, losing control of himself. In these cases, the action is determined not by a goal or a value system, but by the emotional reaction of the subject in certain circumstances.
And finally, traditional behavior is dictated by habits, customs, and beliefs that have become second nature. The subject acts according to tradition, he does not need to set a goal, or define values, or experience emotional arousal - he simply obeys the reflexes that have been ingrained in him over a long period of practice.
This classification of types of social behavior has been discussed and refined for half a century. I would like to emphasize that in some way it illuminates all of Weber’s conclusions. Indeed, he refers to it more than once in his writings.
Sociology is a science sensitive to social behavior. Receptivity implies the meaning that the subject attaches to his behavior. While Pareto judges the logic of actions by referring to the knowledge of another person (the observer), Weber sets out to understand the meaning that each subject attaches to his behavior. Awareness of the subjective meanings of certain actions implies the need to classify categories or types of social behavior. It leads us to understand the structure of their understanding.
The classification of types of social behavior has a certain impact on Weber's interpretation of the modern era. A characteristic feature of the world in which we live is rationality. At the first assessment, it corresponds to an expansion of the sphere of goal-oriented actions. An economic enterprise is rational, and so is government management with the help of a bureaucratic apparatus. All modern society also strives for a goal-oriented, rational organization, and the philosophical problem of our time, a highly existentialist problem, is to determine the boundaries of that part of society where behavior of a different type continues to exist and should exist.
Finally, this classification of types of actions is related to what constitutes the spirit of Weber's philosophical reflections, namely, an understanding of the ways in which science and politics interact and demarcate.
The term "understanding" is a classic translation from the German verstehen. Weber's idea is as follows: in the field of natural phenomena, we can explain the observed patterns only through premises that are mathematical in form and nature. In other words, we need to explain phenomena with propositions supported by experience in order to feel like we understand them. Understanding, therefore, is indirect; it is achieved through concepts and connections. As for human behavior, understanding is in some way immediate: a professor understands the behavior of students who listen to his lectures, a passenger understands why a taxi driver does not run a red light. It doesn't need to record how many drivers stop at traffic lights to understand why they do so. Human behavior is the outward manifestation of meaningfulness associated with the fact that people are endowed with reason. Most often, certain meaningful connections between action and goals, between the actions of one and the actions of another individual are perceived directly. Social behavior contains a meaningful construct that the science of human reality can understand. This meaningfulness in no way means that the sociologist or historian has grasped behavior intuitively. On the contrary, they reconstruct them gradually, using texts and documents. For the sociologist, the subjectively implied meaning is perceived as both immediately understandable and questionable.
Understanding, according to Weber, is in no way connected with any mysterious, abstruse or super-intelligent abilities, supernatural properties that are not amenable to the logic of natural sciences. The meaningfulness of an action is not immediate, i.e. we cannot understand immediately, without prior investigation, the meaning of the behavior of others. Even when it comes to our contemporaries, we can almost always immediately give some interpretation of their actions or their activities, but we cannot know without research and without evidence which interpretation is correct. In short, it is better to say “meaningfulness appears externally” than “immediate meaningfulness,” and remember that this very “meaningfulness” is inherently ambiguous. The subject does not always know the motives of his action, the researcher is even less able to intuitively comprehend it: he must search to distinguish true motives from plausible ones.
Weber's idea of understanding was borrowed to a large extent by K. Jaspers and reflected in the works he devoted to psychopathology in his youth, as well as in his “Treatise,” which was partially translated by J. P. Sartre. The focus of Jaspers' psychopathological concept is the distinction between explanation and understanding. The psychoanalyst penetrates into the essence of the dream, catching the connection between an event that took place in childhood and the complex born on this basis, and sees the course of development of neurosis. In this way, Jaspers said, external manifestations of semantic meanings and the experience of experienced events are realized. But there is a limit to such awareness. We are still very far from understanding the connection between a particular mental state and a pathological symptom. We understand the essence of neurosis, but we do not understand the essence of psychosis. At some point, awareness of ideological phenomena disappears. Moreover, we do not understand reflex actions. In general terms, we will say that human behavior is understandable within certain limits; beyond these limits, the connections between the mental state and the physical or psychological cease to be clear, even if they can be explained,
This distinction, in my opinion, is the starting point for Weber's idea that social behavior represents a vast field of activity for the sociologist in terms of its understanding, comparable to that achieved by the psychologist. It goes without saying that sociological understanding should in no case be confused with psychological understanding. The autonomous sphere of social understanding does not cover the sphere of psychological understanding.
Based on our ability to understand, we come to the conclusion that we can also explain individual phenomena without the mediation of general premises.
The questions on which Max Weber based himself when developing his concepts of the sociology of religion, politics and modern society are of an existentialist order. They concern the existence of each of us in relationship with the city, with religious and metaphysical truths. Weber asked himself what are the rules to which the man of action is subject, what are the laws of political life, and what meaning can man give to his existence in this world; what is the relationship between a person’s religious views and his lifestyle; What is his personal attitude towards the economy, the state? Weberian sociology finds its inspiration in existentialist philosophy, which, before any research begins, carries two negative positions.
No science can teach people how to live, or teach society how it should be organized. No science can predict humanity's future. The first negation contrasts existentialist philosophy with Durkheim's, the second with Marx's.
Marxist philosophy is flawed because it is incompatible with the scientific nature of human existence. Every historical science and sociology has only a partial understanding of reality. They are not able to predict in advance what will happen to us, because... the future is not predetermined. Even in the case when some future events are predetermined, a person is free to choose; either to abandon such partial determinism, or to adapt to it in various ways.
The distinction between value judgment and value reference raises two other fundamental problems.
Since the selection and construction of a scientific object depend on the questions posed by the researcher, scientific results outwardly appear to be determined by the scientific interests of the scientist and the historical situation surrounding him.
Weber, like Pareto, considers sociology a science that studies human social behavior. Pareto, placing logical actions at the center of his concept, emphasizes the non-logical aspects of these actions, which he explains either by the state of mind or by the fact that they are committed by the dregs of society. Weber, who also studies social behavior, emphasizes the concept of experienced meaning or subjective meaning. His greatest desire is to understand how people could live in different societies, with different beliefs, how over the centuries they devoted themselves to various types of activities, pinning their hopes on the other world, now on the existing one, obsessed with thoughts of salvation , then economic development. However, he writes that “the highest “goals” and “values” towards which, as experience shows, human behavior can be oriented, we often cannot fully understand, although in a number of cases we are able to comprehend it intellectually; The more these values differ from our own, the most important values for us, the more difficult it is for us to understand them through empathy through feeling, through the power of imagination.”
Weber finds a way out of this situation thanks to two assumptions. The first of them separates ordinary consciousness (or a person’s biased attitude towards what is vitally important and practically useful for him) and science (or the impartial, objective attitude of a researcher towards the subject of analysis). The cultural researcher, which is what Weber calls a sociologist, works with the latter. He highlights “not what is common to all (objects being studied), but what is significant to all (the subjects being studied).” Thus, giving meaning as a reference to value in Weber is outside the sphere of psychology and individual experience. We understand not the acting person himself, but the meaning of his action as the procedure of attribution to value reveals it to us.
Each society has its own culture in the sense that American sociologists give this term, i.e. system of beliefs and values. The sociologist seeks to understand the countless forms of human existence, that life which can only be understood in the light of the system of beliefs and knowledge in which the society in question lives.
Paradigm of sociological behavior
The authors of the theory of social exchange, American sociologists George Caspar Homans, Peter Michael Blau believe that human behavior is nothing more than a constant exchange of values, both material (money, goods, etc.) and intangible (respect, friendship and etc.). People interact only on the basis of a certain interest; direct exchange between them is ensured by personal obligations, the need to reciprocate the services provided. When both parties benefit from cooperation, social ties between them are strengthened. J. Homans formulates the fundamental principle of interacting people: the more a person’s certain activity is rewarded, the more often he repeats it. According to the theory, parties' assessment of the return on their contributions is based on past experiences of social exchange. It is past experience that shapes expectations of a kind of “norm of behavior.” Violation of expectations on the part of one of the participants in the interaction entails disappointment and an aggressive reaction. The authors of the theory noted that the relations of the parties in the exchange process are often unequal - one partner loses compared to the other. This explains the existence of inequality and status differences between people in society. The constant unilateral provision of important goods is the main source of power. A person who controls, for example, services that people cannot get anywhere else can gain power over others
The authors of symbolic interactionism (from the English interaction - interaction), American scientists J. Mead and Herbert Bloomer (born in 1900), consider interaction between people as a continuous dialogue, during which its participants observe, comprehend each other's intentions and react to them . To understand the actions and intentions of each of the subjects during their interaction, it is necessary to “accept the role of the other.” Such interaction is carried out with the help of symbols (from the Greek symbolon - conventional sign), gestures (body movements that express something or accompany speech), to which a certain meaning is attached. Based on the interpretation of symbols and gestures, a response is developed and one or another action is performed. Interaction becomes possible because people attach the same meaning to a given symbol. When someone frowns, we understand that the person is dissatisfied with something, and if he laughs, we try to figure out the reason for his joy. We are able to do this because we are taught from childhood to attach meaning to certain gestures and symbols. We “unravel” the intentions of other people by analyzing their actions, relying on our past experiences in similar situations. The most important symbol, according to J. Mead, is language (a system of sound means). Language as a form of communication has significant advantages: words form general concepts that have the same impact on different individuals.
Social life, according to the authors of the theory, is a continuous process of adaptation, mutual adjustment by participants of their behavior to the behavior of others. The theories of social exchange and symbolic interactionism attempt to view society as the result of individuals acting and understanding each other, united in groups.
The paradigm of socio-historical determinism
The fundamental question of paramount importance for sociology is the question of the interaction of material and spiritual values in the life of society.
Marx put forward and substantiated the independent variable that, in his opinion, plays a decisive role - the method of material production. At the same time, he defended the position of the primacy of being in relation to social consciousness, not in the sense of the appearance in time of the first and then the second, but in terms of recognizing the decisive role of the first in the process of interaction. The starting point for the analysis of all societies for Marx was to clarify the state of the productive forces, scientific and technical knowledge, and material relations between people. Ideas, the subjective aspirations of people, are primarily a reflection of these relationships and therefore cannot act as the main, decisive factor in social change. “The method of production of material life,” Marx noted in his work “Towards a Critique of Political Economy (Preface),” “determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.”
Perhaps no other position is subject to the most intense criticism like this (both in the past and now), that Marx proceeds from economic determinism, i.e. explains the emergence of certain social structures and relations, political and cultural institutions entirely from the trend of economic development, although in life feedback connections can often be observed, because the noted phenomena themselves affect the economy, the nature of real production.
One can agree or disagree with Marx’s opponents, but it is obvious that a sharp emphasis on the role of the method of production of material life, wittingly or unwittingly, diminishes the importance of cultural, spiritual, and religious values in the development of society. It should be noted that many Soviet and other followers of Marxism so absolutized this Marxian thought that they completely ignored the important role of cultural values. At the same time, in the statements of Marx himself, there is no discernible desire to reduce the action of all factors of social life to only one - economic, and their interaction is not denied. Moreover, during his lifetime, Marx himself strongly disavowed economic determinism, declaring that economic necessity cannot be interpreted as if it were the only active factor, and everything else was just a passive consequence.
Marx was the first sociologist who viewed society as an objective, self-developing reality. The source of this self-development is contradictions and conflicts, primarily in material life. “At a certain stage of their development,” he writes, “the material productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations, or - which is only the legal expression of the latter - with the property relations within which they have hitherto developed. From forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then the era of social revolution begins... Consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between social productive forces and production relations.”
You should pay attention to three fundamental ones. The driving force behind the development of society is the contradiction between productive forces and production relations. Social revolution is not a political accident, but a natural manifestation of historical necessity. People's consciousness reflects real life contradictions. In other words, regardless of the subjective desires of individual people, the ruling elite, the masses think and act depending on the nature of the contradictions, primarily in material life. Contradictions and conflicts change—the forms of people’s thinking change accordingly, and values are reassessed. If the material interests of the masses are constantly not taken into account, if contradictions grow and deepen, then a revolutionary consciousness arises, setting the masses in motion, and through the social revolution a radical change, a qualitative renewal of social relations, occurs.
This view of society entered the history of social thought as dialectical materialism. It was applied by Marx to a concrete analysis of the capitalism of his time. “Bourgeois relations of production,” he noted, “are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production, antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but in the sense of antagonism growing out of the social conditions of life of individuals; but the productive forces developing in the depths of bourgeois society at the same time create the material conditions for the resolution of this antagonism. Therefore, the prehistory of human society ends with the bourgeois social formation.”
So, according to Marx, at a certain level of development of the productive forces, bourgeois relations become an obstacle to progress, which is eliminated as a result of the social revolution. At the same time, in the last years of his life, Marx also looked for alternative options that were directly related to the sociological analysis of the emerging new realities of the capitalist system. Thus, in the third volume of Capital, he noted serious transformations in the very method of production of capitalist society. Let us present some, in our opinion, the most significant excerpts that have never been subjected to serious scientific analysis in the dogmatic versions of Marxism. “Formation of joint stock companies. Thanks to this: 1. A colossal expansion of the scale of production and the emergence of enterprises that were impossible for an individual capitalist. At the same time, such enterprises that were previously government-owned are becoming public. 2. Capital, which itself rests on the social mode of production and presupposes the concentration of the means of production and labor power, here receives the direct form of social capital (the capital of directly associated individuals) as opposed to private capital, and its enterprises act as social enterprises as opposed to private enterprises . This is the abolition of capital as private property within the capitalist mode of production itself. 3. Transformation of a truly functioning capitalist into a simple manager managing other people’s capital...”
Marx only managed to outline these problems. But even their mere mention indicates that the sociologist has realized the emergence of a qualitatively new society, to which the characteristics of traditional capitalism cannot be uncritically applied. It is not by chance that after the death of Marx, Engels emphasized with particular force that in the sociology of Marxism it is not these or those individual provisions that are valuable, but the dialectical-materialist approach to the analysis of society.
The sociological theory of Marxism includes a systemic analysis of classes, social relations and class struggle. According to Marx, a person’s belonging to a class and his social interests are determined primarily by economic relations. In all the societies known to him, the nature of these relations was such that the social position of the vast majority of individuals was quite strictly regulated from the moment of their birth until their death. This state of affairs did not, in principle, exclude a certain social mobility. But it was limited only to certain individuals, which did not have a significant impact on social life as a whole. Class division led to the fact that some groups of people, due to their social status, had material, political and other privileges, while others, on the contrary, were deprived of what was necessary for existence and survival. In social polarization, Marx saw the source of class antagonism, the deep cause of class struggle. Thus, according to Marx, people are a product of society and, above all, of an objective position in the production process. But, being involved in the class struggle, they themselves become the creators of society. This is the general view of classes and class struggle, which, however, for Marx was never a dogma and was significantly adjusted in accordance with changing social realities.
In the works of the initial period, Marx emphasized strict social differentiation, the nature of which led to a clearly expressed division of all people into two groups - the oppressors and the oppressed, and he interpreted the class struggle as nothing other than the core of the historical process. From these positions, the sociologist characterizes contemporary capitalist society as an antagonistic society - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the main forces that enter into an irreconcilable struggle with each other. In addition to the indicated classes, in capitalist society there are many more intermediate groups - artisans, traders, peasants and others.
In subsequent works - "Class Struggle in France" "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" - Marx more thoroughly analyzes the social structure of capitalist society, highlighting the industrial, financial, commercial, petty bourgeoisie, peasantry, proletariat and lumpen proletariat. At the same time, he introduces clarifying class criteria, noting not only the relationship to the means of production, but also the commonality of activity, ways of thinking and way of life. Particularly important for the identification of a class, according to Marx, is the awareness of belonging to a social unity, the feeling of different interests from the interests of other groups, the presence of the will to joint action. He emphasized that the difference in class interests stems not from the subjective thinking of individuals, but from their objective position in society and, above all, in the production process. People may not be aware of their class interests and, nevertheless, be guided by them in their actions.
Lifeworlds Paradigm
Sometimes, when communicating with loved ones, we experience bewilderment, even despair and indignation: “Don’t you understand! Why can’t you understand such simple things!” But if you think about it, you should be surprised not that we are not understood, but that other people can still understand us. After all, the thoughts and feelings that fill us cannot simply be taken and transferred to another person, like a thing. Since the thinking of an individual cannot be alienated and transferred to the use of another, everyone is forced to learn to understand the world themselves. But where is the guarantee that each of us, as a result of individual experience, will develop a similar vision and understanding of the world? Will it not happen that two people, looking at the “same” object, will see and understand it differently, or, when pronouncing a word, will put and “extract” different meanings from it? If each individual saw the world completely “in his own way,” we would not understand each other, and the existence of communication and human society would be impossible.
If we do understand each other (and society exists), it means that there are some “mechanisms” that bring our thoughts and feelings to a “common denominator”, ensuring intersubjectivity, i.e. a common perception and understanding of the world among many individuals. We will consider how to explain the existence of intersubjectivity Alfred Schutz (1899-1959)- Austro-American philosopher and sociologist, founder of phenomenological sociology.
The same object has different meanings for me and for any other person,” noted Schutz. – The fact is that, firstly, I perceive an object “here”, and another - “there”, i.e. we see from different angles; secondly, the “situation” in which I perceive the object is different from the “situation” of the other person. Schutz means, first of all, the “biographical determination of the situation” (this means: my vision is determined by my one and only life experience).
And yet, in everyday life, we usually do not delve into such “subtleties”, but simply recklessly believe that the other person sees the world, in general, the same way as I do. Schutz believes that in our actions towards other people we proceed from the implicit assumption of the thesis of “interchangeability of perspectives” (mine and another). This thesis, in turn, is based on two postulates: 1) postulate of interchangeability of points of view– I believe that by changing places with another person, taking him “here”, I will see things the same way as he does; 2) postulate matching relevance systems 41 – I believe that another person, under certain circumstances, will evaluate these circumstances in the same way as I do, and will allocate and choose the same means to achieve a certain goal.
These two postulates make it possible to “idealize” objects and phenomena and present them not as unique (different from the point of view of different individuals), but as typical. “The reciprocity of perspectives,” wrote A. Schutz, “leads to the formation of such knowledge, which acts as the knowledge of “everyone”; it appears objective and anonymous.” Thus, everyday thinking “averages” and typifies the vision of the world.
Obviously, my understanding of the other is based on my self-interpretation, the interpretation of myself. I attribute to the actions of another, first of all, those meanings and motives that would guide me myself when performing similar actions. If I myself do not perform such actions, then I try to remember some type a person who is characterized by such actions, and then I attribute to the other person I observe such motives that, as far as I know, are characteristic of this type of personality. Thus, "the other and his actions<…>are explained<…>as simple examples, examples of a given personality type.” Hence Schutz concludes: “We never manage to ‘capture’ the individuality of a person in his unique biographical situation.” The understanding of another is always approximately, “attracted” to some “type” already known to us.
This “approximate” understanding can have different degrees. We strive to clarify and deepen our understanding of another until the achieved degree seems sufficient to us. The measure of this sufficiency of understanding is determined by our ability to achieve, with a given level of understanding of another, some practical goal.
Despite the approximate understanding of other people, we, as Schutz believes, in a certain sense still know more about each other than about ourselves. In everyday life, a person does not explain the phenomena of the world and himself, but understands all this in the immediate reality. If he tries to understand his experiences (i.e., engages in reflection), then the subject of reflection can only be past experiences, and not momentary ones (after all, in order to make his experience subject, your consideration, you need to distance yourself from it). Thus, the act of reflection always grasps only my past. But another person with his experiences and their “objectifications” (manifestations) is given to me in perception and direct understanding right “now”. The other person himself does not see himself in his “now” (just as I do not see myself “now”), but he directly sees me. This means that I and You are in some specific sense “simultaneous”, we coexist, our streams of consciousness intersect in the “now”. In our present we cognize each other's present, but at the same time we cannot comprehend our own present. “This present, common to both of us, is the pure sphere of We...” notes Schutz. – We participate without any reflection in the living simultaneity of We, while the I appears only in a reflective turn towards itself... We cannot grasp our own action in its actual present, but comprehend only those moments of it that have already passed. But we experience the actions of another in their living accomplishment.”
Thus, referring to the intersection of the simultaneous streams of consciousness of several individuals, Schutz provides an explanation of the nature of intersubjectivity.
An individual's understanding of other people depends on the nature of his relationships with them. Schutz identifies two types of relationships: “we are relationships” and “they are relationships.” "We are relationships"“co-communities” are connected, i.e. a group of individuals coexisting in the same space, observing each other’s lives, familiar more or less with each other’s “biographical situations.” In “we-groups” it is possible to comprehend another person in his uniqueness, in a unique biographical situation (although it is known to others only in fragments).
« They are a relationship“are characteristic of “contemporaries” whom we do not know in their unique biographical situation, and therefore, when we meet them, we interpret their behavior based on typical models. Thus, in relationships of “contemporaries” the partner is perceived primarily as an ideal type, and in relationships of “co-communities” he can also act as a personality. These two types of relationships are not isolated from each other, but are like two poles, between which many variations are built. In the same “we-groups”, where the perception of a unique individuality is possible, “typing idealizations” are also generated: in “we-groups” there are “self-evident” (despite their contradictions) truths, here, thanks to parents, teachers, and friends, unified , typified views of the world.
Based on his research into the phenomenon of communication, A. Schütz argued that the world of the human individual is initially an intersubjective world of culture, that my ideas about the world are “not only my personal business; they are initially intersubjective, socialized.”
The ideas of A. Schutz became widespread in the 60-70s and served as the starting point for many concepts, such as “structural sociology” (Tiriakian), sociology of knowledge (Berger, Luckman), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel), cognitive sociology (Sikurel), multiple versions of the sociology of everyday life.
Conclusion
Paradigms make it possible to select the most significant, “paradigmatic” names, concepts, principles, theories, schools, directions, methods, etc., which have left a deep mark on the development of science. They also serve as criteria for the periodization of the history of sociology, indicating the time boundaries, the beginning and end of a particular era in the development of sociological knowledge. Examples of paradigmatic concepts in the history of sociology: “progress”, “evolution”, “structure”, “function”, “institution”, “status”; examples of paradigmatic theories, theoretical directions and schools: evolutionism, bioorganic school, functionalism, exchange theory; examples of paradigmatic names in the history of sociology: Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Pitirim Sorokin, Robert Merton.
The more distant paradigms are from us in time, the more indisputable and obvious their “paradigmatic” character appears. Conversely, the closer they are to modern times, the greater the discrepancies within the scientific community, the more difficult it is to determine whether a paradigm is a paradigm.
Although it is impossible to completely eliminate elements of arbitrariness even with a “paradigmatic” approach to the history of sociology, here they are minimized due to the fact that the criterion for selecting and studying certain facts of the history of science is not the subjective preferences of the historian, but generally recognized achievements in the scientific community. This allows us to give a fairly complete and adequate picture of the development of sociological knowledge.
Despite all the discrepancies, scientific discussions, theoretical battles, there is always a certain set of concepts, theories, concepts recognized, if not by the entire scientific community, then by the predominant part of it. Even the most irreconcilable scientific opponents are often “drawn into” the general circle of paradigmatic ideas and are much closer to each other in posing and solving a number of problems than they themselves think. The history of sociology knows many examples of this kind.
It should also be kept in mind that there is varying degrees universality, recognition of certain scientific ideas: from completely generally accepted to those professed in a very narrow circle of adherents.
The noted paradigmatic ideas that determine the ways of posing and solving scientific problems in a given historical period constitute a certain framework of historical and sociological knowledge. But this is not enough. As in any history, it is important and interesting for us to know not only the general, but also the specific, not only the repeating, but also the unique, not only the universal, but also the unique in the development of sociology. Recreating details, touches to the portraits of “paradigmatic” sociologists, schools, movements, etc. can be significant for understanding the deep trends in the history of science, especially the humanities. Many serious, radical transformations in science often begin with subtle changes in details.
Paradigms do not appear ready-made; they are gradually formed, evolve, and form a system of ideas in order to be replaced by other paradigms over time or be supplemented by them. Therefore, without studying those stages of the formation and development of scientific ideas when they are not yet or are no longer paradigms, the picture of the history of sociology will be incomplete. In addition, even obviously “dead-end” (from the current point of view) routes taken by sociological thought away from the main roads can turn out to be extremely important and instructive for the further development of sociological knowledge.
Social paradigm
How does a person perceive the world around him, how does he perceive other people, their actions, words, their way of thinking, and finally, how does a person perceive himself? What underlies his perception of everything and everyone, what pattern, what model of behavior is postulated in his mind? Which part of this model is a person aware of and which part is he not? The answer to these questions lies not so much in the nature of man, but especially in the social environment in which he lives, because a person’s environment shapes in a certain way his inner world, character and worldview, and, consequently, his intentions and behavior pattern. The social paradigm that will be discussed in this article determines a person’s behavior pattern in life in the same way as his instincts do, which, in fact, are expressed through this paradigm. Having a certain model for posing and solving problems, a person acts according to this model even when it does not work in principle or works, but not as it should.
The adopted initial conceptual scheme of human behavior and thinking when solving certain problems will be as effective as it corresponds to reality, taking into account the amendments that need to be made, taking into account the time and circumstances that take place. Having a common point of view on certain phenomena being studied in society, a person can become a victim of collective misconception in vital issues. And if these misconceptions are not accidental, if they are deliberately imposed on society, then what? Then, my friends, you will behave in the way that someone needs, who shapes your behavior both through certain beliefs that you thoughtlessly adhere to, and through those models of behavior of your own kind, in certain life situations that are also shown to you in a special way. Simply put, without thinking about your actions and your worldview, you are actually a controlled model of homo sapiens, a doll, in the hands of puppeteers who model your behavior and control it at their discretion.
Tell me this is not true? And you turn your attention to all your beliefs and your entire set of reactions that determine your behavior in a given life situation. To what extent does this entire set correspond to the reality that you have? How much does your entire behavior and way of thinking determine your success in life? Is everything you do correct in terms of achieving your desired result? If not, then here is an example of how you think in an erroneous way and act, and even worse, react in a way that is unnecessary for you. And all this is because you have a completely wrong social paradigm, formed by people who are unfriendly to you and whose goal is to subordinate you to their interests. A revolutionary moment in my life, at least one of those moments that I remember very strongly and literally enlightened me, was the moment when I realized one simple thing - everything in this world rests on postulates. A person knows nothing, all his knowledge sooner or later runs into a dead end of misunderstanding, and actually comes down to faith, or his own interpretation of something. The social paradigm, this unique conceptual scheme of the model of people’s perception of the world, is nothing more than an interpreted illusion of reality.
I hope this doesn’t look too confusing, but the selection of these terms best reflects this concept, yet if you think about the very pattern of perception that is rooted in our heads, then there is actually nothing fundamental about it. If you have carefully read and continue to read my articles, then you have probably noticed that I often focus your attention on knowledge rather than faith, attaching greater importance to the maximum possible certainty than to a firm conviction in the non-existent, and the illusions generated by this conviction. Therefore, it is quite natural on your part to turn your attention precisely to this call of mine - you need to know, and not believe, while a person, in principle, cannot know anything for sure. This is true, we don’t know anything for sure, but we don’t know anything at a fundamental level, somewhere we dug deeper and understood more accordingly, somewhere our knowledge is not so deep, and therefore we have to postulate some things and then take them on faith .
But still, there are some schemes, the system of which we understand and therefore, with ninety-nine percent probability, we can know the performance of this scheme, and often this is enough for us to have a completely quiet life, especially since this is enough to achieve certain results in our society. But in this article, I want to draw your attention, dear friends, not to the order of individual things in our life, by studying which we can make it more or less predictable, but to the order that is in our head. The social paradigm is essentially a phenomenon that fetters our freedom; this indicative model of perceiving the world around us, our reaction to external stimuli, makes us predictable and controllable. If we look at this superficially, we will see such provocateurs of our reaction as fear, greed, envy, the causative agent of the sexual instinct, aggression, a sense of duty and much more. Life poses a question to us, and we give the expected answer, often having no choice not only for the answer itself, but even for our interpretation of the question put before us.
There is one more, very negative point in the social paradigm: for a free person it is a habit. We are talking about the habit of perceiving everything according to a strictly chosen template and the corresponding reaction to this perception, because from childhood a person is imposed a pattern of behavior, a pattern of his reaction to something and, ultimately, the entire pattern of his thinking. Think about it, dear friends, why something in our lives should be exactly the way we are used to perceiving it, why not others? But how often is this the correct order of things from the point of view of the public and meets our own interests? Yes, the social paradigm cannot fully and completely meet our interests; a person, by definition, must sacrifice some of his egoistic needs in order to fit into society, because he cannot consist of completely different elements, since this is a single organism. And even though each of us is individual, this very individuality does not go beyond the norm, which in turn is controlled largely by society itself rather than by people in power.
How do we treat those who are not like us, how do we treat strangers whose life concept contradicts ours, whose views are radically different from ours, and whose behavior causes us anxiety? We treat them negatively, no matter how it manifests itself in us, but it is definitely negative, and it is part of our internal attitudes, which not only take into account our own interests, but also the interests of the society in which we seem to belong. But all this is, of course, relative, because if we talk about flexibility of thinking, then there is not and cannot be a hostile environment for us, there is only an environment in which it is more difficult for us to adapt, or an environment where we feel like a fish in water. But the rigid boundary between one’s own and another’s is already a product of the social paradigm, you simply have to think according to a certain model, otherwise you will fall out of the control of those in power and the society in which you live, so a sense of duty and similar beliefs are imposed on you.
For this, a person is conditioned from childhood, introducing into him a worldview program, for almost his entire life and the social paradigm becomes his own paradigm, the person begins to identify himself with the society in which he lives, becomes one with it in his own mind. I say practically, because you can always reconsider everything, all your existing attitudes, all your postulates, disassemble your entire foundation, unless, of course, you have a very strong desire for this. But why should you do this, why look at something new if the old one is so familiar and you seem to have already adapted to it? I often heard this question before when I communicated with people, let’s say not very high-flying, who had dreams of stability, justice, equality, freedom, love, friendship and the like. Do you know what happens when all these dreams fall apart? Very bad things happen, even if something from the world of dreams ceases to reflect reality, this is already a tragedy. When a signal from the outside does not correspond to a person’s internal attitudes, his internal state becomes poison for him.
Here we have depression and various mental illnesses, including this that leads to suicide, because a person wants to leave not this world, but the world that is inside him, it is he who creates discomfort and causes pain. At first I talked about postulates, about faith, which is everywhere and in everything, wherever you look, you get to the bottom of faith, not facts, and whether we like it or not, we are forced to believe in some things because we cannot know. Well, if the social paradigm were built solely on faith, not the way religion does, deliberately hushing up the facts, but in the sense that if we simply taught people what we know, without inventing anything, then it would be half the trouble. I would even say that this would indeed be the truth that so many people are looking for, the truth that we can only know one thing, that we know nothing, in the deep sense of the word, as Socrates meant. But the social paradigm is not built on facts known to us, it is built on the selfish intentions of each of us, we all make our contribution to what we think should be, what is right, so to speak. This is especially evident in situations where the selfishness of some people contradicts the selfishness of others, or this same selfishness goes beyond the norms of social behavior.
However, I do not set myself the goal of pointing out to you the need to comply with the norms of selfish behavior; you and I do not need this at all, because if you are a good person, they will not pat you on the head for this, but will use you whenever possible. But you shouldn’t be bad, you understand, you won’t please the majority, your life won’t improve, rather the opposite, and that’s not very smart. But what you really need is to have a correct understanding of the world around you and yourself, rewrite your paradigm taking into account this correctness and live according to your choice, that is, as a free person. What is correctness? This is when your true desires, through your own efforts, come true, when you do not do as you should, according to public understanding, but as you should, mind you, not as you want, but as you should. Most of your desires, dear friends, are artificial, they are part of the very paradigm, the very model of life that you have adopted, which makes you obedient and predictable, which allows you to control. For example, if they make you angry, then you get angry, if they make you happy, then you have fun, and so on.
Do you want to be angry at all, why do you need it, why do you need to waste your nerves, strength, why lose your temper, lose control over your emotions and do meaningless things, why do you need this? So why do you do this in this case, why do you get angry when you are angry? Do you think it’s external stimuli that influence you like that, no, it’s not them, it’s just a command sent to you, and you choose what answer to give to this command, the one you need, or the one that is written in your mind as the correct one. This can be compared to a puzzle that you can put together exclusively for yourself, or you can do it together with other people, putting together one common picture. We do this every day, putting together a puzzle, that is, we behave as we should, and not as we should, and we don’t even understand what the essence of such duty is. In our time, so many harmful books have accumulated and so many different sources of information influence our picture of the world that sometimes it is simply impossible to think outside the framework of the social paradigm that we all adhere to.
It’s clear that I’m playing one common game, I should play it according to the rules common to everyone, but these rules can be used in your own interests, putting pressure on people for morality, for example, or pity, while you yourself adhere to a different point of view . No one has the right to judge you for anything unless you allow it, and in order to prevent this, you must be a strong, intelligent, reasonable person, then you yourself will judge. If something from the outside world does not fit with your own ideas, then this is simply the wrong piece of the puzzle that you are going to apply to this world, you are trying to put together the wrong picture. And for now your options are limited. In terms of influencing society, you just have to influence yourself; it’s easier to reconsider your views on the world and add the necessary element to its picture, complementing its overall picture. Based on this, you can often win, because you will be an adequate person, responding to society exactly as it really deserves, but at the same time bringing your part of the picture into it. Eastern philosophy says that it is impossible to change anyone but ourselves, that only by changing ourselves, we will change the world around us.
Do you think this statement is true? I would say that it is both true and false, depending on which way you look at it. On the one hand, it is correct, because you always need to work on yourself and improve yourself, and on the other hand, it is incorrect, since working only on yourself implies subordination to society, and not managing it. So the truth of this statement is primarily determined by the role of a person in society. Depending on what role in society is assigned to you, or rather, what role you have assigned to yourself, through your own efforts, you can change others, adapting them to yourself, or you can change yourself, without being able to influence others and force them to act to please yourself. On the other hand, in order to learn to subjugate the majority and therefore change their worldview in the way you need, you yourself need to have certain qualities, guided by which subordination of the majority becomes possible in principle. If you do not possess such qualities, if you were not taught to manage, but were taught to obey, then it is clear that you need to change yourself first, and only then, having the opportunity to change circumstances and other people, and not adapt to everyone and everything, you can take up this is not an easy, but very interesting and useful task.
Most people, that is, the so-called crowd, are convinced that everything that is in their head is the fruit of their own conclusions. Every individual in society, making this or that decision for himself, not only does not consider that this decision is being made not by him, but by someone else, he does not even think about it. But it’s worth looking at the beliefs of such an individual from an analytical point of view, and it turns out that they are all brought in from the outside, and many of these beliefs will be extremely harmful for this very individual, but meanwhile he will consider them his own. He was so convinced, the correctness of one and the incorrectness of the other was drilled into his head, among which, such an individual often acts as is necessary for someone else, and not for himself. Here you have an influence on people, hidden and very effective, with its help you can change a person the way you want, but of course you don’t have to touch yourself, because why do this, when it’s much easier to adjust people to yourself than to adapt to everyone and that's it. It is more profitable for those in power to keep people at a low level of development than to allow them to develop fully, since in this case, in order to control the crowd, those in power would have to develop themselves, and this is not easy. You cut off the overly growing spikelet and order, you yourself rise above the others and everything is fine. So everything depends on each specific situation in a person’s life and on his position in society, and most importantly on his will, which he can direct either to adjust society to his needs, or to subordinate to this society; alas, there is no third option yet. And changing people is not difficult if you know, firstly, how to do it, and secondly, if you have a tool for working with human consciousness.
Pay attention to the system of values that most people profess today, pay attention to their blind adherence to the meaning of their lives, in which they have no understanding of their own. Only a few think about their own role in their own lives, making at least some choice in terms of their inner world. With power over yourself, power over others begins, so Eastern philosophy is correct, but until you achieve power over other people, ideological power. Psychologists, in a sense, do this on a local scale, influencing the social paradigm of an individual person, and even then only partially, analyzing and solving a specific problem. As a rule, they do not change the worldview; they change a person’s idea of a specific moment in his life, because of which he feels discomfort, or they change the idea of one or another of his complexes in order to get rid of them. There are psychologists, when you come to see them with your problem, you can ask them to solve this problem, and they will begin to solve it, having already agreed that this is actually a problem, accepting it that way and starting to work, not with the cause its occurrence, namely with its consequences. Such work is certainly effective, as it allows, by delving into the root and history of a particular problem, to rid a person of it. Which, in principle, is what anyone who seeks help from psychologists needs.
However, without changing the principle of a person’s thinking, without changing his worldview and his erroneous beliefs about life, the psychologist thus leaves in his head a field for cultivating new problems, with which the patient, of course, will come to him again and the entire treatment procedure will be repeated. Well, then, by accepting a person’s problem precisely as a problem, the psychologist thereby feeds it, with his attitude towards it. After all, a problem is essentially a certain task facing a person that needs to be solved, and this task becomes a problem precisely when there is no clear understanding of how to actually solve this problem. If a problem is a problem, then the psychologist, in principle, admits his incompetence, albeit partial, but still, and this negatively affects the patient’s mental state. Therefore, you cannot approach work in this way, at least from my point of view, because this is manipulation through fear, induced in the patient through an unambiguous hint that without the help of a psychologist, he will never be able to cope with his situation. But this is not actually the case, because a person certainly needs help when he really does not control his mental state, but this should be help aimed at correcting the prerequisites for the occurrence of problems, and not at the problems themselves, as a consequence of the presence of these prerequisites.
I prefer to work differently. Usually I question the very existence of a problem, thus influencing not the history of a single problem, as is done in the classical version of psychoanalysis, but its reflection in a person’s worldview. That is, I do not let the person understand that his situation is in a dead end from which it is impossible to get out, there is a certain form of the problem, which is a task that requires a certain solution and this task should not be defined as unsolvable, because this is what makes it a problem. Let's imagine that a certain external stimulus caused a certain reaction in you, and this stimulus was interpreted in your head as a problem that causes you a feeling of discomfort and a feeling of hopelessness. And here it is, the true cause of your discomfort, not the problem itself, but your perception of it, which is determined by your social paradigm, your attitude to life and to certain situations in it. To hell with the problem itself and its history, it’s all about your perception of life, you need to work with it, it needs to be changed. We need to teach a person to love mathematics if we want him to be able to solve mathematical problems, that is, we need to teach a person to perceive problems as something that requires a solution that needs to be found, and not as something that creates discomfort.
You should get pleasure from problems, not headaches, and especially not mental pain. This is the direction in which you should ideally work. By reacting to a problem as a problem, a person suppresses himself, he makes himself feel bad, and he becomes dependent on those who solve problems and for whom other people’s problems are their daily bread. But why should you make yourself feel bad, why should you react to everything that poisons your life in a way that is unfavorable for yourself? And if you don't have to react that way, if you don't have to see something as a problem because you don't need it, if it's much more beneficial for you to simply act a certain way when necessary, coping with different situations in your life on your own. Think about whether you should have just such an identifier in your head that would not so much identify and substantiate the problem as would look for opportunities to solve it? I believe that yes, because oohing and aahing will not change life for the better.
By identifying life situations in a certain way, the most beneficial for you, from the point of view of your adequate and effective response to them, you thereby save yourself from problems, turning them into completely solvable tasks. This, of course, is not applicable to all situations and you need to be a very insightful and observant person to understand how closely a person is connected by his inner world with the outer world, however, I often use exactly this approach when working with many people. To better understand what I want to tell you, I’ll give you an example of such an interesting movie trick as off-screen laughter. You can often see this in TV series, in comedies of course, and it’s like food being prepared and chewed for you, they decided for you when you should laugh.
Agree, it’s hard not to succumb to the pace of watching a series that seems funny to others, seems funny to you too, but imagine if they were crying behind the scenes, perhaps a tear would come to your eyes. This is how the social paradigm behaves, this is the guideline of behavior we have in our heads, and as soon as someone takes a slightly different look at an already ingrained idea of something, he immediately becomes inadequate in the eyes of others. And the problem of others in this regard is that they do not see the prospect of changing their views, considering other people’s postulates to be their own, only because they were imposed on them long before they even began to realize anything. Try to change an adult’s idea of good and evil, if throughout his childhood he was configured in a certain way, if the foundation of a socially obsequious perception was laid in his head, that is, pleasing to society, but not to himself. However, it may be the other way around, depending on the environment in which the child grew up, but in both cases, such attitudes should not be static; life is full of combinations that require a fundamentally new approach.
It will not work to put together a puzzle over and over again in the same way, adding the same elements; inconsistencies will begin to appear, requiring flexibility of thinking, and not a static worldview. Therefore, the main problem of the social paradigm lies in its controlled variability; people follow the idea that sits in the heads of individuals who understand the essence of their worldview, but have their own selfish goals in this regard. This is normal, because it is natural, but I think it would be quite fair to let everyone understand this, so the game will become much more interesting, given the larger number of players. Your idea of how everything should be and how people should behave, how to react and what their internal state should be has a right to exist, but the implementation of this idea is up to you. You can condition the entire society, all people, give them the paradigm you need, make them see black as white and white as black. You can make people happy or unhappy, you can make them love life or hate it.
In principle, dear friends, you can do this, but to implement it practically, this is a task that requires not only an understanding of your own capabilities, but also requires some work, consistent, taking into account many nuances. There are actually a lot of people who want to, everyone wants to introduce their ideas into society, have a certain power over the minds of other people, impose on them their values, their worldview, and so on. In general, we all know how to do it and how it is better, how we need it and how it is better for us, another thing is that, first of all, it is necessary to change your inner picture of the world, if you see your limitations, remove imprints from your mind, get rid of conditioning, from the role imposed on you by society, in short, drive away everything foreign from your inner world. What is alien to yourself should be added in a purified form, cleared of other people’s egoism, but for this it is important to realize why this or that concept is being offered to you, what is behind it, which ideas really suit you and which do not.
As you can see, I am not lying, but I am presenting everything according to my own understanding of unorthodox methods of world perception, the logic of which, if not impeccable, is at least quite stable. Clear my words of my own egoism and think about them based on your own interests, try to understand how dependent you are on ingrained beliefs regarding the main moments of life, the reaction to which on your part is ninety-nine percent predictable. Take a few examples from your life, and then think about the social paradigm, both in terms of its relevance to you and in terms of how you might reconsider it. Perhaps you won’t be able to get into the heads of millions if you don’t need it in principle, but you can definitely take power over yourself, over the world inside you.
And this will allow you to put the outside world in order, which will not manipulate you, sending you commands and receiving a predictable response from you. You decide how you react and how you feel about everything that happens to you, your response is your choice, and your choice is your freedom.
|
Sociology - Lectures |
|
According to modern science, any science reaches maturity, i.e. becomes independent when it enters a paradigmatic status. According to the concept of the development of science, one or another qualitative stage of this development is the result not of evolution, but of revolution. The key concept of this concept of science is the concept of paradigm. The paradigmatic status of science is characterized by the presence of one or more clearly and distinctly expressed paradigms. In our presentation, we proceed from the understanding of a paradigm as a set of philosophical, general scientific and metatheoretical foundations of science, in our case, sociology. The indicated bases are various kinds of concepts, principles and approaches, for example, the concept of determinism, the systems approach, the principle of historicism. The commitment of certain scientists to one or another paradigm allows one to differentiate one scientific community from another. Typically, in the sociology of science, three types of paradigms are distinguished: firstly, paradigms that substantiate the independent status of a particular science, delimiting at a qualitative level one scientific knowledge from another (philosophy from sociology, sociology from economics, etc.); secondly, paradigms that make significant distinctions between historical stages in the development of science (for example, positivism, neopositivism, postpositivism in sociology); thirdly, paradigms that differentiate scientific communities within the same science at the same historical stage of its development (three paradigms of modern Western European sociology). If a science does not have paradigmatic status, this means that it has not yet differentiated its subject from other scientific disciplines and therefore cannot be considered an independent science. Science has paradigmatic status if it has a paradigm that is recognized by a given scientific community. This is the monoparadigmatic status of science. After a scientific revolution, a situation of paradigmatic dualism usually develops: the new one has won recognition, but the old paradigm continues to enjoy support. Finally, there are sciences characterized by the presence of multivariate paradigms. The concept of “paradigm” is broader in scope than the concept of “theory”. Any paradigm, in addition to the previously mentioned elements, includes in its structure the main scientific categories that interpret the nature of the object of a given science, which, firstly, make it possible to meaningfully distinguish this paradigm from another and, secondly, can serve as the basis for constructing various types of theories in within this paradigm. In sociology, such categories are “society”, “culture”, “personality”, “social behavior”, “social groups”, “social institutions”, “social organizations”, “social facts”, etc. A theory is an abstract model of the structure of an object of a particular science, including the main scientific categories accepted as initial ones in a given paradigm, as well as a set of more or less reliable and logically interrelated judgments (expressed in the form of laws, principles or less general theories) that reveal the essence of the initial ones categories, connections and relationships between them. In theory, therefore, the following are distinguished: firstly, the main scientific categories, the connections and relationships of which form the structure of the subject of a given science; secondly, the system of concepts adopted to interpret these categories, the fundamental laws and principles through which connections and relationships between concepts are expressed; thirdly, the entire set of logical consequences that follows from the fundamental laws and principles of the theory. In the sociological paradigm, the object of sociology is social reality and its basic elements. Sociological theory is a logically interconnected system of concepts and principles through which the nature (structure and genesis) of certain elements of social reality and the interaction between them is interpreted. The criteria for delineating paradigms of sociology (with a multivariate paradigmatic status) are the main sociological categories that are substantially different from each other and the corresponding structural elements of social reality, the interpretation of the interaction of which allows us to understand the nature of the latter. The philosophical and general scientific justification for the paradigmatic status of a particular science, while ultimately determining, is at the same time not sufficient. And here another level of justification comes into play - metatheoretical. (Additionally) Sociological knowledge, which originated in the depths of other sciences (philosophy, anthropology, economics, etc.), has gone through a historical development path from pre-paradigm to multivariate paradigm status. This path was unique. Its originality was influenced by cultural traditions and the uneven development of the social and human sciences in different countries. The beginning of this path was due to the works of K. Marx (Germany), G. Spencer (Great Britain), O. Comte, F. Le Play (France), F. Tennis, G. Simmel (Germany), W. Sumner, L. Ward (USA), N.Ya. Danilevsky (Russia), etc. Then, without achieving a single-variant, mono-paradigmatic status, bypassing the status of paradigmatic dualism, as well as the complex historical period of the rapid formation and decline of numerous schools and directions, sociology moved to a multi-variant, poly-paradigmatic status. Four sociological paradigms have emerged and won recognition: social facts, social definitions, social behavior, and socio-historical determinism. Specific and logically organized complexes of concepts that explain the relationships between the elements of social reality, considered by this paradigm as basic (initial), constitute different types of theoretical understanding of the processes of their interaction, or different types of sociological theories. The theoretical situation in sociology in its most general form is characterized by theoretical pluralism, heterogeneity of theoretical orientations, and two opposing tendencies in sociological thinking - towards divergence and integration. Along with the search for the only correct theoretical orientation, there is an even more widespread belief among the scientific community that the heterogeneity of the subject of a discipline such as sociology gives the right to life to many very different theories. The last of these positions is usually called the program of “critical pluralism.” Certain types of sociological theories also correspond to the main sociological paradigms (social facts, social definitions, social behavior). The paradigm of “social facts” is interpreted from the perspective of theories - structural-functional, systemic and conflict. (Note that system theories are usually considered in Western sociology as components or varieties of structural-functional theories.) The paradigm of “social definitions” comes from theories of social action, symbolic interactionism, phenomenological sociology, and ethnomethodology. The “social behavior” paradigm interprets social reality from the perspective of the theory of social behaviorism, behaviorist sociology and social exchange theory. However, sociology, like any scientific discipline, is self-defined by its specific, relatively independent set of essentially interrelated problems. As such, they become the subject of theoretical understanding. There are certain connections between the problems of this science. It is possible to select one or more central problems to which others relate. Two such central problems of sociology have been put forward. The first of them was substantiated in the studies of J. Turner - this is the problem of social order. The second problem of levels of social reality was developed in the works of D. Ritzer. Accordingly, the beginning was laid for the formation, in addition to those indicated, of two more paradigms - the paradigm of “social order” and the “integrative social paradigm”. The idea of organizing the structure of sociological knowledge around its central problems is not without common sense. The role of established or emerging sociological paradigms and theories in the development of sociology cannot be underestimated. Sociological paradigms substantiate the presence and significance of various basic elements of social reality. Sociological theories provide an interpretation of the interactions of various combinations of these elements and reveal their significance (with a greater or lesser degree of validity) in the life of society. |
The initial theoretical model of problem formulation, methods of research and solution. This concept was first introduced by the American specialist in the field of development of scientific knowledge T. Kuhn, who believed that it is possible to talk about a paradigm only in the case when one reliable theory dominates all others and the entire scientific community agrees with the correctness of its postulates. This is a collective cognitive attitude (model), through which an entire generation of scientists builds and interprets the accumulation of new facts that do not fit into other models. Another condition for the existence of scientific research in the village. is its ability to explain the essential aspects of reality. According to T. Kuhn, scientists work within the framework of scientific principles, which are general ways of seeing the world and on the basis of which it is determined what kind of scientific work should be done and what kind of theories are acceptable. However, over time, a number of anomalies are revealed that cannot be resolved within the framework of the existing P. in the village. Kuhn calls this a moment of sudden change, when the old paradigm is replaced by a new one. In sociology, this is associated with the emergence of a new sociological school. Each school is relatively self-sufficient and uses its own methods and theories. In sociology, four P. in the village have developed and won recognition. Their emergence is associated with the names of K. Marx, E. Durkheim, M. Weber, B. Skinner. Accordingly, this is a paradigm in sociology: socio-historical determinism, social facts, social definitions and social behavior. Within the framework of existing scientific P. in the village. In the course of historical development, general methodological (conceptual) approaches to the analysis of society have emerged. They are characterized by a direct focus on the object being studied, the originality of the initial principles of analysis, and an emphasis on one or another aspect of the phenomenon under consideration. Conceptual approaches are a set of general methodological principles for analyzing society, directly aimed at the object being studied. Each scientific approach is based on a specific initial principle for considering social problems, processes and phenomena, therefore the presence of various conceptual approaches in sociology indicates the pluralism of sociological knowledge.
The paradigm in sociology of “social facts” is interpreted in sociology from the perspective of structural-functional, systemic and conflict theories. P. in the village “social definitions” includes theories of social action, symbolic interactionism, phenomenological sociology, ethnomethodology. P. in the village “social behavior” interprets social reality from the perspective of the theory of social behaviorism (behavioral sociology) and the theory of social exchange. P. in the village “social facts”, structural functionalism and the theory of social conflicts widely use the concepts of “consent and conflict”, focusing on the social conditioning of relationships and processes. The integrity of the social system is achieved through the process of integration of generally accepted social values and norms, which means the constant streamlining and reduction of the entire diversity of functions of various social systems into a single and strictly organized system of social order. So, in line with the P. in the village. social conflicts, special attention is paid to the study not of order, but of social changes that arise as a result of the struggle to satisfy primary needs through constant conflict in society. In P. in the village. “social definitions”, the most significant is still the theory of social action, the foundations of which were laid by M. Weber, T. Parsons and R. McIver. The legacy of T. Parsons occupies a special place in the presentation of the basic principles of this theory. He answered the question of what aspects of interaction contribute to the stability of the system, what are the functions they perform to maintain the functioning of the social system, and also generalized the conditions for order and stability of the social system. Within the framework of the theory of interactionism, the starting point is the theoretical legacy of M. Weber (where the main emphasis is on the symbolic, communication aspect of social life). Among the predecessors of symbolic interactionism were G. Mead, C. Cooley, W. Thomas and others. Among modern Western sociologists, the Chicago School, led by G. Bloomer, the author of the very term “symbolic interactionism,” is widely known.
The formation of phenomenological theory in sociology is associated with the names of E. Husserl, A. Schutz, G. Garfinkel. The theory received a systematic presentation in the work of P. Berger and T. Luckmann. An important branch of phenomenological theory is ethnomethodology, which received the status of an independent sociological theory under the decisive influence of the works of I. Hoffman. Ethnomethodology proceeds from the fact that, entering into interaction, each individual has an idea of how this interaction will or should proceed. These representations are organized in accordance with norms and requirements that are different from the norms and requirements of generally accepted rational judgment.
In P. in the village. “social behavior”, psychological reductionism and exchange theory are considered aspects of psychological behaviorism. R. Begess, D. Bishell reduce social behavior to psychological behavior and use biological and psychological concepts to describe it. In the theory of social exchange, the emergence of which is associated with the publication of books by D. Homans and P. Blau, the individual is considered as an organism with biological needs, seeking reward. The modern psychological approach is multivariate. One of the central places in it is occupied by psychoanalysis, the foundations of which were developed by S. Freud. Psychoanalysis places unconscious mental processes and motivations at the center of psychological research, in particular, the displacement of a person’s affective experiences into the sphere of the unconscious, which directly affects the behavior of the individual. The method of structural-functional analysis is adjacent to positivist-oriented conceptual approaches. It focuses on viewing society as an entity with a complex structure, each element of which has a specific purpose and performs specific roles (functions). The activities of the elements are considered in their relationship with the structural organization of society.
The anthropological approach, based on a vision of the origins of the collectivist essence of man, has a deep tradition. This approach requires studying the conditionality of social life on the natural qualities of man, his needs for food, clothing, housing, safety, free existence, communication, spiritual development, etc. The psychological approach has a certain similarity with the anthropological method in the requirements to focus research on humans. However, unlike anthropology, he does not mean a person in general as a representative of the species, but a specific individual taken in his immediate environment. The psychological method is focused on studying the mechanisms of individual behavior, individual qualities, character traits, as well as typical mechanisms of psychological motivation.
The systems approach consists of considering the social system of society as a special mechanism closely related to the environment. A comprehensive study of external and internal relationships and interactions of various social formations and their adaptive properties constitutes the main cognitive problem within the framework of this approach. Over the relatively short period of its existence (since the 1950–1960s), the systems approach has shown its constructiveness and is represented in various theories of political systems. The study of the dynamic aspects of phenomena and processes of society is associated with the use of an activity approach, which involves considering the individual through the prism of a specific type of activity as a cyclical process that has successive stages.
PHILOSOPHY and sociology
Zh. T. Toshchenko
BASIC PARADIGMS AND STRUCTURE OF SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
The article gives a generalized idea of such a component of theoretical sociology as sociological knowledge, its main characteristics, its integrity and completeness, analyzes the diverse forms of existence of sociological knowledge, its structures and levels.
In the article the general concept about such components of theoretical sociology as sociological knowledge, its basic characteristics, its integrity and completeness are given, diverse forms of existence of sociological knowledge, its structure and levels are analyzed.
Key words: paradigm, realism, nominalism, constructivism, sociological knowledge, structure, levels, sociology of life, theoretical and empirical sociology, macro- and microsociology, general sociological theory, sectoral sociological theory, special sociological theory, particular sociological concept.
Keywords: paradigm, realism, nominalism, constructivism, sociological knowledge, structure, levels, sociology of a life, theoretical and empirical sociology, macro-sociology, micro-sociology, general sociological theory, the branch sociological theory, the special sociological theory, the private sociological concept.
Paradigms as the basis of methodological strategies of sociology. Currently, there are different points of view on the relationship between theory, methodology and methods in the structure of sociological knowledge. They are determined depending on the scientific principles that the authors adhere to in studies of social reality and which are embodied in the interpretation of the processes and phenomena they study. Despite the variety of interpretations of the starting points, three paradigms and, accordingly, methodological strategies actually exist and function: sociological realism (object of research - society, social systems, social structures, social institutions), sociological nominalism (object of research - individual, personality, person, social groups and community). In con-
© Toshchenko Zh. T., 2009
tse XX century the constructivist paradigm was justified. In accordance with these paradigms, the structure and conceptual apparatus of a sociological strategy depends on which aspect of social reality, social life is the subject of analysis, and then the fundamental initial concept is either society, or a person as an individual, or a synthesis of both and their organic integrity ( see table 1). So, all the variety of approaches available in sociological works (works, research) can be correlated with three main paradigms.
The tradition of sociological realism and its orientation towards “society” goes back to O. Comte, G. Spencer and almost all representatives of sociology in the 19th century, including domestic ones, and in the 20th century. received a certain modification in the works of E. Durkheim, then T. Parsons, R. Merton, R. Dahrendorf and others. They studied society through the study of social systems, social institutions mainly from the point of view of their organization and functioning, and often outside the processes of their evolution .
However, as was established on the verge of the 19th-20th centuries. (M. Weber), the focus on studying predominantly structures (systems) is not heuristic; although it can give a strict description of the object, it closes the possibility of explaining its development and functioning. This was already recognized by R. Merton (1910-2003), who saw and understood the weaknesses of the theory of T. Parsons (1902-1979).
Thus, the interpretation of social systems, social networks as a subject of sociology is vulnerable. This is also evidenced by another fact: the structural-functional approach encounters enormous difficulties when analyzing a society in transition, when systems and communities “float”, lose their definition and therefore cannot be the basis of reliable information. In this regard, I would like to draw attention to the position of C. R. Mills, A. Gouldner and especially the French sociologist A. Touraine, who sharply criticized structural functionalism, believing that it is aimed only at ensuring order and balance, and not at searching new opportunities for the development of society.
It is advisable to take into account another important circumstance - social systems and information
statutes are a very “inconvenient” object for comparative cross-cultural (international) research. They are so different that when comparing them, the question arises about the reliability of the information received and compared. The very real practice of sociology never ceases to turn to the same source of information - a person, which involves an analysis not so much of the functions of social systems, but of what makes a person a participant in social and everyday life. However, the “system specialists” themselves, working at the empirical level, do just that, appealing mainly to information characterizing the consciousness and behavior of people.
Discussions about social systems (and they came to be understood as a broad set of social processes - up to humanity as a whole, which subsequently gave rise to globalist concepts of sociology) revived the never-fading tendency to absorb sociology into social philosophy. With this approach, reality ceases to exist. Instead, logical constructs appear that either have no relation to everyday reality or are too abstract from it.
A modification of this paradigm is reflected in the works of many sociologists, including Russian (Soviet) ones. This approach reflected attempts to find a more appropriate methodological strategy that would, to a certain extent, distance itself from such an extremely broad concept as society, and at the same time be associated with empirical research. However, as time has shown, the interpretation of the object and subject of sociology only at the level of the category “society” and its derivatives does not answer many questions, since the conceptual apparatus “floats”, including too different entities, many concepts are blurred by time, seriously modified, and sometimes they lose their original meaning.
Even such a classical concept as social structure is gradually being modified, for many of its elements have disappeared or are disappearing in the modern situation; a number of its elements have seriously changed; new ones have appeared,
previously unknown elements. Such seemingly classical concepts as worker, peasant, have acquired “instability”, amorphism, because depending on the changed life, on different socio-economic status, on the movement from one sphere of labor to another, these groups (classes) have lost their the essential basis is so much that it is very difficult to talk about any meaningful homogeneous features. And if you look at some external signs, then you can talk about these groups with a large degree of approximateness. Accordingly, analyze these groups in the spirit of the theories of the 19th century. it would be incomplete, reckless and hasty. As sociological studies showed back in the 1970s. (see the works of M. N. Rutkevich, F. R. Filippov), many traits of consciousness and behavior of people from different strata were closer to each other than the same traits within the same social group.
For example, the worldview and lifestyle of people within socio-professional groups can be so different that it makes no sense to unite them into some pre-fixed, formalized concept: after all, within these groups there are huge differences in material wealth, place in the division of labor, by goals, values, needs and interests. This makes them (essentially) not reducible to the same homogeneous indicators. In this regard, the question arises: what, in fact, will act as a social reality - professional groups or bearers of the same (similar) way of life and worldview, but representing different social strata and communities? The answer is obvious: the unifying characteristic will be ideas, views, attitudes and the practice of their implementation.
Thus, the central concept of this paradigm - society and its derivatives - social structure, social systems, social institutions - have serious limitations in the study of social reality. Using this approach as a methodological strategy cannot always answer the pressing problems of our time,
Paradigms (methodological strategies) of sociology
Table 1
Paradigms Time of origin Subject of science
Sociological realism Mid-19th century Society, its structure, social systems, social institutions. In the 20th century - all of humanity, civilizations
Sociological nominalism Beginning of the 20th century Man, personality, individual, social communities
Sociological constructivism Late 20th century Social consciousness and behavior in a specific environment
for these concepts, in essence, are entities of the second and third order, which are built on top of the entities of the first order. It is the latter that is emphasized by another paradigm - sociological nominalism - and, accordingly, a methodological strategy.
This other paradigm had its forerunner in the ideas of John Stuart Mill, a contemporary of O. Comte. J. Mill advocated the psychology of an individually oriented personality. These ideas acquired their clearest form in the works of M. Weber, J. Homans, J. Mead, as well as from representatives of the Russian socio-psychological school of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. This paradigm addresses a person, focuses on the fact that the decisive role in real life belongs to people and their activities. Its supporters place personality at the center of their analysis, which becomes the initial concept of sociology. Their ideas were later developed by N. Elias, who paid attention not only to the individual himself, but also to their interaction. It is the analysis of such a phenomenon - “a person in society” - that allows us to judge both a person and society with the greatest completeness.
In modern sociology, this trend is reflected in the works of A. Touraine, Z. Bauman, P. Berger. J. Habermas drew attention to the phenomenon of interaction as communication. It is significant that such a well-known political figure and scientist as Z. Brzezinski is convinced that humanity is increasingly faced with the need for a “personal dimension of human life” and that in connection with this we are facing a “new era in relations between people” (1999) .
Noting the shift of modern sociology “towards the subjectively understood,” the Swedish sociologist P. Monson explains: “Subjectivity is present here in two ways, partly in the researcher himself, partly in the objects, in the people he studies. The question of how these two subjectivities can be linked is an important methodological problem."
During the 20th century. Many sociologists sought to eliminate the inconsistency of the methodological base of the above-mentioned paradigms and made attempts to overcome the division of sociology into an objective-subject and subjective-value approach. Even T. Parsons, focusing on society as a defining concept, paid great attention to the influence and role of social action. In the second half of the 20th century. intentions to combine macro- and micro-approaches, objectivist and subjectivist approaches were carried out by P. Bourdieu (1994), N. Luhmann (1996), partly M. Archer (2000), and in recent years P. Sztompka (2001). Among domestic researchers this technique
was carried out by N.N. Kozlova, in whose works the concept of everyday life was most fully reflected.
However, this methodological strategy does not explain how a person, people “get” into these social communities, social structures, and other social formations. Having appeared in the world, a person goes through a number of stages in his development in order to determine his social position in society. And this situation is in no way predetermined: it depends not only on objective circumstances, but also on the will, actions and other purposeful actions of the person himself. It is also worth noting that dissatisfaction with previously formulated definitions of the object and subject of sociology manifested itself in the search for other concepts that claim a new word in the interpretation of the original theoretical and methodological problems of sociology: phenomenological sociology, dramaturgical sociology, ethnomethodology, rational choice theory, school of ultra-detailed empirical research, etc. .
Therefore, along with the above-mentioned paradigms in sociology, the formation of another paradigm and the corresponding methodological strategy is gradually taking place - sociological constructivism, which takes into account the relationships between macro- and microsociology; between the objective-subject and subjective-value approach; between structural-functional and conflictological orientations and one focused on the consideration of the object and subject of sociology in the unity of objective conditions and subjective factors. The forerunner of this methodological strategy was the concept of K. Marx, who tried to carry out a synthesis of the social environment and the role of man in the historical process, and then the concept of G. Zimmel with its idea of evolution, socio-cultural development, intellectualization of society and the development of commodity-money relations. One of the manifestations of this methodological strategy was the concept of the sociology of life, the beginnings of which showed themselves back in the 19th century, but did not attract due attention then.
In the 20th century This focus on the integration of objective and subjective components began to be shared by more and more representatives of sociological science. Let us quote the words of D. Bell: “Ideas and cultures do not change the course of history - at least not overnight. However, they are a necessary prelude to change, since shifts in consciousness - in value systems and moral reasoning - push people to change their social relationships and institutions." Even greater certainty in the orientation towards human creative activity as the main
The new subject of sociology research was expressed by E. Giddens, calling it “a dazzling and fascinating enterprise whose subject is the behavior of people as social beings.” His concept of structuring, carried out by an agent, is the removal of the confrontation between the individual and society.
Russian sociology in the 19th - early 20th centuries. was largely characterized by the fact that it was characterized by a humanistic orientation - an appeal to man as a creator, an active participant in transformations in society, the creator of a new reality. The object of study by sociologists has become an increasingly large group of issues characterizing the state of consciousness of people, their behavior and attitude towards processes occurring in society, their professional, national and regional implications. Man develops as a tribal, social being and, above all, with the help of his consciousness and its implementation in all spheres of public life, which was noted at the turn of the 20th century. A. A. Bogdanov, when, revealing the essence of K. Marx’s teachings about nature and society, he wrote that in the struggle for existence, people cannot unite “otherwise than with the help of consciousness.”
In modern domestic sociology, such a methodological strategy is shared to a certain extent by Yu. G. Volkov (1999), S. A. Kravchenko (2002), S. I. Grigoriev (1998), I. M. Popova (2000). A peculiar synthesis of society and personality personifies the anthropo-societal approach, substantiated by N. I. Lapin. I will note the search in this direction by Yu. M. Reznik. In a more generalized form, this paradigm is reflected in the works of the author of this article (1991, 2001, 2005, 2008). Here, the focus is on the consciousness and behavior of a person, his attitude and reaction to changes in his status, his place not just as an individual, but also as a member of a certain social group, a representative of a certain society, often in its paradoxical development. A simultaneous analysis of activity in the conditions of a certain social environment (macro-, meso- and microconditions) of human social life is assumed. All this forms the concept of the sociology of life, which combines subjective factors and objective conditions and takes into account the relationship between society and man. In Berger's words, the essence of sociology is “man in society, society for man.” This is what constitutes the subject of sociological science.
In fact, in real life we encounter not structures, but the consciousness and behavior of people, through which we come to the analysis of various forms of social organization
life - institutional, stratification, managerial, etc. All this allows us to conclude that in the constructivist strategy, expressed in the concept of the sociology of life, extremes in the interpretation of the essence of sociology are overcome - through operating with the concept of social reality, its universality, uniqueness and supra-individuality and at the same time time measuring this social reality through consciousness, behavior and environment.
The structure of sociological knowledge. Analysis of sociological knowledge allows us to characterize the content of any paradigm, since each of them cannot be presented in the form of some amorphous information that does not have certainty, completeness and corresponding (albeit conditional) boundaries. This raises the need for a more detailed analysis of its structure, levels, features and specificity. Taking into account the peculiarities of ideas about the structure of sociological knowledge in Western European and American sociology, we will focus on the ideas and proposals of domestic sociologists.
Firstly, although this may seem strange, there are many such works, especially textbooks, where such a question is not raised or discussed at all.
Secondly, the structure of sociological knowledge is often reduced only to its division into macro- and microsociology, which in general is not in doubt, but does not reveal anything fundamentally new.
Thirdly, there are proposals to structure sociological knowledge through the analysis of all directions of scientific thought, including natural science knowledge, finding a place for sociology in it.
Fourthly, the structure boils down to an overview of existing and existing scientific schools in sociology, with each declared as a special paradigm.
Fifthly, in many works, along with macro- and microsociology, theoretical and empirical sociology are often analyzed in detail.
Sixth, a three-level interpretation of sociology, dating back to R. Merton with his famous formulation of middle-level theories, continues to exist in the concepts of domestic researchers.
It should also be noted that there are few attempts to consider the structure of sociological knowledge on several grounds, which makes it possible to more fully present the diversity of its content.
Thus, various types of classification of the structure of sociological
knowledge depending on the methodological principles that the researcher applies to understand social reality. There are proposals to determine the structure of sociology taking into account all scientific knowledge, when the explanation of its content involves knowledge accumulated by all sciences (A. I. Kravchenko, 2001) or social and human sciences (O. N. Kozlova, 2004). We proceed from the fact that only that knowledge that is called sociological, as well as knowledge that is born in the process of interaction with other social sciences, should be structured.
The structure of sociological knowledge can be considered: firstly, as theoretical and empirical sociology, secondly, as fundamental and applied, thirdly, according to the object-subject principle (Table 2).
In theoretical sociology, the basic, initial level of sociological knowledge is substantiated and developed - theory and methodology, focusing on defining and clarifying the object and subject of sociological science, its categorical and conceptual apparatus, patterns (trends) of development of both social reality and sociology itself, its functions, place among other sciences. As part of this analysis, historical material is also involved (history of sociology), which shows the genesis of ideas, the emergence, birth and extinction of searches (theories, concepts), as well as clarification of the place of sociology in the structure of social and humanitarian knowledge. At this level, theoretical knowledge of other sciences is involved (adapted, adapted) as contributing to the clarification, enrichment and development of sociological knowledge.
The most important characteristic and component of theoretical sociology are the methodology and methods of understanding social reality.
Firstly, it uses a logical method, when consistent, consistent knowledge is derived from the totality of available information. Secondly, it relies on the historical method and ontology when the genesis of knowledge, categories and concepts is determined. Thirdly, it is guided by the methods of system analysis, when the entire set of both basic and indirect connections is taken into account. Finally, she applies statistical and mathematical methods to organize accumulated information and identify trends in the development of social life.
The purpose of theoretical sociology is also to, based on accumulated scientific knowledge, typologize and classify existing (accumulated) social information. It also includes hypothetical knowledge, which can later be confirmed or refuted. The competence of theoretical knowledge includes the identification of patterns (laws), trends and prospects for the development of both the processes and phenomena being studied, and sociological science itself.
The paired category (counterparty) of theoretical knowledge is empirical sociology, which characterizes a specific form of social information. This information can be of an ordered nature (if obtained using scientific methods) or spontaneous in nature, when data accumulated as the activities of the subjects of the historical process were carried out in a wide variety of ways. In the latter case, information acquires value as a registration of ongoing phenomena and processes, their consequences, and the recording of facts often has an applied, utilitarian value.
Empirical social information is expressed in the form of statistical and sociological data, documents, publications, information
table 2
Structure of sociological knowledge
Structure of sociological knowledge Research methods Purpose of research Name of sociological disciplines
Theoretical and empirical sociology General scientific and special social methods Enrichment of theory Theory, methodology and history of sociology
Fundamental and applied sociology Sociological and statistical methods of knowledge Enrichment of scientific knowledge and ways to solve existing social problems Industry and special sociological theories
Macro-and microsociology Historical-logical, systemic and empirical methods of knowledge Enriching scientific knowledge and solving global and local problems Metasociology and methods of sociological research
of a personal nature (letters, diaries, memoirs), etc., which, in order to play a role in knowledge, need scientific (theoretical) interpretation, explanation, description. It is appropriate to say here that if sociology is presented as a sum of texts, then 80-90% of them will consist of reports, primary documents, notes, options for understanding the research conducted, various statistical and sociological (mainly empirical) data.
The nature and forms of empirical sociological information determine the methods for obtaining it - surveys, interviews, content analysis, expert assessments, etc. Empirical knowledge is thus represented by all types and forms of specific information, including a set of statistical and documentary data, sociological indicators and indicators of the development of the processes and phenomena being studied.
It is obvious that without specially organized empirical information, the realities of human consciousness and behavior cannot be understood either in demographic, professional, national, socio-legal or other aspects.
The division of sociological knowledge into fundamental and applied sociology is intended to answer the question of what is the way not only to obtain, but also to solve current problems that have become the subject of sociological science. In both cases, there is both theoretical and empirical knowledge, although their proportions and relationships differ significantly. Many years of experience in sociological research shows that they usually combine both groups of tasks: the presence of theoretical and empirical levels in fundamental and applied sociology can be considered as one of the important arguments for including general sociological and specific research in sociological science as two levels of unified knowledge.
The difference between theoretical and empirical, on the one hand, and fundamental and applied, on the other, is as follows: the first classification characterizes the method (methods) of cognition of reality, the second - methods and methods not only of cognition, but also of solving scientific problems. Therefore, these classifications should not be opposed to each other according to the principle of higher - lower, richer - poorer. At the same time, the scientific approach is based primarily on theoretical understanding, which is constantly enriched by empirical information, especially if it is obtained through fundamental research. Therefore, a large place in sociological theory is given to the category
real and conceptual apparatus, clarifying their interpretation both in the light of accumulated data and new information supplied by empirical sociology. Moreover, it should be emphasized that it is especially fruitful to consider the relationship between fundamental and applied aspects of sociology within the framework of sectoral and special sociological theories.
It is worth dwelling on one more classification. There are concepts that consider sociology as macro- and microsociology. If the first is interested in society as an integral social organism, its structure, social institutions, their functioning and change, then microsociology is addressed to social behavior, interpersonal communication, motivation of action, socialization and individualization of the individual, incentives for group actions.
A number of researchers draw attention to the need for a theoretical understanding of metasociology, the object of which is sociology itself, its cognitive capabilities, and the patterns of its development. Theoretical knowledge not only does not exclude, but necessarily presupposes an analysis of the cognitive capabilities of sociology, its concepts, views, generalizations and paradigms, as well as the limitations and limits of achieving truth in the process of research.
Levels of sociological knowledge as elements of its structure. Sociological knowledge can also be represented by the level and degree of understanding of the entire object and subject of sociology or one of their sides, parts, fragments. This division into levels reflects the object-subject principle of cognition. This principle involves several levels of analysis (see Table 3).
Thus, sociological knowledge, firstly, is represented by general sociological theories that reflect and express methodological strategies and substantiate the forms and methods of knowing social reality in all the diversity of its social connections. According to this approach, the object and subject of analysis can be either society, or a person, or their combination, which is reflected in various sociological paradigms. In turn, these approaches can be differentiated, and then the number of general sociological theories increases sharply. Thus, some researchers (E. Giddens, J. Alexander, Yu. G. Volkov) believe that all existing schools in sociology have their own strategies or approaches, expressed in the formulation of a number of fundamental methodological questions.
Secondly, the next level is formed by sectoral sociological theories, or generalizing ones: economic and political sociology, sociology of the social and spiritual spheres of society. They are aimed at analyzing not the entire society as a whole (as in the first case), but its main spheres - economic, social, political and spiritual. This division of society into four spheres is justified in social and philosophical literature (see the works of V. S. Barulin, G. S. Arefieva, V. P. Rozhin, etc.) and is associated with certain types of activities - labor (production), social (in the narrow sense of the word), political and cultural (spiritual).
As for economic sociology (see the works of T. I. Zaslavskaya, V. V. Radaev, G. N. Sokolova, V. I. Verkhovin, I. V. Ryvkina, etc.), then within its framework social problems of economic life of society - through the study of people's consciousness and the corresponding type of behavior associated with the implementation of the goals and objectives of social production, with the process of meeting the needs and interests of people in the conditions of the functioning of socio-economic relations.
Turning to another sphere of society, to social life (see the works of Yu. V. Arutyunyan, G. I. Osadchaya, M. N. Rutkevich, V. N. Ivanov, Z. T. Golenkova, O. I. Shkaratan, etc. .), it should be noted that sociology in this area studies such important and fundamental problems
we, as a social structure in all its diversity, social processes and institutions, social communities. Here the prerequisites, conditions and factors for the transformation of classes, social strata and groups into subjects of creative activity are explored.
Political sociology studies a huge layer of transition from objective to subjective, conscious development. It studies political (class, group) interests that are based (and proceed from them) on the will, knowledge and actions, methods and forms of expression of political activity of a person, classes and social groups and are addressed to the entire spectrum of feelings, opinions, judgments and attitudes of people to the processes of functioning of government organizations. This allows us to imagine the ways of functioning of statehood, to identify pain points in the development of political life (see the works of I. Wallerstein, A. Veverka, E. Vyatra, A. V. Dmitriev, V. E. Boykov, V. D. Vinogradov, N A. Golovina, M. K. Gorshkova, F. E. Sheregi, etc.). The problems of political sociology include the activities of political organizations and associations, the forms and methods of their work in new social conditions, and the ability to quickly respond to one or another development of events. And finally, the object of sociology in the sphere of politics is political consciousness, analysis of its real state, the functioning of political culture as one of the essential prerequisites for achieving progressive goals.
Table 3
Levels of sociological knowledge
Levels (hierarchy) Object of study Sociological discipline
General sociological theories Social reality in all its diversity Classical and modern theories, sociological schools
Branch sociological theories Main spheres of social life Economic, political sociology, social structure, sociology of spiritual life
Special sociological theories Within the framework of economic sociology - labor, market, city, village, etc. Within the framework of social life - social structure, ethnic groups, youth, etc. Within the framework of political sociology - the state, public organizations, law, army and etc. Within the framework of spiritual life - education, science, culture, media, religion IT. d. In economic sociology - sociology of the market, sociology of labor, sociology of town and village, etc. In social structure - ethnosociology, sociology of youth, sociology of family, etc. In political sociology - sociology of power, sociology of parties and social movements, sociology of the army. In the sociology of spiritual life - sociology of personality, sociology of education, sociology of culture, sociology of science
Particular (auxiliary) sociological concepts Derived from special sociological theories For example, in the sociology of education individual components are studied: preschool education, general and secondary specialized education, higher education, continuing education, etc.
The fourth, but not least, generalizing special sociological theory is the sociology of the spiritual life of society, which studies the activities of mastering existing cultural values, creating new ones, distributing and consuming accumulated ones (see the works of M. Archer, O. N. Kozlova, A. I. Shendrick, L. G. Ionin, L. N. Kogan, S. N. Ikonnikova, etc.). This process is complex, multifaceted and ambiguous. Therefore, it is important to define its components. Such structural elements include the process of socialization of the individual, education, mass information, cultural and educational activities, literature, art, and science. Cross-cutting for all subsystems of spiritual life is the fact that human consciousness and behavior are the objects of the main interest of specific research, when the diversity of the spiritual world gives rise to the possibility of different approaches and ways of solving emerging social problems.
Finally, sectoral sociological theories include the sociology of management (see the works of Yu. P. Averin, E. M. Babosov, Yu. D. Krasovsky, V. V. Shcherbina, A. V. Tikhonov, M. V. Udaltsova and etc.). It is associated with the solution of a special class of problems - the use of a mechanism for regulating social processes - and can be considered independently, at the level of identifying certain general characteristics, regardless of specific circumstances. In addition, it can be applied within each of the spheres of social life and their constituent elements, which requires the identification and analysis of the specific features of management in each specific area of consciousness and behavior of people.
Thirdly, there are special sociological theories through which social processes and phenomena are described, their specific connections with other phenomena and processes, which in their integrity are an integral part of one or another sphere of social life. What is being considered here is not global interactions, but characteristic connections within a specific sphere of social life. In other words, each of the systemic (generalizing, sectoral) sociological theories consists of a set of special theories that are aimed at studying the processes that form socio-economic phenomena: sociology of labor, sociology of the market, sociology of cities and villages, demographic and migration processes, etc. .
In the same sense, within the framework of social life and corresponding sociology, socio-professional and settlement structures, ethnosociology, sociology of youth are studied.
life, family, etc. In turn, political sociology consists of theories such as the sociology of power, political parties and social movements, sociology of law (although some researchers distinguish it as an independent scientific and applied theory), military sociology, international relations . As for the sociology of spiritual life, it is represented by the sociology of education, culture, religion, media, science, literature and art.
For the emergence and development of both sectoral and special sociological theories, two conditions must be met: it is necessary that these theories have their own and relatively closed conceptual apparatus, characterizing the essence and specificity of the realities being studied; and it is necessary that there is a social need to consider them from a sociological point of view, that is, to study the specific connections between these phenomena and society as the totality of all social relations.
Today, over 50 basic industrial and special sociological theories have taken shape. Their situation is still not fully understood, both from the point of view of sociological perspectives and from the point of view of social needs. Analysis of their place in the structure of sociological knowledge requires a constant critical review of their development, especially those that are of direct importance both for understanding the place, role and functions of sociological science, and for improving the efficiency and quality of research.
Industry and special sociological theories connect theoretical and methodological knowledge with empirical data obtained in the course of specific studies. They represent the unity of theoretical knowledge (or theoretical ideas) and their empirical verification, as a result of which the starting points, effectiveness and efficiency of the methodology and technique are clarified.
We especially emphasize that if in sociology, more than in any other social science, the division into theory and empirics is noticeable, this in no way means that they exist separately, without interacting with each other.
Fourthly, along with sectoral and special sociological theories, there are private (auxiliary) concepts, the object of study of which are specific phenomena and processes derived from more “voluminous” processes and social phenomena. Such objects of research are, for example, within the framework of the sociology of education, higher or preschool education, within the framework of the sociology of youth - youth movements,
interest groups, etc. Such detailing of the above theories is not objectionable; except for one thing - the study of many particular phenomena is often also called “sociology,” as a result of which a bad infinity arises, which has no limit. And in sociology it is worth applying the principle of parsimony, called “Occam’s Razor,” according to which entities should not multiply unnecessarily. Based on this principle, in this situation one should study a certain specific process or phenomenon and designate it as a subject (object) of sociological analysis, without unnecessarily attaching the term “sociology” to it.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that sociology has long been dominated (and is now adhered to by some scientists) by the so-called middle-range theory, which is usually associated with the name of R. Merton. This typical technique, characteristic of American sociology, arose under the powerful influence of pragmatic needs. In our country, this approach took root after the partial rehabilitation of sociology in the 1960s. But very peculiar. He personified a compromise between the officially approved concept of historical materialism as a general sociological theory and the desire to still highlight “our own” sociological theory, which for a long time was camouflaged under the so-called middle-level profile. But such an approach, as A.V. Kabyshcha rightly noted, resembles a Russian nesting doll and adds little to the classification of science and its branches.
In a situation where sociology was identified with historical materialism, the status of middle-level theories (special theories) turned out to be ambiguous. When the theoretical level of sociology was represented by philosophy, it had no place in it, since its theories are non-philosophical theories. But they are at the same time “theories”. So what is their relationship with theoretical sociology? If they are classified as empirical research (they formed the third level, according to Merton), does this not mean that empirics does not have a worthy scientific status? And how justified is it to distinguish all these levels on different grounds?
This structuring caused serious objections from many sociologists, in particular P. Bourdieu. He accused such famous scientists as T. Parsons, who took upon himself the development of general sociological theory, R. Merton, who monopolized the idea of the “average level,” and P. Lazarsfeld, who began to present methods of study at the empirical level, of collusion. According to Bourdieu, this time
Affairs of spheres of influence allows you to impose your vision of science, regardless of other approaches that deserve attention and have deep scientific justification. It is obvious that the three-level model of sociology, having played a certain role in its development, has exhausted its capabilities. By the way, an analysis of the materials of the International Sociological Congresses, in particular the last one, the XVI, held in 2006 in Durban (South Africa), shows that this principle is no longer observed.
Thus, the modern structure of sociological knowledge consists of several classifications of sociological theories, divided into a) theoretical and empirical, b) fundamental and applied, c) macro- and microsociology; and levels, including general sociological, sectoral, special and auxiliary sociological theories and concepts.
Notes
1. For more details, see: General Sociology / ed. A. G. Efendieva. M., 2001. P. 99-108. See also: Kravchenko S. A. Sociological theory: discourse of the future // Sociol. research 2007. No. 3. P. 3-12.
2. Berger P., Lukman P. Social construction of reality. M., 1995; Mills C.R. Sociological imagination. M., 2001; Toshchenko Zh. T. Sociology. General course. M., 2005. S. 60-64, 80-84.
3. See Yadov V. A. Strategy of sociological research. Description, explanation, understanding of social reality: textbook. M., 2001; Osipov G.V. et al. Sociology. M., 2003; Zborovsky G. E. Theoretical sociology. M.; Ekaterinburg, 2007.
4. Touraine A. The Return of the Acting Man. Essay on Sociology. M., 1998. Bauman Z. Individualized society. M., 2002; Berger P. Invitation to Sociology. Humanistic perspective. M., 1996.
5. Monson P. Boat on the alleys of the park. Introduction to Sociology. M., 1995.
6. Touraine A. Decree. op.
7. Bell D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society. M., 1998; Bell D. The End of Ideology. On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in Fifties. N.Y., 1962.
8. Giddens E. Sociology. M., 2001.
9. Bogdanov A. From the psychology of society. St. Petersburg, 1906. P. 57.
10. Toshchenko Zh. T. Sociology. M., 2005; Volkov Yu. G. et al. Sociology. M., 1999; Grigoriev S.I. Non-classical sociology. Barnaul, 2001; Popova I. M. Sociology. Kyiv, 2000.
11. Lapin N.I. General sociology. M., 2006.
12. Reznik Yu. M. Social dimension of the life world. M., 2001.
13. Berger P. Decree. op.; Bauman Z. Thinking sociologically. M., 1996. P. 7-25.
14. For more details, see: Toshchenko Zh. T. Sociology. 3rd ed. M., 2005; It's him. Paradoxical man. M., 2008.
15. Kozlova O. N. Sociology. M, 2004.
16. Kravchenko A. I. Sociology. M., 2001. P. 49-54.
17. Volkov Yu. G. et al. Sociology. M., 1999. P. 3538.
18. Kravchenko S. A. Sociology. Paradigms through the prism of sociological imagination. M., 2002.
19. See for example: Rutkevich M. N. Metasociology. M., 1998.
20. Osipov G.V. Sociology. M., 2008. Workbook of a sociologist / ed. G. V. Osipova. M., 2003.
21. For more details, see: Theoretical sociology: in 4 volumes / ed. Yu. N. Davydova. M., 1994-1999; Kul-tygin V.P. Classical sociology. M., 2000; Devyatko I. F. Sociological theories of activity and practical rationality. M., 2003.
V. F. Yulov
WHAT IS THE PROSPECT OF THE THREE-LEVEL CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
The main idea of the article boils down to the idea that it is time, instead of a one-dimensional representation of consciousness, to move to a multi-level understanding that unites the existential psyche, mental feelings and intellect.
The main idea of the article is that now it"s time to pass from one-dimensional representation of consciousness to the three-level understanding which units existence psyche, mental senses ad intelligence.
Key words: consciousness, brain, information, reflection, knowledge, intentionality, “qualia”, “Chinese room”, “zombie”, existential psyche, mental psyche, intelligence.
Keywords: consciousness, a brain, the information, reflection, knowledge, intentionality, subjective qualities, “the Chinese room”, “zomby”, mentality of being, mental mentality, intelligence.
Quite recently, the book “The Problem of Consciousness in Philosophy and Science” was published, edited by Professor D. I. Dubrovsky (M.: “Kanon +”, 2009. 472 pp.). It presents articles by authoritative Russian philosophers and scientists, as well as an article by the English epistemologist R. Harré. The issues involved here are very relevant, the content is distinguished by a high level of methodological and theoretical reflection. The through line is polemics with modern representatives of analytical philosophy (Anglo-American direction). I also wanted to join this discussion, because I have been thinking about the topic of consciousness for forty years. My monograph: “Thinking in the Context of Consciousness” (M.: Akadem. Project, 2005. 496 pp.) can be considered a certain result. The ideas of this book are able to demonstrate their heuristic capabilities in a reasoned comparison with the opinions of colleagues, including some of the authors of the book “The Problem of Consciousness...”.
© Yulov V. F., 2009
Consciousness is not identical to brain processes. Any phenomenon is fixed according to its qualitative boundary: it is not this and that, and against this background of non-existence there is a certain something. Consciousness also falls under this rule. The most famous boundary questions include the “mind-body” and “mind-brain” problems. She has four strategic solutions: 1) consciousness is independent, it does not depend on the body and brain as the higher body (idealism, mentalism); 2) consciousness is entirely determined by the body and brain (reductionist materialism, naturalism); 3) the mode of existence of consciousness depends on the brain and body, but the content of consciousness and the forms of its activity are independent (non-reductive materialism); 4) consciousness and the brain do not depend on each other (dualism, psychophysical parallelism). Our domestic philosophers quite rightly criticize the first, second and fourth solutions. Particularly highlighted are the shortcomings of such a form of naturalism as physicalism, where the mental is reduced to the physical processes of the brain or is recognized as a certain consequence of them (R. Penrose, St. Hawking, etc.).
Consciousness does not coincide with a person’s external behavior. A specific position is occupied by behaviorism, which rejects the reality of the inner world of any living being, including the human individual, and recognizes only behavior recorded by the senses of another individual. If someone receives any stimuli from the external environment and reacts to them with certain bodily actions, then this is consciousness (psychological behaviorism of B. Skinner). If two people talk to each other, then their linguistic behavior is their consciousness (linguistic behaviorism of L. Wittgenstein, G. Ryle, W. Quine). Although N. S. Yulina classifies all forms of behaviorism as programs of physicalism, such an assessment is not entirely accurate. If we recognize behaviorism as reductionist materialism, then we are right on target. Any external behavior of an animal and a person, be it the movement of a rat in a maze or the speech of a person, is material and open to our senses. Reductionism consists in the fact that complex and cumulative activity is reduced only to external and observable acts.
The core of the criticism of behaviorism and its models was a series of thought experiments united by the conceptual metaphor of “zombies”. What is meant here are imaginary systems that lack consciousness but are behaviorally indistinguishable and/or similar to conscious beings. Since this problem fits into the more general theme of functionalism, its analysis awaits us ahead.
5. Basic paradigms of sociology
First of all, it is necessary to point out that paradigm- this is a set of basic provisions and principles underlying a particular theory, which have a special categorical apparatus and are recognized by a group of scientists.
The term “paradigm” was first introduced into scientific circulation by an American philosopher and historian of science. T. Kuhn . Based on this definition, it can be argued that the concept of a paradigm is broader than the concept of a theory. Sometimes a paradigm is understood as large theories or groups of theories, as well as universally recognized achievements in a given field of science.
It should also be noted that the presence of several paradigms in sociology also confirms its status as an independent science. All sociological paradigms can be divided into three levels: macroparadigms, microparadigms and universal general paradigms. In addition to this classification, there are others.
One of the most common among them is the classification of the Russian sociologist G. V. Osipova , who identified the following groups of sociological paradigms:
1) paradigms social factors(structural functionalism and social conflict theory);
2) paradigms social definitions(symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology);
3) paradigms social behavior(theories of exchange and social action).
In Western sociological thought today there are five main paradigms: functionalism, conflict theory, exchange theory, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology. Thus, at the moment there is no general scientific opinion about the system of sociological paradigms. However, it is necessary to dwell in detail on the characteristics of the most common paradigms in sociology.
Paradigm of social conflict. The theory of conflict, the founder of which is considered Georg Simmel , in sociology was developed by a number of researchers: R. Dahrendorf (Germany), L. Koser (USA), K. Boulding (USA), M. Crozier , A. Touraine (France), Yu. Galtung (Norway), etc.
Proponents of this theory view conflict as a natural phenomenon of social life.
Its basis is the differentiation objectively existing in society. Conflict performs a stimulating function in society, creating preconditions for the development of society.
However, not all conflicts play a positive role in society, therefore the state is entrusted with the function of controlling conflicts so that they do not develop into a state of increased social tension.
Social exchange theory. This paradigm was developed most intensively by American researchers J. Homans, P. Blau, R. Emerson.
The essence of the paradigm is that human functioning in society is based on the exchange of various social benefits. Interaction between subjects of social relations is of a value-normative nature.
This concept is intermediate between macrosociological and microsociological paradigms. This is precisely where its main value lies.
Symbolic internationalism. This paradigm was also developed within the framework of American sociological schools J. Mead, G. Bloomer, T. Shibutani, T. Partland etc. The basis of symbolic internationalism is the assertion that people interact through the interpretation of symbols and signs.
Social progress is considered by sociologists as the development and change of social meanings that do not have strict causality, depending more on the subjects of interaction than on objective reasons.
Ethnomethodology. A paradigm closely related to symbolic internationalism (it is also based on the study of social interaction) was developed by the American sociologist G. Garfinkel . The basis of this paradigm is the study of the meanings that people attach to social phenomena.
This concept arose as a result of expanding the methodological base of sociology and including methods for studying various communities and primitive cultures and translating them into the language of procedures for analyzing modern social and cultural phenomena and processes.
Neo-Marxist paradigm. It was developed by a number of representatives of the Frankfurt school - M. Horkheimer, T. Adorno, G. Marcuse, J. Habermas . The neo-Marxist concept is based on such a social phenomenon as alienation, which is considered as a socio-economic phenomenon. This paradigm has become a revision of the foundations of Marxism and, above all, a desire to substantiate the gap between “labor” and “interaction” in the sense that the first, as the dominant type of relationship, is being replaced by universal interaction between people in all spheres of life.
Of course, the wealth of sociological paradigms is not exhausted by this list. However, today they are the leaders in sociological research and the construction of sociological theories. Particular attention in modern sociological paradigms is paid to interpersonal interactions, the dynamics of personal development, changes in social meanings and meanings, revealing the transformation of broad social structures.
In general, it should be noted that in modern sociology the tendency towards pluralism of various paradigms is very clearly manifested, which is expressed in increased differentiation of the system of sociological knowledge. This feature acutely poses the problem of developing and pursuing a unified theoretical and methodological line in sociology. This fact allows us to speak of sociology as a “multi-paradigm” science.
| |