1.3 Functions of the social system
A function is usually understood as such a dependence between objects in which a change in one of them causes changes in others within a given system. The functions of a social system are reduced to two main ones: 1. The function of preserving the system, its steady state(for example, material and economic support, reproduction human society, socio-political, ethical guarantees for the survival of humanity).
The mechanisms that ensure the fulfillment of this function are: socialization, during which people learn to fulfill the roles prescribed by society, due to which social connections are reproduced; institutionalization - reproduction of already existing social relations in relevant social institutions and the creation of new ones; finally, legitimization - comparison of people’s behavior and the activities of social institutions with accepted norms in society - state, ethical, political, etc. The result of such a comparison may be society’s rejection of dubious innovations and a revision of the value system. The overall result of the action of these mechanisms should be the maintenance of society in a state of relative (unstable) equilibrium.
2. The function of improving the system, its optimization (for example, improving political, legal, moral relations, aesthetic development people, improvement of technology). The main mechanism for performing this function is the innovative activity of people or society as a whole. The result of the action of these mechanisms can be the formation of new types of activities, respectively, new organizations and institutions, which ultimately leads to an increase in complexity and an increase in the level of diversity of the entire structure of society as a whole.
Modern scientists warn about observing measures in the process of optimization, improvement, society or its individual aspects. So, if the level of novelty turns out to be too high for society, this can lead to harmful consequences. In this regard, A. Nazaretyan introduces the idea of useful diversity, which allows for the growth of complexity and the preservation of order in the system, and of “excessive” diversity, which leads to a decrease in complexity or loss of order in the system. He interprets the latter based on the facts of cultural marginalization, “cultural schizophrenia” and totalitarian impasse. Therefore, achieving maximum complexity of a social system is by no means an end in itself, just like the growth of structural information or entropy in the system in itself. In this regard, the question is raised about the optimal relationship between structural information and entropy, i.e. freedom and order in the system, despite the fact that the subjective factor also takes an active part in its development.
If earlier scientists were concerned about the question of determining the limits rational knowledge, then science is now aware of the limits of efficiency human activity, a strong desire to “do no harm.” In this regard, they talk about choosing a strategy of minimal possible changes. These thoughts of Russian scientists turned out to be consonant with the ideas of their Western colleagues about the abandonment of “large-scale” (revolution-like) actions in society and the transition to “gradual” actions, during which it is possible to maintain a dialogue between the transformer and the structure being transformed.
Of course, in terms of their importance and priority, these functions can change places. The mechanisms by which they are carried out may also change. For example, previously optimization was achieved mainly through economic development, but now, in the conditions ecological crisis, - at the expense of the environment.
2. SOCIETY AS A DEVELOPING SYSTEM
It is obvious that society, being a collection of relatively stable, stable structures, is nevertheless not in a state of immobility and peace. About it, as about nature, we can say that it is constantly changing, therefore, considering society in static terms, i.e. from the point of view of its organization and structure, must necessarily be supplemented by an analysis of its dynamics, changes and development.
When studying the problems of social development in modern philosophy, terms such as functioning, change, development, progress, regression, development factors, evolution, revolution, etc. are widely used. Let us briefly consider the content of these concepts.
Let's start with the commonly used concept of “change.” This is the broadest concept that denotes a transition to some other state. A process is a single series of changes in social systems, i.e. in groups, institutions, and other elements of the social system. The simplest process is the functioning of society, which is understood as the totality of reversible changes occurring in it. We can say that the functioning of society is its daily life activity within the framework of existing structures and relationships.
Another type of social process is development. What functioning and development have in common is that both of these processes are based on changes, but a feature of development is the irreversible nature of these changes.
The development itself can occur in various directions: progressive and regressive. In the very general view the concept of “progress” means the transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. In a number of cases, progress is manifested in an increase in the degree of adaptability and viability of the system in the changing conditions of its existence and is associated with the process of increasing complexity of the system organization. The opposite of progress is the concept of “regression” - the process of narrowing the system’s capabilities for self-development; in some cases it can manifest itself in simplification and destruction of the system.
Consideration of society from the point of view of its change and development includes the following main problems:
Types of changes taking place in society;
Sources or factors of development;
The forms in which any development takes place.
This approach to society is called systemic. The main task of the systems approach in the study of society is to combine different knowledge about society into an integral system that could become unified theory society. 2. Society as a system According to general systems theory, everything in the Universe is organized into systems consisting of interconnected elements that are...
Life gives it a stable, natural character, generates a new integral systemic quality, not reducible to a qualitative characteristic individuals or their sum. Society as social system is a social organism that functions and develops according to its own laws. A system is a set of elements ordered in a certain way, interconnected...
As a result of a joint understanding of social reality by people practically interacting with each other. This is the social nature of public consciousness and its main feature. So, we have analyzed society as a social system, examined its main elements in their connection and interaction. But society is constantly evolving. This is easy to verify if...
Formally, functionalism was developed in the sociological system of T. Parsons. Parsons formulated the basic functional requirements, the fulfillment of which ensures the stable existence of society as a system: 1. It must have the ability to adapt, adapt to changing conditions and the increasing material needs of people, be able to rationally organize and distribute...
Within the framework of the systems approach, the family is considered as a social system that unites a group of people and their relationships, i.e. it is a complex of elements and their properties that are in dynamic connections and relationships with each other. The family system is primary in relation to its components - often what happens in the family does not depend on the intentions and desires of people, but is subject to the rules of functioning family system[Varga A.Ya., 2001].
Family is an open system, the elements of which interact with each other and with surrounding systems. Due to the action of “direct and feedback connections” with external biological and social systems, the family is a constantly developing system. External forces can have positive or bad influence on the family, in turn, the latter affects other systems in a similar way. Thus, the family system strives, on the one hand, to preserve existing connections, and on the other, to develop and move to a higher level of functioning.
The functioning of the family system is determined by the interconnected action of two laws - the law of homeostasis and the law of development.
According to the law of development, each family goes through its own life cycle - sequence of changes of events and stages. Each family, according to the organismic view, goes through stages of its transformation from origin (birth) to cessation of life (death). The literature describes periodization systems for family development with different stages life cycle[Varga A.Ya.; Karabanova O.A., 2001; Nicolet M., 1984; Chernikov A.V., 2001; Eidemiller E.G., 1999].
But they all distinguish the following stages:
- premarital period - monad stage (adult outside the marital union);
- the formation of a new married couple - the dyad stage;
- family with small children (includes the triad stage, the appearance of several children, children entering the outside world - kindergarten, school);
- family with children adolescence;
- stage of separation of children from parents;
- family after separation of children (dyad stage).
The conditions that determine the content of a particular stage are certain events obligatory for this system (for example, marriage), tasks (giving birth and raising children), as well as changes physical age people and corresponding changes in the stages of mental development. These stages are universal for any society, but their passage has its own specifics, determined by the traditions and culture of each individual country[Varga A.Ya., 2001; Karabanova O.A., 2001].
The main task monad stages is the emotional separation of children from their parents’ family, their acquisition of a profession and financial independence. At this stage, it is important for a young person to gain experience of independent living and to test in practice the rules learned in the parental family.
The specificity of the Russian family is that this stage, as a rule, is absent - we have two-generation rather than one-generation families, as a result of which the young man does not develop his attitude to the rules that were proposed by his parental family. He learns these rules and then transmits them to his family.
For successful completion second stage (dyad)spouses need to jointly develop a system family values, implement the distribution of roles, take a certain position in society and establish relationships with the extended family, which is often determined by socio-cultural influence.
In Russian reality, a very common model is the entry of a young spouse into a new family as a child, which prevents the formation of dyadic self-awareness and new - marital - roles. Assimilation occurs family rules"host family".
The appearance of children -family stage with young children - involves restructuring the structural and functional characteristics of the family, changing the functions and responsibilities of its members. Parental positions are formed, educational policies are developed, and new relationships with the extended family are built, including the roles of grandparents as grandparents. With the advent of the second (and so on) child, the family system is forced to rebuild again. At the same time, a subsystem of children is formed, and the order of birth of children and the difference in their ages significantly influence the position of children in the family and their functions.
At this stage, children are also introduced to social institutions - kindergarten, school. The success of a child’s adaptation to a new social environment is an indicator of the successful functioning of the family system.
IN Russian families In raising children, the role of grandparents is great, which often leads to a mixing of roles in the family, the formation of intergenerational (dysfunctional) coalitions; there are common cases when grandmothers are functional mothers.
The main task families with teenage children is a revision of the system of parent-child relations, recognition of the child’s right to independence. This stage usually coincides with the midlife crisis of the parents and the elderly crisis of the grandparents, which requires maximum mobilization of family resources to provide emotional support to all family members. This stage is characterized by special vulnerability of the family system.
In Russian reality, it is especially important to provide independence to adolescents, since the problem of differentiation from parents is very pressing. At the same time, the family acts as a certain damper, providing a relatively stable system of ideas, norms and values, which is very important in the conditions of rapid socialization changes characteristic of of this age. According to research by S. A. Baklushinsky [Developmental Psychology, 2001], adolescents for whom the family remains the most significant part their social sphere, in to a greater extent tend to perceive social situation as stable and sustainable, and x Self-concept more adequate and stable than those of their peers for whom the family is less significant.
The purpose of passing stages of separation of children from parents is to build relationships between parents and children according to the “adult-adult” type - relationships between two people without emotional dependence. The significance of complete emotional separation from parents is great: if this does not happen (separation is partial, incomplete), then children have a high probability of projecting separation onto their own marriage. Spouses face the need to rebuild their dyadic relationship.
Family stage after separation of children associated primarily with the entry of spouses into the final period ontogenetic development- the period of aging and old age, the need to reconsider their roles and functions, maintain interests and types of activity.
The passage of the life cycle represents a change in periods of developmental crises and periods of stabilization in the life of a family and is a so-called “horizontal stressor” [Eidemiller E.G., 1999].
Law of Homeostasis reflects the desire of each system to maintain its position, the desire for stability of its main parameters. The mechanisms of homeostasis are different. Members of a harmonious (functional) family quickly and adequately cope with the tasks posed by changes in external and internal situations. Dysfunctional families are rigid family systems that try to maintain the usual patterns of interaction between the elements of their subsystems and other systems, regardless of external conditions. As a result, they are blocked current needs the “weakest” member of the family (usually a child), and he develops some kind of disease (somatic, psychosomatic, mental disorder). He becomes a “symptom carrier”, which allows him to maintain the old established relationships between family members [Varga A.Ya., 2001; Systemic family therapy, 2002; Chernikov A.V., 2001].
In systemic family therapy there is the concept of “identified patient” - “family member, deviant behavior and psychological problems which are the immediate reason for the family to turn to a psychotherapist" [Systemic family therapy, 2002, p. 88].
Symptoms appear when there is a shift or disruption in the family life cycle as a means of balancing a “stuck” system. An “identified patient” can appear in a family either when trying to maintain homeostasis during the passage of any stage of the life cycle, or when resolving a conflict in an inappropriate way. The two most important functions of symptoms are morphostatic and morphogenetic [Systemic family therapy, 2002; Chernikov A.V., 2001].
Morphostatic function - blocking negative emotions between members of a dysfunctional family creates a situation of overstrain, as a result of which one of the family members develops a symptom that allows the family to reduce tension and thereby maintain family homeostasis. The symptom, as a rule, occurs in someone who has a low status in the family, is deprived of power and rights, and is financially dependent. Such persons most often are elderly people, women, and children.
Morphogenetic function of the symptom - positive feedback, deviation towards increasing fluctuations of the family system, the purpose of which is to change the family system, transition to another stage.
The symptom plays a huge role in the life of a dysfunctional family - often all the activities of such a system are aimed at maintaining it. Removing a symptom can lead to aggravation of the intrafamily situation, therefore central question family psychotherapy is not how to get rid of the symptom, but what will happen if it goes away; how the system will function after the symptom disappears and what price it will have to pay for it.
When building a picture of the functioning of the family system, a special role is played bystrategies for describing intrafamily processes.There are linear and circular processes. Linearity and Circularity represent contrasting approaches to establishing connections between events. The most obvious difference between them is the structure of connections between the elements of behavior patterns. If linear patterns are sequences like: A->B->C, then circular patterns form closed loops and are reciprocal: A->B->C->A, etc. or AB, BC, SA [Chernikov A.V., 2001].
An important difference between these patterns concerns the concepts of time and meaning. Linearity is inextricably linked with the idea of continuity of time and the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships. Circularity is based on the relationships of elements. Circular explanations are based on what elements mean to each other and how changes in one imply changes in the other. When circular patterns are identified or circular hypotheses are put forward, temporal sequences are projected onto the present domain and have meaning in terms of here-and-now functioning. Circular explanations are more commonly used to understand mental events, while linear explanations are best for understanding physical events.
Circular descriptions are systemic because they provide more alternatives for therapeutic action. Maintaining homeostasis in family systems is undoubtedly a circular process.
So the family plays big role in life individual and society as a whole. Being the most important element social plan for the development of each person, the family not only provides personal development individual, but also plays a leading role in the formation of pathogenic situations and mental disorders [Shapiro A.Z., 1994; Eidemiller E.G., 1999].
The systems approach shows that the problem of a specific family member is an indicator of the dysfunctionality of the family system as a whole; the family is considered as a unit of psychological influence [Chernikov A.V., 2001].
The family is a flexible system that responds to external and internal influences with structural and functional changes. Without these changes, family functioning is disharmonious, preventing personal growth family members who compensate for the resulting tension by the appearance and consolidation of symptoms [Ackerman N., 1982; Satir V., 2000; Systemic family therapy, 2002].
Society as a social system can be represented in three aspects: 1) as a set of interacting on the basis of biological social connections and general circumstances of individuals (social communities and groups); 2) as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) and social functions(roles); 3) as a set of norms and values (culture).
Society is a collection of people separated from nature. Society is a fairly large, constantly developing form of social organization of smaller communities. The concept of “society” as an object of sociology comes from everyday speech. Society can mean science community, a pedagogical community, a community of “cool life” students, a club community (such as the “society of hunters and fishermen”), a group of people with high prestige and privileges (such as deputies of the State Duma), etc. Ultimately, society is people (that is, not one person, but a group, many). These people are connected by something, united, and this something makes it possible to distinguish some people from others. Good people from bad people, rich from poor, bosses from subordinates, decent from dishonest, smart from stupid. Peter Berger defines "society" in one case as a complex of human relationships, in another as a system of interactions, and in a third as a network of social roles. According to T. Parsons, society is a system of relations between people, the connecting principle of which is norms and values.
There are many definitions of society in the sociological literature. Society is understood as large group people who have formed a common culture, and a complex social system with the people inhabiting it, and a socio-political association associated with a certain territory. In addition, society means: certain group people who come together to communicate and perform some activity together. Different shapes activities are socially and physiologically forced. A person must be able to sleep, eat, drink, perform his natural needs, dress, and protect himself from natural and social dangers. Each person is busy with his own affairs - work, knowledge, communication, social manifestations, which are social roles, professions, occupations. The division and cooperation of labor is the basis for the development of society, and labor in all types of culture is considered as a fundamental factor in the existence and essence of the individual, the emergence of consciousness, speech, and morality, which make a person capable of interaction and cooperation that is different from what is happening in the natural world.
Society is a complexly organized system of interaction between people, which has its own structure and institutions. Society “exists there,” says G. Simmel, “where several individuals interact.” According to E. Durkheim: “Every aggregate (compound) of individuals that is in constant contact constitutes society.” L. Gumplowicz takes not the individual, but the group as an element of interaction. That is, society can be represented as a collection of interacting social groups and individuals. In other words, society is located exclusively in the sphere of interacting people and the products of their interaction (P. Sorokin).
Society can be reduced either to a set of material and spiritual culture (the highest, philosophical level of abstraction), or to a set of social institutions: family, economy, state, religion, education, science and culture, or to a set of spheres of life: economic, political, spiritual, social. The social sphere describes the socio-demographic and professional composition of the population, the relationships between social groups. It is responsible for the welfare of the population, including socially disadvantaged groups, and is interested in maximizing stability and order in society.
Society is characterized by a number of characteristics (E. Shils):
the society is not part of any larger social system;
marriages are concluded “not in heaven,” but within a given society;
society is replenished primarily by the children of those adult, childbearing people who are already its recognized representatives;
own territory, that is, a certain geographical location ( territorial organization society);
the society has a history and a name;
has autonomous system management, and not controlled from outside;
general system values, which is called culture.
There are many ways to classify societies. For example, based on religion, say, a Muslim society, or based on language, say, a French-speaking society. If the presence of writing is chosen as the main feature, then all societies are divided into pre-literate and written. According to other classifications of society, there are simple and complex, closed and open, totalitarian and democratic, etc.
In the mid-nineteenth century, K. Marx proposed his typology of societies, which are based on two criteria: the method of production and the form of ownership. According to this typology, based on formational approach Societies are divided into primitive, slave, feudal, capitalist and communist.
Sociology distinguishes two historical types of society: the traditional past society and the modern society in which we live. Traditional or pre-industrial society: a) living by hunting and gathering; b) gardening; c) agricultural (agricultural or cattle breeding). Modern society: a) industrial or industrial; b) post-industrial or information (information technology).
In sociology, there are three approaches to determining the essence of society. Based on the first approach, society is living, active people, whose joint activities form an association (E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, etc.). The essence of this approach is to interpret society as a system of people acting in concert, structured, that is, divided into social groups in accordance with the set of functions necessary to maintain the integrity of society.
Based on the second approach, the content of the concept of “society” as an association of people is derived mainly not only from the definition of “people”, but from the emerging relationships and interconnections between them. To the question: “What is society?” K. Marx answers: “The product of interaction between people... a historically developing set of relations between people that develop in the process of their joint activities. “Society does not exist “outside” and independently of individuals, but only as a system of interacting units. Without which, without which it is unthinkable and impossible, just as any phenomenon is impossible without its constituent elements,” says P. Sorokin. R. Dahrendorf presents society in a conflictological perspective - this is the competition of social “subjects”, the confrontation of groups and classes, which, in fact, according to M. Weber, plays out in the field social assessments, the prestige of position and status values, and which K. Marx brings to class struggle and revolution.
In the third approach (A. Schutz, D. Mead, N. Luhmann, P. Bourdieu), the definition of the essence of society is derived by the method of separation (breakdown into factions). Under what influence does a person become a social being? What is the qualitative difference between human society and animal communities, which are often built on both “interactions” and “relationships” (data from sociobiological research)? What underlies action, social connections, meanings, beliefs and ideals? That is, by sequentially going through all the factions, one stands out, in this approach - culture as an autonomous space social life separate from human existence.
Thus, based on the first approach, society is determined by people, the second approach is determined by relationships, and the third approach is determined by culture. At the same time, in modern sociology prevails systems approach in defining the essence of society. It is considered as an integral system of elements that are in a state of close interconnection. That is, society as a social system is a certain ordered set of elements interconnected and forming some integral unity, which acts as an organic unity of three parties - social organization, culture and social community (group).
1Abdullaeva R.A.
The world that surrounds a person is a system based on its modern understanding. In turn, it all, without exception, consists of systems various kinds. The “Philosophical Dictionary” gives an abstract description and general definition of a system: “A system (from the Greek σύστημα - a whole made up of parts; a connection) is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity.” The concept of “system,” as L. von Bertalanffy noted, is not “something transitory or some result of recent technical achievements... the concept of a system is as old as European philosophy... and can be traced back to Aristotle.” The system has certain attributive qualities, which in the most generalized form represent a set or set of interrelated elements. A system is a set of parts or components interconnected organizationally. We can highlight the following most significant features systems: Complexity; Integrity; Hierarchy; Multi-level; Interconnection and relationships of elements; Structurality; Dependence of elements on the whole; Interdependence of system and environment; Confrontation, difference from the environment; Integration.
types of systems
integration system elements
system quality
system crisis
The main meaning of existence of any system, including social ones, is survival. This goal is achieved in several ways, the most important of which are self-organization and self-development. It should be noted that development is a broad and multi-valued category. The development of the system can be represented in the form of the following diagram: development of the system (progress) - achievement of the highest point of development (flourishing) - crisis of the system - post-crisis development of the system (regression). Moreover, all these stages are in no way related to any specific time frame.
The first stage in the development of a social system is a state of progressive development. Progress is understood as the complication of a social system through the inclusion of new elements and objects into it, as well as the emergence of new connections within the system. At this stage there is no change system quality, and the change in its measure, that is, the main content of this period is the work of the law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones. The system goes from chaos to a pronounced order based on systemic quality.
This is a kind of inclination of the system, a potential ability that is maximally revealed in the process of development.
The development of a system is a consequence of the interaction of at least two intra-system pairs of elements, and if we express this interaction in the language of mechanics, then its result is a certain resultant of the vectors of the subjects of interaction. If these vectors are codirectional, then their sum will always be positive and in quantitative terms greater than the whole. Otherwise, this sum will be less than a whole and can take negative values. Thus, the system progresses if its elements act more or less harmoniously, and this is an indicator of the level of integration of the system elements. Consequently, system development can be represented as a gradual increase in the degree of integration of system elements. Moreover, progressive development directly depends on how quickly and completely the system can integrate new elements into its body and on how much this integration will affect the integrity of the internal system environment.
The second state of the system is the achievement of maximum development, flourishing. This period- the interval between the highest point of development and the point of the beginning of the systemic crisis, at which the systemic quality is most clearly represented. The accumulation of quantitative changes does not lead to an increase in integration internal environment, nor to increasing the level of the organization due to the fact that system quality is maximally developed and any further development is impossible. This is the limit of development. A system at the peak of its development is a system that embodies absolute system quality. It is at this stage that options for further development, which are similar to attractors, emerge within the system.
The emergence of variable systems is explained by the fact that the system, having reached maximum point development continues to accumulate quantitative changes. According to the laws of social organization, the development of a system beyond a certain measure leads either to a qualitative leap or to disintegration into related systems. Variability of this kind is typical for all systems, at all levels. At the same time, the concepts of “option” and “attractor” should not be confused, since in in this case the system deals not with a potential vector on which the vector of development direction randomly falls, but with a specific project. The project in this case is nothing more than a “system within a system” - construction new system based on the same system quality. The choice of development option is often made as a result of struggle, but such a choice is present only up to a certain point, called the “point of return.” Passing such a point means that the choice has been made and there is no return.
The next stage is a state of systemic crisis. The crisis of the system is understood as a state of the system when its progressive development in the same quality is impossible. A crisis of the system is, first of all, a deviation from the norm, but one that itself is the norm of social life, that is, it is the result of the action of the internal laws of the social organism in conditions of normal and even successful life of this organism. This is a kind of transition from the highest point of development of the system either to its collapse, or to a qualitative change through negation. This state is the development of the system from the point of the beginning of the crisis to the point of the beginning of regression.
Finally, the fourth stage is the state of regressive development. Regression means simplification of the system. This is a state in which the system loses its systemic quality, the structure is destroyed, and ultimately the death of the system occurs as its complete destruction or as dialectal negation. Order is replaced by chaos, which in turn is replaced by order through the removal of the previous systemic quality or through the resumption of the process of self-organization on other grounds and, as a consequence, the construction of a new system.
Thus, the analysis of the development of social systems carried out above makes it possible to understand that each system needs effective management, the organization of which is the main method of maintaining the processes that occur in it and one of the main conditions for the improvement and development of social systems of any type.
Bibliography
- American sociology. Prospects, problems, methods: Translated from English. / Ed. and introductory article by Ph.D. G.V. Osipova. - M.: Progress. 1972. - 395 p.
- Egorov V.S. Philosophical realism. M., 2001. - 288 p.
- Sivirinov B.S. Social systems and social perspective. Structure and dynamics. - Novosibirsk: Science. 2000. - 92 p.
Bibliographic link
Abdullaeva R.A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM // Contemporary issues science and education. – 2010. – No. 5.;URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=4527 (access date: 03/31/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"
Kaluzhsky M.L.
Any social development associated with the formation of social systems. All social systems, as initially artificial in relation to the society of education, have the same life cycle as any other systems. The life cycle of social systems ends when the contradictions between it and society become insurmountable.
It should also be noted that any development is possible only where a structurally formed education exists. In other words, where there is something to develop (the object of development itself). The development of matter in the Universe has not yet developed ways to obtain additional resources at comparable rates. equal conditions otherwise than through a qualitative change in the material subject itself.
And the development of social systems is subject to the same laws. " Biological evolution within a speciesHomosapiens is preserved, – wrote L.N. Gumilyov – but acquires features not characteristic of other animal species. Phylogeny transforms into ethnogenesis" To this we can add that the development of human civilization is far from being exhausted by ethnogenesis. Ethnogenesis is transformed (or rather, supplemented) into civitogenesis.
Even M.T. Cicero, in the first book of his treatise “On Duties,” distinguished three degrees (gradations) of public relations:
1. infinite (society) - the broadest or “limitless” degree of community embraces all of humanity, this is human society (i.e. societies);
2. gens - a closer community denoting a tribe (or nationality, ethnic group - in the modern sense);
3. civitas – an even closer community and connection comparable to a civil community.
We are talking here about a kind of nesting doll, where everyone is members of society, but only a part of these members are full members of the ethnic group. However, we are interested in the third one here, highest degree social connections. If the first two degrees are quite well known to readers, then the third degree is traditionally hushed up. The time has come to revive the concept that is forgotten today, denoting legitimate relations of power and subordination with the term “ civil ».
AND we're talking about not about “civil society” in its modern sense. The point here is that not every ethnic Roman could become a full citizen of Rome. Members of a fairly small elite community who were directly related to the governance of this ancient state were considered full citizens of Rome.
Therefore, civitogenesis, like highest form Sociogenesis is not so much a separate stage of human development as the most important mechanism of this development, although not always mandatory. We know many examples where self-sufficient human communities even in our time manage well without social institutions (the same Bushmen, the peoples of the North, etc.).
The specificity of social development lies only in the fact that civilogenesis does not always coincide with other forms of social development (ethnic, individual, etc.), and often contradicts them. This contradiction objectively gives rise to a deep confrontation between social systems and society, which at the final stage of development of social systems manifests itself in actions of social protest and social bifurcations (revolutions).
The best proof of this thesis can be at least the fact that actions of public protest and revolution have been observed in human society throughout the history of its existence, regardless of the degree of its technological, political or any other development. Moreover, the more complex and perfect the social system, the more acute and global in consequences its bifurcation.
A very common social myth, paradoxically, is that social systems completely organize the life of society and almost contain it. In reality this is not the case at all. The uncontrolled development of society represents an objective threat to the systemic advantages of the social elite. Therefore, while protecting its monopoly position, it limits the possibilities for non-social development of society. "... the action of social systems was aimed not only at concentrating wealth in the hands of the dominant minority,– notes L.A. White, – but also to prevent the broad masses of the population from benefiting from technological progress».
All this happens because any social system is a kind of target organization, aimed at realizing the monopolized advantages of the social elite in society. The desire to achieve this goal determines the patterns of social development and the contradictions that arise in the process of this development between social systems and society.
Accordingly, the higher the level of social development, the closer the individual potential of members of the social environment to the individual potential of members of social systems and the smaller the gap between them. Consequently, the homeostatic function of social systems is to maintain a kind of distance between themselves and ordinary members of society. This is the protection of property, the repressive apparatus, the institutionalization of social management bodies, etc.
Social systems have no other enemy more terrible than society, if only because they themselves once originated from the social environment. And, if the pressure (ideological, political, economic, etc.) on society is not strong enough, then the social environment can again give rise to social elites capable of forming alternative social systems. And this is a direct threat to systemic and elite (state, corporate) security, which is vitally important to identify and destroy.
So, the advantage of civil development over other forms of social development lies in its proactive action . The main aspiration of civil systems at the state level is to freeze social relations, to prevent non-systemic development of society . And not only outside civil relations in general, but also outside a specific system in particular. For this purpose, legislation, ideology, and the repressive apparatus are used. In a word, everything that creates a framework that closes social activity in the civil system and directs the activities of people for the benefit of the system.
At one time, the Soviet ideological system supported the thesis that communist regimes easily come to power in backward societies, but building a society of a “new formation” there is much more difficult than in developed societies. Whereas in developed societies the opposite situation is supposedly observed. Indeed, socialist regimes easily arose in feudal and colonial countries, where social systems appropriated the results of the introduction of new forms of social organization.
From the point of view of the theory of civitogenesis, this phenomenon has a different explanation. Undeveloped societies are not immune to the expansion of the social elite. This happens because social mechanisms management exists at the ethnic level of relations in rudimentary form and does not conflict with ethnic values and norms.
However, subsequently contradictions form, intensify and grow. It is no coincidence that social organization often looks immoral from an ethnic perspective.
A similar situation was observed, for example, in Ancient Egypt or Ancient Rome, where the key to the strength of social systems was their effectiveness (in terms of a set of parameters) in comparison with other forms of social organization. However, as soon as the individual development of members of society and their ethnic self-awareness reached a sufficiently high level, the great social systems turned out to be uncompetitive and rapidly degraded.
Hence the conclusion: social systems are not a source, but a catalyst for social development . They are ahead of society in appropriating resources during the transition to a new stage of technological development and drain it of blood by appropriating the results of social labor. It is no coincidence that the great social systems-civilizations, having experienced their heyday, almost never revived to their former greatness (ancient civilizations, Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, the USSR, etc.). They simply “burned” the strength and potential of society.
There is another aspect of social development that is usually overlooked social philosophy out of sight. Any development implies not only the causality of phenomena, but also the constant exclusion of possible alternatives. F. Engels wrote: “... every progress in organic development is at the same time a regression, because it consolidates one-sided development and excludes the possibility of development in many other directions" But if this statement is relevant for processes biological level, then for the social level it is tens, or even hundreds of times more relevant.
Therefore, social systematicity is a sign not of strength, but of weakness of a social organization. This is a kind of “growing pain” in social development, which, if left untreated, leads to a halt in the development of social relations and even to the degradation of the ethnic group.
« Ethnicity, taking on social forms,– writes L.N. Gumilyov – creates political institutions that are not natural phenomena. ... But all these institutions were the work of human hands and in this sense are similar to temples with colonnades, palaces, axes and clothes, which, ... not having the possibility of self-development, can only be destroyed by the influence of time" This statement is only partly true. It is not the ethnos as a whole, but its elite that creates the social system with its characteristic institutions. Most of The ethnic group plays a passive role in this process, content with the position of “followers”.
Therefore, there cannot be many social leaders (as well as ethnic leaders). And social organization only consolidates and cements this situation. Schematically, resource and organizational flows in modern society can be represented as follows:
Rice. 1. Allocation of resources and organization to different levels social management.
In such a system of relations there is no place for duplication of functions and competition between dominant structures, which is possible only outside of social systems. Moreover, all of the listed levels of social organization include two types:
1. territorial organization – represented by authorities at the state, regional and municipal levels;
2. industry organization – submitted by corporate governance bodies.
It is very significant in this regard that commodity and social relations have general nature, since both social organization and commodity production pursue the same goal - the satisfaction of individual needs. The means of satisfaction are different, but the objective essence of the phenomenon is one. Therefore, the development curve of any social (ethnic, social, etc.) systems resembles the product life cycle curve (see Fig. 2).
Rice. 2. Product life cycle.
Apparently general pattern lies in the causality of the emergence of goods and social systems. All of them are intended to solve a single problem - simplifying human life by improving its organization. Another thing is that the system elites (essentially the owners) pursue their own interests and for them society is nothing more than a means to achieve their goal.
The patterns of demand for human “material” in the process of development of social systems are presented in Table 6.
Table 1. Behavioral dominants of social elites at various stages of the life cycle of social systems.
In the process of its development, a social organization not only integrates society into the framework of social systems, but also deprives it of opportunities for alternative (alien or extra-systemic) development. In this sense, society depends on the system to the same extent that the system depends on society. Break the chain of social relations and the social system will immediately collapse, just as happened, say, in British India in 1948.
Wherein the vector of development of the social system is directed from competitive development towards gradual monopolization of advantages and stagnation. Of course, not all social systems go this route. Some are reorganized, some are absorbed, and some go bankrupt due to negative market conditions. However, the general pattern is exactly this. This phenomenon has been examined in sufficient detail in modern Western social philosophy.
The life cycle of social systems, shown in Fig. 2 goes through four main stages in its development:
Stage I. At the first stage of the cycle, the interests of the social elite and the interests of the majority of society usually coincide. Moreover, this is usually associated with the ideological influence of the emerging elite on public consciousness, and not with real premises. Ethnic forces play a huge role here, often being the main driving force the process of emergence of social organization. The most typical example is the use revolutionary situation elites eager for power.
The new ethno-social elites formed as a result only use the fruits of ethnic explosions that cause the reorganization of large social systems. Hence, a dissipative ethnos is something like an unbroken horse, by staying on which you can gain great power and glory, but the slightest mistake here leads to inevitable death. No wonder N. Machiavelli noted: “... popular discontent can be easily eliminated - in cases where the people do not have leaders. For there is nothing more terrible than unbridled, leaderless masses, and at the same time, there is nothing more helpless».
The first stage of social development begins immediately after the bifurcation (moment of re-evolution) of the previous social system. The number of contenders for power here is as large as possible, and the development of the situation is difficult to predict. Emerging and dying social systems, using the terminology of I.R. Prigogine, are in an open, highly disequilibrium state. However, the social system develops in this way only until the moment of its final formation.
Stage II. At the second stage of systemic development, the purpose of the social system changes. Now it is about maintaining power over the resources of society, territory and organization. As a result, an artificial socio-ethnic environment is created with its inherent ideology, legislation, social and repressive mechanisms. At the second stage, only the interests of social systems and the socialized part of society coincide.
There is active development of social organization here. " Application of this method<социального строительства – М.К.>, creating at the moment of transition the impression of a big leap - writes M.S. Voslensky, – then inevitably leads to swampy stagnation in a society monopolized by a despotic bureaucracy" There is no need to prove this thesis. We observed the described picture in the USSR, fascist Germany, in Cuba, in Iran and in general in almost all totalitarian countries.
Conversely, even countries with centuries-old traditions of totalitarian rule, when transitioning to a non-totalitarian form of social organization, demonstrate amazing rates of social development. Take for example post-war Japan, colonial Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, Chile, etc.
However, the overwhelming majority of society is deprived of opportunities for unsocialized self-development. Professor L. Ionin very accurately noted about this: “... Every person... has their own goals. And only then is society diverse. And if everything is dictated from above, then people become the same. This, by the way, is the path to entropy, smoothing out differences, smoothing out development, reducing dynamic potentials, and so on.».
Stage III. The third stage is the longest of the stages in the life cycle of social systems, so it should be discussed in more detail. This stage is characterized by the fact that formation and institutionalization is replaced by social stability, bringing with it a tendency towards slow degradation. Here we can draw an analogy with biological processes. For example, S. N. Parkinson notes: “ A tree begins to rot when it reaches the maximum size for its species and stops growing because the biological cycle is completed. Organizations, like plants, do not live forever. Maturity inevitably gives way to old age and decay».
In the development of social systems, two main processes with different logics can be distinguished: intrasystem And non-systemic . And since any systematicity is based on closure (as discussed earlier), it is not surprising that there is no direct relationship between these two processes. Members of social elites understand the harmfulness and immorality of their behavior in relation to society, but cannot act contrary to logic and practice current process development of social systems. Otherwise, the system simply rejects them.
This phenomenon is described in sufficient detail in the specialized literature. For example, M.S. Voslensky writes that the reason for the resistance of the nomenklatura to market transformations in the USSR was the fear of losing levers of power. He notes: “... the nomenklatura does not want to give up state management of “socialist” property. And not because she is not aware of the colossal damage from such management for the country’s economy - she is aware. But the transformation "socialist" property into the true property of the country would mean expropriation of the nomenklatura».
Which is completely natural, since any social organization is just a way of managing society by the social elite. Who would give up the goal in favor of the means? This is nonsense.
Thus, social development actually ends with the formation of a social system. Further, the system no longer evolves, but resists or adapts to society. These are two possible paths of social development at the third stage - either the social system ossifies and gradually moves to a state of stagnation, or “erosion of power” occurs.
The described phenomena are characteristic specifically of the third stage of social development, since in other situations they are not in demand. We are dealing here with the adaptive response of social systems to worsening conditions external environment(decrease in the controllability of society). Social development, i.e. change existing forms social organization more perfect, implies strengthening the social system. In other words, we are still talking about reforming the existing social system, and not about changing the forms of social organization and, especially, social elites. To paraphrase von Hayek's expression " at there is no other purpose to life except life itself" you can say: reforming social systems has no other goal than reforming social systems itself .
Therefore, all social systems are homeostatic and extremely stable. But their stability is ensured not even by the conscious leadership of the social elite or the consciousness of the functional elite, but by the natural desire of participants in social structures to preserve a favorable living environment for themselves. For example, F.A. Hayek notes on this matter: “... in spontaneousIn social formations, as in biological organisms, the parts often behave as if their purpose was to preserve the whole. ... if someone had a conscious goal to preserve the structure of such wholes ... then he would try to cause precisely those processes that occur anyway, without any conscious guidance».
We can most clearly observe the described processes in the example of the Roman Empire. However, in our time the same phenomena occur, almost everywhere. And the higher the level of development of the social system, the wider its social base in society. So, for example, in the 20th century, the most developed democracies in Western Europe formed the most significant social structures in terms of numbers.
According to S.N. Parkinson, in Sweden, France, Germany and Norway in the late 1960s. (unfortunately, there are no other data) maintaining the state apparatus cost the societies of these countries more than 40% of national income. Moreover, Sweden, with its super taxes and the highest level of social protection of the population by Western standards, was in first place with an indicator of 46.9%. In many Third World countries, maintaining the bureaucracy is generally one of the main items of government spending.
Thus, S.N. Parkinson gives the following figures for the ratio of civil servants and ordinary citizens in average Western democracies:
UK – 1:31;
Ireland – 1:33;
The world's leading economic power, the United States of America, shows an increase in the ratio of federal (!) officials to ordinary members of society from 1:300 at the beginning of the 20th century to 1:15 at the end of this millennium.
In Russia and other countries with rapidly developing social systems (including functional structures) the number of social elites is still relatively small. A conclusion involuntarily suggests itself, confirming the thesis about the existence of a life cycle of a social system: improvement of social systems is associated with the redistribution of society's resources by social elites in their favor. It means that:
1. social development, like any development, is observed where there are appropriate conditions for this (resources, territorial and organizational capabilities);
2. the formation of social elites (systems) is the vanguard of the formation of social infrastructure, i.e. functional subsystems. Over time, these subsystems acquire independent significance, and their members participate in the cooperative redistribution of public resources (bureaucracy).
K. Popper proposed dividing such systems into two main types: democratic and totalitarian. " The first type are governments that we can get rid of without bloodshed, for example through general elections. … The second type are governments from which the governed can only get rid of through a successful coup, i.e. in most cases - never».
What are these types and why do they appear in this particular form? As always, an objective effect has an objective cause. The more total the control of the social elite over society and its resources, the less opportunities alternative groups have to intercept it even if they formally come to power. This is the best indicator for identifying the social dominance of the elite over society.
In our case, we propose a division not into two, but into three main types of social systems, corresponding different stages social development.
The first type totalitarian systems are not characterized large in number social elite, concentrating in its hands all the power over society and its resources. They simply do not need to increase their numbers and “dilute” power.
Second type developing systems characterized by a small number of social elite and a growing number of functional elite of social systems. The functional elite implicitly fights with the social elite for their rights to public resources, and this process is called democracy.
As the history of mankind shows, the first two stages can successively replace each other until the fatigue (or education) of society forces the social elite to give up part of their advantages in its favor.
Third type developed (democratic) systems are characterized by a large number of functional elites who consume a significant part of society's resources. In fact, all political, state and municipal activities come down to the activities of social functionaries. They still do not have full power in social systems, but they have enormous influence on the decisions made there.
Stage IV. At the fourth stage of social development, functional elites, as it were, are pulled up to the level of social elites and strive to seize their levers of influence on society. This usually fails because social elites have the resources to buy functionaries. Stealing large sums from society is difficult due to functional competition, and tracking bribes or shadow financing is very difficult.
Therefore, the symbiosis between the actual social (primary) and functional (secondary) elites is only strengthening with a slight shift in the center of gravity towards the functional elites. However, there is no real participation of society in this process and cannot be. There are more players on the social field, and the rules are more complex. As a result, the demand for public support in the struggle for power in the social system is growing. Real “democracy” has never been anything more than an ideologized form of legitimizing the power of the social elite. Especially in Western democracies.
And the most paradoxical conclusion: the growth of bureaucracy indicates the democratization of social systems; therefore, it is not the relations between society and social systems that are democratized first of all, but the relations within social systems between social and functional elites controlled by them.
The examples given clearly show that even if the social system (elite community) creates relatively favorable conditions for the life of society, it primarily benefits from social benefits. The following conclusion can be drawn from all of the above: a democratic system means the same appropriation of social resources by the social-state elite as with any other forms of social government.
The fourth stage of social development is the decline and degradation of the social system, ending with its collapse (bifurcation). A synonym for bifurcation here is revolution . Although methodologically it would be more correct to write re-evolution, i.e. profound qualitative change in development.
So, social re-evolution is the forced removal of the system elite from power by an alternative elite on the crest of a wave of public discontent.
Whereas social evolution– this is the adaptation (strengthening) of the social system as a mechanism for exercising the power of the systemic elite against the background of public passivity .
Consider the bifurcation at social level. Social elites, due to the artificiality of their organization and the natural conservatism of their behavior, never make revolutions; revolutions are the lot of the ethnic environment (i.e. the rest of society). The source of all revolutions is natural contradictions in society between the ethnic environment and social elites.
At the same time, the social system never collapses spontaneously. It is destroyed when lost social control over society (public resources). But this process is observed only when either the development of the rest of society catches up with the social elite, or the social elite, under the influence of the internal logic of social development, degrades and loses its competitiveness. As a result, the social elite loses public legitimacy. It cannot be otherwise, because the only object of application of the efforts of social systems is society itself.
It should also be noted that social organization (in the form of social systems and institutions) is so inseparable from modern society that the liquidation of one social system immediately causes the formation of a new one. Hence the conclusion: spontaneous expression of public discontent, brought to its logical conclusion, inevitably leads to reform of the social system and a change in the social elite (community) . Typical example– the collapse of the USSR and the change of the ruling elite in 1990. M.S. Voslensky highlights the pattern of all social revolutions, which he formulates using the following diagram:
revolution → reaction → restoration in modified form.
Here, too, there is a pyramid, like A. Maslow’s pyramid in the sense that the lower levels of systemic organization not only do not disappear anywhere, but are also inevitably present at the basis of social organization. In the case of social re-evolutions, the social elite first degrades to the lowest level of social (more precisely, ethnosocial) organization, and then again goes through the path of its highest (socioethnic) stage.
Table 3. Signs of social organization at various stages of social development
This was the case, for example, after the breakup Russian Empire or USSR.
Russian empire: war communism® NEP® primacy of the state;
THE USSR: parade of sovereignties® domination of oligarchs® strengthening the state.
This completely dialectical process of spiral development is partly reminiscent of society walking in a circle, stepping on the same rake. Society, guided by ethnic stereotypes of behavior and social myths, cannot understand that one can live within the social system only by its rules. The rules are drawn up according to the principle not of social, but social justice, that is, a fair division of power and resources between members of the social (systemic and functional) elite within social systems.
Probably the main reason for this situation is hidden in the priority of the personal desire of each member of not only society, but also society as a whole, to someday move up the social ladder. Or - in the socializing impact of social systems on society. In any case, we are unlikely to find anywhere and ever a social system (elite) really concerned about public welfare. Because for the social system this would mean nothing more than self-weakening and degradation. A social system cannot exist without society, just as a producer cannot exist without a consumer, and a predator cannot exist without objects of hunting.
Any re-evolution, no matter how it begins or occurs, ends with a change in social organization. The social elite either accepts the new rules of the game, adapting to new conditions, or gives way to the new elite. However, all this does not change the essence of what is happening:
1. at the heart of any processes of social organization is always the social elite;
2. social development always comes down to changing the parameters of social organization while the role of the social elite remains unchanged.
The peculiarity of human society is that at moments of social bifurcations (re-evolutions) it can shake off the social system, even simply refusing to obey it. This was the case, for example, in India and other colonial countries. This happened during the American operation in Iraq in 2003.
True, then the restoration of the previous order usually occurs. And even the former social elite often returns to power (take, for example, England after Cromwell, modern Spain or the CIS). However, the circle is not always closed. A social system that does not have resources loses power over society. IN Western Europe For example, the systemic resources of the state and local authorities are not so great that the elite can completely control society. Society itself, each of its members, owns so many resources and has such a degree of social independence that its dependence on the social elite is incomparable with the dependence of citizens of countries less developed in this regard.
L.N. Gumilyov wrote in his works that the vector of social development is directed in the direction opposite to social development. First, a social explosion occurs, which is spontaneous in nature, and only then social development gradually consolidates what has been achieved and preserves its results. A.L. Chizhevsky also agreed with this statement.
The vector of social development, on the contrary, is directed both towards liberation from the oppression of the external environment of any order - from natural conditions (base), and social organization developing according to its own laws (superstructure). We know well from the history of mankind what a stable social organization leads to: social stagnation, bureaucratization and degradation.
Russian historian O. Shkaratan writes about this: “... What is homogeneity, if you think about the theoretical meaning of this concept, its philosophical meaning? This is the death of society. Homogeneity has neither a line of ascent nor a line of descent. For no direction of development is possible. This applies not only tosocial system, but also to any other - biological, physical, chemical" Apparently this is what A.N. Whitehead had in mind when he noted: “ It must be recognized that there is a degree of stability that is incompatible with civilization».
On the other hand, the dominant community in society, which gained power as a result of spontaneous public indignation that swept away previous social institutions, is in dire need of forming a new social structure. This need is much more acute than the need of society as a whole. That's why social development as a systemic process is the adaptation of the dominant community (power elite) to the conditions of society.
When today we hear discussions about the “sustainable development” of society, we should understand by this, first of all, the sustainable development of the dominant elite, as well as the social relations and institutions it imposes. This is the only possible option for social development, regardless of the ethnic, religious or political affiliation of the author of these arguments. History has not created another mechanism. The only restraining mechanism is public opposition, which cannot be ignored. However, the dominant community is therefore the embodiment of social organizations because, unlike members of society, it is organized, i.e. systemic.
Hidden here is an explanation of the causal character of the entire social organization. The most important reason for its emergence is the objective need for social organization, as a mechanism for satisfying the objective needs of the dominant elite. Exactly dominant (i.e. ruling) having objective needs in legitimizing, maintaining and strengthening power over society, and ultimately over its resources. Without resources there is no meaning to power.
From all of the above, we can conclude that in the case of social development we are dealing with a deterministic process, which is based on the same resource reasons as any other processes of the development of matter. This means that social development can be studied, predicted and analyzed. In case of abandoning dogmatism and ideologization this conclusion opens unprecedented horizons for the development of social science in general and the methodology of social research in particular.
Ashin G.K., Ponedelkov A.V., Ignatov V.G., Starostin A.M. Fundamentals of political elitology. – M.: PRIOR, 1999.
Popper K. Open Society and Its Enemies. – WEB: http://books.atheism.ru/philosophy/open_assembly.zip
Chizhevsky A.L. Cosmic pulse of life: Earth in the embrace of the Sun. Heliotaraxy. – M.: Mysl, 1995. – P. 300-349.