Choose a concept that summarizes all other concepts in the series below. Write down this word (phrase).
Social revolution, economic reform, social progress, social dynamics, fundamental changes.
Explanation.
A social revolution is a qualitative revolution in the entire social structure of society.
Economic reform is a restructuring affecting the economic sphere.
Social progress is a development characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from simpler to more complex, and movement towards something more perfect.
Answer: social dynamics.
Find a concept that generalizes all other concepts in the series below. Write down this word (phrase).
Explanation.
Social dynamics is social change, movement, development.
Revolutionary transformations are a qualitative revolution in the entire social structure of society.
Social reform is a reorganization affecting any sphere of society.
Progress is development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from simple to more complex, movement towards more perfect.
Regression is a decline, a rollback.
Answer: social dynamics.
Answer: social dynamics
Subject area: Man and society. Concept of social progress
1) progress, 2) structure, 3) evolution, 4) reform, 5) decline, 6) stratification.
Explanation.
Social dynamics - movement, change and development of society. There are different directions (progress and regression), forms and types of social dynamics (revolution and evolution).
Reform is a change, transformation in any social sphere, emanating from the authorities.
Answer: 26
Source: Demo version of the Unified State Exam 2014 in social studies.
Find a concept that generalizes all other concepts in the series below. Write down this word (phrase).
Social revolution, political reform, social dynamics, counter-reform in education, social progress.
Explanation.
All concepts presented are changes in society, that is, social dynamics.
Answer: social dynamics.
Answer: social dynamics
Subject area: Man and society. Concept of social progress
The diagram shows the dynamics of marriage rates, divorce rates and poverty in the country Z in 2005–2007
Find in the list below the conclusions that can be drawn from the diagram and write down the numbers under which they are indicated.
Explanation.
1) During this period, there was a decrease in the poverty level. Yes, that's right, from 2005 to 2007 the number of people living below the poverty line decreased.
2) The increase in the number of marriages during this period was accompanied by an increase in the number of divorces. Yes, that’s right, positive dynamics are observed in the “marriages” and “divorces” columns.
3) During this period, the poverty level decreased by half. No, that's incorrect, from 17 to 13.
4) The number of marriages increased by a third from 2005 to 2007. No, incorrect, from 7 to 9, which is not a third.
5) During this period, the decline in poverty was accompanied by an increase in the marriage rate. Yes, that’s right, we are seeing positive dynamics in the “marriages” columns and negative ones in the “population below the poverty line” columns.
Answer: 125.
Answer: 125
Below is a list of terms. All of them, with the exception of two, characterize social dynamics.
1) progress
2) structure
3) evolution
4) reform
6) stratification
Find two terms that “fall out” from the general series and write down the numbers under which they are indicated in your answer.
Explanation.
Dynamics are changes. Structure and stratification are not. These terms describe society, not changes in it.
Answer: 26.
Answer: 26|62
Subject area: Man and society. Concept of social progress
Evgeny Zharko (Taganrog) 01.02.2013 02:06
Why is stratification not a term for changing society, a manifestation of its dynamics? After all, income changes throughout life, a person’s education doubles or triples, the achievement of prestigious needs is all an indicator of dynamics, changes in society
Anastasia Smirnova (St. Petersburg)
Stratification itself does not characterize dynamics. Its presence indicates the presence of dynamics, but nothing more.
Reform and revolution are
1) manifestations of social dynamics
2) elements of the structure of society
3) types of social connections
4) types of social institutions
Explanation.
Social dynamics - change, development, movement of society. Social changes are the transition of certain social objects from one state to another, the appearance of new properties, functions, relationships in them, i.e. modifications in social organization, social institutions, social structure, patterns of behavior established in society. Social changes leading to profound qualitative shifts are called social development.
Social structure is the interconnected elements that make up the internal structure of society. They are social groups, institutions, etc.
Social institutions are a historically established stable form of organizing the joint activities of people performing certain functions in society. The most important institutions are property, power, state, family, religion, education, science, etc.
The correct answer is listed under number 1.
Answer: 1
Subject area: Man and society. Concept of social progress
Petr Dmitrievich Sadovsky
Social institutions are a general concept, including political institutions.
Below is a list of terms. All of them, with the exception of two, characterize social dynamics. Find two terms that “fall out” from the general series and write down the numbers under which they are indicated in your answer.
Explanation.
Social dynamics does not include the concepts of inequality and social structure.
Answer: 2, 6.
Answer: 26|62
Subject area: Man and society. Concept of social progress
Valentin Ivanovich Kirichenko
Reform is transformation, which means change, therefore it relates.
Ksenia Kondyleva 17.11.2016 09:55
Does mobility have anything to do with social media? dynamics?
Valentin Ivanovich Kirichenko
Mobility is change, it means dynamics
Countries with warm, humid climates, such as Brazil and Colombia, find it profitable to grow and supply coffee to the world market. Brazil is a leader in the production of coffee beans, so any weather disaster in this country always has a dramatic effect on the dynamics of coffee prices. Against the background of the severe drought in Brazil in 2014, the Arabica variety rose in price at the fastest pace in the last 10 years. What economic phenomena can be illustrated by this situation? Write down the numbers under which they are indicated.
1) inflation
2) competition
3) specialization
4) monopolization
5) informatization
6) humanization
Explanation.
1) inflation - no, that’s not true, the Arabica variety has risen in price at the fastest rate in the last 10 years, but nothing is said about the dynamics of the general price level in these countries.
2) competition - yes, that’s right, two countries.
3) specialization - yes, that's right.
4) monopolization - no, incorrect, two countries.
5) informatization - no, incorrect.
6) humanization - no, incorrect.
Answer: 23.
Answer: 23
Select the correct statements about economic development and write down the numbers under which they are indicated.
1) The economic development of a country is influenced by the historical and geographical conditions of its existence.
2) There are no uniform patterns for the economic development of different countries.
3) One of the indicators of economic development of a society is the sectoral structure of the economy.
4) Economic development is characterized by both positive and negative economic dynamics.
5) The volume of GDP per capita characterizes the economic potential of the country.
Explanation.
The economic development of society is a multifaceted process, covering economic growth, structural changes in the economy, and increasing the level and quality of life of the population. This process does not always follow an ascending line; it includes periods of growth and decline.
1) The economic development of a country is influenced by the historical and geographical conditions of its existence - yes, that’s right.
2) There are no uniform patterns for the economic development of different countries - no, that’s not true.
3) One of the indicators of the economic development of a society is the sectoral structure of the economy - yes, that’s right.
4) Economic development is characterized by both positive economic dynamics and negative ones - yes, that’s right.
5) The volume of GDP per capita characterizes the economic potential of a country - no, it’s incorrect.
Answer: 134.
Answer: 134
Ivan George
There are universal economic patterns that influence the development of various countries.
Athena Maharramova 23.01.2019 11:09
Please explain why 5 is incorrect? Isn’t it the volume of GDP that determines the economic development of a country?
Ivan Ivanovich
Real GDP is a macroeconomic indicator that determines the economic growth of a state. But the statement is not about economic growth or development, but about economic potential, that is, the total ability of the country’s economy, its industries, to produce products, goods, services, to satisfy the needs of the population, social needs, to ensure the development of production and consumption.
Below is a list of terms. All of them, with the exception of two, characterize social dynamics.
1) progress
2) structure
3) evolution
4) reform
5) revolution
6) system
Find two terms that “fall out” from the general series, and write them down in the numbers under which they are indicated.
Explanation.
System and structure are not dynamics.
Answer: 26.
Answer: 26
Establish a correspondence between the objects of study of economic science and its sections.
Write down the numbers in your answer, arranging them in the order corresponding to the letters:
| A | B | IN | G | D |
Explanation.
Microeconomics is the activity of individual operating entities (enterprise). Macroeconomics is economic activity within a country. Macroeconomic indicators: GDP, inflation, unemployment, etc.
A) dynamics of gross domestic product - macroeconomics.
B) consumer behavior of individual goods and services - microeconomics.
C) conditions for business success in certain areas - microeconomics.
D) changes in exchange rates - macroeconomics.
D) causes of economic crises - macroeconomics.
Answer: 21122.
Answer: 21122
VTsIOM studied the dynamics of respondents' assessments of the degree of importance of a number of democratic institutions. The studies took place from 1997 to 2010. The results of the last year of the study are presented in the table. Draw three possible conclusions based on this data.
Dynamics of respondents’ assessments of the degree of importance of a number of democratic institutions (in%)
| Democratic institutions | 2010 |
|---|---|
| Multi-party system | |
| Important | 41 |
| Doesn't matter | 39 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 20 |
| Availability of representative authorities (Federation Council, State Duma, etc.) |
|
| Important | 47 |
| Doesn't matter | 29 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 24 |
| Freedom of enterprise | |
| Important | 65 |
| Doesn't matter | 15 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 20 |
| Freedom of speech and media | |
| Important | 75 |
| Doesn't matter | 11 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 14 |
| Freedom to travel abroad | |
| Important | 61 |
| Doesn't matter | 23 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 16 |
| Election of government bodies | |
| Important | 75 |
| Doesn't matter | 10 |
| I find it difficult to answer | 15 |
Source: monitoring studies of the Institute of Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Social studies lesson, 11th grade.
Topic: “Revolution and reforms. The problem of social progress and its criteria"
Lesson plan:
1. Define the concepts: revolution and reform.
2. The concept of progress. Social progress.
3. The problem of social progress and its criteria. The inconsistency of progress
4. The price of progress. The problem of the meaning and direction of the historical process.
Basic Concepts : reform, revolution, progress, social progress, regression.
Goals and objectives of the lesson:
1. As a result of the lesson, students should become familiar with historical concepts and problems of social development.
Find out how reform differs from revolution;
Remember which states went through revolutionary changes;
Create ideas about the cost of progress;
Analyze the problem of the meaning and direction of the historical process;
Learn to argue your point of view;
Determine the range of problems of social development;
Use and explain basic concepts;
Educational goal: to love and respect your Motherland and its history.
1. The process of social development can be reformist or revolutionary in nature, hence the derived concepts of “reformism”, “reformer”, “revolutionary”, “revolutionary”.
Reform - this is a change (most often an improvement) in any area of social life, carried out simultaneously, through a series of gradual transformations that do not affect its fundamental foundations.
Reforms can take place in all spheres of public life.
Social reforms carried out from above by the ruling circles are transformations, changes in any areas of social life that do not destroy the foundations of the existing social system (these reforms are directly related to people)
Economic - these are transformations of the economic mechanism - forms, methods, levers and organization of economic management of the country (privatization, bankruptcy law, tax laws, etc.)
Political – changes in the political sphere (changes in the constitution, expansion of civil liberties, electoral system, etc.)
The degree of reform reforms can be very significant, even changing the social system or types of economic activity: the reforms of Peter 1, the current reforms in Russia.
Reforms could be likeprogressive and regressive (reactionary).
The consequences of reforms do not always appear quickly, therefore, their objective assessment can only be given over time.
Another type of change isrevolution (turn, revolution), that is, a radical qualitative change in the foundations of any phenomena of nature, society and knowledge. The social revolution affects the foundations of the social order.
2. The essence and criterion of social progress
Progress - this is a forward movement, development, going along an ascending line from lower to higher, from simple to complex.
The opposite in meaning is the concept of regression. This is a downward movement, decline, degradation.
Processes of forward movement take place in a variety of areas of reality - in inorganic nature, in organic nature, in the life of society. These are processes of great variety.
The universal dialectical laws of existence manifest themselves in different ways in various forms of movement of matter, in qualitatively different areas of reality, processes. The forward movement receives special, specific features depending on the qualitative originality of those phenomena and processes in which this forward movement is carried out.
Progress in inorganic nature differs from progress in organic nature; progress in human society has its own special features inherent only to it. This is the basis for a special study of social progress, progress in the life of society.
Marx pointed out that “the concept of progress should not be taken in ordinary abstraction.”Progress - this is one of the forms of development, characterized by such irreversible changes in a phenomenon or an integral system, as a result of which their transition from lower to higher, from a less perfect to a more perfect state occurs. Having defined progress, it is necessary first to find outWhose progress - an individual, a social group, society or all of humanity - are we talking about? This is far from
an idle question, because the progress of an individual has its own characteristics and its own criteria that do not coincide with those in relation to society or humanity.
Social progress - this is the direction of development of human society, the genus “man”, characterized by such irreversible changes in humanity with all aspects of its life activity, as a result of which the transition of humanity from lower to higher, from a less perfect to a more perfect state takes place. Social progress is the development of the entire society as an integrity, the movement towards the perfection of all humanity. In the extensive literature devoted to social progress, there is currently no single answer to the main question: what is the general sociological criterion of social progress? A relatively small number of authors argue that the very posing of the question of a single criterion for social progress is unlawful, since human society is a complex organism, the development of which takes place along different lines, which makes it impossible to formulate a single criterion. Most authors consider it possible to formulate a single general sociological criterion of social progress.
However, even with the very formulation of such a criterion, there are significant discrepancies. One part of scientists argues that the general sociological criterion of social progress is the production forces of society.
A serious argument in favor of this position is that the history of mankind itself begins with the manufacture of tools and exists thanks to the continuity in the development of productive forces.
The disadvantage of this criterion is that the assessment of production forces in static terms involves taking into account their quantity, nature, achieved level of development and associated labor productivity, ability to grow, which is very
important when comparing different countries and stages of historical development. For example, the number of production forces in modern India is greater than in South Korea, but their quality is lower. If the development of productive forces is taken as a criterion of progress; assessing them in dynamics, this presupposes a comparison no longer from the point of view of greater or lesser development of production forces, but from the point of view of the course and speed of their development. But in this case the question arises, what period should be taken for comparison.
Another part of the authors, taking into account the difficulties that arise when using the criterion discussed above, believes that all difficulties will be overcome if we take the method of production of material goods as a general sociological criterion of social progress. A strong argument in favor of this position is that the foundation of social progress is the development of the mode of production as a whole, and that by taking into account the state and growth of production forces, as well as the nature of production relations, the progressive nature of one formation in relation to another can be shown much more fully.
Without denying that the transition from one mode of production to another, more progressive one, underlies progress in a number of other areas, opponents of this point of view almost always note that the main question remains unresolved: how to determine the very progressiveness of this new production method.
This two-pronged criterion of social progress is captivating at first glance because it takes into account the unity of man’s relationship to nature and to society, to natural and social forces.
However, the “Achilles heel” of this position lies not only in the internal inconsistency of the elements of the proposed criterion, but also in its focus on analyzing the antagonistic form of social progress.
The fourth group of authors, rightly believing that human society is, first of all, a developing community of people, puts forward the development of man himself as a general sociological criterion for social progress.
The most important argument in favor of such a criterion of social progress is that it is absurd to talk about the progressive development of humanity, not to mention the progress of man, the people who make up this humanity. It is also indisputable that the course of human history really testifies to the development of the people who make up human society, their social and individual strengths, abilities, and inclinations.
1. Yu. I. Semenov. An objective criterion of social progress. “Questions of Philosophy”, 1962, No. 9.
2. For a more detailed presentation of the question of the criterion of social progress, see: a. A. Makarovsky. "social progress". M., politizdat, 1970, and in the article “on the criterion of social progress” (“Philosophical Sciences”, 1968, No. 2). See also book: v. Mishin. "social progress". Gorky, 1970.
The concept of social revolution. Revolutions and reforms
A social revolution is a qualitative leap in the development of society, which is accompanied by the transfer of state power into the hands of a revolutionary class or classes and profound changes in all spheres of public life.
According to Marx, social revolutions are an expression of the essence of the natural historical process of development of society. They have a universal, natural character and represent the most important fundamental changes taking place in the history of mankind. The law of social revolution discovered by Marxism points to the objective need to replace one socio-economic formation with another, more progressive one.
Non-Marxist and anti-Marxist concepts generally deny the regularity of social revolutions. Thus, G. Spencer compared social revolutions with famine, disasters, widespread disease, manifestations of disobedience, and “agitation that grew to revolutionary meetings,” open uprisings, which he called “social changes of an abnormal nature.”2 K. Popper identified revolution with violence . The social revolution, according to him, destroys the traditional structure of society and its institutions... But... if they (people - I.Sh.) destroy tradition, then civilization disappears along with it... They return to the animal state.1
The concept of social revolution and its types has an ambiguous interpretation in modern literature. The term “revolution” entered social science less than three centuries ago, and in its modern meaning it is used relatively recently. In general, as is known, the term “social revolution” is used, firstly, to designate the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, i.e. social revolution is understood as an era of transition from one type of production to another over a long period of time; this era, with logical necessity, completes the process of resolving the contradiction between productive forces and production relations that arises at a certain stage in the development of production, and the conflict between the latter exacerbates all social contradictions and naturally leads to class struggle, in which the oppressed class must deprive the exploiters of political power; secondly, to ensure a similar transition within a separate social organism; thirdly, to denote a relatively fleeting political revolution; fourthly, to denote a revolution in the social sphere of public life;2 fifthly, to denote the method of historical action as opposed to another method - reformist, etc. (the term “revolution” is often understood as an extremely broad scientific revolution, technical, commercial , financial, agricultural, environmental and sexual). 1
Within the framework of the national state in which the social revolution is taking place, three most important structural elements can be distinguished: 1) political revolution (political revolution);
2) qualitative transformations of economic relations (economic revolution); 3) cultural and ideological transformations (cultural revolution). Let us emphasize that Marx also developed two concepts of revolution: social and political. The process of approaching the understanding of the essence of social revolution was also complex in Marxism. At first, its founders contrasted the concepts of “political revolution” and “social revolution,” understanding the first as bourgeois revolutions, and the second as proletarian ones. Only after some time does Marx come to the conclusion: “Every revolution destroys the old society, and to that extent it is social. Every revolution overthrows the old government, and to that extent it has a political character.”2 In this regard, the point of view of M. A. Seleznev is acceptable, arguing that since the socio-economic and political aspects of the revolution are interconnected, then “the revolutions that are carried out by the progressive class in the socio-economic and political field through conscious and violent actions and which are inextricably linked with each other in space and time, it would be more accurate to call them socio-political revolutions.”3
While the political revolution aims to put the mechanism of state power at the service of the new class, i.e. make it politically dominant, then the economic revolution must ensure the dominance of production relations corresponding to the nature of the productive forces and the interests of the progressive class. Revolutionary economic transformations end only with the victory of the new mode of production. Similarly, a radical change in the formation of a new consciousness, in the creation of a new spiritual culture occurs only during the cultural revolution, as the corresponding economic, political, educational and cultural-ideological prerequisites are created.2
Despite all the ambiguity of approaches to the essence of social revolution, we can agree that there are its general principles: 1) the presence of causes of social revolution (expansion and aggravation of contradictions); 2) the maturity of objective conditions and the subjective factor and their interaction as the law of social revolution; 3) social revolution as progress (a combination of evolutionary and abrupt changes); 4) resolving the fundamental issue (about power).
The Marxist theory of social revolution argues that the main cause of social revolution is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the aggravation of social antagonisms, in the intensification of the struggle between the ruling class, interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed classes . Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in the overthrow of the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of the social revolution. A revolution is never the fruit of a conspiracy of individuals or the arbitrary actions of a minority isolated from the masses. It can only arise as a result of objective changes that set in motion mass forces and create a revolutionary situation 1. Thus, social revolutions are not just random outbreaks of discontent, revolts or coups. They “are not made to order, are not confined to one moment or another, but mature in the process of historical development and burst out at a moment determined by a complex of a number of internal and external reasons.”
Cardinal changes in the reality of our days and in public and individual consciousness undoubtedly require a new understanding of the problem of social reorganization along the path of progress. This understanding is, first of all, associated with clarifying the relationship between evolution and revolution, reform and revolution.
As already indicated, evolution is usually understood in general as quantitative changes, and revolution as qualitative changes. Wherein reform is also identified with quantitative changes and accordingly is opposed to revolution.
Evolution is a continuous series of qualitative changes following one another, as a result of which the nature of non-indigenous aspects that are not essential for a given quality changes. Taken together, these gradual changes prepare the leap as a radical, qualitative change. A revolution is a change in the internal structure of a system, which becomes a link between two evolutionary stages in the development of the system. Reform- this is part of evolution, its one-time moment, act.
Reform- this is a special form of the revolutionary process, if we understand revolution as the resolution of the contradiction, primarily between the productive forces (content) and production relations (form). Reform can be seen as both a destructive and a creative process. The destructive nature of the reforms is manifested in the fact that, from the point of view of the revolutionary forces, concessions in the form of reforms carried out by the ruling class “undermine” the latter’s positions. And this, as we know, can push the ruling class to violent actions in order to maintain its dominance unchanged (and the revolutionary forces to retaliatory actions). As a result of this, the preparation of qualitative changes in the social organism is conserved, or even interrupted.
The creative nature of reforms is manifested in the fact that they prepare new qualitative changes, promote a peaceful transition to a new qualitative state of society, a peaceful form of the revolutionary process - revolution. By underestimating the importance of reforms in the progressive transformation of society, we underestimate the role of form in the development of content, which in itself is not dialectical. Consequently, revolution and reform are necessary components of the specific historical stage of development of human society, forming a contradictory unity. But reforms as such still do not change the foundation of the old social system.
There is no doubt that in the revolutionary processes of modern history the importance of constructive goals inevitably increases to the detriment of destructive ones. Reforms are transformed from a subordinate and auxiliary moment of the revolution into a unique form of its expression. This creates opportunities for interpenetration and, obviously, mutual transition, mutual influence of reform and revolution.
From the above it follows that from now on it is necessary to consider revolutionary not what goes beyond the scope of reform, but what allows one to expand this framework to the level and requirements of the tasks of a radical transformation of existing social relations. The point is not in the opposition of “movement” and “ultimate goal”, but in linking them in such a way that in the course and result of the “movement” the “ultimate goal” can be realized. “Revolutionary reformism” rejects as untenable the alternative: revolution or reform. If we do not believe in the evolutionary possibilities of our domestic civilization and are again inclined only to revolutions and coups, then there can be no talk of reforms.
Thus, based on the analysis of world history and the main historical types of social revolutions in general, it can be argued that social revolutions are necessary and natural, because, ultimately, they marked the movement of humanity along the path of progressive socio-historical development. But the revolutionary process (as well as the evolutionary process) is not a one-time act. During this process, the tasks initially set by the subjects of the revolution are clarified and deepened, a fundamental affirmation occurs, and ideas are materialized. Revolutions, in the words of Marx, “constantly criticize themselves... returning to what seems already accomplished in order to begin it all over again, ridiculing with merciless thoroughness the half-heartedness, weaknesses and worthlessness of their first attempts.”
Progress (from Latin - movement forward, success) means development with an upward tendency, movement from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. It leads to positive changes in society and manifests itself, for example:
in improving the means of production and labor;
in the development of the social division of labor and the growth of its productivity;
in new achievements of science;
in improving people's living conditions.
Progress criteria are announced
1. Complicated social organizations of society (G. Spencer),
2. Changes in the system of social connections and the type of regulation of social relations (F. Tönnies),
3. Changes in the nature of production and consumption (W. Rostow, D. Bell),
4. The degree of mastery by society of the spontaneous forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the spontaneous forces of social development (K. Marx).
Scientists consider the growing tendency towards human liberation to be an important sign of social progress – ᴛ.ᴇ. release:
1. from state suppression;
2. from the dictates of the collective;
3. from any exploitation;
4. from closed living space;
5. out of fear for your safety and future.
Regression (from Lat. - reverse movement), on the contrary, implies development with a downward tendency, backward movement, a transition from higher to lower, which leads to negative consequences. It can manifest itself, say, in a decrease in the efficiency of production and the equation of people’s well-being, in the spread of smoking, drunkenness, drug addiction in society, deterioration in public health, an increase in mortality, a drop in the level of spirituality and morality of people, etc.
Progress and regression are often intricately intertwined.
When they radically change the entire social structure as a whole, a social revolution takes place. when there is a growing need to carry out not one, two or three reforms, but a much larger number of them in such a way as to fundamentally change the nature of society, some party or association of people, for example, the military elite, carries out a social revolution. Revolution is a collection of a large number or complex of reforms carried out simultaneously with the aim of changing the foundations of the social system.
In addition to evolution and revolution, the main form of social development of society is reform – This is a set of measures aimed at transforming, changing and reorganizing certain aspects of social life.
Reforms are called social if they concern transformations in those areas of society or those aspects of public life that are directly related to people and affect their level and lifestyle, health, participation in public life, and access to social benefits. Changing the rules for using intercity telephones, railway transport or metro affects the interests of citizens. But such reforms are hardly called social. On the contrary, the introduction of universal secondary education, health insurance, unemployment benefits or a new form of social protection of the population does not simply affect our interests. Such reforms affect the social status of numerous segments of the population, limiting or expanding the access of millions to social benefits - education, health care, employment, guarantees.
Along with social reforms, economic and political reforms are distinguished. The transition of the economy to market prices, privatization, the law on bankruptcy of enterprises, the new tax system are examples of economic reforms. Changing the constitution, forms of voting in elections, expanding civil liberties, moving from a monarchy to a republic are examples of political reforms. The expression “legislative reforms” is also used, but it is incorrect to talk about technical reforms. In this case, they write about technical innovations or inventions.
In other words, reforms are partial changes that affect not the whole society, but its individual spheres or institutions. Reforms can be both progressive and regressive. The same can be said about revolutions. The introduction of censorship in the press cannot be called a progressive event. Reforms, as a rule, do not affect all countries, but each one separately, since this is an internal matter of the state. Reforms always occur “from above”, carried out by the government, although under pressure from the broad masses of the population.
Test questions for self-testing student knowledge:
1) How do evolutionary and revolutionary processes in society differ?
2) . Why is the Marxist theory of social development classified as both evolutionary and revolutionary theories?
3) What phases in the development of cultural and historical types does N.Ya. Danilevsky highlight?
4) What example from modern Russian theory would T. Parsons classify as a social change of the “change of equilibrium” type?
5) What areas of social life cannot be assessed from the point of view of progressive development?
6) What are the forms of cooperation and why are these social processes considered one of the most significant in human activity?
7) Why is competition often called the antipode of cooperation? What is the essence of the competition process?
8) What are the processes of assimilation and amalgamation based on? What can interfere with the flow of these processes?
Topic 18 Social changes. Social change is one of the most general sociological concepts. Depending on the research paradigm, social change can be understood as the transition of a social object from one state to another, a change... [read more]
Social change is one of the most general sociological concepts. Depending on the research paradigm, social change can be understood as the transition of a social object from one state to another, a change in socio-economic formation,... [read more]
[read more]
Progress (from Latin - movement forward, success) means development with an upward tendency, movement from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. It leads to positive changes in society and manifests itself, for example: in the improvement of means of production... [read more]
-
1. 1.The concept of social changes, their forms. 2. Social change and social stability. 3. The concept of social development. The nonlinear nature of social development and the problem of social progress. 1 Social change is a change in the way of organizing... [read more]
1. 1.The concept of social changes, their forms. 2. Social change and social stability. 3. The concept of social development. The nonlinear nature of social development and the problem of social progress. Literature. Sociology. Fundamentals of general theory. Ed. G.V.Osipova...
Social change– one of the most general sociological concepts. Depending on the research paradigm, social change can be understood as the transition of a social object from one state to another, a change in socio-economic formation, a significant modification in the social organization of society, its institutions and social structure, a change in established social patterns of behavior, renewal of institutional forms, etc.
Social change can be done in two ways:
- first, evolutionary way, assumes that changes are the result of the natural, progressive development of society;
- second, revolutionary the path implies a radical reorganization of the social order, carried out at the will of social actors.
In classical sociology, until the beginning of the 20th century, the evolutionary and revolutionary concept of the development of society was based on the recognition of the objectivity of social knowledge, which corresponded to the general scientific paradigm of the 18th–19th centuries, according to which scientific knowledge is based on objective reality. The difference was that thinkers - adherents of evolutionism believed that objective knowledge about the nature of social reality helps to intelligently navigate social actions and that social nature should not be violated, while supporters of revolutionary changes, on the contrary, proceeded from the need to reorganize the world in accordance with its internal patterns.
The evolutionary approach originates in the studies of Charles Darwin. The main problem of evolutionism in sociology was the identification of the determining factor of social change. Auguste Comte considered the progress of knowledge to be such a factor. The development of knowledge from its theological, mystified form to a positive form determines the transition from a military society based on submission to deified heroes and leaders, to an industrial society, which is carried out thanks to the human mind.
Herbert Spencer saw the essence of evolution and social change in the complication of the structure of society, the strengthening of its differentiation, which is accompanied by the growth of integration processes that restore the unity of the social organism at each new stage of its development. Social progress is accompanied by the complication of society, leading to an increase in the independence of citizens, to an increase in the freedom of individuals, to a more complete service of their interests by society.
Emile Durkheim viewed the process of social change as a transition from mechanical solidarity, based on the underdevelopment and similarity of individuals and their social functions, to organic solidarity, arising on the basis of the division of labor and social differentiation, which leads to the integration of people into a single society and is the highest moral principle of society .
Karl Marx considered the determining factor of social change to be the productive forces of society, the growth of which leads to a change in the method of production, which, being the basis for the development of the entire society, ensures a change in the socio-economic formation. On the one hand, according to Marx’s “materialist understanding of history,” productive forces develop objectively and evolutionarily, increasing man’s power over nature. On the other hand, in the course of their development, new classes are formed, whose interests come into conflict with the interests of the ruling classes, which determine the nature of existing production relations. Thus, a conflict arises within the mode of production formed by the unity of productive forces and production relations. The progress of society is possible only on the basis of a radical renewal of the method of production, and new economic and political structures can appear only as a result of a social revolution carried out by new classes against the old, dominant ones. Therefore, social revolutions, according to Marx, are the locomotives of history, ensuring the renewal and acceleration of the development of society. Marx's works presented evolutionary and revolutionary approaches to the analysis of social change.
Max Weber was opposed to the idea that social sciences could discover the laws of social development in a similar way to natural sciences. He believed, however, that generalizations could be made to characterize social change. Weber saw their driving force in the fact that a person, relying on various religious, political, moral values, creates certain social structures that facilitate social development, as has always happened in the West, or complicate this development, which Weber considered characteristic of the countries of the East.
Social revolution– a sharp qualitative revolution in the social structure of society; a way of transition from one form of socio-political structure to another. Social revolutions are divided into anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, national liberation, bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic, people's and people's democratic, socialist, etc.
The nature, scale and specific content of any revolution are determined by the conditions of the socio-economic formation that it is intended to eliminate, as well as the specifics of the socio-economic system for which it clears the ground. As we move to higher stages of social development, the scale expands, the content deepens, and the objective tasks of the revolution become more complicated. In the early stages of the history of society (the transition from the primitive communal system to the slave-owning one, from the slave-owning to the feudal one), the revolution occurred mainly spontaneously and consisted of a combination of sporadic, in most cases local, mass movements and uprisings. During the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the revolution acquires the features of a national process in which the conscious activity of political parties and organizations plays an increasingly important role.
Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in the overthrow of the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of the revolution.
Most modern concepts of revolutionary social change, developed within the framework of the modernist approach, are based on Marx’s assessments and interpretation of the events of the Great French Revolution of 1789. The Marxist theory of revolutions focuses on radical changes in the economic and political organization of society, changes in the basic forms of social life. Today, the vast majority of researchers agree that revolutions lead to fundamental, comprehensive, multidimensional changes that affect the very basis of social order.
A detailed analysis of concepts that can be attributed to the “modernist” direction in the study of revolutions is given by Peter Sztompka. He highlights four theories of revolution:
- behaviorist, or behavioral, is a theory proposed in 1925 by Pitirim Sorokin, according to which the causes of revolutions lie in the suppression of the basic instincts of the majority of the population and the inability of the authorities to influence the changing behavior of the masses;
- psychological - represented by the concepts of James Davis and Ted Gurr, who see the cause of revolutions in the fact that the masses are painfully aware of their poverty and social injustice and rise as a result to revolt;
- structural – when analyzing revolutions, it focuses on the macrostructural level and denies psychological factors; a modern representative of this trend is Ted Skocpol.
- political - considers revolutions as the result of an imbalance of power and the struggle of rival factions for control of the state (Charles Tiley).
In some modern studies, revolutionary changes in society are considered as a “moment of social evolution.” Thus, the original meaning of the term “revolution” in the natural and social sciences (revolvo – Latin “return”, “circle”), forgotten since the time of Marx, is restored.
From the point of view of social progress, it is more preferable to implement reasonable economic, social and political reforms in the state in accordance with its inherent patterns of development. If the reforms undertaken are contrary to the nature of society, if they are not corrected as a result of “feedback”, then the likelihood of revolution increases. Although revolution is a more painful means in comparison with social reforms, in some cases it should be considered as a positive phenomenon; Ultimately, it helps prevent the process of disintegration of society and its destruction.
Social reform- this is a transformation, reorganization, change in any aspect of social life that does not destroy the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class. Understood in this sense, the path of gradual transformation of existing relations is contrasted with revolutionary explosions that sweep away the old order, the old system to the ground. Marxism considered the evolutionary process, which preserved many relics of the past for a long time, too painful for the people.
Today, great reforms (i.e., revolutions carried out “from above”) are recognized as the same social anomalies as great revolutions. Both of these ways of solving social contradictions are opposed to the normal, healthy practice of “permanent reform in a self-regulating society.” A new concept of reform-innovation is introduced. Innovation is understood as an ordinary, one-time improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of a social organism in given conditions.