The extent of a social system is determined by the availability of information. The concept of a social system, its essence and structure

Social structure of Russian society

Despite the fact that society is a complex social system, it consists of relatively independent parts. Concepts such as “social structure” and “social system” are closely related.

The social system is represented by social phenomena and processes. They have connections with each other and form an integral social object. As part of a social system, social structure combines social composition and social connections.

The elements of social composition form the social structure. A set of connections of these elements form its second component. Social structure represents a stable connection of elements in a social system and means the division of society into groups.

These groups are different in their social status and in relation to the method of production. Classes, groups, for example, ethnic, professional, socio-territorial communities - city, village, are the main elements of the social structure. These elements have their own subsystems and connections.

The structure reflects the features of social relations of classes and groups. These relationships are determined by their place and role.

The Russian social structure of society consists of five main layers:

The ruling elite and big businessmen belong to the upper stratum. Their financial independence is ensured. Representatives of the “top” are a small part of Russian citizens;
The emerging stratum lies between the elite and the middle class. These include small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, managers and owners, and this also includes the petty bourgeoisie.
The largest layer in Russia's social structure is the very diverse base layer. As a result, it is difficult to combine them with each other. The base layer is represented by the intelligentsia, highly skilled workers, and peasants. Among them there are people with higher education and professionals without education, but with extensive work experience. What unites them is their desire to maintain their positions.
There is also a lower, very motley layer in the social structure - low-skilled workers, refugees and migrants. Their income is at the subsistence level. As statistics show, the base and lower strata are the main part of Russian society and represent the so-called “people”.
There are representatives of the so-called “social bottom” in the social structure of society. A number of researchers do not include this category of citizens in the general scheme, but they are also part of Russian society - these are drug addicts, prostitutes, homeless people, alcoholics, pimps, and representatives of the criminal environment. This “bottom” is isolated from other classes. It is sometimes impossible to change a person who finds himself in such an environment. The “social bottom” exists in all countries of the world and has similar views on life.

Thus, the social structure is a kind of framework for the entire system of social relations that organize public life. The diversity of social strata of society is studied by the theory of social stratification.

The concept of “social system”

Definition 1

A social system is understood as a way of organizing the life of a group on the basis of their social roles. It appears as the unification of parts of a system into a whole with the help of norms and values.

It can be represented as a hierarchical structure of levels: biosphere, ethnosphere, sociosphere, psychosphere, anthroposphere. The behavior of an individual, as a member of a group, is described at each level of this hierarchical pyramid.

American sociologist T. Parsons, in his work “The Social System,” developed its problems, considering society as a whole.

Self-preservation is a mechanism of a social system that strives to maintain balance, which means the problem of social control arises. Control is defined as a process that counteracts social deviations of the system.

Together with the processes of socialization, control ensures the integration of individuals into society. This happens through the individual’s assimilation of norms, values, cultural heritage, i.e. through interiorization.

Society is developing, social conditions are constantly changing, so the individual must be able to adapt to new conditions.

Interiorization consists of three stages:

individualization, which, according to L. Vygotsky’s theory, is the closest zone of child development;
intimateization, when there is a change from “We” to “I”, i.e. there is self-awareness;
crystallization of personality is the stage of release of processed knowledge, experience, and information.

The process of socialization and forms of social control cannot do without the determining role of culture. It reflects the nature of interactions between individuals and groups.

Note 1

The social system, therefore, is nothing more than a product and a special type of interaction between people, their feelings, emotions, and moods. Social systems are structural elements of social reality.

Social system and its structure

A system is a phenomenon or process that consists of a set of elements. The elements form a single whole and interact with each other and are capable of changing their structure.

For any system, the characteristic features are integrity and integration. Integrity denotes the objective form of existence of a phenomenon. Integration captures the process and the mechanism for combining its parts.

The sums of the incoming parts will be less than the whole, which means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements. These new qualities are designated as systemic and integral.

Among the elements of a social system there can be ideal and random ones.

The basis of a social system is one or another community of people, and people are elements of a social system. People's activities are not isolated, but occur in the process of interaction with other people. As a result of this interaction, the individual is systematically influenced, just as he is influenced by other people and the social environment.

Thus, a community of people becomes a social system and has qualities that none of the elements included in it have separately.

Individuals with certain social positions and certain social functions in accordance with the norms and values of a given social system form its structure.

Note 2

"Social structure" has no generally accepted definition. In various works, this concept is defined as “organization of relations”, “pattern of behavior”, “relationship between groups and individuals”, etc., which does not contradict at all, but complements each other and gives an integral idea of the properties and elements of the social structure.

Social structure has its own types:

ideal, connecting together imagination, convictions, beliefs;
normative, including social roles, values, norms;
organizational, defining the relationships between positions or statuses;
random, which contains elements that are currently available and included in its functioning.

The organizational and regulatory structures are considered as a whole, and their elements are considered strategic.

Ideal and random structures, together with their elements, can cause both positive and negative deviations in the behavior of the social structure as a whole. The consequence will be a mismatch in the interaction of various structures and a dysfunctional disorder of this system.

The structure of the social system has its own determinism. The patterns of development and functioning of a social system can have positive or negative socially significant consequences for a given society.

FEDERAL RAILWAY TRANSPORT AGENCY

SIBERIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNICATION ROUTES

Department of Social Psychology of Management

ABSTRACT

On the topic: “Specifics of social systems”

Novosibirsk 2010
The content of the work:
Introduction……………………………………………………………3

The concept of a social system…………………………………….3

Five organizational levels of a social system………….6

Types of social systems…………………………………………7

Components of social systems …………………………………15

Conclusion……………………………………………………18

List of used literature…………………………………..19

Introduction
The elements of any social system are people. The inclusion of a person in society is carried out through various social communities, which each specific person personifies: social groups, social institutions, social organizations and systems of norms and values accepted in society, i.e. through culture. Because of this, a person finds himself included in many social systems, each of which has a systematized impact on him. A person thus becomes not only an element of a social system, but he himself represents a system that has a very complex structure.
In the course of organization theory, social systems are considered primarily, since all others are somehow reduced to them. The main connecting element of the social system is man.
The concept of “social system” was used in their works by ancient thinkers, but they meant, first of all, the general idea of the orderliness of social life, therefore, in a strict sense, it was closer to the concept of “social order”. The concept of “social system” was scientifically formalized only at the present time, in connection with the development of a systems approach in science.

Concept of social system

There are two possible approaches to defining a social system.
In one of them, the social system is considered as the orderliness and integrity of many individuals and groups of individuals. This definition is given by analogy with the definition of a system in general as “a complex of elements that interact,” as formulated by L. Bertalanffy, one of the founders of the “general theory of systems.” With this approach, interaction turns into an adjective, which clearly does not take into account the specifics of social systems and the role of social relations in them.
But another approach is also possible, in which the starting point is to consider the social as one of the main forms of the movement of matter. In this case, the social form of the movement of matter appears before us as a global social system. What is fixed in the generally accepted names of the basic forms of motion of matter? They record the specificity of the type of interaction inherent in a given form (for example, metabolism is a specific type of biological interaction). At the same time, the qualitative boundaries between the forms of motion of matter are determined by their material carrier (macrobody, atom, electron, biosystem, social collective, etc.). Thus, the traditional approach to defining a system is, in principle, not violated, since both the “carrier” and the “interaction” are present in it, only their logical position in the conceptual space changes, which, in our opinion, allows us to better understand the place of a person in a complex network of social relationships called social system.
With this approach, as a working definition, we can say that a social system is an ordered, self-governing integrity of many diverse social relations, the bearer of which is the individual and the social groups in which he is included. What, then, are the characteristic features of a social system?
Firstly, from this definition it follows that there is a significant diversity of social systems, because the individual is included in various social groups, large and small (planetary community of people, society within a given country, class, nation, family, etc.). If this is so, then society as a whole as a system acquires a super-complex and hierarchical character: it is possible to distinguish various levels in it - in the form of subsystems, sub-subsystems, etc. - which are interconnected by subordinate lines, not to mention the subordination of each of them to impulses and commands emanating from the system as a whole. At the same time, it must be taken into account that the intrasystem hierarchy is not absolute, but relative. Each subsystem, each level of the social system is simultaneously non-hierarchical, i.e., it has a certain degree of autonomy, which does not weaken the system as a whole, but, on the contrary, strengthens it: it allows for a more flexible and prompt response to signals coming from outside, without overloading the upper ones. levels of the system with such functions and reactions that lower levels of integrity can fully cope with.
Secondly, from this definition it follows that since we have integrity in the face of social systems, the main thing in systems is their integrative quality, which is not characteristic of the parts and components that form them, but inherent in the system as a whole. Thanks to this quality, the relatively independent, separate existence and functioning of the system is ensured. There is a dialectical relationship between the integrity of the system and its integrative quality that unites the entire system: the integrative quality is generated in the process of the system becoming an integrity and at the same time acts as a guarantor of this integrity, including through the transformation of the components of the system according to the nature of the system as a whole. Such integration becomes possible due to the presence in the system of a system-forming component, which “attracts” all other components to itself and creates that same unified field of gravity, which allows the multitude to become whole.
Thirdly, from this definition it follows that a person is a universal component of social systems; he is certainly included in each of them, starting with society as a whole and ending with the family. Having been born, a person immediately finds himself included in the system of relations that has developed in a given society, and before he becomes their bearer and even manages to have a transformative effect on it, he himself must; fit into it. The socialization of an individual is essentially his adaptation to the existing system; it precedes his attempts to adapt the system itself to his needs and interests.
Fourthly, from this definition it follows that social systems belong to the category of self-governing ones. This feature characterizes only highly organized integral systems, both natural and natural history (biological and social) and artificial (automated machines). The very ability to self-regulation and self-development presupposes the presence in each of such systems of special management subsystems in the form of certain mechanisms, bodies and institutions. The role of this subsystem is extremely important - it is it that ensures the integration of all components of the system and their coordinated action. And if we remember that an individual, a social group, and society as a whole always act purposefully, then the importance of the management subsystem will become even more visible. We often hear the expression: “The system is running wild,” that is, it is self-destructing. When does this become possible? Obviously, when the control subsystem begins to malfunction, or even fails altogether, as a result of which a mismatch occurs in the actions of the system components. In particular, the enormous costs that society suffers during the period of its revolutionary transformation are largely due to the fact that a time gap is formed between the destruction of the old management system and the creation of a new one.

Five organizational levels of a social system

A social system is a way of organizing the life of a group of people, which arises as a result of the interaction of individuals on the basis of dictated social roles. The system arises as a union into an orderly and self-preserving whole with the help of norms and values that ensure the interdependence of the parts of the system and the subsequent integration of the whole.
The social system can be presented as a hierarchical structure of the following organizational levels: biosphere, ethnosphere, sociosphere, psychosphere, anthroposphere. At each level of the hierarchical pyramid (Fig. 1), we describe the behavior of an individual, as a member of a certain group, through certain rules of behavior aimed at achieving a set goal.

Figure 1. Hierarchy of organizational levels
At the lower, biosphere level, a group of people represents a subsystem of an ecological system that lives mainly on the energy of the Sun and participates in the exchange of biomass with other subsystems of this level. The Earth's biosphere is considered from the point of view of the theory of V.I. Vernadsky. Society in this case is a collection of individual consumers of someone else’s biomass who do not have any noticeable influence on each other, giving up their biomass as a result of biological death. This society is better called a population.
At the second, ethnic level, a group is already a collective of individuals capable of common unconscious actions and characterized by identical unconscious responses to external influences, that is, a well-defined stereotype of behavior generated by landscape (regional) conditions of residence. Such a society is called an ethnos. The ethnos lives due to the biochemical energy of the passionary impulse initially received at birth, which is wasted on culture and art characteristic only of it, technical innovations, wars and on maintaining a nourishing surrounding landscape.
At the third, social level, the group is a society. Each individual has his own system of action, which is consistent with social consciousness. Here we consider society on the basis of T. Parsons' theory of social action. By uniting individuals into a cohesive group, society regulates the behavior of everyone within that group. The behavior of group members is based on social actions determined by social statuses and a set of social roles.
At the fourth, psychic level, the group is a crowd. Each member of the group has a set of collective reflexes. A collective reflex is a synchronized response of a group of people to an external stimulus. The behavior of a group is a chain of successive collective reflexes. The basis of the model at this level is the theory of collective reflexes by V.M. Bekhterev.
At the last level, the group is a thinking organization, each member of which has his own inner world. To construct a multi-agent model of society at this level, we can choose N. Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic systems. Here the elements of the system are communications. Communication is not only a process of transmitting information, but also a self-referential process.
To model a social system, various theories describing society can be used. But these theories complement rather than contradict each other. By modeling a social system based on the chosen theory, we obtain a model of a certain level. Next, we combine these models hierarchically. Such a multi-level model will most adequately reflect the dynamics of development of a real society.

Types of social systems

In the course of organization theory, social systems are considered primarily, since all others are somehow reduced to them. The main connecting element of the social system is man. Social systems, depending on the goals set, can be educational, economic, political, medical, etc. Figure 2 shows the main types of social systems according to the direction of their activities.

Fig. 2 Types of social systems.
In real life, social systems are implemented in the form of organizations, companies, firms, etc. The products of such organizations are goods (services), information or knowledge. Thus, a social organization is a social (social) subsystem, characterized by the presence of a person as a subject and object of management in a set of interrelated elements and realizes itself in the production of goods, services, information and knowledge.
In the theory of organizations, socio-political, socio-educational, socio-economic and other organizations are distinguished. Each of these types has a priority of its own goals. Thus, for socio-economic organizations the main goal is to obtain maximum profit; for socio-cultural ones - achieving aesthetic goals, and obtaining maximum profit is a secondary goal; for socio-educational - achieving a modern level of knowledge, and making a profit is also a secondary goal.
Social organizations play a significant role in the modern world. Their features:
realization of human potential and abilities;
formation of unity of interests of people (personal, collective, public). Unity of goals and interests serves as a system-forming factor;
complexity, dynamism and high levels of uncertainty.
Social organizations cover various spheres of human activity in society. Mechanisms of interaction between people through socialization create the conditions and prerequisites for the development of communication skills, the formation of positive moral standards of people in social and industrial relations. They also create a system of control that includes punishment and rewards for individuals so that the actions they choose do not go beyond the norms and rules available to the system. In social organizations, objective (natural) and subjective (artificial, by human will) processes take place. Objective ones include cyclical processes of decline and rise in the activities of a social organization, processes associated with the actions of the laws of social organization, for example, synergy, composition and proportionality, awareness. Subjective processes include processes associated with making management decisions (for example, processes associated with the privatization of a social organization).
In a social organization there are formal and informal leaders. A leader is an individual who has the greatest influence on the employees of a team, workshop, site, department, etc. He embodies group norms and values and advocates for these norms. The formal leader (manager) is appointed by higher management and is endowed with the necessary rights and responsibilities. An informal leader is a member of a social organization who is recognized by a group of people as a professional (authority) or advocate in matters of interest to them. A leader usually becomes a person whose professional or organizational potential is significantly higher than the potential of his colleagues in any field of activity.
There can be several informal leaders in a team only in non-overlapping areas of activity.
When appointing a leader, senior management should strive to take into account the possibility of combining a formal and informal leader in one person.
The basis of social organization is a small group of people. A small group unites up to 30 people, performs similar or related functions and is located in close proximity (in the same room, on the same floor, etc.).
In Fig. 3 (a, b, c, d) presents the basic diagrams of relationships between individuals in an organization and the naming of connections.

Rice. 3a. Linear diagram (linear connections).

There is no feedback in the circuit. The linear scheme works well in small social organizations with high professionalism and authority of the leader; as well as the great interest of subordinates in the successful work of the social organization.
The ring scheme has proven itself well in small social organizations or in divisions of medium-sized social organizations, a social organization with stable products and markets, in which there is a clear division of functional responsibilities among professional workers.

Fig.3b. Ring diagram (functional connections).

Rice. 3c. "Wheel" diagram (linear-functional connections).

The “wheel” scheme has proven itself well in small social organizations or in divisions of medium-sized social organizations with an unstable range of output and sales markets, in which there is a clear division of functional responsibilities among professional workers. The manager implements linear (administrative) influences, and employees perform their assigned functional responsibilities.

Rice. 3g. Star circuit (linear connection).

The “star” scheme gives positive results with the branch structure of a social organization and if it is necessary to maintain confidentiality in the activities of each component of the social organization.
Basic schemes make it possible to form a wide variety of relationship schemes derived from them. (Fig. 3, e, f, g).

Rice. 3d. Hierarchical diagram (linear-functional connections)

The hierarchical scheme is based on the "wheel" scheme and is applicable to large organizations with a clear division of labor.

Rice. 3e. Staff diagram (linear communication)

The circuit is based on the basic star circuit. It provides for the creation of functional headquarters under the head in the form of departments or groups (for example, financial department, personnel department, etc.). These headquarters prepare draft decisions on relevant issues for the leader. Then the manager makes a decision and communicates it to the appropriate department. The staff structure has the advantage when it is necessary to exercise linear management (unity of command) over key divisions of a social organization.

Rice. 3g. Matrix diagram (linear and functional connections).

The matrix circuit is based on the "line" and "ring" circuits. It provides for the creation of two branches of subordination: administrative - from the immediate manager and functional - from specialists who may not be subordinate to the same manager (for example, these may be specialists from a consulting firm or an advanced organization). The matrix scheme is used in complex, knowledge-intensive production of goods, information, services and knowledge.
The middle level of management determines the flexibility of the organizational structure of a social organization - this is its most active part. The highest and lowest levels should be the most conservative in structure.
Within the same social organization, and even within the same type of social organization, several types of relationships can exist.

Components of social systems

A social organism is a multitude of complex structures, each of which is not just an aggregate, a set of certain components, but their integrity. The classification of this set is very important for understanding the essence of society and at the same time extremely difficult due to the fact that this set is very significant in size.
It seems to us that this classification can be based on the considerations of E. S. Markaryan, who proposed considering this problem from three qualitatively different points of view: “I. From the point of view of the subject of activity, answering the question: who acts? 2. From the point of view of the area of application of activity, which allows us to establish what human activity is aimed at. 3. From the point of view of the method of activity, designed to answer the question: how, in what way is human activity carried out and its cumulative effect is formed? .
What does each of the main sections of society look like in this case (let’s call them subjective-activity, functional and sociocultural)?
1. Subjective - activity section (“who acts?”), the components of which in any case are people, because in society there cannot be any other subjects of activity.
People act as such in two versions: a) as individuals, and the individuality of action, its relative autonomy are expressed the more clearly, the more personal characteristics are developed in a person (moral awareness of one’s position, understanding of the social necessity and significance of one’s activity, etc. .); b) as associations of individuals in the form of large (ethnic group, social class, or a layer within it) and small (family, primary labor or educational collective) social groups, although associations are also possible outside these groupings (for example, political parties, army).
2. Functional cross-section (“what is human activity aimed at?”), which allows us to identify the main areas of application of socially significant activity. Taking into account both the biophysiological and social needs of a person, the following main areas of activity are usually distinguished: economics, transport and communications, education, education, science, management, defense, healthcare, art; in modern society, these should obviously include the sphere of ecology, and also a sphere with the conventional name “informatics”, meaning not only information and computer support for all other spheres of human activity, but also the branch of the so-called mass media.
3. Sociocultural cross-section (“how is activity carried out?”), revealing the means and mechanisms for the effective functioning of society as an integral system. Giving such a definition of a cross-section, we take into account that basically (especially in the conditions of the modern wave of civilization) human activity is carried out by extra-biological, socially acquired, i.e., sociocultural in nature means and mechanisms. These include phenomena that seem very far from each other in their specific origin, in their substrate, range of applicability, etc.: means of material production and consciousness, public institutions such as the state and socio-psychological traditions, language and housing.
And yet, consideration of the main sections of society, in our opinion, will be incomplete if another important section remains out of sight - the sociostructural one, which allows us to continue and deepen the analysis of both the subject of activity and the means-mechanisms of activity. The fact is that society has an extremely complex social, in the narrow sense of the word, structure, within which the following subsystems can be identified as the most significant; class-stratification (classes basic and non-basic, large layers within classes, estates, strata), socio-ethnic (tribal associations, nationalities, nations), demographic (sex and age structure of the population, the ratio of the self-employed and disabled population, correlative characteristics of the health of the population) , settlement (villagers and city dwellers), vocational and educational (dividing individuals into physical and mental workers, their educational level, place in the professional division of labor).
By superimposing the sociostructural cross-section of society onto the three previously discussed, we get the opportunity to connect to the characteristics of the subject of activity the coordinates associated with his belonging to very specific class-stratification, ethnic, demographic, settlement, professional and educational groupings. Our capabilities for a more differentiated analysis of both spheres and methods of activity from the perspective of their incorporation into specific social substructures are increasing. For example, the spheres of health care and education will obviously look different depending on the settlement context in which we have to consider them.
Despite the fact that the structures of systems differ from each other not only quantitatively, but also fundamentally and qualitatively, there is still no coherent, let alone complete, typology of social systems on this basis. In this regard, the proposal of N. Yahiel (Bulgaria) to distinguish within the class of social systems systems that have a “sociological structure” is legitimate. By the latter we mean a structure that includes those components and relationships that are necessary and sufficient for the functioning of society as a self-developing and self-regulating system. Such systems include society as a whole, each of the specific socio-economic formations, settlement structures (city and village).
Conclusion
A social system is a phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships and form a single whole, capable of changing its structure in interaction with external conditions.
Thus, the social system as a sociological phenomenon is a multidimensional and multidimensional formation with a complex composition, typology and functions.
The most complex and general social system is society itself (society as a whole), which reflects all the characteristics of social systems.

Bibliography:

Guts A.K. Global ethnosociology. Omsk State University, Omsk, 1997.

Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: General course: Textbook for universities. - M.: PERSE; Logos, 2002.- 271 p.

Milner B. Theory of organization. – M., 1998.

Radchenko Ya.V. Organization theory. Part 1. (lecture notes) - M.: GAU Publishing House, 1998.

Smirnov E.A. Fundamentals of organization theory. – M.: “Audit”, 1998.

Social is a system that includes a person or is intended for a person.

General system-forming factors of social systems:

the overall goal of the entire set of components;

subordination of the goals of each component to the overall goal of the system and each element’s awareness of its tasks and understanding of the common goal;

each element performs its functions determined by the assigned task;

relationships of subordination and coordination between system components;

the presence of a feedback principle between the control and controlled subsystems.

The most important component social systems is man (Fig. 6.1) - a being, first of all, social, conscious, goal-setting, connected with other people through a thousand different relationships and forms of interaction. In the process of work, people unite into groups, artels, social strata, communities and organizations. The presence of a human component is the most important feature of a social system, distinguishing it from other integral systems.

Second group components of a social system - processes (economic, social, political, spiritual), the totality of which represents a change in the states of the system as a whole or some part of its subsystems. Processes can be progressive or regressive. They are caused by the activities of people, social and professional groups.

Third group components of the social system - things, i.e. objects involved in the orbit of economic and social life, the so-called objects of second nature (industrial buildings, tools and means of labor, computer and office equipment, means of communication and control, technological devices created by man and used by him in the process of production, management and spiritual activity) .

Fourth group components of the social system are of a spiritual nature - these are social ideas, theories, cultural, moral values, customs, rituals, traditions, beliefs, which are again determined by the actions and deeds of various social groups and individuals.

Depending on the essence, purpose, place in society, type of organization, functions, relationship with the environment, some basic levels of social systems can be distinguished (Fig. 6.2.).

The widest and most difficult level- the entire concrete historical society (Russian, American, Chinese, etc.), the totality of members of this society and the entire complex of social relations - economic, political, social, spiritual and economic; In this broadest understanding of the social, a specific society acts as a dynamic social system.

Second level social systems are communities, associations of people of a smaller order (nations, classes, social and ethnic groups, elites, settlements).

Third level social systems are organizations operating in the real sector of the economy (credit and financial institutions, scientific, scientific and educational firms, corporations, public associations, etc.).

Fourth (primary) level social systems are workshops, teams, sections, professional groups within a company or enterprise. Their distinctive feature is direct contacts, each with each other.

Society also has other systemic formations, for example administrative-territorial ones, which have several levels: federation, federal subjects (republic, region, region, national district, autonomous region), municipal associations (city, town, village, hamlet, hamlet). Each of the levels, in turn, is a complex system with many different components, specific structure, functions, and controls.

Another type of system formation is in the spheres of public life: economic, political, social and spiritual.

For example, the economy is industry, agriculture, transport, communications, construction; industry, agriculture, etc., in turn, are divided into industries, sub-sectors, and those into corporations, financial and industrial groups, firms, enterprises (small, medium, large), workshops, sections, departments, teams.

The political sphere is the state (legislative bodies, executive bodies, judicial bodies), public associations (political parties, socio-political movements).

Spiritual sphere - media, cultural foundations, creative unions, scientific professional associations, etc.

1Social system- this is a way of organizing the life of a group of people, which arises as a result of the interaction of individuals on the basis of dictated social roles. The system arises as a union into an orderly and self-preserving whole with the help of norms and values that ensure the interdependence of the parts of the system and the subsequent integration of the whole.

The social system can be presented as a hierarchical structure of the following organizational levels: biosphere, ethnosphere, sociosphere, psychosphere, anthroposphere. At each level of the hierarchical pyramid (Fig. 1), we describe the behavior of an individual, as a member of a certain group, through certain rules of behavior aimed at achieving a set goal.

At the lower, biosphere level, a group of people represents a subsystem of an ecological system that lives mainly on the energy of the Sun and participates in the exchange of biomass with other subsystems of this level. The Earth's biosphere is considered from the point of view of the theory of V.I. Vernadsky. Society in this case is a collection of individual consumers of someone else’s biomass who do not have any noticeable influence on each other, giving up their biomass as a result of biological death. This society is better called a population.

At the second, ethnic level, a group is already a collective of individuals capable of common unconscious actions and characterized by identical unconscious responses to external influences, that is, a well-defined stereotype of behavior generated by landscape (regional) conditions of residence. Such a society is called an ethnos. The ethnos lives due to the biochemical energy of the passionary impulse initially received at birth, which is wasted on culture and art characteristic only of it, technical innovations, wars and on maintaining a nourishing surrounding landscape. The basis for building a model at this level is the ethnic theory of the historian L.N. Gumilyov.

At the third, social level, the group is a society. Each individual has his own system of action, which is consistent with social consciousness. Here we consider society based on the theory of social action by T. Parsons. By uniting individuals into a cohesive group, society regulates the behavior of everyone within that group. The behavior of group members is based on social actions determined by social statuses and a set of social roles.

At the fourth, psychic level, the group is a crowd. Each member of the group has a set of collective reflexes. A collective reflex is a synchronized response of a group of people to an external stimulus. The behavior of a group is a chain of successive collective reflexes. The basis of the model at this level is the theory of collective reflexes by V.M. Bekhterev.

At the last level, the group is a thinking organization, each member of which has his own inner world. To construct a multi-agent model of society at this level, we can choose N. Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic systems. Here the elements of the system are communications. Communication is not only a process of transmitting information, but also a self-referential process.

To model a social system, various theories describing society can be used. But these theories complement rather than contradict each other. By modeling a social system based on the chosen theory, we obtain a model of a certain level. Next, we combine these models hierarchically. Such a multi-level model will most adequately reflect the dynamics of development of a real society.

b) The concept of hierarchy is based on such a phenomenon as social status.

Social status is a position occupied by a person or group in society and associated with certain rights and responsibilities. This position is always relative, i.e. considered in comparison with the statuses of other individuals or groups. Status is determined by profession, socioeconomic status, political opportunity, gender, origin, marital status, race and nationality. Social status characterizes the place of a person or social group in the social structure of society, in the system of social interactions and necessarily contains an assessment of this activity by society (other people and social groups). The latter can be expressed in various qualitative and quantitative indicators - authority, prestige, privileges, income level, reward, title, fame, etc. 1

There are different types of statuses.

Personal status is the position that a person occupies in a small or primary group, depending on how he is assessed by his individual qualities.

Social status is the position a person occupies automatically as a representative of a large social group or community (professional, class, national).

Each person in society has not one status, but rather a status set - the totality of all statuses belonging to one individual. In this regard, there is a need to highlight the main status - the most characteristic status for a given individual, by which others identify him or with which they identify him.

It is also customary to distinguish between prescribed status (independent of the desires, aspirations and efforts of a given person) and achieved status (the position that a person achieves thanks to his own efforts).

Thus, social stratification is the arrangement of people in a status hierarchy from top to bottom. The term “stratification” is borrowed from geology, where it refers to the vertically arranged layers of earth that are revealed when cut through. Stratification is a certain section of the social structure of society, or a theoretical angle of view on how human society is structured. In real life, people, of course, do not stand above or below others.

Russian sociologist A.I. Kravchenko offers a kind of generalizing model of social stratification. 2 He arranges the status hierarchy from top to bottom according to four criteria of inequality:

1) unequal incomes,

2) level of education,

3) access to power,

4) prestige of the profession.

Individuals who have approximately the same or similar characteristics belong to the same layer, or stratum.

The inequality here is symbolic. It can be expressed in the fact that the poor have a minimum income determined by the poverty threshold, live on government benefits, are unable to buy luxury goods and have difficulty buying durable goods, are limited in proper rest and leisure, have a low level of education and occupy positions of power in society. Thus, the four criteria of inequality reflect, among other things, differences in the level, quality, lifestyle, cultural values, quality of housing, and type of social mobility. 3

These criteria are taken as the basis for social stratification. There are stratifications:

economic (income),

political (power),

educational (level of education),

professional.

Each of them can be represented in the form of a vertical scale (ruler) with marked divisions.

In economic stratification, the divisions of the measurement scale represent the amount of money per individual or family per year or per month (individual or family income expressed in national currency). What is the income of the respondent, this is the place he occupies on the scale of economic stratification.

It is difficult to build political stratification according to a single criterion - this does not exist in nature. Its substitutes are used, for example, positions in the state hierarchy from the president and below, positions in companies, organizations, positions in political parties, etc. or combinations thereof.

The educational scale is based on the number of years of study at school and university - this is a single criterion indicating that society has a unified education system, with formal certification of its levels and qualifications. A person with a primary education will be positioned at the bottom, a person with a college or university degree in the middle, and someone with a doctorate or professor at the top.

The prestige of professions can only be determined through a sociological survey. To obtain information on a whole-of-society basis, the survey should be conducted on a national sample.

B) Social community

Our central concept - societal community - has as its main function (as an integrative subsystem) the definition of obligations arising from loyalty to the societal collective, both for its members as a whole and for various categories of differentiated statuses and roles within society. Thus, in most modern societies, readiness for military service is a test of loyalty for men, but not for women. Loyalty consists of the willingness to respond to a properly “reasonable” call made on behalf of the collective or in the name of the “public” interest. The normative problem is to determine when such a response establishes a duty. In principle, any team needs loyalty, but it is of particular importance for the societal community. Typically, government bodies act on behalf of and in the interests of societal loyalty, and they also monitor compliance with relevant norms. However, there are other public authorities that enjoy the same rights as the state, but are not varieties of its structures.

Of particular importance are the relationships between the loyalties of subgroups and individuals in relation to the societal collective, that is, the whole society, and in relation to other groups of which they are members. A fundamental feature of all human societies is role pluralism, the participation of the same people in a number of groups. The expansion of role pluralism is an important component of the differentiation processes leading to the formation of modern societies. Therefore, one of the significant problems of integration facing the societal community is the problem of regulating the loyalties of its members in relation to itself and to other groups. Individualist social theory persistently exaggerated the importance of individual “self-interest” as an obstacle to the integration of social systems. In general, the personal motives of individuals are effectively channeled into the social system through loyalty and membership in groups that are different in relation to them. The immediate problem for most individuals is the problem of choosing and balancing their obligations in cases of conflicting competing loyalties. For example, a normal adult man in modern societies is both an employee and a family member. Although the demands of these two roles are often in conflict, most men have a vital interest in maintaining loyalty to both roles.

A societal community is a complex network of interpenetrating collectives and collective loyalties, a system characterized by differentiation and segmentation. Thus, family units, business firms, churches, government agencies, educational institutions, etc. separated from each other. And each type of collective consists of many specific groups, for example, many families, each of which has several people, and many local communities.

Loyalty to the societal community should occupy a high place in any stable hierarchy of loyalties and is therefore a subject of special concern to society. And yet, the highest place in this hierarchy belongs to the cultural legitimization of the normative order of society. First of all, it acts through the institutionalization of a value system, which is an integral part of both societal and cultural systems. Then selective values, which are specifications of general value patterns, become part of each specific norm integrated into the legitimate order. In a system of norms that govern loyalties, therefore, the rights and obligations of collectives must be consistent not only with each other, but also with the legitimate foundations of the order as a whole.

2) society as a social system.

society is a certain collection (association) of people. But what are the boundaries of this totality? Under what conditions does this association of people become a society?

The signs of society as a social system are as follows:

The association is not part of any larger system (society).

Marriages are concluded (mainly) between representatives of this association.

It is replenished mainly by the children of those people who are already its recognized representatives.

The association has a territory that it considers its own.

It has its own name and its own history.

It has its own control system (sovereignty).

The association lasts longer than the average life expectancy of an individual.

It is united by a common system of values (customs, traditions, norms, laws, rules, morals), which is called culture.

Characteristics of society as systems

One of the pressing problems of modern social science remains the definition of the concept of society, despite the fact that there are a lot of definitions of society in modern literature. They highlight different aspects of society, and this is not surprising, since society is an extremely complex entity. Taking into account its multi-level nature, ambiguity, abstractness and other characteristics, some scientists have come to the conclusion that it is generally impossible to give a single, universal definition of society, and all definitions available in the literature in one way or another reduce society to a single characteristic. From this point of view, definitions of society can be divided into three groups:

subjective - when society is viewed as a special amateur collective of people. So, S.G. Spasibenko defines society as “the totality of all methods and forms of interaction and unification of people”;

active- when society is considered as a process of collective existence of people. For example, K.H. Momjyan defines society as an organizational form of joint activity of people;

organizational- when society is considered as a social institution, i.e. a system of stable connections between interacting people and social groups. G.V. Pushkareva notes that society is a universal way of social organization, social interaction and social connections, ensuring the satisfaction of all basic needs of people - self-sufficient, self-regulating and self-reproducing

Is there any rationality in all these definitions? grain, since society really consists of actively operating subjects connected with each other by fairly stable relationships. Which of these definitions to prefer should most likely be determined by the specific task of the study.

Let us continue to identify the essential characteristics of society. Unlike the philosophy of the 17th - 18th centuries, which was characterized by social atomism (i.e., society was viewed as a mechanical sum of individuals), modern philosophy views human society as a collection of many different parts and elements. Moreover, these parts and elements are not isolated from each other, not isolated, but, on the contrary, are closely connected with each other, constantly interact, as a result of which society exists as a single integral organism, as one system(a system is defined as a set of elements that are in regular relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity). Therefore, to describe society, the concepts generally accepted in system theory are now widely used: “element”, “system”, “structure”, “organization”, “relationship”. The advantages of the systems approach are obvious, the most important of which is that, by building the subordination of the structural elements of society, it allows us to consider it in dynamics, thereby helping to avoid unambiguous, dogmatic conclusions that limit the value of any theory.

Analysis of society as a system assumes:

Identification of the structure of the social system - its elements, as well as the nature of their interaction;

Determination of the integrity of the system, the system-forming factor;

Studying the degree of determinism of the system, the variability of such development;

Analysis of social changes, the main forms of such changes

Of course, when analyzing society as a system, its specifics should be taken into account. A social system differs from systems existing in nature in a number of ways:

plurality elements, subsystems that make up society, their functions, connections and relationships;

Heterogeneity, different quality social elements, among which, along with material ones, there are also ideal and spiritual phenomena.

The uniqueness of its main element - man - gives a special specificity to the social system; having the opportunity to freely choose the forms and methods of their activities, types of behavior, which gives the development of society a greater degree of uncertainty, and therefore unpredictability.

Organization

Rice. 3. Mixed pattern of relationships in social organization.

The middle level of management determines the flexibility of the organizational structure of a social organization - this is its most active part. The highest and lowest levels should be the most conservative in structure.

Within the same social organization, and even within the same type of social organization, several types of relationships can exist.

Each of the main functions of the societal system is differentiated into a large number of subfunctions (less general functions), which are implemented by people included in one or another normative and organizational social structure that more or less meets (or, conversely, contradicts) the functional requirements of society. The interaction of micro- and macro-subjective and objective elements included in a given organizational structure for the implementation of the functions (economic, political, etc.) of a social organism gives it the character of a social system.

Functioning within the framework of one or more basic structures of the societal system, social systems act as structural elements of social reality, and, consequently, the initial elements of sociological knowledge of its structures.

Social system and its structure. A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. The essential features of any system are integrity and integration.

The first concept (integrity) captures the objective form of existence of a phenomenon, i.e. its existence as a whole, and the second (integration) is the process and mechanism of combining its parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements, and reveals a certain “integral effect.” These new qualities inherent in the phenomenon as a whole are usually designated as systemic or integral qualities.

The specificity of a social system is that it is formed on the basis of one or another community of people (social group, social organization, etc.), and its elements are people whose behavior is determined by certain social positions (statuses) that they occupy, and specific social functions (roles) that they perform; social norms and values accepted in a given social system, as well as their various individual qualities. The elements of a social system may include various ideal (beliefs, ideas, etc.) and random elements.

An individual does not carry out his activities in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people united in various communities under the influence of a combination of factors influencing the formation and behavior of the individual.

In the process of this interaction, people and the social environment have a systematic impact on a given individual, just as he has a reverse impact on other individuals and the environment. As a result, this community of people becomes a social system, an integrity that has systemic qualities, that is, qualities that none of the elements included in it separately have

A certain way of connecting the interaction of elements, i.e., individuals occupying certain social positions (statuses) and performing certain social functions (roles) in accordance with the set of norms and values accepted in a given social system, form the structure of the social system. In sociology there is no generally accepted definition of the concept “social structure”. In various scientific works this concept is defined as “organization of relations”, “certain articulation, order of arrangement of parts”; “consecutive, more or less constant regularities”; “a pattern of behavior, i.e., an observed informal action or sequence of actions”; “essential, in-depth, defining conditions”, “characteristics more fundamental than others, superficial”, “the arrangement of parts that controls the entire diversity of the phenomenon”, “relations between groups and individuals that manifest themselves in their behavior”, etc. All these definitions , in our opinion, do not oppose, but complement each other, allowing us to create an integral idea of the elements and properties of the social structure.

Types of social structure are: an ideal structure that binds together beliefs, convictions, and imagination; normative structure, including values, norms, prescribed social roles; organizational structure, which determines the way positions or statuses are interconnected and determines the nature of repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning that are currently available (specific interest of the individual, randomly received resources, etc.).

The first two types of social structure are associated with the concept of cultural structure, and the other two are associated with the concept of societal structure. Regulatory and organizational structures are considered as a single whole, and the elements included in their functioning are considered strategic. Ideal and random structures and their elements, being included in the functioning of the social structure as a whole, can cause both positive and negative deviations in its behavior.

This, in turn, results in a mismatch in the interaction of various structures that act as elements of a more general social system, dysfunctional disorders of this system.

The structure of a social system as a functional unity of a set of elements is determined by its inherent laws and regularities and has its own determinism. As a result, the existence, functioning and change of structure is not determined by a law that stands, as it were, “outside it”, but has the character of self-regulation, maintaining - under certain conditions - the balance of elements within the system, restoring it in the event of certain violations and directing the change of these elements and the structure itself.

The patterns of development and functioning of a given social system may or may not coincide with the corresponding patterns of the societal system, and have positive or negative socially significant consequences for a given society.

Hierarchy of social systems. There is a complex hierarchy of social systems that differ qualitatively from each other.

The supersystem, or, according to the terminology we accept, the societal system, is society. The most important elements of a societal system are its economic, social, political and ideological structures, the interaction of elements of which (systems of a less general order) institutionalizes them into social systems (economic, social, political, ideological, etc.). Each of these most general social systems occupies a certain place in the societal system and performs (well, poorly, or not at all) strictly defined functions. In turn, each of the most general systems includes in its structure as elements an infinite number of social systems of a less general order (family, work collective, etc.).

With the development of society as a societal system, along with those mentioned, other social systems and bodies of social influence arise on the socialization of the individual (upbringing, education), on his aesthetic (aesthetic education), moral (moral education and suppression of various forms of deviant behavior), physical (health, physical education) development. “This organic system itself, as an aggregate whole, has its own prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subjugating all the elements of society or creating from it the organs that it still lacks. In this way, the system, in the course of historical development, turns into integrity”1.

Social connections and types of social systems. The classification of social systems can be based on the types of connections and the corresponding types of social objects.

A relationship is defined as a relationship between objects (or elements within them) where a change in one object or element corresponds to a change in other objects (or elements) that make up the object.

The specificity of sociology is characterized by the fact that the connections that it studies are social connections. The term “social connection” refers to the entire set of factors that determine the joint activities of people in specific conditions of place and time in order to achieve specific goals. The connection is established for a very long period of time, regardless of the social and individual qualities of individuals. These are the connections of individuals with each other, as well as their connections with the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world, which develop in the course of their practical activities.

The essence of social connections is manifested in the content and nature of social actions of individuals, or, in other words, in social facts.

The micro- and macro-continuum includes personal, social-group, organizational, institutional and societal connections. The social objects corresponding to these types of connections are the individual (his consciousness and actions), social interaction, social group, social organization, social institution and society. Within the subjective-objective continuum, subjective, objective and mixed connections are distinguished and, accordingly, objective (acting personality, social action, law, control system, etc.); subjective (personal norms and values, assessment of social reality, etc.); subjective-objective (family, religion, etc.) objects.

The social system can be represented in five aspects:

1) as an interaction of individuals, each of which is a bearer of individual qualities;

2) as social interaction, resulting in the formation of social relations and the formation of a social group;

3) as a group interaction, which is based on customs or other general circumstances (city, village, work collective, etc.);

4) as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) occupied by individuals included in the activities of a given social system, and the social functions (roles) that they perform based on these social positions;

5) as a set of norms and values that determine the nature and content of the activities (behavior) of the elements of a given system.

The first aspect characterizing the social system is associated with the concept of individuality, the second - a social group, the third - a social community, the fourth - a social organization, the fifth - a social institution and culture.

Thus, the social system acts as the interaction of its main structural elements.

Societal connections and the societal system. The distinction between types of social systems is very arbitrary. Isolating them according to one or another criterion is determined by the task of sociological research. The same social system (for example, a family) can be equally considered both as a social group, and as an element of social control, and as a social institution, and as a social organization. Social objects located on macro-, micro- and objective-subjective continuums form a complex system of connections that govern the needs, interests and values of people. It can be designated as a system of societal connections. It is ordered in each specific social system in such a way that when tangles and knots appear on it, then society, in turn, provides a system of means to be able to unravel these tangles and untie the knots. If it is unable to do this, then the system of means existing and used in a given society has become inadequate to the current social situation. And depending on the practical attitude of society to a given situation, it may find itself in a state of decline, stagnation or radical reform.

The system of societal connections acts as an organized set of various forms of social connections that unite individuals and groups of individuals into a single functional whole, that is, into a social system. Whatever form of social connection between phenomena we take, they always exist in the system and cannot exist outside of it. The variety of types of societal connections corresponds to the variety of types of social systems that determine these connections.

Let's consider such types of social groups as primary and secondary:

Primary groups. Consists of a small number of people between whom relationships are established based on their individual characteristics. Primary groups are not large, because otherwise it is difficult to establish direct, personal relationships between all members. Charles Cooley (1909) first introduced the concept of the primary group in relation to the family, between the members of which stable emotional relationships develop. Subsequently, sociologists began to use this term when studying any group in which close personal relationships have formed that define the essence of this group. They are formed on the basis of the emergence of more or less constant and close contacts between several people or as a result of the collapse of any secondary social group. Often both of these processes occur simultaneously. It happens that a number of primary groups appear and act within the framework of some secondary social group. The number of people in small groups ranges from two to ten, rarely several more. In such a group, the social and psychological contacts of the people included in it are better preserved, often relating to significant moments of their lives and activities. The primary group can be a group of friends, acquaintances, or a group of people connected by professional interests, working in a factory, in a scientific institution, in a theater, etc. While performing production functions, they at the same time establish interpersonal contacts with each other, characterized by psychological harmony and common interest in something. Such groups can play a large role in the formation of value orientations and in determining the direction of behavior and activities of their representatives. Their role in this may be more significant than the role of secondary social groups and the media. Thus, they constitute a specific social environment that influences the individual.

Secondary group. Formed from people between whom there are almost no emotional relationships, their interaction is determined by the desire to achieve certain goals. In these groups, the main importance is attached not to personal qualities, but to the ability to perform certain functions. An example of a secondary group would be an industrial enterprise. In a secondary group, roles are clearly defined, and its members often know very little about each other. As a rule, they do not hug when they meet. They do not develop the emotional relationships that are typical for friends and family members. In an organization associated with labor activities, industrial relations are the main ones. Among these social groups, formal and informal organizations can be distinguished. Formal ones act more often on the basis of the charters and programs they have adopted, and have their own permanent coordinating and governing bodies. In informal organizations all this is absent. They are created to achieve very specific goals - current and long-term. In Western sociology, functional groups are especially distinguished, uniting depending on the functions they perform and social roles. We are talking about professional groups engaged in the sphere of political, economic and spiritual activity, about groups of people of different qualifications, about groups occupying different social positions - entrepreneurs, workers, employees, etc. The beginning of a serious sociological study of the functional activities of various social groups was laid in his time by E. Durkheim.

Analyzing all of the above, one cannot fail to note the importance of studying the entire diversity of social groups existing in society. Firstly, because the social structure of society itself is a set of connections and relationships into which social groups and communities of people enter into contact with each other. Secondly, the entire life of a person living in a society of people takes place in social groups and under their direct influence: at school, at work, etc., because only in group life does he form as a person, find self-expression and support.

In the modern world, there are different types of societies that differ from each other in many ways, both explicit (language of communication, culture, geographical location, size, etc.) and hidden (degree of social integration, level of stability, etc.). Scientific classification involves identifying the most significant, typical features that distinguish one feature from another and unite societies of the same group. The complexity of social systems called societies determines both the diversity of their specific manifestations and the absence of a single universal criterion on the basis of which they could be classified.

In the mid-19th century, K. Marx proposed a typology of societies, which was based on the method of production of material goods and production relations - primarily property relations. He divided all societies into 5 main types (according to the type of socio-economic formations): primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist (the initial phase is socialist society).

Another typology divides all societies into simple and complex. The criterion is the number of levels of management and the degree of social differentiation (stratification). A simple society is a society in which the constituent parts are homogeneous, there are no rich and poor, no leaders and subordinates, the structure and functions here are poorly differentiated and can be easily interchanged. These are the primitive tribes that still survive in some places.

A complex society is a society with highly differentiated structures and functions, interconnected and interdependent on each other, which necessitates their coordination.

K. Popper distinguishes two types of societies: closed and open. The differences between them are based on a number of factors, and, above all, the relationship of social control and individual freedom. A closed society is characterized by a static social structure, limited mobility, immunity to innovation, traditionalism, dogmatic authoritarian ideology, and collectivism. K. Popper included Sparta, Prussia, Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union of the Stalin era to this type of society. An open society is characterized by a dynamic social structure, high mobility, the ability to innovate, criticism, individualism and a democratic pluralistic ideology. K. Popper considered ancient Athens and modern Western democracies to be examples of open societies.

The division of societies into traditional, industrial and post-industrial, proposed by the American sociologist D. Bell on the basis of changes in the technological basis - improvement of the means of production and knowledge, is stable and widespread.

Traditional (pre-industrial) society is a society with an agrarian structure, with a predominance of subsistence farming, class hierarchy, sedentary structures and a method of sociocultural regulation based on tradition. It is characterized by manual labor and extremely low rates of development of production, which can satisfy people's needs only at a minimum level. It is extremely inertial, therefore it is not very susceptible to innovation. The behavior of individuals in such a society is regulated by customs, norms, and social institutions. Customs, norms, institutions, sanctified by traditions, are considered unshakable, not allowing even the thought of changing them. Carrying out their integrative function, culture and social institutions suppress any manifestation of individual freedom, which is a necessary condition for the gradual renewal of society.

The term industrial society was introduced by A. Saint-Simon, emphasizing its new technical basis. Industrial society - (in modern terms) is a complex society, with a method of economic management based on industry, with flexible, dynamic and modifying structures, a method of socio-cultural regulation based on a combination of individual freedom and the interests of society. These societies are characterized by a developed division of labor, the development of mass communications, urbanization, etc.

Post-industrial society (sometimes called information society) is a society developed on an information basis: extraction (in traditional societies) and processing (in industrial societies) of natural products are replaced by the acquisition and processing of information, as well as preferential development (instead of agriculture in traditional societies and industry in industrial) service sectors. As a result, the employment structure and the ratio of various professional and qualification groups are also changing. According to forecasts, already at the beginning of the 21st century in advanced countries, half of the workforce will be employed in the field of information, a quarter in the field of material production and a quarter in the production of services, including information.

A change in the technological basis also affects the organization of the entire system of social connections and relationships. If in an industrial society the mass class was made up of workers, then in a post-industrial society it was employees and managers. At the same time, the importance of class differentiation weakens; instead of a status (“granular”) social structure, a functional (“ready-made”) one is formed. Instead of leadership, coordination becomes the principle of management, and representative democracy is replaced by direct democracy and self-government. As a result, instead of a hierarchy of structures, a new type of network organization is created, focused on rapid change depending on the situation.

True, at the same time, some sociologists draw attention to the contradictory possibilities of, on the one hand, ensuring a higher level of individual freedom in the information society, and on the other, the emergence of new, more hidden and therefore more dangerous forms of social control over it.