Major events in the socio-political life of society (telecommunication revolution, the transition from totalitarian systems to neoconservatism in 1970-1980) led to the fact that the old sociological scientific apparatus was no longer able to describe the ongoing social changes. Therefore, there was a need to develop new paradigm of social thinking, i.e. creating a new fundamental picture of social reality: the life of society, individual social communities and individuals, the nature of their interaction.
An urgent need was realized in concepts, informationsociety.
All these concepts, differing in aspects of the analysis of society, are united in what they consider modern society how absolutely new stage socio-economic development, which is distinguished following features:
- the information society replaces the labor society and is its negation;
- not physical labor, but information is the system-forming factor of the new society, the new social reality;
- the production system loses its character as a determining factor in the social order;
- a person within the framework of a new social order ceases to be exclusively an economic person, whose activity is determined by profit, benefit, and interest. We are talking about the emergence of a new type of rationality, new motivational mechanisms, new values that no longer stem from the production system and utilitarian ethics.
Modern Western sociology is actively looking for principles of social organization and social order that cannot be reduced to the system of production, the biological organization of the individual. There is a clearly visible tendency towards the integration of sciences and the emergence of interdisciplinary studies such as economic and political sociology, social geography, sociobiology, etc.
Schools of modern Western sociology
Despite the many concepts and schools, directions in Western sociology, they all gravitate to two poles- positivism and neopositivism, on the one hand, and understanding sociology, on the other. Within these poles we can distinguish concepts and schools of modern Western sociology.
Structural functionalism, based on the fact that society is a single multifunctional system consisting of many subsystems. Its author is T. Parsons (1902-1979). One of central categories of the teachings of T. Parsons-social action, the main components of which are the actor, the situation, and the actor’s orientation towards the situation and other individuals.
T. Parsons proceeded from the premise that any society-it's a system, consisting of many social subsystems,each of which has a set of four mainfunctions:
- adaptability- any system adapts to its environment;
- goal achievement- defines and implements set goals;
- integration- connects all elements and their functions together;
- sample retention— creates, preserves and transmits patterns of behavior of individuals, including culture, to future generations.
A systematic approach to social phenomena, the concept of stability of social systems is one of the valuable acquisitions of modern sociological thought.
counted T. Parsons, there are the following types:primitive,intermediate,modern. Their development is evolutionary character and is described using categoriesdifferentiation And integration.
In Western sociology there are theories opposite to evolutionism. These are the so-called conflict theories. They arose in connection with the aggravation of crises, both in the life of society and in sociological science. The greatest influence on the formation of the theory of social conflict was exerted by the views of such scientists as K. Marx (revolutionary theory), Georg Simmel (1858-1918) - author of the term “ ” , Ralph Dahrendorf (b. 1929), Lewis Couser (b. 1913), T. Parsons (1902-1979), John Burton (b. 1915) - representatives evolutionary theories resolution of social conflict.
According to the theory class struggle of K. Marx any class society is divided into two antagonistic (irreconcilable) ones class, fight between which ends social revolution.
In contrast to Marxist theory, the conflictological evolutionary paradigm proceeds from the fact that in a modern democratic society a great many local social conflicts arise between different people. The multidirectionality of these conflicts makes it possible to maintain relative stability in society, that is, it does not lead to social explosions. In addition, in an open society there are legal ways to resolve conflicts relatively bloodlessly. Successful resolution of emerging social conflicts indicates the viability of society (according to Dahrendorf).
The significant contribution to science of the American sociologist C. R. Mills (1916-1962), who laid the foundation for the critical sociology of action. From his point of view, the central task of sociology should be the study of people who play an important role in the economic, political and military institutions of society, that is, the study of the ruling elite, which largely determines the face of modern society. C. R. Mills can be called one of the creators of political sociology.
Symbolic interactionism (from the English interaction - interaction), which analyzes the interaction of people through the interpretation of symbols (concepts), represented by its most prominent representatives J. Mead, Herbert Bloomer, Cooley.
The theory of symbolic interactionism received its modification in the form of the exchange theory of George Homans, according to which human behavior is a constant exchange of values. Objects of exchange can be anything that has social significance. Society establishes a scale of values to be exchanged. And human behavior is within the framework of this scale. The central category of sociology of the American researcher J. Homans is the category of social action.
Social action- exchange process, which is based on: participants strive to obtain maximum benefits at minimum costs. To explain social action Homans put forward five main hypotheses:success, incentive, value, starvation-saturation, frustration-aggression.
Success hypothesis. An action that is rewarded tends to be repeated. If, upon repetition, the action is no longer rewarded, it is not reproduced (the behavior is “extinguished”).
Stimulus hypothesis. The action takes place in a specific situation. Homans calls its characteristics incentives. Once learned, the behavior is applied in similar situations.
Value hypothesis. The more valuable the reward, the higher the likelihood that the action will be repeated.
The fasting-saturation hypothesis. The more often the reward is received, the faster addiction develops (satiation).
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. Having not received the expected reward, the person becomes indignant. In a state of indignation, the greatest value for her is aggressive behavior itself.
With these hypotheses Homans tries to explain all social processes: social stratification, political struggle, etc. However, psychological explanation is not enough when considering macro-level phenomena.
Phenomenology - “understanding” sociology, which considers society as a phenomenon created in the spiritual interaction of individuals, their communication, but perceiving the world within the framework of scientific knowledge (Alfred Schutz).
Ethnomethodology - explaining the world around us with everyday feelings, common sense, subjective ideas (D. Zimmerman, M. Pollner).
Special place in world sociology the work of an outstanding scientist occupies Pitirim Sorokina-Russian by birth, former dean of the sociological faculty of St. Petersburg University author of the first sociology textbook “System of Sociology”, was expelled from Russia in 1922 and settled in the USA, where a number of his fundamental works were published.
Scientific principles of the sociological theory of P. Sorokin: sociology as a science, built according to the method of natural science, must be objective, accurate, not reducing any phenomena to one beginning, but allowing for pluralism. The main thing in sociology is the study of the process of social life: social actions and interactions of two or more Human. P. Sorokin divided sociology into theoretical and practical - an applied discipline based on theory.
P. Sorokin’s significant contribution to the development of the theory and social mobility, in which society is divided into strata (layers), differing in level of income, types of activities, political views, cultural orientations, etc. The main forms of stratification (stratification of society): economic, political, professional.
P. Sorokin tried to solve the problem of social equality by creating the theory of an egalitarian system of society in which everyone is equal before the law, has an equal right to education and political rights (freedom of speech, conscience, political activity, etc.).
Classical Western sociology
One of the most prominent representatives of classical Western sociology was the French researcher Emile Durkheim (1858 - 1917). He believed that the subject of sociology should be social facts, which form social reality. Based on this, social reality is objective, because social facts do not depend on a person. An important feature of Durkheim's concept was that he turned to the study of social groups, highly appreciating the role of collective consciousness. Only thanks to this consciousness does social integration exist, because members of society attach importance to its norms and are guided by them in their lives. If the individual does not want to follow these norms, anomie (deviant behavior) occurs.
Society for Durkheim is a collection of ideas, beliefs and feelings, among which what he calls morality occupies the first place. Every society has a moral system that corresponds to its structure. Discovering it is the task of sociology; this is the idea of Durkheim’s work “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893).
As a link between society and value concepts, Durkheim introduces the concept of “solidarity” - as the interaction of individual consciousnesses, which manifests itself in two types: as mechanical and as organic solidarity.
In 1895 ᴦ. Durkheim published a book, The Method of Sociology, in which he declared that social facts should be considered as things that are similar to things in nature. The task of sociology, in his opinion, is to establish normal behavior through identifying deviant behavior that entails sanctions. This is best described in Durkheim's classic work, Suicide (1897), which became the model for the foundation of sociology as an empirical science. Finally, in his last work, “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” (1912), Durkheim tried to prove that religion is a creation of society.
Max Weber (1864-1920) is considered a classic of German sociology today. Weber viewed personality as the basis of sociological analysis. He believed that concepts such as “capitalism”, “religion” and “state” can only be understood on the basis of an analysis of the behavior of individuals. For this reason, the sociologist must examine the motives of people's actions and the meaning they attach to their own actions and the actions of others. Weber recognized the enormous role of values, considering them a catalyst for social processes. He substantiated such concepts as “understanding”, “ideal type”, “religion”, which formed the basis of his “understanding sociology”. Weber also devoted a number of works to the problems of the state, power, types of domination (traditional, legal, charismatic), which allows us to consider him one of the creators of political sociology; He also coined the concept of “legitimacy of power.”
At the same time, unlike Durkheim, Weber did not consider sociology a separate independent science; he professed a “sociological perspective” derived from other sciences. Weber became famous for his work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1904), which examined the cultural significance of capitalism as a socio-economic system. In another book - “The Economic Ethics of World Religions” (1915 - 1917) - he explored the impact of religion on economic behavior, more precisely, in which strata of society the main world religions initially arose. He came to the conclusion that the religions of the upper strata of society generally legitimized the existing order of life, while the religions of the lower strata promised a better lot in the next world. Two aspects of Weber's sociology of religion became the main directions of his research: development towards deepening rationality and meaning beyond the everyday (the same in economic sociology).
As for Weber's “understanding sociology,” its subject is social action. He defines it as:
2. Determined in its character due to this correlation.
3. Action, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ can be explained by subjective meaning.
For Weber, sociology is a science whose task is to understand social behavior by explaining it, and thereby reveal its causes and consequences. Weber outlined the categories of such understanding in his book “Objectivity of Socio-Scientific and Socio-Political Knowledge” (1904).
Georg Simmel (1858-1918), a German sociologist, proposed his concept of how to separate sociology from other social sciences. In 1908, his work “Sociology” was published, in which he defined the task of sociology as the study of patterns that are inaccessible to other social sciences. Sociology, in his opinion, studies pure forms of “sociation” (or communication), which can be systematized, psychologically justified and described their historical development. Simmel developed a number of essential provisions of modern sociology of groups. A group, according to his views, is an entity that has an independent reality, exists according to its own laws and independently of individual carriers. Simmel was also interested in problems of culture and economics. In 1900, Simmel’s work “The Philosophy of Money” was published, where he considered the cultural role of money, that is, money as a cultural phenomenon.
The sociological system of Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), who in 1902 published his work “Social Systems”, and then three more books, belongs to the same period in the history of sociology. Likening sociology to exact sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, this Italian sociologist and economist proposed using only empirically based measurements, strictly observing logical rules when moving from observations to generalizations. He rejected ethical and value elements in research that lead to falsification and distortion of facts. In fact, he formulated the basic requirements for empirical sociology, which became widespread in the 20th century, beginning its development in the 20s, usually associated with the names of W. Dilthey, W. Moore, K. Davis.
Sociology, according to Pareto, must be a logical-experimental science, because it must understand illogical actions logically. With illogical actions, there is no coordination of subjective and objective reality. It is absent because feelings, worldview, and faith are wedged between them. Pareto calls this "sediment". At the same time, people are reluctant to admit that they are acting irrationally, and often they simply do not understand it. For this reason, they come up with rational explanations, verbal justifications for their actions, which should give them a logical appearance. Pareto called them "derivatives" ("derivations"). Precipitations, derivations and their relationship to human behavior are the basic facts and the object of study of sociology. Let us note that Pareto’s significant contributions were also in developing the problems of the political elite, which were more deeply studied by G. Mosca (1858 - 1941).
Another scientist tried to give sociology a systematic structure in the 19th century. This is Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838 - 1909), whose views are set out in the works “The Race Struggle” (1883) and “Fundamentals of Sociology” (1885). Gumplowicz understood sociology as the successor to the philosophy of history. He called induction the method of sociology, that is, he represented sociology as an empirical science aimed at understanding laws. He argued that without social laws there is no sociology. Gumplowicz proposed his sociological theory of the state, which states that the state is in principle based on force, which contradicts the theory of contract. This German scientist is considered one of the founders of conflict theory.
However, the main result of the period of classical sociology was that claims to study the whole of society were proven untenable and attempts were made to justify that the basis of the subject of sociology should be the activities of social groups and communities (E. Durkheim), the individual in everything the diversity of its social actions (M. Weber) and that the criterion of sociology as a science should be empirical, specially classified and explained facts (V. Pareto). It was the sociologists of this period who finally constituted sociology as a science, identifying its place and purpose in the system of other social sciences.
Classical Western sociology - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Classical Western Sociology" 2017, 2018.
Classical Western sociology (19th - early 20th centuries)
This stage differs from the previous one in that European society is finally embarking on the path of capitalist development. The difference is that the first and second described completely different societies.
The founder of sociology as an independent science is the French scientist Auguste Comte. He expressed in his work the ideals of progress, political and economic freedom, and the hope that with the help of science all social problems can be solved. In the general classification of sciences, he placed sociology at the very top - above mathematics, physics and biology. Sociology is called upon to discover universal laws of development and functioning of society, inseparable from the laws of nature.
The central link of Comte’s views is the “law of intellectual evolution of mankind” he discovered, according to which the social consciousness of people went through three stages. At the theological stage, religious mythology dominates; man explains all phenomena by the action of supernatural forces. At the metaphysical stage, human consciousness operates not with imagination, but with concepts that reflect the real processes of the external world. Due to the poor development of science, these concepts are quite abstract (nature, space, matter, spirit). At the positive stage, all judgments and conclusions come primarily from scientific observations.
Comte's teaching consisted of two parts - social statics, which describes the laws of existence, and social dynamics, which describes the laws and stages of change in society.
Many of Comte's positivist attitudes were adopted and developed by the English thinker Herbert Spencer. The essence of his organic theory of society is that it is considered as a unified system of interaction between natural, primarily biological, and social factors. All aspects of social life are organically interconnected and cannot function without this connection. Only within the framework of an integral social-natural organism do the true meaning of any social institution and the social role of each subject appear.
Emile Durkheim, in his theory of social realism, proceeded from the fact that the nature of social phenomena should be explained by social factors, that the starting point for the analysis of human behavior is society as a system of interactions of individuals, social groups and social institutions. He proposed relying on social facts, by which he meant collective habits, traditions, customs, rules of conduct, and rituals. He believed that they exist independently of the individual. He considered social solidarity to be the main thing in human society that unites it, and he believed the division of labor to be the force that creates the social whole.
Marx put forward a completely different approach to understanding society. If for Comte and Durkheim the main thing is the stabilization of society, then for Marx it is its destruction and replacement with a new, more just one. The most important content of social life is the production of material goods. The material basis for the existence and development of society is the method of production, which represents the unity of two sides: productive forces (the people themselves with their knowledge, skills, experience and the means of production they use) and production relations (relations regarding the means of production).
The totality of economic relations - the real economic structure of society - characterizes the economic basis. Its superstructure is the political, legal, moral, religious and other views of social subjects, as well as the social relations, organizations and institutions that correspond to these views and implement them in practice. All elements of the superstructure interact with each other and influence the development of the economic base and the entire society.
The teaching of Marxism about society as an integral social organism was expressed in the identification of 5 socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist. Each of them has its own economic basis, social structure, political superstructure and spiritual life. The replacement of one formation by another is explained by the discrepancy between outdated economic relations and the progressively developing productive forces of society.
Max Weber put the individual above all else, called cultural values the reason for the development of society, and believed in the intelligentsia. According to Weber, only the individual has motives, goals, interests and consciousness. This is how he approached the theory of social action, identifying 4 types of action: goal-oriented, value-rational, traditional, affective. The last two are not included in the subject of sociology, because a person performs them either automatically, in accordance with traditions, or unconsciously, obeying feelings (affects). He called only the first two conscious.
Thus, the development of sociological ideas about society has been increasing all the time - from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli and Hobbes, and from them to Comte and Marx, and the highest expression was the ideas of Durkheim and Weber, which laid the methodological foundation of modern sociology.
Social Darwinism and evolutionism. Charles Darwin's work "The Origin of Species", published in 1853, had a huge impact on both the public worldview and many branches of knowledge. Among the sciences that were influenced by Darwin's ideas was sociology.
Social Darwinist sociology, like the organic school of G. Spencer, did not represent a single teaching either in sociopolitical or theoretical terms. In it one can distinguish an extreme direction, which in its principles gravitates towards the ideology of racism, among whose supporters were J. Gabipo, H. Chamberlain, O. Amman and others. Other most famous representatives of social Darwinism - L. Gumplowicz, A. Small, W. Semner - although they transferred mechanical biological laws to society, they saw in them rather a general model of the evolutionary process. In this direction, an attempt to combine biologism with psychologism is clearly visible. Great importance is attached here to group relations, social norms, facts of spiritual psychological life that regulate and explain social activity, i.e. those factors that explicitly or implicitly lay at the basis of the organic direction of sociology, primarily in the works of G. Spencer, which began to acquire, if not a dominant, then, in any case, an important theoretical position in the general system of sociological views. It was they who largely cleared the way for the formation of the next stages and schools in sociology.
One of the famous representatives of social Darwinism was the Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909). Being a theorist of law and state by profession, he proposed a concept in which society is viewed exclusively from a political point of view. His main works: “Race and the State” (1875), “The Racial Struggle” (1883), “Fundamentals of Sociology” (1885), “Sociology and Politics” (1892), “The Sociological Idea of the State” (1892).
According to Gumplowicz, the state is nothing more than the organization of the rule of a minority over the majority, and over time, ethnic groups are replaced by social classes. Unlike Spencer, Gumplowicz recognizes the social group, not the individual, as the main element of society. For him, the struggle of social groups acts as the main engine of history. In this, his ideas resemble the Marxist concept, but this is only a superficial similarity, and there are clear differences between Marxism and the views of Gumplowicz. Marxism proceeds from the economic principle of understanding social life and sees the socialist system as its ideal. Gumplowicz's political point of view prevails, and he is an opponent not only of socialism, but also of the rule of law. According to Gumplowicz, the state cannot be anything other than an organization of the rule of the minority over the majority, and law itself is important only for regulating inequality. Gumplowicz did not allow the possibility of ever ending the class struggle: for him it was a natural and fundamental law of society.
Psychological direction in sociology. Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), French sociologist and one of the founders of social psychology, made a significant contribution to the development of the science of interpersonal relationships and their mechanisms. Tarde explored the problems of public opinion, crowd psychology, the mechanisms of psychological charging and suggestion, and also contributed to the inclusion of empirical research methods in the arsenal of sociology - the analysis of historical documents and statistical data.
In an effort to free sociology from biologism and organicism, Tarde compared society with the brain, the cell of which is the consciousness of an individual. At the same time, society is a product of the interaction of individual consciousnesses, which occurs, according to Tarde, through the transfer of people to each other and their assimilation of beliefs, convictions, intentions, etc. Based on this, he set as his goal the creation of a new science - social (collective) psychology, which should study the interaction of individual consciousnesses and thereby act as the foundation of sociology.
According to Tarde, social psychology, in contrast to individual psychology, deals exclusively with the relationship of our “I” to other “I”, their mutual influence. In this action of one spirit on another one should see the elementary fact from which all social life flows.
Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931) gave Tarde's concept of crowd psychology the appearance of an entire sociological theory of sociohistorical development. Identifying the masses with the crowd, he foreshadowed the advent of the “era of the masses” and the subsequent decline of civilization.
According to Le Bon, as a result of the industrial revolution, the growth of cities and mass media, modern life is increasingly determined by the behavior of the crowd, which is always a blind destructive force, because in the crowd individuals lose their sense of responsibility and find themselves at the mercy of irrational impulses, expressed in a tendency towards dogmatism , intolerance, in a sense of omnipotence, which is governed by the law of “spiritual unity of the crowd.”
G. Le Bon believed that the decisive role in social processes is played not by reason, but by emotions. He opposed the idea of social equality and democracy, arguing that all achievements of civilization are the result of the activities of the elite. He considered the revolution a manifestation of mass hysteria.
Sociometry. The sociometric approach to the study of small groups, proposed in 1934 by the American psychiatrist Jacob Moreno (1892-1979), focused on the quantitative analysis of intragroup processes, in which the central question is the nature of interpersonal relationships, i.e. relationships between all group members.
J. Moreno invented a method that has proven extremely effective in sociology and social psychology. He asked the group members to tell him how they felt about their comrades: who they liked and who they didn’t like, who they would like to work with and who they wouldn’t. Thanks to this technique, an important dimension of the socio-psychological relations of group members was found. With its help, it turned out to be easy to graphically depict and compare the structure of these relationships. And most importantly, Moreno’s method made it possible to change the social organization of the work group so that it more accurately corresponded to the socio-psychological attitudes of its individual members towards each other.
The technique developed by Moreno was originally intended to identify the principles of forming friendship circles in a girls' vocational school and only later was used for other purposes, including as an additional stimulus for studying the nature of leadership and management in a group.
For Moreno, the regulator of interpersonal connections is the “socio-gravitational factor”, or “body”. According to Moreno, “attraction” and “repulsion,” the nature of which is associated with psychological instincts and, in a certain sense, with telepathy, create this type of configuration of the “social atoms” of the group, the nature of personal preferences and aversions in the group.
The emotional relationships of people in groups represent the atomistic structure of society, which is inaccessible to simple observation and can only be revealed with the help of “social microscopy”. According to Moreno, microsociology actually arose with the advent of the theory of “social microscopy.” Combined with sociometric techniques, it laid the foundation for the theoretical and practical foundations of microsociology, and it was the study of the primary atomistic structures of human relations that Moreno considered as preliminary and necessary work for most macrosociological research.
The essence of the “general theory of sociometry” is the assertion that social systems include not only objective, externally manifested relationships (macrostructure), but also subjective, emotional relationships, often externally invisible (microstructure).
Applied sociometry in the form of a special survey and data processing technique (sociometric tests, sociomatrices, sociograms, sociometric indices) was developed in research on the elimination of various conflicts in small groups. Modern sociological and socio-psychological studies of small groups almost always include the method of sociometry.
Symbolic interactionism. This concept arose as a reaction to structural-functionalist macrotheories that neglected the study of the role of interpersonal interactions in the creation and functioning of social structures. The creator of this theory was George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), who considered personality as a social product, discovering the mechanism of its formation in role interaction. According to Mead, our essence, soul, “self” consists of two parts. “Mine” means seeing oneself through the eyes of other people and arises from the ability of linguistic symbols to evoke in “me” the same reaction as in other people. The second side of “I” - “the way I perceive myself” - is considered by J. Mead as a source of creativity, originality and spontaneity. “Internal” communication creates a channel through which all patterns of interaction and all “external” communication pass. Based on these ideas, symbolic interactionists create an original concept of human personality, called the concept of the “generalized other.”
In play, the child learns to be a “separate other,” then, in games with peers, to coordinate his actions with others and see himself through the eyes of the group. As a result, he gets used to viewing himself in a broader context until he learns to play the role of a “generalized other,” that is, to see himself through the eyes of society.
Student J.G. Mead Herbert Blumer (1900-1987) made a significant contribution to the development of interactionist ideas. From his point of view, symbolic interactionism rests on three basic premises:
- ?People act based on the meaning they attach to objects and events rather than simply react to external or internal symbols. In other words, symbolic interactionism denies both social and biological determinism.
- ?Meanings are not so much fixed, formulated in advance, but are, to a certain extent, created, modified, developed and changed in interactional situations. Participants in interaction do not automatically follow established norms, as well as established roles.
- ?Meanings are the result of interpretations that have been made in interactional contexts. By taking on the role of the other, participants interpret the meanings and intentions of others. Thus, the meanings that determine action are derived from the context through a series of complex interpretive procedures.
Blumer believes that interactionism differs sharply from the sociology of social action, which depicts human behavior as a response to external social stimuli. However, while criticizing those who view action as a predictable response to external stimuli, he recognizes that to a certain extent action is structured, since in most situations in which interaction occurs between people, they already have an idea in advance of how to behave and how others will act. But this knowledge concerns only general directions of behavior, within which there remains significant space for maneuver, negotiations, etc. Similarly, Blumer recognizes the existence of social institutions and believes that although they limit human behavior, there remains considerable opportunity for him to take initiative even in situations where rigid rules apply.
The first person to try to explain how phenomenology could be used to gain insight into the social world was Alfred Schutz (1899-1859). His main contribution was to demonstrate that the way in which people classify and assign meaning to the realities of their environment is not a purely individual process. People use what the sociologist called "typifications" - concepts that designate the classes of objects that they express. Thus, “bank employee,” “football match,” “tree” are all examples of typification. These typifications are not unique to each individual: on the contrary, they are perceived by members of society, transmitted to children in the process of learning language, reading books and talking with other people. Using typifications, you can communicate with others, confident that they see the world in the same way. Gradually, a member of a society builds up a stock of what Schutz called “common sense knowledge,” which is shared by other members of the society, which allows them to live and communicate.
Schutz considered this phenomenon to be extremely important for carrying out the practical tasks of everyday life. The sociologist emphasized that although the vast majority of members of society are guided by the knowledge of common sense, it is not given once and for all, unchangeable. In contrast, common sense knowledge is constantly changing in the process of interaction. According to Schutz, each individual interprets the world in his own way, but the stock of common sense knowledge allows us to understand, at least in part, the actions of others.
The provisions of Schutz's phenomenological sociology were most uniquely perceived by two schools. The first of them, the school of phenomenological sociology of knowledge, was headed by P. Berger and T. Luckmann; the founder of the second, called “ethnomethodology” (the term is constructed by analogy with the ethnographic term “ethnoscience”, denoting rudimentary knowledge in primitive societies), was G. Garfinkel.
The concepts of Peter Berger (b. 1929) and Thomas Luckmann (b. 1927) are distinguished from the teachings of Schutz by the desire to substantiate the need to legitimize, legitimize the symbolic universals of society.
The theory of legitimization, developed by these American sociologists, proceeds from the fact that the internal instability of the human body requires “the creation of a stable living environment by the person himself.” For these purposes, they propose the institutionalization of meanings and models of human action in the “everyday world.”
Symbolic meanings are considered by researchers as the basis of social organization. P. Berger and T. Luckmann pay great attention to meanings that are developed jointly and stand, as it were, above the individual. They see the real basis of these meanings in the religious beliefs shared by everyone. Society thus turns out to be the social environment of the individual, which he himself creates, introducing into it “real” values and meanings, which he subsequently adheres to. These meanings are developed and objectified in social institutions, allowing new members of society to be introduced to them, forced to submit to these “outside-me-beyond-me” values.
Functionalism. The name Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) is synonymous with functionalism. Just like E. Durkheim, T. Parsons pays considerable attention in his works to the problem of social order. He proceeds from the fact that social life is more characterized by mutual benefit and peaceful cooperation than mutual hostility and destruction, while arguing that only adherence to common values provides the basis for order in society. The sociologist illustrates his views with the example of commercial transactions. When carrying out a transaction, the interested parties draw up a contract, which is based on regulatory rules. From Parsons's point of view, the fear of sanctions for breaking rules is not enough to make people follow them unconditionally: what matters is moral obligation. Therefore, the rules governing commercial transactions must flow from generally accepted values that state what is proper. Order in an economic system is therefore based on general agreement on commercial morality. The sphere of business, like any other component of society, according to Parsons, is to a certain extent also the sphere of morality.
Consensus on values seems to the researcher to be a fundamental integrative principle in society. Generally accepted values give rise to common goals that determine the general direction of movement in specific situations. Thus, for example, in Western society, members of a particular enterprise share the goal of efficient production in their factory, resulting from a common view of economic productivity. A common goal becomes an incentive for cooperation. The means of translating values and goals into actions are roles. Any social institution presupposes the presence of a whole combination of roles. The content of roles can be expressed using norms that define the rights and responsibilities in relation to each specific role. Thus, norms standardize and streamline role behavior, making it predictable, which creates the basis of social order.
Based on the fact that consensus is the most important social value, Parsons sees the main task of sociology in the analysis of the institutionalization of patterns of value orientation in the social system. When values are institutionalized and behavior is structured in accordance with them, a stable system emerges - a state of “social equilibrium.” According to the sociologist, there are two ways to achieve social balance. The first is socialization, with the help of which social values are transmitted from one generation to another (the most important institutions that perform this function are the family, the educational system). The second way is to create various mechanisms of social control.
Parsons views society as a system, believing that any social system must meet four basic functional requirements:
- ?Adaptation (adaptation) concerns the relationship between a system and its environment: in order to exist, the former must have a certain degree of control over the latter. For society, the economic environment is of particular importance, which should provide people with the necessary minimum of material goods.
- ?Goal achievement (goal achievement) expresses the need of all societies to establish goals towards which social activity is directed.
- ?Integration (integration) refers to the coordination of parts of a social system. The main institution through which this function is realized is law. With the help of legal norms, relationships between individuals and institutions are regulated, which reduces the potential for conflict. If a conflict does arise, it should be resolved through the legal system, avoiding the disintegration of the social system.
- ?Sample retention (latency) involves preserving and maintaining the basic values of society.
Parsons used this structural-functional grid when analyzing any social phenomenon.
Consensus and stability of a system do not mean that it is incapable of change. On the contrary, Parsons believed that in practice no social system is in a state of ideal equilibrium, although a certain degree of it is necessary for its viability. Therefore, the process of social change can be represented as a “moving equilibrium.”
Thus, a change in the relationship of society with its environment leads to changes in the social system as a whole. The process of “fluid equilibrium” can affect not only parts, but the entire society.
Exchange theories. In contrast to the established mainstream of sociology, which views social phenomena as social facts explicable only on the basis of other social facts, George Homans (1910-1989) emphasizes the importance of psychology in explaining the social world, thereby breaking with the “sociologism” of E. Durkheim. He sees social action as a process of exchange in which participants strive to maximize benefits (material or intangible) and minimize costs. According to J. Homans, this provision applies to all human behavior. He does not deny the existence of social structures, which he called exchange structures. J. Homans believes that functionalism and economic theory describe these structures in sufficient detail and well, but they are unable to explain them, since such an explanation can only be based on the principles guiding the psychology of the exchange participants.
A change in the view of social action also implies a change in the view of the social system. In contrast to T Parsons' concept, J. Homans's social systems consist of people who are in continuous processes of material and immaterial exchange with each other, which can be explained by five interrelated provisions based on psychological behaviorism:
- ?Success Position: The more often a particular action of a person is rewarded, the more often he strives to perform this action. This is the basic rule to which all human actions are subject.
- ?Stimulus position: If any stimulus (or set of stimuli) led to an action that turned out to be successful, if this stimulus or a similar one is repeated, the person will strive to repeat the action.
- ?Value position: The more valuable it is for a person to achieve a certain result, the more she will strive to take action aimed at achieving it.
- ?Fast-Fast Position: The more often a person has received a special reward in the past, the less valuable a repetition of such a reward will be for him.
- ?Aggression-approval position: If a person does not receive a reward that he expected, or receives a punishment that he did not expect, he tends to demonstrate aggressive behavior, the results of which become more valuable to him. Conversely, if a person receives an expected reward, especially if it is greater than what he expected, or does not receive the punishment he expected, he tends to demonstrate the approved behavior, and the results of such behavior become more valuable to him.
This set of five propositions explains, according to Homans, why a person acts one way or another in any situation. Homans tries to extend these provisions to explain all social processes. J. Homans' theory of social exchange is a very rationalized model of human behavior determined by external circumstances and internal motives. The rationality of action does not lie in a conscious choice (as in T. Parsons) in following the rules of social exchange; therefore, human freedom turns out to be only the “illusion of choice”, subject to psychological rules. By reducing sociological explanation to the principles of behaviorism, J. Homans thereby makes a double reduction, since behaviorism itself only partially explains human psychology based on an analogy with animal behavior. Extending the behaviorist explanation to social macro-processes (power, stratification, etc.), J. Homans encounters great difficulties, sometimes leading him to the assertion that there is no society outside of people participating in exchange processes.
Ethnomethodology. This is a relatively new sociological direction. In 1967, Harold Garfinkel (1917-2011) first coined the term “ethnomethodology,” roughly meaning “the methods that people use”: ethnomethodologists study the methods by which people reproduce the social world. Representatives of this trend partly borrowed the type of sociological approach developed by Schutz. Thus, they follow Schutz in the belief that there is no real social approach. Social life appears orderly only because members of society are actively engaged in giving meaning to social life. According to D. H. Zimmerman, the main point of ethnomethodology is to explain how members of society cope with the task of seeing, describing and explaining order in the world in which they live. Particular attention is paid here to the study of technical techniques used by members of society to solve this problem.
G. Garfinkel proceeds from the fact that in order to understand the social world and give it an orderly appearance, members of society in everyday life use the so-called documentary method. Its essence is to select aspects of the infinite variety of characteristics contained in any situation or context, define them in a particular way, and then consider them as evidence of the presence of a particular social pattern. In other words, the “documentary method” consists in presenting parts of the sample (for example, the presence of characteristic features of a phenomenon or object) as a “document” that presupposes the existence of the sample.
Garfinkel argues that in everyday life people constantly relate parts of a pattern to describe the situation as a whole, as well as to organize social reality. In order to prove the validity of his method, Garfinkel conducted a number of interesting experiments. In one, university psychiatric students were invited to take part in what was presented to them as a new form of psychotherapy. They were asked to summarize their personal problem for which they needed advice, and then ask a psychotherapist a series of questions. The specialist was in the next room, so the experiment participants could not see each other, and communication was carried out through an intercom. At the same time, the psychotherapist could only give monosyllabic answers to the students’ questions - “yes” or “no.” The students did not know that the person answering their questions was not a psychotherapist of any kind, and the answers “yes” or “no” were predetermined according to a table of random numbers. Even though the answers were random and had nothing to do with the content of the questions, students found them useful and meaningful.
Summarizing the results of the experiment, Garfinkel came to the conclusion that students gave meaning to answers that were meaningless in themselves. When the answers seemed contradictory, students believed that the “therapist” was not aware of all the facts of their case. Thus, students constructed order using the documentary method. Garfinkel states that experiments of this kind shed light on how people in general continually construct and order the social world in their daily lives.
This experiment can also be used to illustrate the central idea of ethnomethodology - the idea of "indexation", according to which the meaning of any object or behavior follows from its context, is "indexed" in a particular situation. As a result, any interpretation or explanation of members of society in their daily lives is always made with reference to specific circumstances or situations. Thus, the students interpreted the “psychotherapist’s” answers based on a specific situation: they were at the university and were sure that they were dealing with a real psychotherapist. If the same answers to the same questions were obtained in a different situation, say, in a cafe, and their colleague acted as a psychotherapist, then the results would be interpreted completely differently. In this regard, Garfinkel concludes that the meaning of any action can only be considered in a certain context.
From this follows the programmatic position of ethnomethodology: “The features of rational behavior must be identified in the behavior itself.” Garfinkel focuses his attention on the study of single (“unique”) acts of social interaction, identified with speech communication. From his point of view, the main task of sociology is to identify the rationality of everyday life, as opposed to scientific rationality. Garfinkel criticizes the methods of traditional sociology as an artificial imposition of ready-made schemes on real human behavior.
Erving Goffman (1922-1982) often calls his concept the “dramatic approach,” which is justified by the following analogy: the role-expectations that others have regarding our behavior in certain situations are considered by him as “plays” that we “act out”; he pays great attention to how we perform them and the ways in which we direct our “performance.” All aspects of life - from the deeply personal to the public - are described in theatrical terms: "play", "stage", "actor", "backstage", "manager", etc. “Managing the performance” is carried out constantly, as if a person were simultaneously a producer engaging himself in a role, an actor performing it, and a director monitoring the performance. We use the object's environment as a prop and carefully guard our "private backstage" areas where we can relax after the "show."
Goffman describes the process of interpretation, “presenting one’s “I” to others” based on Mead’s constructions about “I” and “Mine,” but he, like J. Mead, nowhere defines what this “I” is. “I” has no essence, and nothing can be said about it except that we imagine it in various situations, and this idea is our life. As a result, we have as many “I”s as there are different situations our environment prepares.
Integrative sociological theory of J. Habermas. The starting point and central point of the sociological concept of Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929) is the category of the “life world” (Lebenswelt), going back to the phenomenological tradition. The “life world” is defined by J. Habermas as a non-thematized horizon of meanings that forms the basis of an individual’s life experience. External influences are correlated with this foundation, opposed to it, compared in relation to it.
The goal of the theory of communicative action is to describe the unfolding of the “life world” from an evolutionary perspective. Social evolution, according to J. Habermas, consists of the development of human cognitive abilities. Comparing the mythological and modern ways of understanding the world, he comes to the conclusion that the difference between them is based on the fundamental difference in the conceptual systems in which they interpret the world. Based on the works of C. Lévi-Strauss and C. Godelier, J. Habermas characterizes the mythological way of understanding the world as an inextricable unity in which each point of experience is metaphorically or metonymically associated with any other point. This association is made through binary relations of similarity and difference.
The associative nature of the mythological understanding of the world is diametrically opposed to the analytical division of the objective, subjective and social worlds, fundamental to the modern mind. J. Habermas shows that the insufficiency of distinguishing between the spheres of reference of the “life world” and the lack of reflection is not only characteristic of the mythological stage of development of the so-called “primitive peoples”, but also exists in developed countries, especially among children and adolescents.
The contrast between “closed” (mythological) and “open” (modern) views of the world gives J. Habermas the opportunity to argue that the second is more rational. Proving the increased rationality of the modern worldview, he shows the logical superiority of the cognitive potential of modern man over mythological and religious-metaphysical knowledge. Thus, social progress is seen by J. Habermas primarily as the development of the individual’s cognitive abilities.
Habermas argues that in the modern world rationalization (of both actions and systems) occurs unevenly. The social system is rationalized more rarely than the lifeworld. As a result, a social contradiction arises: an outdated social system begins to dominate the renewed life world. As a result, a person’s daily life becomes more and more miserable, the life world becomes more and more deserted. Today's problems lie in a fundamental violation of the conditions of reproduction of our lifeworld.
The solution to this problem, from Habermas’s point of view, lies in the social “decolonization” of the lifeworld, opening up the possibility of rationalization in the form of free communicative consent.
Theories of social conflict. Theories of social conflict were created on the basis of criticism of the metaphysical elements of structural functionalism of T. Parsons, who was accused of excessive emphasis on comfort, forgetting social conflict, inability to take into account the central place of material interests in human affairs, unjustified optimism, emphasizing the importance of integration and harmony through radical change and instability.
The origins of the theory of social conflict were the American sociologist Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962). Based on the ideas of K. Marx, M. Weber, V. Pareto and G. Mosca, Mills argued that any macrosociological analysis makes sense only if it concerns the problems of the struggle for power between conflicting social groups.
The theory of social conflict received a clearer formulation in the works of R. Dahrendorf, T. Bottomore, L. Coser and other Western sociologists.
Substantiating the main provisions of the theory of social conflict, Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009) argues that all complex organizations are based on the redistribution of power, that people with more power are able, through various means, among which the main one is coercion, to achieve benefits from people with less power. The possibilities for distributing power and authority are extremely limited, and therefore members of any society struggle to redistribute them. The picture of the social world, from the point of view of R. Dahrendorf, is a battlefield of many groups competing with each other, emerging, disappearing, creating and destroying alliances. The analogy of biological and social systems, as well as the idea of a system as such, turns into the concept of an “imperatively coordinated system”, being a development of Weber’s concepts of “dominant” (authority) or "overbearing" (power) systems synonymous with R. Dahrendorf. Dahrendorf defined "imperatively coordinated associations" as organizations in which there is "dominance" (which is inherent in all organizations in general), creating conditions for conflict.
Considering power and domination, he, like T. Parsons, recognizes their necessity for society, but does not support his concept of “functionally necessary conditions.” Assuming that the function of power is to maintain integrity and maintain consistency of values and norms, R. Dahrendorf attaches the greatest importance to its non-integrative aspect, which gives rise to conflicting interests and corresponding role expectations.
One with power or influence has an interest in preserving status quo; those who do not possess them are interested in their redistribution, in changing the existing situation. These interests are given an objective character, arising from the idea of their inclusion in the internal structure of roles along with T. Parsons’ four “functional requisites” aimed at maintaining the organization as such.
Of the variety of areas of sociology, two types can be distinguished depending on the approach to the analysis of society: the first type focuses on how the structure of society influences the behavior of people, the second - how society is created through the activities of people. However, many modern sociologists believe that it would be desirable to create a theory that would combine these approaches.
Structuration theory. Anthony Giddens (b. 1938), British sociologist, focuses his efforts on overcoming the separation of structure and action. The starting point of the concept he proposes is quite simple. Giddens believes that neither structure nor action can exist independently of each other. Social actions create structures, and only through social actions is the reproduction of structures carried out. Giddens uses the term "structuration" to describe the interaction of structures and social action. (structuration). He draws attention to the “duality of structure,” meaning that structures make social action possible, and social action creates those same structures. Giddens illustrates this point using examples of language and speech. Language is a structure made up of rules of communication that appears to be independent of any individual. For a language to survive, it must be spoken and written in accordance with existing rules. Language gradually changes: new words appear, old ones are forgotten. Speech is a historically established form of communication between people through linguistic structures created on the basis of certain rules. Thus, people, through their actions, can transform and reproduce structures. Giddens distinguishes two types of structures in social life: "rules" and "resources". Rules refer to procedures that individuals can follow in social life. Sometimes interpretations of these rules take written form - for example, in the form of laws or bureaucratic rules. Structural rules can be reproduced by members of society or changed by creating new patterns of rules through interaction, through actions. The second type of structure - resources - also arises only as a result of human activity and can be changed or maintained by people. Resources can be localized or overbearing. Localized resources include minerals, land, production tools, and goods. According to Giddens, these resources do not exist outside of human activity. Thus, land is not a resource until no one cultivates it. Power (intangible) resources are manifested in the ability of some individuals to dominate others, to force them to fulfill their desires, and in this sense, people become resources that can be used by other people.
Having defined in general terms what a system is, Giddens moves on to explain the nature of social systems and institutions. In his view, a social system is a pattern of social relations that exists at a certain time and in a certain space. Institutions such as the state or bureaucracy are viewed by the sociologist as patterns of behavior that exist over a period of time.
Due to the “duality of structure,” systems and institutions are closely related to the activities of people, whom Giddens often calls “agents,” implying their initially active position in society. According to Giddens, structure influences human behavior through the knowledge that agents have about society. In society there is a large amount of "common knowledge" about how to behave and how to deal with things. This allows agents to navigate everyday life and operate with surrounding objects. In their behavior, agents use knowledge of the rules of society that exist in its structure. They also use the material and power resources that are part of the structure of society.
Giddens believes that people are endowed with a desire for a certain degree of stability in social life. They have a need for “ontological security,” or confidence that nature and the social world will remain unchanged. He suggests that this may be due to a natural concern for the physical preservation of the body. People constantly think about what they are doing and evaluate whether their goals are being achieved. If goals are not achieved, agents may begin to behave differently. Patterns of interaction may change, and with them the social structure changes. For a sociologist, the very concept of “agent” presupposes a person capable of transforming the world around him through his actions, as well as reproducing it, which, however, is not associated with the mandatory transformation of the entire society.
The concept of duality of structure, according to Giddens, allows us to resolve the dispute between determinists, who believe that human behavior is entirely dependent on external forces, and voluntarists, who believe that people, having free will, act only in accordance with their desires. The sociologist believes that neither the first nor the second are right in principle, but in each position there is an element of truth. He believes that only in exceptional circumstances, when direct physical force is used against people, are they free to act. In all other cases, even when people claim that they have no choice, in fact they have the opportunity to do something differently.
In society, people's behavior, according to Giddens, is certainly constrained by the presence of power relations, because all social actions are in one way or another connected with these relations. At the same time, he views power as a tool with which human agents can change the state of things or the actions of other people (restrain them or limit their freedom). At the same time, power increases the freedom of action of those agents who possess it: what limits one, allows another to act more diversely.
In order for sociology to move toward overcoming the distinction between action and structure, Giddens argues, new research will be required into the reproduction of structure under the influence of the purposeful actions of human agents.
The most significant sociological concepts of the twentieth century. are empirical sociology, sociometry
(microsociology), structural-functional analysis, theory of social conflict, concept of social exchange, theory of symbolic interactionism, phenomenological sociology.
Formation of the empirical school in sociology was associated with attempts to overcome the excessive theorizing characteristic of the sociology of the 19th century, as well as with the need to solve practical problems in managing social processes. Within the framework of empirical sociology, two main trends have taken shape - academic and applied. The task of the first is to create systems of scientific knowledge about individual areas and phenomena of social life (sociology of the city, sociology of labor, sociology of mass media), which are used as a methodological basis for specific sociological research. The second task is to organize such research aimed at solving clearly defined practical problems. From 1920 to 1950, empirical research became a priority in American sociology. This process was started by representatives of the Chicago school Robert E. Park (1864–1944), Ernst Burgess (1886–1966), William A. Thomas (1863–1947), Albion V. Small (1854–1926). The first claim to leadership of the Chicago school in the field of empirical sociology was the work of W. Thomas and F. Znanecki “The Polish Peasant in Europe and America” (1918–1920). The research was unusual for that time - sociologists used documents, correspondence, autobiographies of individuals, questionnaires, widely used quantitative methods for assessing phenomena, but did not make any recommendations or theoretical generalizations on the facts being studied. A typical example of empirical sociology is the doctrine of “human relations” and its modern modifications. It developed within the framework of American industrial sociology, one of the founders of which was the American sociologist Elton Mayo (1880–1949). Sociology, according to Mayo, should practically contribute to the establishment of “industrial peace.” He put forward the idea of a favorable socio-psychological climate for the purpose of cooperation between workers and entrepreneurs. The theory is based on the Hawthorne experiment, which became
classic in sociology.
In the 30s XX century in line with the psychological tradition in sociology arises sociometry, or microsociology. Sociometry is usually understood as a theoretical and applied direction of sociology that studies sociopsychological relationships in small groups. The emergence of sociometry is associated with the use of specific techniques for studying group behavior of people, developed by S. Freud’s student, psychiatrist and sociologist Jacob Moreno (1892–1974). An important point in D. Moreno’s theoretical constructions was the position that through the disclosure of socio-psychological mechanisms and mental structures of communities, sociometry has the opportunity to establish social control over the behavior of individuals and social groups. Microsociology pays great attention to the analysis of the quantitative side of people’s psychological relationships, which are determined in
terms of indifference, sympathy (attraction) and antipathy (repulsion).
One of the most significant consequences of the creation of sociometry was the growth of interest in the possibilities of social research on various problems of human existence using quantitative methods and modern computer technology.
One of the most important and complex areas of modern
sociological thought is structural-functional theory. Its founders are considered to be the American sociologists Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) and Robert King Merton (b. 1910). They proposed to consider society as an integral system, the elements of which are in functional connections and relationships with each other. Such elements can be individuals, groups, communities, etc., within and between which structural connections are established. The nature of these functional connections and relationships made it possible to construct a more or less complete picture of society.
The key to T. Parsons' concept is the category of equilibrium. The conditions for the survival of a social system (conditions for the equilibrium of society as a whole or an individual) are adaptation (adaptation to the environment), goal setting (formulation of goals and mobilization of resources to achieve them), integration (maintaining internal unity and orderliness, suppression of possible deviations), latency ( ensuring internal stability and self-identity of the system). At the level of society, these functions are performed by the economy (adaptation), politics (goal setting), law and culture (integration), family, school, church, etc. (latency). According to T. Parsons, society is bound by a community of people’s values and mutual observance of the rules of social behavior. R. Merton, developing the theory of T. Parsons, focused on the theoretical and empirical possibilities of the functional approach to a more subtle explanation of social and socio-psychological phenomena. R. Merton noted that the position about the complete functional unity of society often contradicts the facts. Within the same society, social customs or sentiments may be functional for some groups and dysfunctional for others. R. Merton proposed to actually take into account the totality of social units for which a given social or cultural phenomenon turns out to be functional. In the late 50s - mid 60s. criticism of the functional approach developed. It was directed, first of all, against his focus on stability, balance and an integrated state of society,
the need to provide an adequate description and analysis of conflict situations. As a reaction of some Western sociologists to the widespread use of structural-functional analysis, the modern theory of social conflict arose. The main arguments against T. Parsons' thesis about stability as an attribute of society were the following: 1) a group of people is involved in the distribution of means in life. She opposes the whole society, so conflict is inevitable; 2) political power protects the existing
economic order of distribution of social product. She, too, opposes society, therefore the conflict between her and the masses of the people is objectively determined; 3) in every society there is an initial chain: money - power - values - ritual. Everywhere there is a clash of interests of opposing social groups, therefore, conflicts are generated by the entire system of social relations; 4) in any society there is coercion of some people by others, because only some own the means of production. Thus, social conflict is a product of economic relations.
Social conflict theory developed by American sociologists Charles Wright Mills (1916–1962) and Lewis Coser (b. 1913), and German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (b. 1929). They saw conflict not as a dysfunction of the social system, but as a natural and predictable component of the social organism. The main functions of social conflict include the integration of social structure, the preservation of solidarity within groups, the strengthening of interpersonal relationships, and the management of social change.
Social exchange theory, the creators of which are considered to be American sociologists George Homans (b. 1910) and Peter Blau (b. 1918), is a synthesis of sociology with the philosophy and psychology of behaviorism. According to Homans, sociology was the result of the process of natural development of psychology, therefore only a psychological explanation of empirical laws is possible. The central category of D. Homans's sociology became the category of social action. Social action is understood as a process of exchange, which is built on the principle of rationality: participants strive to obtain maximum benefits at minimum costs. To explain social action, D. Homans put forward five main hypotheses. Success Hypothesis: An action that is rewarded tends to be repeated, and if, when repeated, the action is no longer rewarded, it is not repeated. Stimulus hypothesis: action takes place in a specific situation, the characteristics of which are called stimuli; Once learned, behavior is used in similar situations. Value Hypothesis: The more valuable the reward, the higher the likelihood that the action will be repeated. The fasting-satiation hypothesis: the more often the reward is received, the faster habituation (satiation) develops. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: not receiving the expected reward, the person becomes indignant; in a state of indignation, the greatest value for her is aggressive behavior itself. Developing the theory of social exchange, P. Blau proposed his original concept. He focused on studying a set of issues related to the causes and mechanisms of the emergence, existence, change and collapse of various types of social organizations. P. Blau defined exchange as a specific type of association, including “actions that depend on rewards received from other persons and that cease when the expectation of rewards ceases.”
Founder of the theory of symbolic interactionism is an American philosopher and sociologist, professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago George Mead (1863–1931). According to Mead, man differs from animals in the absence of a system of instincts as regulators of behavior. The main characteristic of people's actions is the use of symbols. Symbols perform a coordinating function if they are the property of the group. A person becomes a member of society as he learns the patterns and norms of group action. Social action has two stages: communication using gestures, the prototype of language; symbolically mediated communication through language. D. Mead explained the emergence of symbolically mediated communication by the need to coordinate actions in society and the ability of people to create and use symbols. Symbolically mediated communication (using language) is characterized by the fact that it generates the same reactions when communicating with any individual, allows you to put yourself in the place of another individual and see yourself through the eyes of another person. Of significant importance for sociology and psychology was the role concept of personality developed by D. Mead, according to which multidimensional human behavior can be presented and analyzed in the form of a certain set of socially typical, stable patterns of his behavior - “roles” that a person plays in society. Roles set boundaries for an individual's appropriate behavior in a given situation. Thus, the characteristic features of symbolic interactionism, which distinguishes it from most trends in sociology and social psychology, are the desire to proceed when explaining behavior not from individual drives, needs, interests, but from society, understood as a set of inter-individual interactions, and an attempt to consider the whole variety of connections a person with things, nature, other people, groups of people and society as a whole as connections mediated by symbols. At the same time, special importance was attached to linguistic symbolism.
The so-called phenomenological sociology. This direction was founded by the Austrian philosopher and sociologist, since 1953 a professor of sociology at the New York School of Social Research, Alfred Schutz (1899–1959). Phenomenological sociology proceeds from the position that the perception of reality depends on how a person interprets it. The task of sociology, according to A. Schutz, is to understand how, on the basis of the subjective experience of individuals, the process of becoming objective of social phenomena occurs. The social world, according to the concept of A. Schutz, is the everyday world, experienced and interpreted by people acting in it as a structured world of meanings, appearing in the form of typical ideas about the objects of this world. These typical ideas take the form of everyday interpretations that create existing knowledge, which, together with the personal experience of the acting individual, is a set of means of orientation in this world taken on faith. A. Schutz argued that human subjectivity is most fully and consistently realized in the world of everyday life, hence the ordinary, everyday world is the “highest reality”, the most important for human cognition. Thus, the named variants of sociological theories, acting as paradigmatic alternatives, at the same time represent a product of operational interaction both with each other and with various borderline social science and humanities disciplines. This situation provides certain opportunities for further enrichment of the theoretical, methodological and ideological potentials of modern Western sociology.
Related information.