Society is a polysemantic word. In social science it has a broad and narrow meaning.

In a broad sense, society- a part of the material world isolated from nature, but closely connected with it, which consists of individuals with will and consciousness, and includes ways of interaction between people and forms of their association.

EXPLANATION.

Pay attention to the underlined words. This is how the answer to the question often sounds: Find the definition of society in the broad sense in the list.

In the narrow sense, society This:

1. A circle of people united by common interests, goals, activities (society of book lovers, philatelists).
2. Historical stage in the development of mankind (primitive communal, feudal society)
3. Community of origin (noble society).
4. Population of one country (Russian, American society)
5. Humanity as a whole.

EXPLANATION.

1. Humanity as a whole is too broad and general a concept. Therefore, if the answer options do not contain the words “ ways of interaction between people and forms of their association,” then the words "humanity as a whole" will also be the correct answer when answering a question about society in a broad sense
2. In a broad sense, the answer would be: “Society is the past, present and future of humanity”

Signs of society

There are many signs of society. I will highlight the most basic ones.

• Availability of territory. The life of society takes place in a certain space. In the modern world, such a territory is a country in which people live, a state.
• Population. Society is the people living in a particular territory.
• Autonomy, self-regulation. Society is able to exist independently, solve its problems by regulating the processes of social life.
• Presence of history, culture, something that connects generations, is passed on from one to another. The presence of traditions, customs, norms and rules is an integral feature of society.
• Control system. This system was characteristic of human society at the dawn of its emergence. Today it is a complex, branched system that allows you to regulate processes.
• Reproduction, that is, the birth of new members of society.
• Public interactions between members of society, which makes it sustainable and holistic.

See examples of tests with answers on this topic here.

Material prepared by: Melnikova Vera Aleksandrovna

This concept has two main meanings. In its broadest sense, society can be defined as a system of all existing methods and forms of interaction and unification of people(for example, in the expressions “modern society” or “feudal society”). In a narrower sense, the word “society” is used to mean any type or kind of social groups, the number and characteristics of which are determined by the diversity of people’s life activities (“Russian society”, “scientific community”, etc.). Both of these approaches are united by the understanding that a person is a “social being” and can live fully only within a certain group, feeling his unity with other people. These groups form a hierarchy - from the most large-scale, from humanity as a whole as the largest system of interaction, to professional, family and other small groups.

Development of scientific ideas about society.

The study of society is carried out by a special group of scientific disciplines, which are called social (humanitarian) sciences. Among the social sciences, the leading one is sociology (literally “social science”). Only it considers society as a single integral system. Other social sciences (ethics, political science, economics, history, religious studies, etc.) study individual aspects of social life without claiming to have holistic knowledge.

The concept of “society” presupposes an awareness of the objective laws of the collective life of people. This idea was born almost simultaneously with the birth of scientific thought. Already in ancient times, all the main problems in understanding the essence of society were recognized:

how different society is from nature (some thinkers generally blurred the line between society and nature, while others absolutized the differences between them);

what is the relationship between the collective and individual principles in the life of society (some interpreted society as the sum of individuals, while others, on the contrary, considered society as self-sufficient integrity);

how conflict and solidarity are combined in the development of society (some consider internal contradictions to be the engine of society’s development, others consider the desire for harmony of interests);

how society changes (is there improvement, progress, or does society develop cyclically).

Thinkers in ancient societies typically viewed human life as part of a universal order, a “cosmos.” In relation to the “structure of the world,” the word “cosmos” was first used by Heraclitus. The universalistic ideas of the ancients about society reflected the idea of ​​the unity of man with nature. This idea has become an integral feature of Eastern religions and teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism), which retain their influence in the East to this day.

In parallel with the development of naturalistic concepts, anthropological ones began to develop, emphasizing not the unity of man and nature, but the fundamental differences between them.

For a long time in social thought, society was considered from a political science point of view, i.e. identified with the state. Thus, Plato characterized, first of all, through the political functions of the state (protecting the population from external enemies, maintaining order within the country). Aristotle developed state-political ideas about society, interpreted as relations of domination and subordination, following Plato. However, he also highlighted purely social (not political) connections between people, considering, for example, friendship and mutual support of free, equal individuals. Aristotle emphasized the priority of individual interests and believed that “what should require relative, not absolute unity of both family and state”, that “every person is his own friend most of all and should love himself most of all” (“Ethics”). If from Plato there comes a tendency to consider society as an integral organism, then from Aristotle - as a collection of relatively independent individuals.

The social thought of modern times in the interpretation of society proceeded from the concept of the “state of nature” and the social contract (T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau). Referring to “natural laws,” thinkers of modern times gave them, however, a completely social character. For example, the statement about the initial “war of all against all,” which is being replaced by a social contract, absolutizes the spirit of individualism of the new time. According to the point of view of these thinkers, society is based on rational contractual principles, formal legal concepts, and mutual utility. Thus, the anthropological interpretation of society triumphed over the naturalistic one, and the individualistic one over the collectivist (organistic) one.

This meta-paradigm (general picture) of understanding the life of society formed the basis of Western European civilization and, as it expanded, began to be perceived as the most “correct”. However, in the 19th–20th centuries. Many attempts have been made to create an alternative meta-paradigm. Socialist and nationalist ideologies tried to establish the primacy of collectivist principles over individualist ones. Many philosophers (including Russians - N.F. Fedorov, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, A.L. Chizhevsky and others) proved the unity of the cosmos, the biosphere and human society. However, today these approaches remain on the periphery of public life, although their influence is growing.

From the undivided unity of scientific knowledge about society and nature characteristic of ancient and medieval societies, European thinkers of the modern era moved on to a differentiated system of independent sciences. The social sciences became strictly separated from the natural sciences, and the humanities themselves split into several independent sciences, which for a long time interacted weakly with each other. First of all, back in the 16th century, political science became isolated (thanks to the works of N. Machiavelli), then, at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries - criminology (starting with C. Beccaria), economic theory (with A. Smith) and ethics (with I. .Bentham). This fragmentation continued in the 19th–20th centuries (the formation of cultural studies, linguistics, religious studies, psychology, ethnology, ethology, etc. as independent sciences).

The desire for holistic knowledge about the life of society, however, has not disappeared. It led to the formation of a special “science of society,” sociology, which emerged in the 1830s and 1840s thanks primarily to the works of O. Comte. The idea he developed of society as a progressively developing organism became the foundation for all subsequent development of not only sociological sciences, but also other social sciences.

Within the social sciences of the 19th century, two main approaches to the study of the mechanisms of social development were clearly identified, emphasizing its opposite aspects - conflict and solidarity (consensus). Proponents of the first approach believed that society was better described in terms of conflicts of interests; supporters of the second preferred the terminology of shared values. The Marxist theory of social development, created in the 1840–1860s, which explains all phenomena of society “ultimately” by economic processes and internal contradictions in the life of society, served as the foundation for the development of conflict (radical) theories and still remains one of the most influential areas of social thought. A consensus view of social life is more typical of liberal thinkers.

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a tendency towards bringing together not only different social sciences, but also all of them with the natural and exact sciences. This trend was reflected, first of all, in the formation and growing popularity of synergetics founded by I. Prigogine - the science of the most general patterns of development and self-organization of complex systems (including society). Thus, at a new stage in the development of science, there is a return to the ideas of the ancients about a single “cosmos”.

Properties of society as a system.

Although the methodological approaches of representatives of various modern scientific schools of social science are largely different, there is still some unity of views on society.

Firstly, society has systematic– it is viewed not as a mechanical collection of individuals, but as united by stable interactions or relationships (social structures). Each person is a member of various social groups, performs prescribed social roles, and performs social actions. Falling out of his usual social system, the individual experiences severe stress. (One can recall at least the literary Robinson Crusoe, who suffered on a desert island not so much from a lack of means of subsistence as from the inability to communicate with other people.) Being an integral system, society has stability, a certain conservatism.

Secondly, society has versatility– creates the necessary conditions to satisfy the most diverse needs of individuals. Only in a society based on the division of labor can a person engage in narrowly professional activities, knowing that he will always be able to satisfy his needs for food and clothing. Only in society can he acquire the necessary labor skills and become acquainted with the achievements of culture and science. Society provides him with the opportunity to make a career and rise up the social hierarchy. In other words, society has that universality that gives people forms of organizing life that make it easier to achieve their personal goals. The progress of society is seen precisely in increasing its universality - in providing the individual with an ever-increasing range of opportunities. From this point of view, modern society is much more progressive, for example, primitive society. But primitive society also had universality, since it allowed people to satisfy basic needs not only for food, clothing and housing, but also for explaining the world around them, for creative self-expression, etc.

Thirdly, society has a high level internal self-regulation, ensuring the constant reproduction of the entire complex system of social relations. This is reflected in the creation of special institutions (such as morality, ideology, law, religion, state) that ensure compliance with the generally accepted “rules of the game.” There are different opinions regarding which institutions play a more important role in the processes of self-regulation. Some social scientists consider formal institutions (for example, “common power”, like E. Shils) to be the basis for the stability of society, while others consider informal institutions (for example, the “fundamental values” prevailing in society, like R. Merton). Apparently, at the initial stages of the development of society, its self-regulation rests mainly on informal institutions (taboo in primitive society, the code of honor of medieval knights), but then formal institutions begin to play a greater role (written law, government agencies, public organizations).

Fourthly, society has internal self-renewal mechanisms– inclusion of new social formations in the existing system of interrelations. It seeks to subordinate newly emerging institutions and social groups to its logic, forcing them to act in accordance with previously established social norms and rules (this happens during the evolution of society). But new norms and rules, gradually accumulating, can lead to qualitative changes in the entire system of social relations (this happens during a social revolution). Deviations from socially accepted rules and norms encourage the system to find new means to maintain balance and stability. The driving forces can be not only the contradictions of internal development, but also “the drawing of non-systemic elements into the orbit of systemism” (Yu. Lotman) - this was the case, for example, with capitalism in the 1930s, which actively used some principles of socialism. At the same time, the degree of openness of social systems is very important - the desire to actively adopt the experience of other systems (open society) or, on the contrary, the desire to close themselves off, fencing themselves off from external influences (closed society).

Thus, society is a universal way of organizing the social interaction of people, ensuring the satisfaction of their basic needs, self-regulating, self-reproducing and self-renewing.

Structure of society.

Society has a certain structure. What are the criteria for identifying structural parts - subsystems of society? There are several of these criteria: some of them are based on the identification of social groups, others - spheres of social activity, and others - ways of interconnection between people (Table 1).

1) Typology of social groups.

The primary grounds for identifying social groups that differ from each other lie, first of all, in natural factors that divide people by gender, age, and race. We can distinguish socio-territorial communities (city residents and rural residents, US citizens and Russian citizens), gender (men, women), age (children, youth, etc.), socio-ethnic (clan, tribe, nationality, nations , ethnicity).

Any society is also structured according to purely social parameters associated with vertical stratification. For K. Marx, the main criterion was the attitude to the means of production, to property (the classes of haves and have-nots). M. Weber included in the main criteria for the typology of social groups, in addition to the attitude to property and income level, also the attitude to power (by highlighting the groups of managers and managed) and social prestige.

As society develops, the importance of typologizing social groups according to natural factors decreases and the importance of social criteria increases. Moreover, old natural factors are transformed, filled with social content. For example, racial conflict remains a pressing problem in modern America, but not so much because a few racists continue to consider African-Americans as “inferior people”, but because of the culture of poverty typical of black neighborhoods, which is why the typical black person is perceived as a dangerous outcast.

2) Typology of spheres of society.

The decisive moments that determine the structure of society are the factors that made possible the very birth of human society - labor, communication and knowledge. They underlie the identification of three main spheres of society’s life – material production, regulatory activity, and spiritual production, respectively.

The main sphere of life of society is most often recognized material production. Its influence on other areas can be traced in three directions.

Firstly, without the products of material production, neither science, nor politics, nor medicine, nor education are possible, for which labor tools are needed in the form of laboratory equipment, military equipment, medical instruments, school buildings, etc. It is material production that creates the necessary means of life people in the household sphere - food, clothing, furniture, etc.

Secondly, the method of material production (“productive forces”) largely determines the methods of other types of activity. People, producing the things they need, create, without wanting it, a certain system of social relations (“relations of production”). Everyone knows, for example, what economic consequences the use of machines led to in modern Europe. The result of the industrial revolution was the emergence and establishment of capitalist relations, which were created not by politicians, but by workers in material production as a “by-product” of their labor activity. The dependence of “relations of production” on “productive forces” is the main idea of ​​K. Marx’s social teaching, which has become more or less generally accepted.

Thirdly, in the process of material production, people create and consolidate a certain type of mentality, resulting from the very nature of labor operations. Thus, material production (“base”) solves the main problems that determine the development of spiritual production (“superstructure”). For example, the work of a writer as a producer of spiritual goods is ineffective without printing.

Social life involves a complex system of social connections that connect people and things together. In some cases, such connections may develop spontaneously, as a by-product of activities pursuing completely different goals. However, for the most part they are created consciously and purposefully. This is exactly what it is regulatory activities.

The regulatory type of activity covers many specific types of work, which can be divided into two subtypes. One of them is communicative activity - establishing connections between various elements of society (market exchange, transport, communications). Another subtype of regulatory activity is social management, the purpose of which is to regulate the joint behavior of subjects (politics, religion, law).

The third sphere of social life is spiritual production. Its main product is not objects in which information is embodied (books, film), but the information itself addressed to human consciousness - ideas, images, feelings. If before the scientific and technological revolution the production of information was considered as relatively minor, secondary to the production of things, then in the modern era it is the production of ideas that becomes most important. Due to the high importance of spiritual production, modern society is increasingly called the “information society.”

To understand the relationship between various spheres of social life, modern social science continues to use the logical scheme “base - superstructure” proposed by K. Marx (Fig. 1). However, scientists emphasize that this scheme cannot be absolute, since there are no hard boundaries between its different components. For example, management (people management) is simultaneously the most important factor in material production, regulatory activity, and the production of values ​​(for example, corporate culture).

Rice. 1. The structure of the life of society, according to the theory of K. Marx.

3) Typology of ways of connecting people.

The main concepts that explain the ways in which people interact in society are social roles, social institutions and social communities.

Social role defined as expected behavior in a typical situation. It is social roles that make the interactions of people in society stable, standardizing their behavior. It is roles that are the primary elements into which the fabric of social interactions in society can be divided. Social roles are diverse, and the larger the set, the more complex the society. In modern society, one and the same person can alternately act in a dozen social roles over the course of one day (husband, father, son, brother, passerby, friend, boss, subordinate, colleague, customer, scientist, citizen...).

Different social roles are connected by countless threads. There are two main levels of organization and orderliness of social roles: social institutions and communities. Social institutions– these are the “rules of the game” in society (the rule of shaking hands when meeting, elections of political leaders, contract work for a predetermined salary...). Social communities– these are organized groups that develop these rules and monitor their compliance (government, scientific community, family...). Thanks to them, roles are connected with each other, their reproduction is ensured, guarantees of their stability are created, sanctions are developed for violating norms, and complex systems of social control arise.

The diversity of institutions and communities requires the development of two special mechanisms for organizing social life, which complement each other - culture and political power.

Culture accumulates the experience of previous generations (traditions, knowledge, values). Thanks to it, in the consciousness and behavior of people united by historical fate and territory of residence, patterns of behavior that are value-significant for society (“patterns,” as T. Parsons called them) are constantly reproduced. Culture, thus, sets the general tone for the development of society (). However, its ability to reproduce stable social connections is limited. Innovation processes in society often become so intense that as a result, social formations appear that oppose the previously established value-normative order (as happened, for example, in our country on the eve of the revolutionary year 1917). Purposeful efforts are required to restrain disintegration processes, and institutions take on this function political power.

Thanks to culture and political power, society manages to maintain a single normative order, which, by ensuring the interconnection of institutions and communities, organizes them into a systemic integrity, “creating society.” Only culture maintains and reproduces mainly established norms, tested by the experience of many generations, and politics constantly initiates the creation new laws and legal acts, strives for a rational search for optimal ways of developing society (but, unfortunately, often makes mistakes in its choice).

Rice. 2. RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM people in society.

Thus, society can be represented as a multi-level system. The first level is social roles. Social roles are organized into various institutions and communities that make up the second level of society. Differences in the functions performed, discrepancies, and sometimes confrontation of the goals of institutions and communities require a third level of organization of society. It is a subsystem of mechanisms that maintain a unified order in society - the culture of society and state regulation.

Functioning of society.

The functioning of society is its constant self-reproduction.

The prevailing point of view in modern science, revealing the mechanism of the functioning of society, is the concept of T. Parsons. In his opinion, the main element of society is a person with his needs, aspirations, knowledge, skills and preferences. It is the source of the strength of society as a system; it determines whether it will exist at all. That is why the most complex set of mechanisms for the functioning of society is focused primarily on control over a person. The basis of this complex is socialization(“introduction” of a person into society). During socialization, individuals learn to fulfill the roles prescribed by society and are formed as full-fledged individuals ( cm. PERSONALITY), which ensures the constant reproduction of existing social connections. The more developed a society is, the more complex the processes of socialization take place in it. Previously, the family played a decisive role in the socialization of new generations; now this function has largely been transferred to the system.

But not all individuals fit into the existing system of status-role relations. Individual properties of individuals, as a rule, turn out to be broader and more diverse than the socializing force of society. These properties constantly generate people’s desire to change existing orders and provoke the emergence of deviations from the norm (deviations), the critical level of which can throw the system out of balance. In this case, the “insurance mechanism” is activated - the state, which takes upon itself the task of restraining deviant behavior, using the means in its arsenal, including the use of direct violence.

The socialization mechanism, even multiplied by the power of state coercion, cannot restrain innovative processes for a long time. Therefore, in the context of the growth of such processes, the fate of society begins to depend on the work of another important mechanism - institutionalization, the birth of new institutions. Thanks to it, new structural formations are created, new status-role relationships are formalized, which did not find a place for themselves in previously existing institutions and communities.

Institutionalization can be natural in the form of gradual standardization of emerging types of interaction, normative design of corresponding roles (an example could be the formation of serfdom in medieval Russia - from the gradual restriction of the right of peasant transitions to the complete abolition of St. George's Day). It can also be artificial, as if inverted, when norms and rules are first created, and then real participants in the interaction appear. A typical example of artificial institutionalization is structural reforms (such as the radical economic reforms in Russia in the early 1990s). Artificial institutionalization is, as it were, proactive, channeling possible but not yet fully manifested types of interaction. Because of this, it is possible only thanks to state support, since it requires elements of coercion, without which the development of new roles by individuals may take too long or even fail. Therefore, the main conductor of structural reforms in society is the state, which has the necessary resources for this.

However, state intervention in the processes of institutionalization has its limits. Society cannot allow, for example, the ruling elite, relying on violence, to reshape the fabric of social interactions at their own discretion, based only on their own ideas and interests. Therefore, there is a third mechanism for the functioning of society - legitimation. Thanks to it, there is a constant comparison of the results of socialization and institutionalization with generally accepted value patterns of the culture of a given society. As a result, there is a kind of “culling” of those new formations that do not correspond to the existing system of values. This maintains the integrity of society while developing its internal diversity. For example, Protestantism played in the modern era the role of a mechanism for legitimizing the desire to get rich, encouraging an honest pursuit of wealth and “culling out” the desire for “profit at any cost.”

Development of society: a formational approach.

In the modern world there are different types of societies that differ sharply from each other in many respects. A study of the history of society shows that this diversity existed before, and many years ago such types of society prevailed (slave society, polygamous families, community, caste...), which are extremely rare today. In explaining the diversity of types of society and the reasons for the transition from one type to another, two conceptual approaches collide - formational and civilizational (Table 2). Followers formational approach They see progress (qualitative improvement) in the development of society, a transition from lower to higher types of society. On the contrary, supporters civilizational approach emphasize the cyclical nature and equivalence of different social systems in the development of society.

The idea that society in its progressive development goes through some universal stages was first expressed by A. Saint-Simon. However, the formational approach received a relatively complete form only in the mid-19th century. in the social teachings of K. Marx, which explains the process of human development as a progressive ascent from one form of society (formation) to another. In the 20th century The Marxist approach was dogmatized by Soviet social science, which established the concept of five modes of production as the only correct interpretation of Marx’s theory of formations.

The concept of “socio-economic formation” in Marx’s teaching occupies a key place in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of the history of society. Marx proceeded from the following principle: if humanity naturally progressively develops as a single whole, then all of it must go through certain stages in its development. He called these stages “ socio-economic formations" According to Marx’s definition, a socio-economic formation is “a society at a certain stage of historical development, a society with unique distinctive characteristics” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T.6. P.442).

The basis of a socio-economic formation, according to Marx, is one or another mode of production, which is characterized by a certain level and nature of development of the productive forces and production relations corresponding to this level and nature. The totality of production relations forms its basis, over which political, legal and other relations and institutions are built, which in turn correspond to certain forms of social consciousness (morality, religion, art, philosophy, science, etc.). Thus, a specific socio-economic formation is the entire diversity of the life of society at a historically specific stage of its development.

Within the framework of “Soviet Marxism”, the opinion was established that from the point of view of the formational approach, humanity in its historical development necessarily goes through five main formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and the future communist (“real socialism” was considered as the first phase of the communist formation). It was this scheme, which took hold in the 1930s, that later received the name “five-member” concepts(Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. DOGMATIZED MARXIST SCHEME OF SOCIAL FORMATIONS

The transition from one social formation to another is carried out through a social revolution. The economic basis of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between, on the one hand, the productive forces of society that have reached a new level and acquired a new character and, on the other hand, the outdated, conservative system of production relations. This conflict in the political sphere is manifested in the strengthening of antagonistic contradictions and the intensification of the class struggle between the ruling class, interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed classes, demanding an improvement in their situation.

Revolution leads to a change in the ruling class. The victorious class carries out transformations in all spheres of public life. This creates the prerequisites for the formation of a new system of socio-economic, legal and other social relations, a new consciousness, etc. This is how a new formation is formed. In this regard, in the Marxist social concept, a significant role was assigned to the class struggle and revolutions. The class struggle was declared to be the most important driving force in the development of society, and political revolutions were declared to be the “locomotives of history.”

The main long-term trend in the development of society in Marx’s theory is considered to be a “return” to a classless and non-exploitative society, but not a primitive one, but a highly developed one – a society “beyond material production.” Between primitiveness and communism there are social systems based on private exploitation (slavery, feudalism, capitalism). After achieving communism, the further development of society will not stop, but the economic factor will cease to play the role of the main “engine” of this development.

Marx’s concept of the formational development of society, as recognized by most modern social scientists, has undoubted strengths: it clearly names the main criterion for periodization (economic development) and offers an explanatory model of all historical development, which allows different social systems to be compared with each other according to their degree of progressivity. But she also has weaknesses.

Firstly, the formational approach of the “five-member” concept assumes the unilinear nature of historical development. The theory of formations was formulated by Marx as a generalization of the historical path of Europe. Marx himself saw that some countries do not fit into this pattern of alternating five formations. He attributed these countries to the so-called “Asian mode of production.” He expressed the idea that a special formation would be formed on the basis of this method of production, but he did not conduct a detailed analysis of this issue. Meanwhile, most of the pre-capitalist societies developed precisely in the countries of the East, and neither slaves nor feudal lords were typical for them (at least in the Western European understanding of these classes). Later, historical studies showed that in Europe, too, the development of some countries (for example, Russia) is quite difficult to “adjust” to the pattern of changing five formations. Thus, the formational approach in its traditional form creates great difficulties for understanding the diversity and multivariate development of society.

Secondly, the formational approach is characterized by a strict connection of any historical phenomena to the method of production, the system of economic relations. The historical process is considered, first of all, from the point of view of the formation and change of the mode of production: decisive importance in explaining historical phenomena is given to objective, extra-personal factors, and a person is given a secondary role. Man appears in this theory only as a cog in a powerful objective mechanism. Thus, the human, personal content of the historical process, and with it the spiritual factors of historical development, is belittled.

Thirdly, the formational approach absolutizes the role of conflict relations, including violence, in the historical process. With this methodology, the historical process is described primarily through the prism of class struggle. Opponents of the formational approach point out that social conflicts, although they are a necessary attribute of social life, but, as many believe, spiritual and moral life plays an equally important role.

Fourthly, the formational approach contains, according to many critics (for example, K. Popper), elements of providentialism (predetermination). The concept of formations assumes the inevitability of the development of the historical process from a classless primitive communal through class (slave, feudal and capitalist) to a classless communist formation. Marx and his disciples spent a lot of effort to practically prove the inevitability of the victory of socialism, where market self-development is replaced by state regulation of all parameters of social life. The creation of a “socialist camp” after World War II was considered a confirmation of formation theory, although the “socialist revolutions” in Eastern Europe reflected not so much the advantages of “communist ideas” as the geopolitical expansion of the USSR. When, in the 1980s, the overwhelming majority of countries in the “socialist camp” abandoned the “building of communism,” this began to be viewed as proof of the fallacy of the formation theory as a whole.

Although Marx’s formation theory is subject to strong criticism, the dominant paradigm of social development in modern social science, the concept of post-industrial society, shares almost all the basic principles of Marx’s theory, although it highlights other stages of social development.

According to this theory (it is based on the ideas of O. Toffler, D. Bell and other institutional economists), the development of society is considered as a change in three socio-economic systems - pre-industrial society, industrial society and post-industrial society (Table 3). These three social systems differ in the main factors of production, leading sectors of the economy and dominant social groups (). The boundaries of social systems are socio-technological revolutions: the Neolithic revolution (6–8 thousand years ago) created the prerequisites for the development of pre-industrial exploitative societies, the industrial revolution (18–19 centuries) separates industrial society from pre-industrial society, and the scientific and technological revolution (with second half of the 20th century) marks the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. Modern society is a transitional stage from the industrial to the post-industrial system.

The Marxist theory of social formations and the institutional theory of post-industrial society are based on similar principles, common to all formational concepts: economic development is considered as the fundamental basis for the development of society, this development itself is interpreted as a progressive and staged process.

Development of society: civilizational approach.

The methodology of the formational approach in modern science is to some extent opposed by the methodology civilizational approach. This approach to explaining the process of social development began to take shape back in the 18th century. However, it received its most complete development only in the 20th century. In foreign historiography, the most prominent adherents of this methodology are M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and a number of major modern historians united around the French historical journal “Annals” (F. Braudel, J. Le Goff, etc.). In Russian science, his supporters were N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev, P.A. Sorokin, L.N. Gumilyov.

The main structural unit of the process of social development, from the point of view of this approach, is civilization. Civilization is understood as a social system bound by common cultural values ​​(religion, culture, economic, political and social organization, etc.), which are consistent with each other and closely interconnected. Each element of this system bears the stamp of the originality of a particular civilization. This uniqueness is very stable: although certain changes occur in civilization under the influence of certain external and internal influences, their certain basis, their inner core remains unchanged. When this core is eroded, the old civilization dies and is replaced by another, with different values.

Along with the concept of “civilization,” supporters of the civilizational approach widely use the concept of “cultural-historical types,” which are understood as historically established communities that occupy a certain territory and have their own characteristics of cultural and social development, characteristic only of them.

The civilizational approach, according to modern social scientists, has a number of strengths.

First, its principles apply to the history of any country or group of countries. This approach is focused on understanding the history of society, taking into account the specifics of countries and regions. True, the other side of this versatility there is a loss of criteria for which features of this specificity are more significant and which are less.

Secondly, emphasizing specificity necessarily presupposes the idea of ​​history as a multilinear, multivariate process. But awareness of this multivariance does not always help, and often even makes it difficult to understand which of these options are better and which are worse (after all, all civilizations are considered equal).

Thirdly, the civilizational approach assigns a priority role in the historical process human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. However, emphasizing the importance of religion, culture, and mentality for characterizing and assessing civilization often leads to abstraction from material production as something secondary.

The main weakness of the civilizational approach is amorphousness criteria for identifying types of civilization. This identification by supporters of this approach is carried out according to a set of characteristics, which, on the one hand, should be of a fairly general nature, and on the other, would allow us to identify specific features characteristic of many societies. As a result, just as there is a constant discussion between supporters of the formational approach about the number of main formations (their number most often varies from three to six), different adherents of the civilizational approach name a completely different number of main civilizations. N.Ya. Danilevsky counted 13 types of “original civilizations”, O. Spengler – 8, A. Toynbee – 26 (Fig. 4).

Most often, when identifying types of civilizations, a confessional criterion is used, considering religion to be a concentrate of cultural values. So, according to Toynbee, in the 20th century. There are 7 civilizations - Western Christian, Orthodox Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian (Far Eastern), Buddhist and Judaic.

Another weakness of the civilizational approach, which reduces its attractiveness, is the denial of progress in the development of society (or at least emphasizing its homogeneity). For example, according to P. Sorokin, society constantly revolves within the cycle “ideational culture - idealistic culture - sensual culture” and is unable to go beyond its limits (Fig. 4). This understanding of the development of society is quite organic for Eastern societies, in whose cultural traditions the image of cyclical time dominates, but is not very acceptable for Western societies, in which Christianity has accustomed them to the image of linear time.

Rice. 4. TYPOLOGY OF CIVILIZATIONS(according to A. Toynbee).

Rice. 5. CYCLE OF CULTURES in the development of Western European society, according to P. Sorokin.

Like formational concepts, the civilizational approach also allows for a “simplified” interpretation, and, in this form, can become the basis for the most odious ideologies and regimes. If formational theories provoke social engineering (the forced imposition by some countries of their own, “more progressive” model of development on others), then civilizational theories provoke nationalism and xenophobia (cultural contacts supposedly lead to the destruction of original cultural values).

Both approaches – formational and civilizational – make it possible to consider the historical process from different angles, therefore they do not so much deny as complement each other. It is likely that in the future social scientists will be able to synthesize both of these approaches, avoiding the extremes of each of them.

Vukolova Tatyana, Latov Yuri

Literature:

Momdzhyan K. Kh. Society. Society. Story. M., Nauka, 1994
Giddens E. Sociology. M., 1999
Kazarinova N.V. . Ed. G.S. Batygina. M., 2000
Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: Textbook for universities. Ed. V.I. Dobrenkova. M., 2001
Semenov Yu.I. Philosophy of history. (General theory, main problems, ideas and concepts from antiquity to the present day). M., 2003

Any baby that is just born instantly becomes a member of society with the corresponding rights and rules. But what is this society that we all belong to? This concept is quite broad and includes many aspects. Society is a kind of system in which people interact and communicate, and are also divided into different groups depending on the characteristic that unites them.

In contact with

Classmates

Origins

The first community arose in primitive times, when people united in order to survive together. Entire clans were created this way. with their own hierarchy, who were engaged in a common cause and were often at war with other communities. In order to develop successfully, it was necessary to fight for food and territory, and then divide them. In addition, differences in religion or interracial prejudices could be reasons for conflicts.

From this distant primitive community came modern society, which is so very different from it, at first glance.

Definition in dictionaries

Society is such a broad concept that this word can be used to describe completely different groups of people. So, it can be called children who study in a macrame club, and at the same time, the entire population of the entire planet is also united under this broad concept. The whole point is that all members of society are united by their interaction. Thus, people who are completely different in worldview, skin color, and character are forced to maintain social relationships and live peacefully with each other.

And it’s not for nothing that “society” has the same root as the word “communicate”. It could not have formed without this simple action. If people were deprived of the need to talk to each other, everyone could live alone, but this is completely ineffective. Every person in society has a role. A striking example of this is the difference in professions.

Another example is an organization, firm or company, since people working in any production are united by a common goal - producing quality products. That is why each institution is assigned names of forms of economic activity that characterize the property from a legal point of view and indicate the nature of the relationships between the people working there.

The most famous and complete dictionary was created by V.I. Dahl. In addition, there is a special dictionary dedicated to the interpretation of social science terms, the author of which is N. E. Yatsenko. So, What interpretation do these authors give to society?

Dictionary by N. E. Yatsenko

Dictionary of V. I. Dahl

Oddly enough, this popular explanatory dictionary does not contain a definition of society as such. The lexicographer interpreted it with the verb “to communicate” - that is, to connect, unite something or someone, as well as to communicate and interact. You can watch it with another person at the same thing from different points of view and yet combine into one whole unity.

Society structure

Society cannot exist without society and social interactions. It can be imagined as a single organism, the normal functioning of which requires the coordinated work of all members . And this means, it is possible to distinguish separate systems and structures, including the following categories:

• institutions;
• segments of society;
• community;
• social groups.

All these categories are subject to external factors. In every society, it is quite natural for an individual to appear who will develop and change the views of a group of people. This can lead to both minor deviations from the original foundations and changes in the history of entire nations.

They play a very important role in the development of any association, since they establish connections and interactions not only within one group, but also between several communities.

Characteristic signs

Society has characteristic features and characteristics that distinguish it from other organizations of groups of people. These characteristics include fundamental features that will be described below.

Relationships and connections

So , society in the simplest sense- this is the interaction of its members among themselves, leading to the emergence of a social structure. This interaction takes place both between individuals and between groups, cells and similar elements of society.

At birth, a person enters into the society of people, as well as his family group. Then he begins to enter the society of his peers in kindergarten and school. Over time, the number of such groups increases. A person enters society on the basis of interest in a common cause, profession, or favorite activity. Moreover, these groups do not always meet the needs an individual person, so the association of people in which we find ourselves does not always suit us and satisfy our needs. Thus, it occurs due to the imperfection of dividing the general flow of people into smaller groups.

Nevertheless, a person communicates in his group according to certain rules. They can be either open or not. However, this does not mean that a person cannot influence or change them. In a group you can take a lower position than you would like, or a higher position than others. This leads to a certain inequality among group members.

It is not possible to achieve the same position for all group members. It’s just that everyone should be equal before the law, but, for example, in an interest group, someone will still occupy a leading position due to greater talent or stronger character. Such positions can be identified in any society - family, political party, work collective.

Types of society depending on science

There is a special science - social science, aimed at studying the concept considered here. But besides it, there are other sciences (psychology, philosophy and the like) that actively use the term society. Wikipedia considers the meaning these definitions also apply to interdisciplinary and subdisciplines of anthropology.

Social science

No matter how broad the concept considered here is, several historical types can be distinguished as a classification. They will be discussed further:

Social anthropology

Social society is the main form of human existence, which includes self-regulation mechanisms. Most often in sociology it is divided into types based on their level of development. Sociologist D. Lenski compiled the following classification:

• the hunting and gathering group - a community in which responsibilities were shared for the first time;
• an agrarian simple society is a group of people that does not have a separate leader to control it;
• agrarian complex - a group of people whose political structure includes people engaged in management activities;
• industrial - a society engaged in production activities;
• special, which cannot be attributed to any of the above types.

Also in sociology, the term virtual society is used; it operates on the Internet, which is typical for the modern age of technology.

Since society also call the totality of all people on the planet, it is important to understand how its development is represented. It is assumed that the first tribes, united for the sake of survival, chose the territory in which they led a settled life. As they developed, they turned into villages and then cities. From the latter, entire states grew. Subsequently, people developed laws and certain norms of behavior that a group of individuals had to follow. People could earn a certain status and improve your position in the team.

Political anthropology

This subdiscipline is classified According to its political structure, society is divided into the following types:

• tribe;
• chiefdom;
• state.

Moreover, the strength of these types will primarily depend on the environment of other groups of people who can be friendly or hostile. Typically, a more isolated society is protected from attack and lives more peacefully.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that that society is a living organism, where each member plays an important role and influences the development of other individuals and the life of the organization as a whole.

In everyday life, we quite often use the word “society”, almost without thinking about its meaning, which seems simple and understandable. But once we are asked whether it is a synonym for the word “public”, we begin to wonder. We propose to find out together what society is and how it differs from the public.

Definition of what society is

Question " What is society?" refers to the field of activity of sociologists, who today have not yet come to a consensus and have not formulated a definition of this term.

The word "society" has many meanings. It can mean:

• humanity. The entire population of the earth in a certain context is called society. For example, when they talk about the history of the development of civilization;

• population of the country. For example, the inhabitants of the Russian Federation can be called Russian society;

• bringing together people based on interests or similar activities. Surely, you have come across the expression “society of hunters and fishermen”, “sports society”, “society of ballet lovers”;

• historical stage of development. From school history, many remember such concepts as primitive society, feudal, capitalist, etc.;

• a legal concept denoting the organizational form of an enterprise: limited liability company, joint stock company, etc.

What is society - definition and division

In our article we will consider society from the point of view of sociology, which means by this concept a historically established structured community, whose members live in the same territory and enter into certain relationships. In other words, this is a collection of people living according to the social laws they have developed and constantly interacting with each other.

The public is a narrower concept, behind which stands the active part of society, which expresses the opinion of a certain part of citizens. Let's give an example. In the city of N, several public organizations and activists from the local population called for the closure of the metallurgical plant, whose emissions are several times higher than existing standards. In this case we are dealing with the city public.

What is society and man?

Philosophical debates about man and society have been going on for centuries. We will express an opinion supported by the majority of scientists.

A person is a rational being who enters into social relationships, and, therefore, is a member of society. Can a person exist outside of society? Hardly. Even hermit monks who lived in solitude were subject to the laws and rules developed by society, since the church is one of its institutions.

Children raised by animals are a striking example of how the influence of the environment affects the individual. Undeveloped speech, animal habits and, most importantly, inhibited psychological development, which is not restored over the years - this is what the lack of communication with other members of society leads to.

Society: main features

Characteristic features by which society can be distinguished from a state and a country:

What is society: answers

In this section we will provide answers to the most common questions related to society.

What is civil society?

Civil society is a set of public institutions and relations that are independent of the state and are designed to protect the rights and interests of their representatives before it. Often civil society exists in opposition to the state, limiting its omnipotence. For example, civil society actors may include public organizations fighting for human rights, environmentalist associations, and trade unions.

What is a traditional society?

Traditional society is one of the types of society, which is based on traditions and customs. This organization of society is conservative, since it strives to preserve traditional foundations unchanged.

The economy is built on rural subsistence farming, the dominance of religion is recognized in the spiritual sphere, and the monarch is considered the representative of God on earth. A similar social structure existed in ancient times and the Middle Ages.

What is modern society?

Modern society is called post-industrial, highlighting the main characteristic - the departure from industrialization, when the production sphere was considered dominant, and the transition to an information society, where most people are engaged in processing, storing and selling information and information technologies.

The main features of modern society are a sharp increase in the urban population, robotization of production, intensive development of the information industry and globalization of the economy.

What is a social society?

The basis of social society is the idea of ​​social equality. An attempt to create such a society was made in 1917, when, after the October Revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat was first proclaimed, and then the construction of a socialist state based on the ideas of equality and fraternity began.

However, it was not possible to achieve the desired goal: the USSR collapsed. Among the existing countries there is not a single one where there is no social oppression.

What is the sphere of society?

The sphere of society, or more precisely, the sphere of activity of society, is the totality of stable relationships between subjects of society. There are 4 main spheres of society’s activity: social (dividing society into classes, nations, gender and age groups, etc.), economic (industrial and trade relations), political (government system, the presence of parties and political movements), spiritual (religion, culture, morality) ).

What is the culture of society?

The culture of a society is the system of values, behavioral patterns and ideas about life accepted in a given society. Let's explain with an example. The culture of the people of Myanmar, from the point of view of a Russian, is very specific: there a long neck is considered the standard of female beauty, and the local population associates the emergence of this tradition with the legend of dragons. Russians do not have such a custom; there is a clear cultural difference.

We hope our answer to the question is what is society, satisfied you, and now you can tell how society differs from the public.

Political scientist Alexander Dugin will tell you more about traditional society in the video we offer:

Take it for yourself and tell your friends!

Read also on our website:

show more

The concept of “society” is used in a narrow and broad sense. In a narrow sense, society is understood as a group of people (organization) united according to some characteristics (interests, needs, values, etc.), for example, a society of book lovers, a society of hunters, a society of war veterans, etc.

In a broad sense, society is understood as the totality of all methods of interaction and forms of unification of people in a certain territory, within a single country, a single state. However, we must keep in mind that society arose long before the emergence of the state. Therefore, tribal (or clan) society exists in the absence of a country and a state.

Society is a system of relationships and forms of human activity that have historically developed in a certain territory. Society consists of individual individuals, but is not reduced to their sum. This is a systemic formation, which is a holistic, self-developing social organism. The systematic nature of society is ensured by a special way of interaction and interdependence of its parts - social institutions, social groups and individuals.

Main features of society

The main features of society are: the presence of a common territory; presence of social structure; autonomy and self-sufficiency; a certain sociocultural unity (common culture).

Let's consider each of the listed signs.

1. Territory- this is a certain physical space in which connections, relationships and interactions between individuals and social communities form and develop. The territory with its geographical and climatic conditions has a significant impact on social relations, on the ways and forms of people’s life activities, on customs, traditions, and value orientations cultivated in society. It must be borne in mind that territory was not always one of the main characteristics of society. Primitive society often changed the territory of its residence in search of food. But every modern society is, as it were, forever “registered” on its historical territory. Therefore, the loss of one’s territory, one’s historical homeland is a tragedy for every person, every social community.

2. Social structure(from Latin structura - structure) - a set of interconnected and interacting social communities, social institutions and relationships between them.

Social community- a large or small social group that has common social characteristics. For example, workers, students, doctors, pensioners, upper class, middle class, poor, rich, etc. Each social community occupies its “individual” place in the social structure, has a certain social status and performs its inherent functions in society. For example, the main functions of the working class are in the production of industrial products, the functions of students are in acquiring knowledge in a particular area, the functions of the political elite are in the political management of society, etc. Relations between social communities are regulated by social institutions.

Social Institute- historically established stable norms, rules, ways of organizing joint activities in a certain area of ​​society. The most significant from the point of view of the functioning of society are: the institutions of property, state, family, production, education, culture, religion. Each social institution regulates relations between social communities and individuals in a certain sphere of social activity. For example, the institution of the family regulates family and marriage relations, the institution of the state regulates political relations. By interacting with each other, social institutions create a single multifunctional system.

Social communities and social institutions support the division of labor, carry out the socialization of the individual, ensure the continuity of values ​​and cultural norms, and contribute to the reproduction of social relations in society.

Social relations- relationships between social communities and social institutions. The nature of these relationships depends on the position occupied by a particular social community in society, and on the functional significance of a particular social institution. For example, in a totalitarian society, the institution of the state occupies a dominant position and imposes its will on everyone, and the ruling elite primarily pursues its own personal interests, trampling on the interests of other social communities. Social relations are relatively stable (stability). They are a reflection of the social position of interacting social communities (alignment of class forces) and change as the position (social status) of certain social communities in the social structure of society changes.

3. Autonomy and self-sufficiency. Autonomy means that a society has its own territory, its own history, its own system of governance. Autonomy is also the ability of a society to create, within the framework of its functional system, relatively strong social ties and relationships that are capable of integrating all social communities included in it.

Self-sufficiency- society’s ability to self-regulate, that is, to ensure the functioning of all vital spheres without outside interference, for example, to reproduce the numerical composition of the population, to socialize each new generation, to ensure the continuity of its culture, to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of all members of society.

Autonomy and self-sufficiency of society are not abstract concepts. If a society is unable to satisfy certain vital needs of its members, then it loses its autonomy and cannot avoid unwanted interference from the outside.

4. Sociocultural unity. Some researchers designate this feature by the term “common culture.” However, it must be borne in mind that in complex social systems consisting of different ethnic, religious and other communities (for example, Russia, the USA, etc.), the term “community of culture” does not accurately reflect the phenomenon under study. Therefore, in our opinion, the concept of “sociocultural unity” is more acceptable in this case. It is much broader than the concept of “community of culture” and embraces (unites) various subcultures with common social relations for the whole society and integrates them into a single community. The main factors of sociocultural unity of society are: commonality of basic social institutions (state, family, education, finance, etc.), commonality of language (in multinational societies, as a rule, there is a language of interethnic communication - Russia, India, USA, etc.) , awareness of people’s belonging to a single society (for example, we are all Russians), unity of basic moral values ​​and patterns of behavior.

The sociocultural unity of society has great integrating power. It promotes the socialization of each new generation on the basis of generally accepted values, norms, rules of behavior and social identity. 13.Culture

Culture(Latin cultura - cultivation, farming, education, veneration) - an area of ​​human activity associated with self-expression (cult, imitation) of a person, the manifestation of his subjectivity (subjectivity, character, skills, abilities and knowledge). That is why every culture has additional characteristics, because is connected both with human creativity and everyday practice, communication, reflection, generalization and his daily life. Culture is the marker and basis of civilizations and the subject of cultural studies. Culture does not have quantitative criteria in numerical terms. Dominants or characteristics are sufficient to reflect the characteristics of a culture. Most often, cultures are distinguished in periods of variability of dominant markers: periods and eras, methods of production, commodity-money and production relations, political systems of government, personalities of spheres of influence, etc.

Any culture must include three main components: values, norms and means of transmitting cultural patterns.

Cultural values represent the properties of a social object to satisfy certain needs of individuals. When assessing various environmental objects, any member of society always correlates these objects with the system of their own needs, judgments about their urgency and makes attempts to create or acquire these or new values. At the same time, members of society have different attitudes towards spiritual and material values, based on their views and needs. Each individual has his own value system, in which both spiritual and material values ​​can prevail. In accordance with this value system, the individual strives to realize his individual needs. At the same time, in every society there is a certain generalized, fairly stable or crystallized system of values ​​that characterizes the basic needs of individual groups of the population.

The second component of culture is social norms. Social norms are generally accepted rules, patterns of behavior, standards of activity that ensure orderliness, sustainability and stability of the social interaction of individuals and groups.

The third component of culture is means of transmitting cultural patterns, through which cultural patterns can be transmitted to other people or even to other generations. It is important to highlight two main means of transmitting cultural patterns that are used by members of society: language and symbolic communication. By language we understand such a basic means of transmitting cultural patterns, in which each material or spiritual object of the environment should be assigned a certain set of sounds, in relation to which there is an agreement in a given society. People call absolutely all objects of the surrounding reality with certain words, be it a mood, an idea, a feeling, a belief or a material object. This method of disseminating cultural samples allows members of society to accurately convey complex experiences, systems of ideas or beliefs and, without resorting to demonstrations, to create generalized images of various objects in the external environment.