Peeling skin can be caused by a variety of factors. To deal with ...
As an independent science, scientists have always tried to understand society as an organized whole, highlighting its constituent elements. Such a universal analytical approach for all sciences should be acceptable for the positive science of society. The attempts described above to present society as an organism, as a self-developing whole, possessing the ability to self-organize and maintain balance, in fact, were an anticipation of the systemic approach. The full speech about the systemic understanding of society can be conducted after the creation of L. von Bertalanffy of the general theory of systems.
Social system - it is an ordered whole, which is a collection of separate social elements - individuals, groups, organizations, institutions.
These elements are interconnected by stable ties and, as a whole, form a social structure. Society can itself be regarded as a system consisting of many subsystems, and each subsystem is a system at its own level and has its own subsystems. Thus, from the point of view of a systems approach, society is something like a nesting doll, inside which there are many smaller and smaller nesting dolls, therefore, there is a hierarchy of social systems. According to general principle theory of systems, a system is something much more than just the sum of its elements, and as a whole, thanks to its holistic organization, it possesses qualities that all elements, taken separately, did not have.
Any system, including a social one, can be described from two points of view: first, from the point of view of the functional relationships of its elements, i.e. in terms of structure; secondly, in terms of the relationship between the system and outside world around her - the environment.
Relationships between system elements are supported by themselves, no one or anything is directed from the outside. The system is autonomous and does not depend on the will of the individuals included in it. Therefore, a systemic understanding of society is always associated with the need to solve a big problem: how to combine the free action of an individual and the functioning of the system that existed before him and by its very existence determines his decisions and actions. If we follow the logic of the systemic approach, then, strictly speaking, there is no individual freedom at all, since society as a whole exceeds the sum of its parts, i.e. is a reality of an immeasurably higher order than the individual, measures himself with historical terms and scales that are incomparable with the chronological scale of an individual perspective. What can an individual know about the long-term consequences of his actions, which may turn out to be opposite to his expectations? It simply turns into a "wheel and cog for the common cause", into the smallest element reduced to the volume of a mathematical point. Then, it is not the individual himself that falls into the perspective of sociological consideration, but his function, which ensures, in unity with other functions, the balanced existence of the whole.
Relationship of the system with the environment serve as a criterion for its strength and vitality. For the system, what comes from the outside is dangerous: after all, everything inside works to preserve it. Environment potentially hostile to the system, since it affects it as a whole, i.e. makes changes to it that may upset its functioning. The system is saved by the fact that it has the ability to spontaneously restore and establish a state of balance between itself and the external environment. This means that the system is inherently harmonious: it gravitates towards internal balance, and its temporary disturbances are just random failures in the work of a well-coordinated machine. Society is like a good orchestra, where harmony and harmony are the norm, and discord and musical cacophony are the occasional and annoying exception.
The system is able to reproduce itself without the conscious participation of the individuals included in it. If it functions normally, the next generations calmly and without conflict fit into its life, begin to act according to the rules dictated by the system, and in turn pass on these rules and skills to the next generations. The system reproduces and social qualities individuals. For example, in the system of class society, representatives of the upper classes reproduce their educational and cultural level, raising their children accordingly, while representatives of the lower classes, against their will, reproduce their lack of education and their work skills in their children.
The characteristics of the system also include the ability to integrate new social formations. It submits to its own logic and makes it work according to its own rules for the good of the whole newly emerging elements - new classes and social strata, new institutions and ideologies, etc. For example, the nascent bourgeoisie functioned normally as a class within the "third estate" for a long time, and only when the system of estate society could no longer maintain an internal balance, it broke out of it, which meant the death of the entire system.
Systemic characteristics of society
Society can be represented as a multi-level system... The first level is the social roles that define the structure social interactions... Social roles are organized into various and which constitute the second level of society. Each institution and community can be represented as a complex, stable and self-reproducing systemic organization. Differences in the functions performed by social groups, the opposition of their goals require a systemic level of organization that would support a unified normative order in society. It is implemented in the cultural system and political power... Culture sets the models of human activity, maintains and reproduces the norms approved by the experience of many generations, and politic system legislative and legal acts regulates and strengthens the links between social systems.
The social system can be considered in four aspects:
- as the interaction of individuals;
- as a group interaction;
- as a hierarchy of social statuses (institutional roles);
- as a collection social norms and the values that determine the behavior of individuals.
A description of the system in its static state would be incomplete.
Society is a dynamic system, i.e. is in constant motion, development, changes its features, signs, conditions. The state of the system gives an idea of it at a particular moment in time. The change of states is caused both by the influences of the external environment and by the needs of the development of the system itself.
Dynamical systems can be linear and non-linear. Changes in linear systems are easily calculated and predicted, since they occur relative to the same stationary state. This, for example, is the free oscillation of a pendulum.
Society is a non-linear system. This means that what is happening in it in different time under influence different reasons processes are determined and described by different laws. They cannot be put into one explanatory scheme, because there will certainly be such changes that will not correspond to this scheme. That is why social change always contains a measure of unpredictability. In addition, if the pendulum returns to its previous state with 100% probability, society never returns back to any point in its development.
Society - open system ... This means that it reacts to the slightest outside influence, to any accident. The reaction manifests itself in the appearance of fluctuations - unpredictable deviations from the stationary state and bifurcations - branching of the development trajectory. Bifurcations are always unpredictable; the logic of the previous state of the system is inapplicable to them, since they themselves constitute a violation of this logic. These are, as it were, crisis moments of a break, when the usual threads of cause-and-effect relationships are lost and chaos ensues. It is at the bifurcation points that innovations arise, revolutionary changes take place.
A non-linear system is capable of generating attractors - special structures that turn into a kind of "goals" towards which the processes of social change are directed. These are new complexes of social roles that did not exist before and which are organized into a new social order. This is how new preferences of the mass consciousness arise: new political leaders are nominated, sharply gaining national popularity, new political parties, groups, unexpected coalitions and alliances, there is a redistribution of forces in the struggle for power. For example, during the period of dual power in Russia in 1917, unpredictable rapid social changes over several months led to the Bolshevization of the soviets, an unheard-of increase in the popularity of new leaders and, ultimately, to a complete change of the entire political system in the country.
Understanding society as a system passed a long evolution from the classical sociology of the era of E. Durkheim and K. Marx to modern works in theory complex systems... Already Durkheim associates the development of social order with the complication of society. The work of T. Parsons "The Social System" (1951) played a special role in understanding systems. He reduces the problem of the system and the individual to the relationship between systems, since he considers not only society, but also the individual as a system. Between these two systems, according to Parsons, there is interpenetration: it is impossible to imagine a system of personality that would not be included in the system of society. Social action and its components are also part of the system. Despite the fact that the action itself is made up of elements, outwardly it acts as an integral system, the qualities of which are activated in the system of social interaction. In turn, the interaction system is a subsystem of action, since every single act consists of elements of the culture system, the personality system and the social system. Thus, society is a complex interweaving of systems and their interactions.
According to the German sociologist N. Luhmann, society is an autopoietic system - self-discriminating and self-renewing. The social system has the ability to distinguish “itself” from “others”. She herself reproduces and defines her own boundaries that separate her from the external environment. In addition, according to Luhmann, a social system, unlike natural systems, is built on the basis of meaning, i.e. in it, its various elements (action, time, event) acquire a semantic coordination.
Modern researchers of complex social systems focus their attention not only on purely macrosociological problems, but also on questions of how systemic changes are implemented at the living standards of individuals, individual groups and communities, regions and countries. They come to the conclusion that all changes occur at different levels and are interrelated in the sense that the “higher” arise from the “lower” and return to the lower again, influencing them. For example, social inequality arises from differences in income and wealth. This is not just an ideal measure of income distribution, but a real factor that produces certain social parameters and influences the lives of individuals. Thus, the American researcher R. Wilkinson showed that in cases where the degree social inequality exceeds a certain level, it affects the health of individuals by itself, regardless of actual welfare and income.
Society has a self-organizing potential, which allows us to consider the mechanism of its development, especially in a situation of transformation, from the standpoint of a synergistic approach. Self-organization is understood as the processes of spontaneous ordering (transition from chaos to order), formation and evolution of structures in open nonlinear media.
Synergetics - new interdisciplinary direction scientific research, within the framework of which the processes of transition from chaos to order and vice versa (processes of self-organization and self-disorganization) in open nonlinear media of a very different nature are studied. This transition is called the phase of formation, which is associated with the concept of bifurcation or catastrophe - an abrupt change in quality. At the decisive moment of the transition, the system must make a critical choice through the dynamics of fluctuations, and this choice takes place in the bifurcation zone. After a critical choice, stabilization occurs and the system develops further in accordance with the choice made. This is how, according to the laws of synergetics, fundamental relations are fixed between the case and external constraint, between fluctuation (randomness) and irreversibility (necessity), between freedom of choice and determinism.
Synergetics as a scientific trend emerged in the second half of the 20th century. v natural sciences, however, the principles of synergetics gradually spread to the humanities, becoming so popular and in demand that at the moment synergetic principles are at the center of scientific discourse in the system of social and humanitarian knowledge.
Society as a social system
From the point of view of the systems approach, it can be considered as a system consisting of many subsystems, and each subsystem, in turn, is itself a system at its own level and has its own subsystems. Thus, society is something like a set of nesting dolls, when inside a large nesting doll there is a smaller nesting doll, and inside it there is an even smaller nesting doll, etc. Thus, there is a hierarchy of social systems.
The general principle of systems theory is that a system is understood as something much more than just the sum of its elements - as a whole, thanks to its holistic organization, possessing qualities that its elements, taken separately, do not have.
The relations between the elements of the system are such that they are supported by themselves, they are not directed by anyone or anything from the outside. The system is autonomous and does not depend on the will of the individuals included in it. Therefore, the systemic understanding of society is always associated with a big problem - how to combine the free action of the individual and the functioning of the system that existed before him and determines by its very existence his decisions and actions. What can an individual know about the long-term consequences of his actions, which may turn out to be opposite to his expectations? It simply turns into a "wheel and cog in the common cause", into the smallest element, and not the individual himself is subjected to sociological consideration, but his function, which ensures, in unity with other functions, the balanced existence of the whole.
The relationship of the system with the environment serves as a criterion for its strength and viability. For the system, what comes from outside is dangerous, since everything inside the system works to preserve it. The environment is potentially hostile to the system because it affects it as a whole, making changes to it that can upset its functioning. The system is preserved, since it has the ability to spontaneously restore and establish a state of balance between itself and the external environment. This means that the system tends to the internal balance and its temporary violations are just random failures in the work of a well-coordinated machine.
The system can reproduce itself. This happens without the conscious participation of the individuals included in it. If it functions normally, the next generations calmly and without conflict fit into its life, begin to act according to the rules dictated by the system, and in turn pass on these rules and skills to their children. The social qualities of individuals are also reproduced within the framework of the system. For example, in a class society, representatives of the upper classes reproduce their educational and cultural level, raising their children accordingly, while representatives of the lower classes, against their will, reproduce in their children a lack of education and their work skills.
The characteristics of the system also include the ability to integrate new social formations. It subordinates to its logic and forces to act according to its own rules for the benefit of the whole newly emerging elements - new classes, social strata, etc. For example, for a long time the emerging bourgeoisie functioned normally as part of the "third estate" (the first estate was the nobility, the second was the clergy), but when the system of the estate society could not maintain an internal balance, it "broke" out of it, which meant the death of the entire system.
So, society can be represented as a multilevel system. The first level is social roles that define the structure of social interactions. Social roles are organized into institutions and communities that make up the second level of society. Each institution and community can be represented as a complex systemic organization, stable and self-reproducing. Differences in the functions performed, the opposition of the goals of social groups can lead to the death of society, if there is no such systemic level of organization that would support a unified normative order in society. It is realized in the system of culture and political power. Culture sets the patterns of human activity, supports and reproduces norms tested by the experience of many generations, and the political system regulates and strengthens ties between social systems by legislative and legal acts.
Kaluzhsky M.L.
Any social development associated with the formation of social systems. All social systems, as originally artificial in relation to the education society, have the same life cycle as any other systems. The life cycle of social systems ends when the contradictions between it and society become insurmountable.
It should be noted that any development is possible only where there is a structurally formed education. In other words, where there is something to develop (the very object of development). The development of matter in the Universe has not yet developed ways to obtain additional resources under comparable equal conditions, otherwise than through a qualitative change in the material subject itself.
And the development of social systems is subject to the same laws. " Biological evolution within a speciesHomosapiens is saved, - wrote L.N. Gumilev - but acquires features that are not characteristic of other species of animals. Phylogenesis transforms into ethnogenesis". To this we can add that the development of human civilization is far from being exhausted by ethnogenesis. Ethnogenesis is transformed (or rather, supplemented) into civitogenesis.
Even M.T. Cicero in the first book of the treatise "On Duties" identified three degrees (gradations) of public relations:
1. infinita (society) - the broadest or "limitless" degree of community embraces the whole of humanity, this is human society (i.e. societas);
2. gens - a closer community denoting a tribe (or nationality, ethnos - in the modern sense);
3. civitas - even closer community and connection, comparable to the civic community.
We are talking here about a kind of nesting dolls, where everyone is members of society, but only a part of these members are full members of the ethnos. However, we are interested here in the third, highest degree of social ties. While the first two degrees are familiar enough to readers, the third degree is traditionally hushed up. The time has come to revive the concept forgotten today by designating the legitimate relations of power and subordination with the term “ civil ».
And we are not talking about "civil society" in its modern sense. The point is that not every ethnic Roman could become a full citizen of Rome. Members of a rather small elite community who were directly related to the management of this ancient state were considered full citizens of Rome.
Therefore, civitogenesis, as the highest form of sociogenesis, is not so much a separate stage in the development of mankind as the most important mechanism of this development, although it is not always necessary. We know many examples when self-sufficient human communities in our time do well without social institutions (the same Bushmen, peoples of the North, etc.).
The specificity of social development lies only in the fact that civitogenesis does not always coincide with other forms of social development (ethnic, individual, etc.), and often contradicts them. This contradiction objectively gives rise to a deep confrontation between social systems and society, which at the final stage of the development of social systems manifests itself in social protest actions and social bifurcations (revolutions).
The best proof of this thesis can be at least the fact that actions of public protest and revolution have been observed in human society throughout the entire history of its existence, regardless of the degree of its technological, political or any other development. Moreover, the more complex and perfect the social system, the sharper and more global in its consequences its bifurcation.
A very common social myth, paradoxically, is that social systems completely organize the life of society and almost contain it. In reality, this is not at all the case. The uncontrolled development of society is an objective threat to the systemic advantages of the social elite. Therefore, defending its monopoly position, it limits the possibilities for the non-social development of society. “... the action of social systems was aimed not only at concentrating wealth in the hands of the dominant minority,- notes L.A. White, - but also to prevent the broad masses of the population from benefiting from technological progress».
All this happens because any social system is a kind of target organization aimed at realizing the monopolized advantages of the social elite in society. The desire to achieve this goal determines the laws of social development and the contradictions that arise in the process of this development between social systems and society.
Accordingly, the higher the level of social development, the closer the individual potential of members of the social environment to the individual potential of members of social systems and the smaller the gap between them. Consequently, the homeostatic function of social systems is to maintain a kind of distance between themselves and ordinary members of society. These are the protection of property, the repressive apparatus, the institutionalization of social administration bodies, etc.
Social systems have no other enemy more terrible than society, if only because they themselves once emerged from a social environment. And if the pressure (ideological, political, economic, etc.) on society is not strong enough, then the social environment can again give rise to social elites capable of forming alternative social systems. And this is already a direct threat to systemic and elite (state, corporate) security, which must be identified and destroyed.
So, the advantage of civil development over other forms of social development lies in its anticipatory action ... The main aspiration of civilian systems at the state level is to freeze public relations, prevent non-systemic development of society ... Moreover, not only outside of civil relations in general, but also outside of a specific system in particular. For this purpose, legislation, ideology, and the repressive apparatus are used. In a word, everything that creates a framework that encloses social activity in the civil system and directs the activities of people for the benefit of the system.
At one time, the Soviet ideological system supported the thesis that communist regimes easily come to power in backward societies, but building a “new formation” society there is much more difficult than in developed societies. While in developed societies, the opposite situation is allegedly observed. Indeed, socialist regimes easily arose in feudal and colonial countries, where social systems appropriated the results of the introduction of new forms of organization of society.
From the point of view of the theory of civitogenesis, this phenomenon has a different explanation. Underdeveloped societies are not immune to the expansion of the social elite. This is due to the fact that social mechanisms of governance exist at the ethnic level of relations in an embryonic form and do not conflict with ethnic values and norms.
However, later on, contradictions are formed, exacerbated and grow. It is no accident that social organization often looks immoral from an ethnic standpoint.
A similar situation was observed, for example, in Ancient Egypt or in Ancient Rome, where the key to the strength of social systems was their effectiveness (in terms of a set of parameters) in comparison with other forms of social organization. However, as soon as the individual development of members of society and their ethnic self-awareness reached a sufficiently high level, the great social systems turned out to be uncompetitive and rapidly degraded.
Hence the conclusion: social systems are not a source, but a catalyst for social development ... They are ahead of society in appropriating resources during the transition to a new stage of technological development and bleed it, appropriating the results of social labor. It is no coincidence that the great social systems-civilizations, having experienced their heyday, almost never revived in their former greatness (ancient civilizations, Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, the USSR, etc.). They simply "burned" the strength and potential of society.
There is one more hypostasis of social development, usually overlooked by social philosophy. Any development implies not only the causality of phenomena, but also the constant exclusion of possible alternatives. F. Engels wrote: “... every progress in organic development is at the same time a regression, for it consolidates one-sided development and excludes the possibility of development in many other directions". But if this statement is relevant for the processes of the biological level, then for the social level it is tens, or even hundreds of times more relevant.
Therefore, social consistency is not a sign of strength, but of weakness of a social organization. This is a kind of "growing pain" in social development, which, if not treated, then it leads to a halt in the development of social relations and even to the degradation of the ethnic group.
« Ethnicity, gaining social forms, - writes L.N. Gumilev - creates political institutions that are not natural phenomena. ... But all these institutions were the work of human hands and in this sense are similar to temples with colonnades, palaces, axes and clothes, which, ... without the possibility of self-development, can only be destroyed by the influence of time". This statement is only partly true. Not an ethnos as a whole, but its elite creates a social system with its inherent institutions. Most of ethnos in this process plays a passive role, content with the position of "led".
Therefore, there cannot be many social leaders (as well as ethnic leaders). And the social organization only reinforces and cements this situation. Schematically, resource-organizational flows in modern society can be represented as follows:
Rice. 1. Allocation of resources and organization at different levels of social management.
In such a system of relations, there is no place for duplication of functions and competition between dominant structures, which is possible only outside of social systems. Moreover, all the listed levels of social organization include two of its types:
1. territorial organization - submitted by state, regional and municipal authorities;
2. industry organization - submitted by corporate governance bodies.
It is highly indicative in this regard that commodity and social relations have common nature, since both social organization and commodity production pursue the same goal - the satisfaction of individual needs. Means of satisfaction are different, but the objective essence of the phenomenon is one. Therefore, the curve of development of any social (ethnic, social, etc.) systems resembles the curve of the life cycle of a product (see Fig. 2).
Rice. 2. Product life cycle.
Apparently, the general pattern lies in the causality of the emergence of goods and social systems. All of them are intended to solve a single problem - to simplify human life by improving its organization. It is another matter that the systemic elites (in fact, the owners) pursue their own interests and for them society is nothing more than a means of achieving the set goal.
The patterns of the demand for human "material" in the development of social systems are presented in Table 6.
Tab. 1. Behavioral dominants of social elites at different stages of the life cycle of social systems.
In the process of its development, a social organization not only integrates society into the framework of social systems, but also deprives it of the possibilities of alternative (foreign or non-systemic) development. In this sense, society depends on the system as much as the system depends on society. Break the chain of social relations and the social system will immediately collapse, just as it did in, say, British India in 1948.
Wherein the vector of development of the social system is directed from competitive development towards the gradual monopolization of advantages and stagnation... Of course, not all social systems follow this path. Someone is reorganized, someone is absorbed, and someone is ruined because of the negative situation. However, the general pattern is just that. This phenomenon is considered in sufficient detail in modern Western social philosophy.
The life cycle of social systems, shown in Fig. 2 goes through four main stages in its development:
Stage I. At the first stage of the cycle, the interests of the social elite and the interests of the majority of society usually coincide. Moreover, this is usually due to the ideological influence of the emerging elite on public consciousness, and not with real prerequisites. Ethnic forces play a huge role here, being often the main driving force behind the emergence process. social organization... The most typical example is the use of a revolutionary situation by elites striving for power.
The resulting new ethno-social elites are only using the fruits of ethnic explosions that are causing the reorganization of large social systems. Hence, a dissipative ethnos is something like an unbroken horse, holding onto which one can get great power and glory, but the slightest mistake here leads to inevitable death. It is not without reason that N.Macchiavelli noted: “... popular discontent is easily eliminated - in cases where the people do not have leaders. For there is nothing more terrible than the unbridled, leaderless masses, and at the same time, there is nothing more helpless».
The first stage of social development begins immediately after the bifurcation (moment of re-evolution) of the previous social system. The number of contenders for power here is as large as possible, and the development of the situation is difficult to predict. Incipient and dying social systems, using the terminology of I.R. Prigogine, are in an open, highly disequilibrium state. However, the social system develops in this way only until the moment of its final formation.
Stage II. At the second stage of systemic development, the purpose of the social system changes. Now it consists in retaining power over the resources of society, territory and organization. As a result, an artificial socio-ethnic environment is created with its inherent ideology, legislation, social and repressive mechanisms. At the second stage, only the interests of social systems and the socialized part of society coincide.
There is an active development of social organization. " Application of this method<социального строительства – М.К.>, creating the impression of a big leap at the moment of transition, - M.S. Voslensky writes, - then leads inevitably to swamp stagnation in a society monopoly controlled by a despotic bureaucracy". There is no need to prove this thesis. We observed the described picture in the USSR, fascist Germany, Cuba, Iran and in general practically in all totalitarian countries.
And vice versa, even countries with centuries-old traditions of totalitarian rule, during the transition to a non-totalitarian form of social organization, demonstrate amazing rates of social development. Take, for example, post-war Japan, colonial Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, Chile, etc.
However, the overwhelming majority of society is deprived of opportunities for unsocialized self-development. Professor L. Ionin very accurately noted on this occasion: “... each person has ... - their own goals. And only then is the society diverse. And if everything is dictated from above, then people become the same. By the way, this is the path to entropy, smoothing out differences, smoothing out development, reducing dynamic potentials, and so on.».
Stage III. The third stage is the longest of the stages of the life cycle of social systems, so it should be discussed in more detail. This stage is characterized by the fact that the formation and institutionalization is replaced by social stability, which carries with it a tendency towards slow degradation. An analogy can be drawn here with biological processes. For example, S.N. Parkinson notes: “ The tree begins to rot when it reaches the maximum size for its species, and stops growing, because the biological cycle is complete. Organizations, like plants, do not live forever. Maturity is inevitably replaced by old age and decay».
In the development of social systems, two main processes can be distinguished that have different logic: intrasystem and non-systemic ... And since any consistency is based on closeness (as mentioned earlier), it is not surprising that there is no direct relationship between these two processes. Members of social elites understand the harmfulness and immorality of their behavior in relation to society, but they cannot act contrary to the logic and practice of the current process of development of social systems. Otherwise, the system simply rejects them.
This phenomenon is described in sufficient detail in the specialized literature. For example, M.S. Voslensky writes that the reason for the resistance of the nomenklatura to market reforms in the USSR was the fear of losing the power levers. He notes: “... the nomenklatura does not want to give up state management of "socialist" property. And not because it is unaware of the colossal damage from such management for the country's economy, it does. But the transformation "Socialist" property in the true ownership of the country would mean the expropriation of the nomenclature».
Which is quite natural, since any social organization is just a way of managing society on the part of the social elite. Who will give up the end in favor of the means? This is nonsense.
Thus, social development actually ends with the formation of the social system. Further, the system no longer evolves, but opposes or adapts to society. These are two possible paths of social development at the third stage - either the social system grows stiff and gradually moves to a state of stagnation, or “power erosion” occurs.
The described phenomena are characteristic precisely for the third stage of social development, since in other situations they are not in demand. We are dealing here with the adaptive response of social systems to the deterioration of environmental conditions (decrease in the controllability of society). Social development, i.e. change existing forms social organization more perfect, implies strengthening the social system. In other words, we are still talking about reforming the existing social system, and not about changing the forms of social organization and, moreover, social elites. To paraphrase von Hayek's expression “ at life has no other purpose but life itself»You can say: the reform of social systems has no other goal than the very reform of social systems .
Therefore, all social systems are homeostatic and extremely stable. But their stability is ensured not even by the conscious leadership of the social elite or the consciousness of the functional elite, but by the natural desire of the participants in social structures to preserve a favorable living environment for themselves. For example, F.A. Hayek notes in this regard: “... in spontaneousIn social formations, as in biological organisms, parts often behave as if their purpose was to preserve the whole. ... if someone had a conscious goal to preserve the structure of such wholes ..., then he would try to cause precisely those processes that are taking place this way, without any conscious leadership».
Most clearly we can observe the described processes on the example of the Roman Empire. However, in our time, the same phenomena occur, and almost everywhere. And, the higher the level of development of the social system, the wider its social base in society. So, for example, in the 20th century, the most developed democracies in Western Europe formed the most significant social structures in terms of numbers.
According to S.N. Parkinson's data, in Sweden, France, Germany and Norway at the end of the 1960s. (Unfortunately, there are no other data) the maintenance of the state apparatus cost the societies of these countries more than 40% of the national income. Moreover, Sweden with its super taxes and the highest level by Western standards social protection population was in first place with an indicator of 46.9%. In many Third World countries, the content of the bureaucracy is generally one of the main items of government spending.
So, S.N. Parkinson gives the following figures for the ratio of civil servants and ordinary citizens in the average countries of Western democracies:
Great Britain - 1:31;
Ireland - 1:33;
The leading world economic power, the United States of America, demonstrates an increase in the ratio of federal (!) Officials and ordinary members of society from 1: 300 at the beginning of the 20th century to 1:15 at the end of this millennium.
In Russia and in other countries with rapidly developing social systems (including functional structures), the number of social elites is still relatively small. A conclusion involuntarily suggests itself, confirming the thesis about the existence of a life cycle of social systemicity: improvement of social systems is associated with the redistribution of the resources of society by the social elites in their favor... It means that:
1. social development, like any development, is observed where there are appropriate conditions for this (resources, territorial and organizational capabilities);
2. the formation of social elites (systems) is the vanguard of the formation of social infrastructure, i.e. functional subsystems. Over time, these subsystems acquire independent significance, and their members participate in the cooperative redistribution of public resources (bureaucracy).
K. Popper proposed to divide such systems into two main types: democratic and totalitarian. " The first type is governments, which we can get rid of without bloodshed, for example, through general elections. ... The second type is governments, which the ruled can get rid of only through a successful coup, i.e. in most cases - never».
What are these types and why do they arise exactly in this form? As always, an objective consequence has an objective reason. The more total control of the social elite over society and its resources, the less opportunities for alternative groups to intercept it even in the event of a formal coming to power. This is the best indicator for identifying the social domination of the elite over society.
In our case, it is proposed to divide not into two, but into three main types of social systems corresponding to different stages of social development.
First type, totalitarian systems characterized by a small number of the social elite, concentrating in their hands all the power over society and its resources. They simply do not need to increase their numbers and "dilute" power.
Second type, developing systems characterized by a small number of social elite and a growing number of functional elite of social systems. The functional elite is latently fighting the social elite for their rights to public resources and this process is called democracy.
As the history of mankind testifies, the first two stages can successively replace each other until the fatigue (or education) of society forces the social elites to abandon part of their advantages in its favor.
Third type, developed (democratic) systems characterized by a large number of functional elites that consume a significant part of society's resources. In fact, all political, state and municipal activities are reduced to the activities of social functionaries. They still do not have full power in social systems, but they have tremendous influence on the decisions made there.
Stage IV. At the fourth stage of social development, functional elites seem to catch up with the level of social elites and seek to seize from them the levers of influence on society. This usually fails, since social elites have the resources to buy functionaries. It is difficult to steal large sums of money from society due to functional competition, and it is very difficult to track bribes or shadow financing.
Therefore, the symbiosis between the proper social (primary) and functional (secondary) elites is only strengthening with some shift in the center of gravity towards the functional elites. However, there is no real participation of society in this process and cannot be. There are more players on the social field, and the rules are more complicated. As a result, the demand for public support in the struggle for power in the social system is growing. Real "democracy" has never been anything other than an ideologized form of legitimizing the power of the social elite. Especially in Western democracies.
And the most paradoxical conclusion: the growth of bureaucracy testifies to the democratization of social systems, therefore, it is not the relations between society and social systems that are democratized first of all, but the relations within social systems between social and functional elites under their control.
The above examples clearly show that even if the social system (elite community) creates relatively favorable conditions for the life of society, it uses social benefits, first of all, itself. The conclusion from all of the above can be made as follows: a democratic system means the same appropriation of social resources by the social and state elite, as in any other form of social government.
The fourth stage of social development is the decline and degradation of the social system, culminating in its collapse (bifurcation). The synonym for bifurcation here is the revolution ... Although methodologically it would be more correct to write re-evolution, i.e. deep qualitative change in development.
So, social re-evolution is the forced removal of the system elite from power by the alternative elite on the crest of a wave of public discontent.
Whereas social evolution Is the adaptation (strengthening) of the social system as a mechanism for exercising power of the systemic elite against the background of social passivity .
Consider bifurcation at the social level. Due to the artificiality of their organization and the natural conservatism of their behavior, social elites never make revolutions, revolutions are the lot of the ethnic environment (i.e. the rest of society). The source of all revolutions is the natural contradictions in society between the ethnic environment and social elites.
At the same time, the social system never breaks down spontaneously. It collapses upon loss social control over society (public resources). But this process is observed only when either the development of the rest of society catches up with the social elite, or the social elite, under the influence of the internal logic of social development, degrades and loses its competitiveness. As a result, the social elite is losing public legitimacy. It cannot be otherwise, because the only object of application of the efforts of social systems is society itself.
It should also be noted that social organization (in the form of social systems and institutions) is so inseparable from modern society that the elimination of one social system immediately causes the formation of a new one. Hence the conclusion: spontaneous expression of public discontent, brought to its logical conclusion, inevitably leads to the reform of the social system and the change of the social elite (community) ... A typical example is the collapse of the USSR and the change of the ruling elite in 1990.M.S.Voslensky highlights the pattern of all social revolutions, which he formulates with the help of following scheme:
revolution → reaction → restoration in a modified form.
Here, too, there is a pyramid, like A. Maslow's pyramid in the sense that the lower levels of the systemic organization not only do not disappear anywhere, but are inevitably present at the basis of social organization. In the case of social re-evolutions, the social elite first degrades to a lower level of social (more precisely, ethnosocial) organization, and then retraces the path of its highest (socio-ethnic) stage.
Tab. 3. Signs of social organization at different stages of social development
This was the case, for example, after the breakup Russian Empire or the USSR.
Russian empire: war communism® NEP® primacy of the state;
THE USSR: parade of sovereignties® domination of oligarchs® strengthening the state.
This completely dialectical process of spiral development is in part reminiscent of society walking in a circle, stepping on the same rake. Society, guided by ethnic stereotypes of behavior and social myths, cannot understand in any way that within the framework of a social system one can live only by its rules. The rules are drawn up according to the principle of not social, but social justice, that is, a fair division of power and resources between members of the social (systemic and functional) elite within the framework of social systems.
Probably, main reason such a situation is hidden in the priority of the personal desire of each member of not only society, but also society as a whole, to ever move up the social ladder. Or - in the socializing impact of social systems on society. In any case, we are unlikely to find anywhere and ever a social system (elite) really concerned about social welfare. Because for the social system, this would mean nothing more than self-weakening and degradation. A social system cannot exist without society, just as a producer does not exist without a consumer, and a predator does not exist without objects of hunting.
Any re-evolution, regardless of how it begins or goes, ends with a change in social organization. The social elite either accepts new rules of the game, adapting to new conditions, or gives way to a new elite. However, all this does not change the essence of what is happening:
1. the social elite is always at the heart of any processes of social organization;
2. social development always comes down to a change in the parameters of social organization, while the role of the social elite remains unchanged.
The peculiarity of human society is that at moments of social bifurcations (re-evolutions) it can shake off the social system, even simply refusing to obey it. This was the case, for example, in India and other colonial countries. This was the case during the American operation in Iraq in 2003.
True, then the restoration of the previous order usually takes place. And even the former social elite often returns to power (take, for example, England after Cromwell, modern Spain or the CIS). However, the circle is not always closed. A social system lacking resources loses power over society. In Western Europe, for example, the systemic resources of the state and local authorities are not so great that the elite could totally dispose of society. Society itself, each of its members, owns so many resources and has such a degree of social independence that its dependence on the social elite is incomparable with the dependence of citizens of less developed countries in this respect.
LN Gumilev wrote in his works that the vector of social development is directed in the direction opposite to social development. First, a social explosion occurs, which is of a spontaneous nature, and only then social development gradually consolidates what has been achieved and preserves its results. A.L. Chizhevsky agreed with this statement.
The vector of social development, on the contrary, is directed both towards liberation from the oppression of the external environment of any order - from natural conditions (basis), and social organization developing according to its own laws (superstructure). What a stable social organization leads to, we know well from the history of mankind - this is social stagnation, bureaucratization and degradation.
Russian historian O. Shkaratan writes about this: “... what is homogeneity, if you think about the theoretical meaning of this concept, its philosophical meaning? This is the death of society. Homogeneity has neither a line of ascent nor a line of descent. For no direction of development is possible. This applies not only tosocial system, but also to any other - biological, physical, chemical". Apparently the same thing was meant by A.N. Whitehead when he noted: “ It must be recognized that there is a degree of stability that is incompatible with civilization».
On the other hand, the dominant community in society, which gained power as a result of spontaneous public indignation that swept away the former social institutions, is in dire need of the formation of a new social structure. This need is much more acute than the need of the whole society as a whole. That's why social development as a systemic process is the adaptation of the dominant community (power elite) to the conditions of society.
When today we hear arguments about the "sustainable development" of society, we should understand by this, first of all, the sustainable development of the dominant elite, as well as the social relations and institutions. This is the only one possible variant social development, regardless of ethnic, religious or political affiliation of the author of these arguments. History has not created any other mechanism. The only restraining mechanism is public opposition, which cannot be ignored. However, the dominant community, therefore, is the embodiment of social organizations, because, unlike members of society, it is organized, i.e. systemic.
There is a hidden explanation of the causal nature of the entire social organization. The most important reason for its emergence is the objective need for social organization as a mechanism for satisfying the objective needs of the dominant elite. Exactly dominant (i.e. ruling), which has objective needs to legitimize, preserve and consolidate power over society, and ultimately, over its resources. There is no sense of power without resources.
From all of the above, we can conclude that in the case of social development we are dealing with a deterministic process based on the same resource reasons as any other processes of the development of matter. This means that social development can be studied, predicted and analyzed. In case of rejection of dogmatism and ideology, this conclusion opens up unprecedented horizons for the development of social science in general and the methodology of social research in particular.
Ashin G.K., Ponedelkov A.V., Ignatov V.G., Starostin A.M. Foundations of political elitology. - M .: PRIOR, 1999.
Popper K. Open Society and Its Enemies. - WEB: http://books.atheism.ru/philosophy/open_assembly.zip
Chizhevsky A.L. Cosmic pulse of life: Earth in the arms of the Sun. Heliotaraxia. - M .: Mysl, 1995 .-- S. 300-349.
Man belongs to the animal kingdom and obeys biological laws; moreover, as a bodily-material formation, he - like any kind of matter - is subject to material and energetic influences. But a person has thinking, speech and a complex structure of mental and emotional activity, which we call consciousness. People are able to realize the fact of their existence, to put forward and realize life goals that correspond to the system of their value attitudes. There are biological instincts in human behavior, but they are controlled by the laws of the human community. The behavior of animals is rigidly programmed by a system of conditioned and unconditioned reflexes, which does not give them the opportunity to go beyond their biological nature. No matter how complex the behavior of an animal may seem to us, it remains an instinctive biological behavior.
Let us turn in confirmation of the example of the life of a person who has great authority in philosophical anthropology. We mean Immanuel Kant. From birth, he was so weak and sickly that his vitality caused great doubts among those around him. Kant, on the other hand, was able to organize his life in such a way, so strictly follow the principles formulated by them that he not only lived for eighty years, but also set an example of the most devoted service to science.
On the other hand, natural inclinations contribute to the intellectual development of people, largely determine their inclination to creative forms of activity. Thus, in understanding a person, it is important to avoid two extremes: "biologization" and "socialization" of human nature.
And yet it cannot be argued that a person has two independent entities. The essence of man is one, and it is formed by a set of supernatural properties, thanks to which we overcome our biological certainty. Freedom of will, manifested in the ability to choose one's own destiny, the paths of one's life, is the main and basic of these human properties. The meaning of a person's life is precisely to overcome or try to overcome all resistances and circumstances independently, by the effort of one's will, by realizing one's life program. In this case, a person becomes truly free, since he is able to rule over external circumstances and conditions.
(V. Kuznetsov, K. Momdzhyan, etc.)
The table below shows the pass numbers. Write under each number the letter corresponding to the word you have chosen“The social system is constantly changing: new elements appear, old ones become more complicated or disappear. There are two forms of _______ (A) - evolution and revolution. Scientists call _________ (B) a gradual process of the emergence of more and more complex social entities... In the process of _________ (C), the social system is in an unstable state, the balance of social forces is upset.
An important question is about _________ (D) social changes and the factors that determine them. The idea that changes in the world occur in the direction from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect gave rise to the idea of _________ (D).
As a result of this social phenomenon, there is a transition of society to more high level material ________ (E) and spiritual development
focus
social change
needs
evolution
information
7 progress
9 welfare
KIND PEOPLE, HELP THE PWL IF IT'S NOT DIFFICULT, 65PKTThe social structure of society is not rigid; vibrations and displacements constantly occur in it, i.e. it is characterized by social mobility. Social mobility is a change social group or the individual of his social position. The term "social mobility" was introduced into sociology by P. A. Sorokin, who considered social mobility as moving up the social ladder in two directions: vertical - movement up and down, horizontal - movement at the same social level. During periods of social change, there is massive group mobility. In stable periods, social mobility increases at the time of structural restructuring of the economy. In this case, an important "social lift" that provides vertical mobility ascending type, education stands. Social mobility is a fairly reliable indicator of the level of openness or closedness of a society. In modern society, social mobility gives rise to the phenomenon of social marginality. Marginalization is a concept that characterizes borderline, intermediate, phenomena standing at the border of cultures, social subjects and statuses ... without full adaptation in it. A marginal is a person who is related to two different groups, not belonging to either of them completely ... The marginal's subjective idea of himself and his objective position are contradictory: he is put in a situation of struggle for survival. Therefore, a marginal person has a number of characteristic features: anxiety, aggressiveness, unjustified ambition. The social behavior of the marginal creates difficulties for both the person himself and the people who communicate with him. For a long time in sociology, marginality was assessed negatively. Recently, sociologists have changed their attitude towards her, seeing in this social phenomenon positive side. (Minaev V.V., Arkhipova NI., C1. Based on the text, indicate the line that defines the essence social mobility... What are (according to P.A. Sorokin) the main directions of social mobility? C2. Under what two social conditions, according to the authors, does education act as an important "social lift"? Explain any of these conditions. C3. Who do the authors call marginal? Define and provide three examples of marginality based on knowledge of social science course and facts of public life. C4. Recently, as the authors note, sociologists have seen a positive side to marginality. Indicate three manifestations
1Abdullaeva R.A.
The world that surrounds a person is a system based on its modern understanding. In turn, it all, without exception, consists of systems of various kinds. An abstract characteristic, a general definition of the system is given by the "Philosophical Dictionary": "A system (from the Greek σύστημα - whole, made up of parts; connection) is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity." The concept of "system", as L. von Bertalanffy noted, is not "something transitory or some kind of result of the latest technical achievements ... the concept of a system is as old as European philosophy ... and can be traced back to Aristotle." The system possesses certain attributive qualities, which, in the most generalized form, represent a set or set of interrelated elements. A system is a collection of parts or components that are organizationally interconnected. The following are the most significant features of the system: Complexity; Integrity; Hierarchy; Multilevel; Relationship and relationship of elements; Structurality; Dependence of elements on the whole; The interdependence of the system and the environment; Opposition, difference from the environment; Integration.
types of systems
progressive development
integration of system elements
system quality
system crisis
The main meaning of being of any system, including social, is survival. This goal is carried out in several ways, the most important of which are self-organization and self-development. It should be noted that development is a broad and ambiguous category. The development of the system can be represented in the form of the following scheme: development of the system (progress) - reaching the highest point of development (flourishing) - crisis of the system - post-crisis development of the system (regression). Moreover, all these stages are in no way associated with any specific time frame.
The first stage in the development of a social system is the state of progressive development. Progress is understood as the complication of the social system through the inclusion of new elements and objects in it, as well as the emergence of new connections within the system. At this stage, there is not a change in the systemic quality, but a change in its measure, that is, the main content of this period is the work of the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones. The system moves from chaos to a pronounced order based on systemic quality.
This is a kind of a deposit of a system, a potential ability that is maximally revealed in the process of development.
The development of the system is a consequence of the interaction of at least two intra-system pairs of elements, and if this interaction is expressed in the language of mechanics, then its result is a certain resultant vectors of subjects of interaction. If these vectors are codirectional, then their sum will always be positive and quantitatively greater than the whole. Otherwise, this amount will be less than an integer and may take negative values. Thus, the system progresses if its elements act more or less harmoniously, and this is an indicator of the level of integration of the system's elements. Consequently, the development of the system can be represented as a gradual increase in the degree of integration of system elements. Moreover, progressive development directly depends on how quickly and fully the system can integrate new elements into its body and on how much this integration will affect the integration of the internal system environment.
The second state of the system is the achievement of the maximum development, flowering. This period is the interval between the highest point of development and the point of onset of the systemic crisis, at which the systemic quality is most clearly represented. The accumulation of quantitative changes does not lead to an increase in the integration of the internal environment, or to an increase in the level of organization due to the fact that the systemic quality is maximally developed and any further development is impossible. This is the limit of development. A system at the peak of its development is a system that embodies the absolute systemic quality. It is at this stage that the options are formed within the system further development which are like attractors.
The emergence of variable systems is explained by the fact that the system, having reached its maximum point of development, continues to accumulate quantitative changes. According to the laws of social organization, the development of a system in excess of a certain measure leads either to a qualitative leap, or to disintegration into related systems. This kind of variability is typical for all systems, at all levels. In this case, the concepts of "variant" and "attractor" should not be confused, since in this case the system deals not with a potential vector, on which the vector of development direction accidentally falls, but with a specific project. In this case, a project is nothing more than a "system in a system" - the construction of a new system based on the same system quality. The choice of a development option is often carried out as a result of a struggle, but such a choice is present only up to a certain point, called the "point of return." Passing such a point means that the choice is made and there is no return.
The next stage is the state of a systemic crisis. A system crisis is understood as a state of the system when its progressive development in the same quality is impossible. A system crisis is, first of all, a deviation from the norm, but one that is itself the norm of the life of society, that is, it is the result of the action of the internal laws of a social organism under conditions of normal and even successful life of this organism. This is a kind of transition from the highest point of development of the system either to its disintegration, or to a qualitative change through negation. This state is the development of the system from the point of the beginning of the crisis to the point of the beginning of regression.
Finally, the fourth stage is the state of regressive development. Regression is understood as a simplification of the system. This is a state in which the system loses its systemic quality, the structure is destroyed, and as a result, the death of the system occurs as its complete destruction or as dialectal negation. Order is replaced by chaos, which in turn is replaced by order through the removal of the previous systemic quality or through the resumption of the process of self-organization on other grounds and, as a consequence, the construction of a new system.
Thus, the analysis of the development of social systems carried out above allows us to understand that each system needs good governance, the organization of which is the main method of maintaining the processes that occur in it and one of the main conditions for the improvement and development of social systems of any type.
Bibliography
- American Sociology. Prospects, problems, methods: Translated from English. / Ed. and an introductory article by Ph.D. G.V. Osipova. - M .: Progress. 1972 .-- 395 p.
- Egorov V.S. Philosophical realism. M., 2001 .-- 288 p.
- Sivirinov B.S. Social systems and a social perspective. Structure and dynamics. - Novosibirsk: Science. 2000 .-- 92 p.
Bibliographic reference
Abdullaeva R.A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM // Modern problems of science and education. - 2010. - No. 5 .;URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=4527 (date of access: 03/31/2019). We bring to your attention the journals published by the "Academy of Natural Sciences"
