SOCIETY
SOCIETY
in a broad sense - a part of the material world isolated from nature, representing a historically developing form of human life. In a narrow sense - defined. human stage stories (socio-economic formations, inter-formational and intra-formational historical stages, eg pre-capitalist O., early feudal. ABOUT.) or, individual O. (organism), eg French ABOUT., ind. ABOUT., owls ABOUT.
In the history of philosophy and sociology, philosophy has often been understood as a collection of human beings. individuals uniting to satisfy "social instincts" (Aristotle), control over your actions (Hobbes, Rousseau) And T. n. The understanding of O. as based on a convention, agreement, the same direction of interests was characteristic of bourgeois philosophy 17 - beginning 19 centuries At the same time, at 19 V. a “contractual” theory of society emerges. Comte saw the origins of O. in the action of some abstract law of the formation of complex and harmonious. systems Hegel contrasted the “contractual” theory with the interpretation of “civil”. society" as a sphere of economics. relationships where everyone from everyone is comprehensively intertwined (cm. Op., T. 7, M.-L., 1934, With. 223) . IN modern bourgeois sociology O. as a collection of abstract individuals is replaced by an understanding of it as a collection of actions of the same abstract individuals (social action - cm. Social).
Marxism-Leninism, in the understanding of O., proceeds from the fact that the fact of human existence cannot reveal the essence of O. Abstract, isolated from the course of history, is just a product of thinking. process, the signs of such a person are, at best, signs of a “kind”. Rejecting the abstract, the non-historical. person, K. Marx wrote: “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of those connections and relationships in which these individuals are related to each other” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 46, part 1, With. 214) . Definition O. there is a definition. character of societies. person, and, conversely, “...Society,” Marx specified, “ i.e. man himself in his social relations" (ibid., T. 46, part 2, With. 222) .
Society relationships are that specific thing that distinguishes social formations from all etc. systems of the material world. But this does not mean that society is only societies. relationship. Marx defined O. as “the product of human interaction” (ibid., T. 27, With. 402) and referred to it produces. strength and production. relationships, societies system, organization of family and classes, political. system, society .
Characteristics of O. through the totality of societies. relationship identifies and records its specificity. nature. Establishing the determinism of all societies. production relations. relationships and the discovery of their dependence on the level of development produces. forces allowed Marx to penetrate society. life. It was not only what distinguished the structure of societies that was established. life from natural, but also changes in one way of society are open. life to others. “The relations of production,” Marx emphasized, “in their totality form what is called social relations, society, and, moreover, they form a society that is at a specific stage of historical development, a society with a unique distinctive character.” (ibid., T. 6, With. 442) .
Introducing the concept of social-economic. formations, Marx discarded reasoning bourgeois sociologists about “O. in general,” but this did not mean at all that Marx abandoned the concept of O. Marx showed that starting “O. in general,” until the true foundations of societies were discovered and understood. life means starting not from the beginning, but from the end. For reasoning bourgeois sociologists about “0. in general,” “...the reasoning,” noted V.I. Lenin, “was meaningless... certain forms of social structure were put in place.” (PSS, T. 1, With. 430) . This allowed Marx to identify not only special, but also general features that characterize O., regardless of its forms. An alternative to the concepts "O." and “societal-economic. formation" in this case is pointless, because the first is generic in relation to the second. Category "O." reflects the qualities here. certainty of societies. life when compared with nature, “societal-economic. formation" - qualities. certainty of the various stages of development of O.
Marx K., Letter to P.V. Annenkov, 28 Dec. 1846 Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 27; his, Hired and capital, ibid. T. 6; his, Economic. manuscripts 1857-1859 gg., in the same place, T. 46, part 1-2; Lenin V.I., What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?, PSS, T. 1; his, Economic. populism and its criticism in the book G. Struve (Reflection of Marxism in bourgeois literature), same place.
Yu. K. Pletnikov.
Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia
. Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .SOCIETY
a group of people created through purposeful and intelligently organized joint activity, and the members of such a group are not united by such a deep principle as in the case of a genuine community. Society rests on convention, agreement, and the same orientation of interests. The individuality of an individual changes much less under the influence of his inclusion in society than depending on his inclusion in. Often by society they mean the sphere lying between the individual and the state (for example, when it comes to orienting the goals of education to the “social” will of a certain era), or the romantics, or in the sense. concepts society-corps social – all human. After attempts to explain the essence of the concept of “society” in antiquity (Aristotle) and in the Middle Ages (Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), this became, especially from the 18th century, a political and philosophical problem, which Comte tried to exhaustively explain in his sociology; therefore, society became the subject of consideration and the central point of the new science - sociology.
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
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 society understands 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.
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, in search of food, often changed the territory of its residence. But every modern society as if 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 is the ability of society 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:
- community of basic social institutions (state, family, education, finance, etc.),
- common 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.
Society- a form of association of people who have common interests, values and goals. Human societies characterized by a model of relations (social relations) between people, which can be described as a set of such relations between its subjects. In the social sciences, society as a whole often exhibits stratification. Society is a supra-individual, supra-group and supra-institutional association of people, which is characterized by various types of social differentiation and division of labor. Society can be characterized by many characteristics: for example, by nationality: French, Russian, German; state and cultural; by territorial and temporary; by production method, etc.
Society is often identified with sociality in general and is reduced to forms of communication and joint activities of people; from another point of view, people themselves who are in communication and engaged in joint activities, including the distribution of a jointly produced product, do not yet constitute society in the sociological understanding, since they remain the same people included in group (including collective) forms of life activity. If naturalism claims that society is reduced to its material carriers, then in its phenomenological interpretations society refers to types of consciousness and forms of communication.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 4
✪ NEW SERIES "SOCIETY" - ABSURD THEORIES / WORTH WATCHING?
✪ What is society 🎓 School of social studies, grade 10
✪ What modern society actually looks like
✪ A society full of lies - Jacques Fresco - The Venus Project
Subtitles
Society as an object of research
In sociology
Society in the phenomenological understanding is mens intensity(mind, thought as if in itself) - many social worlds of our mentalities, worlds imprinted in our consciousness.
Society in a naturalistic approach is res extensas(extended things) - a set of bodies, physical and biological, that are in real objective relationships to each other.
The generic concept in relation to the concept of “society” is “community of people”. Social community is the main form of human life. At the same time, society is not reducible to a social community, that is, this concept is much broader in scope and contains, first of all, the social mechanisms of its own reproduction, which cannot be reduced to biological ones. This means that it is not the community that is secondary to society, but society that grows out of the social community. In his work of the same name, F. Tönnies, based on an analysis of the works of K. Marx, showed the primacy of the community in relation to society.
Historically, the first form of existence of the human race as a community of people was the clan community. “On closer examination of the term community,” writes F. Tönnies, “it can arise 1. from natural relations, since they have become social. Here, blood relations always turn out to be the most common and most natural ties connecting people.” In the process of historical development of society, first of all, the main forms of community of people changed - from tribal and neighboring communities, class and social class to modern socio-cultural communities.
Sociological relationism considers society through the interrelationship of all elements and their mutually justifying significance within a certain system, essential only for a certain historical type of existence, when changing which the system itself changes. This definition of relationism is given by K. Mannheim in “Ideology and Utopia” (1929). Society in the relationist interpretation is relationibus inter res(relationships between things).
Over time, some societies have evolved towards more complex forms of organization and management. The corresponding cultural evolution had a significant impact on social patterns: tribes of hunters and gatherers settled around seasonal food sources, developing into villages, which in turn grew into cities of varying sizes, and then evolved into city-states and national states associations. As society develops, various phenomena characteristic of human groups are subject to institutionalization, and certain norms are developed that must be followed.
Many forms of society are characterized by the same phenomena: joint activity, avoidance, scapegoating, generosity, risk sharing, reward, etc. Society, for example, can officially recognize the merits of an individual or group by giving them a certain status if they perform some desired or approved action. In almost all communities, selfless actions are observed in the interests of the group, etc.
In anthropology
Human societies are often classified according to how they obtain their livelihoods. Researchers distinguish between hunter-gatherer, nomadic, pastoral, simple and complex agricultural societies (the first type is characterized by crop production, the second - full-fledged intensive agriculture), as well as industrial and post-industrial societies (the last two are often considered as qualitatively different in comparison with the previous ones) .
In political anthropology
Societies can also be classified in terms of their political structure. In order of increasing size and organizational complexity, forms such as clan, tribe, chiefdom and state are distinguished. The strength of political power in these structures varies depending on the cultural, geographical and historical environments with which these societies have to interact in one form or another. Accordingly, with a similar level of technological and cultural development, a more isolated society has a greater chance of survival than one located in close proximity to others that could encroach on its material resources. Failure to fight back against other societies usually ends in the absorption of the weaker culture.
Paradigms for interpreting society
Closed society - according to K. Popper - a type of society characterized by a static social structure, limited mobility, inability to innovate, traditionalism, dogmatic authoritarian ideology (there is a system when the majority of members of society willingly accept the values that are intended for them, usually this is a totally ideological society).
An open society - according to K. Popper - is a type of society characterized by a dynamic social structure, high mobility, the ability to innovate, criticism, individualism and a democratic pluralistic ideology (here a person is given the opportunity to choose ideological and moral values himself. There is no state ideology, and at the level of the constitution the principles of spiritual freedom are fixed, which a person actually uses (that is, he himself tries to find basic values).
(Kravchenko A.I. Social studies. Textbook for 8th grade. M., 2007, pp. 9-16, §1)
1. The concept of society.
The concept of “society” often has very different content. Firstly, it is a group of people who come together for communication and (or) activity. Such a definition implies any collective, from a primitive tribal community to a fan club, but insignificant in scale. On the contrary, in the broad, philosophical sense of the word, this concept unites all of humanity, in contrast to animals, plants and inanimate nature (O. is a part of the material world isolated from nature, a set of historically established forms of joint activity of people).
When using the terms “feudal society” or “industrial society”, we mean a certain historical stage of development, characteristic of various countries and peoples. But by “civil society” philosophers and political scientists understand the sphere of social relations, connections, groups independent of the state. (In such a society, citizens are able to independently defend their common rights and interests, solve local problems and influence government policy on a national scale). And if previously only its elite were included in “society,” now it is the entire population of the country.
In the most common meaning among sociologists, society is the social organization of a given country (or ethnic group), i.e. not just the totality of the population, but also its structure, the system of relationships and connections. It is necessary to separate “society” from the political organization of a given country - the state. By the way, one should not confuse the state with the territory on which it operates - in fact, the country. Although very often politicians, in order to give themselves weight, speak on behalf of the entire country - both the state and society, deliberately mixing geographical, political and social concepts.
2. Signs of society.
Note that the last definition of society also applies to those human groups - a clan, a tribe, a union of tribes - that in ancient times had not yet “grown up” to the creation of a state. However, if this organization is to some extent self-sufficient and has “its own face,” we have before us society. Here are its signs:
- it is not part of a larger system;
- marriages are concluded between representatives of this association;
- it is replenished mainly by children born in such marriages;
- the association has a territory that it considers its own;
- it has its own name and its own history;
- it has its own control system;
- the association exists longer than the average life expectancy of an individual;
- it is united by a common system of values (customs, traditions, norms, laws), which is called culture.
3. Spheres of society.
What is modern society in this sense? There are different methods for structuring it or models that facilitate more detailed analysis.
Firstly, it is possible to build all kinds of layers or social groups vertically, from top to bottom, depending on their wealth or proximity to power, in other words, on their economic and political influence. Then society will appear before us as a pyramid, at the top of which is the rich and powerful elite, at the base is the “gray” majority, and the middle class is between them.
Secondly, we can imagine society as a set of institutions that satisfy its most important needs within the framework of established social norms (institution - Latin “establishment”). The most important social institutions are the family (with the function of population reproduction), production (creation of material wealth), state (regulation of social relations, protection of law and order and sovereignty, etc.), education (accumulation and transfer of experience), religion.
But the most common approach invites us to study society in its spheres (subsystems): economic, political, social and spiritual.
Economics involves the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services. Politics brings together institutions involved in solving the most important problems of society. First of all, this is the state - with its entire ramified structure of government bodies - and the party, since the political sphere includes everything related to the struggle for this power, for influence on making strategically important decisions. A mature society has regulated mechanisms for changing power and political struggle.
The social sphere covers relations between various social groups, classes, and strata. If society could be considered on its own, separately from economics and politics, then this hypostasis of it would be the social sphere. However, this term is also used in a narrower sense: for example, an official calls the system of public transport and utilities, education and healthcare in a similar way. Here the “social sphere” is a set of public institutions that serve our needs. An even narrower meaning of this phrase is a system of public assistance to vulnerable segments of the population (pensioners, unemployed, disabled people, orphans, etc.). When we hear about the imperfection of the social sphere and its insufficient funding, we are talking about the last two meanings of the term.
And last but not least, we remember the spiritual sphere! And this includes science, education, and all the treasures of art, along with museums and libraries, as well as religion and other forms of intellectual activity.
Of course, the division of society into spheres is to some extent arbitrary: in real life, all parts of this complex system are interconnected and intertwined.
4. World community and globalization.
In conclusion, it must be said that society - as the social organization of the country - in a certain sense is already becoming a thing of the past. Isn’t our Russian society, just like American or Japanese, part of a larger system - the world community? Globalization - the process of historical rapprochement of peoples and the transformation of humanity into a single political system - is increasingly covering countries and continents. Beginning in the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries, spurred by the capitalist development of industrial countries, it connected the world, first economically, and now creates a common political, legal and cultural space. People from different countries and continents discuss the same news, listen to the same music, “cheer” for “their own” at world sports competitions, defend the rights formulated by the UN assemblies, and demand certain political decisions from their representatives in the Security Council, The European Union, NATO and dozens of other international organizations.
a system of relationships between people, established forms of their joint activities. Society acts as the historical embodiment of specific types of social systems.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
SOCIETY
society) - 1. The entire sum of human relations. 2. A self-perpetuating body of people occupying a relatively limited territory, with its own more or less distinctive culture and institutions (such as the Nuer people), or an old or well-established nation-state (such as Great Britain or the United States).
Although it is one of the most important concepts in sociology, its use is associated with a number of difficulties and controversies, especially in the second meaning, which is easily applied to known nation-states with their own family, economic and political institutions and clear boundaries. It is much more difficult to identify the boundaries of societies of ancient empires, which, as a rule, consisted of relatively free various peoples, peasant communities, etc., that did not have statehood status (see also Nationalism). As Runciman (1989) has pointed out, the extent of actual "social membership" can be quite variable: "a member of a tribal group inhabiting the boundary between zones of male and female inheritance; or of a distinct ethnic and religious community of a country ruled by a colonial power; or of a separatist commune founded within the framework of the state." Where is the point at which a historically changing society should or should not be considered the same? Finally, the ability of members to interact with each other and at what level, as well as the historical degree of cultural institutional integrity are also the "test" of the acceptability of the concept of a "single society". Even in the clearest cases of definition there will be connections with other societies. In view of the increasing globalization of modern social relations, some theorists (notably Giddens) have warned of the ongoing risk of over-emphasizing the concept of unitary societies in sociology, which diminishes the importance of inter-societal relations, multinational organizations, etc. For Durkheim and some functionalists, "society" also exists in a third sense. Durkheim developed sociology as the “science of society” and saw it as a special object operating according to “sui generis”. As a subject of study, it is something greater than the sum of its individual component parts, and has a "moral force" that constrains human individuals (cf. Social facts like things). This interpretation of the term has become one of the most controversial. In contrast to the "classical" sociological theory, we can say that modern science increasingly reluctant to interpret theories of society in this way (see Holism; Methodological Individualism; Structure and Will). See also Social system; Functional prerequisites.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓