By means the direction of development. Progress and regression

Progress is understood as a direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from the lower and simple shapes public organization to higher and more complex ones. A number of thinkers assessed the movement forward based on the state of public morality. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the ever-increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in production sector. He considered progressive only those social relations that corresponded to the level of productive forces and opened up scope for human development. The goal, and not the means, of any social progress is to create conditions for comprehensive and harmonious development person.

Consequently, the criterion of progress should be the measure of freedom that society is able to provide. The degree of progressiveness of a particular social system must be assessed by the conditions created in it to satisfy all the needs of the individual, for the free development of man

The concept of socio-economic formation (SEF). Formation theory and real social process. Modern discussions on the problem of formational and civilizational approaches to world history.

Society is a self-developing system; it is in change and development. OEF - social system, consisting

of interconnected elements and in a state of unstable equilibrium.

The formation includes productive forces and relations of production, which constitute its material basis; certain social actors, represented by various historical forms communities of people: clans and tribes, estates and classes, nationalities and nations, political parties and public organizations. Criticism of formation theory: 1) Marx developed this theory based on the development of Western countries. Europe and

decided that his laws are universal for all societies. 2) considers socio-economic. factor as the main one 3) society is based on one basis, but any reduction to one is untenable. Civilization (C) is a large self-sufficient community of countries and peoples, identified on a sociocultural basis and preserving their originality and uniqueness over long periods of historical time, despite all the changes and influences to which they are subjected.

Criteria for identifying civilizations: religion, history, language, customs. C is characterized by self-determination - its own destiny, it has developed. only based on myself. Civilization approach: 1 C is created by people 2. Study of the influence of cultural forms. 3. Horizontal analysis (C which exists today) 4 Culturological. analysis (certain forms of the spirit of life). 5. History of the development of society outside of it. Formational approach: 1History is a natural process.2.This is an existential analysis of history - we must find the fundamental principle of history.Z. Vertical analysis - from antiquity to the present day.4. Social-economic analysis of society.5 Attention is focused on internal sources development. 6. There is more exploration of what divides people.

43. Concepts of “technological determinism”. Industrial and post-industrial society. Post-industrial perspective and possibilities for the survival of other regional types.

Technological determinism (60-70s of the XX century) - reflects the idea that the development of society is determined by the development of technology, i.e. development of technology. 3 stages of development: traditional, industrial, post-industrial.

Characteristics of the industrial community:

1) A high level of technology development is a source of social development

2) Mass production

3) Energy consumption has increased, instead of natural sources - artificially created ones

4) New means of communications

5) Break with tradition

Key values ​​of the industrial society:

1) The value of achievement and success

2) Individualism

3) The value of activity and labor

4) Faith in progress

Changes in industrial society:

1) information and information technology are playing an important role in the overall picture – a key change

2) the sharply aging role of the economy and services;

3) the production has become science-based (using a large number of discoveries and developments). Post-industrial society considers investing in a person as an important part of its development, in his health and education.

Characteristics of a post-industrial society:

1) the basis of life is information technology;

2) a person who is a carrier of knowledge;

3) the basic principles of industrial society have been preserved in post-industrial society; 4) quantitative growth, but no depth of growth

2. Political process.

3. “Economic life is influenced by all aspects of social life and in turn influences them.” Expand this statement using specific examples and social situations.

1. It is fundamentally important to find out in which direction a society is moving, which is in a state of continuous development and change.

Under progress understands the direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from lower and simpler forms of social organization to higher and more complex ones. The concept of “progress” is opposite to the concept of “regression”, which is characterized by a reverse movement - from higher to lower, degradation, return to already outdated structures and relationships. The idea of ​​the development of society as a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but was finally formed in the works of French enlighteners (A. Turgot, M. Condorcet, etc.). They saw the criteria for progress in the development of the human mind and in the spread of education. Such an optimistic view of history changed in the 19th century. more complex ideas. Thus, Marxism saw progress in the transition from one socio-economic formation to another - a higher one. Some sociologists believed that the essence of progress lies in increasing complexity social structure, growing social heterogeneity. In modern sociology, historical progress is associated with the process of modernization, that is, with the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and then to a post-industrial one. Some thinkers reject the idea of ​​progress in social development, either viewing history as a cyclical cycle with a series of ups and downs (G. Vico), predicting the imminent “end of history,” or affirming ideas about a multilinear, independent from each other, parallel movement of different societies (N . Y. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee). Thus, A. Toynbee, abandoning the thesis about the unity of world history, identified 21 civilizations, in the development of each of which he distinguished the phases of emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and decay. O. Spengler also wrote about the “decline of Europe”. K. Popper’s “anti-progressism” is especially striking. Understanding progress as movement towards any goal, he considered it possible only for an individual, but not for history. The latter can be explained both as a progressive process and as a regression.

It is obvious that the progressive development of society does not exclude return movements, regression, civilizational dead ends and even breakdowns. And the development of mankind itself is unlikely to have an unambiguously linear character; accelerated leaps forward and rollbacks are possible in it. Moreover, progress in one area of ​​social relations may cause regression in another. The development of tools, technical and technological revolutions are clear evidence of economic progress, but they have brought the world to the brink environmental disaster, exhausted natural resources Earth. Modern society They are accused of a decline in morality, a family crisis, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is also high: the conveniences of city life, for example, are accompanied by numerous “diseases” of urbanization. Sometimes the costs of progress are so great that the question arises: is it even possible to talk about humanity moving forward?

French enlighteners saw the criterion in the development of reason, in the degree of rationality of the social structure. Some thinkers (for example, A. Saint-Simon) assessed the movement forward by the state of public morality, its approach to early Christian ideals. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in the production sphere. He considered progressive only those social relations that corresponded to the level of productive forces and opened up scope for the development of man (as the main productive force). The applicability of such a criterion is disputed in modern social science. The state of the economic basis does not determine the nature of development of all other spheres of society. The goal, and not the means, of any social progress is to create conditions for the comprehensive and harmonious development of man.

Consequently, the criterion of progress should be the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to an individual for the maximum development of his potential. The degree of progressiveness of a particular social system must be assessed by the conditions created in it to satisfy all the needs of the individual, for the free development of man (or, as they say, by the degree of humanity of the social system).

There are two forms of social progress - revolution and reform.

Revolution - This is a complete, or complex, change in all or most aspects of social life, affecting the foundations of the existing social system.

Much more often, changes in society occurred as a result of reforms. Reform -this is a transformationreorganization, change of any aspect of the generalsocial life, without destroying the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class.

2. The word “politics” (Greek roNShsa) means “state affairs”, “the art of government”.

Politics did not always exist. The reasons for its occurrence were the polarization of society, the emergence of social contradictions and conflicts that needed resolution, as well as the increased level of complexity and importance of managing society, which required the formation of special authorities separated from the people. The emergence of political and state power is the most important prerequisite for politics.

Science offers various definitions I understand tia "politics".

1. Politics are relations between states, classes, social groups, nations that arise regarding the seizure, exercise and retention of political power in society, as well as relations between states in the international arena.

2. 1. Politics is an activity government agencies, political parties, public associations in the sphere of relations between social groups (classes, nations, states), aimed at integrating their efforts with the aim of strengthening political power or conquering it.

2 . Policy- the sphere of activity of groups, parties, individuals, the state, associated with the implementation of generally significant interests with the help of political power.

Under policy functions understand the totality of processes that express its purpose in society. Among the functions of the policy are:

1) expression of significant interests of all groups and sectors of society;

2) integration of various social strata, maintaining the integrity of society;

3) ensuring further development of society;

4) management and direction of social processes, resolution of conflicts and contradictions;

5) political socialization of the individual (i.e., the process of an individual’s assimilation of socio-political knowledge, norms, values ​​and skills, as a result of which he assumes a certain political role).

By scale of the distinguish between local, regional, national and international politics, and according to the timing of implementation - current, long-term and long-term.

Subjects of politics - these are individuals, social groups, layers, organizations directly or indirectly involved in the process of exercising political power or influencing it. Subjects of politics can be: a) social communities (classes, nations, etc.); b) various organizations and associations (states, parties, movements, churches, etc.); c) political elites (privileged groups occupying leadership positions in government structures, directly involved in government decision-making); d) individuals (including political leaders). The degree and boundaries of political activity of policy subjects depend on:

The social structure of society, the presence or absence of social barriers (qualifications, caste, national, religious, class and other restrictions);

The social status of a particular layer, personality, social institution;

Subjective factors (personal qualities of a person, the number and value system of political movements and parties, etc.);

Other circumstances (for example, the political situation in the country).

Policy objects(i.e. public relations, spheres public life, which the policy is aimed at) are varied. Domestic politics regulates relations arising from the exercise of political power within society, and external politics regulates relations between states in the international arena. etc.

Politics, like any conscious activity, has certain goals. They can be long-term and current, relevant and irrelevant, real and unreal.

3. Society is a complex dynamic system that includes several spheres of social life as subsystems. Economic sphere is the most important of them, it plays a significant role in the existence of society: it ensures the very possibility of people’s lives (production of necessary goods), the possibility of “non-economic” human activity (scientific, cultural, etc.), the participation in one way or another of every member of society in its economic life (household work, consumption of industrial products, etc.). As one modern philosopher noted: “This sphere is not only historically the first, it is also the “progenitor” of all other spheres of society’s life - social, political, spiritual, environmental. It is the economic sphere that, as a basis, integrates all other subsystems of society into integrity.”

However, other areas of social life also affect the economy. Thus, from the point of view of the German sociologist M. Weber, the religious values ​​of Protestantism played an exceptional role in the development of the economy of capitalist society. In his opinion, it was Protestantism, which gave a moral justification for wealth and business success, that opened up the opportunity for the widespread development of entrepreneurial activity - the “engine” of the new economy.

Thus, the functioning of society is impossible without the complex organized interaction of the main spheres of society’s life, without them performing certain functions. Only the coordinated work of all spheres of society’s life allows it to achieve a state of self-sufficiency.

Progress is understood as a direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from lower and simpler forms of social organization to higher and more complex ones. The concept of progress is opposed to the concept of regression, which is characterized by reverse movement- from higher to lower, degradation, return to already outdated structures and relationships. The idea of ​​the development of society as a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but finally took shape in the works of French educators (A. Turgot, M. Condorcet etc.). They saw the criterion of progress in the development of the human mind, in the spread of enlightenment. Such an optimistic view of history changed in the 19th century. more complex ideas. Thus, Marxism sees progress in the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, higher one. Some sociologists considered the essence of progress to be the complication of the social structure and the growth of social heterogeneity. In modern sociology, historical progress is associated with the process of modernization, that is, the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and then to a post-industrial one.

Some thinkers reject the idea of ​​progress in social development, viewing history as a cyclical cycle with a series of ups and downs (J. Vico) predicting the imminent “end of history” or asserting ideas about multilinear, independent from each other, parallel movement of different societies (N. Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee). Thus, A. Toynbee, abandoning the thesis about the unity of world history, identified 21 civilizations, in the development of each of which he distinguished the phases of emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and decay. O. Spengler also wrote about the “decline of Europe”. “Anti-progressivism” is especially pronounced K. Popper. Understanding progress as movement towards any goal, he considered it possible only for an individual, but not for history. The latter can be explained both as a progressive process and as a regression.

It is obvious that the progressive development of society does not exclude return movements, regression, civilizational dead ends and even breakdowns. And the development of humanity itself is unlikely to have an unambiguously linear character; accelerated leaps forward and rollbacks are possible in it. Moreover, progress in one area of ​​social relations may be accompanied and even cause regression in another. The development of tools, technical and technological revolutions are clear evidence of economic progress, but they have brought the world to the brink of an environmental disaster and have depleted the Earth's natural resources. Modern society is accused of a decline in morality, a family crisis, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is also high: the conveniences of city life, for example, are accompanied by numerous “diseases of urbanization.” Sometimes the costs of progress are so great that the question arises whether it is even possible to talk about humanity moving forward.

In this regard, the question of the criteria for progress is relevant. There is no agreement among scientists here either. French enlighteners saw the criterion in the development of reason, in the degree of rationality of the social structure. A number of thinkers (for example, A. Saint-Simon) progress was assessed based on the state of public morality. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in the production sphere. He considered progressive only those social relations that corresponded to the level of productive forces and opened up scope for the development of man (as the main productive force). The applicability of such a criterion is disputed in modern social science. The state of the economic basis does not determine the nature of development of all other spheres of society. The goal, and not the means, of any social progress is to create conditions for the comprehensive and harmonious development of man.

Consequently, the criterion of progress should be the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to an individual to maximize his potential. The degree of progressiveness of a particular social system must be assessed by the conditions created in it to satisfy all the needs of the individual, for the free development of man (or, as they say, by the degree of humanity of the social system).

The political status of an individual is understood as the position of a person in the political system of society, the totality of his political rights and obligations, opportunities to influence political life countries.

Regardless of the degree of participation of a person in politics, or his role in the political process, all citizens of democratic states have a number of political rights and freedoms that allow them to actively participate in political activities: the right to elect and be elected, freedom of speech, press, meetings and rallies , unions, the right to send personal and collective appeals (petitions) to authorities. Every person has the right to take part in management state affairs both directly and through its representatives, is potentially an active subject political process. In societies with totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the individual is actually, and sometimes formally, deprived of any political rights, being the object of state policy.

But to determine the political status of an individual, not only the socio-political reality in which he is included is important, but also those political functions, roles, which she performs in it. In political science, there are several classifications of individual political roles, which are understood as political functions, normatively approved images of political behavior expected from everyone who occupies this position. Depending on the degree of a person’s involvement in politics, his political roles can be:

1) an ordinary member of society who does not have any influence on politics, is not interested in it and is almost exclusively the object of politics;

2) a person who is a member of a public organization or movement, indirectly involved in political activity, if this follows from his role as an ordinary member political organization;

3) a citizen who is a member of an elected body or is an active member of a political organization, purposefully and voluntarily included in the political life of society, but only to the extent that it affects the internal life of this political organization or body;

4) a professional politician, for whom political activity is not only the main occupation and source of existence, but also the meaning of life;

5) political leader- a person capable of changing the course of political events and the direction of political processes.

But a person is not born with a pre-acquired political experience and a pre-accepted role; they are acquired throughout a person’s entire life. The process of an individual mastering socio-political knowledge, norms, values ​​and skills, as a result of which he assumes a certain political role, is called political socialization of the individual. There are several stages in this process:

1st stage - childhood and early teenage years when a child forms his initial Political Views and patterns of political behavior;

2nd stage - the period of study in high school and university, when the information side of the worldview is formed, one of existing systems political norms and values ​​are transformed into inner world personalities;

3rd stage - start of active social activities the individual, his inclusion in the work of government bodies and public organizations, when a person turns into a citizen, becomes a full-fledged subject of politics;

4th stage - the entire subsequent life of a person, when he constantly improves and develops his political culture.

The result of political socialization is the acceptance and fulfillment of some political role. There is also another periodization of the process of political socialization of an individual: in accordance with the degree of independence of political participation, primary and secondary socialization are distinguished. The first characterizes the process of political education of children and youth, and the second occurs mature age and manifests itself in the active interaction of the individual with political system based on previously obtained values ​​and orientations.

Political socialization occurs both objectively, due to a person’s involvement in social relations, and purposefully, by forces state institutions(including schools), public organizations, funds mass media etc. And the person himself can actively participate in political socialization (political self-education).

Along with political roles, political science also identifies various types of individual participation in politics: unconscious (for example, the behavior of a person in a crowd), semi-conscious (political conformism - understanding the meaning of one’s role with unconditional submission to the requirements of one’s social environment as something given, undeniable, even in cases of disagreement with it) and conscious participation (in accordance with your consciousness and will, the ability to change your role and your position).