Start, in my opinion, you need from the concept of "society." It is the most important not only for historical science, but for all public sciences in general. Turning to the analysis of the meaning of the word "society", we immediately face the fact that it has not one, but a lot of values. In other words, there is not one concept of society, but several different concepts, but expressed in one word, which is very complicated.
I will not dwell on everyday, everyday values \u200b\u200bof this word, when a person is said about a person, for example, that he fell into a bad society or rotates in a large society. Only mentioning about the use of the word "society" both in everyday life and in science to designate certain public and other organizations: "Society of United Slavs", "South Society", "Philosophical Society", "Society for the Protection of History and Culture Monuments" , "Mutual Credit Society", Society of Cat Lovers, Dogs, Joint-Stock Company, etc.
If you leave all this aside, it turns out that in the philosophical, sociological and historical literature, the term "society" is used, at least five, albeit interconnected, but still different meanings.
The first and perhaps the most important thing for the historian and ethnologist The value of the term "society" is a separate, particular society, which is relatively independent unity of historical development. This meaning of the word "society" is very often not distinguished from the other value - society in general, in which it is common that inherent in all specific individuals, regardless of their type, individual characteristics, existence time, etc. And to distinguish these two sense of the word "society" is extremely necessary for any socialist, the historian is primarily.
The allocation of a particular particular society allows to raise the question of whether society has an independent existence or its being is derived from the existence of the components of its individuals. From the very beginning of theoretical approach to the Company's research in philosophical and historical thought, there were two main answers to this question.
One of them was that society is a simple aggregate, the amount of individuals. Therefore, the only real objects of social research are people. No others exist. Such a point of view is often called sociological nominalism. Such a view found its extremely clear expression, for example, in one of the works of the famous Russian historian, historicoof and sociologist Nikolai Ivanovich Kareeva (1850 - 1931) "Introduction to the study of sociology" (SPB., 1897). The latter wrote: "Personality is the only real being with which sociology dealt. Peoples or individual classes of the same people are a collective units consisting of individual personalities. "
A similar look was adhered to the famous German sociologist Max Weber (1864 - 1920). It is most clearly stated in the work "Basic Sociological Concepts" (Russian Translation: Selected Works. M., 1990). "For others (for example, legal) cognitive purposes or for the purposes of practical, he wrote, - maybe, on the contrary, it is advisable or even inevitably considering social entities (" State "," Association "," Joint Stock Company "," Institution ") In the same way as individual individuals (for example, as carriers of rights and obligations or as subjects, merciful Relevant in legal attitude). For understanding sociology, interpreting the behavior of people, these formations are simply processes and the relationship of the specific behavior of individual people, since only they are understandable for us of meaningful actions. "
A similar point of view and now has many supporters. Wanting to save time and place, limit ourselves to the statement by Dario Antisheri and Lorenzo Infantino, which opens their preface to a collection of works of the famous Austrian-American economist Friedrich Augusta von Hayek (1899- 1992) "Cognition, competition and freedom. Anthology of Works "(Russian Translation: St. Petersburg, 1999). "There are no classes or society as such - They write, - there are only individuals. Social sciences (sociology, economics, historiography, anthropology, etc.) deal with collective concepts, as a state, nation, party, revolution, capitalism, society, etc. Two large directions of thought reflect the collectivist tradition of interpretation of such concepts and an individualist tradition. Collectivists (Saint-Simon, Cont, Hegel, Marx, Neomarcists, structuralists) argue that collectivist concepts correspond to a certain certain reality, autonomous and independent of people: society, parties, classes as real entities are pushing individuals, and the scientist is obliged to seek and describe Laws for the development of these substances. Supporters of methodological individualism (A. Smith, D. Yum, K. Popper, Hayek - closer to us R. Budon) argue that no specific reality is consistent with collective concepts. Classes, societies, parties, no armed forces do not exist. There are only individuals. Only individuals think and act. This is theoretical core of methodological individualism. "
To complete the picture, add to K. Poppru and F. Highieka another Austrian-American economist - Ludwig von Mises (1881 - 1973), which also also studied the philosophy of history. In the work "Theory and History. Interpretation of socio-economic evolution "(1957; RUSSIAN. Translation: M., 2001) He begins with what the question is" Is the society of the amount of individuals or it is more than that, and thus is the essence of independent reality? " Not meaning. "The society is neither the amount of individuals, nor something large or less. Here are arithmetic concepts not applicable. "
But further it develops the concept of sociological nominalism. In an effort to refute the "collectivistic philosophy", under which he implies sociological realism, L. Mises accuses her that she "denies the existence of individuals and actions of individuals." Therefore, it claims that, according to his opponents, "Individivid is a simple phantom, not A reality, an illusive image, invented by pseudophilosophy of capitalism apologists ". There are just difficult to attribute to supporters of sociological realism. When such arguments go into turn, this indicates the extreme weakness of a protected point of view.
Neither the authors mentioned above nor other supporters of this glance could never bring it to the end consistently. In another place of the same named above N.I. Kareyev argued: "Society is not a simple set of personalities that are in mental and practical interaction, but a whole system of these interactions, in which the well-known permanent forms, a well-known organization". However, in fact, it goes to breathtically.
The essence of the second answer to the above question is that society, although it consists of individuals, but in no case is their simple aggregate. It is a holistic education that has its own life that does not agree to the existence that make up its people, a special subject, developing according to its own, only inherent in law. Such a point of view is often referred to sociological realism. Such a glance in a fairly clear form was already manifested in the work of Aristotle (384 -322 BC) "Politics" (Russian Translations: Op. In 4 t. T. 4. M., 1983; Aristotle. Politics. Athenian Politia. M., 1997, etc. Ed.) "So, obviously," the great thinker wrote, "the state exists in nature and by nature precedes each person; Since the latter, which turned out to be in an isolated state, is not a creative self-sufficient, then his relation to the state is the same as the attitude of any part to its whole. "
Before those researchers who have considered society as a whole, incorporated to the amount of its individuals, with the inevitability, the issue of its integrity was inevitably. Many of them were looking for the origins of this integrity in the spiritual sphere. By doing this, at the same time could not not see that if you understand the spiritual life of society as a mental, mental life of the components of his people, then this will inevitably lead to the transition to the position of sociological nominalism. Attempts to overcome subjectivism in the understanding of mental life as the basis of society, some of them are to objective idealism and even to religion.
An example may be an essay of the Russian religious philosopher Seeds Ludwigovich Frank (1877 - 1950) "The spiritual foundations of society. Introduction to Social Philosophy "(1930; // Russian abroad. From the history of social and legal thought. L., 1991; M., 1992; S.L. Frank. SPORTY SOCIETY LIFE. M., 1992). Arguing that "social life by its very essence is spiritual, and not material," S.L. Frank at the same time criticized the "social psychologist". The opposite conclusion was that "the public being as a whole there is a system of deities or divine forces, a certain pantheon, which expresses this stage or the form of human attitude towards the Divine."
It is clear that for any real scientist of this kind, the conclusions are completely unacceptable. He inevitably should look for a different explanation of the integrity of society. A staunch supporter of sociological realism was a well-known French sociologist Emil Durkheim (1858 - 1917), author, first of all, such works as "On the division of social labor" (1893; 1902; Foreign Minister. Translation: On the division of social labor. Method of sociology. M. , 1991) and "Method of Sociology" (1895; 1901). He insisted that society represents independent of individuals, out-of-opinion and nadudividual reality. This special kind of reality, not coordinated to other types, is included in the universal natural order. Social reality is just as stable and founded as all other types of reality, and, accordingly, as well as they are developing according to certain laws.
The question of the nature of this social reality, E. Durkheim did not give a direct response. But since he insisted from the very beginning of his scientific activity on the spiritual nature of all social phenomena (including economic), it turned out that this reality was essentially spiritual. To explain how spiritual reality could be independent of people, E. Durkheim was unable. And as a result, starting with a sharp criticism of psychologism, from underlining the external and compulsory nature of social facts, he subsequently became more and more began to be inclined to psychological explanation.
The desire to find a really objective basis of the Company has long been pushing thinkers who adhere to sociological realism, to the search for analogies between the society and the animal organism, and sometimes to the desire to likek the society of the biological organism. Such attempts began in the ancient era and continued at the subsequent time. Used, for example, the term "body" in the application of the French enlightener Jean-Jacques Rousseau in labor "reasoning about the origin and grounds of inequality between people" (1755; Russian. Translation: J.-zh. Rousseau. Treatises. M., 1969 ; About the public contract. Treatises. M., 1998), French materialist Claude Antoine Gelvetiya in the works "On the mind" (1758; Russian translation: Op. In 2 tons. T. 1. M., 1973) and " About man "(1769, 1773; RUSSIAN. Translation: ibid. T. 2. M., 1974).
But the term "organism" is quite wide enough to use only since the 40s of the XIX century. One of the first to do the founder of positivism and at the same time the source of sociology as a special experienced Science of Auguste Cont (1798 -1857). The latter did not identify society with a biological organism. It was important for him only to emphasize that society is a holistic education, a special subject of evolution. And in order to emphasize the difference between society from the animal organism, he called him not just an organism, but a social organism.
The term "social organism" was picked up by the famous English philosopher-positivist and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903). He dedicated this concept to the article "Social Organism" (Russian Translation: Spencer G. Experienced Scientific, Political and Philosophical. Minsk, 1998) and constantly used it in his "bases of sociology" (Russian. Translation: SPb., 1898) and other Works. The main thing for him was the "likelihood of a living body society" in order to substantiate the idea that society is not a simple aggregate of people, but something that is incorporated to the amount of the components of its individuals. "... in a social body, he wrote," as in the individual, is the life of a whole, completely different from the lives of individual units, although the complicated of these latter. "
In the 70s of the XIX century. A peculiar school appears in sociology, trying not to simply carry out an analogy between society and the biological organism, but to a large extent, if not completely identifying, then at least we like the first second. Pretty radical in this regard was Russian sociologist Peter Fedorovich Lilienfeld (1829 - 1903). Completing the first part of its work "Thoughts on the Social Science of the Future" (SPB., 1872; in 1873-1881. An expanded publication of this work in German in 5 volumes was published), he wrote: "In it, we set our task to show that The human society is essentially the same real being as all other organisms of nature, and that the whole difference between the Siems last and social organisms is only the degree of perfection. "
A somewhat less radical was a French sociologist René Worms (1869 - 1926). The last in the work "Organism and Society" (Russian Translation: Public Organism. St. Petersburg., 1897) argued: "Anatomy, physiology and pathology of societies are reproduced - in large sizes and with important additions and changes, but still on the same basis - Anatomy, physiology and pathology of organisms. Laws managed by members of the public bodies, in part, at least, are similar to the laws that control the cells of the body. Consequently, everything in society, elements and laws, like - do not say, of course, identically - what we find in the body of a separate person. "
The most moderate position among representatives of this school was served by the French sociologist Alfred Fulie (1838-1912). That's what we read in his work "Modern Social Science" (1880; RUSSIAN. Translation: M., 1895): "We saw the dispute, rising about this basic question: Is there a society organism? Some indicate similarities, others - to differences; The first answer the question of a complete statement, the second - absolute denial. But there seems to be a means to reconcile both sides: it is noted that similarities justify how we already indicated, the name of organisms given by societies, and differences justify the establishment of a special class of organisms that make up a new group in natural history. "
In addition to the above, the German economist Alfred Eberhard Sheffla belonged to this school (1831 -1903), who wrote the four-volume work "Structure and life of social bodies" (1875-1878), and French scientist Victor Alfred Espipas (1844-1922) with his famous At that time, the book "Society of Animals" (1875; Russian Translation: Social life of animals. M., 1882.)
This school was named organic. But the term "organic direction" is sometimes used to designate the entire course, whose supporters consider society as a whole education. And if the organic school in the first sense very soon lost popularity, then the organic direction eventually triggered in social science.
In Russia, the term "social organism" has widely used sociologist, historosofe and lawyer of Veniamin Mikhailovich Tailov (1868 - 1920). He developed this concept as in the article "Social Organism" (Tails V.M. Metralic personality and society. M. 1911) and in the work "Theory of the Historical Process. Essays on philosophy and methodology of history "(M., 1914). "Taking into account, he wrote, - that the human society leads its special life to be the action of special laws, and that in this activity it creates products, the creation of which is unbearable individual individuals, we conclude that society is not a simple amount of individuals but a special whole, and since this live whole lives and develops, then we call it organic whole. "
At the same time V.M. Tail warns against the likelihood of society by biological organism. "For Paz," he continues, "society has an organism only in the sense that it has a special life, not an exhaustive life of its individual members and managed by its laws, social development laws. But this body is completely different than biological organism. "
The term "social organism" used mostly sociologists, but not historians. And therefore speaking of the social body, the first meants did not mean a special separate specific society, but above all society in general and thereby concrete individual societies. But historians when they used the word "organism" in applying to society, also implied not only a separate society under it. So, the famous Russian historian Ivan Vasilyevich Luchitsky (1845 - 1918) in the introductory lecture to the course of the new history said: "The fact is that society, whether all humanity in general, or a separate nation, is the body, a special kind of body."
But in subsequent, some scientists began to use the phrase "social organism" to designate just a separate society. This can be seen, for example, in the first part of the first part of the labor of the famous Russian historian, the social philosopher and political figure of the famous Russian historian, the social philosopher and politician of Pavel Nikolayev Milyukov (1859-1943) "Essays on the history of Russian culture" (later Ed.: T. 1-3. M., 1993 - 1995). But for him, the category of a separate society acts as the concept of not historical science, but sociology. The concept of a separate society and an associated look at humanity as a combination of many separate societies, he opposes the "idea of \u200b\u200bworld history". "Scientific sociology, he wrote," the point of view of the World History moves to the second plan. She recognizes the natural unit of scientific observation of a separate social (-natal) body. Scientific sociology does not recognize individual national organisms by fixed "types." It studies the evolution of each individual organism and finds in it the traits of similarities with the evolution of other organisms. "
But although many and Western, and Russian scientists often used the term "social organism", to reveal the nature of the relations underlying society, they could not: these relations were not clearly neither spiritual nor biological. Without stopping here in detail on the views that existed and exist on the issue of the basis of the Company, because they are discussed in detail in the third part of the work, I will only note that a genuine way out of the situation proposed Marxism, which finally revealing the objective, material nature of economic relations (2.4; 3.13) .
The presence of the society of objective, economic relations makes it peculiar material education. This formation may well be called the organism, but not only biological, but social, for it is not based on biological connections, but on high-quality objective social relations. The term "social organism" or close to it sometimes used in the application to society and the founders of Marxism, and other visible representatives of this direction.
In our country, after 1917, the phrase "social organism" ceased to be used. Speaking in 1966 with the substantiation of the need to introduce the concept of a separate specific society as the most important category of historical science, I proposed to designate this concept given the old term. After this, the phrase "social organism" was distributed and again became used by specialists in the field of different social sciences, But not always in the sense suggested by me. Began to write about the ethnosocial organism, the social organism of kinship, etc. Social organisms began to call a wide variety of public education, including public classes, etc. Thus, the scientific appeal includes the term "social organism", but not by the concept of a particular particular society. It is the variety of values \u200b\u200bthat have become inserted into the phrase "social organism" prompted me to abandon him and offer to designate a separate concrete society a new term "socio-historical (socioistoric) organism."
Now when the term "Socio-historical (socio-historical) organism" (abbreviated - "Socior") Entered, it is necessary to get acquainted more detailed with its value. A sociocystoric organism has a separate specific society, which is a relatively independent unit of historical development. Each socio-historical organism is localized in time and space. It occupies a certain territory. He necessarily occurred, and many of the sociocystic organisms born in their time have long disappeared long ago, left the historical scene.
The concept of a sociocystic organism is necessary for all public sciences, but it is especially important for historiology. It is the socio-historical organisms that are the main, primary stakeholders and at the same time the main objects of historical research. Historians first write the history of Assyria, Urartu, Byzantium, Japan, England, France, Russia, etc.
Each social and historical organism make up people subordinate to one public authority. The borders of the social and historical organism are the borders of the public authority. In applied to class society, sociory boundaries, as a rule, coincide with state borders.
The term "state" himself has two basic meanings. One value is a specific power apparatus, coercion apparatus. Another, - a fairly relocated territory in humanities under the rule of one particular state machine. It is this meaning that invests in this word when the number of states in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, in general in the world, etc. The term "state" is in this second sense widely used in historical and publicly social science literature to denote the socio-historical organisms of class society.
However, the state in the second meaning of this word does not always coincide with the sociocystic organism. When, as a result of the campaigns, Alexander Macedonsky had a grand power, struggling from the water of the Nile to the shores of Inde, she was by no means a single socio-historical organism. It was a conglomerate of socioistoric organisms, combined only by the presence of a common rule. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that after the death of Alexander his power immediately broke up into several independent states.
In order to combined under one power, socio-historical organisms have grown and formed one socior, you need time, unequal for organisms of different types. Sometimes such an effort does not occur at all. So, for example, the British colonial empire has never been a single sociocystic organism. To a certain extent, this was due to the fact that this empire was not a single state. The United Kingdom continued to persist as a special state with its own special citizenship and after the formation of the empire. The latter was a conglomerate of socioistoric organisms, one of which was dominant (metropolis), and the rest of the subordinates (colonies).
The fact that the colonies were special socio-historical organisms, no means that they were special states. A special state as part of the British Empire was only the United Kingdom. In the same way, it was the case with Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French colonial empires. In this respect, they all differed from the Russian Empire, which was a single state and a single socioistoric organism.
Despite certain exceptions, in the class society, in general, there was a compliance between states and sociocystic organisms. The separation of one state into several independent states sooner or later led to the formation of several sociocystic organisms. For example, in Germany, after the end of the Second World War, two independent states have emerged - the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany). Accordingly, two sociocystic organisms were also formed, which at the same time belonged to two different socio-economic types.
But if the state, political association can occur quickly, then the process of the captivity of several previously independent sociocystic organisms can be delayed for a long time. In October 1990, the GDR ceased to exist and became part of the Federal Republic of Germany. A new German state appeared again. But the process of the capture of the Western German and Eastern Herman sociors has not fully ended and so far. To a large extent, he was slowed down by their socio-economic diet.
On Earth, from the moment of the emergence of people, there has always existed many socio-historical organisms. In most cases, neighboring sociors were closely related. And this allows you to go to the second value of the term "society".
Speaking about society, often meaning not one social and historical organism, but a whole group, a whole spatially limited system of socioistoric organisms (socior system). They say not only English, French, Polish societies, but also about the society of Western Europe, the society of the Middle East, etc. And such regional sociocystic organisms are also objects of studying historians. The latter write works not only on the history of Egypt, Hungary, Belgium, but also on the history of Western Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc.
The boundaries of class socio-historical organisms are more or less definite, for they coincide with state. Otherwise, it is the case with the boundaries of regional systems of socioistoric organisms. Different historians spend them differently. Some include one or another socior into this regional system, others, on the contrary, are excluded. And usually it is not justified. It is far from equally, for example, conducted by historians of the border of Western Europe.
There is no absolute, impassable face between socioistoric organisms and their systems. The system of socio-historical organisms can turn into a single socio-historical organism, and the latter can be filled with many independent sociors. Examples of this - mass.
At the end of the IV millennium BC A lot of small Sumerian states-states emerged in the Tiger Mezhdier and Euphrates, each of which was a completely independent social and historical organism. These sociocystory organisms, among which the ERC, Uruk, Kish, Lagash, Umma, have formed a more or less holistic system. At the end of III thousand BC. All the two-range was united under the authority of Sargon. There was a single state - the Akkadian kingdom, and after him a single socio-historical organism, which covered at least a significant part of the Mesopotamia.
In contrast to the two-frequencies in the Nile Valley, the class society emerged in the form of a major sociocystic organism - early, and then an ancient (old) kingdom of Egypt. This resulting at the end of IV thousand BC. Large socio-historical organism in the XXIII century. BC. collapsed. The first transition period occurred. Nomes that were previously parts of one socio-historical body turned into independent sociors.
Thus, a system of small socioistoric organisms arose on the territory of Egypt at the site of a large sociocystic organism. A close relationship remained between all these small societies. All Egyptians still spoke in the same language and had a total culture. All this gives grounds for allocating such a system of socio-historical organisms into a special type. I will call this kind of a combination of sociors nesting system. TO The number of sociocystic organisms of nesting systems includes the totality of the Sumerian cities-states described above.
The first transition period lasted in Egypt to the XXI century. BC, when the socior's nesting system has become a new single socio-historical organism - more than the kingdom. In the second half of the XVIII century. BC. There was a new decay of the general trade socioistoric organism. The second transition period lasted before the beginning of the XVI century. BC, when the third-party social and historical organism arose in the Nile Valley, a new kingdom arose. In the middle of the XI century BC. And it broke up.
This kind of phenomena is characteristic not only for the Ancient East. In the middle of the XIV century AD Northeastal Rus and North-West Rus together were taken to the nesting system of socio-historical organisms. It included the Great Principality of Moscow, the Grand Duchy of Tver, the Grand Duchiness of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, the Grand Duchy of Ryazan, Novgorod and Pskov land. By the end of the XV-beginning of the XVI centuries. All of them were united under the rule of Moscow. There was a single state and, accordingly, a single socio-historical organism, which further received the name of Russia.
Adherents of the "civilizational approach" usually do not define the key concept for them. But, if you look at the context, it is used in them, it is not difficult to see that under civilization it is understood either - it is less common - one or another social and historical organism with the entire culture inherent in it ("Egyptian civilization", "Chinese civilization"), either - that much more often is the same regional system of sociocystic organisms, which, according to people, her distinguished, common culture ("Sumerian civilization", "Ellinsky civilization", "antique civilization", "Western civilization", etc.). One of the classics of the "civilizational approach" is A. J. Toynby in his main work "Comprehension of History" (Russian. Redf. Translation: T. 1-7. M., 1991; T. 8-10, 12. 2000) put the sign of equality between the concept of civilization and the concept of society. In the list of civilizations compiled by him, Sumerian, Ancient Chinese, Hittte, Western and seventeen "societies" are indicated.
The ratio of society in the second sense is a system of socioistoric organisms - and society in the first sense - a sociostoric organism - there is a ratio of the whole and part. It is quite clean that the integrity of the system of socio-historical organisms can be quite different. Nonodynakova and the degree of independence of the stories of the components of its sociocystic organisms.
The above was already discussed about British and other colonial empires, which were not uniform socio-historical organisms, but the aggregates of sociocystic organisms united by the authorities of one of them acting as the metropolis. The dominant socioistoric organism was the center, the core of this kind of association. Therefore, it can be called - nonclasocyol (from lat. Nucleus- core). And this kind of such an association was a very peculiar social formation, contradictory combining the features of the system of socioistoric organisms with the features of a genuine sociocystic organism. This intermediate between socior and socior system Social association can be called ultrasocior (from lat. ultra- Next, more, over, for), or power. Ultrasociors (powers) existed for almost the entire history of class society.
The degree of independence of subordinate socioistoric organisms in the power of the subordinate socioistoric organisms could be different. In some cases, they could maintain their own statehood. This kind of subordinate socioistoric organisms could be called vassal sociors or infrasocira (from lat. infra- under, below). Such were the Russian principalities in the composition of the Golden Horde.
In other cases, subordinate sociors were completely devoid of their own statehood. They were ruled by representatives of the dominant sociocystic organism of the metropolis. It's not so much sociors as gemisocysty (from Greece hemi - half-). In general, in different powers, and sometimes even in the same one, it was possible to observe all the degree of dependence on the metropolis, ranging from full and ending purely nominal.
Power could be one single territorial unit and in this sense to be a regional system. But it was not obligatory. British possessions were scattered around the globe, which did not prevent the existence of the Power.
Territorial unity was not a prerequisite for the existence and conventional systems of socioistoric organisms. Not all of them were regional in the exact sense of the word. The antique system included, for example, and the Greek cities-states scattered along the shores of the Black Sea.
Several regional systems of sociocystic organisms could, in turn, could in turn form a higher-order socior system (socior supercine). The existence and even broader associations are not excluded. And each of the socior systems of any hierarchical level was also the subject of the historical process.
Of course, such that would include all socio-historical organisms without exception would be of the utmost system. Such a system existed not always, but the totality of all not only existing, but also existed sociocystic organisms is also always called society. This is another, third in the account, the meaning of the word "society".
The third meaning of the term "society" is all existing and existing socio-historical organisms combined. To transmit this meaning of this word, phrase is usually used "Human society as a whole.", And sometimes the word "humanity". But the latter has several other values. Under "Humanity" can understand the entire set of people without taking into account their belonging to those or sociors, and sometimes just a biological species or genus.
Human society as a whole is also the object of studying historical science. Historians write work on not only the stories of individual socioistoric organisms and their systems, but also a worldwide, or world history. In relation to human society, in general, individual sociocystic organisms and their systems act as its parts.
The fourth meaning of the term "society" - society in general, Whatever to any specific forms of its existence. Society in this sense of this word is not and cannot be an object of historical research, because it does not exist as such as an independent phenomenon. This does not mean that society does not at all at all. It certainly exists in historical reality, but there is no independently, not in itself, but only as an objective general, which is inherent to everyone without exception to socio-historical organisms.
The ratio of the sociocystic organism and society in general is the ratio of individual and common. And as any common, society really exists, but not in itself, but only in a separate and separately. This separate, in which society exists in general is socio-historical organisms. The concept of "society at all" is not an arbitrary thought design. It has an objective content, because it records an objective general, inherent in all socio-historical organisms without exception.
Socyoistoric organisms existed and there is a huge amount. It is impossible to understand this set without the classification of socioistoric organisms, without their division into classes, types. The various typologies of sociocystic organisms were created and created. And for the designation specific type of society or that the same thing societies in general of a certain type Also applied the word "society".
When society is understood by society in general of a certain type, then by the word "society" add an adjective denoting its type. Examples can serve as a phrase: "Primitive society", "feudal society", "Capitalist society", "Traditional society", "Industrial society", "Post-industrial society", etc. Each of these phrases denotes the type of society allocated by this or another sign or a combination of certain signs.
If the socio-historical organism is separate, the society is generally a certain type of course there is general, but this that is a kind of wider common, namely society in general. In other words, the society is generally a certain type there is nothing but the view, the type of society, there is a special society. A specific socio-historical organism, society in general of a certain type and society generally correlate as a separate, special and universal.
Society is generally a certain type as such, i.e. As a special independent phenomenon, there is no. On this basis, some researchers argue that the feudal society in general, the capitalist society at all, etc., are pure thinking structures that they exist only in the consciousness of scientists, but not on sinful land.
Undoubtedly, of course, that, for example, the concept of "feudal society", like any other concepts, including not only scientific, but also ordinary ("Cat", "table", "house", etc.), it has only in consciousness. But this concept records that fundamentally general, which is inherent in all feudal socioistoric organisms. And this general exists not only in the thoughts of the researcher, but also outside his consciousness. But if in historical reality it exists in the socio-historical organisms of this type as their essential identity, like their deep essence, then in the consciousness of the historian, this general acts in the "pure" form, in the form of a "pure", an ideal feudal socioistoric organism.
Of course, this ideal feudal sociior is a thoughtful design, but such a fundamental general expression, inherent in all real feudal socioistoric organisms. This fundamental common between all feudal socio-historical organisms is equally depends on the consciousness of the researcher, as not depend on its consciousness of individual feudal sociors in which it is manifested.
The creation of the concept of "feudal society" was an important step towards identifying a real common between all socio-historical organisms of this type, along the path of knowledge of their real, objective entity. All of what was said about the concept of "feudal society" to one degree or another applies to the other similarities of the concepts.
It happens that all the socio-historical organisms of a certain type form one and only one regional system. In this case, the designation of a certain type of society may coincide with the name of this socior system. For example, under the ancient society, a system of antique socio-historical organisms, which pretended in the Mediterranean in the I thousand BC, and (2), an ancient type society at all is understood at the same age.
As follows from all this, primary subjects of the historical process are socioistoric organisms, secondary - their systems, tertiary - human society as a whole, i.e. All existing and existing socio-historical organisms combined. Thus, the concept of a sociocystic organism is the initial and at the same time the most important category of historical and in general of all social sciences.
But, unfortunately, it has not yet entered the conceptual apparatus not a single philosophical and historical concept. In particular, it was originally absent in the categorical apparatus of historical materialism.
True, in recent decades of the XX century. Some Western Marxists and close to Marxism scientists tried to introduce him to scientific use. Louis Pierre Altyusser (1918-1990) and Etienist Balibar in the book "Reading Ka Pital" (1964; English Translation: 1970; 1977). For them, Emmanuel Terrey was followed in the works of "Morgan and modern anthropology" and "Historical materialism and segmental, liniculture societies", united in a book called "Marxism and Primitive" Societies "(1969; English Translation: 1972), Samir Amine in Monographs "Accumulation on a global scale. Criticism of the theory of underdevelopment "(1970; English Translation: 1974) and" unequal development. Essay of social formations of peripheral capitalism "(1973; English Translation: 1976), Hamza Alawi in the work" Structure of peripheral capitalism "(1982) and others.
But for some reason, for the designation of a particular particular society, they began to use the terms "social formation" or even "socio-economic formation", which in Marxist Science always applied in a completely different sense. In historical materialism, a socio-economic formation has always been called a type of society allocated on the basis of its socio-economic structure.
It is precisely because the concept of a sociocystic organism is one of the most important categories of historical and other public sciences, there is an urgent need for its further analysis.
Socio-historical organisms can be divided into types of various signs that are meaningful: on socio-economic system (slaveholding, feudal, etc. Society), the dominant sector of the economy (agrarian, industrial and post-industrial societies) form of government (monarchy and republics), political regime (autocratic and democratic societies), dominant denomination (Christian, Islamic, pagan countries), etc.
But, except for dividing on such types, there is a division of socioistoric organisms into two main species on the basis of their form, namely, by the method of their internal organization. The fact that societies can be organized in different ways was noticed in the XIX century.
One of the first to pay attention to this German antiquity researcher Bartold Georg Nizur (1776 - 1831). He owns the merit in setting the issue of the nature of such an institution, which is the genus. In the three-volume "Roman History" (1811 - 1832), he painted a picture of the Society of Society based on a generic principle, a society with a state organization based on territorial division. And the Romans, on Niburu, no exception. The generic device of society was replaced by the territorial and in the ancient Greeks.
English lawyer and historian Right Henry James Samner Maine (Maine) (1822-1888) in the works "Ancient right: His connection with the ancient history of society and its attitude to modern ideas" (1861; Russian Translation: SPB., 1873) and " Lectures on early history of institutes "(1875; Russian Translation: The oldest history of institutions. Lectures. St. Petersburg., 1876) spoke not about certain specific societies, but about societies. He conducted a distinction between societies, the basis of which is kinship, and societies that are based on the land, territory.
This idea was further developed by the great American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 -1881) in its work "an ancient society, or a study of human progress lines from wildness through barbarism to civilization" (1877; RUSSIAN. Translation: L., 1933; 1934) . The latter quite clearly allocated two types, or, as he was expressed, two "plan" of societies, which are completely different in their reasons.
"The first time, he wrote, is based on personality and pure personal relationships and can be called society (Societas). The second plan is based on the territory and private property and can be called the state (Civitas). The political society is organized in the territorial basis, and its attitude to personality and property is determined by territorial relations. In ancient society, this territorial plan was unknown. The appearance of it is a borderline between ancient and modern society. " L.G. Morgan tied the first type of society with primitiveness, the second - with a civilized, or class, society.
The assertion that sociocystic organisms are only the second of two dedicated types are based on the territory, caused and causes objections. Primitive communities, for a long time, were the only socio-historical organisms, undoubtedly, were always associated with a certain territory. In the era of the transition from primitive society to classroom, i.e. In a pre-grateful society, more complex sociocystoric organisms arose, consisting of several communities. One of their varieties is customary to refer to the tribe. The classic example of the latter are described by L.G. Morgan tribes of Iroquois: Seneca, Kaiuga, Onondaga, Mogauca, Oreida. Each of this kind of tribes also had its territory. The concepts of community and tribal territory are used everywhere in etiological and historical literature.
It is indisputable that all specific individual societies were associated with a territory. And socio-historical organisms these two types differ not by the presence or absence of their territory, and the principles underlying their organization, which determines their attitude towards different areas.
Society always consists of people. But, as already mentioned, it is never a simple set of them. People form society so far, as they are included in a certain system of relations that are customary to refer to public. Therefore, society is above all a certain system of social relations, in which people live.
Each socio-historical body has a separate specific society, i.e. A certain way a limited system of relations existing next to the other such limited systems. It is quite clear that it includes a limited number of people who live again in a limited territory. The most important is the problem of the separation of people constituting one sociocystic organism, from people who are part of others, i.e. The problem of the socior border. As already mentioned, this border is always the border of public authorities. Members of one socior are under the main principle of one power, members of another - under the auspices of the other.
There are two main ways to carry out the border between socio-historical organisms.
Let's start with sociohistorical organisms second, more recent species, because they are more understandable to modern man, living in sotsiorah exactly this kind. The boundary of such a socio-historical body is the border separating the territory he occupies from the territories where neighboring sociors are located. This boundary in most cases is both state. The borders of the state, as you know, are usually more or less clearly marked. Labels are natural features (rivers, hills, etc.) or artificially created for this purpose objects (border posts, etc.). All people living in the territory of this state are included - if it does not constitute a power - the composition of this socio-historical body.
Territorial are not only the external boundaries of such a sociocystic organism, but also the boundaries between parts; which he shares. All these parts occupy certain places in space are territorial units. Spatial is the order of the location of these divisions. In short, the socioistoric organisms of this type are spatially organized, have a fixed territorial structure, usually wearing hierarchical character. For example, the Russian Empire was divided into provinces, those on the counties, and the last - on parish.
The inseparalness of the socioistoric organism of this type from the territory he occupies, finds his completely distinct expression in The fact that its name can only be territorial: France, Bulgaria, Turkey, etc. This kind of socioistoric organisms I will be subsequently called geosocial organisms (geosocira). As mentioned, geosocial organisms in historical and in general social science literature are most often referred to as states. Another word used to designate the geosocira is "Country".
The word "country" is used to denote any of the currently existing geosocial organisms. Countries call not only the United States, Portugal, Italy, but also Luxembourg, Kuwait, Lesotho, Belize and even Andorra. It is more complicated with the use of this term in relation to the past.
As already noted, at certain periods of the history of the ancient Egypt region, which he was subdivided, namely, Noma, were quite independent socio-historical organisms. However, historians never call them countries. The country they call only the whole Egypt as a whole, even in relation to those periods when it was not a single sociocystic organism, but by the system of geosocial organisms.
None of the historians call the country neither the great principality of Moscow, nor the great principality of Ryazan, even in relation to the XIV century., When they were independent geosocial organisms. And for the designation of the Northern (northeastern + north-western) Russia as a whole, the word "country" is often applied. Thus, the word "country" is usually not used to designate geosocial organisms that are part of a particular nesting system. But these systems themselves are generally often referred to as countries.
In general, in the use of the word "country" in relation to the past, it is largely conditional. After all, it has never been subjected to historians theoretical analysis. In use of this word, the tradition plays a huge role. If in the XIX and XX centuries, there was one geosocial organism in one territory in one territory, it is called the country and applied to those epochs when this space was fragmented between many independent socio-historical organisms. Therefore, the word "country" cannot be considered an accurate scientific term, which, of course, does not exclude its use. In the future, under the country, I will understand only a geosocial organism.
When we face a geosocial organism, it is especially striking already noted above the fact that although society always consists of people, it never represents their simple aggregate. Society is primarily a special objective education, a certain system of relationships. When it comes to a geosocial body, then it is such a system of social relations, which is tightly soldered with a certain section of the earthly territory and in this sense is a certain territorial unit. Neither the geosocial organism as a whole, nor the composite parts in principle are not able to move from place to place. But people entering the geosocira are quite understandable, they can move freely throughout its territory, as well as leave its limits.
The result is a certain opposition of the geosocial organism as such, on the one hand, and the people who are part of its composition on the other. In this opposition, the geosocial body acts only as a spatially organized system of social relations, and people entering into its composition only as a simple set of individuals living in its territory, i.e. like it population.
Of course, there is no country without a population, but nevertheless the country and its population always constitute two different phenomena. The combination of people belonging to the geosocial organism always acts as something qualitatively different from him. One thing is the geosocial organism itself, the country, the state, the other - the population of the geosocial body, the country, the state.
Otherwise, than geosocial, sociocystic organisms of the first, more ancient species were organized. Although each of them has always occupied a certain territory, but the boundaries of this territory were not his own borders. People who are part of his composition were excluded from all the rest in any other way. Each such sociocystic organism was a kind of union of individuals with clearly fixed personal membership.
There were rules that define the man belongs precisely to this, rather than any other alliance, it is this, rather than any other socio-historical body. A person or another became a member of this Union, due to the connection between him, which existed between him and a person, who by the time of his birth was already in this Union.
The main principle of membership in such a sociocystic organism was related, and not biological, but social. If this body was small, then at least his kernel has always consisted of relatives. They could be reached not only by virtue of origin, but also by adoption (adoption or adoption). Another way to enter such a socior is marriage with his member.
When the sociocystic organism was small, the existing rules directly determined the personality of a person to it. Large sociocystic organisms were divided into parts. Sometimes there was a multistage staircase of this kind of divisions. The number of these units and their mutual relations were also sufficiently fixed. The rules existing in such society determined the personality of a person to a lower structural unit, for example, a division of the genus, thereby in this kind and thereby the tribe, which included this genus.
Units for which such a large sociocystic organism was divided could be localized. However, the spatial relations between them did not constitute the structure of the socio, the parts of which they were. The sociocystic organism of this type was organized on the principle of formal membership: membership of individual people and group membership. As a result, he performed simply as a certain organized population of people.
Of course, in this case, as in the case of any society, there was a certain difference between the sociocystic organism and its human composition. It was expressed at least that not any division of this composition was necessarily the division of society. Not society in itself, but only his human composition was divided into children and adults, men and women.
Socyoistoric organism, arising, could exist for a very long time. This is especially true of geosocira, whose age is often calculated by many centuries. But the life expectancy of each member of society is very limited. Therefore, the constant change of members of society is inevitable, continuously updating its human composition. The composition of society was constantly updated, but it was preserved as such.
But, unlike the geosocial body, in the socio-historical body of the considered type, his human composition did not speak as a special, opposing the phenomenon as its population. In applied to the socioistoric body of this type, you can talk about his human composition, on it is impossible - about his population. People N. inhabit such a sociocystic organism, they are his make up.
This does not mean that by the period of the reporting society the term "population" does not apply at all. To talk about the population in applied to this era, of course, it is possible, but only about the population of not certain socioistoric organisms, but for certain territories, regions, etc.
If we still try to use the word "population" in applying to the socio-historical organism of this type, then we will succeed in something completely different than when it comes to geosociore. The geosocial organism has a population, has a population. The socioistoric body of the considered type itself represents nothing but a particularly organized, particularly structured "population" coincides with its own "population". Therefore, this kind of socio-historical organisms could be called demosocial organisms (demosocirates). If the geosocial body is inseparable from the territory, which is occupied, then demosocial - from his personnel.
The consequence was the coincidence of the name of such an organism with the name of the totality of people who were part of his composition, and every particular person belonging to him. As an example, the name of the Iroquois tribes: Seneca, Kaiuga, Mogaucas, and others. Seneca - the name is by no means of the territory, but at the same time 1) of the sociocystic organism, 2) the combination of people of its components and 3) of each person belonging to it.
If the inseparable geosocial organism on the territory he occupies provides the relative independence of his human composition in relation to himself, then the inseparalness of the demosocial organism from his human composition turns into a large degree of its independence in relation to the territory on which it is located. This is primarily expressed in the fact that he can, keeping his identity, leave this plot of land and move to another. Unlike geosocial organisms, the demosocyal organisms are mobile, mobility, tightly attached to the territory.
The closest analogy of demosocial organisms is military units. Each of them is a certain clearly fixed hierarchically organized circle of people. The regiment consists of battalions, battalions - from the mouth, the company - from plats, plats - from the offices. When a person is credited to one of the offices, then it is part of the corresponding platoon corresponding to the company corresponding to the battalion. The shelf battalions can be localized, but their spatial location is not directly related to the structure of the part. By virtue of this kind of inner organization, the regiment can be transferred to another place, while remaining the same military unit.
The difference between demosocial and geosocial organisms is so large that the same terms in applied to those and others have different meaning.
The magnitude of the demosocial organism is determined by the number of people in its composition. The more people numbered in its composition, the more larger. The size of the territory he occupies does not have a fundamental importance, although, of course, a larger organism, as a rule, also occupies a large territory. On the contrary, the magnitude of the geosocial organism is entirely determined by the size of the territory he occupies. The more its territory, the more larger, regardless of the number of its population.
An increase in the demosocial organism occurs by increasing the number of its members. For the time being, an increasing demosocyer may be limited to its original territory. However, sooner or later he becomes closely on it, and he begins to hold new lands, pushing out other demosocyoras from them. But the growth of the territory occupied by the demosocyer is not an increase in its own. The territorial expansion of one or another demosocira does not necessarily imply the inclusion of demosocial organisms in its composition, which previously held the territory seized by him.
An increase in the dimensions of the demosocial organism can lead to two new decay, which in some cases remain to live in the neighborhood, and others can be far from each other. Demosocial organisms were capable of not only separating, but also to merge, parts of one could go to the composition of another, etc.
Unlike a demosocial body, an increase in geosocial can only go through the expansion of its territory. Together with the new territory, its population is also included. Thus, the increase in the size of a geosocial organism occurs due to neighboring geosocirs. These latter or entirely enter into its composition, or they are taken off separate pieces.
Of course, several geosocial organisms can unite and form one - larger. A single geosocial organism can be divided into several independent. But this happens differently than in the case of demosocial organisms. The combination of geosocial organisms involves the compounds of their territories, the collapse of the geosocira - the section of its territory between newly emerged states.
With an increase in the size of the geosocial organism, its population is usually increasing. But in itself, an increase in the number of people belonging to the geosocial body does not at all mean an increase in its size. If the territory of geosocial, organism does not grow, then its sizes do not increase, no matter how much its population grew. An increase in the geosocial organism and the growth of its population is different things.
The meaning of the terms "Migration", "Resettlement" in applied to demosocial organisms is significantly different from the meaning of the same terms when they are used in relation to geosocial organisms.
In the first case, it is primarily about moving from one territory to another of the socioistoric organisms or their unions and super-sufficient. It was such a character that the "great resettlement of the paratows", which ruined the Western Roman Empire. This, of course, does not mean that people living in primitive society can only move as part of socio-historical organisms. Separate people and their groups could completely move from the composition of one demosocira in the other. But it was a secondary phenomenon. And when a group of people distinguished from the composition of one or another demosocira did not join another organism, but began to conduct an independent existence, she herself became a new demosocial organism.
In the second case - we are talking about the movements of either individuals or groups on the territory of Geosocial organism, or their eviction beyond. At the same time, people move, and non-socioistoric organisms. A special case is to eviction beyond the limits of one socio-historical body of a large group of people who form a new geosocyer in a new place, relating to the same type. An example of ancient Greek colonization can be served as a result of which the Greek policies arose on the shores of the Black Sea. Similarly arose British colonies on the east coast of North America, which in subsequent development gave the beginning of the United States. All this can be attributed to Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Kareev N.I. Introduction to the study of sociology. St. Petersburg., 1897. P. 103-104.
Weber M. Basic sociological concepts // Selected works. M., 1990. P. 614.
See, for example: Gurevich A.Ya. To the discussion about the processalistic formations: formation and installation // VF. 1968. No. 2. P. 118-119.
Morgan L. G. Ancient society. L., 1934. P. 7.
For the nature of the relationship, see: Semenov Yu.I. The origin of marriage and family. M., 1974.
1. Political science - science learning
C) politics in all its manifestations;
2. Political science is:
C) integrated (integrated) policy science.
3. Objectives of political science as academic discipline:
C) political education and upbringing of citizens.
4. The subject of political science is
B) political power;
5. Political and practical management applications of theoretical and empirical knowledge of political science, political science methodology and research methods - is the realm of political science
D) fundamental.
6. Exploring and explaining political reality, political science uses categories (concepts):
D) general scientific, social sciences, political scientists.
7. Such important concepts for political knowledge as "politics", "Power", "State", "Law", "Law", "Republic", "Democracy", "Monarchy", "Aristocracy", "oligarchy", "tyranny" , "Despoys", "Freedom" were introduced into the turnover in the era
B) rebirth;
8. School of Political Sciences "was organized in 1880 at the university
A) Colombian;
9. Characterize politics as a superstructure over the economic basis ________ definitions of policies
A) economic;
10. Civilization development of the Republic of Belarus is determined
C) mentality;
11. Theological paradigm in political studies is based on
D) explaining the state power of God's Will;
12. "State", "Politics", "laws" are the main works
B) Plato;
13. The formation of natural law theories and the public contract belongs to the period
A) new time;
14. Right "state form by Aristotle
B) aristocracy;
15. Called "politics" the best form of state-owned ancient Greek philosopher
B) Aristotle;
B) "sum of theology";
17. Political thinkers of the Renaissance and Reformation periods proceeded in their concepts from
D) ideas about the equality of the power of church and state.
18. The concept of "creatingbylithic organism as a genuine agreement between nations and rulers "belongs
19. They believed that Russia was the same historical path that the West, but has lagged behind Europe and therefore must resort to borrowing the achievements of civilization
D) Westerns.
20. Main work T. Gobbs -
D) "Leviathan".
21. How do you explain the fact, a hundred status of political science as an academic discipline was recognized in Belarus only in the early 1990s.?
D) undemocraticness of the Soviet political system.
1. Policy is:
C) the sphere of social relations on the use of state power;
2 . Treat politics as rivalry of certain public groups _______ policy definitions
C) sociological;
3. What methods of knowledge of politics do you consider the most productive?
D) a set of methods of general scientific, social sciences, political.
4. The process of executing the policy of the management function of society includes:
B) forecasting the political development of society;
5. Power is:
C) the ability to manage people;
6. Focus on contradictions that underlie policies, ________ policy definitions
D) conflict consensus.
7. Politics are activities aimed at achieving a common good. This definition is typical for politician interpretation.
C) economic;
8. Political power is:
B) the ability of policies to implement its political will and interests using the state power mechanism;
9. State power is the highest form of political power, because it is:
C) manages on behalf of the whole society, dominates other types of power.
10. Like a society to the living organism supporters
B) organic school in sociology;
11. Implies the distinction between the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, which carry out their functions and powers themselves, balancing each other, the principle
C) separation of the authorities;
12. Historically established organization of political power, controlling joint activities and relations between various social groups and communities; Central, the main institution of political power is
D) the state.
13. Anthropological definitions of politics make emphasis on
D) human nature.
C) M. Deber;
15. According toN.Makiavelli, people are
D) a passive object of state power.
16. Believed that political life is struggling and change, "circulation" elite
C) V. Pareto;
17. Represents the system of government agencies, which has the authority to ensure the action of laws and decisions throughout the country and carry out the functions of managing all spheres of the life of the Company _________
D) legislative.
18. Heads of power structures that directly affect the decision-making, meaningful for the whole state - this is _______________ elite
A) the highest;
19. The ability and opportunity to carry out their will, to influence the behavior of people called:
D) power.
20. What type of legitimacy of power in the Republic of Belarus?
B) charismatic;
21. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted:
22. Nowadays the current Constitution of the Republic of Belarus consists of:
A) preamble, nine sections, eight chapters;
23. "The scope of activities related to relations between classes, nations and other social groups whose core is the problem of conquesting, holding and using state power" - what concept is this definition: this definition applies:
D) to the concept of "class struggle".
24. Power with powers to issue laws mandatory for execution on a certain territory and in a specific area of \u200b\u200bactivity is power
D) legislative.
25. The words "man - a political being" belong
C) M. Weber;
26. Best for Russia, the form of the rule of N.M. Muravyev believed
B) parliamentary republic;
27. N. Makiavelli believed that all the fullness of power in the state should belong
B) Moska;
29. The term "elite" introduced into political science
D) V. Pareto.
30. The process of assimilation of political experience is called
C) political socialization;
31. Which of the policy concepts justifies the need for state regulation of the economy?
Spencer interpreted society as social organism,which is once born, reaches a heyday and dies. Society, like every organism, functions normally, if it is healthy, and with deviations - when it sick. In a word, the organism and society have the same laws - the laws of functioning and development. They have a lot in common in the structure and organization.
Poor and rich. The strongest survives! Such is wild capitalism
The role of the social institutions is fulfilled by social institutions. In scientific circulation, the term "Social Institute" introduced exactly the city of Spencer. In society, he allocated the source cells (social statuses) and specialized bodies (social institutions) performing a specific function (production, education).
The English philosopher preferred to explain the institutions not through individual motives and goals, but through their functions in the system. If society is developing like a living organism, then its institutions and institutions change.
So, the Government of Spencer compared with the human brain, and roads and highways with a venous system. Of course, it is a metaphor, but she inspired the next generation of European, and then American sociologists to create a set of interesting theories in the framework of the structural and functional paradigm (Durkheim, Parsons, Merton). Spencer himself is classified as Sociological Positivism and at the same time to representatives of structural functionalism.
Spencer emphasized social institutions by human bodies performing similar functions.
In society as it is developed, and therefore complications, more and more social institutions are becoming more and more. As the number of institutions increases, the structure of each becomes complicated.
Spencer's proof serve Ethnographic materials on the conditions of the economic life of Bushmen, Eskimos, the Indians of South America, the historical analysis of the medieval handicraft and modern factory industrial production of Great Britain. In all cases, there is a gradual complication of the functions and differentiation of the executive power, specialization and division of social labor, an increase in the number of new institutions and structures as the population grows.
Public progress is determined not only by complexity, but also the effectiveness of institutions. The better the institutions, the greater the needs of society. Consequently, more forces and funds society will allocate them and save them longer. Thus, the efficiency and stability of social institutions are interrelated concepts.
The main task of sociology, therefore, is the study of the phase of the emergence of social institutions, synchronization of their interaction.
Spencer distinguishes six Types of social institutions - home, ritual, political, church, industrial and professional. They are combined by three life support systems - producing, distribution, regulating. Their aggregate is the global organization of society.
The combination of all institutions and functional relations between them create a complex system of cooperation channels of cooperation and exchange. Before us is a picture of a modern network society.
In a living organism, the regulatory function performs the nervous system, in society - the state; Production function - muscles and nutrition authorities, and in society - industry and agriculture; A circulative role is performed by a blood system in the body, transport, trade and means of communication - in society. Figuratively speaking, agriculture and industry are powered by a public organism, the Institute of Trade - the function of blood circulation, the army - protective skin, transport - vascular system.
The regulatory system also includes a social control mechanism based on fear. The fear of alive forces people to obey the police, ships, legislators, fear of dead - religious values, priests, rituals. The fear of living supports the state, and the fear of the dead is the church.
The concept of institutions reproduces the image of society by analogy with a biological organism. Spencer, apparently, was aware of the conventionality of such an analogy, but he was constantly comparisons like: "Blood particles are likened to money," "various parts of the social organism, like different parts of an individual organism, are fighting between themselves for food and get more or less, looking at it, depending For greater or less of its activities. "
Spencer stressed not so much material similarity as the similarity of the principles of a systemic organization, it sought to combine the body dissolving the individual in society, with its extreme individualism of the bourgeois liberal. This contradiction was the source of all its theoretical difficulties and compromises. Spencer led to the recognition of society as special existence, indicated that its basic properties are reproduced in time and space, despite the change of generations.
He spent a lot of effort, identifying the specific features of the "social organism" and identifying general system principles that make it similar to biological systems:
1. Thessist, as well as a biological organism, is increasing the mass (population, material resources, etc.).
2. How and in the case of biological evolution, the growth of mass leads to the complication of the structure.
3. The design of the structure is accompanied by differentiation of functions performed by individual parts.
4. In both cases, there is a gradual enhancement of interdependence and interaction of parts.
5. And in biological organisms, the integer is always more stable than individual parts, stability is ensured by the preservation of functions and structures.
Spencer not only likened the society of the body, but also his biology was filled with sociological analogies. Trying to avoid coarse reductionism, to which many evolutionists were inclined, Spencer uses the term "Nadorzhnism", emphasizes the autonomy of the individual, unlike the Coppen Spencer criticizes organicism sharply, draws attention to the significant differences in the social and biological organism:
1. In contrast to the biological organism forming the "body", which has a specific form, elements of society are scattered in space and have significantly greater autonomy.
2. This spatial diffusion of items makes the necessary symbolic communication.
3. The society does not have a single organ concentrating the ability to feel and think.
4. The community is distinguished by the spatial mobility of the elements of the structure.
5. But the main thing is that the part in the biological organism serve for a whole, while in society there is a piece of parts. Society, according to Spencer, exists for the good of its members, and not members exist for the benefit of society.
Spencer did not fully realize that utilitarian anthropology is not agreed with the body. He offered a compromise solution: in the early stages of the evolution, the Natural Constitution of the person determines the properties of the social unit, in the subsequent decisive role in social evolution, the properties of the whole are played. The problem of relations between individual and society was solved by reference to their interaction. In the time of Spencer it was difficult to offer a more specific solution to the problem, since social psychology as science has not yet existed.
SocietyHow the body has a totality of developing organs interacting with each other, the destruction of which, each separately, leads to the full decomposition of the entire body.
The purpose of this article to disclose our problems, the problems of society. Openly look at the development of relations in everyday life.
Currently, all people are in different life conditions: financial, social, etc. As a result, everyone tries to overlook each other, thoroughly prove its advantage over the rest, showing high, emphasizing its status.
In our schools, the attitude of children to teachers has become consumer. Many children do not show respect for the person who gives them knowledge. Sometimes, insulting and humiliating teachers, showing their own character, again demonstrate the status of their parents. But these are just children, our future!
And what will be this future?
In public places, shopping centers, stores we are trying to show our position. We are trying to remind your rights, behaving defiantly, "iput" prove the banal concept of "client is always right".
And what do we get from this?
Nothing except, satisfaction from the fact that humiliated man and joy from victory in this asocial, competitive struggle. Another reason to demonstrate its arrogance. As a result, hatred to each other is born and strengthened.
The words Abdullah Bin Mas'uda (May Allah will be pleased) it is reported that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and welcome) said :
"Will not enter the paradise that in the heart of which there is a highly weight with a dust!" Mustache lying it, one person asked: "But the person wants his clothes and shoes to be beautiful!" To what the Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah) said: "Truly, Allah is beautiful, and he loves beautiful, but arrogance is the rejection of truth and manifestation of contempt towards people."
St. Hadith Muslim, 91.
Unfortunately, in the consciousness of most representatives of society there is no desire for creating, to create something, which could be left after themselves. Society has no goals uniting and fracting people. Each separately survives itself - as a result of which society, as an organism, decomposes.
Musulmanina's temper will never allow such actions to make such actions, will never affect the decomposition of public relations, - moreover, he will fight this mud by providing good examples for its part.
The desire for knowledge of both secular and spiritual. Subsequently, using the knowledge gained in practice, in life conditions. The ability to put one goals, strive for them, reach them. All these qualities should develop a true Muslim in themselves.
To date, Muslims are a good example, in cooperation between themselves. Supporting each other in difficult situations, tightly holding "hands." Rejoicing together for the gift of Allah. Having common goals, standing shoulder to shoulder and looking in one direction, we try to make as much good deeds as possible, in the hope of the mercy of the Most High Allah.
And I really want to believe that not a single Muslim (Muslim), being an example of strong and healthy relations in Islamic society, will never succumb to this problem and will do everything to " organism»Only grew and strengthened !!!
Ruslan Khairullin
