Society is a certain set of elements that are interconnected and interact with each other. Spheres of public life are interpenetrating and interconnected.

Economic difficulties (economic sphere) give rise to social instability and discontent of various social forces (social sphere) and lead to an intensification of political struggle and instability (political sphere). All this is usually accompanied by apathy, confusion of spirit, but also by spiritual searches and intensive scientific research.

The boundaries between all four spheres of society are easily crossed and transparent. Each sphere is present in one way or another in all the others, but at the same time does not dissolve, does not lose its leading function. The question of the relationship between the main spheres of public life and the allocation of one priority is debatable. There are supporters of the determining role of the economic sphere. They proceed from the fact that material production, which forms the core of economic relations, satisfies the most pressing, primary human needs, without which any other activity is impossible. The spiritual sphere of society's life is singled out as a priority. Proponents of this approach make the following argument: a person’s thoughts, ideas, and ideas are ahead of his practical actions. Major social changes are always preceded by changes in people's consciousness, a transition to other spiritual values. The most compromise of the above approaches is the approach whose adherents argue that each of the four spheres of social life can become decisive in different periods of historical development.

Conclusions

The spheres of society's life as parts of a single system are inextricably linked; changes in one usually entail changes in the other.

Despite the fact that, unlike Marxism, the civilizational approach recognizes the equality of all subsystems of society, it is possible to imagine their vertical structure depending on their own role in social life. Thus, the economic sphere plays the role of obtaining means of subsistence, being the foundation of society. The political sphere carries out the function of management and is the top of society.

The social and spiritual spheres are of a cross-cutting, universal nature, permeating the entire society and uniting its economic and political components.

Each subsystem closely interacts with the other subsystems of the social system, and this is precisely interaction, and not the unilateral influence of one subsystem on others. The interaction of subsystems is largely the subject of legal regulation, and its basic principles are regulated by constitutional law. Only the interconnection of all subsystems of society ensures its normal existence.

Society, being a complex system of human activity and relationships, consists of material production, social reproduction, organizational and spiritual activity. In this article we will talk about the main spheres of public life, point out their characteristics and relationships. Using the material, you can prepare additional information for the lesson and create a plan for the topic.

Spheres of public life

Society consists of certain subsystems (spheres). The set of spheres of public life is a stable relationship between social actors.

In social science there are four subsystems:

• Economic;
• Political;
• Social;
• Spiritual.

Each of these areas consists of:

• a certain type of activity;
• social institutions (school, family, church, parties);
• relationships that arose during human activity.

Economic sphere

This area includes relationships that arise during the material production of vital goods, namely production, exchange, distribution, consumption of services and goods.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

The economic component of society includes production forces (labor personnel, tools) and production relations (production, distribution, exchange, consumption of goods). The main components of the economic subsystem are production, consumption and trade.

Political sphere

Includes relationships related to politics and power.

The original meaning of the word politics, translated from ancient Greek, meant “the art of government.” In the modern world, the term is used to denote social life, the problems of which are the acquisition, use and retention of power.

The main components of this group of social life are:

• political institutions (parties);
• legal and moral standards;
• communications;
• culture and ideology.

Social sphere

This group of social life includes relationships that arise during the production and life of a person as an individual in society. It includes social communities and relationships between them.

The social structure is divided:

• demographic;
• ethnic;
• settlement;
• educational;
• professional;
• estate-class group.

Spiritual realm

This system includes ideal intangible formations, which include values, ideas, religion, art, morality.

Spirituality aims to satisfy the needs for self-awareness, worldview and spiritual qualities. The main components are spiritual production (science, art, religion) and spiritual consumption (visiting cultural institutions, acquiring new knowledge).

Interrelation of spheres of society

All of the above components of society are closely interconnected.

In different eras, humanity has tried to single out one of the spheres. Thus, in the Middle Ages, the spiritual, religious component was of great importance, in the Age of Enlightenment - scientific knowledge and morality. Marxism emphasized economic relations, and many other concepts emphasized law and politics.

The characteristic of modern society is the combination of all components. Example - place in the social hierarchy affects political views, access to spiritual values, and education. Economic relations depend on state policy, which is formed on the traditions and customs of the people.

You can find out the features of each subsystem in the following table:

What have we learned?

Society has four subsystems closely interconnected. The economic component is responsible for material benefits, their receipt and distribution, the political component is responsible for power and management, the social subsystem is responsible for the relationships between different layers of the population, the spiritual sphere is responsible for morality, education and culture.

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.1. Total ratings received: 93.

3. The main spheres of social life and their relationship

Society is a complex dynamic system that includes spheres of public life as subsystems.

The economic, or material and production sphere is an area of ​​social life associated with human activity in the production, distribution, exchange, consumption of material goods, the material living conditions of people.

The social sphere is an area of ​​public life associated with the relations between various social communities (classes, nations, social strata, etc.), their role in the life of society.

The political, or political-legal sphere is an area of ​​public life associated with the organization of society and its management, the system of management institutions.

The spiritual sphere is an area of ​​social life associated with specialized spiritual production, with the functioning of social institutions within which spiritual values ​​are created and disseminated.

The development of each sphere of social life is subject to its own laws, but the independence of the spheres is relative. Problems in the functioning of one of them immediately affect the condition of the others. For example, the instability of economic life gives rise to a crisis in the political sphere, tension in social relations, disorganization of people in the spiritual sphere, and uncertainty in the present and future.

In the relationships between spheres of public life, cause-and-effect and functional connections are distinguished. From the point of view of Marxism, cause-and-effect relationships play a dominant role. This means that all spheres form a hierarchical structure, that is, they are in a relationship of subordination and subordination. Marxists clearly point out the dependence of all spheres on the economic sphere and their conditionality by the economic sphere, which is based on material production based on a certain nature of property relations. At the same time, Marxists emphasize that the economic sphere is only the main reason; it only ultimately determines the development of other spheres of social life. They do not deny the reverse impact of other areas on the economy.

Preference is given to functional connections primarily in Anglo-American sociology. The main emphasis is on the fact that each sphere can exist only within the framework of integrity, where it performs specific, strictly defined functions. For example, the adaptation function is provided by the economic sphere, the goal achievement function is provided by the political sphere, etc.

24.Political organization of society. The state, its most important features, historical types and forms. Civil society and the rule of law

Throughout its history, the most progressive, thinking

representatives of humanity tried to create a model of an ideal social

a device where reason, freedom, prosperity and justice would reign.

The formation of civil society was linked to the problems

improving the state, enhancing the role of law and law.

Ancient thinkers did not separate “Society” and “State”. So,

for example, the national assembly of the inhabitants of Athens was at the same time the highest body

political management. At the same time, the state (public power)

dominated society, dominating it in the form of an eastern

despotism, sometimes in the form of the Roman Empire, sometimes in the form of a medieval monarchy.

Aristotle defined the state as sufficient for the self-sufficient

existence of a set of citizens, i.e. nothing more than civil

society. Cicero, justifying the legal equality of people, wrote: “... the law

is the connecting link of civil society, and the law established by law

the same for everyone..." Identification of civil society with

state lasted for a long time, and was due to the level

development of economic and socio-political relations (primitive

forms of division of labor, the initial stage of development of commodity-money relations,

nationalization of public life, the caste nature of social

structures).

The separation of the state from society and the transformation of it and society into

relatively independent phenomena occurred only as a result

bourgeois revolutions and the establishment of the complete dominance of exchange relations

as a means of connecting people into social organisms. Society,

freed from the tyranny of the state and united individual

independent subjects, called civil. Nowadays it

plays the same role that the polis played in antiquity, and the Middle Ages -

estate.

As a result of the development of social relations, the

scientists' views on civil society. At the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. in the works of N.

Machiavelli, G. Grotius, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau has already

compliance with civil society was not motivated by everyone, but only

progressive, in their opinion, forms of government based

on a natural-legal, contractual basis. In particular, J. Locke believed

that "absolute monarchy... is incompatible with civil society and,

therefore cannot be a form of civil government at all.”

Machiavelli believed that the best form of state was a mixed one, consisting of

monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, each of which is designed to restrain

and protect others.

Characterizing civil society, I. Kant considered the following to be the main ones:

ideas:

a) a person must create everything on his own and must be responsible

for what was created;

b) the clash of human interests and the need to protect them

are motivating reasons for people’s self-improvement;

c) civil freedom, legally ensured by law, is

a necessary condition for self-improvement, a guarantee of preservation and elevation

human dignity.

These ideas formed the basis of the theory of civil society. Kant,

transferring the concept of antagonism between individuals as a stimulus for their self-development

on relations between states, concludes that for humanity

the greatest problem which nature forces him to solve is

achieving a universal legal civil society.

W. Humboldt, accepting the philosophical teachings of Kant, on specific

examples tried to show the contradictions and differences between civil

society and state. He considered civil society to be:

a) a system of national, public institutions formed by the

individuals;

b) natural and common law;

c) person.

The state, unlike civil society, consists, according to its

opinion:

a) from the system of state institutions;

Social life includes all phenomena caused by the interaction of society as a whole and individual people located in a certain limited territory. Social scientists note the close relationship and interdependence of all major social spheres, reflecting certain aspects of human existence and activity.

Economic sphere social life includes material production and relationships that arise between people in the process of production of material goods, their exchange and distribution. It is difficult to overestimate the role that economic, commodity-money relations and professional activities play in our lives. Today they have even come to the fore too actively, and material values ​​sometimes completely replace spiritual ones. Many people now say that a person first needs to be fed, provided with material well-being, maintenance of his physical strength, and only then - spiritual benefits and political freedoms. There is even a saying: “It is better to be full than to be free.” This, however, can be argued. For example, an unfree person, spiritually undeveloped, will continue to worry only about physical survival and satisfying his physiological needs until the end of his days.

Political sphere, also called political-legal, associated primarily with the management of society, government, problems of power, laws and legal norms.

In the political sphere, a person one way or another faces established rules of behavior. Today, some people are disillusioned with politics and politicians. This happens because people do not see positive changes in their lives. Many young people also have little interest in politics, preferring to meet with friends and enjoy music. However, it is impossible to completely isolate ourselves from this sphere of public life: if we do not want to participate in the life of the state, then we will have to submit to someone else’s will and someone else’s decisions. One thinker said: “If you don’t get involved in politics, then politics will get involved in you.”

Social sphere includes the relationships between different groups of people (classes, social strata, nations), considers the position of a person in society, the basic values ​​and ideals established in a particular group. A person cannot exist without other people, therefore the social sphere is that part of life that accompanies him from the moment of birth until the last minutes.

Spiritual realm covers various manifestations of a person’s creative potential, his inner world, his own ideas about beauty, experiences, moral principles, religious views, the opportunity to realize himself in various types of art.

Which sphere of society's life seems more significant? Which one is less? There is no clear answer to this question, since social phenomena are complex and in each of them one can trace the interconnection and mutual influence of spheres.

For example, one can trace the close relationship between economics and politics. The country is undergoing reforms and reducing taxes for entrepreneurs. This political measure promotes production growth and facilitates the activities of businessmen. And vice versa, if the government increases the tax burden on enterprises, it will not be profitable for them to develop, and many entrepreneurs will try to withdraw their capital from industry.

The relationship between the social sphere and politics is no less important. The leading role in the social sphere of modern society is played by representatives of the so-called “middle strata” - qualified specialists, information workers (programmers, engineers), representatives of small and medium-sized businesses. And these same people will form the leading political parties and movements, as well as their own system of views on society.

The economy and the spiritual sphere are interconnected. For example, the economic capabilities of society and the level of human mastery of natural resources allow the development of science, and vice versa, fundamental scientific discoveries contribute to the transformation of the productive forces of society. There are many examples of the relationship between all four public spheres. Let’s say that in the course of the market reforms being carried out in the country, a variety of forms of ownership have been legalized. This contributes to the emergence of new social groups - the entrepreneurial class, small and medium-sized businesses, farming, and specialists in private practice. In the field of culture, the emergence of private media, film companies, and Internet providers contributes to the development of pluralism in the spiritual sphere, the creation of spiritual products that are different in nature, and multidirectional information. There are an infinite number of similar examples of relationships between spheres.

Social institutions

One of the elements that make up society as a system is various social institutions.

The word "institute" here should not be taken to mean any specific institution. This is a broad concept that includes everything that is created by people to realize their needs, desires, and aspirations. In order to better organize its life and activities, society forms certain structures and norms that allow it to satisfy certain needs.

Social institutions- these are relatively stable types and forms of social practice through which social life is organized and the stability of connections and relationships within society is ensured.

Scientists identify several groups of institutions in each society: 1) economic institutions, which serve for the production and distribution of goods and services; 2) political institutions, regulating public life related to the exercise of power and access to it; 3) institutions of stratification, determining the distribution of social positions and public resources; 4) kinship institutions, ensuring reproduction and inheritance through marriage, family, education; 5) cultural institutes, developing the continuity of religious, scientific and artistic activities in society.

For example, society’s need for reproduction, development, preservation and enhancement is fulfilled by institutions such as family and school. The social institution that carries out the functions of security and protection is the army.

The institutions of society are also morality, law, and religion. The starting point for the formation of a social institution is society’s awareness of its needs.

The emergence of a social institution is due to: the need of society;

the availability of means to satisfy this need;

availability of necessary material, financial, labor, organizational resources; the possibility of its integration into the socio-economic, ideological, value structure of society, which makes it possible to legitimize the professional and legal basis of its activities.

The famous American scientist R. Merton identified the main functions of social institutions. Explicit functions are written down in charters, formally enshrined, and officially accepted by people. They are formalized and more controlled by society. For example, we can ask government agencies: “Where do our taxes go?”

Hidden functions are those that are actually carried out and may not be formally fixed. If hidden and explicit functions diverge, a certain double standard is formed when one thing is stated and another is done. In this case, scientists talk about the instability of the development of society.

The process of development of society is accompanied institutionalization, that is, the formation of new relationships and needs leading to the creation of new institutions. The American sociologist of the 20th century G. Lansky identified a number of needs that lead to the formation of institutions. These are the needs:

In communication (language, education, communications, transport);

In the production of products and services;

In the distribution of benefits;

The safety of citizens, the protection of their lives and well-being;

In maintaining a system of inequality (placement of social groups according to positions, statuses depending on various criteria);

In social control over the behavior of members of society (religion, morality, law).

Modern society is characterized by the growth and complexity of the system of institutions. The same social need can give rise to the existence of several institutions, while certain institutions (for example, the family) can simultaneously realize several needs: for reproduction, for communication, for security, for the production of services, for socialization, etc.

Multivariate social development. Typology of societies

The life of each person and society as a whole is constantly changing. Not a single day or hour we live is similar to the previous ones. When do we say that a change has occurred? Then, when it is clear to us that one state is not equal to another and something new has appeared that did not exist before. How do all the changes occur and where are they directed?

At any given moment in time, a person and his associations are influenced by many factors, sometimes inconsistent with each other and multidirectional. Therefore, it is difficult to talk about any clear, distinct arrow-shaped line of development characteristic of society. Processes of change occur in complex, uneven ways, and their logic is sometimes difficult to grasp. The paths of social change are varied and winding.

We often come across such a concept as “social development”. Let's think about how change will generally differ from development? Which of these concepts is broader, and which is more specific (it can be included in another, considered as a special case of another)? It is obvious that not every change is development. But only that which involves complication, improvement and is associated with the manifestation of social progress.

What drives the development of society? What could be hidden behind each new stage? We should look for answers to these questions, first of all, in the system of complex social relations itself, in internal contradictions, conflicts of different interests.

Development impulses can come from society itself, its internal contradictions, and from the outside. I

External impulses can be generated, in particular, by the natural environment and space. For example, climate change on our planet, the so-called “global warming,” has become a serious problem for modern society. The response to this “challenge” was the adoption by a number of countries of the world of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires reducing emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere. In 2004, Russia also ratified this protocol, committing itself to environmental protection.

If changes in society occur gradually, then new things accumulate in the system quite slowly and sometimes unnoticed by the observer. And the old, the previous, is the basis on which the new is grown, organically combining the traces of the previous. We do not feel conflict and denial of the old by the new. And only after some time has passed we exclaim in surprise: “How has everything changed around us!? We call such gradual progressive changes evolution. The evolutionary path of development does not imply a sharp break or destruction of previous social relations.

The external manifestation of evolution, the main way of its implementation is reform. Under reform we understand the action of power aimed at changing certain areas and aspects of social life in order to give society greater stability and stability. The evolutionary path of development is not the only one. Not all societies could solve pressing problems through organic gradual transformations. In conditions of an acute crisis affecting all spheres of society, when accumulated contradictions literally explode the existing order, revolution. Any revolution taking place in society presupposes a qualitative transformation of social structures, the destruction of old orders and rapid innovation. A revolution releases significant social energy, which cannot always be controlled by the forces that initiated the revolutionary changes. It’s as if the ideologists and practitioners of the revolution are letting the “genie out of the bottle.” Subsequently, they try to drive this “genie” back, but this, as a rule, does not work. The revolutionary element begins to develop according to its own laws, often perplexing its creators.

This is why spontaneous, chaotic principles often prevail in the course of a social revolution. Sometimes revolutions bury those people who stood at their origins. Or the results and consequences of the revolutionary explosion differ so significantly from the original tasks that the creators of the revolution cannot help but admit their defeat. Revolutions give rise to a new quality, and it is important to be able to timely transfer further development processes into an evolutionary direction. In the 20th century, Russia experienced two revolutions. Particularly severe shocks befell our country in 1917-1920.

As history shows, many revolutions were replaced by reaction, a rollback to the past. We can talk about different types of revolutions in the development of society: social, technical, scientific, cultural.

The significance of revolutions is assessed differently by thinkers. For example, the German philosopher K. Marx, the founder of scientific communism, considered revolutions to be the “locomotives of history.” At the same time, many emphasized the destructive, destructive effect of revolutions on society. In particular, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) wrote the following about the revolution: “All revolutions ended in reactions. This is inevitable. This is the law. And the more violent and violent the revolutions were, the stronger the reactions were. There is some kind of magic circle in the alternation of revolutions and reactions.”

Comparing the ways of transforming society, the famous modern Russian historian P.V. Volobuev wrote: “The evolutionary form, firstly, made it possible to ensure the continuity of social development and thanks to this preserve all the accumulated wealth. Secondly, evolution, contrary to our primitive ideas, was accompanied by major qualitative changes in society, not only in productive forces and technology, but also in spiritual culture, in the way of life of people. Thirdly, to solve new social problems that arose in the course of evolution, it adopted such a method of social transformation as reforms, which, in their “costs,” turned out to be simply incomparable with the gigantic price of many revolutions. Ultimately, as historical experience has shown, evolution is capable of ensuring and maintaining social progress, also giving it a civilized form.”

Typology of societies

When distinguishing different types of societies, thinkers are based, on the one hand, on the chronological principle, noting changes that occur over time in the organization of social life. On the other hand, certain characteristics of societies coexisting with each other at the same time are grouped. This allows us to create a kind of horizontal cross-section of civilizations. Thus, speaking about traditional society as the basis for the formation of modern civilization, one cannot help but note the preservation of many of its features and characteristics in our days.

The most established approach in modern social science is the one based on identifying three types of societies: traditional (pre-industrial), industrial, post-industrial (sometimes called technological or information). This approach is based largely on a vertical, chronological section, i.e. it assumes the replacement of one society by another in the course of historical development. What this approach has in common with the theory of K. Marx is that it is based primarily on the distinction of technical and technological features.

What are the characteristic features and characteristics of each of these societies? Let's look at the characteristics traditional society- the foundations of the formation of the modern world. Traditional They primarily call ancient and medieval society, although many of its features are preserved in later times. For example, the countries of the East, Asia, and Africa retain signs of traditional civilization today.

So, what are the main features and characteristics of a traditional type of society?

In the very understanding of traditional society, it is necessary to note the focus on reproducing in an unchanged form the methods of human activity, interactions, forms of communication, organization of life, and cultural patterns. That is, in this society, the relationships that have developed between people, working practices, family values, and way of life are diligently respected.

A person in a traditional society is bound by a complex system of dependence on the community and the state. His behavior is strictly regulated by the norms accepted in the family, class, and society as a whole.

Traditional society distinguished by the predominance of agriculture in the structure of the economy, the majority of the population is employed in the agricultural sector, working on the land, living from its fruits. Land is considered the main wealth, and the basis for the reproduction of society is what is produced on it. Mainly hand tools (plow, plow) are used; the updating of equipment and production technology occurs rather slowly.

The main element of the structure of traditional societies is the agricultural community: a collective that manages the land. The individual in such a group is poorly identified, its interests are not clearly identified. The community, on the one hand, will limit the person, on the other, provide him with protection and stability. The most severe punishment in such a society was often considered expulsion from the community, “deprivation of shelter and water.” Society has a hierarchical structure, often divided into classes according to political and legal principles.

A feature of traditional society is its closedness to innovation and the extremely slow nature of change. And these changes themselves are not considered as a value. More important is stability, sustainability, following the commandments of our ancestors. Any innovation is seen as a threat to the existing world order, and the attitude towards it is extremely wary. “The traditions of all dead generations loom like a nightmare over the minds of the living.”

The Czech teacher J. Korczak noted the dogmatic way of life inherent in traditional society: “Prudence to the point of complete passivity, to the point of ignoring all rights and rules that have not become traditional, not sanctified by authorities, not rooted by repetition day after day... Anything can become a dogma - and the land, and the church, and the fatherland, and virtue, and sin; science, social and political activity, wealth, any confrontation can become..."

A traditional society will diligently protect its behavioral norms and the standards of its culture from outside influences from other societies and cultures. An example of such “closedness” is the centuries-old development of China and Japan, which were characterized by a closed, self-sufficient existence and any contacts with foreigners were practically excluded by the authorities. The state and religion play a significant role in the history of traditional societies. Of course, as trade, economic, military, political, cultural and other contacts between different countries and peoples develop, such “closedness” will be broken, often in a very painful way for these countries. Traditional societies, under the influence of the development of technology, technology, and means of communication, will enter a period of modernization.

Of course, this is a generalized picture of traditional society. More precisely, we can talk about traditional society as a certain cumulative phenomenon, including the features of the development of different peoples at a certain stage. There are many different traditional societies (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Western European, Russian, etc.), bearing the imprint of their culture.

We understand perfectly well that the societies of ancient Greece and the Old Babylonian kingdom differ significantly in the dominant forms of ownership, the degree of influence of communal structures and the state. If in Greece and Rome private property and the beginnings of civil rights and freedoms are developing, then in societies of the eastern type there are strong traditions of despotic rule, the suppression of man by the agricultural community, and the collective nature of labor. Nevertheless, both are different versions of traditional society.

The long-term preservation of the agricultural community, the predominance of agriculture in the structure of the economy, the peasantry in the population, the joint labor and collective land use of communal peasants, and autocratic power allow us to characterize Russian society over many centuries of its development as traditional. Transition to a new type of society - industrial- will be implemented quite late - only in the second half of the 19th century.

It cannot be said that traditional society is a bygone stage, that everything associated with traditional structures, norms, and consciousness is a thing of the distant past. Moreover, by thinking this way, we make it difficult for ourselves to understand many problems and phenomena of our modern world. And in our

days, a number of societies retain the features of traditionalism, primarily in culture, public consciousness, political system, and everyday life.

The transition from a traditional society, devoid of dynamism, to an industrial type society reflects such a concept as modernization.

Industrial society born as a result of the industrial revolution, leading to the development of large-scale industry, new types of transport and communications, a reduction in the role of agriculture in the structure of the economy and the relocation of people to cities.

The Modern Dictionary of Philosophy, published in 1998 in London, contains the following definition of industrial society:

An industrial society is characterized by the orientation of people toward ever-increasing volumes of production, consumption, knowledge, etc. The ideas of growth and progress are the “core” of the industrial myth, or ideology. The concept of the machine plays a significant role in the social organization of industrial society. The consequence of the implementation of ideas about the machine is the extensive development of production, as well as the “mechanization” of social relations, human relations with nature... The boundaries of the development of industrial society are revealed as the limits of extensively oriented production are discovered.

Earlier than others, the industrial revolution swept the countries of Western Europe. The first country to implement it was Great Britain. Already by the middle of the 19th century, the overwhelming majority of its population was employed in industry. Industrial society is characterized by rapid dynamic changes, increased social mobility, urbanization - the process of growth and development of cities. Contacts and connections between countries and peoples are expanding. These connections are carried out through telegraph messages and telephone, the structure of society is also changing: its basis is not classes, but social groups that differ in their place in the economic system - classes. Along with changes in the economy and social sphere, the political system of industrial society is also changing - parliamentarism, a multi-party system are developing, and the rights and freedoms of citizens are expanding. Many researchers believe that the formation of a civil society that is aware of its interests and acts as a full partner of the state is also associated with the formation of an industrial society. To a certain extent, it is precisely this society that is called capitalist. The early stages of its development were analyzed in the 19th century by English scientists J. Mill, A. Smith, and the German philosopher K. Marx.

At the same time, during the era of the industrial revolution, there is an increase in unevenness in the development of different regions of the world, which leads to colonial wars, conquests, and the enslavement of weak countries by strong ones.

Russian society entered the period of the industrial revolution quite late, only in the 40s of the 19th century, and the formation of the foundations of an industrial society in Russia was noted only at the beginning of the 20th century. Many historians believe that at the beginning of the 20th century our country was an agrarian-industrial one. Russia was unable to complete industrialization in the pre-revolutionary period. Although this is exactly what the reforms carried out on the initiative of S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin were aimed at.

Towards the completion of industrialization, that is, to the creation of a powerful industry that would make the main contribution to the national wealth of the country, the authorities returned to the Soviet period of history.

We know the concept of “Stalinist industrialization,” which occurred in the 1930s and 1940s. In the shortest possible time, at an accelerated pace, using primarily the funds obtained from the robbery of the countryside, the mass collectivization of peasant farms, by the end of the 1930s, our country created the foundations of heavy and military industry, mechanical engineering and ceased to depend on the supply of equipment from abroad. But did this mean the end of the industrialization process? Historians argue. Some researchers believe that even at the end of the 1930s, the main share of national wealth was still formed in the agricultural sector, that is, agriculture produced more product than industry.

Therefore, experts believe that industrialization in the Soviet Union ended only after the Great Patriotic War, in the mid- to second half of the 1950s. By this time

Our industry has taken a leading position in the production of gross domestic product. Also, most of the country's population found itself employed in the industrial sector.

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the rapid development of fundamental science, engineering and technology. Science is turning into an immediate powerful economic force.

The rapid changes that have engulfed a number of spheres of life in modern society have made it possible to talk about the world entering into post-industrial era. In the 1960s, this term was first proposed by the American sociologist D. Bell. He also formulated main features of post-industrial society: creating a vast service economy, increasing the layer of qualified scientific and technical specialists, the central role of scientific knowledge as a source of innovation, ensuring technological growth, creating a new generation of intellectual technology. Following Bell, the theory of post-industrial society was developed by American scientists J. Galbraith and O. Toffler.

basis post-industrial society was the structural restructuring of the economy carried out in Western countries at the turn of the 1960s - 1970s. Instead of heavy industry, leading positions in the economy were taken by knowledge-intensive industries, the “knowledge industry.” The symbol of this era, its basis is the microprocessor revolution, the mass distribution of personal computers, information technology, and electronic communications. The pace of economic development and the speed of transmission of information and financial flows over distances are increasing manifold. With the entry of the world into the post-industrial, information era, there is a decrease in the employment of people in industry, transport, and industrial sectors, and vice versa, the number of people employed in the service sector and in the information sector is increasing. It is no coincidence that a number of scientists call post-industrial society informational or technological.

Characterizing modern society, American researcher P. Drucker notes: “Today knowledge is already being applied to the sphere of knowledge itself, and this can be called a revolution in the field of management. Knowledge is quickly becoming the determining factor of production, relegating both capital and labor to the background.”

Scientists studying the development of culture and spiritual life, in relation to the post-industrial world, introduce another name - the era of postmodernism.(By the era of modernism, scientists understand industrial society. - Note auto) If the concept of post-industriality mainly emphasizes differences in the sphere of economics, production, and methods of communication, then postmodernism covers primarily the sphere of consciousness, culture, and patterns of behavior.

The new perception of the world, according to scientists, is based on three main features.

Firstly, at the end of faith in the capabilities of the human mind, a skeptical questioning of everything that European culture traditionally considers rational. Secondly, on the collapse of the idea of ​​unity and universality of the world. The postmodern understanding of the world is built on multiplicity, pluralism, and the absence of common models and canons for the development of different cultures. Thirdly: the era of postmodernism views personality differently, “the individual, as responsible for shaping the world, resigns, he is outdated, he is recognized as associated with the prejudices of rationalism and is discarded.” The sphere of communication between people, communications, and collective agreements comes to the fore.

Scientists name increasing pluralism, multivariance and variety of forms of social development, changes in the system of values, motives and incentives of people as the main features of postmodern society.

The approach we have chosen summarizes the main milestones in human development, focusing primarily on the history of Western European countries. Thus, it significantly narrows the possibility of studying the specific features and development features of individual countries. He pays attention primarily to universal processes, and much remains outside the field of view of scientists. In addition, willy-nilly, we take for granted the point of view that there are countries that have jumped ahead, there are those that are successfully catching up with them, and those that are hopelessly behind, not having time to jump into the last carriage of the modernization machine rushing forward. The ideologists of modernization theory are convinced that the values ​​and development models of Western society are universal and are a guideline for development and a role model for everyone.

Related information.

PLAN:

1) The concept of society.

2) What is a system? Society and nature as elements of the system.

3) Society as a system. Subsystems and elements of society.

4) Public relations.

5) Interaction of the main spheres of public life.

1) The concept of society.

The term “society” has many meanings. The following meanings of this word are usually indicated:

* society as a group of people united for modern activities

to realize their common goals and interests (society of book lovers, society of beer lovers, sobriety society, etc.). In this meaning, the word “society” is synonymous with the words “organization”, “union”, “association”. * society as a certain stage in the development of humanity or a country (primitive society, feudal society, French society of the Restoration era, Soviet society of the NEP period, etc.). Here the word “society” is often used together with the words “stage”, stage","period". * society as a characteristic of the qualitative state of a particular stage in the development of mankind or a country ("consumer society", "information society", "traditional society", etc.). In this case, the word "society" "is necessarily preceded by its qualitative characteristics.

* society as an extremely broad concept to designate that part of the material world that is isolated from nature and interacts with it in a certain way. In this sense, society is the totality of all forms of association and ways of interaction of people both among themselves and with the natural world around them. This last definition is considered the philosophical definition of the concept of society.

Before moving on to the characterization of the interaction between society and nature, it is necessary to pay attention to the similarities that exist between the various concepts of “society”. This similarity can be seen if you look closely at the word itself: “society” - from the words “common”, “community” " (Latin societas also comes from socius, which means common, joint).

2) What is a system? Society and nature as elements of the system.

If we take into account the origin of the word “society”, it becomes necessary for its detailed description to introduce the concept of “system” and consider society from the point of view of a systems approach.

System (from the Greek "systema") is a collection or combination of parts and elements interconnected and interacting with each other in a certain way.

They talk about the solar system, the river system, the nervous system. A system is any set of phenomena that are interconnected and interact with each other. In this sense, a system is also that unity, the components of which are society and nature.

The interaction of society and nature shows their inextricable connection with each other.

Society cannot exist outside of nature and without interaction with it, because:

* it arose as a result of the development of the natural world, highlighting

at a certain stage from it (this happened in a long and complex process of becoming a person),

* it takes from the surrounding nature the means and resources necessary for its development (farming is impossible without the existence of fertile soils, modern industry cannot exist without a number of natural materials, the life of modern society is unthinkable without the use of various natural sources of raw materials),

* the pace and features of its development are largely determined by the specifics of the natural environment, climatic and geographical conditions. (Northern peoples (Eskimos, Evenks, Chukchi) have harsh climatic conditions in their places of residence, so they engage in reindeer herding and hunting.)

(Ancient civilizations of the East (ancient Egypt, the civilization of ancient China) arise in river valleys, the climate is arid, irrigation irrigation systems are necessary. Huge labor costs and therefore always a strong despotic beginning.)

At the same time, society has a huge impact on nature because: * it develops various means of adaptation, adaptation to the surrounding natural elements (man learned to use fire, build houses, sew clothes, created artificial materials necessary for the functioning of society),

* in the process of labor, society modifies natural landscapes, uses certain natural resources in the interests of further social development (the consequences of this impact can be both destructive and beneficial).

Crimea used to have a more arid climate. They were mainly engaged in fishing, after the annexation of Crimea to Russia (1783), they brought exotic

trees, the climate has changed (the climate has become milder).

In Holland there was very little fertile land, the land was constantly flooded. The Dutch created a network of dams and drainage canals, and due to these structures they significantly increased the area of ​​land suitable for both construction and land use.

An artificial Rybinsk reservoir was created, villages, villages and floodplain meadows were flooded. Now the ecology there is bad and everything that is under water is rotting - a negative impact on nature.

Is society becoming freer and more independent of nature as it develops? Until recently, the answer could only be positive - a person was considered as a creature capable of subjugating and subjugating nature (according to the principle: “We cannot expect mercy from nature, it is our task to take them from nature”). Today it is obvious that society cannot be naturally independent. In some ways, in the modern world we depend on nature more than ever. This refers to the fact that society today is facing an environmental catastrophe created by a predatory, consumerist attitude towards nature. Depletion of natural resources, their pollution sets before human society the task of survival, the preservation of the human race. In this regard, it should be mentioned that the UN adopted the concept in 1992 sustainable development, obligatory for all states and based on the need to ensure such development of society that would preserve the natural world and ensure the survival of humanity.

3) Society as a system. Subsystems and elements of society.

Society itself can be considered as a certain system of interacting subsystems and elements.

The main subsystems of society are spheres of public life. They usually talk about the existence of four most important social (public) spheres:

economic- | political- |social |spiritual-

covers rela- |covers rela- |covers rela- |covers rela-

decisions that arise, related to | decisions, related to | relations,

in the process |interaction |interaction |related to

production, race | state, parties | classes, social | development of

distribution, exchange of |political organiza-|layers and groups of |social

and consumption of man- |izations about | | consciousness, science

material benefits | power and management | |culture,

|nia | |arts

These subsystems (spheres), in turn, can be represented by a set of elements included in them:

* economic - production institutions (plants, factories), transport institutions, stock and commodity exchanges, banks, etc.,

* political - state, parties, trade unions, youth, women's and other organizations, etc.,

* social - classes, strata, social groups and strata, nations, etc.,

* spiritual - church, educational institutions, scientific institutions, etc.

4) Public relations.

To characterize society as a system, it is not enough to highlight the subsystems and elements included in it. It is important to show that they are in mutual connection with each other and can be represented as connections between social groups, nations, individuals that arise in the process of economic, political, social, spiritual life society. To designate these connections the term is used "public relations" .

Types of public relations:

material: | spiritual:

regarding production-|political,

properties, distributions|legal,

exchange and consumption | moral,

material | ideological

good | etc.

5) Interaction of the main spheres of public life.

Society, therefore, represents a certain set of elements that are interconnected and interact with each other. The spheres of public life are interpenetrable and interconnected.

Economic difficulties and especially crises (economic sphere) give rise to social instability and dissatisfaction of various social forces (social sphere) and lead to an intensification of political struggle and instability (political sphere). All this is usually accompanied by apathy, confusion of spirit, but also spiritual quests, intensive scientific

research, the efforts of cultural figures aimed at understanding

the origins of the crisis and ways out of it. This is one of the examples illustrating the interaction of the main spheres of public life.

A military coup (political sphere) as a consequence of the economic crisis, a sharp decline in living standards (economic sphere), discord in society (social sphere) and all this is reflected in the spiritual life of society. (Pinochet (1973) (military junta) came to power in Chile As a result of the military-fascist coup, a regime of severe terror was established, the economy improved, discord in society, the creative intelligentsia went underground.

Basic Concepts: society, system, social relations, spheres of public life

Questions and tasks:

1) Define the concepts listed above. Analyze them.

2) Give examples of the beneficial and negative impacts of society on nature.