Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Plan
1. The idea of general evolution by G. Spencer
2. Social institutions and their types
3. Social and biological organisms in the evolutionary concept of G. Spencer
4. Methodology of evolutionary processes according to Spencer
spencer sociological theory
1. G. Spencer's idea of general evolution
The idea of progress, initially developed in social philosophy, gradually receives confirmation from natural sciences. Of particular importance in this regard was the concept of evolutionary development in biology. After the publication of the works of Charles Darwin, the idea of evolutionism was firmly established in philosophy and science, stimulating the formation of new research programs and methodological guidelines. This idea also penetrates into sociology, determining the theoretical status of the emerging science, focusing the attention of researchers on the genetic explanation of the phenomena being studied. In this direction, sociology closely merged with historical disciplines aimed at studying primitive formations, ethnography, folklore, etc. Therefore, not only pure sociologists, but a number of prominent specialists in the field of auxiliary disciplines of history acted as representatives of this direction in sociology. But whatever preference the researchers gave to empirical material, they all adhered to a more or less unambiguous theoretical position, namely, they sought to establish the general laws of evolution, which allows them to be classified as supporters of evolutionism: a. These, in particular, are Lewis G. Morgan (1818-1881), John F. McLenon (1827-1881). Johann I. Bokhoven (1815-1887). Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917). James Fraser (1854-1941). But the works of G. Spencer played a special role in promoting the ideas of evolutionism. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) - an outstanding English philosopher and sociologist. G. Spencer is known as the successor of Comte's positivist philosophy and sociology, the founder of the biological movement in sociology (organic school). Following Comte, he laid the idea of evolution at the basis of sociology.
Spencer was distinguished by his extraordinary erudition and efficiency. The legacy he left is enormous. A fundamental ten-volume work, conceived as an encyclopedic synthesis of all sciences on the principles of evolutionism, was published in 1862-1896. This work included: “Fundamentals” (1862), “Foundations of Biology” (1864-1867), “Foundations of Psychology” (1870-1872), a three-volume work “Foundations of Sociology” (1876-1896), “Sociology as a Subject of Study” (1903), “Foundations of Ethics” (1879-1893).
Spencer's work most fully embodied the basic ideas of evolutionism and had a great influence on the intellectual atmosphere of that era. Spencer's theoretical views were formed mainly under the influence of the achievements of the natural sciences, which increasingly turned to the idea of evolution. Yes, in particular. Spencer highly appreciated Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". Spencer was also greatly influenced by the works of A. Smith and R. Malthus, English utilitarians who preached the ideas of radical bourgeois liberalism and individualism. Adhering to an extreme version of liberalism. Spencer passionately defended the principles of individual freedom and freedom of competition. Any interference in the natural course of events, especially social planning, according to Spencer, only leads to biological degeneration, the encouragement of “the worst at the expense of the best.” Spencer advocated limiting the role of the state in public life, even to the point of denying the poor assistance or care for raising children. He also criticized colonial expansion because it led to the strengthening of state bureaucracy.
The basic ideas of Spencer's "synthetic philosophy" sound like an anachronism now, but they were popular in their time. Among the evolutionists, only Spencer made an attempt to create an all-encompassing philosophical system. Spencer formulates the fundamental principles in terms of mechanics: matter, motion, force. From these absolutely universal provisions (the law of constancy of matter and force) the law of evolution is derived. The idea of universal evolution is the central point of Spencer's worldview. All his efforts were aimed at substantiating this idea.
For an English sociologist, evolution is a universal process that equally explains all changes in both natural universality and the most particular social and personal phenomena. He is a supporter of the so-called organismic approach to social facts and views society by analogy with a single biological organism.
The evolution of any object is characterized by a transition from incoherence to coherence, from homogeneous to heterogeneous, from uncertainty to certainty. Spencer offers the following definition of the central concept of his philosophical system: “Evolution is the integration of matter, which is accompanied by the dispersion of motion and during which matter passes from a state of indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a state of definite coherent heterogeneity, and the motion preserved by the substance undergoes a similar transformation.” The limit beyond which evolution cannot go is the equilibrium of the system.
In the event of an imbalance, decay begins, which over time turns into a new evolutionary process. Everything that exists goes through this cycle of development and decay.
Spencer distinguishes three types of evolutionary processes, inorganic, organic and supraorganic. Weight they obey general laws. However, the specific laws of higher phases cannot be reduced to the laws of lower phases. Thus, in supraorganic evolution phenomena appear that do not occur in the inorganic and organic world. Society is part of nature, and in this sense it is a natural object like any other; it is not created artificially, as a result of a “social contract” or divine will. Spencer shares Hobbes's view that man in the state of nature is “largely antisocial.” Man becomes a social being during the long evolution of primitive communities into supraorganic social systems. Like Malthus, he considers the main factor of sociogenesis to be the numerical growth of the population, which was required for the survival and adaptation of social organization, which in turn contributed to the development and development of social feelings, intelligence, and labor skills. The essence and content of this natural evolution is the socialization of man.
On this basis, he moves from a general consideration of the idea of evolution to a description of social development. Sociology completes Spencer's philosophical system.
According to G. Spencer, society is an organism not only in the form of a simple factual analogy, as in Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” but also in reality, not only morally, but also physiologically.
Spencer's program of sociology is set out in The Principles of Sociology (1877-1896). Here, for the first time, a systematic presentation of the subject, tasks and problems of the new social science is given. This book was translated into many languages and contributed not only to the development, but also to the promotion of sociology.
The main idea substantiated in his work “Foundations of Sociology” is a consistently drawn analogy between a biological and a social organism. In this fundamental work, using enormous historical material, G. Spencer makes an attempt at a theoretical reconstruction of the physical, emotional, intellectual and, especially, religious spheres of the life of primitive man, an attempt to identify the origin of basic concepts and ideas. G. Spencer pays special attention to the analysis of such concepts as “society”, “social growth”, “social structure”, “social function”, etc. The second part of the work is devoted to the study of the development of domestic relations (i.e. family forms, the status of its members), ritual, religious, political institutions, public professions, processes of production, exchange and division of labor. In general, G. Spencer's work represents the first attempt to build a sociological system based on the materials of ethnographic science.
Spencer pays considerable attention to substantiating the very possibility of sociology as a science and criticizes numerous arguments of its opponents. Sociology is possible because society is part of nature and is subject to the law of “natural causation.” Spencer refutes not only theological ideas about society, but also the theorists of “free will,” philosophers who attributed a decisive role in history to “outstanding thinkers,” the “social contract,” who highlighted subjective factors or pointed out the lack of repetition in social life. “Comte proposes to describe the necessary and real filiation of ideas,” writes Spencer. - I propose to describe the necessary and real filiation of ideas. Comte claims to explain the genesis of our knowledge of nature. My goal is to explain... the genesis of the phenomena that make up nature. One is subjective, the other is objective.” History, according to Spencer, is not a product of the conscious creativity of social groups or individuals; on the contrary, the activity itself, its goals and intentions must receive a natural justification in the laws of social evolution. References to the originality and uniqueness of historical events are refuted by the obvious statistical regularity of people’s everyday actions; moreover, there is no absolute repeatability in the world at all.
The task of sociology, according to Spencer, is the study of mass typical phenomena, social facts that reveal the action of the general laws of evolution, processes that occur independently of the waves of individuals, their individual properties and subjective intentions. This distinguishes sociology from history, which is interested in concrete facts. The denial of sociology, Spencer argues, often comes from confusion between two groups of phenomena: mass, typical, repeating and individual, random, isolated.
Reflecting on the specifics of sociology. Spencer identifies objective and subjective difficulties of social cognition. Sociological facts cannot be measured with instruments or observed under a microscope. They can only be established indirectly, by comparing multiple data. Social facts for Spencer are those phenomena in which evolutionary processes are manifested, for example, differentiation of structure and functions, complication of political organization, etc.
Spencer does not offer clear criteria for the objectivity of observation in sociology. Summarizing research practice, he carefully lists possible difficulties, the extension of social phenomena over time, which makes it difficult to establish cause-and-effect relationships, the mythologization of historical events, the difficulty of separating facts from the assessments of witnesses of historical events, the influence of stereotypes of mass consciousness, including class and class prejudices, feelings, emotions.
2. Social institutions and their types
To understand Spencer's definition of the subject of sociology, his concept of social institutions is of great importance.
Spencer does not give a strict definition of this central concept of his theoretical system. But from the context of his works it follows that social institutions are mechanisms of self-organization for the joint life of people. Social institutions ensure the transformation of a person who is asocial by nature into a social being capable of joint collective action. Institutions arise in the course of evolution, in addition to conscious intentions or a “social contract”, as a response to population growth: according to the general law, mass growth leads to a more complex structure and differentiation of functions. Social institutions are organs of self-organization and management, and since the main property of any organism is the interaction of its parts, the main task of sociology is to study the synchronous interaction of social institutions. The idea of social institutions as structural elements of society took shape long before Spencer, but he turned it into a holistic concept that had a significant impact on the development of the problems and methods of sociology.
Like Comte, Spencer begins with the family, marriage, problems of education (domestic institutions), reproduces the stages of family evolution from disordered relations between the sexes to monogamy, reveals the relationship between the type of society and the type of family, and explores changes in intra-family relations that occur under the influence of social progress .
Spencer designated the next type of social institutions as ritual or ceremonial. The latter are called upon to regulate the everyday behavior of people, establishing customs, rituals, etiquette, etc. Ritual institutions arise earlier than others and continue to operate in any society as a necessary element of social organization; they receive a special, and often hypertrophied, development in a militarized society.
The third type of institutions is political. Spencer associated their appearance with the transfer of intragroup conflicts to the sphere of conflicts between groups. He was convinced that conflicts and warriors played a decisive role in the formation of political organization and the class structure of society. Classes arose not as a result of the conquest of some peoples by others, but as a consequence of the subordination of the internal organization of society to the tasks of war. The war divided primitive groups into leaders (leaders) and passive executors of their will, into warriors and peasants, contributed to the growth of property inequality, demanded the creation of political institutions, i.e. central authorities, army, police, courts, etc. Based on traditions formed the law, the strengthening of the institution of property led to the emergence of a tax system. The commonality of functions performed by any political organization gives rise to similarities in the social structure of different societies. Warrior and labor are the forces that create the state, and in the initial stages the role of violence and military conflicts was decisive, since the need for defense or conquest most of all unites and disciplines society. Subsequently, social production and division of labor become the unifying force; direct violence gives way to internal self-restraint. Spencer was a supporter of limiting the role of the state in modern society, since a strong state inevitably leads to a limitation of individual freedom. Even in his early work Social Statics, he formulated the law of “equal freedom”, according to which every person is free to do whatever he wants, as long as he does not violate the equal freedom of another person. Freedom, according to Spencer, is limited not by state coercion, but by the freedom of another person.
The next type is church institutions that ensure the integration of society. We are not talking about religious institutions, but about the church. The functions of the clergy go back to the actions of shamans and sorcerers. Wars contributed to the emergence of the priestly caste. Gradually, this caste creates an organization that controls certain areas of public life, supporting traditions, customs, and beliefs.
The typology is completed by professional industrial institutions that arise on the basis of the division of labor. The former (guilds, workshops, trade unions) consolidate groups of people according to professional occupations, the latter support the production structure of society. The importance of these institutions increases as we move from militarized to industrial societies. Industrial institutions are taking on an increasing part of public functions and regulating labor relations. Spencer was a militant opponent of socialism. He called attempts at global planning a “socialist chimera.” Social progress, according to Spencer, involves the gradual improvement of human nature, while socialism demands the impossible from people and leads only to even greater social inequality. Nevertheless, Spencer believes, European civilization will be forced to go through the purifying school of socialism.
Spencer's theory of social institutions represented an attempt at a systematic study of society. All institutions of society form a single whole, the functioning of each of them depends on all the others and on a clear division of spheres of influence and responsibility. In any society there is a certain level of consistency in the activities of the main institutions, otherwise regression or collapse of the “social organism” begins. Each social institution is designed to satisfy a certain social need and not replace other institutions. The expansion of the powers of the state, according to Spencer, is dangerous because it undermines the natural division of functions between the institutions of society and disrupts the state of balance in the “social organism.”
3. Social and biological organisms in the evolutionary concept of G. Spencer
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 constantly used comparisons such as: “blood particles are like money”, “different parts of the social organism, like different parts of the individual organism, fight among themselves for food and receive a greater or lesser amount of it, depending on the greater or lesser extent of their activity.”
Spencer emphasized not so much material similarity as the similarity of the principles of systemic organization; he sought to combine the organism that dissolves the individual in society with his extreme individualism of a bourgeois liberal. This contradiction was the source of all his theoretical difficulties and compromises. Spencer was inclined to recognize society as a special being, pointing out that its basic properties are reproduced in time and space, despite the change of generations.
He spent a lot of effort defining the specific features of the "social organism" and identifying general systemic principles that make it similar to biological systems:
1. Society, like a biological organism, increases its mass (population, material resources, etc.).
2. As in the case of biological evolution, an increase in mass leads to a more complex structure.
3. The complication of the structure is accompanied by differentiation of the functions performed by individual parts.
4. In both cases there is a gradual increase in the interdependence and interaction of the parts.
5. As in biological organisms, the whole is always more stable than the individual parts, stability is ensured by the preservation of functions and structures.
Spencer not only likened society to an organism, but also filled his biology with sociological analogies. Trying to avoid the crude reductionism that many evolutionists were so prone to. Spencer uses the term “superorganism” and emphasizes the autonomy of the individual; unlike Comte, Spencer sharply criticizes organicism and draws attention to the significant differences between the social and biological organism:
· Unlike a biological organism that forms a “body” that has a specific form, the elements of society are dispersed in space and have much greater autonomy.
· This spatial dispersion of elements makes symbolic communication necessary.
· In society there is no single organ that concentrates the ability to feel and think.
· Society is distinguished by spatial mobility of structural elements.
· But the main thing is that in a biological organism the parts serve for the whole, while in society the whole exists for the sake of the parts. Society, according to Spencer, exists for the benefit of its members, rather than its members existing for the benefit of society.
The peculiarity of Spencer's organicism was that he tried to preserve the autonomy of the individual without absorbing the person into the system. “This combination of organicism with nominalism constituted the greatest theoretical difficulty of Spencer's sociology. His sociology contained a dilemma that subsequently led to the formation of opposing orientations - Tarde and Durkheim. On the one side. Spencer asserted the nominalist thesis that the properties of a social whole are inferred from the properties of its constituent parts. On the other hand, that... “when a society reaches a certain size and a high level of organization, it acquires such independence from individual efforts that it acquires its own character.”
Spencer did not fully realize that utilitarian anthropology was inconsistent with the organism. He proposed a compromise solution: in the early stages of evolution, the natural constitution of man determines the properties of the social aggregate; subsequently, the properties of the whole play a decisive role in social evolution. The problem of relations between the individual and society was solved by referring to their interaction. In Spencer's time, it was difficult to propose a more specific solution to the problem, since social psychology as a science did not yet exist.
4. Methodology of evolutionary processes according to Spencer
Several years before Charles Darwin’s famous work “The Origin of Species,” Spencer wrote the work “Social Statics,” where he substantiates the theory of universal evolution, according to which “evolution is the integration of matter and during which matter passes from a state of indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a state of definite coherence.” homogeneity." The objective criterion of evolution is the degree of integration and differentiation. Any organization is subject to evolution, not just social or biological.
The law of evolution is universal. Its manifestation in the social environment is a particular manifestation of a general rule.
Spencer criticized simplified unilinear development schemes, but, like other evolutionists, he considered the main task to be the study of the stages of development of society. Spencer's methodology includes a classification and typology of evolutionary processes. The classification places the entire society on a scale of complexity of structure and functional organization from “small simple aggregate” to “large aggregate.” At the initial stage, society is characterized by the predominance of direct connections between individuals, the absence of special governing bodies, etc. As it develops, a complex structure and social hierarchy is formed; the inclusion of an individual in society is mediated by belonging to smaller communities (gens, caste, etc.).
The typology is based on the construction of two polar ideal types (models), with the help of which the direction and stages of evolution are clarified, and to a certain extent the problem of the preferred type of development is solved. Spencer distinguishes two types of societies: military and industrial. Spencer characterizes the military and industrial types of society with directly opposite social properties. Knowing the social structure, forms of political structure, features of the social organization of a military-type society, it is possible to predict the corresponding characteristics of the future industrial society. Spencer's typology of societies is less well known than his theory of evolution. Meanwhile, in Spencer’s creative heritage it is of the greatest historical interest. In terms of depth of theoretical elaboration, Spencer's typology was inferior only to the well-known typology of Tocqueville, who divided societies into aristocratic and democratic.
Spencer uses the opposition of the social organism and the social mechanism, popular in the first half of the 19th century, although in reverse order. The content of the historical process is thus described as a gradual transition from mechanical coercion to organic unification based on a community of interests. A military society subordinates internal organization to the goals of the struggle for survival or aggression. Spencer considers Sparta to be a classic example of such a society. Military society is characterized by the dominance of collective goals over individual goals, a rigid organization and system of coercion, a hierarchical management structure, the dominance of the military caste, inheritance of power, a high level of cohesion, discipline, religiosity of consciousness, etc. Military institutions extend influence to all spheres of public life and encourage education patriotism, loyalty, conformism, readiness for self-destruction. Militarized societies create an efficiently functioning system, which, however, is poorly adapted to social change. Such societies are conservative, and this is the main reason for the death of powerful militaristic states and empires.
Industrial society is characterized by opposite features. In reality, such societies are just beginning to form (England, etc.), but many of their features can be predicted. Spencer paints a picture of the future industrial society that is impressive in its depth of scientific foresight. In the new society, management is decentralized and built on the principles of self-organization and self-government, various informal associations are becoming widespread, the subordination of the individual to the state is replaced by the protection of human rights, positive management will give way to negative management (according to the principle “Everything that is not prohibited is permitted”), the unity of ideology will be replaced pluralism, labor, rather than position, will be rewarded, societies will become open to international cooperation, receptive to innovation, class law will be replaced by civil law, the scope of public control will be limited, and the area of private life will become wider, etc.
Social thinkers of the 19th century keenly felt their time as a historical transition to a new civilization and tried to predict the shape of the future society. Social progress was usually associated with changes in public consciousness. Spencer, on the contrary, focused on objective factors of social development. The typology of societies he proposed went beyond the evolutionary style of thinking. Hence its lesser popularity compared to the popular ideas of “synthetic philosophy.”
In his attempts to uncover the driving forces of social evolution, Spencer was never able to overcome the dilemma of nominalism and realism. On the one hand, he constantly emphasized the important role of “human nature”; on the other hand, he also referred to the action of supra-individual forces, the “social organism”, and the “artificial environment”. As a result, Spencer's concept of evolutionary factors was extremely eclectic and served as a source for the development of directly opposite sociological directions.
Spencer divides the totality of evolutionary factors into “primary” and “secondary”. The first includes factors of the geographical environment, the biological and mental constitution of the individual. The second is what Hegel called “second nature.” Although the action of habitual factors persists throughout the evolution of society, as it progresses, the role of “second nature” increases and becomes decisive, i.e. culture. To the primary (natural) properties of a person are added qualities associated with participation in public life. However, this fruitful idea was not developed, since it contradicted the ahistorical principles of evolutionism, according to which history as such does not exist at all, but there is only the logic of the eternal laws of evolution that do not allow volitional intervention.
Spencer's sociological theory is the predecessor of structural functionalism.
Spencer was the first to apply the concepts of structure and function, system, and institution in sociology. Changes in structure, in his opinion, cannot occur without changes in functions: an increase in the size of social units inevitably awakens in them a progressive differentiation of social activity, a natural division of labor.
His philosophical system turned out to be too closely connected with the spiritual and intellectual atmosphere of the Victorian era. Another reason for the decline in Spencer's popularity was that the intellectual structure he created was the last attempt at creating an all-encompassing philosophical system. This form of intellectual creativity finally became obsolete by the end of the 19th century. The social soil on which such systems grew disappeared with the development of science and the industrial mode of production. Spencer relied on a huge amount of factual material, most of which quickly became outdated. Nevertheless, Spencer’s desire to go beyond abstract reasoning about society and to widely use data from the social and natural sciences contributed to the formation of new standards of scientific activity in sociology. Spencer was a follower of Comte, but his teaching was fundamentally different in its orientation towards individualism and sociological nominalism. In Spencer's sociology the naturalistic tendency is much more pronounced. His entire theoretical system was full of internal contradictions.
Spencer's sociology was subjected to sharp criticism, which was not difficult, since the entire system was based on the general principle of evolutionism. With the refutation of this principle, the entire theoretical structure collapsed. In the history of sociology, Spencer's creative legacy is often assessed one-sidedly. However, unlike many evolutionists, Spencer never adhered to extreme biological interpretations of social phenomena. The principles of systemic analysis of society that he developed were of great importance, despite the imperfect conceptual apparatus. Spencer contributed to the growth of interest in the study of primitive society, the study of the history of social institutions and the development of culture. In modern Western sociology, the attitude towards Spencer is ambiguous. Basically, the principles of classical evolutionism are assessed negatively. But with growing interest in the problems of social development, there is a revival of interest in the very idea of social evolution, in the creative heritage of Spencer, which was expressed in the formation of a special direction of “neo-evolutionism” (J. Steward. Dm. Shimkin, L. Chaim, T. Chaikhd, etc. .).
Since the 50s, along with the development of systematic methods and the emergence of neo-evolutionism, interest in the work of Spencer and other evolutionists began to increase. Historical justice requires recognizing that classical evolutionism had a significant impact on the spiritual and scientific life of its era, contributed to the introduction of the problems of social change into the social sciences, brought the social and natural sciences closer together, gave sociology the status of a science, and stimulated the development of a number of sociological schools and directions. Along with Marxism, this was the first experience of combining historical-evolutionary and structural-functional approaches to the analysis of social phenomena.
List of used literature
1. History of sociology: Textbook. allowance / Ed. Elsukova A.N. - Mn.: Higher. school - 1997.
2. Kanashevich N.M. Sociology. Questions of theory and methodology: monograph. - Mogilev State Publishing House University named after A.A. Kuleshova - 1999.
3. Sociology. Fundamentals of General Theory / Ed. Osipova G.V., Moskevich L.N. - M.: Aspect Press - 1996.
4. Sociology: Textbook for law schools. - St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia - 2001.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
General characteristics of the works of the English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer: the theory of social evolution, organicism and functionalism. Subject and methodology of sociological knowledge. G. Spencer's teaching on the diversity of types of social organization.
abstract, added 11/23/2010
Features of the sociology of Auguste Comte. Two concepts, the law of three stages. Harmony and stability. Organic theory of Herbert Spencer. The idea of the evolution of social life. Social institutions as governing bodies. General and different in the teachings of sociologists.
course work, added 06/01/2016
A brief sketch of the life, personal and creative development of the English physicist, sociologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer. The idea of evolution in the works of Spencer, the development of the theory of social Darwinism. Description of the Military and Industrial Historical Society.
abstract, added 06/06/2009
Self-preservation and adaptation to social systems as the main task of individuals in the light of the evolutionary-organic approach. Social macroorganisms according to Spencer. The idea of the similarity of social systems with living organisms and Spencer's theory of social development.
test, added 04/13/2009
Herbert Spencer as the founder of organic sociology. Herbert Spencer's Relation to Social Evolution. An empirical study of students' awareness of social evolution in the works of Herbert Spencer. Conclusions of the obtained results.
course work, added 09/16/2017
Sociology of G. Spencer, evolutionism. Theoretical and ideological foundations of E. Durkheim's sociology, the idea of social solidarity. Political sociology of M. Weber, theory of "social action", religion in the sociological concept of M. Weber.
course work, added 12/18/2008
The fundamental characterization of the work of Herbert Spencer: the theory of social evolution, organicism and functionalism. Subject and methodology of sociological research. G. Spencer's words about the diversity of types of social organization. Organic school in sociology.
abstract, added 10/20/2010
Herbert Spencer as an English philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of positivism. Spencer's extension of the ideas of evolution to all phenomena and processes in nature and society. Social consequences of privatization of state property in Russia.
test, added 10/17/2010
Characteristics of sociological interpretations of R. Spencer, the analogy of marriage with a biological organism. E. Durkheim - theoretical background to the subject of sociology, methodology of scientific research of marriage. The theory of “Social action” by M. Weber is of this type.
abstract, added 06/14/2009
Concept, subject and main causes of conflict, its structure and scenarios. The essence of the theories of social conflict by G. Spencer and W. Sumner. The concept of functionalism by the American sociologist T. Parsons. Dialectical "general theory of conflict" by K. Boulding.
Herbert Spencer (born April 27, 1820 in Derby, died December 8, 1903 in Brighton), English sociologist, is considered the founder of positivism, along with other sociologists. He worked as a technician and engineer on the railway (1837-1841), wrote publications in the Economist magazine (1848-1853). Multilaterally educated, he was seriously familiar with contemporary scientific achievements in mathematics and natural science. He worked mainly with books and papers, so he was known as an “armchair scientist.” Working independently on himself, he achieved higher technical education, was able to become a great encyclopedist scientist and leave a significant legacy in science.
Spencer adhered to the beliefs of his time: evolutionism and philosophy as a synthesis of all sciences attracted him. His system of a unified science is set out in the work “Fundamentals” (1862), from the first chapters of which we are told that we cannot know anything about the latest reality. The second part of the work contains the cosmic doctrine of evolution (theory of progress), which, according to Spencer, is a universal principle that underlies all areas of knowledge and sums them up. In 1852, seven years before Charles Darwin put forward the theory of evolution in his “Origin of Species,” Spencer wrote an article “The Hypothesis of Development,” which outlined the concepts of evolution, following mainly from the theories of Lamarck and Baer. After this, Spencer recognized natural selection as one of the factors of evolution (he is the author of the term “survival of the fittest”). Based on the fundamental laws of physics and the idea of change, Spencer understands evolution as “the integration of matter, accompanied by the dispersion of motion, transferring matter from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity into a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and at the same time producing a transformation of the motion conserved by matter.” All things are of the same origin, inherit the same traits, but in the process of adaptation to the environment, they are differentiated; when the process of adaptation ends, a coherent, orderly universe emerges. Ultimately, everything in the Universe reaches a state of complete adaptation to the surrounding world, but this situation is unstable. Therefore, the last stage in evolution is nothing more than a repetition of the first stage only in the process of “dispersal,” which, after the completion of the cycle, is again followed by development.
In 1858, Spencer drew up a plan for the essay that became the main work of his life, “Systems of Synthetic Philosophy,” which was supposed to include 10 volumes. The main principles of Spencer's “synthetic philosophy” were formulated at the very first stage of the implementation of his program, in the Fundamental Principles. Other volumes have given interpretations in the light of these ideas of various special sciences. The series also included: “Principles of Biology” (1864-1867); “Principles of Psychology” (in one volume - 1855, in 2 volumes - 1870-1872); “Principles of Sociology” (1876-1896), “Principles of Ethics” (1892-1893).
The greatest scientific value is represented by his research in sociology, including his other two treatises: “Social Statics” (1851) and “Sociological Research” (1872) and eight volumes containing systematized sociological facts, “Descriptive Sociology” (1873-1881) . Spencer is the founder of the “organic school” in sociology. Society, from his point of view, is almost the same living organism, like those considered by biological science. Societies are able to create and control their own adaptation processes, and then they develop towards a militaristic regime; but they are also capable of free and flexible adaptation, in which case they will turn into industrialized states.
The concept of social institutions[
Herbert Spencer
Social institutions are mechanisms for self-organization of people's life together. They ensure the transformation of a person who is asocial by nature into a social being capable of joint action.
Home institutions - family, marriage, problems of education.
Ritual (ceremonial) - designed to regulate the everyday behavior of people, establishing customs, rituals, etiquette, etc.
Political - the appearance is associated with the transfer of intragroup conflicts to the sphere of conflicts between groups; Conflicts and wars played a decisive role in the formation of the political and class structure of society (the need for defense or conquest unites society most of all).
Ecclesiastical - temples, churches, parish schools, religious traditions.
Professional and industrial institutions - arise on the basis of the division of labor; professional (guilds, workshops, trade unions) - consolidate groups of people according to professional occupations; industrial - support the production structure of society. The importance of social production increases with the transition from militarized societies to industrial ones: it is accompanied by an increase in the role of labor relations, and direct violence gives way to internal self-restraint.
rationalistic theory concept cont
During Comte's lifetime, his ideas had no noticeable influence. Positivism in France existed not so much as a socio-philosophical movement, but rather as a sectarian-religious movement. Comte's recognition came from England, from J. Stuart Mill (1806-1873). It was in England that sociology found its second home. Because the spirit of positivism, with its focus on the methods of the exact sciences, “fit” perfectly into the traditions of English empiricism.
Of course, the transfer of Comte's sociology to English soil required certain changes in a number of provisions of his theory. The ideas of O. Comte, which grew out of Saint-Simonism, were imbued with the spirit of social messianism, alien to the sober English mind. O. Comte dreamed of reorganizing society in the spirit of his moral and religious principles, while English society of the mid-19th century was completely satisfied with the existing order.
The ideas associated with the naturalistic (organic) concept are most fully and widely presented and developed in the works of the English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). G. Spencer shared Comte's basic view, according to which sociology, directly adjacent to biology, forms with it the “physics of organized bodies” and considers society as a kind of organism. True, Spencer places psychology between biology and sociology, but this did not have a noticeable impact on his idea of society. Spencer did not agree with Comte's idea that the entire social mechanism rests on opinions and that ideas rule the world and bring revolutions into the world.
In the tradition of positivist sociology, Spencer, based on the research of Charles Darwin, proposed using evolutionary theory to explain social change. However, in contrast to Comte, he focused not on what changes in society at different periods of human history, but on why social changes occur and why conflicts and disasters arise in society. In his opinion, all elements of the Universe - inorganic, organic and supraorganic (social) - evolve in unity. Sociology is called upon to study, first of all, supraorganic evolution, which is manifested in the number and nature of various kinds of social structures, their functions, what the activities of society are actually aimed at and what products it produces. In this regard, Spencer substantiates the postulate according to which changes occur in society as its members adapt either to the natural environment or to the social environment. As evidence and validity of his postulate, the scientist gives numerous examples of the dependence of the nature of human activity on the geography of the area, climatic conditions, population size, etc.
The central concept of Spencer's entire ideological concept is evolutionism. According to his definition, evolution is the integration of matter; it is evolution that transfers matter from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity into a definite connected homogeneity, that is, a social whole, where, however, this whole society cannot and should not absorb an individual. Hence, Spencer considers an essential dimension of social progress to be the transition from a society in which the individual is entirely subordinate to the social whole, to a state in which the social organism or society “serves” its constituent individuals. As he wrote:
“...The ideal to which we are moving is a society in which control will be brought to the smallest possible limits, and freedom will reach the greatest possible breadth.” No. 5 Kapitonov E. A. History of sociology, Rostov-on-Don, 2002
The main difference in social structures, according to Spencer, is whether the cooperation of people in achieving a common goal is voluntary or forced. He divides society into two types: “military” and “industrial”, to which these two types of human relations correspond.
“Spencer did not give a formal definition of sociology and its relationship to other social sciences. In general, he saw in sociology the science of “supraorganic” development, which simultaneously describes this process and formulates its laws. Moreover, he has no doubt at all about the need for sociology as an independent science - a science free from various, including class, prejudices.
His work “Foundations of Sociology” (1877) was one of the first in terms of building an integral sociological system based on ethnographic material. He tries to theoretically reconstruct the physical, intellectual and especially religious life of primitive man, to find out the origin of his basic ideas and concepts.
Spencer paid much attention to clarifying and developing the conceptual apparatus of sociology. So he analyzes the concepts of society, social growth, social structure, social functions of various systems and organs of social life. We can say that he laid the foundation for the formation of the conceptual system of sociology, as well as the structural-functional method. This was largely facilitated by the analogies he drew between human society and a biological organism. Of course, he made a distinction between the biological organism and the processes of social life. Spencer saw the main meaning of the difference in the fact that in a living organism elements exist for the sake of the whole, in society - vice versa. As he noted: “Society exists for the benefit of its members, rather than the members existing for the benefit of society.”
An analysis of Spencer's "Principles of Sociology" shows that he sometimes in a purely external way combines views inspired by organic analogy with the results of comparative study, ethnographic and historical data, which are considered from an evolutionary point of view. This gives grounds to say that in reality Spencer’s sociology, its content and meaning are characterized not so much by organic analogy as by the application of the comparative method to the study of social phenomena. It is this that is Spencer’s initial basis for the development of his sociological concept.
It is impossible not to note the important point that the English thinker did not doubt the reality of the process of evolution. He considered the degree of differentiation and integration of a particular phenomenon to be an objective criterion of this process. The idea of identifying an objective criterion for the transition from lower to higher certainly had a positive meaning, since the development of any system presupposes the differentiation of its elements and at the same time their integration in a certain structure.
He saw the main factor of social development in the division of labor, which, according to Spencer, leads to the highest type of social structure - “industrial society”. In this regard, Spencer repeats the general scheme for the development of society expressed by Saint-Simon and Comte. However, Spencer’s idea of the paths and stages of development of society is much richer than Comte’s “social dynamics”, for they are based on a theoretical generalization of a very large socioethnographic material. Here Spencer was unsurpassed for a long time. He clearly showed how, under the influence of specific socio-natural conditions, namely: racial characteristics, historical background, specific customs, etc., the forms of individual societies and their social structures diversify.
Spencer scrupulously traces the evolution from simple societies to more complex ones and brings forward the idea of increasing differentiation and integration of social functions in the process of social development. Every developed society, according to Spencer, has three organ systems: productive, distributive and regulatory. The regulatory system, represented by the state, ensures the subordination of the component parts to the whole. He identified institutions (social institutions) as specific parts of society: domestic, ritual, political, church, professional and industrial. They are all the product of slow evolution.
Paradoxically, many considered Spencer a reactionary and an opponent of liberals. Spencer had his reasons for opposing the liberals. Here's what he wrote: “I don’t want to be counted among those who are now called liberals. At that time, when this word came into use, liberals were those who stood for the expansion of individual freedom in relation to the state. Whereas now liberals are consistently expanding the power of the state and limiting individual freedom.” And this, according to Spencer, inevitably leads back to a military (totalitarian, in modern language) type of society.
Spencer was an implacable opponent of socialism. He denied it both from the point of view of justice and from the point of view of benefit. In his work From Freedom to Slavery (1891), he wrote that “nothing but the slow improvement of human nature through the organization of social life can produce a favorable change. And my rejection of socialism is based on the conviction that socialism will stop the development of a highly developed state and reverse the development of a less developed one.”
Spencer was convinced that socialism in any form implied slavery. He considered forced labor to be a characteristic feature of slavery. The degree of slavery depends on how much the slave must give and how much he can keep for himself, and who his master is - an individual or society - does not matter in principle. If a person must give all his labor to society and receive from the common wealth only that part that society assigns to him, he is a slave of society. It is in the book “The Individual versus the State” that Spencer tries to warn humanity against the danger that threatens it.
Spencer's organic theory of control
G. Spencer develops two most important methodological principles of his sociological system: evolutionism and organicism.
Evolution is an integral part of the philosophy of nature, since social evolution is part of the general process of evolution.
The subject of sociology is “the study of evolution (development) in its most complex form.”
Each evolutionary change is realized through the establishment of a new state of equilibrium. Spencer calls the balance between a system and external conditions (forces) adaptation (adaptation) to them.
Spencer highlights:
· inorganic evolution (development of the Earth, the Universe);
· organic (biological and psychological);
· supraorganic (social, moral and ethical).
At the heart of the mechanism of social evolution Spencer's theory is based on three factors:
1. differentiation of roles, functions, power, prestige and property arises, since people are fundamentally unequal in terms of acquired inheritance, individual experience, the conditions in which they live, the accidents, and the hardships they encounter.
2. there is a tendency towards increasing inequality, deepening specialization of roles, growing inequality of power and wealth. As a result, the initial differentiations gradually expand.
3. society begins to divide into factions, classes, groups based on class, national or professional differences. Borders appear to protect these associations, so a return to homogeneity becomes impossible.
To emphasize the direction in which the evolutionary process was moving, Spencer first introduced a polar, dichotomous typology of societies. In it, opposing ideal types represent the starting and ending points of a chronological sequence.
The basic concept of progress according to Spencer is differentiated changes in the direction of increasing heterogeneity. The progress criteria are:
The transition of social systems from less to greater heterogeneity;
Adaptation of internal relations to the external environment, the gradual adaptation of a person in the moral sphere to the social environment;
The growing importance of secondary, sociocultural elements of the environment;
Population growth (life is the end in itself of social evolution)
Organicism. One of the chapters of “Foundations of Sociology” is directly entitled “Society is an Organism.”
Spencer lists a number of similarities between biological and social organisms:
1) society, like a biological organism, unlike inorganic matter, grows and increases in volume throughout most of its existence (for example, the transformation of small states into empires);
2) as society grows, its structure becomes more complex, just as the structure of an organism becomes more complex in the process of biological evolution;
3) in both biological and social organisms, differentiation of structure is accompanied by a similar differentiation of functions;
4) in the process of evolution, differentiation of the structure and functions of biological and social organisms is accompanied by the development of their interaction;
5) the analogy between society and an organism can be inverted - we can say that each organism is a society consisting of individual individuals;
6) in society, as in an organism, even when the life of the whole is upset, individual components can continue to exist, at least for some time.
All this, according to Spencer, allows us to consider human society by analogy with a biological organism.
However, Spencer sees significant differences between them:
1. The constituent parts of a biological organism form a concrete whole in which all elements are inextricably linked, while society is a discrete whole, the living elements of which are more or less free and dispersed.
2. in the individual organism, the differentiation of functions is such that the ability to feel and think is concentrated only in certain parts of it, while in society consciousness is diffused throughout the entire unit, all its units are capable of feeling pleasure and suffering, if not to an equal degree, then approximately equally.
3. in a living organism, elements exist for the sake of the whole; in society, on the contrary, “the well-being of the aggregate, considered independently of the well-being of its constituent units, can never be considered the goal of social aspirations. Society exists for the benefit of its members, rather than its members existing for the benefit of society. It should always be remembered that no matter how great the efforts aimed at the well-being of a political aggregate, all the claims of this political aggregate are nothing in themselves and that they become something only to the extent that they embody the claims of the units composing this aggregate ".
The latter principles deny the idea of complete identity of society and organism. It should not be forgotten that Spencer is an individualist. If for Comte the social whole precedes the individual and the latter is not even an independent cell of society, then for Spencer, on the contrary, society is only an aggregate of individuals. He considers the dissolution of the individual in the social organism unacceptable. Hence the important clarification that society is not just an organism, but a “superorganism.”
Every developed society, according to Spencer, has three organ systems. Support system- this is the organization of parts that provide nutrition in a living organism, and in society - the production of necessary products. Distribution system ensures the connection of various parts of the social organism based on the division of labor.
Regulatory system represented by the state, ensures the subordination of the constituent parts to the whole.
Specific parts of society are institutions, institutions. Spencer lists six types of institutions: domestic, ritual, political, ecclesiastical, professional and industrial. He tries to trace the evolution of each of them using comparative historical analysis.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) - English philosopher and sociologist, founder of the organicist movement in sociology, which considered society by analogy with a living, biological organism. Society, like a biological organism, grows and increases in volume in the process of its development (for example, the transformation of small states into empires). The evolution of society, like the evolution of organisms, goes from simple forms to more complex ones (from a horde to a tribe, from a tribe to a union of tribes, a nation, etc.). The development process begins with a simple quantitative growth and diversity of the units that make up the social system, which begin to perform specialized functions.
G. Spencer defines functions as dissimilar actions of dissimilar parts of a certain organism.
As a society grows, its structure becomes more complex, just as the structure of an organism becomes more complex in the process of biological evolution. He saw the essence of evolution in the transition from homogeneity (homogeneity) to heterogeneity (heterogeneity) due to the continuous interaction of two processes: differentiation (increasing diversity of structures within any system) and integration (unification of divergent parts into new wholes). By analogy with a living organism, society has three organ systems. The supporting system ensures the production of necessary products, the distributive system is the connection between various parts of the social organism based on the division of labor, and the regulatory system is the subordination of the component parts to the whole (state, church). Specific parts, “organs” of society are social institutions. G. Spencer identifies six types of social institutions: kinship, education, political, church, professional and industrial. During the Industrial Revolution, societies became more complex as a result of the deepening division of labor and the development of specialized institutions such as factories, banks, stock exchanges, etc. The increasing complexity of the structure of society necessarily requires new forms of coordination and organization.
G. Spencer recognized the military and industrial types of social structure as the two poles of the evolution of society. Moreover, evolution goes in the direction from the first to the second. In a military type of society, the individual is subordinate to the whole. In an industrial society, social organization becomes more flexible, political freedom appears, power is seen as an expression of the will of individuals, and cooperation between individuals becomes voluntary. Military and industrial societies also differ in the types of struggle for existence. The military type of society is characterized by military conflicts, extermination or enslavement of the defeated by the winner. In the industrial type of society, industrial competition prevails, where the “strongest” wins in terms of abilities, talents, i.e. in the field of intellectual and moral qualities. This kind of struggle is a benefit for the whole society, and not just for the winner, because as a result, the intellectual and moral level of society as a whole and the volume of social wealth grows.
However, G. Spencer believed that there are also differences between society and the organism. Thus, society is characterized by less dependence of a part (individual) on society. In an organism, a part exists for the sake of the whole, but in society, on the contrary, it exists for the benefit of its individuals. He believed that the higher the level of a social organization, the more successfully it serves the well-being of people. G. Spencer considered the principles of “equal freedom” of individuals, limited only by the freedom of other individuals; equal influence of all individuals and social strata on political decision-making; free competition, as a condition for successful social “development.”
G. Spencer viewed evolution as a contradictory, but mostly gradual process that did not allow conscious intervention from the outside. He viewed social revolutions as a disease of society, and socialist reconstruction as contrary to the organic unity of the social system and evolutionary progress based on the survival of the fittest and gifted.
Sociological theory of E. Durkheim.
Modern sociology relies heavily on the classical heritage of E. Durkheim, who paid considerable attention to the development of the methodology of sociological knowledge, believing, following O. Comte, that it should be guided by the methods of cognition of the natural sciences. The main goal of sociology is the discovery and formulation of causal patterns, which must be supplemented by the study of functional connections. According to E. Durkheim, the subject of sociology should be “social facts,” which should be “studied as things.”
The structure of sociology, according to Durkheim, includes social morphology, social physiology and general sociology. Social morphology, like human anatomy, deals with the structure of society, its social organs (social institutions, composition of the population, its density, distribution, etc.). Social physiology studies social life, all areas, etc.
Durkheim distinguishes two types of social connection-solidarity: mechanical and organic.
Mechanical solidarity is found, according to Durkheim, in undeveloped primitive societies. In such societies there is practically no division of labor and all people perform similar functions, while people's behavior is strictly regulated by collective ideas, customs, traditions, and religious ideas.
Organic solidarity is most developed in an industrial society. According to Durkheim, the prevalence of organic solidarity is associated with the expansion of the social division of labor, as a result of which people begin to specialize in different types of activities, and the relationship between these people is established mainly through economic exchange. At the same time, the influence of collective ideas on human behavior is significantly weakened.
Marxist sociology, its characteristic features.
A peculiar synthesis of the classical and non-traditional types of science in the field of sociology is the materialist doctrine of society by K. Marx (1818-1883), F. Engels (1820-1895) and their followers. When creating this doctrine, K. Marx and F. Engels proceeded from the naturalistic principles of positivism, which required viewing social phenomena as facts and building social science on the model of the natural sciences with their characteristic cause-and-effect explanation of facts. The object of sociology in Marxism, as noted above, is the study of society, the basic laws of its development, and the subject is the study of basic social communities and institutions. What are the most important principles of the materialist doctrine of society?
Society in development goes through 5 socio-economic formations. The basis of an economic formation is one or another mode of production, which is characterized by a certain level and nature of development of the productive forces and production relations corresponding to this level and nature. The totality of production relations forms the basis of society, its basis, over which state, legal, political relations and institutions are built, which in turn correspond to certain forms of social consciousness.
K. Marx and F. Engels represented the development of society as a natural, progressive process, characterized by a consistent transition from lower socio-economic formations to higher ones: from primitive communal to slaveholding, then to feudal, capitalist and communist.
