When considering the prerequisites, it is advisable to distinguish two groups - socio-economic and scientific-theoretical. Let's look at the first ones first. In socio-economic terms, the prerequisites for the emergence of sociology must be associated, first of all, with the development of capitalism in the first third of the 19th century, which posed problems public relations, interaction between society and people at the center social knowledge. The life of people in new conditions has given rise to conflicting assessments and views on the development of leading capitalist countries, primarily England and France; It is no coincidence that it was there that the first great representatives of sociology appeared - the classics of this science O. Comte and G. Spencer. On the one hand, these countries experienced significant economic, social and political progress in comparison with the previous period of their development, on the other hand, increased exploitation, crises, the incredibly difficult situation of workers, the use of female and child labor, an increase in the length of the working week, extremely unfavorable conditions at work and at home.
The reaction to these processes, naturally, turned out to be ambiguous. Working people began to resort to new and powerful forms of class struggle. This is primarily the Luddite movement (aimed at destroying the machines in which factory workers saw their main enemies), then the Chartist movement in England, the uprisings of Lyon weavers in France, and Silesian weavers in Germany.
In social thought first half of the 19th century V. There were several forms of reaction to these processes. These were utopian socialism, Marxism, conservative and liberal trends, etc. A certain form of reflection on the socio-economic and political development of capitalism was the emergence of a new science of society - sociology, which was supposed to explain the naturalness and regularity of this process and all that , what could be connected with it.
At the same time, the origins of sociology should be sought not only in capitalist society itself, its socio-economic and political development and the need to have objective scientific knowledge about these processes. Undoubtedly, the roots of sociology are explained by the general civilizational nature. This refers to the gradual formation of the world market, the emergence of similar political structures, the formation of interrelations different cultures and much more. In other words, the prerequisites for the emergence of sociology should be seen within the framework of the movement towards an integral social world. The need to study it, of course, required a new, special science of society.
The emergence of sociology can be seen as a kind of response to this social need. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the sociological constructions of Comte, Spencer, and Marx, much attention was paid to broad social problems (some of them we would now call global). The first “real” sociologists, those who proclaimed the principles of the new science, were primarily interested in society as such. This could not have been better facilitated by the prevailing conditions in the middle of the 19th century. theoretical constructs and concepts, which will be specifically discussed a little further.
Therefore, one should not exaggerate the role of the social class aspect in the emergence of sociology, as was done in our literature until recently, when it was said about the dominant interests of the bourgeoisie in the formation and development of a new science. But it’s probably not worth abandoning consideration of this aspect completely either. Moreover, the founders of sociology themselves, primarily Comte, paid attention to this problem Special attention. In his work "The System of Positive Politics" he specifically examined the connection between sociological positivism (see more about it in the next chapter) and the French Revolution, as well as those classes, strata and groups that were interested in it *7.
*7: (See: O. Comte. System of positive politics // Western European sociology of the 19th century: Texts. M., 1996. P. 191-196.)
When discussing the reasons for the establishment of sociology as a separate, special science of society, some researchers believed that protective tasks were at the heart of this process. The logic of thinking was something like this. Ideas initial period bourgeois development (XVIII century), which contained a revolutionary spirit, turned out to be unacceptable in the new conditions. The capitalist system was established, strengthened and no longer needed a revolutionary justification for its development. On the contrary, a new social task appeared: to preserve bourgeois society, with the solution of which some Russian scientists associated the emergence of sociology.
Accepting such arguments only as partially explaining the emergence of sociology (from the point of view of its socio-economic, political and ideological prerequisites), it should be noted that there was a logic of progress not only of society, but also of science. Reasons for the emergence of a new industry scientific knowledge It would be reasonable to look both beyond its borders and in the development of science itself.
The socio-economic prerequisites for agriculture are related to the general development and development of the territory, its population, the provision of labor resources, as well as regional differences in the economic situation: rising prices, investments, proximity to markets for products, etc.
Among the most important manifestations of the systemic crisis in rural areas are:
- deterioration of the demographic situation. Reduction in numbers rural population due to both an increase in natural decline (in almost all regions, except for some republics), and migration losses, especially in the Non-Black Earth Region and in the east of the country. For 1959–2005 lost 19 million rural residents. There was an emerging increase in the rural population in the early 1990s. due to external migrations, in 2000 was replaced by the previous outflow of villagers to the cities.
- destruction of the evolutionarily established system of rural settlement. Only in the period between the population censuses of 1989–2002. the number of rural settlements with a population of 5 or less people increased from 17 to 33 thousand. This led to the loss of socio-economic control over many historically developed territories, a reduction in the economic potential of rural areas due to the removal of about 40 million hectares of land from agricultural use, their depopulation and losses to society.
- a decrease in the quality of life in rural areas, a reduction in the network of social infrastructure institutions, narrowing access of villagers to basic services - education, healthcare, communications, etc. In Russia, the world's leading country in gas production and export, only a third of rural households are provided with network gas, and 40% have running water.
The specificity of the country lies in the huge and relatively poorly developed space. Natural conditions have not only a direct impact on agriculture. They influence it indirectly through the general development of the territory and the concentration of labor resources. The density of the rural population is noticeably higher in areas with favorable natural conditions in the southwest of the country, and their living conditions are much better there.
In more northern regions Large cities (over 100 thousand inhabitants) are important, especially the capitals and centers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. A denser economic environment and better infrastructure, including road density, are being created around them. Big cities long years in the process of urbanization, they not only concentrated labor resources, devastating the countryside, but also created zones around them with an increased density of the rural population and more productive agriculture. The relatively sparse network of large cities capable of exerting a noticeable influence on the surrounding countryside has led to the fact that a significant part of Russia away from cities, including in old developed areas, began to resemble a socio-economic semi-desert. The combination of rural population density and distance from large cities largely determines the conditions for the development of agriculture, incl. specifics of labor resources.
Territories with the most favorable socio-economic conditions (suburbs with a rural population density of more than 10 people/km2) occupy only 3% of the territory of Russia, although 28% of the rural population live in them. All territories with a population density of more than 10 people/m2, all suburban and partly semi-suburban (second-order neighboring areas to large cities) occupy 12% of the territory and concentrate 57% of the rural population.
The desolation of rural areas, accompanied by the abandonment and degradation of agriculture, is most typical for the peripheral areas of the Non-Black Earth regions. Here, areas with a population density of more than 10 people/km2 have been preserved in small pockets, mainly in the suburbs of large cities.
Not only the density of the rural population is important, but also its combination with the processes of its depopulation. The latter, as a rule, is characterized by “negative selection”, in which the youngest and most active people leave the village. With the loss of more than half of the population (in some peripheral areas - more than 2/3) and population density in working age less than 5 people/km2, as a rule, there is a noticeable degradation of the labor potential of the rural community. Depopulation has led to the fact that in many areas households are represented by single grandmothers, best case scenario consist of two people. In most regions of the North-West and such households are 60%.
Thus, not so much natural conditions as the factor of labor resources in rural areas became limiting for the development of agriculture and the preservation of its modern specialization in areas of depopulation.
In 2003, Russia adopted the Federal Target Program “Social Development of Rural Affairs until 2010,” which includes two different, although interrelated, aspects: the development of the social sphere itself and the improvement of the engineering infrastructure of rural municipalities. The last part - improving electricity, water and gas supply to rural settlements, equipping them with telecommunications, expanding the network of rural roads - requires capital investment and volitional decisions. It is much more difficult to solve social problems, such as improving the health of rural residents, reducing mortality, and increasing the prestige of living and working in rural areas. Organizational and economic measures alone cannot do this. Should be considered objective stages social development, geographical features of the country, not only economic, but also social needs of the population, etc. At the same time, in a number of regions, significant experience has been accumulated in the integrated development of rural areas, the development of rural social and engineering infrastructure, housing construction, expanding the scope of its employment (Belgorod and Leningrad regions, the Republic of Mordovia, the Republic of Tatarstan, the Chuvash Republic-Chuvashia and a number of other regions) .
Despite the high level of urbanization (73% live in cities), many regions maintain high employment in agriculture. Statistics show on average about 10% of employees of agricultural organizations in the total number of employees in organizations in the country. In some regions of southern Russia, as well as in the Kirov region and some Volga republics, employment in agricultural organizations exceeds 15–20%. However official figures employment does not take into account rural residents working on their plots (the vast majority of the rural population), as well as city dwellers who spend a significant part of their time growing agricultural products in their dachas, vegetable gardens, and with relatives in the village. Increased employment in food production is not only associated with long-term food shortages and poverty of a large part of the population. It is also due to low labor productivity at many agricultural enterprises, the monofunctionality of rural areas and the lack of other jobs, as well as close ties between public and private subsidiary farming. Many rural residents continue to work at enterprises not so much for the sake of salaries, but because of the help of enterprises in running their own households. In many developed countries, the share of employment in agriculture and its role in the daily lives of urban and rural residents is much smaller. In agriculture, 4.5% of the population is employed, in - 2.5%, in - 1.5%.
Important indicators of the modern rural crisis are poverty and high levels of unemployment. Despite the emerging last years income growth of rural residents, their level continues to remain low. General unemployment in rural areas in the early 2000s. was about 11%, registered 2–3%. Three quarters of the rural unemployed do not receive benefits and are not socially protected. 48% of regions are in the critical zone (with unemployment rates above 10%), and in 10 regions the unemployment rate is above 20%. This unemployment is also conditional, since most of the unemployed work on their own farms, sometimes producing marketable products. However, about 30 million or 76% of rural residents live below the poverty line based on official monetary income. This share is 1.3 times higher than in cities. In 2005, wages at agricultural enterprises amounted to only 40% of the average Russian wage.
In the early 1990s, agriculture found itself in a price squeeze. On the one hand, prices for fuel, energy, fertilizers, and equipment have risen sharply. On the other hand, prices for agricultural products were limited by the fall in the purchasing power of the population. Price disparity between industrial and agricultural goods in the 1990s. was the main problem. By the 2000s The severity of the problem decreased, but in most regions prices for industrial products continued to rise faster than food prices.
By the share of investments in agriculture in the total volume of capital investments in the regions, one can judge the degree of priority of this industry compared to others and the importance of agriculture for the development of the region. The map of the share of investment in agriculture largely correlates with the map of the share of people employed in agricultural production, identifying the most agricultural regions in which agriculture plays a significant role. These are, first of all, regions within the northern part of the main wedge in the Bryansk–Saransk–Belgorod triangle. The share of investment in agriculture in the south of Russia has increased, especially in such dissimilar regions as Krasnodar region and the Republic of Kalmykia, as well as in the Altai Territory. Of the more northern regions, Kirov region stands out.
Sharp decline in investment in the 1990s. had a painful impact on agriculture. Since 2000, investment volumes have been growing, but so far they have not exceeded even a third of the pre-crisis level. Most of the investments come from enterprises’ own funds and other sources. The share of budgets at different levels does not exceed 5–10%.
Investments affect the deepest foundations of economic activity, determining the processes economic development. Most capital was invested in agriculture Krasnodar region And Belgorod region(in total almost 10% of all-Russian agricultural investments). Another 6% of investments are absorbed by the Moscow and Leningrad regions. Together with the regions of the lowland North Caucasus and the Republic of Tatarstan is 22% of all investments in agriculture.
But if we calculate the volume of investments per hectare of agricultural land, it turns out that agriculture is supported not only in these territories. Specific investments have increased in many northern regions and in the south of the Far East. However, with a strong outflow of the rural population and difficult natural conditions, this does not help them stop the crisis in agricultural production. The least investment is in the zone of extensive and grain farming from the Republic of Dagestan to Orenburg and in the national outskirts of Siberia, as well as in the rapidly degrading old-developed rural areas of northwestern Russia that have lost a significant part of the population.
I would be grateful if you share this article on social networks:
By the beginning of the 20th century, the population of Iran consisted of numerous ethnic groups and tribes who spoke various languages, such as Iranian, Turkic, Arabic, etc. About half of the total population of the country were Persians, one fifth of the population were Azerbaijanis, who inhabited the northwestern region of the country. Next in number were the Kurdish, Lur, Bakhtiari, Baloch, Qashqai, Turkmen and Arab tribes. In connection with the emergence of bourgeois relations in the country, the formation of national identity. But this process was weak.
Iran also did not present a homogeneous picture regarding the level of economic development of different regions. The regions bordering Russia were more densely populated and economically more developed. The most backward in terms of economic development and sparsely populated were the southern and southeastern regions of Iran, where the British had a monopoly. Slavery remained largely in the Kerman region.
The basis of the prevailing relations in agriculture was the feudal ownership of the land by the Shah, secular and spiritual feudal lords and landowners. They also owned irrigation facilities, without which farming in some areas of Iran is almost impossible.
The vast majority of Iran's population were peasants. They were not in serfdom from the landowner and could freely move from one landowner to another, but this was only a formal right. Class stratification in the Iranian village occurred very slowly. The bulk of the peasants were the landless poor and farm laborers, but there were also peasant owners, but there were very few of them.
The main forms of land ownership were the following:
1) khalise – state lands;
2) lands belonging to feudal lords, khans, leaders of nomadic tribes, as well as lands granted by the Shah to tiul;
3) waqf lands that formally belonged to mosques and religious institutions, but in fact to the highest clergy;
4) melk lands, or arbabi - privately owned landowners' lands not associated with feudal grants;
5) umumi – communal lands;
6) Khordemalek - lands of small landowners, including peasants.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the number of state lands was significantly reduced due to their granting to tiul. Strengthening the connection between agriculture and foreign trade and its adaptation to market demand led to the fact that many large feudal lords and landowners, using their political and economic situation, began to seize the lands of small landowners and peasants under various pretexts, ruined them and concentrated huge land holdings in their hands. There was also an increase in waqf land ownership through donations from individuals fearing the confiscation of their property by the Shah.
The dominance of foreign capital and the preservation of the feudal regime in Iran created obstacles to the development of national industry in the country. Therefore, merchants, moneylenders, clergy, and wealthy officials spent money not on the development of domestic enterprises, but on buying up land from the state. This significantly increased the growth of privately owned land. On these lands, landowners began to sow those agricultural crops for which there was demand on the foreign market. The share of Umumi and Hordemalek lands was insignificant.
The adaptation of Iranian agriculture to the foreign market further worsened the situation of the peasants. New landowners and old feudal lords associated with the market began to further increase the exploitation of peasants, forcing them to switch from sowing old crops to new ones that were in demand on the foreign market. They also took the best plots from the peasants for their arable land, leaving the worst ones for the peasants. Extortions from peasants were increased. More developed commodity-money relations led to an increase in usurious enslavement of peasants. Thus, feudal-serf exploitation was intertwined with usurious exploitation.
Peasants, as a rule, deprived of their land, were forced to cultivate the land of feudal landowners on sharecropping terms. The harvest between the peasant and the landowner was divided on the basis of the old medieval five-fold formula (land, water, seeds, draft animals and labor), according to which the peasant, deprived of land and water, and often also seeds and draft animals, had to give the landowner from one second to three fourths of the entire harvest. In addition, peasants were also obliged to fulfill a number of natural feudal duties - to supply chickens, eggs, butter, vegetables to landowners, and to present gifts - pishkesh - to khans and government officials on various occasions. However, the position of the peasants did not change, depending on whose land they cultivated: state, khan's, wakf or landowner's land.
The countryside was dominated by the arbitrariness and excesses of the landowners and local authorities, who carried out trials and reprisals against the peasants at their own discretion. Also in some regions of Iran, peasants were sold into slavery.
The collection of various kinds of taxes, the landowner's share of the harvest and in-kind duties was usually carried out through the mobashir - the khan's manager and the kedkhod - the village headman, who was appointed by the khan and headed the rural community. There was mutual responsibility for collecting taxes and serving military service, the so-called boniche. Kedhoda, as a rule, was appointed from among the village kulak elite, which was weak and few in number. This kulak elite, like the landowners, brutally exploited the peasant poor and farm laborers. Typically, representatives of this elite were those peasants who had their own land. The kulaks often handed over their land, and sometimes rented land from landowners, for cultivation to the poor, receiving from them a share of the harvest, sometimes even greater than the landowners. The kulaks were also involved in usury. Some of the kulaks became small landowners.
The brutal exploitation of peasants, as a result of which a significant part of what was necessary for existence was taken away from the peasant, led to mass poverty and ruin of the peasants, as well as to mass hunger strikes.
The position of nomads differed from that of peasants. Tribal leaders became feudal khans, which allowed them to exploit ordinary nomads. This was expressed in the fact that the latter had to graze the cattle of the tribal leaders, as well as give them part of their livestock and livestock products, bring them gifts and perform other duties in their favor.
These feudal relations were covered up by patriarchal forms and remnants. The duties of ordinary nomads were less burdensome compared to the duties of settled peasants. One of the ways to generate income for nomadic tribes was raids on neighboring settled settlements. This played an inhibitory role in the disintegration of feudal relations and the development of new, bourgeois relations. However, the khans of the nomadic tribes were not interested in transferring the nomads to settled life.
In the cities, crafts were developed, which had the form of a guild system and were based on manual labor. Craft workshops were mainly located in bazaars, which were the centers of economic and, often, political life in cities. The craft was closely connected with trade. Internal trade in foreign goods, as well as goods produced by Iranian crafts and industry, was widespread in Iranian cities.
In Iran there was a large number of small merchants. There were also large merchants who were connected, on the one hand, with feudal land ownership, and on the other, with foreign capital. This means that their interests, both economic and political, were significantly at odds with the interests of the small and medium merchants.
There was developed trade and exchange in the cities. The process of impoverishment of peasants, artisans and small traders created a lot of free hands in Iran. Wage labor is beginning to be used more and more widely. The presence of large capital in the hands of the feudal elite and large merchants, the emergence of civilian workers created favorable conditions for the development of capitalism in the country. The presence in Iran of rich reserves of iron and copper ore, coal, lead, zinc and other non-ferrous metals could be a favorable condition for the development of the national Iranian factory industry.
The establishment of foreign concession enterprises and Iranian factories in Iran led to the emergence of a working class, which at that time was still very weak, dispersed, and completely unorganized.
Capitalist exploitation of Iranian workers was intertwined with feudal exploitation. By issuing advances to workers, entrepreneurs forced them to sign enslaving contracts, obliging them to work for the entrepreneur for a long time. In this case, the worker was attached to the factory and essentially turned into a serf manufacturer.
The growth of national Iranian industry was hampered by foreign capital, the narrowness of the market, the dominance of feudal remnants, the insecurity of property and the arbitrariness of the Shah's authorities. Competition from foreign goods undermined the development of domestic Iranian industry - many Iranian factories and factories were forced to close. Due to the closure of factories and factories, workers found themselves on the street without a means of subsistence, sometimes becoming homeless. Fleeing from starvation, tens of thousands of these destitute people left Iran to work in Russia - in Transcaucasia and the Trans-Caspian region. By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, the number of Iranian migrant workers to Russia annually amounted to almost 200 thousand people. Russian revolutionaries worked with them, and, returning to their homeland, the otkhodniks brought with them new ideas, sometimes very radical. These ideas were eagerly absorbed by starving peasants at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when the food problem in Iran sharply worsened, which led to sporadic food riots and popular demonstrations, accompanied by the destruction of the houses of speculators and grain traders, and contributed to the emergence of revolutionary situation.
Of particular note are the two “great revolutions” of the 18th-19th centuries in Europe - industrial revolution And The Great French Revolution of 1789-1794, which acted as a kind of catalyst for the emergence of a new science - the science of society. These two revolutions became the essence and origins of the economic and political transformations of the entire era. Thanks to them, the forms of social organization familiar over the previous millennia largely ceased to exist. These revolutions marked the beginning of the era of capitalism in Western Europe.
Industrial revolution (industrial revolution) is the most important event in the economic life of capitalist societies of that time. It was based on achievements in the natural sciences and introduced new machines and technologies. The industrial revolution represented a significant leap in the development of productive forces; its essence was the transition from crafts and manufacture to machine production. Capitalism has led to the replacement of manual labor with machine labor. Sometimes the Industrial Revolution is presented simply as a series of technological advances (new machines, the use of steam power in industry, etc.). But technological inventions were only part of a much broader spectrum of socio-technical changes. Along with technology came a new socio-economic order, characteristic features which became the factory system of management, industrialization and urbanization.
The industrial revolution began in Great Britain in 1760. The enormous rise of English industry covered not only textile production (the leading industry in England), but also all other branches of production. In just a few decades (the industrial revolution in England ended in the 10-20s of the 19th century), the economic life of the country was radically changed. The widespread introduction of machinery, the use of steam power, and the development of communications led to the fact that Great Britain turned from a state with a slightly developed industry, with a predominantly agricultural population and with small towns typical for that time into a state with large factory towns. In the 1830s, the factory system of production was already fully established. Having become the largest capitalist state, it began to exert powerful economic and political influence on all countries of the world.
Following Great Britain in different time before late XIX V. industrial revolution - a leap in the development of productive forces, the transition from manufactories to machine production begins in the USA, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. In the 19th century The industrial revolution spread throughout Western Europe and America. In Russia it begins only in the first half of the 19th century. and ends by the end of the 70s - early 80s. XIX century, which naturally affected the specifics and time of the appearance of sociology in it. Thanks to the industrial revolution, capitalism was able to finally establish itself in many countries of the world.
Until the 19th century Even the most highly urbanized societies contained no more than 10% of the population in cities. The largest cities in pre-industrial societies were very small by modern standards. For example, the population of London before the 14th century. there were about 30 thousand people. By the beginning of the 19th century. its population was already about 900 thousand people, which was much higher than the population in other famous cities. Despite London's dense population, only a small proportion of the population of England and Wales lived in cities at this time. And a hundred years later, by 1900, about 40% of the population of England and Wales lived in cities with a population of 100 thousand or more [see: 40. P. 131].
In 1800, 27.2 million people on the globe, i.e. 3% of the total population lived in cities (with a population of 5 thousand or more people), of which 15.6 million people, i.e. 1.7% of the total population lived in large cities (population of 100 thousand or more people). In 1900, already 218.7 million people (13.3%) lived in cities, of which 88.6 million people (5.5%) lived in big cities [see: 279. P.6].
Urban development is associated with urbanization. We can talk about the phenomenon of urbanization already from the 18th century. Scientists identify a number of signs of urbanization: the share of the urban population is increasing; density and degree of uniformity of distribution of the network of cities throughout the country; the number and uniformity of distribution of large cities; accessibility of large cities for the entire population, as well as the diversity of sectors of the national economy.
The process of urbanization is accompanied by both positive and Negative consequences. Among the negative ones, we note the following: reduction in natural population growth; increased morbidity rates; alienation of the masses of the urban population from traditional culture, characteristic of villages and small towns, as well as the emergence of intermediate and “marginal” layers of the population, leading to the formation of lumpenized (i.e., those who do not have property, do not adhere to the norms of the main culture) and pauperized (i.e., physically and morally degraded) groups population.
Big city in its relatively small territory, with the help of city institutions, it controls several thousand or several million people, creates a certain way of life and forms a number of characteristic social phenomena. These include a huge number of subject contacts and the predominance of subject contacts over personal ones. Division of labor and narrow specialization lead to a narrowing of people's interests and... first of all, to limit interest in the affairs of neighbors. This leads to the phenomenon of increasing isolation, the pressure of informal social control decreases and the bonds of personal relationships are destroyed. AND natural result noted above becomes - an increase in social disorganization, crime, deviation. Big cities have given rise to many pressing problems.
Intensive urbanization was accompanied by a huge influx of immigrants from other countries. All migration flows from the 16th century, the time when different countries began to be drawn into the orbit of capitalist development, which became the cause of significant social movements of the population, until late XVIII V. were sent mainly only to America. Their scale is indicated by the following data: if in 1610 210 thousand people lived in the territory now occupied by the United States, then in 1800 the population grew to 5.3 million people [see: 305. P.18 ]. The sharp increase in population caused a breakdown, a collision of the traditional foundations of life of the indigenous and newly arrived populations. This led to an aggravation of class and ethnic contradictions, and also additionally created a host of other problems. Therefore, American sociology in the first decades of the 20th century. developed as a sociology of urban problems.
The development of production provided the impetus for research social issues. Using natural resources, thereby expanding the scope of production, people were faced with the limitation of these resources, as a result of which the only way to increase productivity was rational use labor force, or, in other words, people engaged in the production of material goods. If at the beginning of the 19th century. manufacturers served as an addition to resources and mechanisms, and only the mechanisms had to be invented and improved, then in the middle of the century it became obvious that only competent people interested in their activities could operate complex equipment.
The inevitable result of the industrial revolution was the formation of new classes, new relations between them and the aggravation of class contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The Great French Revolution of 1789-1793, as well as the events that followed it, are in many ways a turning point in the development of human civilization. It represented a series of historically specific events, as a result of which it became a symbol of the political transformations of the entire era. This revolution was significantly different from all previous uprisings of different times. There had been peasant uprisings against feudal landowners before, but their actions were usually an attempt to remove specific individuals from power or to achieve a reduction in prices and taxes. During the French Revolution, for the first time in history, under the influence social movement was completely destroyed social order. The political ideal of this movement was universal freedom and equality. In the history of mankind, the need for democratic freedoms was a completely new phenomenon.
It should be noted that bourgeois revolutions began already in the 16th century. The first successful bourgeois revolution was the Dutch bourgeois revolution (1566-1609), in which the anti-feudal struggle was combined with the national liberation struggle against Spain, whose dominance hampered the development of capitalist relations in the country. The first bourgeois revolution on a European scale was the English bourgeois revolution. Revolution XVII V. It was she who marked the beginning of the change from the feudal formation to the capitalist one. In the early bourgeois revolutions, the bourgeoisie acted as the hegemon, and only in the era of imperialism did the proletariat become hegemon.
The Great French Revolution is the first bourgeois-democratic revolution, in which for the first time the majority of the people (the oppressed peasantry, the urban poor, the proletariat) acted independently, leaving the imprint of their own demands on the entire course of the revolution. The Great French Revolution differed from the English bourgeois revolution in that if in 1648 the bourgeoisie opposed the monarchy, the feudal nobility and the ruling church in alliance with the new nobility, then in 1789 the people became its ally.
The Great French Revolution of 1789-1794, the largest bourgeois revolution, differed from earlier bourgeois revolutions in that it put an end to the feudal-absolutist system much more decisively than they did and paved the way for the development of the productive forces of capitalist society in France. It cleared the way for the further rapid development of capitalism not only in France; after it, a period of establishment and rapid development of capitalism began in most European countries.
The increasing complexity of all spheres of people’s life has raised problems of implementing interactions between them, managing these interactions and creating social order in society. When these problems were realized and posed, the prerequisites arose for the formation and development of a science that studies associations of people, their behavior in these associations, as well as interactions between people and the results of such interactions.
Thus, thanks to two revolutions, new forms of consciousness and action, new patterns social behavior of people. European society, subject to changes that arose as a result of two “great revolutions,” faced the need to understand the causes and possible consequences of these revolutions.
The emergence of sociology, as G.P. Davidyuk notes, was also due to change in the position of the ruling class in society[see: 59. P.102-103]. In the 19th century, the capitalist system established itself, grew stronger and ceased to need justification for its revolutionary development. The bourgeois class felt its strength and the strength of its power, began to strive by any means to preserve them, to prove that this is the best system in the world. The bourgeoisie no longer needed the revolutionary theory of bourgeois philosophers and thinkers, especially French ones, who developed ideas about the revolutionary transformation of society. Having lost faith in the favorable course of the historical process for capitalism after the Paris Commune, ruling classes Western countries needed science that could maximally reveal the positive process of development of society and justify its evolutionary development. I.S. Kon notes that at this time “the idea of social evolution from a means of condemning feudalism becomes a means of justifying already victorious capitalism.” In a science capable of interpreting, in an evolutionist spirit, the emergence of the working class, its struggle and the formation of opposing classes and social groups in society. Western governments believed that the main purpose of sociology was to establish lasting “social harmony,” which was in their interests. According to some researchers, it was the emergence of the need to perform such a kind of “protective task” that became one of the main reasons for the emergence of a new science of society in the West. Thus, the new science brought to life naturally had to perform a corresponding ideological function.
Played a major role in the emergence of sociology the formation of the working class and the growing crisis of social relations. If the social philosophy of the Enlightenment, as noted by I.S. Kon, reflected the process of destruction of feudal orders and the emergence of a new, bourgeois society, which it largely anticipated, then sociology arises as a reflection of the internal antagonisms inherent in capitalist society and the socio-political struggle, thus, “the birth of sociology was... associated with a certain social order” [see: 124. P.13].
The process of formation and development of the working class, as well as the bourgeoisie, begins already in the 15th century. Initially, its main representatives were artisans and manufacturing workers, who were an integral part of the “third estate” (the other two were the clergy and the nobility). The working class (proletariat) in the modern sense of the word arises after the industrial revolution. In a capitalist society, workers become one of the leading classes. The proletariat are wage workers, deprived of the means of production, living by selling their power and exploited by the bourgeoisie.
Initially, the forms of performance of artisans and manufacturing workers were not distinguished by a sufficient degree of maturity. For example, the object of the first spontaneous protests was the so-called. The Luddites were machines and machines. New technology, the invention of spinning and other mechanisms, according to the workers, were the main source of their difficult situation. Therefore, the Luddite movement was aimed at destroying machines, not at changing social conditions. Gradually, class consciousness begins to awaken among the workers, and they begin to understand that their enemy is not the machines, but the factory owners and all the privileged propertied classes.
The desire of workers to unite in order to resist oppression led to the fact that from the end of the 18th century. In Western European countries and the United States, mass organizations began to emerge, first uniting workers connected by a common professional interest, initially these were mutual aid societies, and later on a wider scale. In Great Britain and in a number of other English-speaking countries, trade unions were created - trade-unions, the main purpose of which was to fight for the establishment of more favorable conditions for the sale of labor and carry out limited reforms within the framework of the bourgeois state.
The rapid growth of capitalism at the beginning of the 19th century. led to the first obvious manifestations of its contradictions. Industrialization, the essence of which was the process of creating large-scale industrial production, led to the concentration of the proletarian masses in factories, contributed to their unity and gradually freed former artisans from petty-bourgeois psychology, from unrealistic hopes of once again becoming independent owners. The creation of new machines made hundreds and thousands of workers redundant, thereby causing unemployment. Beginning in 1825, the capitalist economy began to be rocked by periodic crises. All this aggravated the already difficult situation of the masses, led to increased exploitation of workers, impoverishment of workers, as well as the ruin of small artisans and traders. Entirely new forms of class confrontation are emerging.
Big historical meaning have the first mass actions of the proletariat, which showed their awareness of their class tasks and interests, their own position, different from the bourgeois strata of society. Despite the fact that the first protests of workers were still largely spontaneous riots, they took on a class and political character. Gradually, the process of transforming the proletariat from a “class in itself” into a “class for itself” began, which was expressed in their awareness of their true social position and the desire for class solidarity and collective action in order to defend their interests.
The end of the 30s - beginning of the 40s of the 19th century in the social sphere was a time of extreme instability. Increased exploitation, crises, the incredibly difficult situation of workers, the use of child and female labor, increased work hours working week, extremely unfavorable conditions at work and at home led to the fact that workers began to resort to new powerful forms of class confrontation.
In November 1831, in Lyon, the second largest industrial center in France, the first independent armed uprising of the French proletariat took place. It was caused by the difficult situation of the workers of the Lyon silk weaving enterprises: a 15-hour working day, a reduction in wages. More than 30 thousand people took part in the uprising. The workers fought on the barricades under a banner that read: “Live working or die fighting!” The rebels managed to seize power in the city, but, lacking experience, they did not know how to use it. The government, having recovered from the fright, brought up troops and relatively quickly suppressed the uprising.
In April 1834, the second uprising of the Lyon proletariat took place. This time the workers, having already had some experience, acted in a more organized manner. This uprising was already openly republican in nature and took place under political slogans, the main one being the call - “Freedom, equality, brotherhood or death!” This uprising received the support of proletarians in other cities of France, but despite this, just like the first uprising, it was brutally suppressed by the government.
In 1844, an uprising of Silesian weavers took place in Germany. Although basically the actions of the German proletariat remained spontaneous, elements of proletarian consciousness and organization appeared in them. The uprising received a response throughout Germany; “hunger riots” of workers and spontaneous protests by peasants arose in a number of regions of the country. This uprising, like the previous uprising in 1793, was suppressed by Prussian troops.
The growth of the class consciousness of the proletariat is evidenced by the emergence and development of the Chartist movement in England. The parliamentary reform of the electoral system in England in 1832, for which the workers fought together with the bourgeoisie, gave practically nothing to the workers, since it did not give them the right to vote, but only strengthened the position of the big bourgeoisie. This, as well as economic crises and crop failures, which further worsened the situation of workers, served as an impetus for realizing the need to independently speak out for their interests. In the second half of the 1930s, the first mass, politically formalized revolutionary movement of the working class emerged in England - Chartism (from the English charter - charter). In 1838, the demands of the Chartists were formulated in a program document in the form of a bill “People's Charter” (the name of the movement came from the name of this document), consisting of 6 points: the introduction of universal suffrage (for men), limiting the working day, increasing wages etc. In 1840, English workers created their own organization - the National Chartist Association. In essence, the first mass workers' party was founded. The main goal of the association was to fight for universal suffrage. The Chartist movement very quickly became widespread. This is confirmed by the following fact: in 1842, about 3.5 million people signed the national petition prepared by the movement [see: 27. pp. 8-10]. During their existence, the Chartists repeatedly (in 1840, 1843 and 1848) submitted petitions to parliament with their demands, but all petitions were rejected. The emergence of the Chartist movement indicated that workers in political struggle saw a means of improving their situation.
A little later, the revolution of 1848 occurs in France. All these events indicated growing crisis of social relations, and in times of decisive and rapid change, people naturally have a need for a generalizing theory that can predict where humanity is moving, what guidelines can be relied upon, and find one’s place and role in this process. Utopian socialism, due to its immaturity, could not fulfill this role.
The emergence of the proletariat on the historical stage brought to life Marxism, which expresses the worldview and ideology of the working class, which has embarked on the path of revolutionary struggle against capitalist exploitation. Within the framework of Marxism, Marxist-Leninist sociology is formed, the socio-philosophical and theoretical core of which is historical materialism. Most widespread Marxist-Leninist sociology receives in countries of socialist orientation.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that sociology as a science did not arise as a result of the conclusions of this or that thinker, but was largely determined by certain (listed above) theoretical, social, economic, political and other prerequisites and conditions for the development of society, i.e. the emergence of sociology as a science was socially conditioned.
Founders of Sociology
The development of sociology as a science can be viewed in two ways: in broad and in the narrow sense. In the first case, the entire historical path traversed by social thought is considered, starting from its origins in the form of the first ideas about man, society and its structure, which found expression in primitive mythology, to the latest sociological theories of Western and Russian sociologists. In the second, more rigorous case, a specific time period is considered, starting from mid-19th century (O. Comte), when, on the basis of the data accumulated by philosophy and other sciences, an independent science is formed - sociology, which has its own subject, its own specific tasks and methods [see: 137. S.Z].
Therefore, there is no consensus among scientists about where and when exactly sociology originated. If we consider the time of the emergence of sociology, then, for example, a number of scientists attribute the origin of sociology to antiquity. According to other scientists, sociological thought began to take shape only in the works of the great scientists of the Middle Ages. Still others believe that the time of its birth is the 19th century, and according to still others, it is legitimate to talk about sociology as a science only from the 20th century. When determining the place of origin of sociology, some adhere to the point of view that its beginnings took place in the societies of the ancient East (for example, India), others believe that it was originally a European phenomenon [see: 56. P.55].
IN in this case should be considered a legitimate statement Russian specialist in the field of theory and history of sociology by A.B. Goffman, that “the emergence of sociology was the result of the combination of a number of intellectual and social factors that intersected at a certain historical period at a certain point in the world cultural space. This period was the first half of the 19th century, and this point was Western Europe.”
Naturally, when trying to identify a specific person who played the main, decisive role in the emergence of sociology, the opinions of scientists also differ. IN sociological literature there is a very wide range of possible candidates for this role.
Some sociologists already see in the works of Plato, Aristotle and other thinkers of antiquity attempts to create social theories[see: 226, Stb.731-734; 95. P.5: 289. N.ZZ; 160. P.89-94, etc.]. Other researchers find a prototype of sociology in the work of the Arab historian and social philosopher Ibn Khaldun(1332-1406) [see: 289. P. 75; 268. P.7]. The third credit for the creation of sociology is attributed to the founder of the philosophy of history of modern times Gianbattista Vico(1668-1744) [see: 289. P. 121; 268. P.7]. In his main work, “Foundations of a New Science of the General Nature of Nations,” written in 1725, he substantiates the theory of the historical cycle. Many researchers Charles Louis de Montesquieu(1689-1755). French educator, jurist and philosopher, is considered the founder of a new science of society, i.e. sociology, although the very name of the new science - “sociology” - appears somewhat later. As the most prominent Russian sociologist, author of the first (1st ed., 1897) Russian sociology textbook N.I. Kareev wrote: “We... cannot help but admit. that if anyone has the right to the name of sociologist when there was no sociology yet, then this right, of course, belongs to Montesquieu. However, Montesquieu rather only has a presentiment of the future science of society than recognizes its necessity. In any case, he still does not imagine that a new science should rise above the old social sciences, which would have as its subject not individual aspects of social life, but, so to speak, its very general basics» .
A number of scientists consider the French philosopher-educator, mathematician and political figure to be the founder of sociology Jean Antoine Nicolas Condorcet(1743-1794). In his book “Sketch of the Historical Picture of the Progress of Human Reason” (1794), he developed the concept of historical progress, which was based on reason. On this occasion, K.M. Takhtarev wrote the following: “Anyone who would like to find out the very roots of sociology must look for them in political science, and in history, and in statistics, and in political economy, and in the works of political thinkers, and historians, and statisticians, and economists of earlier times. It is not for nothing that Condorcet, recognized as the founder of modern sociology, whom Auguste Comte himself considered his spiritual father, combined these main directions of social thought, was to a certain extent a historian, a politician, and an economist, and most decisively insisted on the possibility of applying mathematics to decisions tasks of social science".
P.A. Sorokin, briefly reviewing the history of sociology as a science, in his “Public Sociology Textbook”, published in 1920 in Yaroslavl, wrote that “formally it dates back to the time Auguste Comte. He was the first to propose the name sociology for our science, clearly and definitely indicated its place among other sciences and outlined its system. However, elements and individual questions of this discipline were posed and solved by a number of thinkers long before Comte. The social life of people has long attracted the attention of the latter. It was developed and studied from various points of view by thinkers of the East, philosophers of ancient Greece, jurists of the Roman Empire, medieval theologians and philosophers, Arab scientists, historians of ancient and modern times, and moralists, in short, many thinkers who developed in their works certain issues of social life. Of the many of these names, the names of Plato, Aristotle, Titus Lucretius Carus, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the Arab scientist Ibn Khaldun, the names of Machiavelli and Guicciardini, Bodin and Vico, Montesquieu and Turgot, Rousseau and Condorcet, Malthus and Ad. Smith, should be noted. Herder and Saint-Simon. The works of them and a number of other writers prepared the ground for the emergence of sociology as an independent science.” Immediately after O. Comte, according to P. A. Sorokin, the greatest contribution to the development of sociology was made by G. Spencer, A. Quetelet, J. S. Mill, G. T. Buckle and a number of other scientists [see: 238. P. 185].
M.M. Kovalevsky, also considering O. Comte the founder of sociology [see: 1 19, T.2. P.7; 120. P. 159, etc.], draws attention to the great importance Herbert Spencer(1820-1903) in the development of sociology. On this occasion, in his work “Sociology” (1910) he writes: “When the time comes for the 19th century to make a final assessment of all the progress it has made for the history of progress, Herbert will be recognized as one of its spiritual leaders, along with Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte Spencer". He believes that the figure of G. Spencer deserves the same careful study as central figure history of sociology - O. Comte. M.M. Kovalevsky sees in G. Spencer “a thinker who in the second half of the 19th century gave the most solid and versatile formulation of the main issues of the abstract science of society.” P.A. Sorokin also recalled how highly M.M. Kovalevsky valued G. Spencer in his article “M.M. Kovalevsky and his Western Friends,” published on April 30, 1916 in the “Birzhevaya Vedomosti”. Thus, when discussing the work plan for a sociological seminar in the same year, M.M. Kovalevsky told him the following: “Take the subject of your studies to Comte and Spencer, these two pillars of sociology. If students know them well enough, they will know the main thing. Most sociologists are still engaged only in repeating what they said” [cit. from: 237. P.271]. M.M. Kovalevsky knew G. Spencer personally, but due to the fact that the latter led a rather secluded lifestyle, the acquaintance was limited to just a few meetings.
Our contemporary, one of the leading experts in the field of world history and national sociology V.P. Kultygin also believes that it is necessary to single out two founders of sociology - O. Comte and G. Spencer. When considering O. Comte’s contribution to the creation of sociological science, he writes: “The thinkers who first substantiated the need to isolate social knowledge into an independent scientific discipline, who defined the subjects of the new science and formulated specific, unique methods, were the Frenchman Auguste Comte and the Englishman Herbert Spencer. Their work already fully reflected the pluralism in approaches and the multifaceted nature of the new emerging science. Thus, if Comte was a consistent supporter of the position according to which only society as a whole and its individual social institutions are a full-fledged subject social relations Since the individual is always only a cast, a result, a product of the influences of society, then Spencer was a passionate advocate of the well-known principle of laissez, from which it follows that only the individual is the main subject of all social relations, while society is a secondary formation and unconditionally subordinate to the interests of individual individuals.”
The prominent French sociologist of our century, R. Aron, in his work “The Main Stages of the Development of Sociological Thought” (Moscow, 1992) counts the following seven scientists among the “founders” of sociology - S.L. Montesquieu, O. Comte, K. Marx, A. de Tocqueville, E. Durkheim, V. Poreto, M. Weber. The monograph examines their biographies and works in detail. R. Aron believes that S. L. Montesquieu is “not a harbinger of sociology, but one of the founders of sociological doctrine.” Regarding Aristotle, he writes: “Montesquieu rather than Aristotle deserves to be represented in this book as the founder of sociology. But if scientific intent considered more important than social vision, then Aristotle would probably have the same rights as Montesquieu or even Comte." In the gallery of portraits of sociologists presented in the work, unfortunately, G. Spencer is missing. But R. Aron explains this not by diminishing the importance of G. Spencer, but by poor knowledge of the originals of his main works and emphasizes: “I readily admit that he has a prominent place.”
As can be seen from the above, in the sociology of the 19th century. Scientists distinguish two major figures - O. Comte and G. Spencer, who played the greatest role in the development of sociology in that period of time. At the same time, O. Comte is called the first founder or “father” of sociology, and G. Spencer is the second founder of sociology. Some researchers see in the sociology of G. Spencer a continuation of the evolutionary approach of O. Comte. But G. Spencer denied the influence of O. Comte’s ideas on his concept and even specifically in 1866 wrote an article on this subject “On the reasons for my disagreement with O. Comte” [see. more details: 2651.
Only in 1852, thanks to the writer George Elliot and with her help, G. Spencer began to become acquainted with the ideas of O. Comte, starting, as he put it, reading the introductory part to the “Course of Positive Philosophy.” At the end of the reading, he, firstly, doubted the possibility of the law of three stages, and secondly, rejected the proposed classification of sciences [see: 119, Vol.1. P.220]. Later, G. Spencer wrote: “Comte influenced me far from like a teacher influencing a student. I am indebted to him for the fact that his opposing views have taught me much about my own. Having rejected his teaching on the development of sciences, I was thereby led to the idea of expressing my personal views on this subject...” [cit. from: 119, T.1. P.221].
Repeatedly proving the originality of his philosophical teaching, he wrote the following: “What is the goal proclaimed by Comte? Give a comprehensive account of the progress of human concepts. What is my goal? Give a comprehensive description outside world. Comte suggests describing what is necessary and real origin ideas. I propose to describe the necessary and real origin of things. Comte advocates an explanation of the genesis of our knowledge of nature. My task is to explain... the genesis of the phenomena that make up nature. One is subjective. The other is “objective” [cit. from: 121. P.45]. M.M. Kovalevsky, despite G. Spencer’s denial of the influence exerted on him by the ideas of O. Comte, wrote that this influence was still “very significant.”
G. Spencer began his scientific activity in the second half of the 19th century. (Social statics. L., 1851), i.e. later by O. Comte, which was largely due to purely objective reasons. At the time when O. Comte’s first small brochure “Prospectus of Scientific Works Necessary for the Reorganization of Society” (1822) was published, as N.I. Kareev noted, “the thinkers who were subsequently destined to have the most strong influence on modern sociology, they were still small children, Darwin was 13 years old, Marx - 4 years old, Spencer - 2."
A contemporary of O. Comte was A. Quetelet (O. Comte was born in 1898, and A. Quetelet in 1896), who also did a lot for the development of a new science of society. N.M. Reichesberg, in a biographical sketch dedicated to the life and scientific work of A. Quetelet, wrote: “Comte and Quetelet are two golden names, listed in golden letters on the pages of the history of social science! The first brought this science to life, while the second created the possibility of its further existence and development. It’s hard to say whose merit is greater; The only certainty is that on the path that Comte outlined, Vital energy this young science would soon be exhausted." K.M. Takhtarev also believed that, in fairness, one should pay tribute to the creativity of A. Quetelet. He wrote that A. Quetelet, like O. Comte and G. Spencer, are the founders modern sociology[see: 268. P.8].
But, unfortunately, in the existing literature, scientists consider the contribution of A. Quetelet mainly only to the development of statistics; according to many scientists, he is the father of modern statistics [see: 95. P.6; 83. P.66]. Undeservedly little attention has been paid to his sociological views. It can be considered that it was these two scientists of the 19th century. - O. Comte and A. Quettelet (G. Spencer, as noted
above, began his scientific activity later than them), played a decisive role in the process of the emergence of a new science of society - sociology.
They were the first (not counting A. Saint-Simon) to talk about the need to create a new science - the science of society, which would study the laws inherent in society, and whose main goal was to improve the well-being of the people. A. Quetelet writes about this in his two-volume work “Social Physics, or Experience in Research on the Development of Human Abilities” (1835), and O. Comte in the six-volume “Course of Positive Philosophy” (1830-1842). O. Comte in the preface to the first volume of the “Course” (1930), in order to leave the branch of primacy for himself, writes that “some of my main ideas presented in this course were already expressed by me in the first part of the essay, entitled: Affirmative action system printed in May 1822 in 100 copies and reprinted in April 1825 in a larger number of copies. This first part was not published at all as usual, but only reported in the press a large number European scientists and philosophers. I considered it necessary to establish here that my first work was actually released into circulation, since in various works, published later, set forth, without any mention of my research, some ideas that present a significant analogy with mine, especially regarding the renewal of social theories. Although, as the history of the human spirit has more than once revealed, persons engaged in the same branch of knowledge can come, even without any communication with each other, to similar views, I still had to definitely point out the earlier appearance of my little-known in society work, so that no one would think that I extracted the foundations of my ideas from works that actually came out after my work.”
The majority of scientists agree that O. Comte should be considered the founder and “father” of sociology. This point of view is largely due to the fact that it was he who created the name for the new science, coining the new word “sociology”. In addition, M.M. Kovalevsky, reviewing contemporary sociological schools, repeatedly pointed out that “the questions raised today and the solutions proposed today, in embryo or already in a more or less developed form, can be found in Comte.” In particular, for example, one can note O. Comte's anticipation of the later ideas of E. Durkheim and T. Parsons [see: 187. P.41].
It should be noted that O. Comte himself, in the fourth volume of his “Course”, begins a detailed consideration of the significance of the contribution of various thinkers to the formation of social science with Aristotle, and he also considered F. Bacon, J.B. Bossuet, his direct inspirers and predecessors. A. Smith, A. F. Turgot, S. L. Montesquieu, J. A. Condorcet. At the same time, he gratefully called J.A. Condorcet his philosophical predecessor [see: 26. P.341]. “Since the time of Montesquieu,” wrote O. Comte in the fourth volume of his main work, “the only important step that the basic concept of sociology has made so far is due to the brilliant and unfortunate Condorcet” [cit. from: 270. P.100].
Auguste Comte ( full name- Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte) was born on January 19, 1798 in the French city of Montpellier in the family of a financial official. He failed to receive a systematic education. After graduating from the lyceum school in his hometown in 1814, he entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, where he diligently studied mathematics and other exact sciences, and also reads works on philosophical, economic and social problems. But already in 1816, after one of the conflicts that arose between students and authorities, in which O. Comte took a very active part, the school was temporarily closed, and O. Comte was sent to his hometown under police supervision. His anti-clerical and republican views were the reason that after the opening of the school he was never reinstated there. He lives in Montpellier for several months, and during this time he manages to take a number of courses in medicine and physiology at the local university. After this, he returned to Paris again, for some time he gave private lessons in mathematics, and from August 1817 to 1824. becomes personal secretary to the famous French utopian thinker Claude Henri de Rouvroy Saint-Simon (1760-1825).
In fairness, it should be noted that it was A. Saint-Simon who first raised the question of the need to create a new science of society, combining a theoretical approach to the knowledge of social phenomena with strict methods of natural science. This idea was substantiated by him in the work “Essay on the Science of Man,” written back in 1813, but published only in January 1859. “The task that I set myself in this essay,” wrote A. Saint-Simon, “was to elevating the science of man to the level of sciences based on observation”, since with “fortune-telling ideas” it would be impossible to “establish a number of successive moments in the development of the successes of the human mind.” In this work he already spoke as positive. experimental sciences and positive philosophy. In his opinion, " general science, I.e. philosophy was supposed to be fortune-telling while the private sciences were also fortune-telling: it became half fortune-telling and positive when some of the private sciences became positive, while others remained still fortune-telling; it will become completely positive when all special sciences become so. This will be when physiology and psychology are based on observed and researched facts...” Therefore, A. Saint-Simon considered it necessary to “give the science of man a positive character, basing it on observations and developing it using a method used in other branches of physics.” In “Letters of a Genevan Philistine,” written back in 1802, and published anonymously in 1803, A. Saint-Simon expresses the idea that the sciences form a series in which they are located depending on the degree of complexity of the objects being studied [see: 282. P.553; 221].
In 1822, O. Comte, under the influence of A. Saint-Simon, wrote his philosophical treatise “Plan of scientific work necessary for the reorganization of society,” in which the new science of society was called “social physics.” The main meaning of “social physics” as a “positive” method of cognition was the discovery of objective laws of social development, which are as important and necessary as the “laws of gravity.”
Justifying the need for the creation of social physics, O. Comte writes: “Now that the human spirit has created celestial physics, earthly physics, mechanical and chemical, as well as organic, plant and animal physics, it remains only for him to complete the system of observational sciences with the creation of social physics.”
According to O. Comte, “social physics”, or sociology, consisted of social statics and social dynamics. Under social statics he understood the relationship between social institutions. Society, in his opinion, was like a living organism, in which all parts were harmoniously coordinated with each other. Just as it is impossible to study the functioning of any organ in isolation from an entire living organism, it is also impossible to study politics and the state outside the framework of the entire society in a specific period of time. Thus, social statics represents both an anatomical analysis of the structure of society in a certain, specific period, and an analysis of the element or elements that determine consensus, that is, transform a set of individuals or families into a collective capable of organizing unity from a variety of existing institutions.
Under social dynamics O. Comte meant processes of social change. From the very beginning it served as a simple description of the stages that societies successively passed through. Dynamics was subordinated to statics, but despite this, O. Comte considered it the most essential for the study of society, since it promotes reforms and with its help it is possible to study the natural changes that occur after reorganization or collapse social structures. Unlike history, which studies facts and observes the continuity of various institutions, social dynamics aimed at studying the successive and necessary stages in the formation of the human mind and societies.
The disagreements that arose between O. Comte and A. Saint-Simon on basic theoretical and political issues [see: 187. P.26], last point The publication in 1824 by A. Saint-Simon in the “Catechism of Industrialists” of the work of O. Comte without indicating the author led to a gap between these great scientists [see: 14. P. 131]. After this, O. Comte never again had a job with a regular income. From 1832 to 1851 he worked as a tutor in analysis and mechanics at the Ecole Polytechnique from 1836 to 1844. - an examiner at the same school. From 1831 to 1847-1848 he taught a free course in popular astronomy at the city hall of the Third arrondissement of Paris. O. Comte lived mainly due to the help provided since 1845 by J. St. Mill and several English rich people, and since 1848 by E. Littre and a small number (about a hundred) of his followers and admirers [see: 14. pp.131-132; 26. P.321-322].
It should be noted that O. Comte’s character was quite complex. “In Comte’s address,” as one of his students recalled, “the oddities of his character were visible. Considering himself infallible, he did not allow any objections and sometimes said such ridiculous things that everyone involuntarily began to smile... The most outstanding character trait of Comte was vanity. He imagined himself to be the first scientist in the world and reckoned only with Littre. His absurdities and evil antics little by little alienated all his students from him, and he lived alone. Subsequently, he quarreled with his wife and with Littre, despite the fact that without him he would have died of hunger, after his chair at the Polytechnic School was taken away from him."
His personal life was also unsuccessful. Interest in the personal life of O. Comte is due to the fact that it had a strong influence on his philosophical work. After he left his hometown, his parents did not provide him with any financial support. Due to the fact that he was prohibited from teaching in educational institutions, after the break with A. Saint-Simon, he had to survive only through private lessons in mathematics. The situation worsened even more after his marriage in 1825, since the bride was also poor, she had little money just for “establishment” (in 1843, after her repeated “leaving” from him, he broke up with her completely) . In addition to this, the number of people willing to take lessons from him at this time dropped to one person. Therefore, he gladly seized upon the idea, given to him by one of his friends, of arranging public lectures on philosophy, the course of which he had been working on for a long time. In this way, firstly, he improved his financial situation, and secondly, he could openly declare himself as the creator of a new philosophy, the dissemination of which he had already begun [see: 325. pp. 22-23].
In March 1826, he advertised the reading of his course. The course consisted of 72 lectures. According to the program, he intended to devote the first two lectures, a kind of introduction, to setting out the purpose and plan of the course. The next 16 lectures were on mathematics, then 30 lectures were on the sciences dealing with inorganic bodies (astronomy, physics and chemistry), and the last 20 lectures were on the sciences studying organic bodies (physiology and what he at that time called social physics) [see .: 325. P.23; 26. P.312]. This plan, with minor changes, was subsequently retained by him when writing the “Course of Positive Philosophy.”
In April 1826, O. Comte began giving paid public lectures on the course of philosophy. The fact that he could only count on a small audience in advance is evidenced by the fact that he planned to give lectures at his home. Tickets were mainly distributed among acquaintances or acquaintances. But among these few there were many chosen ones [see: 325. P. 23]. According to the memoirs of O. Comte [see: 131. P.1], among the first listeners who honored his lectures with flattering reviews were first-class scientists, members of the Academy of Sciences: the German naturalist, geographer and traveler Alexander Humboldt, the French zoologist, anatomist Henri Blainville and French mathematician Louis Poinsot. But, unfortunately, at the third lecture, due to severe mental illness, in the same year the course of lectures was disrupted [see: 325. P.24; 26. P.313]. And only on January 4, 1829, the course was repeated. Lectures were again given at home in front of a small, but rather select audience. The students of this course were the secretary of the Academy of Sciences - the famous French mathematician and physicist Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier, members of this Academy - Henri Blainville, Louis Poinsot, Henri Navier, professors - Brousset, Esquiral, Binet and others [see: 131. P.1 ;325. P.25]. Positive reviews of the course he taught confirmed O. Comte’s confidence that “this course can usefully become more widely known,” and on December 9, 1829, he began to give his lectures at the Royal Athenée in Paris according to the same plan, but in an abbreviated version.
Apparently, Russians were also present at these lectures; this is confirmed by the memoirs of M.M. Kovalevsky in his article “From the history of our communication with Western philosophy” (1915), where he recalled that “there were few years in “Russian Thought” ago, I had to read a letter from a certain, if I’m not mistaken, Salov, who spoke about the impression that Comte made on him with his lectures at Quiet du Toitop, lectures given in a rather modest audience and attracting only a few dozen people , among them two or three outstanding scientists, for example. Blainville" [see: 120. P. 160].
In 1830, the first volume of the six-volume “Cours de philosophie positive” was published, the next five volumes were published successively in 1835, 1838, 1839, 1841 and 1842, which were based on the 72 lectures created by O. Comte [see: 14; With. 131; 325. P.23]. O. Comte outlined his understanding of the new science called sociology in three latest volumes“Course of Positive Philosophy” and especially in the fourth volume (1839), in which, in the 47th lecture, he uses the word “sociology” for the first time. In the Russian translation, this work was called “Course of Positive Philosophy.”
He devoted his next fundamental four-volume work, “The System of Positive Politics, or a Sociological Treatise on the Foundations of the Religion of Humanity” (Systeme de politique positive) (volumes published in 1851, 1852, 1853 and 1854), to the foundations of politics and religion of the future. Also during O. Comte’s lifetime the following were published: “Philosophical Treatise on Popular Astronomy” (1844), “Discourse on the Spirit of Positive Philosophy” (1844), “Discourse on Positivism in General” (1848-1851), “Catechism of Positivism, or Summary exposition of the universal religion" (Catechisme positivi) (1852), "Appeal to Conservatives" (1855) and "Subjective Synthesis, or the Universal System of Concepts characteristic of the normal state of humanity" (Synthese subjective) (1856) and after death - "Testament of Auguste Comte "in four volumes. Despite the publication of fundamental multi-volume works, O. Comte was not at one time fully recognized by the academic circles of France [see: 26. P. 320]. In addition, he had many enemies in the scientific world. Repeated requests for the creation of a department are unsuccessful [see: 14. P.131-132; 325. P.26-28, etc.].
It is interesting that his guiding principle was the principle of “brain hygiene” (“mental hygiene”) - abstaining from any reading, including completely ignoring all scientific publications, in order not to clog the mind with unnecessary meaningless information. The exception was several books by his favorite writers, mainly ancient poets, available in his personal library. E.K. Watson, in his essay “Auguste Comte and Positive Philosophy,” in which a historical-critical analysis of O. Comte’s worldview was given, wrote that the latter later even “boasted in a letter to Miss Martineau that since 1838 (at this time he was already 40 years old. - S.N.) he did not read a single newspaper or a single magazine, not even excluding scientific journals, and that he limited all his reading to his few favorite poets. He found that sixteen years of application of this cerebral hygiene brought him the greatest benefit."
V.I. Yakovenko tells in detail about how O. Comte created his works: “Thanks to his enormous memory, Comte retained in his head not only the mass of facts he needed, but also the entire consistent course of development of his thoughts. When starting work, he first thought about it for a long time, fully figuring out the plan and main ideas, thinking about all the details down to the smallest and the presentation itself. So, before writing, his intended work was already completely finished and finished in his head. And all this was done without any sketches, notes, notes. Then he told himself that the book was actually ready, all that remained was to write it, and he began this purely external operation for him. Taking up the pen, he left it only after writing the last word, only after putting on paper everything that was in his head. He turned into a writing machine, wrote almost without blots and immediately sent it to the printing house, keeping up with the typesetters' work. He also made almost no corrections in the proofs and read only one proof. Let the reader not think that we are talking about any minor articles. No, this is how the six-volume “Course of Positive Philosophy” was written and printed, which probably explains the repetition, length and sometimes heaviness of the syllable found in it. Comte could easily have avoided all this if he had re-read what he wrote several times or at least made corrections in the proofs.”
O. Comte believed that with the help of science it is possible to understand the hidden laws that govern all societies. He called the new young science, in his opinion, “social science”, “social philosophy”, “social physiology” and most often “social physics”. He used the term “social physics” until 1839. Having learned that a certain Belgian statistician A. Quetelet also uses this terminology, while in his work “Social physics and the experience of research on the development of human abilities,” published in 1835, he summarizes “ social physics" only to the statistical study of social life, O. Comte comes up with a completely new word "sociology", however, using a barbaric method for this (for which he was criticized by many scientists), combining two words from two different languages: Latin cosietas - society and Greek logos - word, concept, doctrine. Thus, etymologically, sociology is the science of society. O. Comte, unlike A. Quetelet, believed that the new science of society should not be descriptive, but theoretical, i.e. it should become an additional part of natural philosophy and study the fundamental laws that are inherent social phenomena. In 1839, O. Comte, in the fourth volume of his most important work “Cours de philosophie positive,” first used the term “sociology” and put forward the task of studying society on a scientific basis. In the 47th lecture on page 245, having used the term “sociology” for the first time, in a note he justifies the introduction of a new term as follows: “It seems to me that I should risk using here this new term, which is quite equivalent to the name I have already introduced "social physics" in order to be able to designate in one word this final part of natural philosophy, which relates to the positive study of the fundamental laws inherent in social phenomena. The need for such a title, which corresponds to the special purpose of this volume, will, I hope, justify this last exercise of legal right, to which I have always resorted with all possible caution, without ceasing to experience a deep dislike for the custom of systematic neologisms" [cit. from: 289. P. 204]. But, despite the introduction of a new term to denote a new science, O. Comte continued to use old terms equally with him.
It should be noted that although the idea of “social physics” arose in the 17th century, and in the first quarter of the 19th century. it was especially promoted by A. Saint-Simon, but before O. Comte no one managed to develop this idea so completely, substantiated and systematically. It should be noted that “social physics”, or sociology, does not reduce social phenomena to physical ones. According to O. Comte, the science of society should borrow from physics and other natural sciences their visual, convincing character, verifiability, objectivity, and universal acceptance.
To illustrate some of the teachings of O. Comte, we present an excerpt from his first lecture in the “Course of Positive Philosophy”. He reasoned as follows: “To better explain true nature And special character positive philosophy, it is necessary first of all to give up general view on the consistent movement of the human spirit, considering it in its entirety, since no idea can be well understood without acquaintance with its history.
By studying in this way the entire course of development of the human mind in various fields of its activity, from the first simplest manifestation to the present day, I, it seems to me, have discovered the main fundamental law to which this development is unconditionally subject and which can be firmly established either through rational evidence provided by familiarity with our body, or with the help of historical data, extracted from a careful study of the past. This law is that each of our main ideas, each of the branches of our knowledge passes through three different theoretical states: theological or fictitious state; metaphysical or abstract state; scientific or positive state. In other words, the human spirit, by its very nature, in each of its studies uses successively three methods of thinking, essentially different in nature and even directly opposed to each other: first the theological method, then the metaphysical and, finally, the positive method. From here arise three mutually exclusive types of philosophy, or three general systems of views on the totality of phenomena: the first is the necessary starting point of the human mind; the third is his definite and final state; the second serves only as a transitional step.
In the theological state the human spirit, directing its investigations chiefly towards inner nature things, the first and final causes of the phenomena that give rise to it, striving, in a word, for absolute knowledge, imagines that phenomena are produced by the direct and constant influence of more or less numerous supernatural factors, the arbitrary intervention of which explains all the apparent anomalies of the world.
In the metaphysical state, which in fact represents only a general modification of the theological, supernatural factors are replaced by abstract forces, real entities (personified abstractions), inextricably linked with various things and capable of themselves producing all observable phenomena, the explanation of which in this case consists only in finding the corresponding entity.
Finally, in a positive state, the human spirit recognizes the impossibility of achieving absolute knowledge, refuses to study the origin and purpose of the existing world and from knowledge internal reasons phenomena and strives, correctly combining reasoning and observation, to understand the actual laws of phenomena, i.e. their unchanging relations of consistency and similarity. The explanation of phenomena, brought to its actual limits, is now only the establishment of connections between various individual phenomena and several general facts, the number of which decreases more and more as science progresses" (131. P. 3-4]. Putting forward his "law of three stages,” he relies on the idea already expressed by J. Vico and A. Turgot about three stages in the history of mental development that the human spirit goes through. But, unlike them, O. Comte emphasizes that. nature is the only source of all phenomena (see: 131. P.4]. The formation of O. Comte’s views, as already emphasized above, was greatly influenced by the ideas about the natural development of human society by S. L. Montesquieu and J. A. Con -dorse.
O. Comte explained the need to create a new science as follows: “At present, each of the sciences has developed so much that the study of their mutual relations can provide material for a whole series of studies, and at the same time a new science becomes necessary in order to prevent the fragmentation of human concepts ".
The word positive, translated into Russian as positive, is used by O. Comte to designate a “new general philosophy.” The essence of the word is positive. as O. Comte notes in his work “The Spirit of Positive Philosophy” (M.. 1910), is as follows:
First, “the word positive means real as opposed to chimerical”, i.e. new thinking is devoted to research accessible to our minds, it excludes impenetrable secrets;
Secondly, it “points out the contrast between useful and unfit”, i.e. all speculation should be aimed at “continuously improving the conditions of our actual individual or collective existence, instead of vainly satisfying fruitless curiosity”;
Thirdly, it “is used to define the opposition between reliable and doubtful" ;
Fourthly, “consists in opposition accurate vague";
Fifthly, “used as the opposite negative". The purpose of the new philosophy is primarily to organize rather than destroy.
The first four features characteristic of the new philosophy distinguish it from all previous forms characteristic of the original philosophy: theological and metaphysical. The fifth indicates its difference from the previously dominant metaphysical spirit, which could only be critical.
“The main characteristic feature of positive philosophy,” writes O. Comte, “is the recognition of all phenomena as subordinate to unchanging natural laws the discovery and reduction of their number to a minimum is the goal of all our efforts, although we recognize the search for the first or last as absolutely inaccessible and pointless reasons... We do not pretend to indicate root causes phenomena, since in this way we would only push the difficulty back; we limit ourselves to an accurate analysis of the circumstances of the occurrence of phenomena and connect them with each other by natural relations of consistency and similarity” Ts31. P.8).
In the thought expressed by O. Comte that “if, on the one hand, any positive theory must necessarily be based on observation, then, on the other hand, in order to begin observations, our mind already needs some kind of theory” C31. P.6], the division of sociology into theoretical and empirical, as well as into mutual connection and conditionality of one from the other. He believes that “all our knowledge should be based on the observation that we must move now from facts to principles, now from principles to facts.”
O. Comte developed a classification of sciences. The “hierarchy of basic sciences” is as follows: mathematics - astronomy - physics - chemistry - biology - sociology. Moreover, each science of a higher order implies the previous one as its necessary prerequisite. To practice sociology, you need a good knowledge of all the sciences that precede it. Biology, according to O. Comte, is the science closest to sociology. Because there was no place for psychology in this classification, he was subsequently subjected to numerous attacks from scientists. The creation of a classification of sciences was due to the need to determine the place of sociology in the system of sciences. Having determined the place of sociology in the system of existing sciences, O. Comte thereby laid the foundation for the future academic institutionalization of sociology as a separate science.
Related information.
First of all, it is necessary to say about the “great revolutions” of the 18th-19th centuries in Europe - the industrial revolution and the Great French Revolution of 1789-1794, which acted as a kind of catalyst for the emergence of a new science - the science of society. Both of these events became the essence and origins of the economic and political transformations of the entire era. Thanks to them, the forms of social organization familiar over the previous millennia largely ceased to exist. These revolutions marked the beginning of the era of capitalism in Western Europe.
The Industrial Revolution (industrial revolution) is the most important event in the economic life of capitalist societies of that time. It was based on achievements in the natural sciences and introduced new machines and technologies.
The sharp increase in population caused a breakdown and a collision of the traditional ways of life of the indigenous and newly arrived populations. This led to an aggravation of class and ethnic contradictions, and also additionally created a host of other problems. Therefore, American sociology in the first decades of the 20th century. developed as a sociology of urban problems. The development of production gave impetus to the study of social issues. Using natural resources, thus expanding the sphere of production, people were faced with the limitations of these resources, as a result of which the only way to increase productivity was the rational use of labor, or, in other words, people employed in the production of material goods.
The increasing complexity of all spheres of people’s life has raised problems of implementing interactions between them, managing these interactions and creating social order in society. When these problems were realized and posed, the prerequisites arose for the formation and development of a science that studies associations of people, their behavior in these associations, as well as interactions between people and the results of such interactions.
The formation of the working class and the growing crisis of social relations played a very important role in the emergence of sociology.
3.The purpose and objectives of social work.
Its two main goals are formulated:
1. Promote the integration of the social whole.
2. Promote people's adaptation in a changing world.
The goals of social work are specified in the following tasks:
1. Maximize the development of individual abilities and moral-volitional qualities of clients, encouraging them to take independent action and take personal responsibility for everything that happens in their lives.
In Russia, where one of the archetypes of the people’s consciousness is the mythological image of the “tsar-father,” the intercessor and deliverer from all personal grievances and suffering, it is especially important to form the idea that only their own can lead to full-fledged and long-term positive changes in the lives of clients personal efforts, the desire to work, to increase one’s life potential. Many European countries and the United States have long understood how dangerous it is to create a layer of professional unemployed in the country, living for years on benefits and terrorizing the government and population with demands to preserve morally and materially outdated, unprofitable enterprises and even entire sectors of the economy. Therefore for social workers The most important thing today is to become unnecessary for your customers as quickly as possible.
2. Promote mutual understanding between the client and social environment in which he exists.
Emphasis on self-help and self-development of the client; should not obscure the importance of attracting such natural sources assistance, such as close and distant relatives, the use of friendly and neighborly connections, the involvement of colleagues and participants in those informal organizations (veteran, church, amateur, etc.) of which this client is or may be a member.
3. Develop the basic provisions and principles of social policy, achieve their legislative adoption and executive implementation at all levels.
In the 19th century Charity was considered a sufficient source of satisfying the needs of those in need. The understanding of the falsity of this position caused at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. the emergence of social work as a professional activity. For a long time, social workers shunned politics, sacrificing the effectiveness of actions for the sake of imaginary objectivity, until, finally, at the end of the 20th century. The idea of social policy as a macro practice of social work. To effectively solve pressing problems, social workers must participate in specific political activities, solving problems of legislative support for human rights and social reform of society.
4. Carry out work to prevent socially undesirable phenomena. Promoting a healthy lifestyle, physical education, a nutritious balanced diet, organizing medical examinations and vaccinations of the population contribute to maintaining a healthy nation and maintaining an optimal standard of living. Prevention also means identifying and eliminating the social and economic causes of certain diseases (for example, tuberculosis), paying attention to the problems of the natural and social environment, and improving the quality of life.
5. Organize scientific research, conferences and seminars on social work issues, publish scientific and methodological literature for practitioners and students.
6. Contribute to the dissemination of information about the rights and benefits of certain categories of citizens, the responsibilities and capabilities of social services, and provide consultations on legal and legal aspects of social policy.
Objects and subjects of social work
In this case, the object is perceived as a certain type of practical social activity, and the subject is either the side(s) of this object (the social situation of the client - an individual, family, community, group), or (most often) the laws of social work.
The object of social work in its broad interpretation is all people.
The subjects of social work are:
first of all, organizations, institutions, social institutions of society:
* a state with its own structures in the form of legislative, executive and judicial authorities at various levels;
* various social services: territorial centers for social assistance to families and children, etc.
