1.3. PARADOXES OF TECHNICAL PROGRESS Continuing the conversation about car safety, I note that progress in the field car safety and in the automotive industry in general, the impact on safety is ambiguous. Statistics show that modern cars

If the concept of “social change” captures the fact of change in the social sphere of society, regardless of its direction, then “social development” not only captures the very fact of social change, but also contains a certain assessment of the change (improvement, improvement, complication).

Typically, social development as a real process is characterized by three interrelated features - irreversibility, direction and regularity.

Irreversibility means the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes. Direction – the line or lines along which accumulation occurs. Regularity is a process of accumulation, not random, but conditioned.

The result of social development is a new quantitative and qualitative state of a social object, which can be expressed in an increase (or decrease) in the level of its organization, a change in its place in social evolution.

The sociological literature also discusses the issue of social progress. The presence of extreme positions and heated discussions, disputes around the applicability of the concept of “social progress” to social changes are largely due to the fact that this concept itself carries a value meaning, an evaluative statement. Let's define the concept " social progress"Usually, social progress is usually understood as the improvement of the social structure of society and the cultural life of a person. It presupposes such an orientation of social and all social development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher forms, from less perfect to more perfect.

But it is much more important and difficult not to fall into the euphoria of such an understanding. The fact is that it is extremely difficult to translate such a general theoretical understanding of social progress into the language of sociology, which deals with specific social phenomena.

When considering this issue, it seems necessary first of all to highlight certain areas social life, regarding which we can directly say that the concept of “social progress” is inapplicable, although they are subject to significant evolution: the field of art as a social institution, religion, fundamental philosophical systems. At the same time, it is extremely important to highlight such areas of society’s life as social institutions, the historical development of which can clearly be qualified as progress: science, technology, technology.

Sociology must see all the diversity of types of social development. Progress is not the only type of development. There is another one - social regression, which in its direction is opposite to progress. This is development from higher to lower, from complex to simple, degradation, lowering the level of organization, weakening and attenuation of functions, stagnation. Along with these types of development, there are also so-called dead-end lines of development, leading to the death of certain sociocultural forms, structures, and civilizations. This served as the basis for the emergence of theories of the “historical cycle”, “vicious circle” (N. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee).

That is, it can be stated that many social change are very contradictory.

On the issue of criteria for social progress, it can be said that long discussions are ongoing between representatives of different sociological schools and directions. The most preferable positions are those of authors who strive to give the criteria of social progress a humanistic meaning. The point is that it is not enough to talk about social changes, including social development, only as objectively occurring progress, “processes in themselves.” No less important are their other aspects – their appeal to individuals, groups, and society as a whole.

A number of sociologists propose the following as criteria for social progress:

Complication of the social organization of society (G. Spencer);

Changes in the system of social connections and the type of regulation of social relations (E.Tennis);

Changes in the nature of production and consumption (W. Rostow, D. Bell);

The degree of mastery of society, the spontaneous forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, and the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the spontaneous forces of social development (K. Marx).

In general, in any society, in order to assess social changes, social development, and qualify them as progress or regression, a system of social indicators is developed, which serves as the basis that determines the “background” of the development of social relations.

Along with the concepts “social change”, “social development”, “social progress” discussed above, sociology considers the concept “ social movement”, aimed at changing personality and changing social structures.

A social movement is a non-institutionalized activity of free collective entities aimed at promoting or hindering social change. Main components social movements are: collectivity of actions, agreement regarding the general goals of actions, diffusion of collectivity and low level its organization, the spontaneous nature of its activities.

Taking into account the dependence of their goals, movements are divided into: movements focused on personality changes, striving for religious salvation or its improvement; movements focused on changes in social structure, leading to changes in personality (sociopolitical, sociocultural).

In accordance with another criterion - the vector of change - movements are divided into innovative, abolitionist (for the abolition or prohibition of something) and alternative.

Taking into account the dependence on the strategy of activity, instrumental and expressive movements are distinguished.

American sociologist G. Blumer divides social movements into general, specific and expressive.

General – aimed at transforming social norms and values ​​(women’s, workers’, youth’s). Specific - focused on a very specific goal and therefore more dynamic (reformist and revolutionary). Expressive – not serious-oriented social transformation(religious movements, fashion).

The mechanism of the emergence of social movements is explained by the theory of relative deprivation. One of the possible approaches to the analysis of relative deprivation was developed in the 60s in the study of the English sociologist W. Runciman “Relative deprivation and social justice”. Subjective dissatisfaction is the result of comparing one’s own situation with an exemplary situation. Usually the situation of the reference group is taken as a model.

In development social movement Four stages can be distinguished: formation(emergence of structural stress); mobilization(goals and means of achievement, mobilization of movement members); formalization movement (organization and distribution of roles, emergence of leaders, active supporters, ordinary members, temporary fellow travelers, interactions between them). At this stage, norms are formed that regulate the behavior of participants in the social movement. Final the phase presupposes either the achievement of the movement’s goals, or defeat as a result of disappointment in its participants or suppression by the authorities.

Sociologist W. Gamson suggests possible alternative endings to social movements:

If a movement had a rigid organized structure, formulated specific goals, and successfully mobilized available resources, then such a movement was recognized by the authorities and opponents and achieved its goals (during periods of acute socio-political crises);

If a movement had a formalized organizational structure and acquired a mass character, it was recognized, although its goals were not fully achieved;

If a movement is characterized by a formal organized structure and small numbers, goals may be achieved, but not recognized by other social actors;

If the organization of the movement is weak, small in number, goals are unclear, unpopular, the leader lacks confidence, and official institutions do not support the movement, then it is doomed to failure.

Conclusion

So, in this lecture we presented the system of sociological categories in statics, defining their essence, place in the social system “society”, and then in dynamics, presenting the classification various types changes in social systems Oh; conditions that promote or hinder the development of changes in social systems.

Most modern sociologists oppose the absolutization of any single or dominant factor causing social change. At the same time, it is extremely important to emphasize that the progressive type of change is a directed process in which none of the states of the system is repeated at any other previous stage, and at a later stage it reaches a higher level in any area.

Literature

3. Weber M. Basic sociological concepts / Weber M. Selected works. – M., 1990.

4. Danilevsky N.Ya. Russia and Europe. – M., 1991.

5. Dubovsky S. Forecasting disasters: using the example of N. Kondratiev cycles // Social sciences and modernity. – 1993. – No. 5.

6. Comte O. Spirit positive philosophy. – St. Petersburg, 1910.

8. Kondratyev N.D. Problems of economic dynamics. – M., 1989.

9. Levada Yu.A. Lectures on sociology. At 2 o'clock – M., 1970.

10. Nevirko D.D., Sharypova V.A., Shinkevich V.E. Sociology. Course of lectures. – Krasnoyarsk, – 2001.

11. Osipov G.V. Sociology. – M., 1990.

12. Prigozhin A.I. Sociology of organizations. – M., 1980.

13. Peccei A. Human qualities. – M., 1985.

14. Runciman W. Relative deprivation and social justice. – M., 1962.

15. Sorokin P.A. Human. Civilization. Society. – M., 1992.

16. Spencer G. Basic principles. – St. Petersburg, 1899.

17. Smelzer N. Sociology // Sociological studies. – 1990–1991.

18. Frolov S.S. Sociology. – M., 1997.

Social development of society is usually understood as a change that leads to the emergence of new social relations, institutions, norms and values. Characteristic features of social development are:

• - irreversibility is the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes;
• - directionality - these are the lines along which accumulation occurs;
• - regularity is a necessary process of accumulation of changes.

An important characteristic of social development is the period of time during which it occurs. It is also necessary to take into account that the main features of social development are revealed only after a certain time. The result of social development is a new quantitative and qualitative state of a social object, a change in its structure and organization.

In sociological science, three approaches to considering the processes of social development have been formed:

• 1. The development of society is linearly ascending. It is assumed that society goes through a number of successive stages, and at each of them special methods of accumulating and transmitting knowledge, communication, obtaining livelihoods, as well as different degrees of complexity of the structures of society are used. Proponents of this approach to the development of society include Marxists, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, F. Tönnies, etc.
• 2. The development of society has a cyclical, repeating nature. IN in this case The model describing the development of society and its changes is based on the analogy between society and nature. One example of cyclical processes in the life of societies can be considered the historical cycles that all civilizations go through - from their emergence through flourishing to collapse. Representatives of this approach are N. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, L. Gumilev and others.
• 3. Nonlinear development of society. The real course of events in the world, especially in recent decades, has shown that a nonlinear vision of social change and social development is most consistent with the processes taking place in society. Scientists identify a “point of change” - bifurcation, i.e. such a turning point, after which changes and development in general may go not in the same way, but in a completely different, perhaps even unforeseen direction. Nonlinearity of social development means the existence of an objective possibility of a multivariate course of events.

Thus, the choice of one or another development sequence depends on the social subject. Supporters nonlinear development societies are S.L. Frank, M. Hatcher, D. Collman, etc. By its nature, social development is divided into evolutionary and revolutionary.

The nature of a particular social development depends on the method of social change. Evolution is understood as gradual smooth partial changes in society, which can cover various spheres of society - economic, political, social, spiritual.

Evolutionary changes most often take the form of social reforms, involving various measures to transform certain aspects of social life. Social reforms, as a rule, do not affect the foundations of the social system of society, but only change its parts and structural elements.

It should be remembered that the evolution of each society is always unique, as it is based on the genetic continuity of traditions.

Social revolution refers to relatively rapid, comprehensive, fundamental changes in society. Revolutionary changes are abrupt in nature and represent a transition of society from one qualitative state to another.

A social revolution is always associated with the violent destruction of some social relations and the establishment of others. Most scientists see the social revolution as an anomaly, a deviation from the natural course of history. However, according to a number of Russian sociologists, evolutionary and revolutionary changes are interconnected and represent related aspects of social development and are interconnected.

The relationship between evolutionary and revolutionary forms of social development depends on the specific historical conditions of the state and era.

The process of social development is inextricably linked with the term “social progress”. Social progress is a direction of development characterized by a transition from lower to higher, to more advanced forms, which is expressed in their higher organization, adaptation to the environment, and growth of evolutionary capabilities.

To determine the progressiveness of a particular society, sociology has traditionally used the two most general criteria:

• 1) the level of labor productivity and welfare of the population;
• 2) degree of individual freedom.

However, in modern conditions, these criteria for progress need some clarification. The first criterion generally continues to retain its importance as an indicator reflecting the economic and social spheres of society. The second criterion, according to modern scientists, is losing its relevance. This is confirmed by the latest sociological research, according to which a person ceases to have such an urgent need for freedom, which is replaced by responsibility.

Thus, it can be noted that the second criterion of social progress in modern conditions should be rather the level of development of socio-political means that ensure satisfaction of the needs of members of society for freedom and responsibility.

In addition, there is a need to identify a criterion for social progress that would reflect the spiritual and moral changes of humanity. The level of public morality can be considered such a criterion.

In addition to these criteria, modern social thought has developed a number of other criteria for social progress, including the level of knowledge, the degree of differentiation and integration of society, the nature and level of social solidarity, the growth of productive forces and the liberation of man from the actions of the spontaneous forces of nature and society, etc.

The theory of social evolution defines social change as a transition from one stage of social development to more complex ones. The predecessor of evolutionist theories should be considered the French utopian philosopher A. Saint-Simon. Widespread in the conservative tradition of con. XVIII - beginning XIX centuries he supplemented the idea of ​​​​the life of society as an equilibrium with the provision of the steady consistent advancement of society to higher levels of development. O. Comte connected the processes of development of society, human knowledge and culture. In his opinion, all societies go through three stages: primitive, intermediate and scientific, which correspond to the forms of human knowledge (theological, metaphysical and positive). The evolution of society, according to O. Comte, is the growth of functional specialization of structures and improved adaptation of parts to society as an integral organism. The most prominent representative of evolutionism, G. Spencer, represented evolution as an upward movement, a transition from simple to complex, not having a linear and unidirectional character.

The above evolutionist concepts mainly explained the origin of social changes as endogenous, i.e. internal reasons. The processes occurring in society were explained by analogy with biological organisms.

Another approach - exogenous - is represented by the theory of diffusion, the seepage of cultural patterns from one society to another. The channels and mechanisms of penetration are placed at the center of the analysis here. external influences. These included conquest, trade, migration, colonization, imitation, etc. Any culture inevitably experiences the influence of other cultures, including the cultures of conquered peoples. This reciprocal process of mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is called acculturation in sociology. Thus, the American anthropologist and sociologist Ralph Linton drew attention to the fact that fabric first made in Asia, watches that appeared in Europe, etc. became an integral and familiar part of the life of American society. Immigrants from all over the world have played a vital role in the United States throughout history. One can even talk about strengthening recent years the influence of Hispanic and African-American subcultures on the previously virtually unchanged English-speaking culture of American society.

The second type of social change is revolutionary. A revolution is a rapid, fundamental, socio-economic and political change, usually carried out by force. A revolution is always a revolution from below. It sweeps away the ruling elite, which has proven its inability to govern society, and creates a new political and social structure, new political, economic and social relations. As a result of the revolution, basic changes occur in the social and class structure of society, in the values ​​and behavior of people.

The revolution involves large masses of people in active political activity. Activity, enthusiasm, optimism, hope for a bright future mobilize people for feats of arms, free labor and social creativity. During the period of revolution, mass activity reaches its apogee, and social changes reach unprecedented speed and depth. K. Marx called revolutions “the locomotives of history.” According to K. Marx, revolution is a qualitative leap, the result of the resolution of fundamental contradictions in the basis of the socio-economic formation between backward production relations and productive forces that outgrow their framework. The direct expression of these contradictions is class conflict. In a capitalist society, this is an irreducible antagonistic conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. To fulfill its historical mission, the advanced class (for the capitalist formation, according to Marx, the proletariat, the working class) must realize its oppressed position, develop class consciousness and unite in the struggle against capitalism. The most far-sighted progressive representatives of the obsolete class provide assistance in obtaining the necessary knowledge to the proletariat. The proletariat must be ready to solve the problem of gaining power by force. According to Marxist logic, socialist revolutions should have occurred in the most developed countries, since they were more mature for this.

Follower and student of K. Marx E. Bernstein in late XIX V., based on statistical data on the development of capitalism in industrial countries, doubted the inevitability of revolution in the near future and suggested that the transition to socialism could be relatively peaceful and would take a relatively long historical period. V.I. Lenin modernized the theory of socialist revolution, insisting that it must occur at the weakest link in the capitalist system and serve as the “fuse” for world revolution.

History of the 20th century showed that both Bernstein and Lenin were right in their own way. Socialist revolutions did not occur in economically developed countries; they occurred in problem regions of Asia and Latin America. Sociologists, in particular the French scientist Alain Touraine, believe that the main reason for the lack of revolutions in developed countries is the institutionalization of the main conflict - the conflict between labor and capital. They have legislative regulators of interaction between employers and employees, and the state acts as a social arbiter. In addition, the proletariat of the early capitalist society that K. Marx studied was absolutely powerless and had nothing to lose except its chains. Now the situation has changed: in the leading industrial states democratic procedures in the political sphere are in force and strictly observed, and most The proletariat is the middle class, which has something to lose. Modern followers of Marxism also emphasize the role of the powerful ideological apparatus of capitalist states in restraining possible revolutionary uprisings.

Towards non-Marxist theories social revolutions First of all, it concerns the sociology of the revolution by P.A. Sorokina. In his opinion, revolution is a painful process that results in total social disorganization. But even painful processes have their own logic - a revolution is not a random event. Revolutions have three phases:

• - short-term phase of joy and anticipation;
• - destructive, when old orders are eradicated, often together with their bearers;
• - creative, in the process of which the most persistent pre-revolutionary values ​​and institutions are largely reanimated.

P. Sorokin’s general conclusion is this: the damage caused to society by revolutions always turns out to be greater than the probable benefit.

The topic of social revolutions is also touched upon by other non-Marxist theories: the theory of elite circulation (Vilfredo Pareto), the theory of relative deprivation (Theda Garr) and the theory of modernization. According to the first theory, a revolutionary situation is created by the degradation of elites who have been in power for too long and do not ensure normal circulation - replacement by a new elite. The theory of relative deprivation, which explains the emergence of social movements, links the emergence of social tension in society with the gap between the level of people's demands and the possibilities of achieving what they want. Modernization theory views revolution as a crisis arising in the process of political and cultural modernization of society. It occurs when modernization is carried out in different areas the functioning of society unevenly.

Modernization is one of the basic concepts of sociology, meaning the transition from traditional society to modernity, “modernity”. The core problem analyzed by the sociology of the classical period was the problem of the uniqueness of modern society, its difference from the previous type of social organization. For E. Durkheim, modern society is a society with “organic solidarity”, stricken by “anomie”; for K. Marx, the specifics of modern society were determined by capitalist production; M. Weber saw the specificity of modernity in the growth of rationality. F. Tönnies conceptualized the transition to modernity as the replacement of “community” by “society”, i.e. How fundamental change type of social connections. G. Simmel focused on such a phenomenon as money, mediating human relations and making them more and more abstract, etc.

According to the classical concept of modernization, which took shape in the twentieth century, the basic differences between traditional and modern societies V general outline boil down to the following. Main features of traditional societies:

• - material production is dominated by agriculture and manual technologies, using human and animal energy;
• - the rural population is many times larger than the urban population;
• - production is focused mainly on direct consumption, market relations are poorly developed;
• - estate or caste stratification system;
• - low social mobility;
• - predominance of prescribed statuses over achieved ones; extended patriarchal family;
• - lack of isolation of the individual from the social environment;
• - low pace of social change, focus on the past rather than the future;
• - the dominance of the religious-mythological worldview; relatively homogeneous values ​​and norms;
• - authoritarian, sacralized political power.

Modern societies have different characteristics:

• - industrial production and complex technologies based on the use of steam energy and (later) electrical and nuclear energy;
• - urban population exceeds rural;
• - production is aimed at the mass market;
• - class system of inequality;
• - high social mobility;
• - achieved statuses prevail over prescribed ones;
• - dominance of the scientific, secular worldview, mass education;
• - high pace of social change, focusing primarily on the future;
• - individualism;
• - nuclear (married) family;
• - uncertain, contradictory values ​​and norms;
• - proliferation of formal organizations and bureaucracies;
• - democratic political system.

This is only a very schematic and simplified description of the differences between traditional and modern societies, but it allows us to see that we're talking about, in fact, about different social worlds. The transition from traditional to modern society could not be quick or easy. Western societies, the pioneers of modernization, took several centuries to implement this process. In sociological science, there are many explanations for the reasons for modernization, but there is still no generally accepted one. Most likely, we are talking about a unique combination of historical circumstances.

Modernization of Western European countries and the USA is called primary modernization. It was generated by the internal logic of the development of these societies. Modernization of non-Western societies that have taken this path under direct or indirect impact The West is called secondary modernization. It took place in a much shorter historical period, on a cultural basis that was very different from European. In this regard, secondary modernization is accompanied by many specific difficulties generated by cultural factors.

The failure of linear evolutionism. Some sociologists deny social development as a subject of sociological analysis. It is argued that the problem of development itself is a philosophical or economic problem, in the end a historical one, but not a sociological one. From their point of view, the subject of sociology can only be social change. It appears that such an extreme point of view is unjustified. Apparently, this is a kind of negative reaction to the ideas of straightforward evolutionism and progress and change that were widespread in past centuries, and partly even in our time.

Thinkers of the 18th-19th centuries. (A. Condorcet, I. Kant, O. Comte, G. Spencer) were obsessed with the ideas of historical evolution and progress, the linear, unidirectional and continuous development of humanity towards some final goal - ideal state of society. Each new stage in the history of society, in the history of peoples, from their point of view, is a stage of precisely such development, i.e., a constant expansion of the power of the human mind over the spontaneous forces of nature and the laws of social evolution, a stage of improvement of forms of organization of social life based on justice and individual freedom for all. P. A. Sorokin pointed out in this regard: “In the 18th and 19th centuries the vast majority of scientists, philosophers, representatives of public and humanities firmly believed in the existence of eternal linear trends in changes in sociocultural phenomena. The main content of the historical process for them was the unfolding and ever more complete implementation of this “tendency of evolution and progress”, a stable “historical trend” and “the law of sociocultural development”... All social thought of the 18th and 19th centuries is marked by faith in the linear laws of evolution and progress." At the same time, Sorokin identified four variants of linear theories in which the main line of development could be built: 1) in a straight line; 2) wavy; 3) fan-shaped; 4) spirally.

The Russian philosopher and sociologist S. L. Frank, expelled, like Sorokin, from Soviet Russia in 1922, ridiculing such ideas, wrote: “If you look closely at interpretations of history of this kind, it will not be a caricature to say that at their limit understanding of history almost always comes down to the following division: 1) from Adam to my grandfather - the period of barbarism and the first beginnings of culture; 2) from my grandfather to me - a period of preparation for great achievements that should be realized in my time; 3) I and the tasks of my time, in which the goal of world history is completed and finally realized.”

It must be said that Marxist concept the successive change of socio-economic formations (primitive communal system, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, communism, including socialism as the first phase of communism) was also largely based on the ideas of linear evolutionism: each subsequent formation seemed to be an unconditional, necessary, although extremely contradictory, step forward along the path of social development.

It is obvious that the ideas of “flat” evolutionism, as shown by events in the 20th century, and in previous centuries, were a great simplification of history, in which there were elements of development, and periods of stagnation, regression, destructive wars, monstrous concentration camps, the destruction of millions innocent people, etc. However, rejecting the simplified understanding of development as a universal, constant unilinear movement towards some ideal society, at the same time one cannot help but admit that social development exists in reality, and it can and should be the object of not only philosophical reflections, but also a subject of sociological analysis.

Social change and social development

As mentioned above, there is a significant difference between the concepts of “” and “social development”. In short, this difference boils down to the fact that the concept of “social change” captures the fact of change without regard to its direction. The concept of “social development” is of a different nature. It is used to denote either processes of improvement, improvement, complication, or movement back, in the opposite direction. It not only records the very fact of social change, but also contains some assessment of this change and characterizes its direction.

Typically, social development as a real process is characterized by three interrelated features: irreversibility, direction and regularity. Irreversibility means the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes over a certain period of time. Focus— the line or lines along which accumulation occurs. Pattern - not an accidental, but a necessary process of accumulation. Fundamentally important characteristic social development - the period of time during which development takes place. Perhaps no less important is the fact that only over time the main features of social development are revealed, since it consists of a certain chain of social changes. The result of the development process is a new qualitative (sometimes quantitative) state of a social object (for example, a social group, a social institution, an organization and the entire society).

What has been said refers, rather, to a general philosophical or socio-philosophical understanding of development. A sociological understanding of development requires a more specific identification of its criteria and indicators. Social development can be considered at different levels - theoretical sociology and empirical research, macrosociology and microsociology. In each case, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the object, and therefore the selection of appropriate methods. IN scientific literature You can find different points of view on this matter. If we keep in mind the general sociological theory, then, it seems, we can highlight first of all the following criteria for social development. Firstly, social development presupposes the structural complication of an object. As a rule, objects that are more complex in structure are also more developed. Secondly, social development means an increase in number, complexity of character, or even modification social functions object. If we compare modern society, which has a diversified industry, numerous systems of government and public administration, educational institutions and scientific institutions, differentiated by social groups, professions, strata, with societies living by gathering, hunting or agriculture, then a huge difference in the degree of complexity and development of these two types of societies becomes obvious. Thirdly, an important criterion for the social development of social institutions and organizations is to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and competitiveness of their activities.

Social development involves increasing the ability to satisfy the diverse needs (material, intellectual, spiritual, etc.) of various population groups and individuals. In this sense vital importance has, for example, the social development of the enterprise where they work. In this case, we mean not only the development of the technology of the labor process, but first of all the improvement of working and rest conditions, increasing the level of material well-being, social protection of workers and their families, opportunities to improve the cultural and educational level, etc. n. The social development of the district, city, region, and the whole society is no less important.

In this case, sociology uses the concept "social infrastructure". This is a stable set of material and material elements that create conditions for the rational organization of people’s activities, their proper rest, and cultural and educational development. This includes systems of labor protection and safety, trade, health care, education, communications and information, transport, etc. It is important to emphasize that the development of the social infrastructure itself involves the use of a normative approach, which requires comparison of its real state in a particular area (enterprise , region, society as a whole) with scientifically based standards and guidelines. Such a comparison makes it possible to determine the level of development (or lag) of social infrastructure.

But even more important indicator and the criterion for the social development of society is the development of the person himself, his personality. This issue, due to its special importance, will be discussed specifically in the appendix of this chapter.

Nonlinear nature of social development

What does the nonlinearity of social change and social development mean? As mentioned above, evolutionism of the 18th - first half of the 20th centuries. in its most radical versions, he believed that social evolution as a chain of social changes has a linear, unidirectional character, inevitably leading to unlimited progress, that this principle of evolution is universal, extends to almost all social phenomena, and that the direction of social evolution is generally predictable.

The real course of events in the world, especially in recent decades, has shown that a nonlinear vision of social change and social development is more consistent with the observed processes in society. What does it mean?

Firstly, a schematic sequential chain of social changes can be built not in one, but in different directions. In other words, the “point of change” - bifurcation - is a turning point after which changes and development in general can go not in the same direction, but in a completely new, even unexpected direction.

Secondly, the nonlinearity of social changes and social development means the existence of an objective possibility of a multivariate sequence of events. In life, there are almost always alternative options for change and development. In this regard, the subject of change is in a situation of making a choice, and he becomes responsible for the chosen option.

Thirdly, the chain of social changes is not at all directed only towards progress, improvement or improvement. From the “change points” that can form in the most unexpected places, movement can go in different directions, up to regression, decline, destruction.

Finally, the nonlinear nature of social change means that these changes should always assume consequences that are foreseeable and unforeseen, predictable and unpredictable, desirable and undesirable. Practical life shows that changes in the second row are, unfortunately, much more common.

Of course, emphasizing the nonlinearity of changes and development in society does not reject the very general idea of ​​social evolution as the idea of ​​variability of social systems - social institutions, communities, processes, etc. The question is how to represent this evolution in science, with the help of which theories, models , concepts. In this regard important role A new and rapidly developing discipline can play a role - synergetics, which studies the nonlinear patterns of development of complex and super-complex self-governing systems.

And one more question, especially relevant for modern Russian society, is a matter of a conscious, thoughtful choice of one’s own strategy, not just a way out of the severe crisis that hit the country, but the basis for the social development of the Russian people, people and state for the long term.

Does it exist? As mentioned above, evolutionists of the 18th - early 20th centuries. argued that progress is universal and is manifested in the development of productive forces, in science, technology and technology, in the political, social and spiritual spheres of society. Progress is unstoppable, the wheel of history cannot be reversed, the progressive trend will make its way through all obstacles. From here, abstract optimistic conclusions about a “bright future” have been and are being made, although, as a rule, no one has any idea what it consists of and in what specific ways and means it can be achieved.

A kind of specific reaction to the previous system of views is the denial of the possibility of scientifically posing the question of social progress, the denial of the very possibility of speaking in the language of science about the higher quality of some forms of social life and institutions compared to others. Representatives of such views, based mainly on the principles of positivist philosophy, usually take the problem of progress beyond the scope of social science. At the same time, they refer to the fact that an attempt to qualify certain social changes as manifestations of progress means assessing these changes from the point of view of certain values. Such an assessment, they argue, will always be subjective. Therefore, the concept of progress is also a subjective concept, which has no place in strict science.

The presence of extreme positions and heated discussions around the applicability of the concept of “progress” to social change and social development are largely due to the fact that this concept itself actually carries a value sense and is evaluative. And, as you know, on the issue of the admissibility of value judgments in scientific sociology, the opinions of scientists are again divided. Some of them advocate that it is appropriate to use value judgments in sociology. A significant part of Western sociologists of left or center-left orientations (C.R. Mills, G. Marcuse, A. Goldner, etc.) consider not only possible, but also absolutely necessary, the use of value judgments and concepts in social sciences, including in sociology. The exclusion of such judgments and concepts would deprive sociology and other sciences human meaning, humanistic orientation. Other authors, on the contrary, citing the fact that value judgments and value assessments are subjective in nature, categorically reject the possibility of using such judgments and assessments in scientific research. sociological research. There is probably some truth in both extreme positions, and in order to highlight them, it is necessary, in turn, to free these positions from subjective biases.

First of all, it is necessary to define, as strictly as possible, the very concept of social progress and its content. Under progress usually refers to improving the social structure of society and improving the quality of human life. It presupposes the direction of social development from lower to higher forms, from less perfect to more perfect.

It is difficult not to agree that, in general, the development of society follows the line of increasing progressive social changes. Here it is important to note such indicators as improved working conditions, the acquisition of greater freedom by the human person, political and social rights(as recorded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the complexity of the tasks facing modern societies, and the increase in technical and social capabilities for solving them. Finally, it is necessary to name the unprecedented development in the last three or four centuries of education, science, and technology, which have provided modern man with the opportunity to humanize and democratize his way of life and social institutions.

At the same time, it is important not to fall into the euphoria of such an optimistic understanding of progress. The fact is that it is extremely difficult to translate a general theoretical understanding of social progress into the specific language of sociology. Is it possible, for example, to unequivocally state that the stages of transformation of legislative power in Russia in the 20th century? (State Duma in pre-revolutionary Russia, the Supreme Council - in the Soviet period, the Federal Assembly - in the post-Soviet period) are stages of progressive development? Is it possible to consider that the lifestyle of the modern average person in a developed country is more progressive than, say, the lifestyle free people(citizens) in ancient Greece? The questions are very difficult.

To this it should be added that in the international sociological literature of the early 20th century. there was significantly more confidence in the existence of social progress than at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. At the beginning of the 20th century. The problem of progress was lively discussed by almost all major sociologists. Some articles on this topic were published in the collection “New Ideas in Sociology. Sat. third. What is progress” (St. Petersburg, 1914). In particular, these are the articles: P. A. Sorokin “Review of theories and main problems of progress”, E. V. de Roberti “The Idea of ​​Progress”, M. Vsbsra “Evolution and Progress”, etc. In the late 1960s. the famous French sociologist and philosopher R. Aron published a book with the symbolic title “Disappointment in Progress,” in which he substantiated the idea that it is impossible to implement in practice the high ideals generated by the progress of science and technology, and that this leads to the spread of social pessimism.

A prominent modern Western sociologist, President (in the 90s of the 20th century) of the International Sociological Association I. Wallsstein makes a very cautious statement in this regard: “It seems that, morally and intellectually, it is much safer to admit the possibility of progress, but such possibility will not mean its inevitability.”

The contradictory nature of social progress. When considering such questions, apparently, it is necessary first of all to identify certain areas, areas of social life, in relation to which we can directly say that the concept of progress is not applicable to these areas, although they are subject to significant evolution. The stages in the evolution of these areas cannot in any way be considered stages of progressive development from simple to complex, from less perfect to more perfect. This includes primarily the field of art. Art as a social institution does not stand still; it is subject to constant change. However, the concept of progress is not applicable to consider the artistic, aesthetic sides of art. How can it be used, for example, to compare Aeschylus and L. Tolstoy, Dante and Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, etc. We can only talk about a certain progress in the technical means of creating, preserving and distributing works of art. Quill pen, fountain pen, typewriter, personal computer; simple gramophone record, long-playing gramophone record, magnetic tape, CD; a handwritten book, a printed book, microfilm, etc. - all these lines in certain respects can be considered lines of technical progress. But they, as is obvious, do not affect the artistic value, the aesthetic significance of works of art.

The evolution of some other social institutions and phenomena should be assessed in a similar way. Apparently, these include world religions. The evolution of fundamental philosophical systems over the course of intellectual history takes place, but assessing this evolution in terms of progress-regression is relatively philosophical content(not the political positions of the authors) is hardly possible.

At the same time, it is necessary to highlight such spheres of society’s life, social institutions, the historical development of which can absolutely be qualified as progress. These primarily include science, technology, and technology. Every new step, every new stage in the development of science, technology, technology is a step and stage in their progress. It is not by chance that the concept of scientific and technological progress emerged.

But most often the sociologist is faced with such social structures and processes in the evolution of which progress can be recorded, but it is carried out very contradictorily. It must be said that sociology must see all the variety of types of social changes. Progress is not the only type. Exists regression, in its orientation opposite to progress. This is development from higher to lower, from complex to simple, degradation, lowering the level of organization, weakening and attenuation of functions, stagnation. Along with these types, there are also so-called dead-end development lines, leading to the death of certain sociocultural forms and structures. Examples include the destruction and death of some cultures and civilizations in the history of society.

The contradictory nature of social progress is also manifested in the fact that the development of many social structures, processes, phenomena, objects simultaneously leads to their advancement in some directions and to retreat and return in other directions; to perfection, improvement in one thing and destruction, deterioration in another; to progress in some respects and to regression or dead ends in others.

The nature of social changes is also assessed based on their results. Of course, assessments can be subjective, but they can also be based on fairly objective indicators. Subjective assessments include those that come from the desires, aspirations, positions of individual groups, segments of the population, and individuals. The main role here is played by the satisfaction of social groups with the changes that have occurred or are ongoing. If this or that social change has negative consequences for the position, the status of some (let's say, small) group, it is usually assessed by it as unnecessary, incorrect, even anti-people, anti-state. Although for other groups and the majority of society it may be important positive value. But it also happens the other way around, when the minority benefits from the changes, but the clear majority loses. A classic example of the latter case is the completely opposite assessments by different groups of the population of our country of the results of privatization carried out in the first half of the 1990s. As is known, privatization (aptly popular expression- “privatization”) incredibly enriched an extremely small part of the population, and a third of the population had an “income” below the subsistence level.

The humanistic meaning of the criteria for social development. On the issue of specific criteria for social development, discussions are also ongoing between representatives of different sociological schools and directions. The most preferable positions are those of authors who seek to attach criteria to social progress humanistic meaning. The point is that it is not enough to talk about social changes, including social development, only as about objectively occurring processes, “processes in themselves,” speaking philosophical language. No less important are their other aspects—their appeal to individuals, groups, and society as a whole. After all, the task is not only to record the very fact of social changes and social development, to determine their types, to identify driving forces, etc. The task is also to reveal their humanistic (or anti-humanistic) meaning - whether they lead to human well-being, his prosperity, or worsen the level and quality of his life.

A sociologist must strive to find more or less objective indicators for assessing social changes and qualifying them as progress or regression. As a rule, in such situations, a special system of social indicators is developed, which can serve as the basis for assessment. Thus, the ISPI RAS developed a detailed “ System of social indicators of Russian society" It is divided into four groups according to the spheres of social relations: social itself, socio-political, socio-economic and spiritual-moral. In each of the areas, the indicators are divided into three groups according to the type of measurement: social conditions as objective data that determine the “background” of social relations, social indicators as quantitative characteristics of social relations recorded by statistical methods, and, finally, social indicators as qualitative characteristics of social relations. recorded by sociological methods. The overlay of indicators on the spheres of social relations allows us to identify 12 measurement subsystems, which can serve as the basis for a systematic assessment of the level of development of each sphere of social relations and society as a whole.

Over the past decades in different countries is happening active development systems of social, demographic, economic, and other statistical indicators and the number of such indicators, expressed in value (monetary), natural, combined and other forms, already reaches several hundred. At the same time, along with the development of sectoral indicators, they are synthesized and combined to assess the overall level of social development of the country and for the purposes of international comparisons. Thus, in Russia, statistical authorities have developed a system of unified socio-demographic statistics, which can be presented in the form of large sectoral blocks that meet the standards of international comparisons: demographic statistics; environment, urbanization, housing conditions; health and nutrition; education; economic activity of the population; social groups and population mobility; income, consumption and welfare; social Security; leisure and culture; time use; public order and safety; social relations; political activity. A system of such indicators can serve as a basis comprehensive assessment the level of social development of a particular society and the opportunities it provides for human development.

Social change and social development. Social development as a real process is characterized by three interrelated features - irreversibility, direction and regularity. Irreversibility means the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes; direction - the line or lines along which accumulation occurs; regularity is not a random, but a necessary process of accumulation of such changes. A fundamentally important characteristic of social development is the time during which it occurs. Even more important is that only over time the main features of social development are revealed. The result of the process of social development is a new quantitative and qualitative state of a social object, which can be expressed in an increase (or decrease) in the level of its organization, a change in place in social evolution, etc. The history of the development of social communities, structures, institutions, their evolution, their origin and extinction - an integral part of the subject of sociology as a science.

Social progress. There are two extreme points of view on the problem of progress in the history of society. One is to put forward a set of ideas that, in one form or another, affirm the absoluteness and inevitability of the progressive development of society as a whole and many of its individual spheres. The other essentially boils down to denying the very possibility of speaking in the language of science about the higher quality of some forms of social life and institutions compared to others. Representatives of such views usually take the problem of progress beyond the boundaries of science. At the same time, they refer to the fact that trying to qualify certain social changes as manifestations of progress means assessing these changes from the point of view of certain values. Such an assessment, they argue, will always be subjective. Therefore, the concept of progress is also a subjective concept, and subjective concepts there is no place in strict science.

Indeed, the very concept of progress has a value meaning, being an evaluative statement. In this regard, the opinions of scientists are divided. Some advocate considering it appropriate to use value judgments that bring a humanistic meaning to sociology. Others, citing the fact that value judgments are subjective in nature, categorically reject the possibility of using such judgments and assessments in scientific sociological research. There is probably some truth in both extreme positions, and in order to highlight it, it is necessary to free these positions from subjectivist biases.

First of all, it is necessary to determine the content of the concept of social progress. Progress is usually understood as the improvement of the social structure of society and human cultural life. It presupposes such an orientation of social and generally all development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher forms, from less perfect to more perfect.

It is difficult not to agree that, in general, the development of human society follows the line of increasing progressive social changes. Here it is important to note such indicators as the improvement of working conditions, the acquisition of greater freedom, political and social rights by the human person, the increasing complexity of the tasks facing modern societies, and the increase in technical, social and other possibilities for solving them. Finally, the unprecedented development in the last two or three centuries of education, science and technology, which has provided modern man with the opportunity to humanize and democratize his way of life and social institutions. The totality of social changes on a historical scale from primitive to modern society can be characterized as progressive development. Although, of course, it is very difficult to find some kind of universal theoretical, scientific formula for such development.

However, it is extremely difficult to translate such a general theoretical understanding of social progress into the language of sociology, which deals with specific social phenomena. Is it possible, for example, to consider that the way of life modern man in a developed country is more progressive than, say, the way of life of people in medieval Europe or in the era of ancient Greece and Rome? The questions are very difficult.

The contradictory nature of social progress. When considering such issues, it seems necessary, first of all, to highlight certain spheres and areas of social life, in relation to which it can be argued that the concept of progress is not applicable to these areas, although they are subject to significant evolution. The stages of their evolution cannot in any way be considered stages of progressive development from simple to complex, from less perfect to more perfect. This includes, first of all, the field of art as a social institution, for which we can only talk about a certain progress in the technical means of creating, preserving and distributing works of art. The evolution of some other social institutions and phenomena should be assessed in a similar way. These apparently include religion. The same can be said about fundamental philosophical systems: their evolution over the course of intellectual history takes place, but the concept of progress is hardly applicable here.

At the same time, it is necessary to highlight such spheres of society’s life, social institutions, the historical development of which can clearly be qualified as progress. These should include, first of all, science, technology, technology. Every new step, every new stage in the development of science, technology, technology is a step and stage in their progress. It is no coincidence that such a concept arose - scientific and technological progress. Its manifestations can be seen everywhere.

However, most often a sociologist is faced with such social structures and processes in the evolution of which progress can be recorded, but is carried out very contradictorily. In principle, sociology should see all the variety of types of social development: after all, in addition to progress, there is also such a type as regression, which in its direction is opposite to progress. This is development from higher to lower, from complex to simple, degradation, lowering the level of organization, weakening and attenuation of functions, stagnation. There are also so-called dead-end lines of development, leading to the death of certain sociocultural forms and structures.

The contradictory nature of social progress is revealed, first of all, in the fact that the development of many social structures and processes, phenomena, objects simultaneously leads to their advancement in some directions, to retreat, backtracking in other directions, to improvement, improvement in one and the same. destruction, deterioration of another, to their progress in some respects and to regression or dead ends in others. Many social changes have such a contradictory nature.

The nature of social changes is also assessed based on their results. Of course, the assessments themselves can be subjective, but they can also be based on fairly objective indicators. Subjective assessments include those that come from the desires, aspirations, positions of individual groups or segments of the population, even individuals. The main role here is played by the degree of satisfaction of social groups with the reforms that have occurred or are ongoing. If this or that social change has negative consequences for the position or status of a certain group, it is usually assessed by it as unnecessary, incorrect, even anti-people, anti-state. Although for other groups and the whole society it can have important positive meaning. But it also happens the other way around, when one group benefits from changes and many others lose. In this case, representatives of the winning group will evaluate the results as positive, and the losers - as negative.

The humanistic meaning of the criteria for social progress. As for specific criteria of social progress, the most preferable positions are those of authors who strive to give them a humanistic meaning. The fact is that it is not enough to talk about social changes, including social development, only as about objectively occurring processes. No less important are their other aspects - their appeal to individuals, groups, society as a whole, which inevitably leads to an understanding of their human meaning - they lead to a person’s well-being, his prosperity, or to a decrease in the level and deterioration of his quality of life.

A sociologist must strive to find more or less objective indicators for assessing social changes and qualifying them as progress or regression. As a rule, in such situations, a special system of social indicators is developed, which can serve as the basis for such an assessment.