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; orientation - the line or lines along which accumulation is made; regularity is not an accidental, but a necessary process of accumulation of such changes. A fundamentally important feature social development- the time during which it is carried out. More importantly, it is only with the passage of time that the main features of social development come to light. The result of the process of social development is a new quantitative and qualitative state of the social object, which can be expressed in an increase (or decrease) in the level of its organization, a change in the place in social evolution, etc. The history of the development of social communities, structures, institutions, their evolution, their origin and death - integral component subject matter of sociology as a science.

social progress. There are two extreme points view of the problem of progress in the history of society. One is to put forward a set of such 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 comes down, in essence, to the denial of the very possibility of speaking in the language of science about more high quality some forms social life and institutions compared to others. Representatives of such views usually take the problem of progress beyond the limits 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 in terms 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 have no place in rigorous 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 are in favor of considering it appropriate to use value judgments that bring humanistic meaning to sociology. Others, referring to the fact that value judgments are subjective, categorically reject the possibility of using such judgments and assessments in scientific sociological research. Probably, there is an element of truth in both extreme positions, and in order to highlight it, it is necessary to free these positions from subjectivist predilections.

First of all, it is necessary to define the content of the concept of social progress. Progress usually refers to improvement social structure society and cultural life of man. It presupposes such an orientation of social and, in general, all development, which is characterized by a transition from lower forms to higher ones, from less perfect ones to more perfect ones.

It is difficult to disagree that, by and large, the development human society follows the line of increasing progressive social change. Here it is important to note such indicators as the improvement of working conditions, the acquisition by the human person of greater freedom, political and social rights, the complication 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 provided modern man with the opportunity to humanize and democratize his way of life and social institutions. The total set of social changes on a historical scale from primitive society to the modern can be characterized as a progressive development. Although, of course, it is very difficult to find any universal theoretical, scientific formula for such a development.

However, to translate such a general theoretical understanding of social progress into the language of sociology, which deals with specific social phenomena, extremely difficult. 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 single out certain spheres and areas of social life, in relation to which it can be argued that the concept of progress is inapplicable to these areas, although they are subject to significant evolution. The stages of their evolution can in no 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 social institution, for which we can only talk about some progress technical means creation, preservation and distribution of works of art. The evolution of some other social institutions and phenomena should be evaluated in a similar way. Religion seems to be one of them. The same can be said about fundamental philosophical systems: their evolution takes place over the course of intellectual history, but the concept of progress is hardly applicable here.

At the same time, it is necessary to single out such spheres of the life of society, social institutions, the historical development of which can quite clearly be qualified as progress. These include first of all science, technology, technology. Each new step, each 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 has developed - scientific and technological progress. Its manifestations can be seen everywhere.

However, most often the sociologist encounters such social structures and processes in the evolution of which progress can be fixed, but is carried out in a very contradictory way. 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 of it as regression, which is opposite to progress in its direction. This is development from higher to lower, from complex to simple, degradation, lowering the level of organization, weakening and fading of functions, stagnation. There are also so-called dead-end lines of development, leading to the death of certain socio-cultural 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 advance in some directions, to retreat, to return back in other directions, to improvement, improvement in them one and destruction, deterioration of the other, to their progress in some respects and to regression or dead ends in others. So many social changes have such a contradictory character.

The assessment of the nature of social changes is also carried out according to 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 sections of the population, even individuals. main role This is where the level of satisfaction comes into play. social groups past or ongoing reforms. If this or that social change has negative consequences for the position, the status of a certain group, it is usually assessed by it as unnecessary, wrong, even anti-people, anti-state. Although for other groups and society as a whole, it may be important positive value. But it also happens the other way around, when one group benefits from change and many others lose. In this case, representatives of the winning group will evaluate the results as positive, and the losers - as negative.

Humanistic meaning of the criteria of social progress. As for the specific criteria of social progress, the positions of authors who seek to give them a humanistic meaning are most preferable. The point is that it is not enough to talk about social changes, including social development, only as objectively ongoing processes. Their other sides are no less important - their appeal to a person, 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 the quality of his life.

The sociologist must strive to find more or less objective indicators for evaluating social change, qualifying it as progress or regression. As a rule, in such situations, a special system is developed social indicators which can serve as the basis for such an assessment.

"social development"

Initially, it is necessary to understand the difference between the concepts of social development and social change. The concept of "social change" captures the fact of change in the social sphere of society, regardless of its direction, while the concept "social development" not only fixes the very fact of social change, the fact of social change, but also contains a certain assessment of this change. The concept of development is applied to the processes of improvement, improvement, complication.

Social development as a real process is characterized by three interrelated features - necessity, direction and regularity. Necessity means the constancy of the processes of accumulation of qualitative and quantitative changes, direction - the line or lines along which the need is made, regularity - not an accidental, but a necessary process of accumulation of such changes.

A fundamentally important characteristic of social development is time, the period of time during which development is carried out. It is only with the passage of time that the main features of social development come to light.

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

In the history of society, there are two points of view on progress. First, the absoluteness and inevitability of the progressive development of society as a whole and its individual areas. Progress is unstoppable and irreversible. Secondly, the denial of the possibility of a scientific formulation of 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 institutions compared to others. The presence of a discussion around the concept of "progress" in relation to social changes is largely due to the fact that the concept itself really carries a value meaning. And therefore, the opinions on the question of the admissibility of value judgments in scientific sociology among many scientists are again divided.

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 forms to higher ones, from less perfect ones to more perfect ones. Here it is important to note such components as the improvement of working conditions, the acquisition by the human person of greater freedom, political and social rights, the complication of the tasks facing society.

The total set 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 any universal theoretical, scientific formula for such a development.

There are areas to which the concept of progress (as the transition from simple to complex) does not apply. This is the area of ​​art as a social institution, religion. There are areas that can definitely be attributed to progress: technology, technology.

There is the concept of "regression", in its direction opposite to progress.

It is important that progress has a humanistic orientation, that is, it is addressed to the individual, society, for their benefit.

All rights reserved. Materials on this site may only be used with a link to this site.

Under the social development of society, it is customary to understand such a change that leads to the emergence of new public relations, institutions, norms and values. Characteristic features social development are:

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

An important characteristic of social development is the period of time during which it is carried out. It should also be borne in mind that the main features of social development are revealed only after a certain period of time. The result of social development is a new quantitative and qualitative state of the social object, a change in its structure and organization.

In sociological science, three approaches have been formed to consider the processes of development of society:

• 1. The development of society has a linear ascending character. It is assumed that society goes through a series of successive stages, each of which uses special ways of accumulating and transferring knowledge, communication, obtaining means of subsistence, as well as varying degrees of complexity of society's structures. To supporters this approach the development of society should include the Marxists, H. Spencer, E. Durkheim, F. Tennis, and others.
• 2. The development of society is cyclical, repetitive. 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 cyclic processes in the life of societies can be considered the historical cycles that all civilizations go through - from their emergence through flourishing to decay. Representatives of this approach are N. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, L. Gumilyov and others.
• 3. Non-linear development of society. Real move events in the world, especially in recent decades, has shown that a non-linear vision of social change and social development is most consistent with the processes taking place in society. Scientists identify a "point of change" - a bifurcation, i.e. such a turning point, after which changes and development in general can go not in the same, but in a completely different, perhaps even unforeseen direction. The non-linearity of social development means the existence of an objective possibility of a multivariate course of events.

Thus, the choice of one or another sequence of development depends on social subject. Supporters of the non-linear development of society are S.L. Frank, M. Hatcher, D. Kollman and others. By its nature, social development is divided into evolutionary and revolutionary.

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

Evolutionary changes most often take the form of social reforms, involving the implementation of various measures to transform certain parties. public 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.

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

A social revolution is understood as a relatively rapid comprehensive, fundamental changes in society. Revolutionary changes are spasmodic in nature and represent the transition of society from one qualitative state to another.

The social revolution is always connected with the violent destruction of some social relations and the approval 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 interrelated and represent conjugated aspects of social development and are interrelated.

The ratio of 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 perfect forms, which is expressed in their more high organization, adaptation to the environment, the growth of evolutionary possibilities.

To determine the progressiveness of a society in sociology, two of the most common criteria have traditionally been used:

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

However, in modern conditions these progress criteria need some clarification. The first criterion as a whole continues to retain its significance as an indicator reflecting the economic and social spheres the life of society. The second criterion, according to modern scientists, is losing its relevance. This is confirmed by recent data sociological research, according to which a person ceases to need freedom so badly, which is replaced by responsibility.

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

In addition, there is a need to highlight the criterion of social progress, which would reflect the spiritual and moral changes of mankind. The level of public morality can be considered as such a criterion.

In addition to these criteria, modern social thought has developed a number of other criteria of 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 elemental forces of nature and society, etc.

Theory social evolution defines social change as a transition from one stage of the development of society to more complex ones. The French utopian philosopher A. Saint-Simon should be considered the forerunner of evolutionist theories. Common in the conservative tradition of con. XVIII - beginning. 19th century he supplemented the idea of ​​the life of society as a balance with the provision on the steady, consistent advancement of society towards a more high levels development. O. Comte linked the 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. Kont, is the growth of the functional specialization of structures and the improvement of the 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, which does not have a linear and unidirectional character.

The above evolutionary 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 analysis here. external influences. These included conquests, trade, migration, colonization, imitation, etc. Any of the cultures inevitably experiences the influence of other cultures, including the cultures of the conquered peoples. This counter 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., have become an integral and familiar part of the life of American society. In the United States, immigrants from the most different countries peace. One can even speak of an increase in last years influence on the previously practically unchanged English-speaking culture of the American society of Hispanic and African-American subcultures.

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 coup from below. It sweeps away the ruling elite, which has proved 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 transformations take place in the social class structure of society, in the values ​​and behavior of people.

The revolution involves in an active political activity large masses of people. Activity, enthusiasm, optimism, hope for a bright future mobilize people for feats of arms, unpaid labor and social creativity. During the period of revolution, mass activity reaches its apogee, and social changes reach an unprecedented pace and depth. K. Marx called revolutions "the locomotives of history." According to K. Marx, a 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 the productive forces outgrowing their framework. The direct expression of these contradictions is the class conflict. In a capitalist society, this is an irreducible antagonistic conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. In order 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 a class consciousness and unite in the struggle against capitalism. Assistance in obtaining necessary knowledge the proletariat is rendered by the most far-sighted progressive representatives of the moribund class. The proletariat must be ready to solve the problem of the conquest of power by force. According to Marxist logic, socialist revolutions should have taken place in the most developed countries, since they were more ripe for this.

A follower and student of K. Marx, E. Bernstein in late XIX V., relying 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 take a relatively long historical period. IN AND. Lenin modernized the theory of the socialist revolution, insisting that it should take place in the weakest link in the capitalist system and serve as a "fuse" for the world revolution.

History of the 20th century showed that both Bernstein and Lenin were right in their own way. There were no socialist revolutions in economically developed countries, they were in the problematic regions of Asia and Latin America. Sociologists, in particular the French scientist Alain Touraine, believe that the main reason for the absence 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 studied by K. Marx was absolutely powerless, and he had nothing to lose except his chains. Now the situation has changed: in the leading industrial states, democratic procedures are in place and strictly observed in the political sphere, and most of the proletariat is middle class who has something to lose. Modern followers of Marxism also emphasize the role of the powerful ideological apparatus of the capitalist states in containing possible revolutionary uprisings.

The sociology of revolution P.A. Sorokin. In his opinion, revolution is a painful process that turns into total social disorganization. But even painful processes have their own logic - the revolution is not a random event. Revolutions have three phases:

• - short-term phase of joy and expectation;
• - destructive, when the old orders are eradicated, often together with their carriers;
• - creative, in the course of which the most persistent pre-revolutionary values ​​and institutions are reanimated to a large extent.

The general conclusion of P. Sorokin is as follows: 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 others. non-Marxist theories: elite circulation theory (Vilfredo Pareto), relative deprivation theory (Theda Garra) and modernization theory. According to the first theory, a revolutionary situation is created by the degradation of elites that have been in power for too long and do not provide 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 ability to achieve 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 unevenly in different spheres of society.

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 originality of modern society, its difference from the previous type. social organization. For E. Durkheim, modern society is a society with "organic solidarity", struck by "anomie"; for K. Marx, the specificity of modern society was determined by capitalist production; M. Weber saw the specifics of modernity in the growth of rationality. F. Tönnies conceived the transition to modernity as a change from "community" to "society", i.e. how fundamental change type of social connection. G. Simmel focused on such a phenomenon as money, which mediates human relations and makes them more and more abstract, etc.

According to the classical concept of modernization that took shape in the 20th century, the basic differences between traditional and modern societies in in general terms come down to the following. The main features of traditional societies:

• - dominates in material production Agriculture and manual technologies, human and animal energy is used;
• - the rural population is many times greater than the urban one;
• - production is focused mainly on direct consumption, market relations are poorly developed;
• - estate or caste system of stratification;
• - low social mobility;
• - the predominance of prescribed statuses over achieved ones; extended patriarchal family;
• - non-isolation of the individual from the social environment;
• - low rate of social changes, orientation to the past, not to the future;
• - the dominance of the religious and mythological worldview; relatively homogeneous values ​​and norms;
• - authoritarian, sacralized political power.

Modern societies have other characteristics:

• - industrial production and sophisticated technologies based on the use of steam and (later) electrical and nuclear energy;
• - the urban population exceeds the rural;
• - production is focused on the mass market;
• - class system of inequality;
• - high social mobility;
• - the achieved statuses prevail over the prescribed ones;
• - the dominance of a scientific, secular worldview, mass education;
• - high rate of social changes, orientation mainly to the future;
• - individualism;
• - nuclear (marital) family;
• - vague, conflicting values ​​and norms;
• - Spread formal organizations, bureaucracies;
• - democratic political system.

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

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

Social development. Social progress and regression

In the conceptual apparatus of modern theoretical sociology, the categories of "social change" and "social development" have been separated. Under social development more and more often, not all changes in social systems are understood, but only their certain type. There are different points of view on this matter. Reasons for discussion this issue in sociology consist in the ambiguity of understanding in modern science what is development.

In some cases, development is understood as movement along an ascending line, from a lower to a higher one, from an old qualitative state to a new, higher one. The concept of "development" is applied here to the processes of improvement, improvement, complication and in given value coincides with the content of the concept of "progress".

In other cases, social development means only such changes in objects that result in their new qualitative state (without its assessment): more or less deep structural changes are carried out, leading to the emergence of new social relations, institutions, norms and values. The result of development in this case is a new quantitative and qualitative state of the object, which may involve both an increase and a decrease in the level of its organization.

Given the ambiguity of the concept of "development", in the Sociological encyclopedic dictionary given a broad interpretation of the development processes taking place in the social sphere of society. Under social development refers to the totality of economic, social, political and spiritual processes unfolding in society. Thus, social development can be progressive and regressive, evolutionary and revolutionary.

The process of social development is characterized by three features:

- irreversibility - the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes;

- orientation - the line or lines along which the accumulation of changes takes place;

- regularity - not an accidental, but a necessary process of accumulation of changes.

Under social progress is understood as a certain type or direction of development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less to more perfect, a steady ascent to more complex forms of social life.

Interest in the problem of social progress arises when the question of the direction of social changes in society is raised. Since antiquity, three answers to this question have been identified:

1) the idea of ​​cyclic development (from the Greek kuklos - circle, cycle - movement with repetition and return to exactly the same state that was at the beginning of progress (“everything returns to normal”);

2) the idea of ​​progress (from the Latin progressus - moving forward, success) - an absolute and inevitable process of improving human society, its transition from simple forms to more complex ones ("golden age ahead");

3) eschatological idea (from the Greek eschatos - last, final; logos - word, doctrine) - religious doctrine about the final destinies of the world, about the inexorable movement towards its end, the terrible judgment.

In classical sociology, a point of view was formed that asserts the absoluteness and inevitability of the progressive development of society, its irreversible linearly directed ascent to more complex forms of life. The accumulated material in recent times gives reason to doubt the universality of the linear concept and assert the contradictory nature of the phenomena of progress in social development.

Firstly, today the possibility of a universal use of the concept of "progress" to characterize the totality of changes in social life is denied (evolutionary changes in the field of religion, philosophy and other areas cannot be assessed through the prism of development from less to more perfect).

social development- this is a change in society, which leads to the emergence of new social relations, institutions, norms and values. The characteristic signs of social development are three features: irreversibility, direction and regularity.

irreversibility- this is the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes.

Orientation These are the lines along which accumulation takes place.

regularity is a necessary process of accumulating change.

An important characteristic of social development is the period of time during which it is carried out. It should also be borne in mind that the main features of social development are revealed only after a certain period of time. The result of social development is a new quantitative and qualitative state of the social object, a change in its structure and organization.

In sociological science, three approaches have been formed to consider the processes of development of society.

1. The development of society has a linear ascending character. It is assumed that society goes through a series of successive stages, each of which uses special ways of accumulating and transferring knowledge, communication, obtaining means of subsistence, as well as varying degrees of complexity of society's structures. The supporters of this approach to the development of society include Marxists, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim, F. Tennis and etc.

2. The development of society is cyclical, repetitive. 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 decay. Representatives of this approach N. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, L. Gumilyov and etc.

3. Non-linear development of society. The real course of events in the world, especially in recent decades, has shown that a non-linear vision of social change and social development is most consistent with the processes taking place in society. Scientists identify a "point of change" - a bifurcation, i.e. a turning point after which changes and development in general can go not in the same direction, but in a completely different, perhaps even unforeseen direction. The non-linearity of social development means the existence of an objective possibility of a multivariate course of events.

Thus, the choice of this or that sequence of development depends on the social subject. Supporters of the non-linear development of society are S. L. Frank, M. Hatcher, D. Kollman and others. By its nature, social development is divided into evolutionary and revolutionary. The nature of this or that social development depends primarily 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 the implementation of various measures to transform certain aspects of public 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.

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

Under social revolution refers to relatively rapid comprehensive, fundamental changes in society. Revolutionary changes are spasmodic in nature and represent the 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 related aspects of social development and are interrelated.

The ratio of 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- this is the direction of development, characterized by the transition from the lower to the higher, to more perfect forms, which is expressed in their higher organization, adaptation to the environment, and the growth of evolutionary possibilities.

To determine the progressiveness of a society in sociology, two of the most common criteria have traditionally been used:

1) the level of labor productivity and welfare of the population;

2) the degree of freedom of the individual.

However, in modern conditions, these criteria of progress need some clarification. The first criterion as a whole continues to retain its significance as an indicator reflecting the economic and social spheres of the life of society.

The second criterion, according to modern scientists, is losing its relevance. This is confirmed by the data of recent sociological studies, according to which a person ceases to need freedom so badly, which is replaced by responsibility.

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

In addition, there is a need to highlight the criterion of social progress, which would reflect the spiritual and moral changes of mankind.

In addition to these criteria, modern social thought has developed a number of other criteria of 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 elemental forces of nature and society, etc.