Ideas of social inequality in public thought about the emergence of sociology. Why are we so different? Information for thought
When considering the class-stratification theory, which reveals the process of stratification of society into social classes and strata, we see that this stratification is based on the unequal access of people to material goods, power, education, prestige, which contributes to the hierarchical structure of society, i.e. placement of some layers above or below others. Thus, the problem of equality and inequality characterizes the process of stratification.
Social inequality- these are the conditions under which people have unequal access to such social benefits as money, power, prestige, education, etc.
There is no single answer to the question of what causes inequality in sociology. Representatives of philosophical and sociological trends are trying to explain this process from their positions.
Thus, Marxism explains the social inequality existing in society by its economic organization. From the Marxist point of view, inequality is the result of the fact that people who control social values (mainly the means of production, wealth and power) benefit for themselves. Such a situation can give rise to discontent and lead to class struggle. This so-called conflict theory.
Supporters of the theory of functionalism do not agree with the Marxist theory. They consider social inequality as a condition for the existence of society, which makes it possible to encourage the most beneficial species labor and the best representatives of society. Thus, M. Durkheim, in his work “On the Division of Social Labor”, is one of the first to explain inequality by the fact that in all societies some types of activity are considered more important than others. All the functions of society - law, religion, family, work, etc. - form a hierarchy according to how highly they are valued. And people themselves are talented in different ways. In the process of learning, these differences are intensified. In order to attract the best and gifted, society must promote social rewards for their merits.
M. Weber bases his theory of inequality on the concept status groups who enjoy honor and respect and have unequal social prestige.
According to P. Sorokin, the cause of social inequality is property, power, profession.
A peculiar approach to explaining social inequality - in reputation theory of L. Warner. He determined the belonging of people to one or another stratum, based on the assessment of their status by other members of society, that is, reputation. Conducting research, he came to the conclusion that people themselves are accustomed to dividing each other into superior and inferior. Thus, the cause of inequality is the psyche of people. (See: Ryazanov, Yu. B. Social inequality / Yu. B. Ryazanov, A. A. Malykhin // Sociology: textbook. - M., 1999. - P. 13).
By stating the fact of social inequality in society and revealing its causes, many sociologists, and not only functionalists, justify it. So, P. Sorokin noted that inequality is not only an objective reality social life but also an important source of social development. Equalization in income, in relation to property, power deprives individuals of an important internal incentive for action, self-realization, self-affirmation, and society - the only energy source of development. But life proves that there are different inequalities, when one works, to put it mildly, has everything and even more, and the other, while working, barely drags out a beggarly existence. Such inequality cannot be easily justified.
Inequality is a characteristic feature of any society. In the very general view inequality means that people live in conditions in which they have unequal access to limited resources of material and spiritual consumption. Anthropologists argue that inequality already existed in primitive societies and was determined by dexterity and strength, courage or religious awareness, and so on. Inequality is generated even by natural differences between people, but it manifests itself most deeply as a consequence of social factors. As a result, some have more potential than others.
The sustainable reproduction of social inequality and the reasons for its existence are reflected in various theories of social inequality. Marxism finds an explanation primarily in the unequal attitude to the means of production, to property, which gives rise to other forms of inequality. Functionalism gives an interpretation based on the differentiation of functions that perform various groups in society. The significance of functions determines, respectively, the place and role of a particular individual and group, their position in society. The Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev considered inequality to be one of the fundamental characteristics of life, noting that every life system is hierarchical and has its own aristocracy. E. Durkheim in his work “On the division of social labor” explained inequality by the fact that different types of activity are valued differently in society. Accordingly, they form a certain hierarchy. In addition, people themselves have a different measure of talent and skill. Society must see to it that the most able and competent perform the most important functions.
Analysis of the vertical stratification of society is reflected in the theory of stratification. The very word "stratification" is borrowed from geologists. In English, it began to be understood as a layer, formation (in geology), a layer of society (in social science); stratum (stratification) - division into social strata ("layers"). This concept quite accurately conveys the content of social differentiation and implies that social groups line up in social space in a hierarchically organized vertically sequential series according to some dimension of inequality.
The basis modern approach to study social stratification was laid down by Max Weber, who considered the social structure of society as a multidimensional system in which, along with classes and property relations, an important place belongs to status and power.
The American sociologist T. Parsons emphasizes that social hierarchy is determined by the cultural standards and values that prevail in society. Therefore, in different societies, with the change of eras, the criteria that determine the status of an individual or group have changed.
If in primitive societies strength and dexterity were valued, then in medieval Europe the status of the clergy and aristocracy was high, for even an impoverished representative of a noble family was more respected in society than a wealthy merchant.
In bourgeois society, the status of a person began to be determined by the presence of capital, and it was he who opened the way up the social ladder. On the contrary, in Soviet society, wealth had to be hidden, while at the same time belonging to communist party paved the way for a career.
social stratification can be defined as a structured system of social inequality in which individuals and social groups are ranked according to their social status in society.
Pitirim Sorokin is a classic for Western sociology author on the problems of stratification and mobility. He gives a classic definition of the concept of social stratification in his work “Social Stratification and Mobility”: “Social stratification is the differentiation of a given set of people (population) into classes in a hierarchical rank. It finds expression in the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and essence lies in the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, the presence or absence of social values, power and influence among members of a particular community. (P. Sorokin. Man. Civilization. Society. M., 1992, p. 302).
From the variety of social stratification, Sorokin singles out only three main forms: property inequality gives rise to economic differentiation, inequality in the possession of power indicates political differentiation, division according to the type of activity that differs in the level of prestige gives reason to speak of professional differentiation.
According to Sorokin, social mobility is the natural and normal state of society. It implies not only social movements of individuals, groups, but also social objects (values), that is, everything that is created or modified in the process of human activity. Horizontal mobility involves the transition from one social group to another, located at the same level of social stratification. Under vertical mobility, he means the movement of an individual from one layer to another, and, depending on the direction of the movement itself, one can speak of two types of vertical mobility: upward and downward, i.e. about social ascent and social descent.
Vertical mobility, according to Sorokin, should be considered in three aspects, corresponding to the three forms of social stratification - as intraprofessional or interprofessional circulation, political movements and advancement along the "economic ladder". The main obstacle for social mobility in stratified societies is the presence of specific "sieves", which, as it were, sift through individuals, allowing one to move upward, inhibiting the progress of others. This "sieve" is the mechanism of social testing, selection and distribution of individuals across social strata. They, as a rule, coincide with the main channels of vertical mobility, i.e. school, army, church, professional, economic and political organizations. On the basis of rich empirical material, Sorokin concludes that in any society the social circulation of individuals and their distribution is not carried out by chance, but is in the nature of necessity and is strictly controlled by various institutions.
For many decades there has been a dispute between the stratification approach to the analysis of the social differentiation of society, put forward by M. Weber, and the class analysis of the Marxist tradition. It was K. Marx and M. Weber who laid the foundation for two main visions of social inequality, based on three criteria:
Wealth or wealth inequality;
the prestige
· power.
The same person or group, especially during periods of profound social change, can occupy various places on these three parallels.
Various thinkers approached the consideration of the social class structure of society in different ways. Marxist sociology has contributed to the study of the concept social structure class. Class is understood in two senses - broad and narrow.
In a broad sense, a class is understood as a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of earning income.
In a narrow sense, a class is any social stratum in modern society, differing from others in income, education, power and prestige. The second point of view prevails in foreign sociology and is beginning to be shared by the domestic one. In modern society, there are not two opposite, but several strata that pass into each other, called classes. According to the narrow interpretation, there were no classes under either slavery or feudalism. They appeared only under capitalism and mark the transition from a closed to an open society.
In closed caste and estate societies, social movements from lower to higher strata are completely prohibited or significantly limited. In open societies, movements from one stratum to another are not officially restricted in any way.
A socially stratified society with its numerous layers can be conditionally represented as a vertical structure with three levels-classes: the highest, the middle and the lowest.
The upper class usually makes up a small percentage of the population (no more than 10%). It can also be conditionally subdivided into the upper upper class (the richest, of noble origin) and the upper class (the rich, but not from the aristocracy). Its role in the life of society is ambiguous. On the one hand, he has powerful means of influencing political power. On the other hand, its interests, the main of which are the preservation and increase of accumulated property, constantly clash with the interests of the rest of society. While not possessing sufficient numbers, the upper class is not a guarantor of the sustainability and stability of society.
According to the universal recognition of sociologists, confirmed by life, central location in the social structure of modern society is the middle class. In almost all developed countries, the share of the middle class is 55-60%. In countries where, for various reasons, the middle class has not taken shape, there is socio-economic and political instability, and the process of modernizing society is significantly hampered.
We can distinguish the main signs of belonging to the middle class:
the presence of property in the form of accumulated property or existing as a source of income;
· a high level of education (higher or specialized secondary), which is characterized as intellectual property;
income that fluctuates around the national average;
· professional activity having a fairly high prestige in society.
At the bottom of the social ladder is the lower class - those categories of the population that do not own property are engaged in low-skilled labor with an income that determines their position on the verge of poverty or below. This also includes groups that do not have a permanent income, the unemployed, declassed elements.
The very position of these layers determines their position as unstable. Usually it is these strata that become the social base of radical and extremist parties.
According to the accepted by Academician T.I. Zaslavskaya hypothesis, Russian society consists of four social strata: upper, middle, basic and lower, as well as a desocialized "social bottom". The top stratum is the real ruling stratum, acting as the main subject of the reforms.
It includes elite and sub-elite groups that occupy the most important positions in the system of state administration, in economic and law enforcement agencies. They are united by the fact of being in power and the ability to directly influence the reform process.
one . Economic and socio-political development of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was a country with an average level of development of capitalism. The abolition of serfdom in 1861, the reforms of the 60-70s. did not pass without a trace: capitalist industry grew at a high rate, new industries and new industrial regions arose. Important changes took place in transport: railways connected the Center with the outskirts and accelerated the economic development of the country. During the crisis years of 1900-1903. the process of creating large industrial monopolies - cartels and syndicates - "Prodamet", "Prodvagon", "Produgol" and others has accelerated. Significant changes have also taken place in the field of banking and finance. Large banks closely associated with industry arose. Financial system after the reform carried out in 1897 by the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte (the introduction of gold backing of the ruble and free exchange paper money for gold) was one of the most stable in the world. Russia is among the five most developed industrial countries. She embarked on the path of eliminating the remnants of serfdom, developing industry, and creating the foundations of an industrial society. Modernization in Russia had its own peculiarities: - it was necessary to catch up with the industrial powers that had pulled ahead; The government has a huge influence on economic growth. State orders, high customs duties, maintenance at the expense of the treasury of factories, factories, railways were called upon to support and accelerate the development of industry; - foreign capital played a prominent role in financing industrial growth. The task of modernization was the challenge that time itself threw to Russia. Its solution was fraught with difficult, even serious problems.Labor productivity was low. In terms of the level of industrial production and technical equipment of enterprises, Russia lagged far behind the leading industrial countries.
Acquired extreme sharpness at the beginning of the 20th century. agricultural issue. Most of the landowners' households lived in the old fashioned way: they leased the land to the peasants on a semi-enslaved lease, and they worked it with their own primitive implements. The peasantry suffered from lack of land, remnants of serfdom, remained committed to the communal values of collectivism and equality. The peasants dreamed of a "black redistribution", the division of the landlords' land among the community members. At the same time, there was no equality among the peasantry; the stratification of the countryside into the poor, the middle peasants and the kulaks had gone quite far.
The position of the working class at the beginning of the 20th century. was heavy. Long working hours, poor living conditions, low wages, combined with a sophisticated system of fines, lack of rights - these are the reasons that caused discontent among the workers.
By the beginning of the century, modernization had practically not affected the political sphere. There were no changes in the system of central authorities. Russia remained an absolute monarchy.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Ideas of social inequality in public thought about the emergence of sociology
The history of all sociology as a science, as well as the history of its most important private discipline, the sociology of inequality, spans a century and a half.
But long before the 19th century, scientists were thinking about the nature of human relations, about the plight of most people, about the problem of the oppressed and the oppressors, about the justice or injustice of inequality.
Even the ancient philosopher Plato reflected on the stratification of people into rich and poor. He believed that the state is, as it were, two states. One is the poor, the other is the rich, and they all live together, plotting each other all sorts of intrigues. Plato was “the first political ideologue who thought in terms of classes,” says Karl Popper. In such a society, people are haunted by fear and uncertainty. A healthy society must be different.
In his work “The State”, Plato argued that the correct state can be scientifically substantiated, and not groped, fearing, believing and improvising.
Plato assumed that this new, scientifically designed society would not only implement the principles of justice, but also ensure social stability and internal discipline. This is how he imagined a society led by rulers (guardians).
Aristotle in "Politics" also considered the issue of social inequality. He wrote that now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich; the other is very poor; the third is average. This third is the best, since its members are life are most ready to follow the rational principle.It is from the poor and the rich that some grow up as criminals, and others as swindlers.
Realistically reflecting on the stability of the state, Aristotle noted that it is necessary to think about the poor, because the state, where many poor people are excluded from government, will inevitably have many enemies. After all, poverty gives rise to rebellion and crime where there is no middle class and the vast majority of the poor, complications arise, and the state is doomed to death. Aristotle opposed both the power of the poor, dispossessed, and the selfish rule of the rich plutocracy. The best society is formed from the middle class, and the state, where this class is more numerous and stronger than both others put together, is best governed, for the social balance is ensured.
According to sociologists of all ideological directions, no one in the history of social thought emphasized as clearly as K. Marx that the source of social development is the struggle between antagonistic social classes. According to Marx, classes arise and fight on the basis of various positions and the various roles played by individuals in production structure society.
But K. Marx himself rightly noted that the merit of discovering the existence of classes and their struggle among themselves does not belong to him. Indeed, since the time of Plato, but, of course, especially since the time when the bourgeoisie powerfully entered the stage of history in the 18th century, many economists, philosophers, and historians have firmly introduced into the social science of Europe the concept social class(Adam Smith, Etienne Condillac, Claude Saint-Simon, Francois Guizot, Auguste Mignet and others).
However, no one before Marx gave such a deep justification for the class structure of society, deriving it from a fundamental analysis of the entire system. economic relations. No one before him gave such a comprehensive disclosure of class relations, the mechanism of exploitation in the capitalist society that existed in his time. Therefore, in most contemporary works on the problems of social inequality, stratification and class differentiation in equal measure both by the supporters of Marxism and by authors who are far from the positions of K. Marx, an analysis of his theory of classes is given. Decisive for the formation of modern ideas about the essence, forms and functions of social inequality, along with Marx, was Max Weber (1864 - 1920), a classic of world sociological theory. The ideological basis of Weber's views is that the individual is the subject of social action.
In contrast to Marx, Weber, in addition to the economic aspect of stratification, took into account such aspects as power and prestige. Weber viewed property, power, and prestige as three separate, interacting factors that underlie hierarchies in any society. Differences in ownership breed economic classes; power differences give rise to political parties, and prestigious distinctions give status groupings, or strata. From here he formulated his idea of "three autonomous dimensions of stratification". He emphasized that "classes", "status groups" and "parties" are phenomena related to the sphere of distribution of power within the community.
Weber's main contradiction with Marx is that, according to Weber, a class cannot be the subject of action, since it is not a community. In contrast to Marx, Weber associated the concept of class only with capitalist society, where the market acts as an important regulator of relations. Through it, people satisfy their needs for material goods and services.
However, in the market, people occupy different positions or are in a different “class situation”. Here everyone sells and buys. Some sell goods, services; others sell labor. The difference here is that some own property, while others do not.
Weber does not have a clear class structure of capitalist society, so different interpreters of his work give inconsistent lists of classes.
Given his methodological principles and summarizing his historical, economic and sociological works, one can reconstruct Weber's typology of classes under capitalism as follows:
1. The dispossessed working class. He offers his services on the market and differentiates by skill level.
2. Petty bourgeoisie - a class of small businessmen and merchants.
3. Dispossessed "white-collar workers": technicians and intellectuals.
4. Administrators and managers.
5. Owners who also strive through education for the advantages that intellectuals have.
5.1 The class of owners, i.e. those who receive rent from the ownership of land, mines, etc.
5.2 “Commercial class”, i.e. entrepreneurs.
Weber argued that property owners are a "positively privileged" class. At the other extreme is the "negatively privileged class", here he included those who have neither property nor skills to offer on the market.
There are many stratification criteria by which any society can be divided. Each of them is associated with special ways of determining and reproducing social inequality. The nature of social stratification and the way it is established in their unity form what we call the stratification system.
When it comes to the main types of stratification systems, a description of caste, slaveholding, estate and class differentiation is usually given. At the same time, it is customary to identify them with the historical types of social structure observed in the modern world or already irrevocably gone into the past. We adhere to a slightly different approach, considering that any particular society consists of combinations of various stratification systems and many of their transitional forms.
Therefore, we prefer to talk about “ideal types” even when we use elements of the traditional terminology.
Below are nine types of stratification systems that, in our opinion, can be used to describe any social organism, namely:
physico-genetic;
slaveholding;
caste;
estate;
ectaratic;
social - professional;
class;
cultural and symbolic;
cultural and normative;
The first type of physical-genetic stratification system is based on the differentiation of social groups according to “natural” socio-demographic characteristics. Here, the attitude towards a person or group is determined by gender, age and the presence of certain physical qualities- strength, beauty, dexterity. Accordingly, the weaker, those with physical disabilities are considered defective and occupy a humbled social position.
Inequality in this case is affirmed by the existence of the threat of physical violence or its actual use, and then fixed in customs and rituals.
This “natural” stratification system dominated the primitive community, but continues to reproduce to this day. It is especially pronounced in communities struggling for physical survival or expansion of their living space. The one who is able to carry out violence against nature and people has the greatest prestige here. or resist such violence: a healthy young man - the breadwinner in a peasant community living on the fruits of primitive manual labor; a courageous warrior of the Spartan state; a true Aryan of the National Socialist army, capable of producing healthy offspring.
The system that ranks people according to their ability to engage in physical violence is largely a product of the militarism of ancient and modern societies. At present, although devoid of its former significance, it is still supported by military, sports and sexually-erotic propaganda.
The second stratification system - slaveholding - is also based on direct violence. But the inequality of people here is determined not by physical, but by military-physical coercion. Social groups differ in the presence or absence of civil rights and property rights. Certain social groups are completely deprived of these rights and, moreover, along with things, are turned into an object of private property. Moreover, this position is most often inherited and thus fixed in generations. Examples of slaveholding systems are quite diverse. This is ancient slavery, where the number of slaves sometimes exceeded the number of free citizens, and servility in Russia during the Russkaya Pravda, this is plantation slavery in the south of the North American United States until civil war 1861 - 1865 is, finally, the work of prisoners of war and deportees on German private farms during the Second World War.
The methods of reproduction of the slave-owning system are also characterized by considerable diversity. Ancient slavery was maintained mainly by conquest. For early feudal Russia, it was more debt, enslaving slavery. The practice of selling one's own children without being able to feed them existed, for example, in medieval China. In the same place, various kinds of criminals (including political ones) were turned into slaves. This practice was practically reproduced much later in the Soviet GULAG (although private slavery was carried out here in hidden non-legal forms).
The third type of stratification system is caste. It is based on ethnic differences, which, in turn, are reinforced by the religious order and religious rituals. Each caste is a closed, as far as possible, endogamous group, which is assigned a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. This place appears as a result of isolation special functions each caste in the division of labor. There is a clear list of occupations that members of this caste can engage in: priestly, military, agricultural. Since the position in the caste system is inherited, the possibilities of social mobility are extremely limited here.
And the stronger caste is expressed, the more closed this society turns out to be. India is rightfully considered a classic example of a society with a dominance of the caste system (this system was legally abolished only in 1950). Today, although in a smoother form, the caste system is reproduced not only in India, but, for example, in the clan system of the Central Asian states. Explicit features of caste were affirmed in the middle of the twentieth century by the policy of fascist states (the Aryans were assigned the position of the highest ethnic caste, called to dominate the Slavs, Jews, etc.). The role of binding theological doctrines in this case is assumed by the nationalist ideology.
The fourth type is represented by a class stratification system. In this system, groups are distinguished legal rights which, in turn, are rigidly connected with their duties and are directly dependent on these duties. Moreover, the latter imply obligations to the state, enshrined in law. Some estates are obliged to carry out military or bureaucratic service, others - "tax" in the form of taxes or labor duties.
Examples of developed estate systems are feudal Western European societies or feudal Russia. An estate is, first of all, a legal division, and not, say, an ethnic-religious or economic division. that is also important. that belonging to a class is inherited, contributing to the relative closeness of this system.
Some similarity with the class system is observed in the ektaratic system representing the fifth type (from French and Greek - “ government”). In it, differentiation between groups occurs, first of all, according to their position in the power-state hierarchies (political, military, economic), according to the possibilities of mobilizing and distributing resources, as well as the prestige they feel, are connected here with the formal ranks that these groups occupy in their respective power hierarchies.
All other differences - demographic and religious - ethnic, economic and cultural play a secondary role. The scale and nature of differentiation (the amount of power) in the ektaratic system is under the control of the state bureaucracy. At the same time, hierarchies can be fixed formally - legally - through bureaucratic tables of ranks, military regulations, assignment of categories to state institutions, or they can remain outside the sphere of state legislation (a good example is the system of the Soviet party nomenklatura, the principles of which are not spelled out in any laws). The formal freedom of members of society (with the exception of dependence on the state), the absence of automatic inheritance of positions of power also distinguish the etacratic system from the system of estates.
The etacratic system is revealed with all the greater force, the more authoritarian character the government assumes. In ancient times, societies of Asian despotism (China, India, Cambodia) were a striking example of the etacratic system, located, however, by no means only in Asia (for example, in Peru, Egypt). In the twentieth century, it is actively asserting itself in the so-called socialist societies and, perhaps, even plays a decisive role in them. It must be said that the allocation of a special ektaratic system is not yet traditional for works on stratification typologies.
Therefore, we would like to draw attention to both the historical significance and the analytical role of this type of social differentiation.
This is followed by the sixth, socio-professional stratification system. Here the groups are divided according to the content and conditions of their work. A special role is played by the qualification requirements for a particular professional role- Possession of relevant experience, skills and abilities. Approval and maintenance of hierarchical orders in this system is carried out with the help of certificates (diplomas, grades, licenses, patents), fixing the level of qualification and ability to perform certain types activities. The validity of qualification certificates is supported by the power of the state or some other sufficiently powerful corporation (professional workshop). Moreover, these certificates are most often not inherited, although there are exceptions in history. Socio-professional division is one of the basic stratification systems, various examples of which can be found in any society with any developed division of labor. This is the system of craft workshops of a medieval city and the rank grid in modern state industry, the system of certificates and diplomas for education, the system scientific degrees and titles that open the way to more prestigious jobs.
The seventh type is represented by the popular class system. The class approach is often opposed to the stratification approach. But for us, class division is only a particular case of social stratification. Of the many interpretations of the concept of “class”, we will focus in this case on a more traditional one - socio-economic. In this interpretation, classes represent social groups of politically and legally free citizens. Differences between groups are primarily in the nature and extent of ownership of the means of production and produced product, as well as in the level of income received and personal material well-being.Unlike many previous types, belonging to classes - bourgeois, proletarians, independent farmers, etc. - is not regulated
higher authorities, is not established by law and is not inherited. In its purest form, the class system does not contain any internal formal partitions at all (economic prosperity automatically transfers you to a higher group).
Economically egalitarian communities, where class differentiation is completely absent, are a rather rare and unstable phenomenon. But for the most part human history class divisions are still of a subordinate character. They come to the fore, perhaps, only in bourgeois Western societies. And the class system reaches its greatest heights in the liberal spirit of the United States of America.
Eighth type - cultural - symbolic. Differentiation arises here from differences in access to socially significant information, unequal opportunities to filter and interpret this information, and the ability to be a bearer of sacred knowledge (mystical or scientific). In ancient times, this role was assigned to priests, magicians and shamans, in the Middle Ages - to church ministers, who make up the bulk of the literate population, interpreters of sacred texts, in modern times - to scientists, technocrats and party ideologists. Claims to communicate with divine forces, to possess scientific truth on expression of public interest existed always and everywhere. And a higher position in this regard is occupied by those who have better opportunities to manipulate the consciousness and actions of other members of society, who can prove their rights to true understanding better than others, own the best symbolic capital.
Simplifying the picture somewhat, we can say that pre-industrial societies are more characterized by theocratic manipulation; for industrial - partocratic; and for post - industrial - technocratic.
The ninth type of stratification system should be called cultural-normative. Here differentiation is built on differences of respect and prestige arising from the comparison of lifestyles and norms of behavior followed by this person or group. Attitudes towards physical and mental labor, consumer tastes and habits, manners of communication and etiquette, a special language (professional terminology, local dialect, criminal jargon) - all this forms the basis of social division. Moreover, there is not only a distinction between “us” and “them”, but also a ranking of groups (“noble - not noble”, “decent - not decent”, “elite - ordinary people- bottom"). The concept of elites is surrounded by a certain mysterious veil. They talk a lot about it, but often, they do not outline any clear denoting boundaries.
The elite is not only a category of politics. In modern society, there are many elites - political, military, economic, professional. Somewhere these elites are intertwined, somewhere they compete with each other. It can be said that there are as many elites as there are areas of social life. But whatever area we take, the elite are a minority opposed to the rest of society. its middle and lower layers as a kind of “mass”. At the same time, the position of the elite as an upper class or caste can be fixed by a formal law or religious code, or it can be achieved in a completely informal way.
Elitist theories arose and were formed to a large extent as a reaction to radical and socialist teachings and were directed against various currents of socialism: Marxist, anarcho-syndicalist. Therefore, Marxists, in fact, were very skeptical about these theories, did not want to recognize them and apply them to the material of Western societies. For this would mean, firstly, the recognition that the lower strata are a weak or not at all organized mass that needs to be controlled, a mass incapable of self-organization and revolutionary action, and secondly, recognition to some extent of the inevitability and “naturalness "such a sharp inequality. As a result, one would have to radically revise views on the role and nature of the class struggle.
But the militaristic approach is directed against democratic parliamentarism. He is generally anti-democratic in nature. Democracy and accessories presuppose the rule of the majority and the universal equality of people as independent citizens, organized enough to realize their own goals and interests. And because of this, the champions of democracy treat any attempts at elite rule rather coldly.
Numerous approaches to the concept can be divided into two main groups - authoritative and meritocratic. In accordance with the former, the elite are those who have decisive power in a given society, and in accordance with the latter, those who have certain special virtues and personal qualities, regardless of whether they have power or not.
In the latter case, the elite is distinguished by talent and merit. Sometimes domineering and meritocratic approaches are conventionally referred to as the “Lasswell line” and “Pareto line”. (Although the first approach might just as well be called the "Mosca line" or "Mills line")
One group of researchers understands the elite as layers that have the highest positions of power or the highest formal power in organizations and institutions. Another group refers to the elite of charismatic personalities, divinely inspired, capable of leadership, representatives of the creative minority.
In turn, power approaches are divided into structural and functional. Those who choose a structural approach that is simpler from an empirical point of view consider the elite to be the circle of persons holding the highest positions in the institutions under consideration (ministers, directors, military leaders).
Those who dwell on the functional approach set themselves a more difficult task: to single out groups that have real power in making socially important decisions (many representatives of these groups, of course, may not hold any prominent public posts, remain in the “shadow”) .
Similar Documents
Brief biography and characteristics scientific works M. Weber - antipositivist sociologist. Fundamentals of the non-classical type of scientific sociology. The concept of social action as the core of M. Weber's creativity. Basic principles of rationalization of public life.
abstract, added 12/09/2009
Basic principles of the methodology of sociological science of one of the most influential theorists M. Weber. Social action as a subject of sociology, the study of personality behavior. Weber's theory of rationalization in sociological interpretations of politics and religion.
test, added 10/30/2009
The study of the classical theories of modern sociology: the theories of O. Comte, K. Marx, E. Durkheim and M. Weber. Analysis of the concept of social stratification, a set of large social groups arranged hierarchically according to the criterion of social inequality.
abstract, added 01/10/2012
Methodology of sociological knowledge of Max Weber. Essence of the theory of "social action". Bureaucracy as a pure type of legal domination. The focus of the work of M. Weber, his concept. The place of creativity of a sociologist in the development of managerial thought.
term paper, added 06/17/2014
Unequal life chances and opportunities to meet needs are the basis of social inequality. The main mechanisms of social inequality. Principles of social policy. The essence of the theory of functionalism and conflict. The iron law of the oligarchy.
presentation, added 12/13/2016
The development of sociological ideas about society from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli and Hobbes, the theoretical postulates of Comte and Marx. Durkheim as a pioneer of social statistics in sociology. Weber's contribution to the theory and methodology of sociological trends.
abstract, added 06/07/2009
Classes and Contradictions in Capitalism by K. Marx. "Capitalist spirit" and types of capitalism in M. Weber. Criticism of Marxist and Weberian claims. The main opposites of understanding the capitalist system and political power by Marx and Weber.
term paper, added 01/25/2016
Descriptions of the ideas of social inequality in social thought before the emergence of sociology. Characteristics of the family, state, linguistic, racial, religious and property groups of the population. The study of the model and system of social stratification.
abstract, added 05/19/2011
Prerequisites for the emergence of sociology in the 19th century, the main ideas of its founders (Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber). Social Research in the USA and Kazakhstan. The main stages in the development of sociology in Russia.
presentation, added 04/11/2013
The history of the development of sociology as a science in the periods of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the New Age. Consideration of the problems of society and social behavior in the works of Comte. The essence of the sociological concepts of Durkheim, M. Weber, Marx, Kovalevsky, Sorokin.
Structural functionalism as a sociological paradigm
Structural functionalism is a direction of sociological thought,
sociological paradigm, the essence of which is to highlight
elements social interaction, determining their role and place in
larger social system or society as a whole, as well as their social
Founders:
I. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown
Key Ideas:
· Social order is supported by social institutions Social institutions - norms of behavior - are supported by constant practices. Practices should not interfere with each other. In some cases, they support each other. There is a process of "co-adaptation".
· Functionalism is a way of organizing practices to maintain stability in society.
Social structure is a set of stable social relations. There is a "total social structure" that is reproduced by sustainable practices Evolutionism vs. Diffusionism. How to study society?
Comparison of practices in societies is needed different type
II. Bronislav Malinovsky
Key Ideas:
v Enabled Surveillance
It is necessary to study the worldview and culture of people in order to understand how society is possible
v Reciprocity, principle of reciprocity:
-General
-Symmetrical
-Negative
v Social action can only be explained by means
Understanding people's needs. You need to understand their culture
their values and the way they meet the needs in this
culture.
III. Talcott Parsons
The world is systemic, so you need to study it in a systematic way
· The system is a holistic education. Its aspects are structural and procedural.
· Systems exist in interaction with the environment with which they are in exchange relations.
· Structure is a set of standardized relationships between elements of the system.
An element of the social system is an acting person (actor)
The role is the expected behavior corresponding to the status and social position of the individual.
Quantitative and qualitative methods in modern sociology
Methodology sociological research is a set of methods
sociological research, methods and approaches to their application.
All methods of sociological research can be divided into two categories.
1) data collection methods
2) methods of processing sociological data
Methods of data collection in sociological research are divided into two
1) quantitative methods
2) qualitative methods of sociological research.
Therefore, there are such types of sociological research as
quantitative and qualitative.
Qualitative methods of sociology allow the sociologist to understand the essence
any social phenomenon, and quantitative - to understand how
massively (frequently encountered) is social phenomenon and how important it is
for society.
Quantitative research methods include:
- content analysis of documents
- interview method
- observation
- experiment
Qualitative methods of sociology:
· - focus group
- case study ("case study")
- ethnographic research
- unstructured interviews.
K. Marx on the origin of inequality
According to Marx, classes arise and fight on the basis of different
position and various roles performed by individuals in the production
structure of society, that is, the basis for the formation of classes is
social division of labor.
In turn, the struggle between antagonistic social classes
acts as a source of social development.
1. The emergence of classes becomes possible only when growth
productivity of labor leads to the appearance of a surplus product, and
common ownership of the means of production is replaced by private ownership
property.
2. With the advent of private property, it becomes inevitable
property inequality within the community: separate clans and families
get richer, others become poorer and become economically dependent on
first. Elders, commanders, priests and other persons who form
tribal nobility, using their position, are enriched at the expense of the community.
3. The development of production, the growth of trade, the increase in population destroy
former unity of clan and tribe. Thanks to the division of labor,
cities are centers of crafts and trade. On the ruins of the old, tribal system
a class society emerges, a characteristic feature of which is
antagonism between the classes of exploiters and exploited.
4. The ruling classes, being the owners of all or at least
measure essential funds production, get the opportunity to assign
the labor of the oppressed classes wholly or partly deprived of means
production.
5. Slavery, serfdom, wage labor form three successive
another way of exploitation, characterizing the three stages of class-
antagonistic society. With the first two methods of class
exploitation of the direct producer (slave, serf) was
legally disenfranchised or incomplete, personally dependent on the owner
means of production. In these societies, "... class differences were fixed and
in the class division of the population, was accompanied by the establishment of a special
legal place in the state for each class ... The division of society into
classes are inherent in both slave, and feudal, and bourgeois societies, but in
the first two there were classes-estates, and in the last classes
classless"
Thus, the basis of the inequality of society according to Marx is
economic development of society. The more economically developed the society
The more class inequality is felt.
Relations between constituent parts social structure may contain elements of social equality and social inequality. However, social equality is a rather shaky concept. Even within the same social groups, elements of a hierarchy will be traced, caused by different ways of life of individual societies, their activity and participation in public life. Especially since they themselves social relations fact politically are relations of social inequality. The desire to portray a socially equal society in scientific and philosophical works was a fantasy, a utopia. The attempt to build communism as a society of socially equal individuals led to the tragedies of millions.
The first attempts to analyze social inequality in society, its causes and nature, to measure its parameters, were made in the era of antiquity, in particular. Plato and. Aristotle. However, such theoretical improvements were unsystematic, accidental and had no empirical basis. These theories were scientific in part. And only with the formation of an industrial society, as well as the establishment of sociology as a science, attempts to understand the essence and degree of social inequality were no longer random, but conceptual.
class theory
The first researcher who created the scientific concept of social inequality was. Charles. Marx, who developed the famous theory of classes and class struggle
In Marxism, classes - these are large groups of people who differ in their place in the historically conditioned system of social production, in their attitude to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and also in the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they manage.
Proceeding from the Marxist-Leninist theory, classes are a historical phenomenon. They arose during the period of the collapse of the primitive communal system and have changed as much as the means of production have changed. Each social and economic formation has its own class. Thus, in slavery the antagonist classes were slave owners and slaves, in feudalism - feudal lords and serfs, in capitalism - the bourgeoisie and the working class. D. Voma classes, workers and peasants are not antagonists in a socialist society. As for communism, there will be no classes in it at all, because classes, being a historical phenomenon, arose at a certain stage in the development of civilization, so the day and time will come when they must disappear, and society will become classless.
The main criteria by which Marxism divided society into classes were the following:
organization of social production;
Ownership of the means of production
The use of hired labor
Based on these criteria, the level of income is distributed between classes, as a result of which in capitalism there are such classes as the bourgeoisie, the proletariat (working class) and the peasantry.
In addition to classes, as I thought. K. Marx, there are other social strata in society, in particular, interclass layers - the intelligentsia, declassed elements and marginal groups of the intelligentsia. Marx calls with a social group consisting of people professionally engaged in creative work, requiring special education (doctors, scientists, cultural and art workers, teachers, etc.). The intelligentsia has nothing to do with production, therefore it is not a class, but is called upon to serve the interests of classes. The declassed elements are social strata of the population that do not have any property and a stable source of income. The marginal layers are at the very "bottom" of society, outside the social norms and values characteristic of this society. The marginal strata cause contempt in all other members of society society.
In today's Ukrainian society, to one degree or another, all the above social groups exist.
classical theory. K. Marx and. V. Lenin, faltered already in Soviet times where, despite the adopted model 2 1 (two classes - the peasantry and workers, and a stratum - the intelligentsia, everyone is approximately equal in terms of your working conditions and income level), there was tangible social inequality. Yes, and if you remember that the bourgeoisie Lenin, was divided into large, medium and small, there was a so-called group of middle peasants, which, among other things, was numerous, it was extremely difficult to catch clear lines between classes, because the petty bourgeoisie in terms of income often could not be equal to the bourgeoisie, but to middle peasants, and sometimes even to the proletariat. Therefore, for a clearer understanding of class theory, one should use the concept of "social strata", which make up internal structure classes and large social groups (for example, the order mentioned above, the big and petty bourgeoisie; workers of high, medium and low qualifications).
. Social stratum - a set of individuals employed in economically and socially equivalent types of labor, who receive approximately equal material and moral rewards
Thus, it is more expedient to speak not just about the class, but about the class-version structure of society.
In any case, class theory treats social inequality one-sidedly. One of the main shortcomings that can be found in class theory is the recognition of social inequality as a historical phenomenon, i.e. one way or another, with an attempt to see a socially homogeneous society in the future. Another problem of class theory is the deviation in explaining the social inequality of all factors other than economic. June is already several decades after the appearance of the theory. Marx. M. Weber proved that in addition to wealth, the status of a person in society is also influenced by power and prestige. Therefore, the theory of class structure as a single factor explaining social inequality began to falter. What was needed was another concept that used a variety of factors influencing the formation of social inequality and whose theoretical provisions would be supported by empirical data. Such a concept was the theory of social stratifications and fikatsii.