The relationship of economic political and spiritual spheres of society. Spheres of public life

The spheres of public life are closely interconnected (Fig. 4.1).

Rice. 4.1.

In the history of the social sciences, there have been attempts to single out any sphere of life as determining in relation to others. So, in the Middle Ages, the idea of ​​the special significance of religiosity as part of the spiritual sphere of society dominated. In modern times and the Age of Enlightenment, the role of morality and scientific knowledge was emphasized. A number of concepts assign the leading role to the state and law. Marxism affirms the decisive role of economic relations.

Within the framework of real social phenomena, elements of all spheres are combined. For example, the nature of economic relations can influence the structure of the social structure. A place in the social hierarchy forms certain political views, opens up appropriate access to education and other spiritual values. The economic relations themselves are determined by the legal system of the country, which is very often formed on the basis of the spiritual culture of the people, their traditions in the field of religion and morality. Thus, at various stages of historical development, the influence of any sphere may increase.

The complex nature of social systems is combined with their dynamism, i.e., mobile, changeable character.

Society is a system of ordered integrity. This is a guarantee of its constant functionality, all components of the system occupy a certain place within it and are connected with other components of society. And it is important to note that individually, not a single element possesses such a quality of integrity. Society is a peculiar result of interaction and integration of absolutely all components of this complex system.

The state, the country's economy, the social strata of society cannot have such a quality as society in itself. And multi-level links between the economic, political, spiritual and social spheres of life form such a complex and dynamic phenomenon as society.

It is easy to track the relationship, for example, socio-economic relations and legal norms on the example of the laws of Kievan Rus. The code of laws indicated the penalties for murder, and each measure determined the place of a person that he occupies in society - by belonging to a particular social group.

All four spheres of social life are not only interconnected, but also mutually condition each other. Changes in one of them, as a rule, entail changes in others. For example, the relationship between the economic and political spheres is demonstrated by the resignation of the government due to the aggravation of the economic crisis.

Consequently, each sphere of public life is a complex formation, which is in organic unity with other spheres. Due to their interconnection and interdependence, society appears as an integral system and is progressively developing.

The spheres of public life are closely interconnected. In the history of the social sciences, there have been attempts to single out any sphere of life as determining in relation to others. So, in the Middle Ages, the idea of ​​the special significance of religiosity as part of the spiritual sphere of society dominated. In modern times and the Age of Enlightenment, the role of morality and scientific knowledge was emphasized. A number of concepts assign the leading role to the state and law. Marxism affirms the decisive role of economic relations.

Within the framework of real social phenomena, elements of all spheres are combined.
Hosted on ref.rf
For example, the nature of economic relations can influence the structure of the social structure. A place in the social hierarchy forms certain political views, opens up appropriate access to education and other spiritual values. The economic relations themselves are determined by the legal system of the country, which is very often formed on the basis of the spiritual culture of the people, ᴇᴦο traditions in the field of religion and morality. Thus, at various stages of historical development, the influence of any sphere may increase.

49. Society and history. The main concepts of the historical process are culturological, civilizational and formational.

The life of human society is a historical process. This process covers the entire development of mankind, from the first steps of ape-like ancestors to the complex zigzags of the 20th century. Naturally, the question arises: according to what laws does development occur? The materialistic approach to history includes the recognition of the unity of the historical process in ᴇᴦο diversity. The unity of history is laid in life itself, in the way of its material support with the help of labor activity and the material means of labor used by it. Labor is the eternal condition of human life. The material basis of the historical process is the basis of ᴇᴦο unity. If different cultures and civilizations develop as independent and internally closed formations, then in such civilizations the general historical laws do not work. The unity of the historical process is manifested in the establishment of links between economic, cultural, scientific, and political countries. In this interconnected world, socially significant events immediately become the property of all, the interests and destinies of peoples are closely intertwined, and nationalities are consolidating. The diversity of history lies in the fact that it develops in time and space. In time, these are various stages of historical development - formations and eras. In space, this is the presence of a real diversity of social life, the main source of which is the uneven historical development. In understanding the development of society, there are different approaches: formational, civilizational, cultural. The formational method was developed by Marxists, it forms the basis of the materialistic understanding of society. Marxists introduced such a thing as a formation. Formation - a certain type of society, an integral social system that develops and functions on the basis of the dominant mode of production according to general or specific laws. General laws - laws that apply to all formations (the law on the decisive role of social being in relation to social consciousness, the law on the decisive role of the mode of production in social development). Specific laws - laws that operate in one or more formations (the law of proportional development of the national economy). The main criterion that determines the development and change of formations is the dominant forms of ownership replacing each other˸ 1) tribal, 2) ancient, 3) feudal, 4) bourgeois, 5) the future communist form of universal property. First of all, K. Marx singled out such concepts as basis and superstructure. The basis is a set of production and economic relations. The superstructure is a collection of ideas and ideological relations. Its main element is the state. Following the mode of production, the social-class structure of the development of society also changes. The development of society is carried out along an ascending line from lower to higher formations, from the primitive communal system to the slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, communist society. The change of formation is carried out with the help of revolutions. The main categories of the formational approach are the mode of production, class, society. But these categories do not reflect the entire spectrum of the development of society, and the formational approach is supplemented by two others: civilizational and culturological. civilizational approach. Proponents of the civilizational approach do not place linear progress on the basis of development, but the local emergence of various civilizations. A supporter of this approach is Arnold Toynbee, who believes that each civilization goes through the stages of emergence, growth, breakdown and decomposition in its development, after which it dies. To date, only five major civilizations have survived - Chinese, Indian, Islamic, Russian and Western. The civilizational approach also explains a lot in human history. Contemporary examples˸ Bosnian conflict. There are fewer differences in language among Serbs and Croats than in Russian and Ukrainian. And Bosnian Muslims are Serbs by nationality. There are still disputes about the place of Russia whether we belong to the Orthodox culture or we are a special civilization. There is a gradation into two civilizations: West and East. According to Chaadaev, we are the first Asian civilization that collided with the West and began to transform. Slavophiles believe that we are a unique culture that combines the virtues of both the West and the East.

Public life includes all phenomena caused by the interaction of society as a whole and individuals located in a certain limited area. Social scientists note the close interconnection and interdependence of all major social spheres, reflecting certain aspects of human existence and activity.

Economic sphere social life includes material production and relations that arise between people in the process of production of material goods, their exchange and distribution. It is difficult to overestimate the role that economic, commodity-money relations and professional activity play in our life. Today they have even come to the fore too actively, and material values ​​sometimes completely crowd out spiritual ones. Many now say that a person must first be fed, ensured his material well-being, the maintenance of his physical strength, and only then - spiritual benefits and political freedoms. There is even a saying: "Better to be full than free." This, however, is debatable. For example, a non-free person, spiritually undeveloped, will continue to worry until the end of his days only about physical survival and satisfaction of his physiological needs.

political sphere, also called political and legal, connected primarily with the management of society, the state system, the problems of power, laws and legal norms.

In the political sphere, one way or another, one encounters established rules of conduct. Today, some people become disillusioned with politics and politicians. This is because people do not see positive changes in their lives. Many young people are also not very interested in politics, preferring meetings in friendly companies and passion for music. However, it is impossible to completely isolate ourselves from this sphere of public life: if we do not want to participate in the life of the state, then we will have to obey someone else's will and someone else's decisions. One thinker said: "If you don't get into politics, then politics will get into you."

Social sphere includes the relationship of various groups of people (classes, social strata, nations), considers the position of a person in society, the basic values ​​and ideals established in a particular group. A person cannot exist without other people, therefore it is the social sphere that is the part of life that accompanies him from the moment of birth until the last minutes.

spiritual realm covers various manifestations of a person's creative potential, his inner world, his own ideas about beauty, experiences, moral attitudes, religious beliefs, the opportunity to realize himself in various forms of art.

Which of the spheres of society's life seems to be more significant? And which one is less? There is no single answer to this question, since social phenomena are complex and in each of them one can trace the relationship and mutual influence of spheres.

For example, one can trace the close relationship between economics and politics. Reforms are being carried out in the country, taxes for entrepreneurs have been reduced. This political measure contributes to the growth of production, facilitating the activities of businessmen. And vice versa, if the government increases the tax burden on enterprises, it will not be profitable for them to develop, and many entrepreneurs will try to withdraw their capital from industry.

Equally important is the relationship between the social sphere and politics. The leading role in the social sphere of modern society is played by representatives of the so-called "middle strata" - qualified specialists, information workers (programmers, engineers), representatives of small and medium-sized businesses. And these same people will form the leading political parties and movements, as well as their own system of views on society.

The economy and the spiritual sphere are interconnected. For example, the economic possibilities of society, the level of human mastery of natural resources allows the development of science, and vice versa, fundamental scientific discoveries contribute to the transformation of the productive forces of society. There are many examples of the relationship between all four public spheres. For example, in the course of the market reforms being carried out in the country, a variety of forms of ownership has been legalized. This contributes to the emergence of new social groups - the business class, small and medium-sized businesses, farming, and specialists in private practice. In the field of culture, the emergence of private media, film companies, Internet providers contributes to the development of pluralism in the spiritual sphere, the creation of essentially spiritual products, multidirectional information. There are an infinite number of similar examples of the relationship between spheres.

Social institutions

One of the elements that make up society as a system are various social institutions.

The word "institution" here should not be taken as a specific institution. This is a broad concept that includes everything that is created by people to realize their needs, desires, aspirations. In order to better organize their lives and activities, society forms certain structures, norms that allow satisfying certain needs.

Social institutions- these are relatively stable types and forms of social practice, through which social life is organized, the stability of ties and relations within society is ensured.

Scientists distinguish several groups of institutions in each society: 1) economic institutions, which serve for the production and distribution of goods and services; 2) political institutions, regulating public life, related to the exercise of power and access to them; 3) institutions of stratification, determining the distribution of social positions and public resources; 4) kinship institutions, ensuring reproduction and inheritance through marriage, family, upbringing; 5) cultural institutions, developing the continuity of religious, scientific and artistic activities in society.

For example, the society's need for reproduction, development, preservation and multiplication is fulfilled by such institutions as the family and the school. The social institution that performs the functions of security and protection is the army.

The institutions of society are also morality, law, religion. The starting point for the formation of a social institution is society's awareness of its needs.

The emergence of a social institution is due to: the need of society;

availability of means to meet this need;

the availability of the necessary material, financial, labor, organizational resources; the possibility of its integration into the socio-economic, ideological, value structures of society, which makes it possible to legitimize the professional and legal basis of its activities.

The famous American scientist R. Merton defined the main functions of social institutions. Explicit functions are written down in charters, formally fixed, officially accepted by people. They are formalized and largely controlled by society. For example, we can ask government agencies: “Where do our taxes go?”

Hidden functions - those that are actually carried out and formally may not be fixed. If hidden and explicit functions diverge, a certain double standard is formed when one is declared and another is done. In this case, scientists talk about the instability of the development of society.

The process of social development is accompanied institutionalization, that is, the formation of new attitudes and needs, leading to the creation of new institutions. The American sociologist of the 20th century, G. Lansky, identified a number of needs that lead to the formation of institutions. These are the needs:

In communication (language, education, communication, transport);

In the production of products and services;

In the distribution of goods;

In the safety of citizens, the protection of their lives and well-being;

In maintaining the system of inequality (placement of social groups according to positions, statuses depending on various criteria);

In social control over the behavior of members of society (religion, morality, law).

Modern society is characterized by the growth and complexity of the system of institutions. The same social need can give rise to the existence of several institutions, while certain institutions (for example, the family) can simultaneously realize several needs: in reproduction, in communication, in security, in the production of services, in socialization, etc.

Multivariance of social development. Typology of societies

The life of each individual and society as a whole is constantly changing. Not a single day and hour we live is like the previous ones. When do we say that there has been a change? Then, when it is clear to us that one state is not equal to another, and something new has appeared that was not there before. How are changes taking place and where are they directed?

At each individual moment of time, a person and his associations are influenced by many factors, sometimes mismatched and multidirectional. Therefore, it is difficult to speak of any clear, precise arrow-shaped line of development characteristic of society. The processes of change are complex, uneven, and sometimes it is difficult to grasp their logic. The paths of social change are varied and tortuous.

Often we come across such a concept as "social development". Let's think about how change will generally differ from development? Which of these concepts is broader, and which is more specific (it can be entered into another, considered as a special case of the other)? Obviously, not all change is development. But only that which involves complication, improvement and is associated with the manifestation of social progress.

What drives the development of society? What can be hidden behind each new stage? We should look for answers to these questions, first of all, in the very system of complex social relations, in internal contradictions, conflicts of different interests.

Development impulses can come both from the society itself, its internal contradictions, and from outside. I

External impulses can be generated, in particular, by the natural environment, space. For example, climate change on our planet, the so-called "global warming", has become a serious problem for modern society. The answer to this "challenge" was the adoption by a number of countries of the world of the Kyoto Protocol, which prescribes to reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere. In 2004, Russia also ratified this protocol, making commitments to protect the environment.

If changes in society occur gradually, then the new accumulates in the system quite slowly and sometimes imperceptibly to the observer. And the old, the previous, is the basis on which the new is grown, organically combining the traces of the previous one. We do not feel conflict and negation by the new of the old. And only after some time we exclaim with surprise: “How has everything changed around!?. Such gradual progressive changes we call evolution. The evolutionary path of development does not imply a sharp breakdown, destruction of previous social relations.

The external manifestation of evolution, the main way of its implementation is reform. Under reform we understand the power action aimed at changing certain areas, aspects of public life in order to give society greater stability, stability. The evolutionary path of development is not the only one. Not all societies could solve urgent problems through organic gradual transformations. In conditions of an acute crisis affecting all spheres of society, when the accumulated contradictions literally blow up the established order, revolution. Any revolution taking place in society implies a qualitative transformation of social structures, the destruction of the old order and rapid innovation. The revolution releases significant social energy, which is not always possible to control the forces that initiated the revolutionary change. The ideologists and practitioners of the revolution seem to be letting the "genie out of the bottle." Subsequently, they try to drive this "genie" back, but this, as a rule, does not work. The revolutionary element begins to develop according to its own laws, often baffling its creators.

That is why spontaneous, chaotic principles often prevail in the course of a social revolution. Sometimes revolutions bury those people who stood at their origins. Or else the results and consequences of the revolutionary explosion are so fundamentally different from the original tasks that the creators of the revolution cannot but admit their defeat. Revolutions give rise to a new quality, and it is important to be able to transfer further development processes in an evolutionary direction in time. Russia experienced two revolutions in the 20th century. Particularly severe shocks befell our country in 1917-1920.

As history shows, many revolutions were replaced by reaction, a rollback to the past. We can talk about different types of revolutions in the development of society: social, technical, scientific, cultural.

The significance of revolutions is assessed differently by thinkers. So, for example, the German philosopher K. Marx, the founder of scientific communism, considered revolutions to be "the locomotives of history." At the same time, many emphasized the destructive, destructive effect of revolutions on society. In particular, the Russian philosopher N. A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) wrote the following about the revolution: “All revolutions ended in reactions. This is inevitable. This is the law. And the more violent and furious the revolutions were, the stronger were the reactions. There is a kind of magic circle in the alternation of revolutions and reactions.

Comparing the ways of transforming society, the famous modern Russian historian P.V. Volobuev wrote: “The evolutionary form, firstly, made it possible to ensure the continuity of social development and, thanks to this, to preserve all the accumulated wealth. Secondly, evolution, contrary to our primitive ideas, was also accompanied by major qualitative changes in society, not only in productive forces and technology, but also in spiritual culture, in the way of life of people. Thirdly, in order to solve the new social tasks that arose in the course of evolution, it adopted such a method of social transformation as reforms, which turned out to be simply incomparable in their “costs” with the gigantic price of many revolutions. Ultimately, as historical experience has shown, evolution is able to ensure and maintain social progress, giving it, moreover, a civilized form.

Typology of societies

Singling out different types of societies, thinkers are based, on the one hand, on the chronological principle, noting the changes that occur over time in the organization of social life. On the other hand, certain signs of societies coexisting with each other at the same time are grouped. This allows you to create a kind of horizontal slice of civilizations. So, speaking of traditional society as the basis for the formation of modern civilization, one cannot fail to note the preservation of many of its features and signs in our days.

The most well-established in modern social science is the approach based on the allocation three types of societies: traditional (pre-industrial), industrial, post-industrial (sometimes called technological or informational). This approach is based to a greater extent on a vertical, chronological cut, i.e., it assumes the replacement of one society by another in the course of historical development. With the theory of K. Marx, this approach has in common that it is based primarily on the distinction of technical and technological features.

What are the characteristics and characteristics of each of these societies? Let's go to the description traditional society- the foundations of the formation of the modern world. Traditional first of all, the society is called ancient and medieval, although many of its features are preserved in later times. For example, the countries of the East, Asia, Africa retain signs of traditional civilization today.

So, what are the main features and characteristics of a traditional type of society?

In the very understanding of traditional society, it is necessary to note the focus on reproducing in an unchanged form the ways of human activity, interactions, forms of communication, organization of life, and cultural samples. That is, in this society, relations that have developed between people, methods of work, family values, and a way of life are carefully observed.

A person in a traditional society is bound by a complex system of dependence on the community, the state. His behavior is strictly regulated by the norms adopted in the family, estate, society as a whole.

traditional society distinguishes the predominance of agriculture in the structure of the economy, the majority of the population is employed in the agricultural sector, works on the land, lives by its fruits. Land is considered the main wealth, and the basis for the reproduction of society is what is produced on it. Mainly hand tools (plow, plow) are used, the renewal of equipment and production technology is rather slow.

The main element of the structure of traditional societies is the agricultural community: the collective that manages the land. The personality in such a team is weakly singled out, its interests are not clearly identified. The community, on the one hand, will limit a person, on the other hand, provide him with protection and stability. The most severe punishment in such a society was often considered expulsion from the community, "deprivation of shelter and water." Society has a hierarchical structure, more often divided into estates according to the political and legal principle.

A feature of a traditional society is its closeness to innovation, the extremely slow nature of change. And these changes themselves are not considered as a value. More important - stability, stability, following the commandments of the ancestors. Any innovation is seen as a threat to the existing world order, and the attitude towards it is extremely wary. "The traditions of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare over the minds of the living."

The Czech educator J. Korchak noticed the dogmatic way of life inherent in traditional society: “Prudence up to complete passivity, to the point of ignoring all rights and rules that have not become traditional, not consecrated by authorities, not rooted in repetition day after day ... Everything can become a dogma - and the earth, and the church, and the fatherland, and virtue, and sin; can become science, social and political activity, wealth, any opposition ... "

A traditional society will diligently protect its behavioral norms, the standards of its culture from outside influences from other societies and cultures. An example of such "closedness" is the centuries-old development of China and Japan, which were characterized by a closed, self-sufficient existence and any contacts with foreigners were practically excluded by the authorities. A significant role in the history of traditional societies is played by the state and religion. Undoubtedly, as trade, economic, military, political, cultural and other contacts develop between different countries and peoples, such “closeness” will be violated, often in a very painful way for these countries. Traditional societies under the influence of the development of technology, technology, means of communication will enter a period of modernization.

Of course, this is a generalized picture of a traditional society. More precisely, one can speak of a traditional society as a kind of cumulative phenomenon that includes the features of the development of different peoples at a certain stage. There are many different traditional societies (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Western European, Russian, etc.) that bear the imprint of their culture.

We are well aware that the society of ancient Greece and the Old Babylonian kingdom differ significantly in the dominant forms of ownership, the degree of influence of communal structures and the state. If in Greece and Rome private property and the principles of civil rights and freedoms develop, then in societies of the Eastern type, traditions of despotic rule, the suppression of man by the agricultural community, and the collective nature of labor are strong. Nevertheless, both are different versions of a traditional society.

The long-term preservation of the agricultural community, the predominance of agriculture in the structure of the economy, the peasantry in the composition of the population, the joint labor and collective land use of communal peasants, and autocratic power allow us to characterize Russian society over many centuries of its development as traditional. Transition to a new type of society - industrial- will be carried out quite late - only in the second half of the XIX century.

It cannot be said that traditional society is a past stage, that everything connected with traditional structures, norms, and consciousness has remained in the distant past. Moreover, considering this, we make it difficult for ourselves to understand many problems and phenomena of the modern world. And in our

For days, a number of societies retain the features of traditionalism, primarily in culture, social consciousness, the political system, and everyday life.

The transition from a traditional society, devoid of dynamism, to an industrial type of society reflects such a concept as modernization.

industrial society is born as a result of the industrial revolution, leading to the development of large-scale industry, new modes of transport and communications, a decrease in the role of agriculture in the structure of the economy and the resettlement of people in cities.

The Modern Philosophical Dictionary, published in 1998 in London, contains the following definition of an industrial society:

An industrial society is characterized by the orientation of people towards ever-increasing volumes of production, consumption, knowledge, etc. The ideas of growth and progress are the "core" of the industrial myth, or ideology. An essential role in the social organization of industrial society is played by the concept of a machine. The consequence of the implementation of ideas about the machine is the extensive development of production, as well as the "mechanization" of social relations, the relationship of man with nature ... The boundaries of the development of an industrial society are revealed as the limits of extensively oriented production are discovered.

Earlier than others, the industrial revolution swept the countries of Western Europe. The UK was the first country to implement it. By the middle of the 19th century, the vast majority of its population was employed "in industry. Industrial society is characterized by rapid dynamic changes, the growth of social mobility, urbanization - the process of growth and development of cities. Contacts and ties between countries and peoples are expanding. These ties are carried out through telegraph communication and The structure of society is also changing: it is based not on estates, but on social groups that differ in their place in the economic system - classes. Along with changes in the economy and the social sphere, the political system of an industrial society is also changing - parliamentarism, a multi-party system are developing, and the rights and freedoms of citizens are expanding. Many researchers believe that the formation of a civil society that is aware of its interests and acts as a full partner of the state is also associated with the formation of an industrial society. To a certain extent, it is precisely such a society that has received the name capitalist. The early stages of its development were analyzed in the 19th century by the English scientists J. Mill, A. Smith, and the German philosopher K. Marx.

At the same time, in the era of the industrial revolution, there is an increase in unevenness in the development of various regions of the world, which leads to colonial wars, seizures, and the enslavement of weak countries by strong ones.

Russian society is quite late, only by the 40s of the 19th century, it enters the period of the industrial revolution, and the formation of the foundations of an industrial society in Russia is noted only by the beginning of the 20th century. Many historians believe that at the beginning of the 20th century our country was agrarian-industrial. Russia could not complete industrialization in the pre-revolutionary period. Although the reforms carried out on the initiative of S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin were aimed precisely at this.

By the end of industrialization, that is, the creation of a powerful industry that would make the main contribution to the national wealth of the country, the authorities returned already in the Soviet period of history.

We know the concept of "Stalin's industrialization", which took place in the 1930s and 1940s. In the shortest possible time, at an accelerated pace, using primarily the funds received from the robbery of the village, the mass collectivization of peasant farms, by the end of the 1930s, our country created the foundations of heavy and military industry, mechanical engineering and ceased to depend on the supply of equipment from abroad. But did this mean the end of the process of industrialization? Historians argue. Some researchers believe that even in the late 1930s, the main share of national wealth was still formed in the agricultural sector, that is, agriculture produced more product than industry.

Therefore, experts believe that industrialization in the Soviet Union was completed only after the Great Patriotic War, by the middle - second half of the 1950s. By this time

The industry has taken a leading position in the production of gross domestic product. Also, most of the country's population was employed in the industrial sector.

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the rapid development of fundamental science, engineering and technology. Science is turning into a direct powerful economic force.

The rapid changes that have engulfed a number of spheres of the life of modern society have made it possible to talk about the entry of the world into post-industrial era. In the 1960s, this term was first proposed by the American sociologist D. Bell. He also formulated the main features of a post-industrial society: creation of a vast sphere of the service economy, an increase in the layer of qualified scientific and technical specialists, the central role of scientific knowledge as a source of innovation, ensuring technological growth, creating a new generation of intelligent technology. Following Bell, the theory of post-industrial society was developed by American scientists J. Galbraith and O. Toffler.

basis post-industrial society was the restructuring of the economy, carried out in Western countries at the turn of the 1960s - 1970s. Instead of heavy industry, the leading positions in the economy were taken by science-intensive industries, the “knowledge industry”. The symbol of this era, its basis is the microprocessor revolution, the mass distribution of personal computers, information technology, electronic communications. The rates of economic development, the speed of transmission of information and financial flows over a distance are multiplying. With the entry of the world into the post-industrial, information age, there is a decrease in the employment of people in industry, transport, industrial sectors, and vice versa, the number of people employed in the service sector, in the information sector is increasing. It is no coincidence that a number of scientists call the post-industrial society informational or technological.

Describing modern society, the American researcher P. Drucker notes: “Today, knowledge is already being applied to the sphere of knowledge itself, and this can be called a revolution in the field of management. Knowledge is rapidly becoming the determining factor of production, relegating both capital and labor to the background.”

Scientists who study the development of culture, spiritual life, in relation to the post-industrial world, introduce another name - era of postmodernism.(Under the era of modernism, scientists understand the industrial society. - Note. auth.) If the concept of post-industriality mainly emphasizes differences in the sphere of economy, production, communication methods, then postmodernism primarily covers the sphere of consciousness, culture, patterns of behavior.

The new perception of the world, according to scientists, is based on three main features.

First, at the end of faith in the possibilities of the human mind, a skeptical questioning of everything that European culture traditionally considers rational. Secondly, on the collapse of the idea of ​​unity and universality of the world. The postmodern understanding of the world is based on multiplicity, pluralism, the absence of common models and canons for the development of various cultures. Thirdly: the era of postmodernism sees the individual differently, "the individual as responsible for shaping the world retires, he is outdated, he is recognized as connected with the prejudices of rationalism and is discarded." The sphere of communication between people, communications, collective agreements comes to the fore.

As the main features of a postmodern society, scientists call increasing pluralism, multivariance and diversity of forms of social development, changes in the system of values, motives and incentives of people.

The approach we have chosen in a generalized form represents the main milestones in the development of mankind, focusing primarily on the history of the countries of Western Europe. Thus, it significantly narrows the possibility of studying the specific features, features of the development of individual countries. He draws attention primarily to universal processes, and much remains outside the field of view of scientists. In addition, willy-nilly, we take for granted the point of view that there are countries that have pulled ahead, there are those that are successfully catching up with them, and those that are hopelessly behind, not having time to jump into the last wagon of the modernization machine rushing forward. The ideologists of the theory of modernization are convinced that it is the values ​​and models of development of Western society that are universal and are a guideline for development and a model for everyone to follow.

Similar information.

The spheres of public life are closely interconnected. In the history of the social sciences, there have been attempts to single out any sphere of life as determining in relation to others. So, in the Middle Ages, the idea of ​​the special significance of religiosity as part of the spiritual sphere of society dominated. In modern times and the Age of Enlightenment, the role of morality and scientific knowledge was emphasized. A number of concepts assign the leading role to the state and law. Marxism affirms the decisive role of economic relations.

Within the framework of real social phenomena, elements of all spheres are combined. For example, the nature of economic relations can influence the structure of the social structure. A place in the social hierarchy forms certain political views, opens up access to education and other spiritual values. The economic relations themselves are determined by the legal system of the country, which is very often formed on the basis of the spiritual culture of the people, their traditions in the field of religion and morality. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that at various stages of historical development, the influence of any sphere may increase.

Chapter I. Formational concept of social development

In explaining the diversity of types of society and the reasons for the transition from one type to another, two conceptual approaches collide - formational and civilizational. According to the formational approach, which was represented by K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin, society in its development passes through certain successive socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communist.

According to the definition of K. Marx, the socio-economic formation is "a society that is at a certain stage of historical development, a society with peculiar distinctive characteristics." The basis of the socio-economic formation, according to Marx, is one or another mode of production, which is characterized by a certain level and nature of the development of productive forces and production relations corresponding to this level and nature. The totality of production relations forms its basis, over which political, legal and other relations and institutions are built, which in turn correspond to certain forms of social consciousness (morality, religion, art, philosophy, science). Thus, a specific socio-economic formation is the whole diversity of the life of a society at a historically certain stage of its development.

The mode of production includes productive forces and production relations. The productive forces include the means of production and people with their knowledge and practical experience in the field of the economy. The means of production, in turn, include objects of labor (what is processed in the labor process - land, raw materials, materials) and means of labor (what objects of labor are processed with - tools, equipment, machinery, production facilities). Production relations are relations that arise in the process of production and depend on the form of ownership of the means of production. The transition from one social formation to another is carried out by means of a social revolution. The economic basis of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between, on the one hand, the productive forces of society that have reached a new level and acquired a new character, and, on the other hand, the outdated, conservative system of production relations. This conflict in the political sphere is manifested in the intensification of antagonistic contradictions and the intensification of the class struggle between the ruling class, which is interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed classes, who demand an improvement in their position. The revolution leads to a change in the ruling class. The victorious class carries out transformations in all spheres of social life. This is how prerequisites are created for the formation of a new system of socio-economic, legal and other social relations, a new consciousness. This is how a new formation is formed. In this regard, in the Marxist social concept, a significant role was given to the class struggle and revolutions. The class struggle was declared the most important driving force in the development of society, and political revolutions were declared the "locomotives of history."

The formational approach makes it possible to discover its integral structure in society, to determine its main elements, the main dependencies between them, the main mechanisms of their interaction. On its basis, the entire set of social systems observed in history is reduced to several basic types. The composition of the socio-economic formation includes the basis, superstructure and other elements. The basis is the economic structure of society, which includes a set of production relations that take shape in accordance with a certain level of development of the productive forces.

The concept of the formational development of society, as recognized by most modern social scientists, has undoubted strengths: it clearly names the main criterion of periodization (development of the economy) and offers an explanatory model of the entire historical development, which makes it possible to compare different social systems with each other in terms of their degree of progressiveness. First, the formational approach assumes a unilinear nature of historical development. The theory of formations was formulated by Marx as a generalization of the historical path of Europe. Marx himself saw that some countries do not fit into this pattern of alternating five formations. These countries he attributed to the so-called "Asiatic mode of production." He expressed the idea that a special formation is formed on the basis of this mode of production, but he did not conduct a detailed analysis of this issue.

Thus, the formational approach in its traditional form creates great difficulties for understanding the diversity, multivariate development of society.

Secondly, the formational approach is characterized by a rigid binding of any historical phenomena to the mode of production, the system of economic relations. The historical process is considered, first of all, from the point of view of the formation and change of the mode of production: decisive importance in explaining historical phenomena is assigned to objective, non-personal factors, and a person is assigned a secondary role. the formational approach absolutizes the role of conflict relations, including violence, in the historical process. The historical process in this methodology is described mainly through the prism of the class struggle. social conflicts, although they are a necessary attribute of social life, spiritual and moral life plays an equally important role, as many believe. The formal approach has its drawbacks. As history shows, not all countries fit into the "harmonious" scheme proposed by the proponents of this approach. For example, in many countries there was no slave-owning socio-economic formation. As for the countries of the East, their historical development was generally peculiar (to resolve this contradiction, K. Marx introduced the concept of “Asiatic mode of production”). In addition, as we see, the formational approach to all complex social processes provides an economic basis, which is not always correct, and also relegates the role of the human factor in history to the background, giving priority to objective laws.

Chapter II. Civilizational concept of social development

Increasing attention is paid to the civilizational concept of social development, and this is not least due to the criticism of the formational approach. Within the framework of this concept, world history appears as a change and simultaneous coexistence of various civilizations. The term "civilization" in social philosophy does not have an unambiguous definition.

Civilization is interpreted as a "material body" culture, its social organization, etc. But the basic element of civilization, its reverse side is the type of culture (ideals, values ​​and norms) that determine the specifics of human community. Today there are about 200 definitions of this concept. For example, Arnold Toynbee (1889 - 1975), a supporter of the theory of local civilizations, called a civilization a stable community of people united by spiritual traditions, a similar way of life, geographical, historical boundaries. And Oswald Spengler (1880 - 1936), the founder of the culturological approach to the historical process, believed that civilization is the highest level that completes the period of development of culture that precedes its death. One of the modern definitions of this concept is as follows: civilization is a set of material and spiritual achievements of society.

There are various theories of civilization. Among them, two main varieties can be distinguished. The theories of the staged development of civilization (K. Jaspers, P. Sorokin, W. Rostow, O. Toffler, and others) consider civilization as a single process of the progressive development of mankind, in which certain stages (stages) are distinguished. This process began in ancient times, when humanity moved from primitive to civilized. It continues to this day. During this time, there have been great social changes that have affected socio-economic, political relations, and the cultural sphere.

Thus, a prominent American sociologist, economist, historian of the twentieth century Walt Whitman Rostow created the theory of stages of economic growth. He identified five such stages:

The traditional society. There are agrarian societies with rather primitive technology, the predominance of agriculture in the economy, the class structure and the power of large landowners.

· Transitional society. Agricultural production is growing, a new type of activity is emerging - entrepreneurship and a new type of enterprising people corresponding to it. Centralized states are being formed, national self-consciousness is being strengthened. Thus, the prerequisites for the transition of society to a new stage of development are ripening.

The "shift" stage. Industrial revolutions are taking place, followed by socio-economic and political transformations.

Stage of "maturity". A scientific and technological revolution is underway, the importance of cities and the size of the urban population are growing.

The era of “high mass consumption”. There is a significant growth in the service sector, the production of consumer goods and their transformation into the main sector of the economy.

Theories of local (local from Latin - “local”) civilizations (N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee) proceed from the fact that there are separate civilizations, large historical communities that occupy a certain territory and have their own characteristics of socio-economic, political and cultural development. Local civilizations are a kind of elements that make up the general flow of history. They may coincide with the borders of the state (Chinese civilization), or may include several states (Western European civilization). Local civilizations are complex systems in which different components interact with each other: geographical environment, economy, political system, legislation, religion, philosophy, literature, art, people's way of life, etc. Each of these components bears the stamp of the originality of a particular local civilization. This uniqueness is very stable. Of course, civilizations change over time, they experience external influences, but there remains a certain basis, a “core”, thanks to which one civilization still differs from another. One of the founders of the theory of local civilizations Arnold Toynbee believed that history is a non-linear process. This is the process of birth, life and death of unrelated civilizations in different parts of the Earth. Toynbee divided civilizations into main and local. The main civilizations (for example, the Sumerian, Babylonian, Hellenic, Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Christian, etc.) left a bright mark on the history of mankind and indirectly influenced other civilizations. Local civilizations are closed within the national framework, there are about thirty of them: American, German, Russian. Toynbee believed that the driving forces of civilization were: a challenge thrown to civilization from the outside (unfavorable geographical position, lagging behind other civilizations, military aggression); response of civilization as a whole to this challenge; the activities of great people, talented, "God's chosen" personalities.

There is a creative minority that leads the inert majority to respond to the challenges posed by civilization. At the same time, the inert majority tends to “extinguish”, to absorb the energy of the minority. This leads to the cessation of development, stagnation. Thus, each civilization goes through certain stages: the birth, growth, breakdown and disintegration, culminating in death and the complete disappearance of civilization.

Both theories - stadial and local - make it possible to see history in different ways. In the stadial theory, the general comes to the fore - the laws of development common to all mankind. In the theory of local civilizations - the individual, the diversity of the historical process. In general, the civilizational approach presents a person as the leading creator of history, pays great attention to the spiritual factors of the development of society, the uniqueness of the history of individual societies, countries and peoples. Progress is relative. For example, it can affect the economy, and at the same time, this concept can be applied in relation to the spiritual sphere in a very limited way.

The civilizational concept does not recognize production relations as the main basis that determines the qualitative specifics of society; it uses a wider range of distinguished foundations of social life. The concept of civilization captures more specific empirical manifestations of social life, its features and relationships, rather than formation. The use of a civilizational approach makes it possible to understand the genesis, characteristics and development trends of various socio-ethnic communities that are not directly related to the formational division of society. It also allows us to consider culture as a purely social phenomenon, in its entirety.

The material sphere is defined as the basis of civilization. The foundation of civilization as a whole and each of its stages is based on a technical and technological basis, in connection with which there are three stages in the development of civilization: agricultural, industrial and information-computer. A holistic characteristic of a civilization necessarily includes such moments as the natural (including demographic) conditions of society, ethnic and historical features of the life of a given society, its spiritual characteristics, since without taking them into account it is impossible to explain the specifics of different civilizations within the same stages of development.

In small variations, the theme of civilizational development was developed in their works by the Russian scientist N. Danilevsky, P. Sorokin (an American sociologist of Russian origin), A. Toynbee, O. Spengler.

Chapter III. Correlation between formational and civilizational approaches to history

The subject and scope of the formational theory is history as an objective, independent of the consciousness and will of people, the result of their activities. The subject and scope of the civilizational approach is history as a process of life of people endowed with consciousness and will, focused on certain values ​​specific to a given cultural area. Formation theory is primarily an ontological analysis of history, i.e. revealing deep, essential foundations.

The civilizational approach is basically a phenomenological analysis of history, i.e. a description of those forms in which the history of countries and peoples is the gaze of the researcher. Formational analysis is a section of history "along the vertical". It reveals the movement of mankind from the original, simple (lower) steps or forms to the steps of more and more complex, developed ones. The civilizational approach, on the contrary, is the analysis of history "horizontally". Its subject is unique, inimitable formations - civilizations coexisting in historical space-time. If, for example, the civilizational approach allows us to establish how the Chinese society differs from the French and, accordingly, the Chinese from the French, then the formational approach - how the modern Chinese society differs from the same society of the Middle Ages and, accordingly, the modern Chinese from the Chinese of the feudal era. Formation theory is primarily a socio-economic section of history. It takes as the starting point for comprehending history the mode of material production as the main one, which ultimately determines all other spheres of social life. The civilizational approach gives preference to the cultural factor. Its starting point is culture, and, so to speak, of a behavioral order: traditions, customs, rituals, and so on. In the foreground here is not the production of means of subsistence, but life itself, and not so much laid out on the shelves (material, spiritual, etc.), which is generally necessary for understanding the structure of the whole, but in an undivided unity. With the formational approach, the emphasis is on the internal factors of development, this process itself is revealed as self-development. For these purposes, an appropriate conceptual apparatus has been developed (contradictions in the mode of production - between the productive forces and production relations, in the social class structure of society, etc.). The main attention is paid to the struggle of opposites, i.e. more to what separates the people of a given social system (society), and less to what unites them. The civilizational approach, on the contrary, explores mainly what unites people in a given community. At the same time, the sources of its self-propulsion remain, as it were, in the shadows. Attention is focused more on external factors in the development of the community as a system ("call-response-challenge", etc.).

The selection of these aspects is rather conditional. Each of them is far from certain. And the established differences between the formational and civilizational approaches are by no means absolute. According to Marx, for example, history as an objective process is only one side of the matter. The other is history as the activity of people endowed with consciousness and will. There is no other story. Formation theory begins to comprehend society "from below", i.e. from the production method. It should be emphasized that the entire philosophy of history before Marx focused on the analysis of the sphere of politics, law, morality, religion, culture, less often natural, natural (mainly geographic) conditions, etc. Marx, in direct contrast to tradition (according to the law of negation), put forward material production in the first place. To analyze other spheres of public life in the entire scope of their content and functioning, he, as they say, did not have enough time or energy. At best, separate problems were analyzed (the interaction of the main spheres of social life, class relations and class struggle, the state as an instrument of political domination of the economically leading class, and some others). In other words, society as a social organism was revealed from one point of view, namely from the point of view of the determining role of the mode of material production, which led to an underestimation of the significance and role of other areas, especially culture. Such one-sidedness, in our opinion, was caused not so much by the essence or principles of the materialistic understanding of history as by the circumstances of a specific research situation in the social cognition of that time (an underestimation of just this method). The followers of Marx further exacerbated this one-sidedness. It is no coincidence that the leading leitmotif of Engels' last letters ("Letters on Historical Materialism") to the young followers of Marxism is the emphasis (in addition to the determining role of production) of the active role of the superstructure (politics, law, etc.), the moment of its independent development. But these were rather recommendations . For a comprehensive study of the same culture, morality, etc. Engels also no longer had the strength or time. It is worth noting such a specific phenomenon as the magic of a new word. The term "mode of production" (the mode of production of material life) fascinated by its novelty, the high resolution of rational cognition, as if illuminating the deep processes of life with electric contrast-sharp light. Supporters of the civilizational approach begin to comprehend society, its history "from above", i.e. from culture in all its diversity of forms and relations (religion, art, morality, law, politics, etc.). They devote the lion's share of their time and energy to its analysis. This is quite understandable. The sphere of spirit and culture is complex, vast and, what is important in its own way, multicolored. The logic of its development and functioning captivates researchers. They open up new realities, connections, patterns (persons, facts). They get to material life, to the production of means of subsistence, as they say, in the evening, at the end of their strength, research ardor and passion.

Here it is important to focus on the specifics of over-production or non-production spheres of life. In the process of production, society and man are merged with nature, immersed in it, directly subject to its laws. The substance of nature is processed, various forms of energy are used. Objects and tools of labor, means of production are nothing but transformed forms of natural matter. In them and through them man is united with nature, subordinated to it. The very connection with nature in the process of production, direct and unconditional subordination to it, the obligation to work in it is perceived by man as a difficult necessity. Outside of production, man is already separated from nature. This is the realm of freedom. Being engaged in politics, art, science, religion, etc., he no longer deals with the substance of nature, but with objects that are qualitatively different from nature, i.e. with people as social beings. In these areas, a person is so visibly separated from nature that this cannot but be evident even at the level of everyday consciousness and is perceived as the highest difference from it, as his essence or "selfhood". Man, as a social being, is so disconnected from the chain of direct dependence on nature, the need to obey its laws (as opposed to the need to forever obey its laws in the sphere of production), so left to himself that his life activity in these spheres is perceived as the realm of freedom. The sphere of culture thus has a special charm in his eyes. Of course, a person here also uses the substance of nature (the sculptor - marble, the artist - canvas, paint, etc.), but in this case it plays an auxiliary role.

In addition, it should be borne in mind that these areas (politics, law, art, religion, etc.) make special demands on the individuality of a person, on his personal (social and spiritual) potential. It is no coincidence that in the history of culture, the memory of mankind has preserved most of the names of outstanding personalities. Creations themselves (scientific discoveries, works of art, religious asceticism, etc.) are less subject to the destructive influence of time than tools and other means of production. Therefore, the researcher constantly deals with the personal principle, with unique facts, with the thoughts and feelings of people. In production, the identity and uniqueness of the product of activity is erased. It is not uniqueness that reigns here, but seriality, not individuality, but mass character, collectivity. According to a number of researchers (I.N. Ionov), such characteristics of the formational theory as the linear-stage logic of the historical process, economic determinism and teleologism "dramatically complicate" its interaction with more developed theories of civilizations dating back to the second half of the 19th-20th centuries. . However, we note that Marx's model of historical development is not linear-stadial, but more complex spiral in nature. It can give a lot for the development of civilizational theory. No matter how researchers (A. Toynbee, for example) emphasize the juxtaposition of actually existing and existing civilizations, the absence of any unity and a single logic of development in their entirety (each new civilization begins the development process as if from scratch), one cannot completely ignore the obvious fact that that ancient and modern civilizations noticeably differ in the level and quality of people's lives, in the richness of the forms and content of this life. You can not resort to the term "progress", but you can not get rid of the idea that modern civilizations are developed more than ancient civilizations. The mere fact that today about six billion people live on Earth at the same time, i.e. several times more than during the existence of the Sumerian or Crete-Mycenaean civilization, speaks of new possibilities for human history. In some civilizational concepts, the concepts of "traditional society", "modern society" are widely used. And this, in essence, is a direct separation of civilizations along the scale of historical time, i.e. contains a formative moment. The time scale is nothing but the scale of progressive evolution. In general, supporters of the concept of local civilizations are not consistent in everything. They do not deny the idea of ​​the development of each of the specific civilizations and deny this idea the right to exist in relation to the world totality of civilizations, past and present, they do not notice that this totality is a single integral system. To the history of people it is necessary to go from the history of the planet, the history of life on it, in the unity of biospheric (cosmic), geographical, anthropological, sociocultural factors.

Man is a subject, i.e. active figure in the social system. However, a specific individual is not able to enter into a relationship with the whole society, he is always connected with other subjects through specific activities. Social ties differ in type, content, depending on the nature of the joint activities of people and the relations that arise between them. In the sphere of production, economic social ties are formed. In the sphere of politics and law, social ties arise on the basis of compliance with laws. In the field of management, social ties are determined by the official position of the subjects of activity.

Each person simultaneously enters into several types of social ties and is nothing more than a "clot" of social relations (social ties) integrated into individuality. The more complex the structure of social ties, the more power they acquire over the individual. In other words, in the variety of social connections, there is a danger of losing personal integrity and replacing it with functional manifestations, when the system suppresses the personality, forming its individual qualities "on order"

Man and the historical process

History is a process of human activity that forms a link between the past, present and future. For a long time in science and philosophy there was a linear model of historical development, according to which society evolves from one, simple, to another, more complex stage. At present, the view of the progressive course of the history of individual societies (cultures, civilizations), which has its own “end”, is considered more correct. The development of the historical process is influenced by many factors, among which an important role is played by man. A person is a subject of historical dynamics, capable of influencing ongoing events through his social activities. The role of a person in history especially increases if he is directly related to power. An example of this in Russian history can be such major political and state figures as Peter the Great, Lenin, Stalin, who influenced the course of the country's development for several decades or centuries.

The action of statistical regularities in the historical process leads to an increase in the role of chance, which changes the picture of the present and future, which puts subjective factors influencing history on the same level as the so-called objective ones (the level of economic development, relations in the class structure of society, etc.).

World history sets the ideal model for the education of the human personality. An individual becomes a personality by joining the historical life of the human race, adopting and assimilating the historically established forms of human activity. In his mental development, the individual, as it were, repeats (of course, in an abbreviated form) the history of the development of all mankind, just as in his physical development he manages to survive the entire history of organic life on Earth in nine months of uterine existence - from a single-celled organism to an infant. person. “We see how what in earlier eras occupied the mature spirit of men is reduced to knowledge, exercises and even games of boyish age, and in pedagogical successes we recognize the history of education of the whole world outlined, as if in a concise outline” (G. Hegel, "Phenomenology of Spirit").

Personality and masses

The mass is a special kind of historical community of people. The human collective turns into a mass if its cohesion is achieved by ignoring or suppressing the originality of the individual. The main features of the mass are: heterogeneity, spontaneity, suggestibility, variability, which serve as manipulation by the leader. The ability of individuals to control the masses leads to the ordering of the latter. In their unconscious desire for order, the mass elects a leader who embodies its ideals. Therefore, the personality of a person who leads the masses is usually charismatic, and the beliefs that she adheres to are utopian. Thanks to the leader, the mass acquires its finished form, subordinated to the realization of some super-idea that rallied the team.

The first philosophical project of a mass society ruled by wise philosophers is set forth in Plato's dialogue The State. In the context of criticism of the Platonic ideal state, Aristotle proposed to distinguish between absolute (unisonal) unity, leveling the personality, and relative (symphonic) unity, preserving the originality of the personality in such a way that various personal qualities harmoniously complement each other in society.

Among the most important attributes of the mass is facelessness, i.e. by definition, the mass excludes the personal beginning, replacing it with the collective. Therefore, a person, as a rule, desires separation in order to gain individual authenticity.

In the history of philosophy, the self-worth of a person was noted in the Renaissance, the worldview basis of which was anthropocentrism. Philosophy brought up the ideal of honor and dignity in a person, thanks to which he turned into a person. With the entry of society into the era of capitalism, personal orientation gave way to group, collective. Personality was seen as an individual expressing common interests. At present, the primacy of the personal over the public (mass) is legalized by the current human rights.

Freedom and Necessity

The idea of ​​freedom as a human value has always been important for philosophy, considering its essence and ways to achieve it. In general, two positions of understanding this problem have been formed - epistemological (“freedom is a conscious necessity”) and psychological (the doctrine of “free will”). In the most general sense, freedom is the ability of a person to be active in accordance with his intentions, desires and interests, in the course of which he achieves his goals.

“Necessary” in the language of philosophy means “regular”, which gives the idea of ​​freedom the meaning of some limitation. It turns out that in the manifestations of freedom a person is forced, i.e. necessarily limited, for example, by law, morality, one's own conscience, etc. In addition, he is not free from the laws operating in nature, society and culture, which subordinate any action to themselves. In this regard, human freedom is always understood in relation to something or someone. The life of a person in society imposes restrictions in connection with the realization of the freedom of another person. Therefore, the humanistic principle operates in philosophy, according to which it is believed that the freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another begins.

In the history of social thought, the problem of freedom was reduced to questions: does a person have free will and to what extent does he depend on external circumstances? A person has freedom in choosing goals and means to achieve them, but in the process of implementing goal setting, he encounters circumstances that need to influence his activities. Freedom here means only the relative independence of personal choice. Man should be aware of the necessary limitation of his freedom.

Freedom is a philosophical category that characterizes the deep essence of a person and his existence, associated with the ability of a person to independently think and act in accordance with his ideas, desires, interests, identity, and not as a result of internal or external coercion. The philosophy of human freedom has been the subject of reflections of rationalists, existentialists and religious philosophers. Freedom in Marxism and existentialism was considered in relation to necessity, arbitrariness and anarchy, social equality and justice.

The range of philosophical understanding of freedom is extremely wide - from the complete denial of the very possibility of free choice (ethnocentrism and behaviorism), to E. Fromm's "escape from freedom" as a pathology of modern society. In the Russian philosophical tradition associated with German idealism, the category of freedom was correlated with the concept of “will”. Historically, the concept of freedom arose in Stoic philosophy (Seneca (4 BC - 65), Neoplatonism and Christian theology (Plotinus (204/205 - 270), Augustine Aurelius (354 - 430)) as an expression of the idea of ​​equality of people before fate and God , opportunities for a person of free choice on the path to moral self-improvement.

Free will is a concept that means the possibility of a person's internal self-determination in the fulfillment of certain goals and tasks of the individual. In the history of philosophical thought, the will has been treated ambivalently: Firstly, as a consequence of natural and supernatural determination (God, absolute); Secondly, as an autonomous force that determines the life process of a person. The volitional qualities of a person are determined partly genetically, partly brought up by the environment, entering the structure of the identity and social character of the individual.

Within the framework of the modern concept of determinism, freedom can be defined as the highest form of determination and self-organization of matter, manifesting itself at the social level of its movement (for example, in the sphere of self-identification of a person).

To understand the essence of the phenomenon of individual freedom, it is necessary to understand the contradictions of voluntarism and fatalism, to determine the boundaries of responsibility and necessity, without which the realization of freedom is unthinkable. To act in the spirit of voluntarism as the totality of the manifestation of the will (A. Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860), F. Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) - to act without relying on the objective conditions of being, the laws of nature and society, but presenting one's arbitrariness as a higher goal.

Fatalism initially predetermines the entire course of a person’s life and his actions, explaining the predestination of life and death by fate (stoicism), the will of God (theology), the determinism of a closed system (naturalism, sociocentrism, psychologism), where each subsequent event is rigidly connected with the previous one. In voluntarism and fatalism, there is no room for free choice, since a person is “liberated” from responsibility (as a necessary measure of freedom), which semantically moves into the semantic field of transcendental (independent of the real life of a person and society), abstract ideas of fate, God, physical need.

According to idealistic and religious concepts, the connection of freedom with natural or social necessity deprives the true freedom of a person of any meaning. The material world is caused, forced, and true freedom is groundless; freedom, according to the personalist N. Berdyaev (1874 - 1948), is not only the choice of opportunity, freedom is creation and creativity. In the materialist philosophy of Marxism and in existentialism, freedom is the ability of a person to act in accordance with his interests and goals, based on knowledge objective necessity or overcoming it. The opposite of the term "freedom" is "alienation", "absurdity", "coercion", that is, repressed actions and thoughts of a person under the influence of any external uncontrollable and hostile forces, contrary to their internal convictions, goals and interests.

In the modern scientific and philosophical worldview, freedom and responsibility exist only in a deterministic world, where there is an objective causation. Making a decision and acting based on the knowledge of objective necessity, a person is able to simultaneously form in himself a sense of responsibility to society for his actions. Responsibility (as a measure of freedom) and dependence of the individual (non-freedom, flight from freedom, deprivation of freedom) are determined by the level of development of public consciousness, the level of social relations, existing social relations, the level of tolerance and democratization of society. In totalitarian social systems, the low level of freedom and responsibility is due to the high level of dependence of the individual on external repressive forms of government (dictators, authoritarian-totalitarian states, inhumane ideologies).

The problem of individual freedom is connected with the problem of necessity as a moral and legal responsibility of a person for his actions. If a person is forced to commit this or that act by force, then he cannot bear moral or legal responsibility for it. An example of such an act is the killing of a rapist in self-defense. The free action of a person always implies his responsibility to society for his action. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of conscious human activity. Freedom is the ability to carry out goal-setting activity, the ability to act for the sake of a chosen goal, and freedom is realized the more fully, the more complete the knowledge of objective conditions, the more the chosen goal and the means to achieve it correspond to objective conditions and natural trends in the development of reality. Responsibility - the need to choose an effective and humane way of action, the need for vigorous activity to achieve this goal. Individual freedom generates responsibility, responsibility guides freedom.

The freedom of the individual is inseparable from the freedom of society. The conditions of social life create for a person a variety of goals, a set of opportunities and means for their implementation: the more fully a person evaluates the actual possibilities and means of social development, the freer he is in his choice and actions, the more scope opens up for him to put forward goals and find the necessary means, provided by society at its disposal, the more significant are the prospects for the creative creation of a new and personal freedom. Determination (causation) of social phenomena and social necessity are reflected in the human mind in the form of a logical, ideological and psychological necessity that connects philosophical ideas, social images and deep ideas about the meaning and value of life.

The problem of the meaning and purpose of life, the purpose of a person, the problem of life and death has always worried and is currently worrying a person. This problem is of interest to religion, sociology, medicine, art, and philosophical thought. The life and death of a person have been the main motives of philosophizing for centuries. Death is the final moment of the existence of a living being. The experience of death for a person acts as one of the decisive moments of his being, accompanies the historical process of personality formation and actualizes the problem of the meaning of human life.

The problem of death gives rise to the question of the purpose and meaning of life. There is a subjective and an objective side to this issue. The subjective side of the problem of the meaning of life does not have an unambiguous answer and is solved by each person individually, depending on worldview attitudes, culture, and traditions. Awareness of the unity of human life and humanity with all living things is of great ideological significance and makes the problem of the meaning of life meaningful.

Man as a biological being is mortal. He is not an exception to material biological systems. Just as everything that has existence sooner or later ends its existence and passes into non-existence, so a person completes his life by the process of dying. It concerns its biological structure. At the same time, the individual has the possibility of a relatively infinite existence in socio-cultural terms. Since there is a genus, so can there be a person and that which is created by it and in which it is embodied. Human life continues in subsequent generations, in their traditions and values ​​(social memory), and the essence of a person is expressed as fully as possible in social creativity.

1. The concept of ethics and morality

Ethics is one of the oldest and most fascinating areas of human knowledge. The term "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek word "ethos" (ethos), which meant the actions and deeds of a person, subject to himself, having various degrees of perfection and involving the moral choice of an individual. Initially, back in the time of Homer, ethos is a dwelling, a permanent residence. Aristotle interpreted ethos as the virtues of the human character (as opposed to the virtues of the mind). Hence the derivative of ethos - ethos (ethicos - relating to temper, temperament) and ethics - a science that studies the virtues of a human character (courage, moderation, wisdom, justice). To this day, the term "ethos" is used when it is necessary to single out the universal moral foundations that manifest themselves in historical situations that threaten the existence of world civilization itself. And at the same time, from ancient times, ethos (the ethos of the primary elements in Empedocles, the ethos of man in Heraclitus) expressed the important observation that the customs and characters of people arise in the process of their living together.

In ancient Roman culture, the word "morality" denoted a wide range of phenomena and properties of human life: temper, custom, character, behavior, law, fashion prescription, etc. Subsequently, another word was formed from this word - moralis (literally, referring to character, customs ) and later (already in the 4th century AD) the term moralitas (morality). Therefore, in terms of etymological content, the ancient Greek ethica and Latin moralitas coincide.

At present, the word "ethics", having retained its original meaning, denotes a philosophical science, and morality refers to those real phenomena and properties of a person that are studied by this science.

The Russian fundamental principle of moral themes is the word "nature" (character, passion, will, disposition towards something good or vicious). For the first time, "morality" is mentioned in the "Dictionary of the Russian Academy" as "conformity of free deeds with the law." It also gives an interpretation of moralizing “a part of wisdom (philosophy. - I.K.), containing instructions, rules that guide a virtuous life, curbing passions and fulfilling the duties and positions of a person.”

Among the many definitions of morality, one should single out the one that is directly related to the issue under consideration, namely: morality belongs to the world of culture, is part of human nature (changeable, self-created) and is a public (non-natural) relationship between individuals.

Violence is an integral part of all human history. In political and social thought, there are very different, including diametrically opposed, assessments of the role of violence in history. Some philosophers, such as E. Dühring, attributed to him a decisive role in social development, the destruction of the old and the establishment of the new.

Nonviolence in politics has traditionally served as a specific means of influencing power from below. It is usually used by people who do not have the means of violence or large economic resources of influence. Although history knows cases of participation in non-violent actions and employees of the coercive apparatus, such as the police, as was the case, in particular, during the liberation struggle in India. Very often the non-violent method of struggle is used by social, national and other minorities in order to draw the attention of the authorities and the public to the plight of their situation. Nonviolence is central to the means of influence of environmental movements such as the Greenpeace movement.

Non-violent methods take into account such a feature of people as their moral consciousness, conscience and reason, which are influenced by non-violent actions. If only intelligent, but insensible machines, robots acted in society, then any non-violence would be meaningless. The effectiveness of non-violence is based on the use of internal mechanisms of behavior motivation and, above all, conscience, as well as public opinion, its authority and influence.

Aesthetic consciousness is a phenomenon of spiritual culture. As many thinkers have noted, and as Hegel has shown extensively, reason is lifeless without feeling and powerless without will. The concepts of truth and goodness are incomplete without beauty, and beauty, in turn, manifests itself where the mind approaches the truth, and the will is directed towards goodness. “I am convinced,” Hegel wrote, “that the highest act of reason, embracing all ideas, is an aesthetic act and that truth and good are united by family ties only in beauty” (Hegel G.W.F. Works of different years: In 2 vol.M ., 1970.V.1.S.212). In no area can one be spiritually developed without possessing an aesthetic sense.

The word "aesthetics" itself comes from gr. the words "aestheticos" - feeling, sensual, and aesthetic consciousness is the awareness of the surrounding world in the form of concrete-sensual, artistic images. Very often, aesthetic consciousness is identified with art, but this is not entirely accurate. Aesthetic, i.e. anything that evokes the corresponding feelings in a person can be anything: natural landscapes, any objects of material and spiritual life.

The objective basis for the emergence of the aesthetic is, obviously, some fundamental laws of being, manifested in the relations of measure, harmony, symmetry, integrity, expediency, etc. The concrete, sensual, visual form of these relations in the objective world generates a kind of resonance in the soul of a person, who, after all, is himself a particle of this world, and, therefore, is also involved in the overall harmony of the Universe. By adjusting his objective and spiritual world in unison with the action of these universal relations of being, a person receives specific experiences, which we call aesthetic. In fairness, it should be noted that in the science of aesthetics there is another view of the nature of the aesthetic, which denies its objectivity and derives all forms of the aesthetic exclusively from human consciousness.

Aesthetic experiences, due to the universality of the relationships underlying them, can arise in any kind of human activity. However, in most of them (in labor, science, sports, games), the aesthetic side is subordinate, secondary. And only in art does the aesthetic principle have a self-sufficient character, it acquires a basic and independent meaning.

Aesthetics exists in all spheres of human life. An airliner, a car, a bridge, furniture, clothes and much more can be beautiful. Football, tennis, chess, etc. can be beautiful. Aesthetic consciousness is closely intertwined with moral consciousness. A.P. Chekhov's saying is widely known. that everything in a person should be perfect: not only appearance, but deeds and thoughts. When they talk about an "ugly act", then by this they mean, first of all, a violation of the norms and principles of morality. The ideal of the human personality has always been considered not a refined aesthete, a refined connoisseur of beauty, but a comprehensively developed, moral and socially active person.

And yet the most striking expression of man's aesthetic attitude to reality is art. *

Global problems are characterized by:

affect the foundations of the existence of society, the vital interests of all mankind;

· the issues of their decisions are important not only for present, but also for future generations;

· they require for their solution the combined efforts of all countries on the scale of the entire planet;

their solution will contribute to social progress.

Allocate three groups of global problems:

1. Vital - the threat of thermonuclear war, the elimination of the economic backwardness of people in certain areas, the elimination of hunger, poverty, and illiteracy.

2. Problems arising in the interaction of society and nature - the environmental problem, the rational use of resources, the development of the oceans and the pole.

3. Problems of the relationship between man and society - a population explosion, health problems, problems of social pathology and especially terrorism, a crisis of spirituality.

Scientists believe that the solution to these problems has certain prerequisites.

1. Deployment of the information, biotechnical revolution as a technical and technological basis for a possible way out of the situation of extinction. This revolution creates the basis for averting thermonuclear environmental threats. Mankind needs to develop a new vision of the world.

2. Possibility of approval as a dominant new type of world economy, a mixed market, socially protected economy. These economic relations will link the interests of economic entities, contribute to finding a balance between economic efficiency and social justice.

3. Formation of the principle of non-violence and democratic consent in foreign and domestic policy, in group and interpersonal relations. Nonviolence must become the regulator of human relations.

4. Unifying processes of spiritual life in both religious and secular versions. It is necessary to search for something that can bring liberals and socialists, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, communists and conservatives together. It is very important to find something that unites all the people of the planet.

5. Interethnic and intercultural integration while maintaining the autonomy and uniqueness of each ethnic group and each culture. It is very important that international, economic and cultural contacts, or broad migration flows, directed towards interpenetration, interpenetration of cultures, expand. The "dialogue" of cultures must turn into a "polylogue".

Scientists talk about the need to construct a global ethics, universal principles that strengthen human solidarity.

These are the grounds for overcoming the crisis in which humanity is immersed.

Philosophy reflects on concrete knowledge and makes it possible predict the future. Interest in the future is dictated by the needs and hopes that people place in it. The future is a probabilistic state of reality. It exists as an ideal reality in goals, plans, ideals, theories. Knowledge about the future is a forecast. Allocate search forecast and normative. The search forecast shows what the future can be if the existing trends in social development continue. The normative forecast is aimed at finding alternative ways of the optimal solution; it is focused on specific goals and objectives.

In modern conditions, the future is assessed in two ways: there are fears in it, but there are also hopes. The planet's biosphere has already entered a non-equilibrium state, its instability is aggravated. A necessary condition for overcoming the crisis is the promotion of new ideals, the rise of mass pathos, rejecting pessimism and decline. Now there is an acute need for the unity of all positive forces to solve the heated global problems.

In conclusion, let us emphasize those tendencies in the development of philosophy that carry it into the future. Philosophy is a reflection of creativity on gaining freedom by man. Mankind, once realizing the role and significance of philosophy, will always turn to the arsenal of its ideas, seeking to identify and develop the deep meanings of its own existence, clothed in linguistic, cultural, technical and other symbolic forms. Very often, these meanings were significantly ahead of their time and were reproduced in science, political and legal consciousness in their early versions.

There is hope that in the future philosophy will retain itself as a source of spiritual innovation, because, as before, it will respond in a timely manner to urgent social problems.

Regress - (reverse movement) - the type of development, which is characterized by a transition from higher to lower.

Regress also includes moments of stagnation, a return to obsolete forms and structures.

In its direction, regression is opposite to progress.

Social philosophy cannot ignore the problems of social development - the sources of self-development of society, the contradictory nature of social progress, its criteria, the historical typology of society, etc.

In social philosophy and sociology, the question of the main factors in the development of society is solved in different ways. As a rule, the search goes in the direction of determining a single determinant, or "engine" of history, whether it be technology, or economics, or consciousness.

In naturalistic concepts the development of society is explained by biological laws, natural factors, in particular, geographical factors, population changes, etc.

Other concepts appeal to the human mind.

The idea of ​​the crucial importance of human spirituality is one of the most common in social philosophy.

Particular attention is paid here to quantitative socio-cultural and spiritual factors - the role of knowledge and science in history, the role of the creative activity of the individual, and its volitional manifestations.

Historical development is associated with the growth of awareness of human freedom, the improvement of moral norms, the spread of cultural values, and so on.

In modern Western technocratic concepts social development is explained by the progress of technology and technology.

In Marxist social theory the decisive role in the historical evolution of society is assigned to the economic factor, material production, the level of development of the productive forces and production relations, and labor productivity.

All of these factors are essential and necessary in social development, they all determine in a certain way the course of historical events.

SPHERES OF SOCIETY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS

The most correct approach to the study of society is a systematic approach, which involves an analysis of social structures, including the study of the elements of society and the relationships between them, as well as an analysis of the processes and changes taking place in society and reflecting its development trends.

Structural analysis of the system is logical to begin with the allocation of the largest complex parts, called subsystems. Such subsystems in society are the so-called spheres of social life, which are parts of society, the limits of which are determined by the influence of certain social relations. Traditionally, social scientists distinguish the following main areas of society:

1. The economic sphere is a system of economic relations that arises and is reproduced in the process of material production. The basis of economic relations and the most important factor determining their specificity is the mode of production and distribution of material goods in society.

2. Social sphere - a system of social relations, that is, relations between groups of people occupying different positions in the social structure of society. The study of the social sphere involves consideration of the horizontal and vertical differentiation of society, the identification of large and small social groups, the study of their structures, the forms of implementation of social control in these groups, the analysis of the system of social ties, as well as social processes occurring at the intra- and intergroup level.
Note that the terms "social sphere" and "social relations" are often used in a broader interpretation, as a system of all relations between people in society, reflecting not the specifics of this local sphere of society, but the integrative function of social science - the unification of subsystems into a single whole.

3. Political (political and legal) sphere - a system of political and legal relations that arise in society and reflect the attitude of the state towards its citizens and their groups, citizens towards the existing state power, as well as relations between political groups (parties) and political mass movements. Thus, the political sphere of society reflects the relationship between people and social groups, the emergence of which is determined by the institution of the state.

4. Spiritual sphere - a system of relations between people, reflecting the spiritual and moral life of society, represented by such subsystems as culture, science, religion, morality, ideology, art. The significance of the spiritual sphere is determined by its priority function of determining the value-normative system of society, which, in turn, reflects the level of development of social consciousness and its intellectual and moral potential.

It should be noted that an unambiguous division of the spheres of society is possible and necessary within the framework of its theoretical analysis, however, empirical reality is characterized by their close interconnection, interdependence and intersection, which is reflected in such terms as socio-economic relations, spiritual and political, etc. That is why the most important task of social science is to achieve the integrity of scientific understanding and explanation of the laws governing the functioning and development of the social system.