Systematic approach to the analysis of society. Society as a system. Systematic approach to society What is a systems approach in social science

One of the contradictions that arouse the constant interest of sociologists is the contradiction between a person’s desire to be independent, autonomous in relation to society and the inability and impossibility of living outside of society. A person’s desire to stand out and acquire unique qualities is natural. At the same time, this cannot be done outside of society. The situation of loneliness for a person is no less terrible than the loss of one’s personality.

The question - why do people live together - lies the first knot of the problem. The second question follows from the first: if people want to live together, what supports their life together and serves as the basis for integration? Various sociological concepts offer their own approach to understanding the identified problems and issues. However, in any case, this requires consideration of society as a whole, which corresponds to a systems approach. It allows you to look at society from the outside, from external positions and present it as an integrity.

Before turning to various options for a systemic vision of social life, we will consider the concept and types of social systems, as well as the basic principles of system analysis.

The concept of a system was transferred from the natural sciences. Etymologically it means “whole”, “assembly”. The first interpretation of the concept is associated with simple, summative systems. Society is defined as the sum of interconnected and interacting elements, the relationships between which can change and transform into a new quality.

The second approach involves considering the system not just as a sum of interconnected and interacting elements, but also as an integral formation that has special qualities that arise when elements are combined. These new qualities, which are not inherent in the elements individually, are called emergent. Sometimes this quality of the system is called a synergistic effect. This definition includes holistic, or holistic, systems.

A person is a complex biological system consisting of interconnected and interacting cells and organs. The systemic quality of a person is life. Society is like man. The systemic quality of society is social life.

Systems can be considered in the unity of their variability and stability, in statics and dynamics. The nature of the relationship between variability and stability determines the type of system. Based on this criterion, systems are divided into stable (relatively stable) and dynamic (variability dominates in them).

In order to analyze the systemic quality of a society and determine the type of system, the following must be observed: principles of systems analysis:

Take into account the integrity of the system, i.e. the irreducibility of the properties of the system to the sum of the properties of its elements.

Describe structure, i.e. describe the system through connections, interactions, and mutual ordering of its elements.

Consider the interdependence of the system and the external environment (society is “embedded” in a large-scale metasystem and is influenced by it).

Take into account hierarchy, which means subordination relationships between elements of the system.

Functionality is the requirement to identify the functions of the system as a whole and its individual elements.

The principle of the spatiotemporal existence of a system. All connections, both internal and external, all elements exist in certain spatiotemporal relationships that affect their existence, manifestation and functioning.

The principle of historicity and cyclicality of the existence and development of the system. This principle requires taking into account trends in the development of the system, anticipating ups and downs in this development.

The principle of separation of system-forming and system-destroying factors, their fluctuations (mutual transitions and interactions). In the functioning and development of any system, both factors objectively exist.

The principle of communication. It lies in the fact that the elements of the system can form an integrity only through connections of a social-informational nature.

Based on the above-mentioned universal principles of system analysis, we identify the elements of social life, identify the variety of connections and relationships between them, and determine whether the system is summative or holistic. If the system is holistic, then we determine its system quality and type.

The systems approach acts as a general scientific one. The principles of system analysis have been implemented in various sociological concepts that propose to highlight various elements of social life, structure them in different ways, and emphasize certain determinants and factors of social sustainability.

The concept of “system” is used to explain social and natural phenomena by analyzing the stable relationships of elements that make up a single whole.
A system can be defined as a collection of interconnected elements.
Signs of the system:
the system consists of elements interconnected by relationships of interdependence, due to which changes in one element give rise to changes in the system as a whole;
a system is an ordered integrity formed by a set of elements and irreducible to their simple sum;
the relationships of interdependence between elements and the resulting integrity are subject to certain rules;
the development of the system is carried out by its response to changes within the system, as well as to impulses from the external environment.
Therefore, any system can be described in two aspects. In terms of its structure, that is, which elements (subsystems) make up the whole, how they are related to each other and how they interact with the external environment. In the context of its dynamics, that is, adaptation, adaptation to changing conditions of existence by performing each element of a strictly defined function, due to which the system is characterized by the ability to self-organize and self-development.
The behavior of social systems, which include society, its economic, social, political, spiritual subsystems, as well as the international community, differs from the behavior of all other systems. The elements of the social system are phenomena of different qualities: material, ideal, spiritual. In addition, society includes a heterogeneous set of social subjects (individuals, communities, states, institutions) and objects, subsystems, functions, relationships, the action of which depends on the main element of the social system - a person who has the ability to freely choose the forms and methods of his behavior.
The primary element of society as a social system is social action. It refers to all types of behavior that are motivated and directed by the semantic meanings that are given to them by the acting subject as a cultural being, not an instinctive one, and that are oriented toward the behavior of another person.
The social action of one individual with others is interaction. Entering into interactions with various individuals, he attributes a certain meaning to their actions. Rules, norms, values, ideals, and beliefs give order to human interactions.
The functions of the system correspond to the totality of those activities whose purpose is to be able to satisfy the needs of the system. Any system includes 4 functions: reproduction, integration, goal achievement and adaptation, the implementation of which makes it possible to satisfy its basic needs. These functions together must ensure the stability of the system and the ability to develop under the influence of changing conditions of existence.
Each of the subsystems of society (economic, political, social and cultural) not only satisfy the needs of individuals and social relations, but also implement specific functions that ensure the functioning of the system as a whole.
To exist and maintain viability, society as a social system must resolve emerging problems. The ability of society as a system for self-development provides a functioning mechanism, the action of which is based on the “stimulus-response” principle.
The stimulus is impulses coming from the external environment or from the components of the system. They can acquire the nature of demands (increase in wages - social system).
“Reaction” represents the actions of the subsystem in response to external and internal stimuli. The reaction can take the form of government action or legislative acts of the legislature. To respond to emerging problems, society as a system must have resources: economic, financial, information, legal and other capabilities.
The adaptation mechanism of society as a system is formed due to the fact that both the system itself and its subsystems are in a state of constant interchange of resources. There are two views on the sources of resources. One of them is associated with considering society as an integral part of a more global system (nature, civilization) and identifying the nature of its connections with the external environment (ecological, international). The second is due to the understanding of how integrity, stability and balance are ensured within the system itself, initially divided into subsystems that are involved in the process of interchange according to the principle: “costs” (resources) – “output” (products).
The physical (natural) environment is important for society, since it is a direct source of production, technical and economic resources. It is from it that society extracts various types of energy and minerals. The international subsystem, which has financial, technological, and information resources, is also important. However, it should be remembered that these relationships are interdependent (for example, an increase or decrease in world energy prices significantly affects the economic situation in the country that exports them).
Being an open system, that is, interacting with other systems, society has a certain autonomy and self-sufficiency. It develops not only by responding to external impulses, but also to signals from within. Society as a self-sufficient system represents the interaction of individuals endowed with will and consciousness and pursuing the goal of satisfying their own interests.
Adaptation of society as a system can adapt to changing conditions due to internal order, consistency of relationships between groups, social institutions and norms that make up the social structure. The concept of social “structure” reflects a certain form of stable connections, relationships leading to the creation of social groups and institutions. It is the structure that determines the sustainability and stability of society as a system.
The social interaction of people is based on needs and interests. They act as motives for activity, that is, what motivates a person to social action.
Needs can be individual in nature, their implementation is carried out by the individual himself. There are also universally significant needs that he is not able to fulfill alone. They are common to many people. To satisfy them, the individual unites, cooperates with other individuals and creates social groups. A social group is a collection of people who interact with each other in a certain way, are aware of their belonging to this group and are considered members of this group from the point of view of others. Social groups have cohesion, stability, stability, and homogeneity.
Social groups include: gender and age groups, national, professional, religious, political, territorial.
The needs of social groups are characterized by mass manifestation, stability in time and space, and contiguity (i.e., the satisfaction of some needs entails a whole complex of other needs). Among the generally significant (fundamental) ones, the following are noted:
the need for the production and distribution of goods, services and information necessary for the survival of members of society;
in normal psychophysiological life support;
self-development and knowledge;
communications between members of society;
demographic reproduction;
raising and teaching children;
control over the behavior of members of society;
ensuring security.

To fulfill these needs, people create social institutions. A social institution is a stable set of formal and informal rules, principles, norms and guidelines that regulate various spheres of human activity and organize them into a system of roles and statuses. Social institutions are necessary for organizing the joint activities of people in order to satisfy their social needs and the reasonable distribution of resources available to society. (marriage and family, state, law, religion, etc.)
Social institutions unite the joint efforts of people and reduce their social behavior to certain patterns and standards. They are called social roles. A social role is an expected behavior associated with certain rights and responsibilities (status).
The orderliness of social connections and interactions in society is largely determined by the presence of social norms and values in it. Culture, through values, beliefs, norms, rules, and ideals, to a certain extent regulates the behavior of people, selects those patterns and standards of behavior that are shared by the majority of society.
This selection is carried out on the basis of social values. Values are generally accepted beliefs in a given society regarding the goals to which a person should strive and the means by which he should achieve them. Values are generalized in morality and religion.
Social norms (rules) are formed on the basis of values. Social norms are rules of behavior that govern the interactions of people in accordance with the values of the dominant culture in a society. Compliance with these rules is ensured through the use of rewards and punishments.
Legal norms and moral norms are the most important in the mechanism for regulating interactions between people.

Main literature:

IN AND. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. Sociology. Short course. Moscow. 2003, pp. 73-139.
V.N. Lavrinenko. Sociology. Textbook for universities. Moscow. 2003 pp. 132-148.
R.T. Mukhaev. Sociology. Textbook for universities. Moscow. 2003
pp. 58-94.

Additional literature:

A.A. Radugin, K.A. Radugin. Sociology. Moscow. 1996
Zh.T. Toshchenko. Sociology. Moscow. 1994
N. Smelser. Sociology. Moscow. 1994
K.G. Gabdullina. Sociology. Tutorial. Almaty, 1997

The concept of society in ancient heritage

The next question on the topic actually concerns clarifying the essence of society as a certain systemic integrity with the inextricable unity of its components.

The first, mostly intuitive in nature, guesses about the integrative essence of society appear in ancient Greek thinkers. The works of Plato (427-347 BC) contain an analysis of a model of social structure that can rid society of contradictions between the individual and the state, that is, unite them into one organic whole. Aristotle (384-322 BC) also focuses on the state-polis, which arises naturally, like all living organisms, and consists of people - political and social beings. For him, the state is a synthesis of all forms of communication for the sake of achieving the highest good; This ideal system , which has its own structure and functions.

Therefore, it is advisable to accumulate and formalize knowledge to optimally ensure the development of the social system. Hence Aristotle’s attempts to build a special science, the tasks of which included government, or politics.

Subsequently, in philosophical and sociological thought there are two complete varieties of systemic ideas about society: systemic-mechanistic and systemic-organistic.

System-mechanistic concepts

Systemic ideas developing on the basis of mechanism place the classical theory of mechanism at the center: the concept mechanism-system. According to the basic ideas of mechanism, the operation of a mechanism is ensured by the functional specialization of its parts, as well as their integration into a single whole. The mechanism does not have its own source of development; its internal changes are introduced from outside. The systemic mechanism in the sociological plane finds its expression in the theoretical heritage of the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), who is the author of one of the first holistic concepts of the social system. It is based on a mechanistic understanding of society, which consists of a set of social atoms - people. A social system is similar to a natural system, which is built from atoms and molecules. For V. Pareto society is a system in a state of equilibrium (“equilibrium”; from Lat. - that which is in balance), but relative equilibrium, because it is constantly disturbed and restored. All parts of the social system are closely interconnected and mechanically influence each other.

An essential characteristic of a social system, according to V. Pareto, is social heterogeneity, that is, heterogeneity, which is determined by the primary inequality of individual atoms. The best of them form elite, to which all others are subject; The elite and non-elite constitute the highest and lowest strata of society, respectively. The best representatives of the lower classes rise up and enter the elite, some members of which degrade and fall down into the masses: the so-called circulation, or cycle of elites, occurs. If the old elite rots and is not replenished from the bottom, then first an era of stagnation begins, then an era of revolutions that disrupts the social balance. The renewal of the ruling elite restores the “equilibrium”. Introduced by V. Pareto concept of system equilibrium subsequently occupies a prominent place in structural functionalism and is used by its representatives to develop mechanisms for the stability of social systems, ensure effective social control and make effective management decisions.

Systemic-organistic idea of society

Systemic-organistic representation society is developed by the founders of sociology, O. Comte and G. Spencer, already mentioned in topic 2. For them, the social organism is a complex whole, which is formed according to the laws of expediency; its feature is the presence of self-regulating processes. Social organism or social system is a dynamic formation that is in constant development, like every living organism. If supporters of systemic-mechanistic ideas about society emphasize the state of equilibrium, then representatives of organicism pay attention primarily to dynamic processes within social systems by analogy to developmental phases living organisms from their origin to flourishing and subsequent death.

Synthesized ideas about society

Simultaneously with systemic-mechanistic and systemic-organistic types of sociological knowledge at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. another type of systemic ideas about society is being formed, which can conventionally be called hybrid, or synthesized, because it arises as a result of the fusion of the basic elements of the first two types. This is, first of all, a thesis about the development of society, which occurs from the mechanical stage to the stage of organic movement. Its representatives are considered to be F. Tjonnies and E. Durkheim, whose main ideas were analyzed in topic 3. In F. Tjonnies "organic" the community (or Gemeinshaft) opposes "mechanics" society (or Gesellschaft). In historical development, there is a transition from a state with a predominance of relations of the “Gemeinshaft” type to a state with a predominance of “Gesellschaft” relations, which should form a universal society and a universal state.

The ratio of "mechanical" and "organic"

But E. Durkheim describes the opposite relationship between the “organic” and the “mechanical”, embodied in solidarity. He declares society itself to be the most natural and organic type of sociality, based on growing division of labor. It is the division of labor that is the mechanism that in modern society creates a strong social bond and becomes a cementing force, transforming society into a harmonious integral unity. Therefore, the mechanical solidarity of ancient society, based on the coercive force of “collective ideas” and social norms, gives way to the organic solidarity of modern society, which ensures the integrity and strength of the social system.

F. Tjonnis and E. Durkheim about society

Such a difference in the understanding of the concepts “organic” and “mechanical” in two thinkers exists, obviously, because they apply them in different phenomena: F. Tjonnis - regarding communities and society as a large community, and E. Durkheim - about solidarity and its varieties. But in both cases there is a desire to combine and compare the organic and mechanical, which are in a dialectical relationship; this makes it possible to consider both sociologists as representatives of the third, synthesized approach in the systemic consideration of society. Obviously, it would be correct to conclude that F. Tjonnis underestimates modern society, in which there are, in addition to mechanical, also organic relationships, although not to the same extent as in communities, and E. Durkheim, on the contrary, overestimates this society, where organic solidarity is, firstly, also forced, conditioned by the division of labor, and, secondly, this solidarity is more desirable than real, a fairly common state in relations between people.

Society in Marxist sociology

Marxist sociological concept society is also interpreted as a living organism that is in constant movement and development, its essence is the emphasis on the dependence and conditionality of all social subsystems (political, spiritual, etc.) on the economic subsystem, which is based on material production and certain forms of ownership.

Systemic ideas about society in structural functionalism

Structural functionalism, creatively using the ideas of A. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim and other classics of sociology, significantly expands systemic ideas about society. The focus is general system of action, one of the subsystems of which is the social system. Society is part of this social system, having the highest level of self-sufficiency relative to the environments that surround it. According to T. Parsons, any social system has two main orientations: the first axis is “external - internal,” that is, the orientation of the system or environment, or to one’s own problems. The second axis is “instrumental - consummatory”, or the orientation of the system towards current or potential long-term needs and goals. That's why four main functional categories of the social system There are functions of integration (internal), reproduction (present), adaptation (external) and purpose (long-term).

These functions of the social system are provided by appropriate subsystems: adaptation - economic, goal achievement - political, integration - a subsystem of legal institutions and customs, reproduction - a subsystem of beliefs, morality and socialization bodies, including institutions of education and upbringing.

Definition of society

Thus, systemic sociological ideas about society have a long history of development and a wide range of trends and directions. This is due to the extreme complexity of society as a social system, its diversity and versatility, the need to take into account historical stages of development, etc. Taking this into account, let us give a general definition of society from the point of view of sociology. In the broadest sense of the word society - this is the totality of all methods of interaction and forms of unification of people, in which their interdependence on each other is manifested and which have developed historically. In a narrower sense society is a structurally or genetically determined type of communication between people, put as a certain historical integrity or system.

Signs of society

most characteristic signs companies are:

- common territory, on which people live, interact and communicate with each other;

- integrity and constancy society as a single whole;

- autonomy and self-sufficiency, self-reproduction, self-regulation and self-development;

Ability to maintain and reproduce high intensity of internal connections;

- a certain level of cultural development with an established system of norms and values that underlie social connections between people. So, the following signs and characteristics of society, as most Ukrainian and foreign sociologists call them, allow us to interpret it primarily as system.

Definition of a social system

Social system is a holistic education, the main element of which is people, their connections, interactions and relationships. Society consists of many individuals, but does not represent a simple sum or collection of people; it is not a summary, but an integral system with qualities that none of its constituent elements have separately. Depending on the different approaches to understanding society as a specific system, attempts to consider its structure are also distinguished.

Main levels of the systems approach

In Ukrainian philosophical and sociological literature, the most common is a systematic approach highlighting three levels of analysis: in him wet And micro level are supplemented meso-level, or middle management. This vision of the levels of research, as S. Ustich rightly notes, is somewhat different from that adopted in Western systems research, which is based on the traditional cybernetic approach with its macro- and microlevels. As we have already noted in topic 4, modern Western theoretical sociology is actually built on the basis of macro- and micro-level interpretations of society, when in the first case the emphasis is on the organization and functioning of society as a whole (macro level), and in the second - on research and interpretation of an individual’s actions (micro level).

The ratio of macro-, meso- and micro levels

Introduction of a special, intermediate link - meso level - allows sociologists to direct scientific research primarily to social communities, which are now becoming the central category of sociology. And this is no coincidence. The current stage of development of society testifies to the one-sidedness and insufficiency, as well as the practical inconsistency of the study of social phenomena or purely globally-universal, or purely individualistic character. In developed industrial countries, one of the new problems is the crisis of the state as the embodiment and personification of society at the macro level; The crisis of individualism also continues and intensifies, which, together with an increase in a person’s personal freedom, gives rise to an increase in his alienation and loneliness, feelings of isolation and uselessness in a cold and hostile social space. All this encourages modern Western researchers to increasingly turn to the meso-level, namely social communities. One of the leading US sociologists, Neil, boldly took this into account and noted that Western sociology from F. Tjonnis to the present day has been misled by the idea of the insignificance and secondary nature of communities in comparison with complex, stable and purposeful macro-level organizations. Or, in other words, - modern man feels equally uncomfortable both in huge macrostructures and in the shell of loneliness; she lacks relatively small, reliable and organic communities where she would feel at ease and protected.

Developing these arguments further in the book “Problems of Sociology” (1997), N. Smelzer begins to use the concept of “meso-level” and describes in more detail the essence and tasks of macro-, meso- and microsociological analyzes of social reality.

Microsociological level, in his opinion, includes a sociological version of social psychology, or the study of personality oriented to the external social world, as well as interaction between people. It also contains the study of small groups (for example, families) that interact with each other on a personal level. Macro-sociological level, on the contrary, it deals with the study of society as a whole, its basic institutions, as well as such social processes as social integration, social solidarity and the cultural identity of the people who form that society.

Creation of the MEZO group in the USA

Concept "mesosociology" formed in Western sociological thought, as N. Smelzer notes, much later, in the 90s of the XX century. N. Smelzer describes the creation by American sociologists of a group they called "MEZO" and which was created after becoming convinced of the insufficiency of macro and micro approaches that dominated in the United States until the end of the 1980s. their main thesis is the recognition of the fact that the "average level" is the decisive link between the psychological (individual, personal) and V social (supra-individual), between interacting persons and large social structures. They focus on meso-level group phenomena, collective, formal-organizational, and some institutional. Research Core at this level are the social groups and communities through which the individual builds his daily life and his relationships with the whole society.

As we see, historical experience convinces us again and again that concepts of social development that were formed within Ukrainian sociological thought with its emphasis on communities-communities through which the individual enters society and connects with it, are right.

Based on these considerations, we can conclude that society as a system structurally consists of humanity as a whole (macro level), social communities with the social institutions they created (meso level), and individuals (micro level).

Society structure

Other attempts to consider the structure of society are also possible, where its components are considered to be economic, social, political and cultural subsystems, each of which influences the others, experiencing the opposite influence.

Some Russian sociologists refer to social processes and phenomena that make up society as social actions and interactions, connections and social relationships, social values and norms, etc.

The above approaches can be combined if you follow the following procedures:

Schematically imagine the social system as a flat pyramid, the elements of which function at three levels: macro-, meso- and micro-;

Fill this pyramid with volume by adding four sides according to subsystems or spheres: economic, social, political and cultural;

Pierce this multidimensional pyramid with straight and pointed arrows that denote social interactions, relationships and social relationships between people, people and communities, people and society as a whole, society and communities, communities and social institutions, etc. (Fig. 15):

Rice. 15. in

Society as an integral system

So, the answers to the question of what a society is, why and how it is created, and why it unites people are varied, but a certain consensus is gradually being achieved. Its essence lies in the interpretation of society as an integral system, a social formation that is endowed integral system quality, which is not reducible to the characteristics of individual people or their simple sum. Meanwhile, one should warn against absolutizing the primacy and superiority of society over the people who are part of it. Excessive emphasis on the fact that society is an independent substance, primary in relation to individuals; that, due to its integral properties, the social system acquires independence - all this shifts organic unity towards macrostructures and macrocreation, which was characteristic of E. Durkheim.

Social system in a postmodern situation

Let us also add that postmodern situation does not exclude the idea of a systematic society, but gives it new, expanded content. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. The systematic nature of society is considered in the unity of its most diverse dimensions. If earlier the interpretation of society was based primarily on clearly fixed structural components, their interaction and interconnection, the functions they perform, etc., now the components of it are gradually coming to the fore, which previously remained on the sidelines of scientific attention, but without which It is impossible to imagine a modern (or post-modern) society. This and increasing complexity of social structures with the growing role of non-traditional social groups (marginalized people, people of non-traditional sexual orientation, various social minorities in general), and growth of social influences of new social movements (such as Islamic fundamentalism), and the complication of social connections, the increasing predominance of individualistic motives in them. Regarding the latter, it is advisable to note separately: it is believed that the 20th century. demonstrated the gradual rise of the individual over the social, the common.

Com"unitarianism

However, the last decades of this century have shown a new, paradoxical trend in this regard, namely, the increase in weight and the importance for humans of the so-called com"unitarian principles. That is, the achievement of the maximum possible individual freedom of a person led not to its solitude, but to the growth of the desire “to be with one’s own, among one’s own”; to combine their efforts where the centralized state has gained too much power or, conversely, does nothing. The emphasis is also changing in the understanding of the smallest, but at the same time the most important component of the social system, in fact person researchers are increasingly interested in such aspects of its essence as the irrational, unconscious, and bodily.

Megaspoilt and world global society as two possible consequences of globalization

The desire to create communities in the modern world in the context of globalization is embodied in the formation and functioning of an ever-increasing number supranational communities, who cross state-territorial boundaries and become one of the leading actors-subjects on a global scale. We are talking about the so-called information and communication associations of representatives of various states, such as online communities, users of blogs and chats, as well as environmentalists, human rights defenders united on a global scale, etc. There is an increase in the number of charitable and philanthropic associations of people, which, according to the famous Western researcher E. Uslaner, maximally mobilize the impulse of trust and contribute to the formation of an orientation towards goodwill, empathy and trust of participants in each other. At the global level, mass communities are being revived based on common values that unite people of different races, nations, beliefs, classes and professions. As a result of these processes, a world community is being created, which the Polish sociologist P. Sztompka calls the “worldwide Gemeinshaft”, using the term F. Tjonnies to designate a community, but a community of a qualitatively new type and scale - megacommunities of humanity, P. Sztompka notes that all these and other new worldwide forms of contacts and cooperation contribute to the revival of informality, when at a completely new global level there is a return to a type of relationship close to what existed in the former traditional village. The highest embodiment and form of existence of a mega-community is global civil society.

Another group of researchers, considering the influence of globalization on specific societies, believe that they cause education one world society, which is also characterized by consistency and interconnection of components and functions. In this huge world society, all the spheres characteristic of “small” societies, depicted in the previous diagram, continue to exist (albeit on a qualitatively new basis), namely cultural, economic, social, political, and also acquire a global scale for the creation of new, universal humanities. the nature of the values and ethos of global responsibility, new forms and practices of civil participation and solidarity in solving global problems of humanity. The formation of the world economy and the global financial system continues, national cultures are becoming closer and sometimes unified, social structures are becoming more and more similar, and even political institutions on a global scale are being formed.

Actually, the presence or absence of global political institutions is what divides scientists in their forecasts regarding consequences of globalization, in the first case we are talking about a mega-society (eventually - a world civil society) without a world superpower or a world government, and in the second - about a world society with such strong elements of the political variety as supranational governments, other executive, legislative and judicial bodies (for example, within the European Community - the European Parliament), a new global political order, a global political system, etc.. In the first case main actors on the world stage there are non-governmental organizations and associations, specific people and the communities they create, while in the second - international (and in the future - of a global nature) political institutions. This is reflected in scientific discussions about the consequences of globalization and clarification of the subject field of modern sociology: what exactly is being formed - an informal world community of free citizens or a formalized rationalistic world society? Most likely, this is one global process with internal contradictory trends and forms of manifestation, a process during which the world is transformed into a single global system."

System approach in sociology. Systematicity of society

TOPIC 3. Society as a sociocultural system

3.1. System approach in sociology. Systematicity of society.

3.2. Social changes.

3.3. Stability of social systems.

3.4. Social processes.

What is society? At first glance, it seems that it is easy to answer this question, because this concept has long been firmly established in our everyday vocabulary. But as soon as we try to define it, we immediately become convinced that many such definitions can be given.

In sociology, there are different approaches to defining this concept. The first approach asserts that society has as its initial value living, active people, whose joint activities form society. In other words, the individual is the elementary unit of society. Society is a collection of people engaged in joint activities and relationships. This is what K. Marx and P. Sorokin thought.

If society consists of individuals, then does it not follow that it can be considered as a simple sum of individuals? Such a formulation of the question casts doubt on the existence of such an independent social reality as society: individuals really exist, and society is an invention of philosophers, historians, sociologists, etc. If society is an objective reality, then it should appear as stable, a repeating, self-perpetuating phenomenon. For this reason, when defining society, it is important to emphasize that the essential point of its formation is the unity of the individuals that make it up, their community, solidarity, and connection between people. Society is a universal way of organizing social connections, interactions and relationships between people.

These interactions, connections, communities must have a common basis. Different thinkers interpret it differently. M. Weber believed that society is the interaction of people who are the product of social actions. T. Parsons believed that the basis of society are values and norms. K. Marx argued that people in society are connected as a basis by joint production activities. E. Durkheim saw the fundamental basis of a sustainable society in “collective consciousness”.

From all the diversity of opinions, it is clear that what they have in common is the consideration of society as an integral system of elements that are closely interconnected. This approach to society is commonly called systemic and its most important task is to unite various knowledge about society into an integral system, which could become a unified theory of society.

So, system - this is a certain ordered set of elements interconnected and forming an incomplete unity. Social system is a holistic education, the main element of which is people, their connections, interactions and relationships. The content of any integral system determines the composition of the elements. These connections, interactions and relationships are sustainable and are reproduced in the historical process, passing from generation to generation.

Social interaction is a process in which people interact in the process of satisfying their needs and experience influence on each other. In the process of interaction, social relations develop as relatively stable and independent connections between individuals and social groups.

From the point of view of the systems approach, society is not an additive, but a holistic system. This means that at the level of society, individual actions, connections and relationships form a new systemic quality as a special qualitative state, which cannot be considered as a simple sum of elements. Social relations are supra-individual, transpersonal in nature. In other words, society is a kind of independent substance that is primary in relation to individuals.

A holistic system is characterized by many connections, interactions and relationships. The most characteristic are correlative connections, interactions and relationships, including coordination and subordination of relationships.

Coordination- this is a certain consistency of elements, the special nature of their mutual dependence, which ensures the preservation of the entire system. Subordination - this is subordination and subordination, indicating a special specific place, the unequal significance of elements in the whole system.

So, society becomes an integral system with qualities in which none of the elements included in it separately. As a result of its integral qualities, the social system acquires a certain independence in relation to its constituent elements, a relatively independent direction of development.

A slightly different understanding of society is characteristic of functionalism, one of whose representatives was T. Parsons. From the point of view of functionalism, society is united on the basis of functional dependence.

Functional dependence- this is what gives the system of elements properties that none of the elements that make up the system have. Functionalism interprets society as an integral system of people acting in concert, the stable existence and reproduction of which is ensured by the necessary set of functions.

What are the principles of the functional approach?

1. Like supporters of the systems approach, functionalists viewed society as a single organism consisting of many parts: economic, political, military, religious, etc.

2. At the same time, they emphasized that each part can exist only within the framework of integrity, where it is assigned specific functions.

3. The functions of parts always mean satisfying some social need. Yet together they are aimed at maintaining the stability of society and the reproduction of the human race.

4. Due to the fact that each function performs only its assigned task, if there is any failure, it is difficult for other parts to restore the dysfunction.

T. Parsons identifies four main functions of society as a self-regulating system: adaptation, goal achievement, integration and reproduction of structure. These functions of the social system are provided by various subsystems. Function adaptation provides the economic subsystem, function goal achievement- political subsystem, function integration- customs and legal institutions, function reproduction structure- a subsystem of beliefs, morality, socialization bodies, including the institutions of family and education.

To analyze social life it is necessary to identify the structure, its elements and the interaction between them. Society is not just a collection of people, but a complex polystructural formation, a social organism, a “metasystem”, which includes all types of communities and is characterized by integrity, balance, openness, self-organization, and spatio-temporal existence.

Integrity means that all elements of society are interconnected and mutually influence each other. Balance means the balance of various elements of society and if it is violated, then this poses a threat to the stability of the social system. Dynamism means that society develops and changes, is in constant motion, and this is a condition for the sustainability and stability of society. Openness means that society is an open system, interacts with the wider system of nature and there is a constant process of metabolism between them. Self-organization means that people in society build their own lives; the process of existence and development of society is the result of the self-organizing activities of people. Spatiotemporal existence means that any society, any specific social system has spatial and temporal boundaries of its existence.

In sociology, the very concept of society can be used in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, this is the totality of all communities that have existed, exist and will exist. In a narrow sense, society is a system that has specific historical characteristics (for example, Russian society). Social systems have four important specific features:

1. At the center of social systems is a person with his subjectivity and the ability to choose different behavioral options.

2. Blurred, changing characteristics of the controllability of society. The degree of controllability is not set, and it can constantly change. There is a tendency that is expressed in man’s desire to manage an ever-increasing range of social phenomena. But this can have negative consequences and disrupt the self-regulation mechanisms of the subsystems of society.

3. The boundary of measure, cognition, and control over the functioning of social systems localized in space and time. People's knowledge of society is always historically limited, and therefore the possibilities for effective control are limited.

4. The presence of a large number of social systems and the diversity of their elements. Since society is a complex system, in different sciences it is differentiated on different grounds. Social philosophy identifies the following spheres of society, each of which includes many elements: material and production (economic), political and managerial, social and spiritual spheres. Sociology identifies the following as the basic elements of social systems: 1) social groups, social communities; 2) social institutions, organizations; 3) personality as a bearer of certain values and norms of social qualities that determine relationships between people.

If society consists of individuals, does it not follow that it can be regarded as a simple sum of individuals? Such a formulation of the question casts doubt on the existence of such an independent social reality as society: individuals really exist, and society is an invention of philosophers, historians, sociologists, etc. If society is an objective reality, then it should manifest itself as stable, repeating, self-perpetuating phenomenon. Therefore, when defining society, it is important to emphasize that the essential moment of its formation is the unity of the individuals that make it up, their community, solidarity, and connection between people. Society is a universal way of organizing social connections, interactions and relationships between people.

From all the diversity of opinions, it is clear that what they have in common is the consideration of society as an integral system of elements that are closely interconnected. This approach to society is called systemic and its most important task is to combine various knowledge about society into an integral system, which could become a unified theory of society.

So, system - this is a certain ordered set of elements that are interconnected and form some kind of integral unity. Social system is a holistic education, the main element of which is people, their connections, interactions and relationships. The content of any integral system determines the composition of the elements. These connections, interactions and relationships are sustainable and are reproduced in the historical process, passing from generation to generation.

From the point of view of the systems approach, society is not an additive, but a holistic system. This means that at the level of society, individual actions, connections and relationships form a new systemic quality as a special qualitative state that cannot be considered as a simple sum of elements. Social relations are supra-individual, transpersonal in nature. In other words, society is a kind of independent substance that is primary in relation to individuals.

What are the principles of the functional approach?

1. Like supporters of the systems approach, functionalists viewed society as a single organism consisting of many parts: economic, political, military, religious, etc.

2. At the same time, they emphasized that each part can exist only within the framework of integrity, where it is assigned specific functions.

3. The functions of parts always mean satisfying some social need. Yet together they are aimed at maintaining the stability of society and the reproduction of the human race.

4. Due to the fact that each function performs only its assigned task, if there is any failure, it is difficult for other parts to restore the dysfunction.

T. Parsons identifies four main functions of society as a self-regulating system: adaptation, goal achievement, integration and reproduction of the structure. These functions of the social system are provided by various subsystems. Function adaptation provides the economic subsystem, function goal achievement- political subsystem, function integration- customs and legal institutions, function reproduction structure- a subsystem of beliefs, morality, socialization bodies, including the institutions of family and education.

1. At the center of social systems is a person with his subjectivity and the ability to choose different behavioral options.

2. Blurred, changing characteristics of the controllability of society. The degree of controllability is not set, and it can constantly change. There is a tendency that is expressed in man's desire to manage an ever-increasing range of social phenomena. But this can have negative consequences and disrupt the self-regulation mechanisms of the subsystems of society.

4. The presence of a large number of social systems and the diversity of their elements. Since society is a complex system, in different sciences it is differentiated on different grounds. Social philosophy identifies the following spheres of society, each of which includes many elements: material and production (economic), political and managerial, social and spiritual spheres. Sociology identifies the following as the main elements of social systems: 1) social groups, social communities; 2) social institutions, organizations; 3) personality as a bearer of certain values and norms of social qualities that determine relationships between people.

Social change

Society is a dynamic system, and it constantly changes its states. We can call changes in the state of society as a social system social changes. The concept of “social change” requires clarification. First, social change is broader than social development, which can be considered a type of social change. Secondly, social changes are not changes in general that occur in various spheres of society, but those that are related to the subject of sociology, that is, changes in the social system reflected by the concepts of social structure, social communities, groups, social institutions and organizations and etc.

Social changes are of a different nature and can be divided into the following types:

1. Changes relating to the structures of various social formations, which can be called structural social changes - changes in the structure of social institutions, social groups, the social structure of society as a whole, the structure of socio-cultural values.

2. Changes in social processes - procedural social changes. They involve changes in the sphere of social interactions and relationships between communities, institutions, and organizations.

3. Changes in the functions of various social systems (organizations, institutions) are functional social changes.

4. Changes in the sphere of motivation, individual and collective activity. These can be called motivational social changes. These are, for example, changes in needs, interests, motivations in behavior, activities of an individual, community, group.

All these changes are very closely related and interdependent. Typically, changes of one type entail changes of other types.

Causes of social change. In sociology, there are many theories that consider various factors as the causes of social change. Three groups of macrosociological theories can be distinguished, which see different reasons as the decisive factor in social evolution:

1. Socio-cultural theories. The main reason for social change within the framework of such theories is considered to be changes in the socio-cultural sphere, that is, changes in worldviews, religions, and value systems. The most famous proponent of this understanding was P. Sorokin.

2. Industrial and technological theories. They interpret social changes as derived from technological changes, that is, changes that occur in the sphere of material production. Such theories include the theory of stages of economic growth (Rostow), the theory of a unified industrial society (Aron), the theory of post-industrial society (Bell), and the theory of the information society (see Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Scheme of the progressive development of human societies

3. Socio-economic theories, who see contradictions between productive forces and production relations as sources of social change. Representatives are Marx, Engels, Lenin and their followers (see Fig. 4). We are talking about class struggle as an expression of this contradiction. And all other changes flow from this class struggle.

Rice. 4. K. Marx’s model of society

These approaches focus on different causes of social change, but, apparently, the cause of social change in different specific historical conditions may be different factors or their combinations.

Structure and mechanisms of social change. According to the nature and internal structure, the degree of influence on society, social changes can be divided into evolutionary, revolutionary, and reforms. Changes of the first two types are spontaneous changes, unplanned, unorganized. Evolutionary changes occur unnoticed and are perceived after the fact. Revolutionary changes seem prepared, but in a certain sense they are spontaneous and unexpected in their results for society. Reforms are a planned product of people's activities. They are carried out by those who actually have power and outline certain goals and methods for their implementation.

Evolutionary changes- these are partial, gradual, during which the structure, functions, processes in society, and the motivation of people’s activities can change. Significant results of evolutionary changes are revealed over fairly large periods of historical time.

Revolution- these changes are not just radical, but extremely radical, implying a radical breakdown of the social object; these changes are not partial, but always general or even universal. They are usually associated with violence and rely on it. Social revolutions are a historical inevitability. Their cause is the inability of society, within the framework of previous social systems, to solve the most important problems that are maturing, aggravating, and expressing the crisis state of society. Revolutions open up new scope for the development of society; as a result, society becomes able to more effectively solve social problems and carry out the necessary transformations in society.

Reforms- as a form of a more civilized mechanism of social transformations become possible only at a certain stage of the historical development of society. These are planned, meaningful actions, so the success of reforms largely depends on the degree of understanding of pressing problems, on the productivity of the ways and means of their implementation, on the totality of subjective and objective factors expressing the readiness of society for transformations, and the presence of objective conditions for their implementation.

A number of social changes in society are cyclical nature. They can form a cycle over a period of time, ranging from seasonal to centuries-old. At every moment in history we have the simultaneous existence of social structures, phenomena, processes that are at different stages of development of their cycle. It is important to take into account, for example, the cyclical nature of population change. Wherein small cycle- this is a change of generations, full cycle- complete renewal of the population, physical change of generations.

It is very important to take into account the cyclical nature of socio-economic processes. This problem was developed in detail by the Soviet economist N.D. Kondratiev. He proposed the theory of large cycles and identified two types of economic processes:

· Irreversible, that is, flowing in one direction (changes that do not reproduce previous forms of social life).

· Reversible. They flow in waves and are cyclical. This was discovered by analyzing commodity prices, rates, wages and other economic phenomena.

Large cycles- these are periodic repetitions of characteristic socio-economic, technological and other possible situations, long ups and downs: an upward phase and a downward phase. Kondratiev believed that these phases last 50 years, but with changes in the social system, the duration of the phases may change.

Factors of social change. In different historical eras, a different set of factors may operate, and their significance and proportion in the complex of causes may change. The most important factors at the present stage include the following:

· Technological factors which are expressed in the influence of the scientific and technological revolution on the social life of society. Changes in technology create and require new social norms, form new values, create new roles, new opportunities for individuals and groups. New technologies create new forms of interaction between individuals and various communities. This occurs in manufacturing and other areas. The system of social connections becomes more complex, new social groups emerge.

· Ideology as a system of dominant views. Ideology exists in the form of doctrines, programs, ideals, teachings. The bearers of new ideologies are political parties, social movements, and organized social groups that claim to bring about significant social changes, sometimes even radical ones.

· Social sciencies as a factor of social change in modern society. In the 20th century, a whole set of sciences began to develop, which is capable of influencing social processes. These sciences provide material for the regulation and management of social life and act as an important factor in social change. These studies may also be pseudoscientific, and in this case, if their results are used as the basis for management, this will entail negative social changes and consequences.

Related information.