Social systems and their structure. The social structure of society
the internal structure of a society or social group, consisting of a certain way arranged, ordered parts, interacting with each other within a certain framework.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
set of relatively stable relationships between elements social system reflecting its essential characteristics.
The most important distinguishing feature S.S. lies in the fact that it is identical to the systemic (emergent) properties of the complex of its constituent elements, i.e. properties that do not characterize the individual elements of this complex. In any structure, one can single out the elements that make up the structure itself, and the complex of elements from which the structure is built. The sum of all trees remains the same regardless of whether each tree stands on a separate plot or whether all trees make up a forest, i.e. certain ecological structure. The structure of a social group also differs from the totality of its constituent members in those properties that cannot be used to describe individual members of the group, since they characterize the relationships and interactions of most or all of these members and, therefore, refer to the entire group as a whole, for example, properties cohesion. Thus, the sociological analysis of S.S. fundamentally different from the study of its constituent elements (individuals, norms, values, social statuses, roles, positions, etc.), since such a study is focused on systemic, emergent (not reducible to the sum of constituent elements) properties of the totality of elements that characterize not individual of them, but the way they are combined, relationships and interactions between them.
STRUCTURE SOCIAL
a certain way of communication and interaction of elements, i.e., individuals occupying certain social. position (status) and performing certain social. functions (role) in accordance with the accepted in this social. system as a set of norms and values. The main properties of S.s. can be considered depending on the variables: 1) relationships, relationships, interdependence; 2) regularity, internal diversity, constancy; 3) fundamentality, materiality, depth of measurement; 4) determining, limiting, controlling influence in relation to an empirically observed phenomenon. Types of S.s. are: an ideal structure that binds together beliefs, beliefs, imagination; normative structure, including values, norms prescribed by the social. roles; organizational structure, which determines the method of interrelation of positions (statuses); random structure consisting of elements available in the this moment and included in its functioning (the specific interest of the individual, randomly received resources, etc.). S.s. The system as a functional unity of a set of elements is controlled by its own inherent laws and regularities. As a result, the change in the structure has the character of self-regulation, maintaining, under certain conditions, the balance of its elements. Since the elements of each individual social. systems have different individual qualities, insofar as S.s. systems are, on the one hand, general principles its functioning, and with others - the patterns of its development arising from the characteristics of the elements and the ways of their connection. Based on the specifics of S.S. system, principles and patterns of its functioning and development, it is possible to explain differences in the content, nature of activities and behavior of people belonging to different. social systems. See also: Concepts of social structure. Lit .: Osipov G.V. Sociology and socialism. M., 1990; Transformation of social structure and stratification Russian society. M., 1996; Parsons T. The structure of social action. N.Y., 1937, 1949; Lipset S.M. Social structure and social change//Approaches to the study of social structure. N.Y., 1975. A.D. Naletov.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
F e o d a l s. Developed system of vassalage.
Tycoons(sirs).
Aristocrats. They had the right to build castles and cities on their lands. But not all are owners of their estates. Often they had land as governors of the great princes, and they entered into a series with the local population.
They led the army under their own flag into the war.
nobility(term on Lithuanian lands in the 16th century).
Small and smallest landowners. Most served in the cavalry of the Grand Duke as swordsmen, the rest - in the cavalry of the magnates. Moreover, the Grand Duke himself could transfer them to the magnates.
Feeling of social unity. On the lands of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, they made up 5% of the population, while the nobility of a similar status in Western Europe- no more than 2%.
Some gentry had the right to perpetual ownership of land. The rest - for life ("up to the stomach") or conditionally hereditary (up to 2 or 3 stomachs, ᴛ.ᴇ. son or grandson, but no further). For non-attendance at the service - confiscation of land. The gentry is not obliged to live in his lands. He could stay in other countries as long as he wanted and "study the customs of chivalry", only if this country is not at war with the Grand Duke.
Unlike Moscow Russia, where the rights of the feudal lord were not guaranteed against arbitrariness supreme power, in Lithuania, the Grand Duke did not have the right to subject pans and gentry to personal punishment and confiscation of property without trial.
Boyars.
In the XIV century - the bulk of the Lithuanian feudal lords. By the beginning of the 16th century, this term had devalued here in comparison with Muscovite Russia so much that in the 16th century “worthy” and “armored” boyars began to be called those who were previously called the boyar-servant (peasants who were obliged to carry military service in the militia of the feudal lord).
Townspeople.
Influential and numerous group. "Mestichi" (hence the philistines). They concluded an agreement with the Grand Duke from the city - "privileges".
Cities from the XIV-XV centuries had the right to self-government and independence from the lord according to the Western European model (Magdeburg Law).
Citizens had privileges and often acted as an independent political and social force.
Peasants.
They were called "men". In the XIV century. personally free. They were divided into "tax" (corvee) and "data" (compensation). Until the end of the XV century. rent in kind prevailed.
Then there were peasants similar and dissimilar (they have the right to leave or not).
In 1447, the peasants were deprived of the right to move from the possessions of the feudal lords to the grand ducal ones and vice versa.
Typical peasant land shortage and land lease. In the same time peasant family could hire a worker for a share of the harvest.
Since 1496, only one person could move from one village to another owner per year.
In 1557 - the final enslavement of the peasants. The maximum peasant allotment was established, a census was carried out, in which the smallest gentry was recorded as a peasant. Not a community, but every peasant family was made dependent on the owner. correct geometric shapes plots.
1566 - 10-year term for the investigation of the fugitives.
1588 - 20-year period of investigation + the owner is free in the death of a serf.
serfs.
"Involuntary people", "parobki", "servants". Only Christians could have them.
Sources of servility = Russian + the execution of the criminal could be replaced by slavery.
Legally - not a person, but property.
Children of serfs - stepfathers. Their position is close to dissimilar peasants.
Kholops were used for labor on the owner's lands and as servants.
Cossacks.
In the XVI century - an independent social group with self-government. From the second half of the 16th century, the king began to take Ukrainian Cossacks into service. Their composition is heterogeneous - both the homeless and the owners of farms. As Zaporozhye Cossacks in the Sich they could not keep a family ® the capture of boys on the Moscow border.
Military-administrative organization of the Zaporizhian Sich ® potential possibility of creating a state.
Economy. The development of large feudal landownership differs from that of Moscow.
Farms appeared, as in Poland. This is a dominal economy based on the labor of corvée peasants. All products go to the foreign market. (both agricultural and patrimonial craft products).
Farm owners had customs privileges. Their peasants paid less taxes.
In the XVI century. - dispossession of peasants and their transfer to a month. Corvee up to five days a week (that's the replenishment of the Cossacks). All the best arable land - for farms ® there are so many of them in Ukraine.
The peasant community remained in the lands of the Grand Duchy. Horse breeding (horse feeders) is developed.
Right fishing in the rivers - in the monopoly of the Grand Duke.
® pond fish farming in farms.
Cities. Many privately owned. But castles can also stand outside cities.
Cities are trading centers. The city can redeem the right of self-government. Then the city council and its chairman, the mayor, are elected.
Hosted on ref.rf
The Rada is responsible for landscaping, judging, paying taxes, supplying soldiers, repairing fortresses.
The building for its meetings is the town hall. The benches were rented out.
The city had its mills and warehouses. Foreign merchants were to use only them, ᴛ.ᴇ. the city government has a budget.
Craft workshops, as in Europe. Elected from them controlled city finances and landscaping.
Cities bear the brunt of the tax burden.
Farms slowed down the city's foreign trade, and the enslavement of peasants reduced their ability to buy on the domestic market and deprived the city of an influx of population.
The decline of city life at the end of the 16th century.
Weakening cities could not protect the central possessions from the feudal lords.
Church. By the 16th century, there was a parallel Catholic and Orthodox Church and infiltrated Protestantism. The richest townspeople and magnates (Radziwills) became Calvinists. They temporarily managed to limit the influence of the Catholic Church on state affairs.
But at the end of the XVI century. Catholic Church went on the offensive. In her hands was the system of urban educational institutions + city posts were given to Catholics.
Protestants returned to Catholicism (counter-reformation).
The Orthodox were forbidden not only to hold positions, but also to head craft workshops and buy new houses.
Simultaneously Orthodox clergy Lithuania was increasingly moving away from the Moscow Metropolis.
1596 - Brest Union of Churches and the Uniate Church.
Uniates = Catholics in rights.
The Uniate Church recognized the primacy of the Pope and Catholic dogma (purgatory, the procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the father, but also from the son, immaculate conception Mother of God, her bodily ascension to heaven, the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morality).
The rites are like those of the Orthodox, the language of worship is Slavic.
But the Orthodox townspeople were afraid of colonization through Uniatism, they began to seek support from Moscow. And the Orthodox gentry was afraid that joining Moscow would reduce their class privileges. The king appreciated and stopped oppressing the Orthodox nobility.
A united anti-Catholic front did not emerge.
social composition. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Social composition." 2017, 2018.
general characteristics sources of information about the standard of living of the population. The quality of the population as a component of the development of the economy and the quality of life. Methods for calculating indicators of the standard of living of the population. 17,19,22 Components of population change... .
General characteristics of sources of information about the standard of living of the population. The quality of the population as a component of the development of the economy and the quality of life. Methods for calculating indicators of the standard of living of the population. 17,19,22 The main tasks of statistics on the standard of living of the population are: ... .
Ethnic and religious composition of the population. Economic and educational composition of the population. The most numerous ethnic group Russian Federation- Russians; their number, according to the 2002 census, is 115.9 million, or 79.8% of the total population, in second place .... [read more] .
The answer to the question about the social composition of the vecha depends on the understanding of whether the veche was people's institute, or it was a management tool of the nobility (the ruling elite in the current sense) and a tool for making political, military or social decisions. I. Ya. Froyanov ... .
The economic composition of the population shows the distribution of inhabitants into groups depending on the availability of sources of livelihood, as well as the presence of occupations and industries.
The entire population can be divided into two large groups:
1) active population
2) eq. inactive population
The e.active population (e.a.n.) is a group of the population that works in the public sector or wants to work, but is not able to find a job at a given time, i.e. unemployed.
The most important characteristic of e.a.s. is the unemployment rate, i.e. share of the unemployed in the number of e.a.s. Socially dangerous is the level of unemployment exceeding 10% of the number of e.a.s.
The state, as a rule, tries to support the unemployed by paying them benefits, retraining the unemployed, and establishing a system of information about vacancies. However, in developed countries there are known areas where for many years the unemployment rate exceeds 20-25%. The situation is even worse in many developing countries where unemployment often appears in the form of agrarian overpopulation.
High level unemployment and agrarian overpopulation is one of the causes of migration, when people try to move to areas where they can find acceptable work.
E.a.s. is the main source of livelihood wages, income from the sale of own products, predp. income or unemployment benefits. In addition, e.a.s. RF is about 67.7% of total number population and e.a.s. annually reduced by an average of 4.2%.
Ek. the inactive population (e.n.n.) is the population that works only in private households or does not work at all. Part of e.s.c. has a source of income and this source can be various allowances and income from property, including bank interest.
Part of e.s.c. has no sources of livelihood at all: children, women, housewives, people in countries without pensions and they are fully supported by their relatives.
Working people are divided into many categories according to the types of their occupations:
1. entrepreneurs
2. employees
3. self-employed
4. employed in one main job plus additional work
5. full/part time
6. physical / mental labor
7. night/mechanized labor
Of particular importance is the sectoral composition of the employed - this is the distribution of workers by sectors of the economy. According to the composition of employees by industry, one can judge quite accurately the level of social-economy development of a particular territory. At the same time, the branches of the primary sector of the economy are distinguished:
Fishing
Fish farming
Secondary sector of the economy:
Industry
Construction
Tertiary sector of the economy:
Public service sector (education, medicine, transport, communications, etc.)
AT modern world the primary sector of the economy employs about 50% of the total number of employees, in the secondary - about 20% and 30% in the tertiary.
In addition to the social development of society, the share of employment in the primary sector of the economy is declining, and in most developing countries this sector accounts for more than 50% of employees. In this regard, their economy can be considered agrarian (African countries).
Currently, the secondary sector of the economy is the main one in the most advanced countries along the path of social economic progress. And they can be considered industrial (Karelia, Bulgaria, Mexico, Ukraine).
With further development, the tertiary sector of the economy takes the first place in the structure of employment. In the most developed countries, 2/3 of the workers are employed in this sector. These countries can be called post-industrial (Russia, USA, Japan, Germany).
In the Russian Federation during the period of the 90s, the economic composition of the population has changed significantly: the level of e.a.s. has decreased, in addition, the unemployed have appeared (7.5%), the sectoral structure of the country has changed from industrial to post-industrial.
The social composition of the population is the distribution of the population by social groups. Social groups are distinguished by the place of people in the ecosystem of society and the level of education. The social composition of the population is one of the most important characteristics of any population.
We can distinguish the following social groups of the population in Russia, which have analogues in all developed countries of the world:
1) administrative elite and senior civil servants
2) working class:
Qualified
Unskilled
Workers are further divided:
Have shares in their company
Have no shares
3) entrepreneurs of all kinds:
Large
4) intelligentsia
by profession:
teachers
Prof. military
teachers
Cultural workers
art workers
5) peasantry:
farmers
Collective farm workers
6) population engaged in individual labor
7) population living on benefits:
students
Unemployed
Not dependent on earnings (wives of businessmen, etc.)
8) marginal segments of the population:
criminal elements
There are no exact quantitative estimates for these social groups in Russia, but the working class and the intelligentsia are the most numerous.
In developed countries, the upper strata of society (the administrative elite and big businessmen), and the lower strata (marginals, unskilled workers).
In developed countries there are large social and economic differences between the elite and the lower strata of society.
20. Characteristics of "settlement of the population"
The term "settlement" has two meanings:
1) the process of people settling any territory?????
2) characterizes the distribution of residents by settlements of various territories, cat???? and the occupation of agriculture, the first rural settlements appeared.
With the development of social production and the separation of craft from agriculture, cities appeared. The first cities were formed 5-6 thousand years ago as centers of population concentration, the main occupation of which was trade, crafts, defense and religious worship.
Cities arose in places most favorable for performing the above beneficial functions and pastures by geographical position.
It is believed that the first cities were formed in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, and most often, these were the capitals of states. Since the emergence of cities, both the number and size of the population have constantly increased. Cities significantly influenced the development of society, contributed to the emergence of states, the growth of commodity-money relations, the development of domestic and foreign trade and, accordingly, the country's economy.
The vast majority of cities arose and developed in later periods, and the urban lifestyle became more and more widespread and this process became a global social-ec process, which is called urbanization. Especially urbanization accelerated in the 20th century, during which the urban population increased 15 times. BUT rural population over the same period only doubled. A general indicator of the development of urbanization is the proportion of the urban population of all residents of any territory. This indicator is called the level of urbanization.
For the Earth as a whole, the current urbanization rate is 50%. At the same time, in developed countries, the level of urbanization is higher (75% and above) and in last years does not remain at the same level.
In developing countries, the level of urbanization is lower, and in the most backward countries of Africa and Asia it is 10%. In Russia, it has been 73% for 20 years. If you look at the regions, the level of urbanization varies widely.
In the process of human development, 2 categories of settlements were formed - urban and rural. Accordingly, in any country there are two forms of settlement.
The settlement structure of the population is the distribution of inhabitants between urban and rural settlements, i.e. urban and rural settlements, as well as the resettlement of the population in settlements different sizes within major categories settlements. An analysis of the settlement structure of the population is important for any territory, because renders big influence to all social processes.
It is known that among the urban population the birth rate is usually lower, therefore, the natural increase is lower, the level of education is higher, the average family size is smaller compared to the same indicators of the rural population.
Historically, certain criteria have developed according to which settlements are classified as either urban or rural.
For urban settlements, the following criteria exist:
1) historical. Cities have developed in the process of historical development of countries.
2) quantitative. It means that the inclusion of a settlement in the size of cities refers to the case when this settlement reaches a population of 200 or more people.
3) economic. The category of cities includes settlements, taking into account the employment of the population not with agricultural labor, and often this criterion is used in combination with a quantitative criterion. In Russia, cities include settlements with a population of at least 12 thousand people, among which 85% are workers, employees and members of their families.
4) legislative. According to the legislation, the category of urban settlements includes settlements with the definition of acc. the legislation of this country. Urban populations are settlements classified according to with the legislation of the state to the category of urban. AT different countries the criteria for identifying the urban population are different. In Canada and the United States, the criterion for inclusion in the composition of cities of settlements with a definition is applied. legislation and quantitative criteria. In Brazil, Mongolia, Egypt, Paraguay, when classifying settlements as urban, they take into account the administrative status, regardless of the population.
There are two types of urban settlements in Russia:
2) urban-type settlements. A GWP is a type of settlement that, by its size, protects an intermediate position between a city and a village. The main part of the population, at least 80% of the inhabitants, should be employed in non-agricultural sectors. GWP is a geographical term for a type of settlement???????
In addition to workers' settlements, PWPs can be summer cottages and resorts.
Rural settlements are located in the rural area, which is the inhabited area outside the urban settlements. Rural settlements more than 100 years ago were places of resettlement for more than 25% of the world's population.
Traditional settlements include all relatively small settlements and in different countries, respectively. certain types of rural settlements (aul, villages, villages, villages, farms, etc.) became their historical conditions.
Urban settlements differ from rural settlements large sizes, the presence of administrative significance, a higher building density and a high concentration of all types of activities.
Around large cities, urban and rural settlements were formed, closely connected with the main city by various social-ec interactions.
Such groups of cities are called. urban agglomerations. And not long ago they became a significant form of urban settlement in developed countries. The largest urban agglomerations with a population of more than 15 million people include:
1. Tokyo (Japan)
2. Bombay (…)
3. Sao Paulo (Brazil)
4. Mexico City (Mexico)
5. Shanghai, Beijing (China)
6. Jakarta (Indonesia)
7. New York (USA)
8. Buenos Aires (Argentina)
In sociology, the concept of "social structure" is closely related to the concept of "social system". Society is sometimes referred to as a social system. This is a combination of various social phenomena and processes that are determined by social relations and connections, resulting in an integral social organism. Separate social phenomena and processes act as backbone elements, without which the existence of one or another social system (varieties) is impossible. The social structure of society is part of the social system and combines two components - the social composition and social ties. In its most general form, it is understood as a set of interrelated and interacting social groups, social institutions and relations (connections) between them. In turn, any social system (including societies) contains a certain social structure. "Social composition" is a set of elements that make up a given structure. The second component is a set of links of these elements. Thus, the concept of social structure includes, on the one hand, the social composition or totality various types communities within society, on the other hand, these are social ties of all constituent parts. Based on the understanding of the essence of the social structure of society, it is possible to define it as a set of interconnected and interacting social communities, layers, groups, ordered relative to each other, as well as relations between them. This is - a kind of "anatomy" of society, an objective differentiated division of society into separate layers, groups that are combined on the basis of one or more characteristics.
Studying the social structure of society, sociology analyzes the processes of the emergence or erasure of boundaries between different groups, layers (rapprochement, removal according to various criteria). Social structure means a stable connection of social elements in a social system. The main element of the social structure is social communities (classes, strata, nations, professional, demographic, territorial, political groups, but not random unstable associations of people). Each of these elements, in turn, is a complex structure inherent in certain inner layers, connections. The social structure reflects the characteristics of the social relations of classes, professional, cultural, national-ethnic and demographic groups, which are determined by the place and role of each of them in the system of economic relations. The social structure was formed, "minted" in the process of historical development. She is still changing.
We will conduct a systematic analysis of society through the prism of social differentiation (that is, division, differences) of society. Members of society can be scattered (differentiated) according to many features, signs, which include:
■ biological (gender, age, race);
■ intellectual features (mental level, ability)
■ social features(education, financial situation, lifestyle);
■ features, or social roles, statuses within various areas society's activities.
These features are differentiated in each society in different ways. Exist various ways, criteria for evaluating the role of a number of features. It is the principle and signs of differentiation (distinction in the qualitative and quantitative dimension) that serve as a condition for the further difference of people, groups in a hierarchical ordered system, a status-role system - stratification.
Analysis of social structure modern society(Fig. 1) highlights the following slice elements:
■ social class (social strata, groups, strata)
■ social and professional;
■ socio-demographic;
■ socio-territorial (settlement communities)
■ socio-ethnic (nations, nationalities).
Each of these elements (community systems) is divided into big number various social formations.
The most important structural component of the social structure is the social class or stratification cut, which has a dual character: acting both as an element of the whole (social structure) and as a "social convexity", a consequence of the "interaction" of other social cuts determined by certain differentiated features ( Fig. 2. The main social sections of society and their positioning).
The social structure reveals the internal structure and all the multidimensionality of relations in society. And stratification (or stratification structure) is associated with a hierarchically (dominant of quantitative parameters) organized by the interaction of people. The main elements of the social structure are individuals (people) who occupy certain social positions (statuses) in society and perform certain tasks in it. social functions(roles). On the basis of status-role signs, the unification of people into groups and other social communities arises. Therefore, the social structure of society is also defined as a set of statuses, roles and other features. In turn, roles and statuses are derivatives of the social division of labor, which are acquired by individuals in the process of socialization (upbringing, education, perception and development of social reality). These are, one might say, the building blocks of the social structure.
Status is the social position of a person in society, a generalized characteristic that covers the profession, economic situation, political opportunities, demographic characteristics of a person. It also represents a certain position of a person in the social structure of a certain community or society, connected with other positions through a system of opportunities, rights, and duties. Distinguish between social and personal status. The social has already been mentioned, and the personal is determined by the position that a person occupies in a small or primary group, depending on how it is assessed by the members of the team in terms of its individual qualities. Each of us, one way or another, is the bearer of many social and personal statuses, since he participates in the functioning and interaction of many large and small social groups.
An equally important element of the structure of society is the social role. It is associated with status, characterizing its dynamic, behavioral side. Status requires from a person socially approved behavior, realization of rights and obligations, psychological identification, identification of oneself with one's status. A model of behavior focused on a specific status, with the performance of appropriate functions, can be called a social, status role. Society determines the requirements and norms of behavior for the status in advance. In turn, each position and performing role is determined by the range of rights and obligations. Rights determine the possibilities of free choice of action. Responsibilities limit the choice to the forced performance of one or another action. At the same time, rights and obligations are firmly interconnected in such a way that one follows the other.
In sociology, the concept of "social structure" is used in a broad and narrow sense. (In a broad (generalized) - the language has already gone). In a narrow sense, "social structure" is more often used to analyze social-class and social-group communities. Social structure in this sense is a set of interconnected and interacting classes, social strata and groups.
There are several theories and concepts of social structure. Historically, one of the first is the Marxist concept, in which the main place is given to the social class structure of society, which is the interaction of three main elements: classes; social strata and social groups. The core of the social structure is classes, the main feature of which is the relationship to the means of production and the relationship to property (possession or non-ownership), which determines the role of classes in public organization labor and in the system of power (those who rule and those who are ruled, "leaders" and "subordinates"), their well-being (rich and poor). And the class struggle is driving force social development.
In addition to classes, the structural components of society are also layers - intermediate or transitional. community groups, which do not have a clearly defined specific relationship to the means of production. They can be both intra-class (as part of the class: large, middle, small rural bourgeoisie, industrial and rural proletariat, labor aristocracy), and inter-class layers. These include: the proletarian intelligentsia, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie. This gives reason to sometimes use the concept of "social-pro-Sharkov" structure of society. This concept is not completely identical with the social class structure, but, according to Marxist sociologists, it allows concretizing the social structure of society.
With a broader approach to the interpretation of the social structure from this position, a significant place is given to the concept of "social interest" - as the real life aspirations of people, groups, by which they are guided in their actions and which determine their objective position in the social system. Based on the above, we can define classes. These are large social groups that differ in their role in all spheres of the life of society, which are formed and function on the basis of fundamental social interests.
When it comes to social structure, what is meant, first of all, is that society is a complex, composite whole, consisting of organized elements, between which there is a constant connection. The concept of "structure" (from Latin structura - structure, arrangement, order) was first introduced into sociology by G. Spencer. By this time, the concept of "structure" was widely used in the natural sciences, especially in biology and anatomy, to refer to the constant relationship between the individual parts of the body and its whole. Even then, society was considered as a whole, consisting of interrelated elements, each of which acquires meaning and meaning based on the whole. We find such an understanding of society wherever we talk about classes, nations, social strata, institutions, and other constituent parts societies with stable relationships. Therefore, the following definition can be given: social structure- this is the interweaving of relationships and interconnections between the elements of society that has taken on repeating and stable forms.
The social structure gives order and stability to life. For example, consider the social structure of your educational institution. Each fall, new students enter the college, and each summer a group of alumni graduate. But despite the fact that specific people change over time, the college continues to exist. Likewise a family, a rock band, commercial company, the religious community and the nation are social structures. Thus, social structure presupposes the existence of constant and ordered relationships between members of a group or society.
Regarding the role of the individual in the functioning of the social structure, there are two traditional points of view. First, the social structure is a factor that determines the actions, and even the thoughts and moods of people. For example, there was a period in Russian history when many were convinced that people from the proletarian environment had a true knowledge of life and were better oriented in social reality than representatives of the intelligentsia and other classes, already only by virtue of their class origin.
Second, society and social relations do not contain anything stable - these are dynamic processes created every moment by individuals in their interaction with each other.
Modern English sociologist E. Giddens combined both approaches in a single logical structure. According to Giddens, there can be no structure outside of action, just as there can be no action outside structure. Structures are created by human actions and reproduced by them in social reality. Thus, we can speak of a continuous process of formation of structures in action, to which Giddens gives the name structures. The social structure is characterized by duality, being both the result of individual actions and their determining condition. According to Giddens, the social structure is not something external to the individual, but rather exists "inside" him - in the form of normative behavior patterns, traditions, action scenarios, etc. The fact that the structure is outside the subject is just an illusion of individual perception, resulting from the imposition of ideas of a stable environment on top of each other. objective reality and about the social world. In fact, according to Giddens, it is precisely the adequate actions of people in the process of structuring that ensure the reproducibility of everything socially positive.
The concept of social structure
In the articles of sociologists and educational literature on sociology, perhaps, the concept of "social structure" is most often used. When it comes to social structure, first of all, it means that society is a complex whole, consisting of organized elements, between which there is a constant connection. The term "structure" (from Latin structura - structure, arrangement, order) was introduced in. The term "structure" by this time had long been widely used in the natural sciences, especially in biology and anatomy, to denote the constant relationship between the individual parts of the body and its whole. The organicist orientation of Spencer's sociology demanded appropriate terminology.
However, Spencer was not the inventor of the already fully established paradigm of considering society as a whole, consisting of interrelated elements, each of which acquires meaning and meaning based on the whole. Such an understanding of society is present wherever we talk about classes, nations, social strata, institutions and other components of society, linked by stable relationships. Therefore, the definition of social structure can only be as follows: social structure - the intertwining of interrelations and interrelations between the elements of society that has taken on repetitive and stable forms.
The social structure gives the group experience purposefulness and organization. Thanks to the social structure, a person in his mind connects certain facts of experience, naming them, for example, “family”, “church”, “quarter” (region of residence). In much the same way, a person perceives the physical aspects of his experience - the parts brought together as structures, and not as isolated elements. For example, when we look at a building, we see not just a roof, bricks, glass, etc. Construction Materials- we see the house; when we look at a tailless amphibian, we don't just see bulging eyes, smooth, mottled skin, and long hind legs, but a frog. In doing so, we relate our experiences to other experiences within a larger context.
It is the social structure that gives a person the feeling that life is organized and stable. For example, consider the social structure of a university. New students are recruited each fall, and each summer another group graduates from the university. Deans determine scholarships and administer educational process. All new students, faculty, and deans go through this system and exit in due time. Despite the fact that the specific people that make up the university change over time, the university continues to exist. Similarly, a family, a rock band, an army, a commercial company, a religious community, and a nation are social structures. Consequently, the social structure implies the existence of constant and ordered relationships between the members of a group or society.
Sociologists consider the social structure as a social fact of those described by E. Durkheim. We perceive the social fact as something that exists outside of us, as an independent reality that is part of our environment. It can be said that social structures limit the behavior of the individual and direct his actions in a certain direction. Entering the university, the newcomer feels somehow awkward, because he has not yet fit into the new environment. The traditions and customs of the university are a social structure, the form that this organization for many years of regular interaction between students, faculty and management.
Although we use static structural terminology to describe and analyze social life, this should not obscure the dynamic and changing characteristics of the social structure. For example, the university is not an eternal uniformly and constantly existing social education; in order for it to exist as a whole, its internal relations and connections must be continuously reproduced by more and more new generations of students and teachers.
Sociologists have not come to a consensus on what exactly to consider as the "elements" of society, the connections between which form a social structure. Some believe that such elements are just people, others - that they are non-humans, and the social roles they perform, and still others - that these are social institutions.
Concepts of social structure
In sociology, the concept of social structure is one of the main ones. However, precisely because it is used by all sociologists, it has acquired ambiguity, and different shades of meaning determine serious conceptual differences.
AT structural functionalism A. Radcliffe-Brown, an English anthropologist and sociologist, links the meaning of the concept of social structure with the concept of function. For him, all components of the social structure perform their necessary function, and the continuous existence of each component is connected by functional dependence with the existence of others. The scientist defines the social structure as corresponding to models, or "normal", social relations, as a system of status positions, occupying which, the individual enters into specific relationships with other people. T. Parsons subsequently developed the ideas of structural functionalism in relation to large and complex societies, showing that the social structure is normative in nature and consists of “institutionalized models of normative culture”. In other words, the structure is formed precisely by the models (patterns) of behavior, which, being relatively constant in a given society, ensure the uniformity and stability of social life.
Structuralism in the person of K. Levi-Strauss and F. de Saussure offers something similar. For them, structure is also a model, pattern or type, but localized in the unconscious. These unrealized by people and implicit patterns, manifested in language and behavior, explain a lot in social life. Levi-Strauss believed that his method is equally applicable to the analysis of thinking, speech and social behavior. Structuralism tries to explain all the diversity of social reality by unconscious structures, or types, which are necessarily manifested in all spheres of life. Thus, here the structure is considered in a sense synonymous with the meaning of the German "gestalt" or the English "pattern".
In another sense, the term "structure" is used to distinguish the main from the secondary, the essential from the non-essential, the primary from the derivative. So. for K. Mannheim, it implicitly denotes a set of elements of a social system that are basic and have a decisive influence on all the others. Mannheim defines as the basic material elements of society, on the basis of which its ideal elements should be explained. Such a division is reminiscent of the scheme of the structure of society proposed by K. Marx, where the basis appears - economic (material) relations and the superstructure - ideal, spiritual relations. The influence of the Marxist tradition explains the fact that sociologists still use the concept of social structure as a kind of synonym for the term " social stratification”, and some elements of stratification are considered as the main and determining ones, and some - as derivatives.
Another meaning of the term "structure" will be given by J. Gurvich, who distinguishes between structured groups and organized groups. For example, social classes are always structured, but not always organized. Structure is something immeasurably more than organization, it is the totality of society at all its levels.
It follows that, in any case, the concept of "social structure" contains the idea that some elements of social relations are basic, necessary for the existence and functioning of all forms of social life, permeate the entire reality of society and act as an irremovable reality for individuals acting in it. their social existence, manifested in themselves, their behavior, thinking, understanding of themselves and society. Individuals cannot change this given of their own free will, or at least it is very difficult to change it. The social structure is, as it were, a ready-made, but constantly updated outline of the entire reality of an individual's life in society.
The very concept of social structure refers primarily to the arsenal of functionalism and, accordingly, retains a certain trace of sociological determinism: we understand as a substructure a social fact that does not depend on our actions and will, imposing supra-individual stability and stability.
What role does the individual play in all this? There are two traditional answers to this question. From the point of view of functionalism (as, indeed, historical materialism), social structure is a factor that determines the actions, and even thoughts, and moods of people. The vulgar understanding of this thesis is familiar from events in domestic and other history, when many were absolutely sure that people from the proletarian milieu, by virtue of their class origin alone, had a true knowledge of life and were better oriented in social reality than representatives of the intelligentsia and other classes.
From the point of view of conflictology, everything in society is determined by group interests and relations of domination and subordination; in other words, here social relations also stand above the individual.
Interaction theories answer this question differently. Society and social relations contain nothing stable; they are dynamic processes created every minute by individuals in their interaction with each other. In such a paradigm, one can speak of the presence of a structure in a society only if one exclaims in advance: “Stop, a moment!”
An attempt to find a "golden mean" in this issue was made by the British sociologist E. Giddens, who combined both approaches in a single logical structure. According to Giddens, structure cannot be outside of action, just as actions cannot be outside of structure. Structures are created by human actions and reproduced by them in social reality. Therefore, we can talk about the presence of a continuous process of formation of structures in action, to which Giddens gives the name "structuration". The structure itself is characterized by duality, being both the result of individual actions and the condition that determines them. According to Giddens, the social structure is not something external to the individual, but rather exists "inside" his subjectivity - in the form of normative models of behavior, traditions, scenarios of action, etc. The fact that the structure is outside the subject is just an illusion of individual perception, resulting from the imposition of ideas about a stable surrounding objective reality and the social world. In fact, according to Giddens, it is precisely the adequate actions of people in the process of structuring that ensure the reproducibility of everything socially positive.
Similar attempts at an integrative approach to understanding social structure and action were also made by J. Alexander in the theory of multidimensional sociology, J. Habermas in the theory of communicative action, etc.
An original approach to the problem is offered by J. Homans, who believes that there are no independent and autonomous social structures: “If you look for the secret of society long enough, you will find it ... The secret of society is that it is created by people, and there is nothing in it other than what the people themselves have invested in it.” Homans argues that his analysis of "elementary social behavior", of direct interaction, includes the "subinstitutional" level, which is the basis of all social institutions. The complexity of institutional level organization reflects the more mediated nature of many exchange relationships. For example, an employee in a business system exchanges his work time on a salary that he receives not from the hands of the director or owner of the company, but from the hands of a special clerk at the cash desk. Instead of a direct exchange, an indirect one takes place, requiring the participation of one or more intermediaries. Such forms of organization of social life are conditionally called "social structures", but in reality they are just simple chains of interdependent individual actions; they are the "models" or "patterns" that result from such actions. social reality may seem to us alive own life only because these chains are usually very long. Cook, (O-Brien and Collock, within the framework of network theory, recently developed the concept that social structures should be interpreted as chains of interactions that form broad networks of social exchange.
The most successful attempts to explain the presence of distinct structural forms in social life come down to understanding such structures as unintended consequences of individual actions. Individuals may not be fully aware of what social phenomena their own practice leads to. Market relations can serve as a classic example here, when the needs and requirements of the population are satisfied by a spontaneously emerging market without central planning and coordination. This is the unforeseen and unplanned result of hundreds of separate individual actions. However, this approach denies the social structure any autonomy and power of coercion. In this sense, such theories face difficulties similar to those of all other theories that focus on action to the detriment of studies of social structure.