Clarification of the concept
There are two main approaches to the study of socio-economic structure.
First, the so-called. "gradation approach", or the classical theory of social
stratification. Its subject is the socio-economic strata (strata). Layers differ in the degree to which they have certain social and economic characteristics (for example, income, property, prestige, education).
etc.). Typical of this approach is the division of society into upper, middle and lower strata. This is a stratification analysis in narrow sense this word.
Secondly, it is a class analysis, the subject of which are socio-economic groups interconnected by social relations (hence
its other name is the relational approach), occupying a different place in the social division of labor. If the strata line up in a hierarchy located
along one axis, then the classes differ not in quantity, but in the quality of features, although
often they can be interrelated. Thus, a small entrepreneur can have the same standard of living as a highly skilled worker or a lower or middle manager. They may belong to the same stratum, but according to their place in the system of market exchange, they belong to different socioeconomic classes.
This is not to say that one approach is right and the other is wrong. These two approaches consider different sections of the system of socio-economic inequality.
In post-Soviet Russia, as a reaction to the long dominance of the Marxist-Leninist concept of class structure, the gradation, i.e., stratification approach immediately triumphed. It is in this vein that almost
all major works on socio-economic inequality. Although in them
and the concept of a class is used, but - in fact, as a synonym for "stratum". Class analysis, on the other hand, turned out to be overboard as an “anachronism”.
Class analysis has several directions. However, they are united by focusing on the study of relationships between positions formed by
"employment relations in the labor market and in production units".
1. Structural (theoretical) direction. Its content is the study of the structure of class positions, analysis of the content of individual positions
and forms of communication between them. The content of the class structure is the processes of distribution in society of capital (in its various forms) and the mechanisms of its
reproduction. Anthony Giddens defined this process of redistribution
as a "structuration" in which economic relations are transformed into
into non-economic social structures.
2. The demographic direction focuses on the people occupying positions in the class space, on their mobility, on the number of individuals in each part of the class space. This trend dominates
in empirical research.
3. The cultural direction is quite heterogeneous. This may include studies of the problems of class consciousness, class habitus, subculture, lifestyles, consumption, etc. One of the central questions in
this direction of research can be formulated as follows: how
do people reproduce the class structure through their culture?
The subject of this work is only theoretical class analysis.
Classical Concepts: Commonality and Differences
Modern class theories go back to two main sources: Karl Marx and Max Weber. Although they are often opposed to each other, I
their concepts seem to be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. They have important similarities:
1) both concepts consider the class structure as a phenomenon only of a capitalist society, the key characteristics of which
market economy and private ownership of the means of production are considered;
2) both Marx and Weber used the category of class to denote socio-economic groups;
3) both attached great importance to property as a criterion of class
differentiation. Society, from their point of view, is divided primarily into those who
has it, and on those who do not have it.
However, between the Marxist and Weberian class concepts
there are also significant differences.
1. Marx's concept has a dynamic character. Processes at its center
primitive accumulation and reproduction of capital. He connected the first
first of all, with the deprivation of peasants of property (for example, "fencing"
in England) and colonial robbery, the second - with exploitation.
Weber, apparently, the question of where the wealth of some classes comes from
and the poverty of others, was not interested.
2. Marx viewed his class theory as the theoretical basis of a revolutionary ideology designed to change the world. Weber this problem
didn't care.
3. Marx linked the process of reproduction of class structure before
everything with the market production system, while Weber shifted the focus
its focus on the market.
4. For Marx, the structure of society is very polarized: he analyzes only
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with a passing mention of other groups. Weber focuses
attention to the more subtle inequalities that manifest themselves in the labor and capital markets, which made it possible to approach the study of the new middle class, i.e., highly skilled hired professionals.
5. According to Marx, the mechanism for the formation of a class boundary is based on capital (primarily the means of production) as a self-increasing value.
Weber wrote about property in general, that is, he used a broader category. On the one hand, this was a step backwards compared to Marx, since the category of property focuses attention on the phenomenon, diverting
from the analysis of the essence, the mechanisms of the formation of class inequalities. On the other hand, this approach opens up opportunities for studying lifestyle
different classes, including the spheres not only of labor, but also of consumption.
All modern models of class have grown out of classical concepts.
analysis, often denoted with the prefix "neo": neo-Marxism
and neo-Weberianism. If at the general theoretical level the differences between them are noticeable, then in empirical studies they become elusive.
Nick Abercrombie and John Urry quite rightly claim that now
it is difficult to determine which of the modern researchers of the class structure
refers to the Marxist, and who to the Weberian tradition. These labels
in their opinion, rather indicate differences in the style of analysis or emphases,
but not a fundamental conflict.
Class analysis and modern society
How relevant is the class analysis that arose in the West in a completely different
era, for modern Russia? Obviously, classical concepts cannot adequately explain a number of phenomena in modern society.
1. Capitalism, where the main subject was the individual owner
enterprise or bank, has turned into corporate capitalism, where the main subject is an impersonal corporation. The firm owns the firm, which in turn creates a series of subsidiaries. Although the figure of the individual capitalist has been preserved, it is only in medium business.
Therefore, modern Western society is sometimes defined as "capitalism
without capitalists.
2. After World War II, the Western world began to skyrocket
a new middle class of salaried professionals. The new phenomenon has caused active discussions in sociology.
The reaction to these new phenomena in the life of capitalist society was
a denial of class analysis in general, implying a denial of relevance
learning and class structure. However, another part of sociologists proceeds from the fact that Western society was and is a class society, therefore there are no grounds for
rejection of class analysis. “Class inequalities in industrialized countries,” writes George Marshall, a well-known British sociologist, “remained
more or less unchanged throughout the 20th century. Therefore, the central problem of class theory is not at all what generations of critics have assumed when they spoke of the disappearance of social classes in developed countries.
societies. The real problem is explaining their persistence as a potential social force." And in modern Western sociology is done
a lot for the development of class analysis in relation to new realities.
The most famous options were proposed by the American Eric Wright and the Englishman John Goldthorpe.
To what extent is class analysis relevant for post-Soviet Russia? Answer
This question depends on two groups of factors. First, class analysis
relevant for Russia to the extent that it has formed a capitalist society, the economy of which is based on the market and private ownership of the means of production. It is hard to deny that a step in this direction has been taken, but the process is far from complete. Second, class
analysis is relevant only for researchers who believe that the distribution of capital in society has a powerful impact on the formation of its
social structure. If you don’t see such a connection or don’t want to see it,
then, naturally, class analysis can be forgotten as an intellectual anachronism.
Capital as a social relation
The modernization of class analysis, it seems to me, can go along the path
modernization of ideas about capital as a kind of watershed in the class structure. In classical theories, capital was limited to specific material forms: money and means of production. In the twentieth century, attempts were made to expand the concept of capital to new objects. Thus, the concepts of “human”, “social”, “cultural” and “organizational” capital appeared. However, the expansion of the list of material forms of capital only emphasizes the need to determine the essence of this phenomenon,
capable of appearing in different forms.
Capital is a process. According to K. Marx, "the objective content of this process is the increase in value." Capital is a kind of coefficient in front of the indicator of simple labor, which in a certain market
context can lead to an increase in the value of the product of simple labor. Role
this coefficient is fulfilled not only by the means of production, but also by knowledge,
experience, connections, name, etc. Thus, well-trained and experienced workers will build a house
much faster and better than an amateur builder who has nothing,
except for hands and intention. The use of modern technology changes the process
building radically.
The categories of resource and capital are related, but not identical. A resource is an opportunity that does not necessarily become a reality.
Any capital is a resource, but not every specific resource is converted
into capital. Capital is a market resource realized in the process of increasing value. Therefore, the owners of the same resources in terms of material form may have a different attitude towards capital and, accordingly, a different place in the class structure. Money in a jug is a treasure;
money in the market turnover, making a profit, is capital.
Such a transformation of resource into capital is possible only in the context of a market society. Where there is no market, an increase in the market value of resources
not happening.
Capital can also be cultural resources, which in the course of the market
exchange can be profitable. First of all, it is knowledge and skills. Capital can be a name, which is clearly manifested in the brand phenomenon. Based on this process, class boundaries are formed.
Capital acts as a key factor in the formation of class
structures. Classes are social groups, differing in their attitude to capital: some have it, others do not, some have it as a means of production
or financial capital, while others have cultural capital.
Basic elements of the class structure
Capital, transforming into elements of the social structure, is placed
society is very uneven. On the one hand, there are plots endowed with capital and deprived of it. On the other hand, the former differ in the nature of the capital available there.
Accordingly, the social class space is divided into at least four main fields.
1. The social field of the working class.
It consists of status positions that are occupied by simple wage labor, sold and bought as a commodity. The ideal type of worker is an unskilled worker who sells his labor power, the main content of which is this
his natural potential.
In the space of positions of the working class, there is a zone of relatively skilled labor, the share of which varies from country to country.
and depends on the technological equipment of production, labor organization.
Skilled workers have cultural resources (formal
indicators are ranks, work experience in the specialty).
The proportion of workers with significant cultural capital depends on the nature of production. The more technically difficult it is, the more
such workers are required, the training of which sometimes takes many years. Therefore, in the developed countries of the world, the classical proletarian is more and more clearly receding into
marginal positions. However, in Russia, with its characteristic very high
level of simple unskilled labor a typical worker is a noticeable
phenomenon in the group under consideration.
In the 20th century, a notable phenomenon was the formation of the clerical proletariat - a group of hired workers engaged in simple mental labor. If
consider capital as a key factor in class formation,
then there is no fundamental difference in the class position of manual workers and clerical proletarians.
2. The social field of the bourgeoisie.
Here, status positions require external
in relation to individuals of types of capital (money, means of production, land).
Dividends on capital are a form of material remuneration.
The ideal type of bourgeois is a rentier, a shareholder.
In the study of the class structure of modern corporate capitalism, which is also being formed in Russia, the phenomenon of the bourgeoisie creates serious methodological and methodological problems. Instead of individual
the owner came Joint-Stock Company with an intricate multi-stage ownership structure. The methodological problems of studying this phenomenon can be reduced if we abandon the archaic figure of the individual capitalist.
as units of this class. There is a class as a space of positions endowed with
ownership of the means of production and money capital. And there are specific individuals included in this space (due to the acquisition of shares)
and emerging from it (as a result of ruin or sale of shares). At the same time, individuals often combine different class positions: a top manager who owns
a substantial block of shares - a typical phenomenon in the West and especially in Russia. Since each class field has its own logic of interests,
then the manager and the owner often represent the interests of the firm in different ways,
evaluate its effectiveness differently. Often the bearer of this contradiction is one individual.
3. Social field of the traditional middle class
. It consists of status
positions that require a combination in one person of labor and organizational capital, and often the means of production. A typical status position of this field is an employee who directly enters the market for goods or services.
This position is often supplemented by means of production and money capital (farmers, artisans, small traders, etc.), but often it can do without them (lawyer, sometimes a doctor, consultant, artist, etc.).
usually have only cultural and organizational capital). The form of material remuneration is income, including both wages and
various types of dividends. It also distinguishes between class positions and the people who occupy them. With this approach, the combination of positions by one person
small owner and worker or employee does not create for the researcher
impasse.
4. The social field of the new middle class. The ideal member type of this class is
an employee who has a large amount of cultural capital, the dividends on which give him the main income. Typical representatives of this class are managers, all kinds of experts working in firms.
However, the nature of the work is completely irrelevant.
Labor force is only physical and intellectual potentialities.
It can be compared to a computer that does not have any special software other than DOS. The representative of the new middle class is described using the metaphor of a computer loaded with valuable and expensive
programs. He, like the worker, has labor power, but the firm pays
to him the bulk of his income is not for this, but for the cultural capital placed at her disposal.
The more complex the cultural resource, the more scarce it is, and in market conditions, the excess of demand over supply leads to an increase in prices. Therefore, the scarcer
specialist (more experience, better education, reputation), the more people want to hire him, the more money income is offered.
The money income of an employee in the position of the new middle class consists of two main parts: 1) wages equal to the value of the labor
strength, which is the same for both the general director and the loader; 2) dividends
for cultural capital.
The worker may also have cultural capital dividends (for example,
wages for rank, seniority, etc.), but the main income of the worker is the payment for his labor power. Therefore, the class differences between the proletariat and the middle strata do not consist in the set of elements of their income, but in their quantitative ratios, which form a new quality.
In market conditions, the same cultural resource can be capital,
it may not be. If there is no demand for Type A specialists, then their cultural resource does not bring any or almost no dividends to their owners. More
the mild version of this situation is the inability to use these resources effectively. And then a high-class specialist receives a salary comparable to the income of an average-skilled worker. The market is blurring
class boundary between them. Diploma of any nature, including Doctor of Science,
does not guarantee against falling into the ranks of the intellectual working class - a situation typical of post-Soviet Russia.
In a different market situation, the same person may be at a great price.
and receive dividends on cultural capital. Therefore, education, experience, knowledge in and of themselves are not cultural capital, they can become
into capital only in the process of market exchange, which gives a dividend. It follows from this that the professional structure can strongly diverge from the class structure.
This is manifested in the fact that in one country the owner of the cultural resource X falls into the ranks of the new middle class, and in another country he is in the ranks of the working class. Similar fluctuations are possible between regions. Therefore, with this understanding of the class structure, attempts to replace class analysis with the study
professional structure is meaningless.
The logic of the transformation of a cultural resource into capital and vice versa is similar to the transformations that machine tools often undergo in market production.
and equipment. If they produce a commodity that is in demand and profitable, it is capital. If they cannot be effectively
into the market exchange system, they stop, stand idle and turn into scrap metal, which does not exclude their possible resuscitation in the future. This is the path that many factories and plants in post-Soviet Russia have gone through.
The new middle class stands out as a distinct element in almost every key
modern class concepts, although the name often varies. So,
John Goldthorpe calls it service-class or salariat. To this class he includes professionals, administrators and managers employed by employers who have delegated some of their powers to them. For this, they receive relatively high wages, stable employment, increased pensions,
various privileges and wide autonomy in the performance of their functions. In Wright's scheme, the following classes basically correspond to the new middle class:
expert managers, expert supervisors, expert non-managers.
The line separating the new middle class from the working class is fluid,
situational, blurred, devoid of clear outlines. People who are close to
her, may be drawn into interclass social mobility without
extra body movements. Occupying the same position in the firm, having the same
same resource, they suddenly find themselves drawn into a new market situation that radically changes their class status.
Class structure is an attribute of a capitalist society, the result of converting the economic processes of capital reproduction into social
processes of its unequal distribution. If in Russia there is already private ownership of the means of production, there is a free market for labor and capital, then there is also a class structure, although one can argue about the degree of its maturity
and national characteristics. If there is such a structure, then it is necessary
and class analysis as a theoretical tool for its interpretation. Is not
means that, as in Soviet Marxism-Leninism, everywhere and everywhere it is necessary
look for class roots. There are other types of social structures (gender,
age, professional, industry, ethnic, etc.). class - one
of them. In some cases, it comes to the fore, in others it is relegated.
in the shadow, but it does not disappear completely.
The study of class structure is interesting in itself. In addition, understanding it is the key to understanding the behavior of the people included in it. class
belonging to a significant extent forms the way of life of people, styles consumer behavior, electoral choice. In the West, especially in the UK, a lot of research is devoted to the relationship between class and electoral behavior. And it is clearly visible. In Russia
while class status has little effect on the actions of voters. And the reason is not
in the fact that there is no class structure, but in the absence, firstly, of clear ideas about class interests and, secondly, of real parties capable of representing and defending these interests not in words, but in deeds. Is it possible to count
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the party of the working class, and the SPS is the party of the middle classes? I have
there are big doubts about this. Other parties are not positioned at all
in class space. True, in recent years Yabloko has been trying to become
the party of the intelligentsia, the state employees, i.e., speaking in terms of class analysis, the intellectual working class. However, trying and becoming is still
not the same thing.
and stratification of Russian society. Moscow: Publishing House of the Institute of Sociology, 1998;
Middle class in modern Russian society. Moscow: RNIS i NP; ROSSPEN, 1999;
Tikhonova N. E. Factors of social stratification in the transition to a market economy
economy. M.: ROSSPEN, 1999.
Marshall G. Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in Industrial Societies. L.: SAGE Publication,
Giddens A. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. L.: Hutchinson, 1981 (2nd ed.). R. 105.
Abercrombie N. & Urry J. Capital, Labor, and the Middle Classes. L.: Allen & Unwin, 1983. P. 89, 152.
Marshall G. Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in Industrial Societies. P.1.
Marx K. Capital. T. 1 // Marx K. and Engels F. Izbr. op. M., 1987. T. 7. S. 146.
In E. Wright's scheme, this group corresponds to two classes: the petty bourgeoisie and the petty
employers.
The term "structure" in relation to human society began to be used in the 19th century. The concept of "social structure" was introduced into theoretical sociology in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The first attempt to break down the social structure into positions occupied by individuals, members of society, was made by the American anthropologist Ralph L. L. (1893-1953). He called each of these positions (positions) a status. Since then, the terms "position", "position" and "status" have been used interchangeably.
As we have already found out, in sociology (and not only in it, but, perhaps, in any other social science) the greatest disputes flare up around fundamental concepts. The category "social structure" did not escape such a fate. At the same time, different points of view are put forward. For some sociologists, and there are many of them, social structure is seen as any repetitive pattern of social behavior. Any repetitive action eventually turns either into a habit when it comes to an individual, or crystallizes into an institution. If the inhabitants of the country have been accustomed for years to walk on the right side of the street and return on the field, then gradually all traffic becomes right-handed, the government issues laws and regulations governing the observance of such rules, and the entire infrastructure of society, its laws, institutions and institutions take this rule into account as mandatory in their activities. In this case, it is quite possible to consider social structure as the result of the existence of continuous, ordered and typical relationships between individuals and institutions of society. Apparently, this is the source of the repeatedly repeated attempt to compare society with a machine or an organism.
Social structure in sociology is analyzed in close connection with the concepts of status, social institutions and social change.
In the theory of structuring by E. Giddens, the structure is understood as a set of rules that are both the result and the condition of the individual's action. The subject at the same time creates the rules and reproduces them, follows them. In this case, institutions act as social practices extended in time and space. Thus, the social structure is a mechanical
nisms for maintaining stable forms of social action, created in the process of repeating actions. Repeated actions form a structure that directs subsequent actions, controls them.
The difference in views and approaches most likely reflects not personal preferences or the search for scientific truth, but the specialist's belonging to one or another ideological camp, theoretical direction, methodological orientation or scientific school. In particular, R. Mills understood the social structure as a combination of institutional orders, i.e. a set of institutions in various spheres of society. For J. Bernard and L. Thompson, the social structure is a special order (location) of institutions that helps people
interact and arrange cohabitation 1 . These sociologists are characterized by the so-called institutionalist approach.
On the contrary, P. Berger and T. Lukman, adherents of phenomenological sociology, are sure that social institutions do not have an ontological status, and therefore an objective existence. Deprived of this quality and derived from them - the social structure. In general, well-known sociologists believe, the world a person constructs himself - from his expectations, stereotypes, rules, traditions. This is how the spider spins its web. Since social structures are constructed by man himself, they exist only for him alone. They are not able to see elephants or rhinos. In this sense, social structures, social systems and institutions are not only relative to our being, but they are also non-material. For example, a huge boulder on the road is objective and material, since it is bypassed not only by a person, but also by an elephant with a rhinoceros.
The generalization of all points of view gives two main options for interpreting the social structure. The first one can be called structuralist and second - interactionist. In many ways, they are opposite to each other. For structuralists, the social structure exists independently of the will, consciousness and behavior of people, for the latter, the structure is inextricably linked with consciousness and behavior, moreover, it is the result of the subjective intentions and actions of people.
The conditional designation of the first approach as structuralist is explained by the fact that representatives of various ideological and methodological orientations can be attributed to it, similar to each other only in that they generally understand the social structure in the same way. Within the framework of the structuralist approach, two major sociological schools (directions) are distinguished: the structural-functional approach (E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, R. Merton, etc.) and the Marxist (K. Marx, F. Engels, etc.)
For representatives Marxist approach including its Soviet variety, the social structure of society is created by the totality of large social groups of people, primarily social classes. Hence the second name - "the class structure of society." Thus, the initial building blocks of building the social structure of society here are real populations.
Bernard J., Thompson L.F. sociology. Nurses and their Patients in a Modern Society. Saint Louis, 1970.
The Marxist view of society has firmly established itself in Russian science. Reference literature of the late 1980s and early 1990s. the definition of social structure is given, which combines the principles of group and institutional approaches: social structure is “a set of interconnected and interacting social groups, as well as social institutions and relations between them” 2 .
For representatives structural functionalism the initial building blocks, on the contrary, are positions - cell-cells in the social structure, which are subsequently occupied by people. Positions are held together by the structure, but not the individuals themselves. Structures are not uniquely associated with specific individuals, but form set of positions participation of individuals in the system. The filling of certain positions means for the participating individuals the acquisition of some social status 3 .
Structure here it is a rigid frame that holds together immovable cells, the function of which can be performed by social statuses, institutions, and institutions. Positions, more often they are called statuses, are the main structural elements, and what they perform is called function. In accordance with this, the very division into structures and functions becomes very conditional: what from one point of view acts as a structure, from another is a function, and vice versa.
Both approaches within the framework of the structuralist variant proceed from the fact that the structure is primary, and people are secondary. In management, structuralism corresponds to the classical approach, according to which you first need to create a well-planned structure of the organization, expressed in its job structure, and then select performers. Not a person paints a place, but vice versa.
However, there are known discrepancies between these approaches. For K. Marx, the source of the transformation of the social structure of society is the nature of the dominant mode of production, i.e. economics and technology. For T. Parsons, the structure is associated with norms and social relations: norms bind social relations into a rigid structure, which should be called a social structure.
“Structure is a set of relatively stable standardized relationships of elements. And since the actor is an element of the social system, the social structure is a standardized system social relations actors with each other" 4 . Acting people make expectations of each other, these expectations are an indispensable condition for the action of each actor, part of his situation, and "systems of standardized expectations, considered in relation to their place in the general system and deeply enough penetrating the action so that they can be accepted without evidence as legitimate, conventionally called institutions” 5 .
It is a stabilizing part of the social structure. Institutions most clearly embody the types of general value integration of the system of action. Parsons associated two processes with the social structure - social
2 Brief Dictionary of Sociology. M., 1988. S. 392.
Anurin V.F. Fundamentals of sociological knowledge. N. Novgorod, 1998. S. 115.
4 Parsons T. On the structure of social action. 2nd ed. M., 2002. S. 320.
5 Ibid. S. 319.
and social control and understood it as "institutionalized patterns of normative culture". In 1964, his fundamental work “Social Structure and Personality” appeared, where he argued that the source of changes in the social structure is culture, which includes values, meanings, beliefs, symbols.
Structuralism is anti-psychological, objectivist in nature, since it seeks to explain the behavior of an individual or group in terms of their place in the social structure. This is also connected with its other feature - the recognition of the determining role of the social structure in relation to its constituent elements 6 . R. Merton, one of the leading representatives of structural functionalism, believed that the inequality of power and wealth plays a decisive role in the formation of the social structure. Inequality forms a hierarchy of social strata that create a class structure. Therefore, the social structure can be considered as a structure of power, where the decisive position is occupied by the class of owners, who managed to institutionalize their own interests into laws governing the behavior of all members of society.
In contrast to this, for symbolic interactionism social structure is formed in everyday communication and interaction of people 7 . As soon as people stop interacting, the structure disappears. It is not something solid and independent of people's consciousness, but rather mobile and amorphous.
Thus, the two sociological perspectives - structuralist and interactionist - view the social structure of society differently.
For structural functionalism, the social structure of society exists independently of the will and consciousness of people as something stable, frozen. It, like a huge empire that extends over all subjects, is independent of personalities, subjective emotions and actions of people. It cannot be said that the structuralists ignore and the interactionists highlight the role of social interaction between people. Both approaches come from it, but they see the object from different angles. Structuralists try to find in the rapidly changing fabric of human actions and actions some stable elements, a kind of invariants of social action, and, grouping them, they call social structure. Interactionists believe that social interaction is indecomposable by nothing and in no way, it is created. Interaction is a creative act 
dey, projection of their values, beliefs, habits, emotions, meanings. The fabric of social interaction is just being recreated anew, and what exists now will not exist tomorrow. If there is anything stable in it, it is rather ways creation of this fabric, procedures and algorithms of interaction or, in other words, social practices.
^ Contemporary Western Sociology: A Dictionary. M., 1990. S. 335.
See: Berger P.L. An Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective / Per. from English; Under Ed. G.S. Batygin. M., 1996.
Thus, structural functionalism does not refuse to consider the social interactions of people. They are as important to him as they are to symbolic interactionism.
In other words, in the first case, people enter into relationships and interact only after they occupy the cells assigned to them in the social structure. The teacher shows a certain attitude towards the student only after he has taken the post of teacher, but not before.
On the contrary, in the second case, the social structure is a consequence of the interaction of people, and not its cause. Someone can instruct, teach life (act as a guru), advise and impart wisdom, regardless of whether he is a teacher or not, since teaching or mentoring for him is an integral feature of his way of life. In everyday life, teacher-student relationships are much more common than prescribed by the school charter: parents teach children, elders teach younger ones, a wife teaches her husband (and vice versa), an officer teaches a soldier, a policeman teaches a delinquent, etc.
Following this logic of reasoning, human society in ancient times, stable types of teaching interaction should have developed (in the tribe, the old men taught the youth), and only after many millennia did they acquire an institutional form (the formation of a school as an institution) and organized a rigid framework of the social structure of society.
It is difficult to say which of the two points of view is more correct. They both reflect objective reality from the right positions, but illuminate it from different angles. The scientistic and humanistic perspectives of sociology do not contradict or reject each other, although their methodological principles are contradictory. They should be considered according to the principle of complementarity. Both approaches are necessary to form a complete picture of social reality.
Without belittling the merits of any of them, nevertheless, in this chapter, we will take the structural-functional approach as the basis for understanding the social structure of society. Its advantage is that it deals with the current society, which has ready-made structures and established institutions that have become such powerful factors in social life that they literally suppressed the will of individual individuals. In modern society, structures are not created from the daily practice of communication and relationships between people.
From a scientist perspective social structure - this anatomical skeleton of society. The structure is understood as a set of functionally interconnected elements that make up the internal structure of the object. However, in sociology there is no consensus on what exactly or whom specifically to consider an "element" of society. For example, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown understood social structure as a general regular relationship between elements in the form of individuals, and for S.F. Neidl elements were roles. A significant part of sociologists, in particular functionalists, proposes to consider social institutions as organized models of social behavior as elements of the social structure. Functional relations between social institutions, representing a huge social web invisible to the eye, in fact, create the social structure about which many polemical copies have been broken.
In our opinion, the elements of social structure are social statuses And roles. Their number, order of location and nature of dependence on each other determine the content of the specific structure of a particular society. It is quite obvious that the social structures of ancient and modern societies differ very much.
Although the structure describes a stable, immovable moment in the structure of society, historically it changes. Mobility is given to it by social roles that are performed in the process of interaction between individuals.
The multidimensionality of the social structure is also manifested in the fact that it can be considered in three plans (Fig. 25) - functional (as an ordered set of spheres of social activity, social institutions and other forms public life), organizational (as a set of connections that form various types of social groups; the units of analysis are teams, organizations and their structural elements) and, finally, as a system of orientation of social actions (the units of analysis here are goals and means, motives, incentives, norms , samples, programs and subprograms of social action) 8 .
Rice. 25. Three theoretical models of social structure:
but- Marxism: social structure- set of real groups:
6 - structural functionalism: social structure- set of positions:
in symbolic interactionism: social structure- result of human interaction
Based on the above theoretical approaches to social structure, which have been formed over many years in world sociology, the authors present their own vision of this topic.
In a broad sense, social structure is a form or model of social relations in groups, and it is not specified what kind of groups they are - people, hominids or ants. It is assumed that the social structure characterizes the relationships in groups not only of social animals and people (which can be considered the highest type of social animals), but also of living beings in general, for example, flocks of birds or colonies of viruses.
Philosophical Encyclopedia. M., 1970. T. 5. S. 142-144.
In a narrow sense, social structure refers only to people, but also characterizes the form of relations in groups and communities - from small groups and social organizations to society as a whole.
Each species of living beings, of course, and man too, has not one, but many models of social (intra-group) relations. For example, the social structure of chimpanzees depends on the habitat: the populations inhabiting the border of the savanna, unlike forest relatives, form close-knit and numerous communities, less often break into small groups in search of prey. The variability of social structures is due to many things: environmental conditions, seasons and actual weather conditions (for example, an unprecedented drought or abundance of rain), the presence of neighboring communities (i.e. population density) or a second closely related group claiming similar food resources. Thus, during periods of severe drought, herds of anubis baboons form unusual groups for themselves, which resemble the harems of hamadryas baboons 9 .
Having summarized everything that has been created in foreign and domestic science in the field of the theory of social structure, we will try to connect this concept with another, which was mentioned above - the concept of social space. With its help, we have depicted all the positions that a person or group can occupy in society. And they are called social statuses.
At the intersection of the axes OY w(Asocial space (Fig. 26) a new concept is being formed - “the social structure of society”.
Rice. 26". The social structure of society in two dimensions as a unity of social stratification and social composition of the population
social structure must be understood in at least two senses. IN broad meaning social structure - the totality of all social groups and strata, including classes, and in the narrow sense - the totality of functionally interconnected statuses that exist in a given society at a given historical moment. In other words, in the first case it is the sum of the axes OY w OX, and in the second - the sum of points (called statuses in sociology) in social space.
4 Butovskaya M.L. The evolution of man and his social structure // Nature. 1998. No. 9.
The social structure of society includes not only strata, groups, but also institutions. There is nowhere to place social institutions on the two axes of the Cartesian coordinate system - they are both already filled. It is impossible to place social institutions on the same axis as social composition or social stratification, since this is a very special phenomenon.
social institution is a set of norms and institutions that regulate a certain area of social relations. Social institutions organize human activity into a certain system of roles and statuses, setting patterns of people's behavior in various spheres of public life. For example, such a social institution as a school includes the roles of teacher and student, and the family includes the roles of parents and children. There are certain role-playing relationships between them. These relations are regulated by a set of specific norms and regulations. The most important norms are enshrined in law, others are supported by traditions, customs, and public opinion. Any social institution includes a system of sanctions - from legal to moral and ethical, which ensure the observance of relevant values and norms, the reproduction of appropriate role relations.
Social institutions streamline, coordinate many individual actions of people, give them an organized and predictable character, provide standard behavior of people in socially typical situations.
Thus, an institution is not the same as a social class, such as the wealthy class, or a social group, say, all pensioners. Both are groups of people. A social institution is a mechanism or set of institutions, but not a mechanical set of elements. It is worth taking a closer look at any institution, or better - social organization, as we will see well-established control, planning, accounting, staffing, buildings and equipment, managerial hierarchies, and much more that is not found in classrooms, demographics or occupational groups.
Since they have a different essence, a third axis should be introduced OZb scheme of social space (Fig. 27).
Instead of a two-dimensional social space, we get a three-dimensional one. The third axis (^) is the whole set of social institutions. Let us briefly characterize them.
social structure is one of three subject areas - structure, organization, personality - which together form a single whole and form fundamental knowledge of general sociology. The social structure with its numerous substructures (socio-professional, socio-status, socio-regional, socio-ethnic) depicts social statics, his "social skeleton". Against, social organization shows social life in development, which always occurs through the emergence and resolution of contradictions, the clash of interests of various groups, through the struggle of historically obsolete, exhausted forms and new, just emerging ones. We are talking about the "social physiology" of society, its historical dynamics.
At the intersection of structure and organization personality is located. It is considered by sociology not in terms of individually unique traits.
(this is the task of psychology), but in terms of socio-typical. In other words, in sociology, a person is not so much a part of a small contact group as a typical representative of a large social group, the bearer of the norms, traditions, values, interests and relations inherent in this group.
Rice. 27. Three-dimensional image system of social structure of society
social structure- a set of statuses and roles that are functionally related to each other. Status - the social position of the individual in society. A role is a model of behavior corresponding to a given status, its dynamic characteristic. The content of the status is revealed through a set of rights and obligations. Teacher - status in the education system. He is obliged to transfer new knowledge to students, evaluate and check the level of their knowledge, monitor their discipline. In turn, the duty of students is to regularly attend school, learn new knowledge, do homework, etc. Both the teacher and the student have their own rights. The totality of the rights and obligations of the teacher - the content of the status "teacher", the totality of the rights and obligations of the student - the content of the status "student". The status of a teacher only makes sense in relation to the status of a student. They are interconnected functionally (the function of the teacher is to transfer knowledge, the student - to assimilate them). For his colleagues, the teacher is just a friend. The status "soldier" only makes sense in relation to the status "commander" and so on. Statuses occupy a certain place in the status hierarchy. It is created by public opinion. In society, the status of a banker is valued more than that of a plumber, and so on. The place in the hierarchy is called rank. Status ranks can be high, medium, and low.
The higher the rank, the more society appreciates the status, the more privileges, benefits, honors, symbols, awards and prestige it is endowed with. The rank of status can acquire formal consolidation, or legitimation. In this case, it is called a title, a title. Baron, lord, prince, count - the titles of the highest statuses in a feudal society, which have received formal consolidation. Officer - a generic title (rank), the varieties of which are colonel, major, lieutenant, etc. Most of the ranks of statuses in society do not have a formal fixation, they exist only in the mass consciousness as some assessments. Every person
several statuses and social roles: father (mother), man (woman), engineer, trade union member, middle-aged man, Russian, Orthodox, republican, etc. A person behaves according to his status, i.e. performs a role that is determined by social norms on the part of society and expectations (expectations) on the part of the surrounding people. There is no status without a role and no role without a status. Each status is an empty cell, like a cell in a honeycomb. All cells are fastened together functionally - mutual rights and obligations.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE is also the totality of all functionally related statuses that exist at a given historical time in a given society.
If we arrange the whole set of empty cells fastened to each other on a plane, we get the social structure of society.
There are few statuses in a primitive society: leader, shaman, man, woman, husband, wife, son, daughter, hunter, warrior, gatherer, child, adult, old man. In principle, they can be counted on the fingers. And in modern society there are about 40,000 professional statuses alone, more than 200 family and marriage relations (brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, cousin ... continue the list yourself), many hundreds of political, religious, economic ones. There are 3,000 languages on our planet, behind each of them there is an ethnic group - a nation, a people, a nationality, a tribe. And these are also statuses. They are included in the demographic system along with gender and age statuses.
Thus, the social structure is built on the principle of "one status - one cell". When the cells are filled with individuals, we get one large social group for each status. In today's society, there are millions of drivers, engineers, postmen, tens of thousands of professors, doctors, and so on.
The totality of large social groups (filled statuses) gives a new concept - the social composition of the population. If large social groups are arranged vertically and lined up according to the degree of inequality of income, power, education and prestige, then one more concept will turn out - "social stratification". Thus, stratification is the same statuses, but grouped according to different criteria and arranged according to "shelves" (strata) from top to bottom. An example of stratification is the class stratification of society.
Social status is a generic concept. Its varieties are demographic (nationality, race, gender, age), family-related (husband, wife, son, daughter, father, nephew, father-in-law, mother-in-law, cousin, half-brother, widow, bachelor, unmarried, bride, etc. .d.), economic (entrepreneur, owner, employee, capitalist, businessman, etc.), professional (engineer, driver, miner, banker, etc.), religious (priest, parishioner, believer, etc.). etc.), political (liberal, democrat, voter, etc.), territorial-settlement (city dweller, villager, temporarily registered, etc.). These groups of statuses form substructures of the social structure of society. As a result, we have an economic, political, religious, demographic, professional, family-related, territorial-settlement structure of society. Each of these substructures can be
look from a different angle - as institutional spheres. Family-related structure describes the institution of family and marriage, professional and economic - the most numerous and diverse - form several social institutions at once - the state and law, production, education. Religious structure refers to the institution of religion. Only demographic and territorial-settlement structures do not create social institutions.
So, the three fundamental concepts of sociology - "social structure", "social stratification" and "social institutions" - are closely related to each other due to statuses and roles. The historical mechanism common to all of them is the social division of labor. The deepening division of labor and specialization have created a whole variety of statuses and roles.
The social structure can rightly be called collective status portrait (by analogy with individual), or status portrait of society.
It is possible to depict the social structure as status cells tightly fitted to each other, where one cell is one status name (mother, Russian, miner, student, etc.). We left all the statuses existing in society (and there are tens of thousands of them) empty - like cells of a beehive not filled with honey (Fig. 28). There are no people, there are only empty statuses: one name - one status. The set of empty, i.e. unfilled statuses by people, forms the social structure of society. But only in the narrow sense of the word.
Rice. 28. Social structure- the totality of all statuses existing at a given historical moment in a given society
So let's do output: the first building blocks of the subject of sociology and social structure are statuses. They give a static picture of society. But this is not surprising, because the term "structure" just implies a limitation
a valuable number of elements rigidly interconnected like a crystal lattice.
Like an individual, any society at any historical moment has a status portrait characteristic only of it - the totality of all the statuses that exist in it. Primitive society has no more than two dozen of them. Russian society in 1913 had such statuses in its social structure that disappeared from it after the revolution of 1917, for example, emperor, police chief, nobleman.
Thus, the collective status portrait (the social structure of society), as well as the individual status portrait (status set), are very individual. They tell literally everything about a given society, its culture and economy, the level of development at a given historical moment. Comparing the collective portraits of different societies in the same era, say, France and Russia in the 17th century, or one society in different eras, for example, Moscow and Kievan Rus, many interesting observations can be made.
The social structure is a set of relatively stable communities of people, a certain order of their interconnection and interaction. For clarity, the social structure can be represented as a kind of pyramid, where there is an elite, middle strata, and lower classes.
There are various approaches to describing or studying the social structure of a society:
1) structural-functional analysis, in which social
structure is seen as a system of roles, statuses and social
institutions.
2) a Marxist, deterministic approach in which social
structure is a class structure.
The very attempt to describe the social structure of society is as old as the world. Even Plato, in his doctrine of the soul, argued that in accordance with the division of the soul into rational, volitional, sensual parts, society is also divided. He imagined society as a kind of social pyramid, consisting of the following groups:
philosopher-rulers - their activity corresponds to the rational part of the soul;
warrior guards, overseers of the people - their activity corresponds to the volitional part of the soul;
artisans and peasants - their activities correspond to the sensual part of the soul.
4.1. Elite theory
This theory is quite fully considered within the framework of political science, but it is also directly related to sociology. Representatives of this theory V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels argued that the necessary constituent parts of any society are the elite (which includes layers or layers that perform the functions of managing and developing culture) and the mass (the rest of the people, although the concept itself is rather vague).
In the concept of V. Pareto, the elite are people who have received the highest index as a result of their activities, for example, 10 on a ten-point scale.
The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset approached the interpretation of elites in an original way in his work “The Revolt of the Masses”, where the problems of the relationship between the elite and the masses are considered.
4.2. Theory of social stratification and mobility
Social stratification is the identification of social groups, strata based on certain criteria, such as 1. nature of ownership, 2. income, 3. amount of power, 4. prestige.
The social stratification of society is a system of inequality, social differentiation, based on differences in position and functions performed.
This theory describes the existing system of inequality in terms of status, role, prestige, rank, i.e. gives a functional description of the social structure.
According to T. Parsons, who laid theoretical basis analysis
social stratification, diversity existing in society
socially differentiating traits can be classified
in three groups:
first form "qualitative characteristics" that people have from birth: ethnicity, gender and age characteristics, family ties, various intellectual and physical personality traits;
second form socially differentiating features associated with the performance of the role, which include various types of professional and labor activity;
third form so-called possessions: property, material and spiritual values, privileges, goods, etc.
Within the framework of a theoretical approach to the study of social stratification, a generalized assessment implies the existence of a “cumulative social status”, which means the place of an individual in the hierarchy of social assessments, based on some type of cumulative assessment of all statuses occupied and all awards that he is able to receive.
However, the assessment (reward) is far from always adequate to the social position occupied by the individual. It often turns out that the position occupied by a person is quite high, and its assessment by society is low.
A typical case of a mismatch between status and evaluation is a highly educated person receiving low wages. This phenomenon is called "status incosistence" (incompatibility). It applies not only to the two indicated positions: status and salary, but to any other. Long-term study of it revealed a number of interesting patterns; let's look at two of them.
First concerns the individual response of a person to status incompatibility. As a rule, it is characterized by the presence of a stress reaction in an individual who experiences an unfair assessment of his status.
Second moment belongs to the sphere of political sociology. A study of the behavior of voters during the election period showed that people who are in a state of status incompatibility most often have fairly radical political views.
So, let's define the basic concepts. Social status is the position a person occupies in society according to from origin, nationality, education, position, income, sex, age and marital status.
In social status, there are born (origin) and acquired (education, position, income) statuses.
Personal status - the position occupied by an individual in the primary group (small social group).
Marginal status - the contradiction between personal and social status.
Occupying a certain position (status), the individual, together with him, receives the corresponding prestige.
A role is a specific behavior resulting from a given status. According to Linton, social role- this is the expected behavior typical for a person of a given status in a given society.
With the functional approach used in this theory, such a concept as a social institution is also used.
A social institution is defined as a system of roles and statuses designed to meet a certain social need.
Let's dwell on this concept in more detail. Sociologists often call this concept "nodes" or "configurations" in the value-normative structure of society, thereby emphasizing their special role in the normative functioning of society and the organization of social life as a whole.
The successful operation of the institute is possible only under a certain set of conditions:
1) the presence of specific norms and regulations governing the behavior of people within the framework of this institution;
2) integration of the institution into the socio-political,
ideological and value structure of society;
3) the availability of material resources and conditions that ensure
successful implementation of regulatory requirements by institutions and
exercising social control.
In society, there are various types of social institutions, for example, economic institutions, their purpose is the production of goods and services; education system - the transfer of knowledge, culture from one generation to another.
American version of social stratification
The highest status group is the "upper class": CEOs of nationwide corporations, co-owners of prestigious law firms, senior military officials, federal judges, archbishops, stockbrokers, medical luminaries, major architects.
The group of the second status is "upper class": the general manager of a medium firm, a mechanical engineer, a newspaper publisher, a doctor in private practice, a practicing lawyer, a college teacher.
Third status group - "upper middle class": bank teller, community college teacher.
Group of the fourth status - "middle middle class": bank clerk, dentist, teacher elementary school, a shift supervisor at an enterprise, an employee of an insurance company, a supermarket manager.
Fifth status group - "lower middle class": auto mechanic, hairdresser, bartender, grocer, skilled manual worker, hotel clerk, postal worker, police officer, truck driver
Group six status - "middle lower class": taxi driver, semi-skilled manual laborer, gas station attendant, waiter, porter.
The group of the seventh status is the "lower lower class": dishwasher, domestic servant, gardener, porter, miner, janitor, scavenger.
Most middle-class Americans are sensitive to anything that raises or lowers their status. For example, a taxi driver will consider it an insult to offer to go to a factory where he could earn much more.
Most Americans don't associate economic success with starting their own business. They work for hire. Nevertheless, work remains for them not only the basis of material well-being, but also self-affirmation, self-respect, self-esteem.
Social stratification in Russia
Based on the conceptual model of multidimensional stratification, taking into account the role of power and ideology in its formation, the sociologist Inkels (USA) presents a system of social inequality that developed in the USSR in 30-50 years in the form of a pyramid consisting of 9 degrees (strata), the top of which was three the most prestigious groups:
1) the ruling elite, which included the leaders of the party and
governments, military leaders, senior officials;
2) the highest stratum of the intelligentsia, outstanding scientists, figures
arts and literature (according to the level of material wealth and privileges, they
stood quite close to the first group, but between them there was
quite a significant difference on the scale of power;
3) "the aristocracy of the working class": shock workers are the heroes of the first
five-year plans, Stakhanovites, etc.;
4) "squad of intelligentsia": middle managers, heads of small enterprises, employees of higher education, graduates
specialists and officers;
5) "white collar": small managers, accounting
workers, etc.;
6) "prosperous peasants": workers of advanced collective farms and
state farms;
7) Medium and low-skilled workers;
8) "the poorest sections of the peasantry", low-skilled
workers engaged in heavy physical labor in production for a meager
wages;
9) "convicts".
Speaking about the fact that one of the main reasons for the deformation of the system of social stratification was associated with the substitution of socio-professional criteria for political and ideological surrogates, the phenomenon of so-called ascription should be noted. The existence of ascribed ascriptive status is a characteristic feature of pre-industrial societies, while in modern Western society the focus on “achievable status” prevails: successful career of a person, his social prestige is determined mainly by his professional results and achievements. In our country, the phenomenon of "prescriptive status" has become very widespread, especially in the last two decades: a person's social position in society was determined not only by the volume of his socio-political activity, but also by many other criteria that acted as signs of social differentiation.
These include such factors as the place of residence of a person (capital, regional center, village), the industry in which a person worked (production sphere), belonging to any specially distinguished social group.
Sociological surveys conducted in 1996 by VTsIOM indicate that the financial situation of about 2/3 of the respondents is deteriorating all the time, 25-30% maintain approximately the same level as before the start of reforms, only 7-8% of the financial situation has improved , their incomes are rising faster than prices. There is a strong property stratification in society, as a result of which 7-8% benefit, primarily those associated with commercial activities.
The minimum wage today is less than a quarter of the living wage; about 20 million workers have earnings below the subsistence level, and about 40 million cannot provide for themselves and one child; a monstrous polarization of living standards has taken shape, with 40 percent of families having no savings at all, and 2 percent concentrating more than half of the population's total savings fund.
The average salary of the bottom 10 percent of workers is 30 times less than that of the top 10 percent. For example, in Japan at the end of the 20th century, this figure was 10, and in Sweden 5.
4.3. Theory of social mobility
The theory of social mobility considers society in dynamics from the point of view of the internal mechanism of this movement. According to P.A. Sorokin, mobility is only the movement or transition of an individual from one social position to another, but it includes the movement of the value of everything that is created or changed by human activity, be it a car, a newspaper, an idea, etc.
There are two types of social mobility: vertical and horizontal, their common characteristics are individual and collective, ascending and descending.
Mobility depends on the type of society in which it takes place: open or closed. The mechanisms of social selection and distribution of individuals by strata in a mobile society are the army, the church, the school, various economic, political, professional organizations, and the family.
4.4. Marxist-Leninist class theory (deterministic approach)
The main essence of this approach: - the existence of classes is associated with certain stages in the development of production;
classes arise at a certain stage in the development of social production, the reasons for their appearance: the division of labor and private property;
classes continue to exist until such a stage in the development of society at which the development of material production and the changes in social life associated with it make the division of society into classes unacceptable;
classes have their own specific features that reflect their place in the system of social production: their relationship to the means of production, their role in the social organization of labor, methods and sizes. share of public wealth.
The absolutization of the deterministic approach to the description of the social structure (and even according to a simplified, dogmatic scheme), ignoring the functional approach could not but affect the state of our knowledge and understanding of the processes characteristic of the social processes of our society.
We can sum up some results of our ignorance:
the absolute unsuitability of the model of stratification of the Soviet society "2 + 1": (workers, collective farmers plus the intelligentsia);
deep contradictions between the main elements of the social structure: classes and ethno-social groups;
description of the social structure, actually reduced to the convergence of classes and social groups, the movement of society towards social homogeneity, etc.
a formal, dogmatic interpretation of property relations, which actually blocked research on the real disposal of property, the amount of power, etc.
denial of the stratification of Soviet society: the presence in it of the elite, the top, the bottom.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
JSC Medical University Astana
Department of Philosophy and Sociology
Student's independent work
On the topic: "Marxist theory of classes and the social structure of society"
Performed by: Moldabaev Arman 237 OM
Checked by: Abdrkhimova S.E.
Astana 2013
Plan
Introduction
1. Marx's understanding of the term "classes"
2. A narrow approach to understanding the class theory of K. Marx
3. A broad approach to understanding Marx's class theory
4. Social stratification
5. The concept of the social structure of society
6. Marxist doctrine of classes as the main element of social structure
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
Social structure is a stable connection of elements in a social system. The main elements of the social structure of society are individuals who occupy certain positions (status) and perform certain social functions (roles), the association of these individuals on the basis of their status characteristics into groups, socio-territorial, ethnic and other communities, etc. The social structure expresses the objective division of society into communities, roles, layers, groups, etc., indicating the different position of people in relation to each other according to numerous criteria. Each of the elements of the social structure, in turn, is a complex social system with its own subsystems and connections.
1. Marx's understanding of the term "classes"
The theory of social classes is the most important part of the creative heritage of K. Marx. Based on how often Marx spoke about classes, we can conclude that this main topic his writings. And although the word "class" occurs in most of his works, K. Marx never systematically investigated the issue. He did not leave a coherent theory to the descendants, he did not give a clear and precise definition of class. The unfinished third volume of Capital ends at chapter 54, from which only two pages have come down to us. This was the only chapter on classes where he seemed to be going to speak at length on the subject.
K. Marx used the term "class" in a variety of meanings. You can count dozens of expressions, one way or another related to classes. Marx writes about the nobility as a class of large landowners, calls the bourgeoisie the ruling class, and the proletariat the working class. F. Engels had the same attitude towards classes as Marx. The bureaucracy is called the "third class", the petty bourgeoisie, the independent farmers, the petty nobility (junkers) the "new classes". Most often, no distinction is made between class and estate, and both terms are used as synonyms, although Marx and Engels make it clear in several places that class represents a certain group in the national economy of a given country, for example, in large-scale industry and agriculture, which cannot be said about estates. He refers to a class both the bourgeoisie as a whole and its strata, namely the financial aristocracy, the industrial bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and so on. A class is called the petty-bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the workers, etc.
2. A narrow approach to understanding the class theory of K. Marx
Since Marx did not precisely specify the criteria for class formation, experts find it difficult to give an unambiguous interpretation of his theory. Nevertheless, his class theory can be reconstructed using all his writings, as well as the works he prepared jointly with F. Engels, and the works written by Engels after the death of Marx. To receive you need to general idea about his theory, it has to be restored from various fragments scattered throughout the works of different years. For a correct understanding of Marx's class theory, one must pay attention not to the verbal form, but to the socio-economic content hidden under it, which is revealed through the use of the method of sociological reconstruction of the worldview. This is what allows us to carry out a logical reconstruction of Marx's theory.
Such a reconstruction makes it possible to assert that, firstly, Marx analyzed classes through the relation to the ownership of capital and means of production. The class-forming basis for him was the economy, i.e. nature and mode of production. He did not attach much importance to the size of income (although he emphasized the importance of the method of obtaining it), the commonality of people's interests and the role of psychological factors. Secondly, he distinguished two main classes - bourgeoisie(owners of the means of production) and proletariat(subjects of hired labor receiving wages). Within the two main classes into which any society breaks up, there are many separate groups. Thirdly, the class, based on the entire corpus of Marx's works, can be characterized as a number of people occupying the same position in the economic structure. For Marx, this position was based on the relationship of a person to the means of production - the possession or non-ownership of property, and for the owners themselves - on the type of property. The source of income, the size of which he did not include among the class-forming features, is not only property, respectively, the number of things that can be bought with this money, but also power or control over economic resources, and through them - over people.
3. A broad approach to understanding Marx's class theory
However, a broader approach is also possible. It is quite probable, and this can be traced in the logic of his reflections, that Marx adhered to not one, economic, but several criteria of class formation. This means that the basis for dividing people into classes was put by the author of the Communist Manifesto: 1) economic forces(sources and amount of income); 2) social factors(ownership or non-ownership of the means of production) and 3) political factors(domination and influence in the power structure). In this form, Marx's class theory resembles Weber's class theory, which also identifies three class-forming features: economic (property), social (prestige), and political (power). But this is only an external similarity, in the future we will see that the two theories differ significantly from each other. class marx stratification social
Unlike Weber, Marx believed that the relationship between the two main classes of society is antagonistic those. irreconcilable, not only because some dominate and others obey, but also because some exploit others. exploitation called the gratuitous appropriation of someone else's unpaid labor. Slaves, peasants and workers produce more wealth (goods and services) than they need for their own subsistence, i.e. meet the basic needs of life. In other words, they create accessory product. But they do not have the opportunity to use what they themselves produce. Those who own the means of production extract what they call "profit" from the surplus product. This is the economic source of exploitation and also of the conflict between classes, which usually manifests itself in the form of class struggle.
4. social stratification
In Marxism, classes act as universal-historical and the main form of stratification that pervades all formations, all historical era. Marx believed that all societies that have ever existed and exist today are in one sense or another class. The universal historical type of stratification makes classes the fact that in all formations there was one of the main features - the exploitation of the labor of others. In all types of society, the owners who constitute the ruling class exploit the non-owners who represent the other class. In all historical times, one part of the population, as a rule, a minority, owned the means of production and disposed of the material resources of society, exploiting the labor of others, while other groups of the population did not have this. IN ancient Rome the patricians owned the land, and the slaves were forced to work for them, receiving only living wage, especially food and lodging. In medieval Europe, feudal lords owned land, and serfs performed economic and military service, paying for a leased piece of land. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie owns the factories, the land, and the banks, while the proletarians, who have no property other than the property of their own hands, are forced to become wage-workers. The salary they receive compensates for only part of the costs, since it is set at the subsistence level.
However, the class, as the leading type of stratification, has undergone a significant evolution and only under capitalism has revealed itself in the most mature and full form. In previous formations, it was relegated to the background by other types of stratification, for example, the estate type. Marx distinguished between class and estate division, but such an assumption cannot be proved, since Marx nowhere explained how these two types of stratification differ and how they are interconnected. At the same time, his associate F. Engels pointed out that under slavery and feudalism, the class division of society takes the form class stratification. Classes are forced to obey the estate type of stratification into certain historical periods because the class-forming factor - the attitude to the means of production and free wage labor - gives way to another criterion, in particular, under feudalism, personal dependence, which is a distinctive feature of the estate hierarchy. As soon as capitalism gains strength, personal dependence recedes into the background, and free wage labor comes to the fore.
Residual classes are preserved from previous formations in each following one, as a result of which the class structure of society is not a two-layered one, for example, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but a multi-layered pie. Marx pointed out that the two main classes of capitalist society are disintegrating into "fragments". For example, within the bourgeoisie there are industrialists, financiers, landowners, merchants, among whom there may be conflict relations. Industrialists may be dissatisfied with the high rents paid to landowners, and merchants with percentages of bank rates.
The proletariat is subdivided into those who have guaranteed employment and those who do not (the unemployed and the lumpen proletariat), those employed in industry and in the service sector. In addition to them, there are the peasantry and the nobility, which do not fall into the two-term classification of classes. They are preserved from previous formations. Peasants and small proprietors are atavisms for modern capitalism, which, according to Marx's theory, must die out as capitalism develops. The withering away of intermediate and inherited from the past strata was dictated by Marx by the theoretical postulates of his teaching. The point is that the class struggle becomes the driving force of history only when it is built on the irreconcilable contradiction of two antagonistic classes. The appearance of additional ones prevents it from manifesting itself, knocks down the revolutionary mood of the exploited class. A mature society must be bipolar.
5. understande social structure of society
The concept of social structure in society is usually used in the following basic senses. In a broad sense, the social structure is the structure of society as a whole, the system of connections between all its main elements. With this approach, the social structure characterizes all the numerous types of social communities and the relationships between them. In a narrow sense, the term "social structure of society" is most often applied to social-class and social-group communities. Social structure in this sense is a set of interconnected and interacting classes, social strata and groups.
6. Marxist doctrine of classesas the main element of the social structure
In sociology, there are a large number of concepts of the social structure of society, historically one of the first is the Marxist doctrine. IN Marxist sociology the leading place is given to the social class structure of society. The social class structure of society, according to this direction, is the interaction of three main elements: classes, social strata and social groups. Classes are the core of the social structure. The presence of classes in society was noted in science even before Marx at the beginning of the 19th century. This concept was widely used by the French historians F. Guizot, O. Thierry and the British and French political economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo. However, the doctrine of classes received the greatest development in Marxism. K. Marx and F. Engels founded the economic causes of the emergence of classes. They argued that the division of society into classes is the result of the social division of labor and the formation of private property relations. The process of class formation took place in two ways: by separating the exploiting elite in the tribal community, which initially consisted of the tribal nobility, and by enslaving prisoners of war, as well as impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt bondage.
This economic approach to classes is recorded in the famous definition of classes, which was formulated by V. I. Lenin in his work “The Great Initiative” and which became a textbook in Marxism for 70 years.
"Classes are large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically determined system of social production, in their relation ( for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they dispose of. Classes are such groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy. Thus, according to Lenin, the main feature of a class - the attitude to the means of production (ownership or non-ownership) determines the role of classes in the social organization of labor (managing and managed), in the power system (ruling and ruled), their well-being (rich and poor). The class struggle serves as the driving force of social development.
Marxism divides classes into basic and non-basic.
The main classes are those whose existence directly follows from the economic relations prevailing in a given socio-economic formation, primarily property relations: slaves and slave owners, peasants and feudal lords, proletarians and the bourgeoisie.
Non-basic - these are the remnants of the former classes in the new socio-economic formation or the emerging classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of class division in the new formation. In addition to the main and non-basic classes, the social strata (or strata) are the structural element of society.
Social strata are intermediate or transitional groups that do not have a pronounced specific relationship to the means of production and, therefore, do not have all the features of a class. Social layers can be intraclass (part of a class) interclass. The first can be attributed to large, medium,. The petty, urban and rural monopoly and non-monopoly bourgeoisie, the industrial and rural proletariat, the labor aristocracy, etc. historical example interclass layers is the "third estate", during the maturation of the first bourgeois revolutions in Egypt - urban philistinism, handicrafts. In modern society - the intelligentsia. In turn, the interclass elements of the modern structure can have their own internal division. Thus, the intelligentsia is subdivided into proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois. Thus, the social stratum structure does not quite coincide with the class structure. The use of the concept of a social system, according to the ideas of Marxist sociologists, allows concretizing the social structure of society, pointing out its diversity and dynamism.
Despite the fact that in the conditions of ideological dictate and the flourishing of dogmatism in Marxist sociology, Lenin's definition of classes, based on a non-economic approach, had absolute dominance, some Marxist sociologists realized that classes are a broader entity. Consequently, the concept of the social-class structure of society must include political, spiritual and other ties of relationship. With a broader approach in the interpretation of the social structure of society, a significant place is given to the concept of "social interests".
Interests are the real life aspirations of individuals, groups and other communities, by which they consciously or unconsciously guide their actions and which determine their objective position in the social system. In social interests, the actual needs of representatives of certain social communities find the most generalized expression. Awareness of interests is carried out in the course of the process of social comparison that is constantly taking place in society, that is, comparing one's life situation with a comparison of other social groups. For understanding classes, the term “radical social interests” is essential, which reflects the presence of large social interests that determine its existence and social position. Based on the foregoing, we can propose the following definition of classes: classes are large social groups that differ in their role in all spheres of society, which are formed on the basis of fundamental social interests. Classes have common socio-psychological characteristics, value orientations, their own "code" of behavior.
Each social community is the subject of activity and relations. Classes as a socio-political community have a common program of activity for all its members. This program, corresponding to the fundamental interests of this or that class, is worked out by its ideologies.
With this approach, social strata are social communities that unite people on the basis of some particular interests.
Conclusion
Modern history has proven fallacy some provisions of Marx. Contrary to his predictions, there was no pauperization (impoverishment) of the working class. On the contrary, as society industrialized, its standards of living rose. Contrary to his prediction, the working class was constantly shrinking, its wages were rising, and its revolutionary spirit was decreasing. On the other hand, private property is now not concentrated in the hands of a few people, but is distributed among the broad masses of shareholders. The unfulfilled prediction of increased social polarization in modern society undermined the credibility of Marx's class theory.
Lliterature
1. A.A. Radugin, K.A. Radugin "Sociology" 1999 -160p.
2. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I._Textbook_2001-624
3. Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification: Textbook. M., 1995. S. 71
4. Classes, social strata and groups in the USSR / Ed. ed. Ts.A. Stepanyan and B.C. Semenov. - M.: Nauka, 1968.
5. Materials of Internet sites
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
The concept of the class structure of society. Ideas about the stratification of society. Basic bourgeois theories of social stratification. Classes in a post-industrial society according to E. Giddens. Pyramidal structure of modern capitalist society.
abstract, added 06/02/2016
Characteristics of the social structure of society, the study of its main elements: classes, estates, urban and rural residents, socio-demographic groups, national communities. Features of social mobility and analysis of the problem of civil society.
abstract, added 02/01/2010
The concept of the social structure of society, a description of its elements. Analytical review of the social structure of society as a whole. The state of the social structure of society in post-Soviet Russia, its transformation at the present time, the search for ways to improve it.
term paper, added 05/06/2010
Groups, layers, classes are the most important elements of the social structure of society. Correlation between the class theory of the social structure of society and the theory of social stratification and mobility. Types of social communities of people, their features and characteristics.
abstract, added 03/15/2012
Concepts, elements and levels of the social structure of society, analysis of its state and transformation in post-Soviet Russia. Suggestions and recommendations for the formation of a new social stratification and the middle class of the social structure of Russian society.
term paper, added 05/06/2010
The study of the social system of society: characteristics and development trends. The main functions of social stratification. Analysis of contradictions in society. The concept of social structure. Features and signs of a social group. Types of social mobility.
term paper, added 03/05/2017
Sociology as a science about society. Concept " social system"in the works of ancient thinkers. Elements of the social structure of society. The meaning of the elements, their place in the structure, significant connections. Types of social community. Concepts of social structure.
abstract, added 02/13/2010
Class is the main element of the social stratification of society. The emergence of classes. Social classification of society. Stratification of modern Russian society. The study of class consciousness: different approaches. "Middle class" in modern Russia.
abstract, added 04/04/2008
The main elements of the Ukrainian social structure. Hidden and explicit elements of social structure. The theory of social stratification and its role in the study of the social structure of modern Ukrainian society. Social inequality of society in Ukraine.
control work, added 01/09/2008
The concept of the structure of society, its main elements and dynamics of development. Theories of social stratification. The status of the individual and prestige as the basis for the stratification of society. Social mobility: group and individual, horizontal and vertical.
Considering the theory of Marx, he concludes that it is necessary to abandon the class theory, because. Marx viewed classes as real groups. Modern society cannot be viewed through the theory of closed groups. To understand the social structure of society, one must take into account all types of capital and the laws by which different forms of capital can be transformed into each other. Offers to explore the position of the individual, which is represented through lifestyles.
Capital is accumulated labor. Types of capital:
Economic - directly convertible into money and can be set as property
Cultural - education
Social - The totality of real or potential resources associated social network relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition, i.e. group membership
Symbolic - prestige, reputation.
9. Theorists of globalism about a new social stratification.
Stratification- section of social structures, revealing the place of certain social. groups in the social system. hierarchy (the term is borrowed from geology).
Globalization is a process of political, economic and intersocial social interdependence of different societies, due to the release of power, actions and interests beyond national borders and state territories, which entails the standardization of worldview, the imposition of behavioral and value stereotypes.
The transnational social space has given rise to many contradictions and latent conflicts, which include the emergence of a new social stratification– the emergence of the globally rich and the locally poor; global economic threat; the new power of the global virtual industry; automation of labor, generating unemployment; the emergence of a class of people who cannot be in demand by modern society due to the educational qualification and the qualification of intellectual abilities, which generally leads to an undermining of the principle of integrating various life experiences.
Wallerstein and Beck:
The positions of Wallerstein and Beck are to some extent opposed to each other. Wallerstein's approach is revealed through such categories as the world system, the world community, the globalization of the economy. From the point of view of this approach, a new international division of labor is currently developing with new models of global stratification. The "restructuring" of capitalism that took place in the twentieth century means that modern capitalism has gone beyond national boundaries, therefore, according to Wallerstein, in modern society there is no reason to believe that classes are in any sense defined by state boundaries, the international division of labor involves the creation of global systems of domination and power, a global system of social inequality and global classes.
According to back, in today's global society, the ratio of social inequality and its social class character can change independently of each other. The main feature of modern society is the individualization of social inequality. In the light of ongoing transformational processes, thinking and research in the traditional categories of large social groups - estates, classes and social strata - becomes problematic. Back concludes that "a society that no longer functions in socially distinct class categories, is in search of a different social structure and cannot be forcibly cast back into the category of class again and again with impunity, at the cost of a dangerous loss of reality and relevance."
Giddens, work "Stratification and class structure". Conclusions:
1. Social stratification means the division of society into layers and strata. Speaking of social stratification, they pay attention to the inequality of positions held by individuals in society. Stratification by sex and age exists in all societies. Today, in traditional and industrialized countries, stratification appears in terms of wealth, property, and is characterized by access to material values and cultural products.
2. Four main types of stratification systems can be installed: slavery, castes, estates and classes. While the first three depend on inequalities sanctioned by law or religion, class division is not "officially" recognized, but is due to the influence of economic factors on the material circumstances of people's lives.
3. Classes arise from inequalities in the ownership and control of material resources. As for the class position of the individual, it is rather achieved by a person than simply “given” to him from birth. Social mobility both up and down in the class structure has very characteristic features.
4. Most people in modern societies ah more rich today than a few generations ago. The rich use various means to pass on their property from one generation to the next.
5. Class is essential in modern societies. Most Western scholars accept the point of view that the population is within the upper, middle, working class and the class consciousness is highly developed.
6. The effect of gender on stratification in contemporary societies is to a certain extent independent of class.
10. Historical types of stratification.
Social stratification reflects the stratification of society depending on access to power, income, education, profession and other social characteristics. It originated in primitive society and has undergone significant evolution. Historical types of social stratification- slavery, castes, estates, classes, strata.
Slavery- historically the first system of social stratification. Slavery arose in ancient times in Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, Rome and has survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It has existed in the United States since the 19th century. Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and an extreme degree of inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ substantially. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of the youngest member of the family; lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, inherited the property of the owner. It was forbidden to kill him. He did not own property, but he himself was considered the property of the owner ("talking tool").
castes- closed social groups connected by a common origin and legal status. Caste membership is determined solely by birth, and marriages between members of different castes are forbidden. The most famous is the caste system of India, originally based on the division of the population into four varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (peasants and merchants), Shudras (untouchables).
Estates- social groups whose rights and obligations, enshrined in law and tradition, are inherited. Unlike caste, the principle of inheritance in estates is not so absolute, and membership can be bought, granted, recruited. Below are the main estates characteristic of Europe in the 18th-19th centuries:
· the nobility - a privileged estate from among the large landowners and veteran officials. An indicator of nobility is usually a title: prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, etc.;
Clergy - ministers of worship and the church, with the exception of priests. In Orthodoxy, black clergy (monastic) and white (non-monastic) are distinguished;
Merchants - the trading class, which included the owners of private enterprises;
Peasantry - the class of farmers engaged in agricultural labor as the main profession;
Philistinism - the urban class, consisting of artisans, small merchants and lower employees.
In some countries, a military estate was distinguished (for example, chivalry). IN Russian Empire the Cossacks were sometimes referred to as a special estate. Unlike the caste system, marriages between members of different classes are permissible. It is possible (although difficult) to move from one class to another (for example, the purchase of the nobility by a merchant).
Classes- large groups of people, differing in their attitude to property, etc. (MORS). The German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883), who proposed a historical classification of classes, pointed out that an important criterion for distinguishing classes is the position of their members - oppressed or oppressed:
In a slave-owning society, such were slaves and slave-owners;
· in a feudal society - feudal lords and dependent peasants;
· in a capitalist society - capitalists (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat);
There will be no classes in a communist society.
In modern sociology, one often speaks of classes in the most general sense - as collections of people with similar life chances, mediated by income, prestige and power:
upper class: divided into upper upper class (rich people from "old families") and lower upper class (recently rich people);
middle class: divided into upper middle (professionals) and lower middle (skilled workers and employees);
The lower class is divided into the upper lower class (unskilled workers) and the lower lower class (lumpen and marginals).
strata- groups of people with similar characteristics in the social space. This is the most universal and broadest concept, which makes it possible to single out any fractional elements in the structure of society according to a set of various socially significant criteria. For example, such strata as elite specialists, professional entrepreneurs, government officials, office workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, etc. are distinguished. Classes, estates and castes can be considered varieties of strata.
Social stratification reflects the presence inequalities in society. It shows that strata exist in different conditions and people have different opportunities to meet their needs. Inequality is the source of stratification in society. Thus, inequality reflects differences in the access of representatives of each layer to social benefits, and stratification is a sociological characteristic of the structure of society as a set of layers.
11. Basic approaches to the study of social stratification of modern Russian society.
Modern Russian society is undergoing serious social transformations, the structure of social stratification demonstrates significant changes. These changes are due to the fact that in the 1990s new grounds for the social stratification of society emerged. In Russia, a society with a new correlation of classes and social groups began to take shape, the difference in income, status, culture increased, the polarization of society intensified, and inequality increased.
The specificity of this process is the process of changing the social nature, which occurs through the destruction of old and the creation of new social structures and institutions. The forms and relations of property, forms of political power and administration, the system of justice, the structure and way of life are changing. The process of transformation of Russian society is a set of complexly intertwined economic, political and social processes.
The main areas of research on social stratification developed in the process of development of sociological theory in the twentieth century in modern Russian sociology are the study of wealth and poverty; middle class; elites of modern Russian society.
The analyzed studies devoted to the analysis of the design of the system of social stratification make it possible to single out 8 most fundamental approaches to the study of social stratification and inequality in modern Russian society, developed by Russian scientists. These are the approaches: T.I. Zaslavskaya, L.A. Gordon, L.A. Belyaeva, M.N. Rutkevich, I.I. Podoinitsyna, N.E. Tikhonova, O.I. Shkaratana, Z.T. Golenkova and M.N. Gorshkov.
For the most part, these approaches lead to the construction of a sociological theory, which aims to identify:
First, the main criteria for constructing a stratification inequality;
Second, the profile of the system of social stratification;
Third, determine the stability of the social structure;
Fourth, to identify possible dynamics and trends in the emerging systems of social stratification.
1) Approach T.I. Zaslavskaya . According to Zaslavskaya, the position of a person in the modern system of stratification is determined by his place in the power-state structure, participation in the privatization process. The place of public groups is determined by their role in the management of the economy, in the disposal of material and financial resources. The most important factor determining, in particular, the social status of management groups, is direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property.
2) L.A. Gordon's approach. L.A. Gordon admits that in the systems of stratification of modern societies, material and economic elements never exhaust all its factors. However, in Russian society, it was precisely the criterion of property and income that acquired a valuable value in itself that acquired a decisive role. The material and economic situation of people and groups for some time became a surrogate for ideological and political criteria, and is the main indicator of life achievements.
3) L.A. approach Belyaeva . L.A. Belyaeva notes that in the mid-1990s, the stimulating role of wages, its connection with qualifications and vocational training. Belyaeva comes to the conclusion that income differentiation and social stratification according to this criterion occur in different directions, have an unequal degree of manifestation, and structure Russian society in a new way in the transition period.
4) Approach M.N. Rutkevich . The scientist is convinced that Marx's methodology has significant advantages over Weber's. The number of criteria for social stratification is huge, but the economic criterion is the main one, where, in addition to the size of income, it is also necessary to know the size of the so-called fortune, that is, the movable and immovable property accumulated by an individual or family, bank accounts, securities, since it easily flows into a monthly (annual) income and vice versa, as well as the source of income.
5) Approach I.I. Podoinitsyna . This researcher fully shares Sorokin's opinion about the socio-professional stratification of society, which consists in the fact that the formation of groups on a professional basis is the cornerstone of society. At the same time, in modern Russian society, the level of income is one of the main criteria for stratification. And in assessing the level of material well-being, there are currently many approaches.
6) Approach N.E. Tikhonova. In accordance with it, not only the criteria for stratification change, but also its very systemic basis. The basis of social status for Russians is the level of well-being, which becomes the equivalent of the status being lost, based on job characteristics. Usually considered very high level income, which can testify to a high status position and successful "fitting" into a new stratification system based on differences in the level of well-being.
7) O.I.Shkaratan's approach . The calculations carried out by Shkaratan using entropy analysis showed that the set of respondents most sharply differentiates the variables: power (measured by the number of direct subordinates), property (expressed through the ownership of an enterprise), the presence of another paid job, entrepreneurial activity (an attempt to organize one's own business). O.I. Shkaratan specifically notes the importance of such a variable as "the presence of additional work" in measuring social stratification.
8) In recent years, another paradigm for studying social stratification has been emerging: multidimensional hierarchical approach Z.T. Golenkova and M.N. Gorshkov. In the previous concepts of the study of the social structure of Soviet society, the study of objective trends dominated, and the subjective side of sociocultural processes was ignored. This led mainly to the construction class systems social stratification. At present, thanks to the research of socio-cultural factors involved in the construction of systems of social stratification, a complex model of the class-layer structure of society has taken shape. Objective - (education, personal monthly income), + subjective - (social status and self-identification).
12. The main directions of scientific interest in the field of research of social stratification of modern Russian society.
In paragraph 2.1 "Basic theoretical approaches to the study of social stratification of modern Russian society" the identified main approaches to the study of social stratification and inequality in modern Russian society are discussed in detail.
1) T.I. Zaslavskaya. According to Zaslavskaya, the position of a person in the modern system of stratification is determined by his place in the power-state structure, participation in the privatization process. The place of public groups is determined by their role in the management of the economy, in the disposal of material and financial resources. The most important factor determining, in particular, the social status of management groups is direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property.
2) L.A. Gordon's approach. L.A. Gordon admits that in the systems of stratification of modern societies, material and economic elements never exhaust all its factors. However, in Russian society, it was precisely the criterion of property and income that acquired a valuable value in itself that acquired a decisive role. The material and economic situation of people and groups for some time became a surrogate for ideological and political criteria, and is the main indicator of life achievements.
3) L.A. approach Belyaeva. L.A. Belyaeva notes that in the mid-1990s, the stimulating role of wages, its connection with qualifications and professional training, sharply weakened. Belyaeva comes to the conclusion that income differentiation and social stratification according to this criterion occur in different directions, have an unequal degree of manifestation, and structure Russian society in a new way in the transition period.
4) Approach M.N. Rutkevich. The scientist is convinced that Marx's methodology has significant advantages over Weber's. The number of criteria for social stratification is huge, but the economic criterion is the main one, where, in addition to the size of income, it is also necessary to know the size of the so-called fortune, that is, the movable and immovable property accumulated by an individual or family, bank accounts, securities, since it easily flows into a monthly (annual) income and vice versa, as well as the source of income.
5) I.I. Podoinitsyna. This researcher fully shares Sorokin's opinion about the socio-professional stratification of society, which consists in the fact that the formation of groups on a professional basis is the cornerstone of society. At the same time, in modern Russian society, the level of income is one of the main criteria for stratification. And in assessing the level of material well-being, there are currently many approaches.
6) Approach N.E. Tikhonova. In accordance with it, not only the criteria for stratification change, but also its very systemic basis. The basis of social status for Russians is the level of well-being, which becomes the equivalent of the status being lost, based on job characteristics. Usually, a very high level of income is considered, which can indicate a high status position and successful “fitting” into a new stratification system based on differences in the level of well-being.
7) The approach of O.I. Shkaratan. The calculations carried out by Shkaratan using entropy analysis showed that the set of respondents most sharply differentiates the variables: power (measured by the number of direct subordinates), property (expressed through the ownership of an enterprise), the presence of another paid job, entrepreneurial activity (an attempt to organize one's own business) . O.I. Shkaratan specifically notes the importance of such a variable as "the presence of additional work" in measuring social stratification.
8) In recent years, another paradigm for studying social stratification has been emerging: the multidimensional hierarchical approach of Z.T. Golenkova and M.N. Gorshkov. In the previous concepts of the study of the social structure of Soviet society, the study of objective trends dominated, and the subjective side of sociocultural processes was ignored. This led mainly to the construction of class systems of social stratification. At present, thanks to the research of socio-cultural factors involved in the construction of systems of social stratification, a complex model of the class-layer structure of society has taken shape.
An analysis of the Russian sociological literature on the problems of social inequality and stratification allows us to single out four main areas of sociological research:
Study of the design of the system of social stratification as a basic and holistic process;
Study of the wealth and poverty of modern Russia, the social "bottom" and "new Russians", a comparative analysis of stratification-opposite groups;
Study of the middle class;
Study of the elite of modern Russian society.
13. Social stratification of Soviet society: researchers, approaches, profiles, criteria, main features and other characteristics of the stratification system.
The first large-scale surveys were carried out in the early 1960s. under the direction of G.V. Osipov in the Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Gorky regions and in other regions of the country, based on the concept of rapprochement of classes under socialism. If forms of ownership (state and collective farm) did not show significant differences neither in property, nor in power relations, nor in relation to work, then differences in the nature and content of labor are brought to the fore- area of employment, qualifications - and related to the type of settlement (city, village) lifestyle differences. The last category becomes especially important much later, in the early 1980s. Its counterpart in the 60s. - life and leisure of various groups of the population, city - village, family, age, income, etc. Scientific and technological progress and labor qualification are considered as the main factor of social differentiation.
In January 1966, the first Scientific Conference on the topic "Changes in the social structure of Soviet society", which brought together over 300 participants. The conference laid bare a whole range of problems, effectively confirming the legitimacy of new areas of analysis, but most importantly, "legitimized" the departure from the "three-member" (working class - peasantry - intelligentsia). The leading role in this discussion and subsequent research was played by N. Aitov, L. Kogan, S. Kugel, M. Rutkevich, V. Semenov, F. Filippov, O. Shkaratan and etc.
In the working class, they began to single out the unskilled and those employed in heavy physical labor, on the one hand, and intellectual workers, on the other. In agriculture, the emphasis is not so much on the distinction between state farm workers and collective farm peasants, but on allocation of groups of low-skilled labor(field growers, livestock breeders) and highly qualified layer machine operators. The intelligentsia stratum includes middle-skilled employees, highly qualified specialists, and so on.
sociological community, by the end of the 60s. already merged into the Soviet Sociological Association, in the central research sections continues research work. As part of section of the social structure of the SSA (its chairman was V.S. Semenov) a discussion was initiated regarding the definition of the very concept of "social structure" and its elements. The social structure was presented as a set of interrelated and interacting elements, that is, classes (groups), and a social group - as a relatively stable set, united by a commonality of functions, interests and goals of activity. Criteria for social-class and intra-class differentiation, the relationship between the professional division of labor and the social structure are being developed and refined.
Researchers are beginning to make extensive use of state statistics: materials from the statistics of the national economy of the USSR and the Union republics, professional accounting. The analysis of these data acquires a proper sociological-theoretical paradigm.
Studies of stratification (under the name of the social-stratified structure of society) and social mobility (that is, social movements, as it was established in the sociological terminology of that time) are widely deployed.
A large amount of empirical material was provided by surveys conducted at various enterprises in the country. Under the direction of O. Shkaratan in 1965, a study was undertaken by machine builders in Leningrad. G the frontiers of the working class are specified as "historically mobile". Here, the socio-stratification approach is quite clearly traced: “... in a socialist society, there is an intensive process of erasing class boundaries, there are mixed groups in terms of class population". Following this logic, the author includes in the composition of the workers vast strata of workers of non-physical labor, including the technical intelligentsia. Objecting to M.N. Rutkevich (one of the supporters of the separation of the intelligentsia into a special social stratum and the opponent of a broad interpretation of the boundaries of the working class), O.I. Shkaratan notes that the differences between the working class and the intelligentsia, as a result of changes in the functions of the latter, are increasingly appearing as an aspect of intra-class, albeit significant, differences. Therefore, he argues, a significant part of the Soviet intelligentsia and other workers of non-physical labor can be included in the working class, and the intelligentsia associated with collective farm production - in the collective farm peasantry.
The data obtained in 1963 as a result of a survey of the rural and urban population by Ural sociologists (researcher L.N. Kogan) testified to significant differences in cultural needs primarily rural and urban residents. As a result, it is approved methodological principle of multi-criteria selection social strata. At the same time Yu.V. Harutyunyan launched a larger survey of the village. The main content of these and other surveys was to identify socially forming features, to identify the quantitative proportions of individual strata of the rural population.
Analysis structure and boundaries of the intelligentsia, knowledge workers, and the problem of overcoming the differences between physical and mental labor were devoted in these years to the work of a theoretical, methodological and empirical nature - the intelligentsia in a socialist society is understood as a social group, a layer “consisting of persons professionally engaged in highly skilled mental labor that requires special, secondary or higher education» . The authors introduced into scientific circulation the concept "practices", I mean specialists without a diploma corresponding to their position. The intelligentsia acquires the features of a special social group; engaged in production, but its place in the social division of labor and the distribution of material goods is not considered as a class-forming feature.
60s are marked by the rapid development of mental labor professions, an increase in the share of intellectual activities, an increase in the number and proportion of highly qualified specialists. The scientific and technological revolution causes an "avalanche" increase in the number of scientists, increases the social prestige of higher education and scientific activity, which becomes a special subject of study. Changes in the social composition of students were studied by many sociological centers of the country, and although the most representative works appeared later, already in 1963 by the sociological laboratory Ural University surveys of graduates of the 11th grade of schools are conducted, the process of replenishment of specialists from various social groups is being studied, i.e. social mobility.
An analysis of trends and mechanisms of social mobility reveals changes in the quantitative proportions of social groups. In fact, until the 60s. there were no studies of social mobility in the USSR. The very formulation of the question required a certain scientific courage. Such concepts as "social mobility" and, finally, "social movement", "social movements" are used. The latter is affirmed as the “Soviet version” of the concept of social mobility after the publication in 1970 of the book by M.N. Rutkevich and F.R. Filippov under this name. The book cited research materials covering various aspects of the social mobility of the population in certain regions of the country (the Urals and the Sverdlovsk region, in particular). But despite the regional nature of the research, and perhaps because of it, it was possible to identify the specifics of mobility in the industrial and urbanized regions of the country, intergenerational and intragenerational social movements.
In 1974 (“for official use”, as it was practiced in those years), a collection of translations and review articles on the problems of social mobility was published: P. Sorokin, R. Ellis, V. Lane, S. Lipset, R. Bendix, K Bolte, K. Svalastoga and others. there is a formation of a branch of sociological knowledge, sociology of social structure.
70-80s: what was found studies of the "social homogeneity of Soviet society". The conceptual apparatus of such, for example, categories as "social equality" and its correlation with the concept of "social homogeneity" (the latter is considered as the "leading" in the system of categories of social structure) are specified. The criteria of social differentiation, the conceptual meaning of the terms are discussed: social difference and social unity, integration, differentiation, class, group, layer.
The “basic social formations” (workers, peasantry and intelligentsia) are studied in particular detail. This term made it possible to combine the meaning of the category of class and social stratum. At the Institute of Sociological Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences, sectors of the working class, peasantry, and intelligentsia were created, united in a department of social structure (headed by F.R. Filippov).
The emphasis shifts to analysis of intra-class differences. The nature of labor considered as the main layer-forming feature. Differences in the nature of labor are becoming the main criteria for differentiation not only between the working class and employees, but also within them. So, in the working class, three main layers were distinguished (according to the level of qualification) and the boundary layer of workers-intellectuals - highly skilled workers employed in the most complex types of physical labor saturated with intellectualized elements. In addition, it was proposed to divide the intelligentsia into specialists and non-specialist employees. Among specialists, they begin to single out that part that is engaged in organizational work, and the idea of forming a special social group, a new class, a party-economic bureaucracy is categorically rejected, although in the Western literature of that time, the question of the class of the nomenklatura in Soviet society was widely discussed.
A study begun in 1975 in the city of Gorky under the international project "Automation and Industrial Workers" (headed by V.I. Usenin) established that the transition from mechanization to automation leads to undoubted changes in the nature, content and working conditions. In 1979, all skill groups of workers were surveyed, which confirmed the significant heterogeneity of the composition of the working class.
In connection with the analysis of the structure of individual classes and groups, interest arises in the problems of their social reproduction: changes in the socio-demographic composition, social sources of replenishment, professional and educational mobility, etc. There was a decrease in the share of peasants and an increase in the proportion of workers, intelligentsia, employees; the growing role of sectoral and regional factors; qualitative shifts in the educational and qualification level; differences in the adaptation of young workers in production, etc.
In the same direction are higher education research. Survey of students of higher education in the mid-70s. in six regions of the country, he found significant differences between students of universities of various profiles in terms of “exit” from different social groups, motives for entering higher education, life plans, value orientations, etc. And here again increased social heterogeneity.
Another conclusion was that one of the main sources of replenishment of the intelligentsia was the working class.
Thus, if ideological attitudes affirmed the formation of a socially homogeneous society, sociological studies, in essence, refuted them. As a rule, proving growing social differences, sociologists did not openly criticize the homogeneity thesis, but cited this or that official document (usually these were references to decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU and reports at party congresses), and then considered the problem as such.
The new "program" setting was given by the XXV Congress of the CPSU (1976) in the thesis of "creating a social structure of the same type in all regions of the country, among all socialist nations that are part of a new historical community - Soviet people» . In accordance with it unfold studies of the development of regions and cities: social structure of the urban population, differences between large and small cities, migration mobility of the population, urban family, etc. Studies of the social class structure and national relations were previously carried out separately; now their combination made it possible to clarify the dynamics of the social composition of “nations” and “nationalities”, to discover real, and not far-fetched differences between them in the processes of changes in the social structure, in the direction of social mobility, in demographic features, in socio-cultural appearance. Among the initiators of the study of this problem - Yu.V. Harutyunyan, V.V. Boyko, L.M. Drobizheva, M.S. Dzhunusov, Yu.Yu. Kahk and others. Research was carried out in Tatarstan, Estonia, Latvia, Siberia and other regions THE USSR. Issues related to the nature of territorial differences came to the fore, the typology of regions and the prospects for their development were discussed.
However, a predominantly one-dimensional consideration of the social structure still dominates. Criteria such as participation in power relations and prestige were used more for decorative purposes (participation in social work, professional preferences, etc.). Meanwhile, in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, colleagues of Soviet researchers studied the social structure using various criteria and indicators of social stratification, including the criterion of power or the exercise of managerial functions. It was emphasized that the sources of power are based on a monopoly on the means of production and on a certain position in the already formed social structure, but the role of the latter becomes more significant due to the complication of social organization and as the actual socialization of production. A bureaucratic apparatus is growing, managing "public property" and using its position as a source of power.
The most de-ideologized area was development of tools for research on social class stratification, within which the system of criteria for interclass and intraclass differences was translated into the corresponding indicators and indicators. For example, indicators of the nature and content of labor, professional and qualification characteristics, working and living conditions, the structure of working and non-working hours, etc. were carefully verified.
A significant role in the field under consideration was played by an all-Union study carried out by the ISI of the USSR Academy of Sciences jointly with other sociological centers of the country (headed by G.V. Osipov), entitled "Indicators of the social development of Soviet society" . It covered workers and engineering and production intelligentsia. in the main sectors of the national economy of nine regions and recorded a number of important trends. Until the beginning of the 80s. there was a rather high dynamics of socio-structural changes, but later society loses its dynamism, stagnates, reproduction processes prevail. At the same time, reproduction itself is deformed - the number of bureaucracy and “non-labour elements” is growing, the figures of the shadow economy are turning into a latent structure factor, highly skilled workers and specialists often perform work below the level of their education and qualifications. These "scissors" on average in the country ranged from 10 to 50% for various social strata.
In Soviet society in the 70-80s. more and more clearly a layer of bureaucracy took shape, which received different names from different authors: nomenklatura, partocracy, new class, counterclass. This stratum had exclusive and natural rights, benefits, privileges available at certain levels of the hierarchy, to holders of certain statuses reserved for them by the nomenclature mechanism for the distribution of functions and corresponding benefits. Later T.I. Zaslavskaya identified three groups in the social structure: the upper class, the lower class, and the stratum separating them. The basis of the upper stratum was the nomenklatura, which included the upper strata of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She is owner of national wealth, which uses at its discretion. The lower class is formed by the wage-workers of the state: workers, peasants, intelligentsia. They have no property and no rights to participate in the distribution of public property. The social stratum between the upper and lower classes is formed by social groups that serve the nomenklatura, do not have private property and the right to dispose of public property, and are dependent on everything.
In the mid 80s. L.A. Gordon and A.K. Nazimova using materials of official statistics, have shown that the changes taking place within the working class are mainly due to technical and technological progress, changes in the social and stratification structure of Soviet society as a whole. Such an approach, as it were, integrates the professional and technological features of labor and the essential features of the social image of the worker: working conditions, his social functions, the originality of life, culture, social psychology and lifestyle.
Special place in the second half of the 70s-80s. occupied comparative studies held jointly with sociologists from the countries of South-Eastern and Central Europe.
In 1976-1982 an international empirical comparative study of the dynamics of social changes in the working class and the engineering and technical intelligentsia was carried out in the context of a general slowdown in the pace of development of the socialist countries of Europe, the stagnation of the social sphere and the dominance of illusory concepts of "social homogeneity". Ideas about the disappearance, withering away of social diversity were imposed: in the economy - only one, state property, in the social sphere - the erasure of all differences, in the political sphere - the immutability of political structures, one management scheme. An international study has identified areas where intra-class differences become more significant than those between classes, i.e. discovered a new type of social differentiation in the continuum of mental-physical labor. In addition, it has been convincingly shown that integration mechanisms and differentiation mechanisms operate with varying degrees of intensity in different countries.
An international comparative study on the problems of higher education and youth showed that high school in the CMEA countries played the role of the most important channel of social mobility, and the social sources of student formation largely reproduced the existing structure.
On the V All-Union Conference on Problems of Social Class Structure (Tallinn, 1981) it was stated that it was necessary creation modern concept social structure which gives realistic assessments of trends in the emergence of new forms of social integration and differentiation, because studies have identified diverse criteria for the social differentiation of society.
14. Profile, criteria and main features of social stratification of modern Russian society.
Completely new criteria for social stratification have emerged. There was a need to analyze the significance of such criteria as "ownership of property", "availability of financial and economic capital", "social prestige".
Since the beginning of the 90s of the twentieth century, Russian society has been undergoing a process of transformation, changing its social nature by destroying old and creating new social structures and institutions. The forms and relations of property, the forms of political power and administration, the structure and way of life are changing. The process of transformation of Russian society is a set of complexly intertwined economic, political and social processes. Based on the analysis of modern Russian sociological literature, theories are considered that reflect complex transformation processes that have qualitatively changed the system of social stratification of Russian society and the social status of most of its members.
The analyzed studies devoted to the analysis of the design of the system of social stratification make it possible to identify the 8 most fundamental approaches to the study of social stratification and inequality in modern Russian society, developed by Russian scientists. These are the approaches: T.I. Zaslavskaya, L.A. Gordon, L.A. Belyaeva, M.N. Rutkevich, I.I. Podoinitsyna, N.E. Tikhonova, O.I. Shkaratana, Z.T. Golenkova and M.N. Gorshkov.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
