Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. 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.

Modern sociocultural situation

The modern sociocultural situation can be characterized as the completion of the transition from industrial to post-industrial information society, which leads to a change in priorities and values not only in the sphere of economics and politics, but also in the sphere of culture and morality. Information becomes a basic resource, which inevitably leads to an increase in the value attitude not only to the information itself, but also to the ability to obtain, process and use it.

The currently experienced socio-cultural and theoretical-cognitive situation as a whole is also usually characterized as a “postmodern state”, the basic characteristic of which is the crisis of the historical meta-narrative. It cannot be assessed in the moral and ethical categories of “good or bad,” but it is necessary to understand that the crisis of the metanarrative at the national level destroys social memory, leads to the atomization of society and, ultimately, to the loss of national-state identity.

The modern sociocultural situation is increasingly being conceptualized as a situation of cultural transition, which in terms of synergetics can be described as a kind of bifurcation point in which a single social action can lead to large-scale and unpredictable consequences. In this situation, the tasks of professional humanities education change: from simple transfer of professional skills to developing the ability to comprehend the sociocultural whole in its historical dimension and the conscious formation of a worldview. In this new sociocultural situation Humanities education in Russia and in the world as a whole is undergoing dramatic changes. In new fast conditions social change, the development of globalization processes, the existence in the real historical process of various political systems, levels economic development, dialogue of cultures, society presents to the humanities, and historical science in its broadly understood, new challenges.

This requires a specialist unconventional methods solving non-standard situations, presenting to society a qualitatively different intellectual product. Naturally, with this approach, the traditional model of humanities education, widespread in the world, focused on the transmission of ready-made knowledge, an illustrative method of teaching, and passive assimilation, loses its effectiveness. New strategy Education brings to the fore disciplines aimed at developing a specialist who, at the level of understanding, knowledge and skill, is capable of developing such an intellectual product as new knowledge.

Characteristics of the modern sociocultural situation in Russia

To characterize the modern sociocultural situation in Russia, it is necessary to take into account three groups of factors that determine it today:

Internal development factors, such as the economic development model, social dynamics, changes occurring in the government structure and political regime, and many others;

Historical factors, national factors in the development of Russian culture and cultural features Soviet period, in the spirit of which the living generations of Russians were brought up and educated;

The influence of the global, primarily Western, sociocultural situation on modern Russian cultural processes.

It should be noted that all of these factors not only determine the modern socio-cultural situation, they condition it in an intense objective competition among themselves for the right to become the spiritual dominant of today's cultural development of Russia. A parallel can be drawn with the Middle Ages, when at least three traditions fought among themselves for the right to determine the sociocultural situation in Europe: barbarian - the northern Germanic tribes, ancient - Greek and Roman and Christian.

Christianity won, becoming the spiritual dominant of European cultural development for a whole millennium.

Now in the economic life of Russia there are complex, ambiguous, often contradictory processes associated with the initial accumulation of capital, which often takes uncivilized forms and determines complex relations regarding property. Under conditions of various types of monopolism, market relations are established, which has the most disastrous consequences. The principle of private property has been politically and legally proclaimed, but its implementation is taking place in a bitter struggle, without finding adequate forms (suffice it to recall voucherization, privatization). The model of social development in the country has changed, but it is too early to talk about replacing sociocentrism with anthropocentrism, as some researchers argue. Anthropocentrism today can be discussed as one of the trends in the development of Russian society. Real, established anthropocentrism presupposes civil society, the existence in society of a formalized ideology of free owners, and respect for the dignity of the individual established at all levels in society. And it will be in Russia when, in the community of free owners, the measure of all things will not be a class, not a nation, not a social stratum or group, but each individual.

Confirmation of the fact that an anthropocentric tendency exists in Russia is the state policy in cultural matters.

In 1984, for reading, distributing and referring to the works of A.I. Solzhenitsyn (b. 1919) could have lost his job, been “banned from traveling for life,” or been expelled from the party. Then no one in their wildest dreams could have dreamed that ten years later the head of the Russian state would talk for several hours with a recently disgraced dissident writer, asking him for advice on how to organize Russia.

Sociocentrism is a concept according to which in relationships between society and the individual, priority belongs to society.

Anthropocentrism -- concept Italian Renaissance, according to which man is at the center of the universe. This concept became the ideology and practice of the European Modern Age and the Enlightenment. The centuries-old existence of this idea as a priority in European ideology contributed to the early emergence of the idea of human rights and its development into an independent concept already in the second half of the 17th century. This concept, known as the “concept of natural law,” was formulated by the English philosopher J. Locke (1632–1704), who identified the rights to life, liberty and property as the basic natural inalienable human rights.

In the new Russian state Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are legally enshrined and practically implemented; atheism is no longer a position of the state. The state stopped engaging in ideological censorship, and many outstanding works of philosophy and fiction were returned to the Russian reader. The pluralization of the media has led to the elimination of the propaganda function of these media in favor of their informational purpose.

Radical changes have occurred in the relationship between the state and the intelligentsia. Discrimination against the progressive intelligentsia has not only ceased: the citizenship of those expelled, expelled, and those who left during previous political regimes has been returned; their works have not only been rehabilitated, they have become the property of those for whom they were intended - viewers, listeners, and readers. For the first time, the authorities brought people of high professionalism closer to them as equals, provided a political and professional platform for everyone capable of creating alternative programs for organizing economic and social life in the country. Special storage facilities overflowing with prohibited works of Russian and world classics were liquidated. The pluralism of publications expanded the reading range of the average citizen, provided the opportunity for real spiritual choice (and the authenticity of choice is a criterion for the authenticity of freedom), and made it possible to form a home library without regard to the “knock on the door” for the fact that it contains works by A.I. Solzhenitsyn or A.D. Sakharov.

However, this phenomenon, which is decisive for the emancipation of the individual and the development of genuine culture in the country, still has negative aspects. First of all, the intelligentsia, whose activity and struggle ensured the changes that took place, cannot always take advantage of the benefits brought by these changes. Low wages for scientists, teachers, doctors, creative intelligentsia, a symbolic scholarship for students does not allow them to purchase books, visit theaters, or travel to get acquainted with world and domestic culture.

For the intelligentsia, the creators of works of art, the process of emancipation was not only a blessing, but also a test. These processes, however, became a test for the entire intelligentsia. Thus, teachers were faced with questions of how to teach, what to teach, what sources to teach, since not only the vices of the past, but also the negative phenomena of the present became obvious. Not all intelligentsia pass this test. Freedom of creativity often turns into freedom of competition between various factions of the spiritual elite. For example, conflicts, discord in Art Theater, Bolshoi Theater. Writers' Union and other creative unions. We can say that not a single fundamental work has been created in any area of culture over the years. Similar facts have already found their interpretation in the works of Russian cultural scientists. Some consider the acquired freedom insufficient:

“I think that the current social confusion, in which you can’t figure out where to go - to church or to the market - is not freedom, it is chaos. And it is correct to talk about the influence of chaos on culture... And freedom... We have not yet lived to see freedom. Freedom is not a simple absence of censorship, it is a balance based on one’s own depth, on an established personality.”

Quite often a person, after seventy years of tutelage (and rebellion against tutelage), has not yet learned to stand on his own two feet and go his own way, without paying too much attention to politics. The trouble is not freedom, but the unaccustomment to freedom.

Despite the positive trends in the modern sociocultural situation, they are not a sufficient basis for defining the modern political system of Russia as a democracy.

Democracy is, in addition to these characteristics, a developed community. But today organized society has been destroyed, an organized anthropocentric society has not formed. There is a confrontation between democrats and conservatives in society, while none of them has a developed concept of a positive political and governmental development of the country. Everything is expressed in contradiction: democrats do not want totalitarianism, conservatives do not want Russia to turn into a “backyard of the West.” And society, under the influence of processes of social stratification, under the influence of party confrontations, disintegrates, every community is lost, including the community of cultural orientation.

The past, of course, was difficult and forced Russians to endure and suffer, but everyone “endured”, and today in Russia “new Russians” are rising spiritually and materially at the expense of the impoverishment and degradation of others, whose decline in mental level is below the permissible norm.

All this serves as the basis for the emergence of potential and social conditions for the transformation of Russia into a third world country or for the emergence of an authoritarian hard regime in it.

However, what has been said does not mean thoughtless praise of the past - a balanced analysis, consideration and preservation of everything positive from the past is necessary, because civilization and culture always rest on the continuity and preservation of what was won and acquired through labor, which is always destroyed by barbarism. Wise leadership of the ongoing spiritual and cultural processes is necessary.

A positive aspect of the current sociocultural situation in the country is the deideologization of the entire education system.

Freedom in itself does not solve a single problem, but, on the contrary, by shaking social norms and increasing the spontaneity of people’s behavior, it gives rise to many new problems.

“Rallies are one of the most accessible forms of outpouring of group mass feelings. Apparently, it was not for nothing that the ancients spoke of domination in such times of ochlocracy - the rule of the crowd. Against this background, demagoguery flourishes, since the opinion of the masses in such a state does not represent the basis for the truth. All decisions, without exception, made under the pressure of such rallies, have unpredictable, often unpleasant social consequences.”

They also point out the “exuberance of feelings” characteristic of the transition era, since the transition of large groups of people to new values primarily occurs at the emotional level.

In this regard, the general problem of culture and democracy arises. It seems that this problem is solved by itself: democracy creates optimal conditions for the development of culture. Indeed, democracy is the most favorable regime for the implementation of the power of the people. It is democracy that protects the pluralism of positions and freedom of choice, but, as N.A. pointed out. Berdyaev (1874-1948), there is also an inverse relationship between culture and democracy: democracy requires a sufficient cultural basis, and for its implementation certain conditions are necessary, cultivated among the masses for centuries and even millennia.

Spiritual liberation revealed the weaknesses and limitations of professional and humanitarian education in the country during the period of Soviet power. This, in particular, was manifested in the inability of the majority of the population to adequately perceive the works of Russian classical philosophy that came to us after decades of ban.

Humanistic ideals and principles have become widespread in modern culture. Of course, humanism is a fairly diverse concept. Renaissance humanism, for example, which affirmed the power and freedom of the creative human spirit, was in in a certain sense elitist because his morality was individualistic, meaningful only to the elite. The most important result of the development of culture, perceived in our century, is the orientation towards scientific and rational knowledge of the world and the associated sociocultural system - science.
Back in the 19th century. the first signs appear that science has become global, uniting the efforts of scientists different countries. The internationalization of scientific relations arose and further developed. The technogenic attitude towards nature as a means of satisfying not spiritual, but purely technical needs became widespread in the first half of the 20th century. one of the leading trends in the development of culture.
Cosmism is a unique, most interesting phenomenon of modern culture, the significance of which is beginning to be realized only now, on the threshold of the third millennium. This is the idea of active evolution, which expresses a new quality of relationships between man and nature. Based on natural scientific evolutionary views, traditionally valued in Russia, cosmists put forward the idea of the inevitability of the development of man, nature and space; when consciousness and reason become the leading force of world development, man takes responsibility for cosmic evolution. He must be imbued with the spirit of cosmic ethics.
However, the culture of the 20th century. reflected the crisis into which technogenic civilization was slowly entering. Modern production, which gave birth to a new type of civilization, industrial society, led to the actual dominance of impersonal economic, technological, political structures over living human activity, the individual “I” of genuine culture. As a result, in the culture of the 20th century. a contradiction developed, manifested in the opposition of two attitudes: scientistic and antiscientist. The concept of “scientism” is knowledge, science. Scientists say: everything is subject to science. Indeed, modern science has penetrated into all pores of modern society, permeating not only industry and agriculture, but also politics, administrative and military spheres. However, not everything in the world is science. For example, there is the sphere of art, faith, human feelings and relationships. Antiscientism appeared as a reaction to the exaggeration of the role of science. It is characterized by belittling the importance of scientific knowledge and blaming science for causing possible crises: economic, environmental, national. In the 20th century man is faced with problems on the solution of which the fate of civilization depends. These problems are called global (which means globe). What is the cause of global problems?
Firstly, it is the integrity of the modern world, which is ensured by deep political and economic ties. Secondly, the crisis of world civilization is associated with the increased economic power of man, who has never exacted as much tribute from nature as he does now. Thirdly, one of the reasons for the emergence of global problems is the uneven development of countries and culture. The economic and political interdependence of countries is complemented by information. The essence of the new culture grows out of the destruction of the systems characteristic of classical industrial society, which outwardly determine the life of the individual. A person ceases to be an element of technological, economic or political systems, where his activity is strictly determined by qualities external to his personal culture. A new information culture is emerging, new ways of obtaining information, production and scientific activities. Access to information networks and knowledge turns out to be the determining basis for the stratification and division of society.

The culture of the 20th century is united in its diversity. Humanity comes to universal norms, values, forms of perception and assessment of the world as a result of the development and mutual influence of national cultures. The ideals and attitudes of modern culture are an alloy of what humanity had achieved by the end of the 20th century. They have become widespread in modern culture humanistic ideals and principles. Of course, humanism is a fairly diverse concept. Renaissance humanism, for example, which affirmed the power and freedom of the creative human spirit, was in a certain sense elitist, since its morality was individualistic, significant only for the elite. The most important result of the development of culture, perceived in our century, is the focus on scientific and rational knowledge of the world and the associated with it the sociocultural system is science. Back in the 19th century. The first signs appear that science has become global, uniting the efforts of scientists from different countries. The internationalization of scientific relations arose and further developed. The technogenic attitude towards nature as a means of satisfying not spiritual, but purely technical needs became widespread in the first half of the 20th century. one of the leading trends in the development of culture . Cosmism- a unique, interesting phenomenon of modern culture, the significance of which is beginning to be realized only now, on the threshold of the third millennium. This is the idea of active evolution, which expresses a new quality of relationships between man and nature. Based on natural scientific evolutionary views, traditionally valued in Russia, cosmists put forward the idea of the inevitability of the development of man, nature and space; when consciousness and reason become the leading force of world development, a person takes responsibility for cosmic evolution. He must be imbued with the spirit of cosmic ethics. However, the culture of the 20th century. reflected the crisis into which technogenic civilization was slowly entering. Modern production, which gave birth to a new type of civilization, industrial society, led to the actual dominance of impersonal economic, technological, political structures over living human activity, the individual “I” of genuine culture. As a result, in the culture of the 20th century. a contradiction developed, manifested in the opposition of two attitudes: scientistic and antiscientist. Concept " scientism"-knowledge, science. Scientists claim: everything is subject to science. Indeed, modern science has penetrated into all pores of modern society, permeating not only industry, agriculture, but also politics, administrative and military spheres. However, not everything in the world is science For example, there is the sphere of art, faith, human feelings and relationships. Antiscientism appeared as a reaction to the exaggeration of the role of science. It is characterized by belittling the importance of scientific knowledge and blaming science for causing possible crises: economic, environmental, national. In the 20th century man is faced with problems on the solution of which the fate of civilization depends. These problems are called global (which means the globe). What is the cause of global problems?

Firstly, it is the integrity of the modern world, which is ensured by deep political and economic ties. Secondly, the crisis of world civilization is associated with the increased economic power of man, who has never exacted as much tribute from nature as he does now. Thirdly, one of the reasons for the emergence of global problems is the uneven development of countries and culture. The economic and political interdependence of countries is complemented by information. The essence of the new culture grows out of the destruction of the systems characteristic of classical industrial society, which outwardly determine the life of the individual. A person ceases to be an element of technological, economic or political systems, where his activity is strictly determined by qualities external to his personal culture. A new information culture is emerging, new ways of obtaining information, production and scientific activities. Access to information networks and knowledge turns out to be the determining basis for the stratification and division of society.

15. Culture, its content. The concept of culture is fundamental to sociology, since culture determines the unique behavior of the people who are its bearers and distinguishes one society from another. A person can live normally only surrounded by his own kind, following the rules developed over many thousands of years. Man has separated himself from nature, creating an artificial environment outside of which he cannot exist - culture. It is sometimes said that in the form of culture man created a “second nature.” Culture is the cumulative result of the activities of many people over a long period of time. In sociology, culture in the broad sense of the word is understood as a specific, genetically non-inherited set of means, methods, forms, patterns and guidelines for the interaction of people with the environment of existence, which they develop in life together to maintain certain structures of activity and communication. In a narrow sense, culture is defined by sociology as a system of collectively supported values, beliefs, norms and patterns of behavior inherent in a certain group of people.

The sociological approach to culture considers it as a factor in the organization of social life, as a set of ideas, principles, social. institutions, provision collective activity of people.

16. Types of crops. The classification of cultures is based on several criteria: connection with religion (religious and secular cultures); regional affiliation of culture (cultures of the East and West, Mediterranean, Latin American); regional-ethnic feature (Russian, French); belonging to a historical type of society (culture of traditional, industrial, post-industrial society); economic structure (culture of hunters and gatherers, gardeners, farmers, cattle breeders, industrial culture); sphere of society or type of activity (industrial, political, economic, pedagogical, environmental, artistic culture, etc.); connection with the territory (rural and urban culture); specialization (ordinary and specialized culture); ethnicity (folk, national, ethnic culture); level of skill and type of audience (high or elite, folk, mass culture), etc.

Material culture – physical objects or artifacts created by people to which a definition is given. meaning. Spiritual culture– Religion, science, philosophy. Dominant culture- values or traditions recognized only by a part of society, but this part has the ability to impose them on society as a whole.

17. The main forms of manifestation of culture in modern times. society.Elite culture created by a privileged part of society or at its request by professional creators. It includes fine art, so-called serious music and highly intellectual literature. Folk culture created by anonymous creators who have no vocational training. Folk culture called amateur (in origin, since the level of performing skills it can be very high) and collective. It includes myths, legends, tales, epics, fairy tales, songs, and dances. Popular culture created by professional authors and distributed through the media. The time of its appearance is the middle of the 20th century, when the media (radio, print, television, different types audio recordings, video recordings) made mass samples of culture accessible to all social strata of society. Mass culture can be international and national. Examples popular culture Popular and pop music, the circus, love and sexual novels, thrillers, and newspaper “sensations” serve as the main source of influence.

The set of values, beliefs, traditions and customs that guide the majority of members of society is called dominant culture. Subculture- part of a common culture, a system of values, traditions, customs inherent in a large social group. Counterculture denotes a subculture that not only differs from the dominant culture, but also opposes it and is in conflict with state values.

18. Functions of culture in human life. Culture plays a very contradictory role in human life. On the one hand, it helps to consolidate the most valuable and useful patterns of behavior and transfer them to subsequent generations as well as other groups. Culture elevates man above the animal world, creating spiritual world, it promotes human communication. On the other hand, culture is capable of perpetuating injustice, superstition, and inhuman behavior with the help of moral norms. In addition, everything created within the framework of culture to conquer nature can be used to destroy people.

19. Social functions of culture - the ability of culture to act as a means of accumulation, storage and transmission of experience.

1. Disintegrative- the ability of culture, uniting some communities, thereby opposing them to other communities and giving rise to cultural conflicts. 2. Integrative- the ability of culture to ensure the integrity of a community based on the development of its culture. 3. Cognitive- the ability of a culture to concentrate the knowledge and social experience of many generations of people; and thereby create favorable opportunities for knowledge and exploration of the surrounding world. 4. Regulatory- the ability of culture to regulate human behavior in various areas: in the family, at school, in everyday life, in production and in other areas. 5. Regulatory relies on a system of certain regulations and prohibitions, the violation of which triggers sanctions established by the community and supported by the power of public opinion and various forms of institutional coercion 6. Recreational- the ability of culture to help a person restore his spiritual strength, renew and normalize his spiritual potential. 7. Semiotic- the need to study culture as a specific sign system. 8. Meaning-forming- the ability of culture to create a certain communication system, which should ensure the exchange and interaction of participants cultural process with the help of creative techniques specific to each type of spiritual activity; languages and signs; a specific set of symbols and images; concepts and ideas.

20. Modern crisis. culture. Until recently, the crisis manifested itself in a variety of forms, the common denominator of which is the lack of spirituality, expressed in the indifference of industrialized countries to poverty in third world countries, the death of millions of children in them from causes that could have been prevented, etc. And so Now the crisis is becoming obvious and global, it is affecting areas such as environment, food, climate, water, etc., which constitute the natural foundations of universal existence, shows how dangerous lack of spirituality and indifference are, leading to the crisis of Man. The priority of economic values over others, in particular spiritual values, led, according to N. Berdyaev, to the fact that “the autonomy of economic life led to its dominance over the entire life of human societies. Mammonism has become the defining force of the century, which most of all worships the golden calf.” Today, not only philosophers, scientists, but also politicians in the leading countries of the world are looking for ways out of the critical situation that is developing in the world. According to the results of a VTsIOM poll dated May 13, 2005, 59% of the Russian population are concerned acute crisis morality, culture and ethics.

21. The relationship between the concepts of “person”, “individual” and “personality”. Human- 1) a subject of cultural, socio-historical activity, representing a unity of biological and social nature; 2) a creature with the gift of thinking and speech, the ability to create tools and use them in the process of social labor. Ch. is a being that arose in a collective, reproduces and develops in a collective. Historically established norms of law, morality, everyday life, rules of thinking and language, aesthetic tastes shape human behavior and mind, make individual person representative of a certain way of life, culture and psychology. It is the elementary unit of various groups and communities. The significance and role of man in society are immeasurable, since he is not only an object of influence of the surrounding world, but also its subject, that is, he is a great creative force that changes nature, society and thinking.

Individual: An individual, a separately existing organism or an individual person, as a representative of the human race.

An individual representative of a social group, society, people. A person from the moment of birth is an individual, an individual is not “one”, but “one of” human society. The concept emphasizes a person’s dependence on society. An individual is a person who has characteristics unique to him, both external and internal.

Personality- the individual himself as an active subject of social relations and purposeful activity, as well as the systemic quality of the individual, determined by his conscious activity in the system of social connections and developing in conditions of interaction and communication.

22. Mechanisms of personality socialization. Socialization of personality represents the process of personality formation in def. social conditions, the process of human assimilation of social experience, during the cat. a person transforms social experience into your system of behavior, those norms and patterns of behavior, cat. accepted in a society or group. 2 phases of social personality: 1. Social adaptation. Adaptations of the individual to the social-eco. conditions, role functions, social. norms, social groups and social organizations that act as the environment for his life. 2. Interiorization. The process of enabling social norms and values in internal human world. The nature of social translation values and norms in internal "I". Determined by the structure of a specific personality, formed by previous experience.

Macro factors, influencing the process of social phenomena. social-ec., social-political. and ideological system, within the cat. formation and development of people take place. To the number mesofactors rel. features of the region, the nature of changes. in time of the cultural environment and those changes, cat. is exposed to environmental influences on a person. Natural environment. Microfactors They reveal the influence on the mechanisms of personality development from the immediate living environment, family, school, university, and work collective.

Psychological mechanisms of sociality(according to Z. Freud): imitation– a child’s conscious attempt to copy a behavior model; identification– a way of realizing belonging to a particular community; feelings of guilt and shame.

Social and psychological mechanisms: 1. Identification- identification of an individual with certain people or groups, which allows one to assimilate various norms, attitudes and forms of behavior, cat. characteristic of others. 2. Imitation- yavl. conscious or unconscious reproduction by an individual of a model of behavior, experience of other people. 3. Suggestion– unconscious reproduction by the individual of internal experiences, thoughts, feelings and mental states of those people with cat. he communicates. 4. Social facilitation(“relief”) is the stimulating influence of the behavior of some people on the activities of others, as a result. their activity proceeds more freely and more intensively. 5. Conformity– awareness of differences of opinion with others and outward agreement with them. It is realized in behavior.

23. Social status of the individual- this is the rank and position of the individual in the group, his relationships with other individuals; This is a set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are related to age, gender, origin, profession, and marital status. Types of social statuses: 1.prescribed (innate) to a person by the society or group in which he lives: nationality, place of birth, social origin; regulated by a ritual showing the transition to another social status (for example, wedding ceremony: the transition of a person from single status to married status); 2. the status achieved (acquired) by a person, thanks to his own efforts, capabilities over a defined period of time: profession, education (i.e., associated with the activity of the subject in acquiring it), for example: a worker of an enterprise became a director - the status of a manager; 3. personal - determining the position of the subject in the system interpersonal relationships, depending on the recognition of his personal qualities (especially in small group); Social status influences human behavior --> knowing the status, you can determine most qualities and predict actions.

24. Social role, its connection with social personality status. Social role is a pattern of behavior recognized as appropriate for people of a given status in a given society; (a person’s action within the framework of his rights, privileges, responsibilities, i.e. social status). 2 types of social role: 1 formal (enshrined in legislation); 2 informal. Main roles: 1 role of a worker; 2 the role of the owner; 3 role of the consumer; 4 the role of a citizen; 5 role of a family member.

25. Role tension and role conflict. Role tension- a situation in which one social role makes conflicting demands on a person and it becomes difficult for him to fulfill this role.

Role conflict- a situation where a person is faced with two or more simultaneous demands in which the performance of one of the roles makes it impossible for him to perform other roles.

26. Deviant behavior and factors of its development. 1. Behavior that deviates from the moral norms of human society and manifests itself in various forms of social pathologies: alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, crime, homosexuality. 2. Behavior deviating from mental health norms, i.e. the presence of obvious or hidden psychopathy in a person: asthenics, schizoids, epileptics; people with accentuated characters, suffering mental disorders"within normal limits."

The most important factor in this development is deviant peers. The presence of a deviant group: a) facilitates the commission of deviant actions if the individual is internally ready for them; b) provides psychological support and encouragement for participation in such activities and c) reduces the effectiveness of personal and social control mechanisms that could inhibit the manifestation of deviant tendencies.

This creates vicious circle. Deviant actions increase the attractiveness of the person committing them to others who accept this style of behavior; By committing anti-normative actions, a person attracts attention, interest, etc. At the same time, deviant actions increase a person’s need for social approval of the group, especially if he grew up in a normal environment where such actions are condemned.

Anomie- this is the “collapse of norms”, “normlessness”, which characterizes the state of society and its social structures. This is a serious social illness of a society that does not have and does not observe generally accepted norms of behavior.

When considering deviant behavior, one cannot ignore the question of social heredity. Social heredity is not limited to biological processes, but extends to many others, including social ones. Social heredity is associated with the reproduction of both positive and negative aspects of people’s lifestyles. The mechanism of social inheritance is not without contradictions. One of them is that the subject of continuity becomes not only the normal, but also the vicious life experience, which is transmitted from generation to generation through social information.

Finally, deviant behavior is associated with inadequate reflection in the minds of some people of the process of development and functioning of social relations. Two types of such discrepancy can be distinguished. Firstly, the views and sentiments that developed at the previous stage of social development often come into conflict with new conditions. Secondly, in the course of practical activity, ideas arise and are revived that one-sidedly interpret the meaning and direction of transformations.

Moral conflicts can be divided into external (between people) and internal (when a person has a struggle of motives). External collisions indicate a divergence in the direction of values of orientations (up to their opposite), which manifest themselves in public relations as a clash of different moral systems. Nature internal conflicts different. They are determined by the inconsistency of individual moral consciousness. Most often, this is a clash between the motives of public duty and motives expressing group, family, and personal interests. Internal conflicts can develop into external conflicts.

27. Social structure of society. Any society always has a social structure, which means the entire set of classes, strata, social groups, etc.

The social structure of society is always determined by the method of production and changes accordingly as social relations change. Social communities are relatively stable collections of people, distinguished by more or less similar conditions and lifestyles, and more or less similar interests. Societies of various types are forms of joint life activity.

Communities are: static (nominal categories) - for example, by registration; real - the same townspeople, in a real situation; mass (aggregates) - collections of people identified on the basis of behavioral differences that are situational and not fixed; group - small and large social groups. Classes are the basis of the social structure of society. 1. Working class: - highly educated, politically active; - moderately educated (the most widespread type); - workers (they take more from the state than they give); 2. Peasantry: - rural workers; - farmers; - collective farmers; 3. Intelligentsia; 4. Military personnel; 5. Entrepreneurs; 6. Major business managers; 7. State and party workers; 8. Senior political leadership; 9. etc. (students, pensioners, declassed elements, homeless people, clergy...).

28. Marxist theory of the social-class structure of society. Having summarized various views regarding the origin and essence of classes, K. Marx was able to develop a scientific, materialist theory of classes, linking their emergence and existence with the development of material production. The dialectical-materialist concept of classes contains a lot of rationality; it reflects important aspects of the objective development of society. At the same time, this teaching shows a clear absolutization of the role of classes and class relations, which led to a number of major distortions in the socio-philosophical picture of social development.

Classes arose during the period of decomposition of the clan layer. The main prerequisite for the stratification of society into classes was the combination of two processes: the development of productive forces and the social division of labor. This development led to the separation of agriculture from cattle breeding, and then crafts from agriculture, to the emergence of surplus product and private property, which led to the social differentiation of people, which was the basis for the formation of classes. Scientific analysis history of society makes it possible to show that the essence of a class is directly dependent on what place it occupies in the system of social production, in what relation it is to the means of production, and that its social status in society, a way of life, and this in turn determines his psychology and worldview. Since the decisive condition for the life and development of society is material production, it is precisely this that constitutes the real basis for dividing society into classes.

29. Basic provisions of the theory of stratification. Social stratification is the identification of social groups and layers based on certain criteria, such as 1. nature of property, 2. amount of income, 3. amount of power, 4. prestige.

Social stratification of society is a system of inequality and 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. provides a functional description of social structure.

30. Social mobility- a change by an individual or group in the place occupied in the social structure, moving from one social stratum (class, group) to another (vertical mobility) or within the same social stratum (horizontal mobility). Sharply limited in a caste and class society, social mobility increases significantly in an industrial society. Vertical social mobility - social mobility associated with the movement of an individual or group in the system of social hierarchy, including a change in social status. Horizontal social mobility - social mobility associated with the movement of an individual or group in the social structure without changing social status.

31. Features of social stratification in Russia. In the process of development of democratic and market reforms, the social stratification of Russian society has undergone a significant transformation. 1. The very nature of the stratification system has changed radically. In modern Russian society, the formulation of the stratification system occurs on an economic basis, when the main criteria are the level of income, ownership of property and the ability to carry out independent economic activities. 2. A fairly large entrepreneurial layer has emerged, the highest representatives of which not only constitute a significant part of the economic elite, but in a number of cases are also included in the political elite of the country. 3. During the reforms, new prestigious types of activities appeared, which significantly changed the socio-professional stratification system. Thus, the prestige of entrepreneurial, commercial, financial and banking, managerial, legal and some other types of activities has sharply increased. 4. A polar stratification of society has emerged, which is reflected in the growing differentiation of incomes of the population. 5. Despite the significant social polarity of society, a middle class is beginning to form, the core of which is formed by highly productive, proactive and enterprising social categories.

32. Social community, types and basics. traits. Social community is a broad concept that unites various groups of people who are characterized by some identical features of life activity and consciousness.

Communities of various types are forms of joint life activity of people, forms of human coexistence. They are formed on a different basis and are extremely diverse. These are communities formed in the sphere of social production (classes, professional groups etc.), growing on an ethnic basis (nationalities, nations), on the basis of demographic differences (sex and age communities), etc. Historically, the first form of social community was the family and such social communities based on consanguinity, such as clan and tribe . Subsequently, social communities are also formed on other grounds and bear the imprints of a specific socio-economic system. Social communities are characterized not only by the presence of common objective characteristics, but also by an awareness of the unity of their interests in comparison with other communities, a more or less developed sense of “we”. It is on this basis that a simple (statistical) set of people with common objective characteristics is transformed into a real social community. People are simultaneously members of different communities, with varying degrees of internal unity. Therefore, often unity in one thing (for example, in nationality) can give way to difference in another (for example, in class).

33. What types of social traits exist. The main features of social communities can be identified as follows: reality - social communities are not speculative abstractions or experimental artificial formations, but exist in reality, in reality itself. Their existence can be empirically documented and verified; integrity - social communities are not a simple collection of individuals, social groups or other social ones, but integrity with the ensuing characteristics of integral systems; acting as an object of social interaction - social communities themselves are the sources of their development. The formation and functioning of social communities occurs on the basis of social connections, social interaction and relationships. Social communities are distinguished by a huge variety of specific historical and situationally determined types and forms. Thus, in terms of quantitative composition, they range from the interaction of two people to numerous international, economic and political movements.

34. Why are small groups the basis of society? Most of a person’s life takes place in small groups: in the family, gaming groups of peers, educational and work groups, neighbors, friendly and friendly communities. It is in small groups that personality is formed and its qualities are revealed, so personality cannot be studied outside the group. Through small groups, connections between the individual and society are realized: the group transforms the impact of society on the individual, the individual influences society more strongly if there is a group behind it.

35. Social group- an association of people based on their common participation in some activity, connected by a system of relations that are regulated by formal or informal social institutions. Signs of a social group: 1) presence of internal organization; 2) general (group) goal of the activity; 3) group forms of social control; 4) samples (models) of group activities; 5) intense group interactions. Definition social group includes four main points:

social interaction- that is, communicative interaction carried out using sign systems (“codes”);

stigma- “pasting labels” by which we recognize membership in a group, formed into a social gestalt (an image in the mass consciousness) - the lifestyle of a given group; identification- identification by an individual of himself with a given group through the opposition “we - others” with the establishment of social boundaries and filters at “input-output” (and the implementation of “reflexive monitoring”, according to E. Giddens); habitualization- that is, “habituation” (according to P. Bourdieu), the individual’s mastery of a given social position and the formation of attitudes and stereotypes inherent in this group. Stand out large, medium and small social groups. Large social groups (in addition to classes) include aggregates of people that exist on the scale of society as a whole: these are social strata, professional groups, ethnic communities (nations, nationalities), age groups(youth, pensioners), etc. Awareness of belonging to a social group and, accordingly, its interests as one’s own occurs gradually, as organizations are formed that protect the interests of the group (for example, the struggle of workers for their rights and interests through workers’ organizations). Medium social groups include production associations of enterprise workers and territorial communities. Diverse small groups include groups such as family, friendly companies, neighborhood communities. They are also distinguished by certain family contacts with each other.

36. Social institution- a set of norms, regulations and requirements related to a certain organizational structure, through which society controls and regulates the activities of people in the most important spheres of public life.

Social institutions are: property, state, political parties, family, church, labor organizations, educational institutions, science, and the media.

Social Institute(Latin institutum - establishment, establishment) - a system of restrictions created by people, the implementation of which is supported by coercive mechanisms. Coercive mechanisms can include both sanctions for non-compliance with rules and various incentives for following them. Sanctions and incentives can be both material and non-material in nature.

Also social institution can be defined as: a set of persons, organizations, institutions, material resources that provide a certain social need through the functioning of a system of mutually agreed upon, purposefully oriented standards of behavior; a stable set of norms, rules and symbols that regulate any aspect of human life and organize them into a system of roles and statuses. Institutions can be classified according to various criteria: formal and informal; legal and illegal.

37. Basic institutions in the main. spheres of life of the company: property, state, political parties, family, church, labor organizations, educational institutions, science, media.

38.What are the consequences of excessive dependence and excessive autonomy of social institutions. The fact that the main institutions of socialization do not form a single hierarchical system significantly increases the autonomy of the individual from each of them separately, and this autonomy is objectively necessary for the formation of a flexible, creative personality capable of independently making decisions, resisting external pressure, etc. At the same time, autonomy also contains the possibility of social anomalies, deviant behavior, etc. In order to coordinate the efforts of these institutions, you need to clearly understand the capabilities and development trends of each of them .The social institution thus determines the orientation of social activity and social relations through a mutually agreed upon system of purposefully oriented standards of behavior. Their emergence and grouping into a system depend on the content of the tasks being solved by the social institution. Each such institution is characterized by the presence of an activity goal, specific functions that ensure its achievement, a set of social positions and roles, as well as a system of sanctions that ensure the encouragement of desired behavior and the suppression of deviant behavior.

As already noted in one of the previous chapters, religion plays an important role in the formation of national identity and, accordingly, political culture. The USA and Russia are also no exception to this rule.

In the chapter on the political culture of the United States, it was shown that in this country, until independence was won, and in subsequent decades, Protestantism in the Puritan interpretation occupied a dominant position. It is from Protestantism that many authors derive the basic values, ideas, principles of liberalism, political democracy and the rule of law.

At the same time, other authors are looking for in Puritanism the roots of the anti-democratic components of the “culture of Americanism”, the extreme manifestations of which were the so-called Salem witch hunts of colonial times, accused of witchcraft, connections with devilish forces and often sentenced to hanging or burning at the stake, as well as Ku Klux Klan, vigilantism, neutralism and other right-wing radical movements and ideological and political movements.

Of key importance for the formation of national identity and political culture of the American people is the fact that the spiritual life of American society is characterized by exceptional religious diversity and religious freedom. In the United States, the church is an institution of civil society. Naturally, there is no state religion here.

These characteristics were manifested in the coexistence of many Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and subsequently other faiths. This is understandable, given that the Protestant idea has taken hold in the United States, according to which faith is a personal matter for each individual believer, the result of his individual choice.

America remains one of the most religious among industrialized democracies today. This is evidenced by the fact that a citizen who publicly declares that he is an unbeliever or an atheist cannot succeed in trying to win any public office through elections, at least in the highest echelons of power.

It is also impossible not to note the fact that religion in the United States is characterized by extreme grounding, focus on secular, this-worldly problems, and its use as, in the words of the famous American historian R. Hofstadter, “something useful in life.” A kind of “gospel of business” was developed, proclaiming the slogan “Selling religion is the main business of the church.”

In this area, the situation in Russia was completely different. Of course, it is a multi-confessional country where various denominations of Protestantism, Catholicism, Sunni and Shiite Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. coexist side by side. With all this, the Orthodox Church, as indicated in the corresponding chapter, played the role of one of the key institutions, had a profound impact on the mentality and spiritual appearance Russian people. It served as one of the supporting pillars on which the identity of Russia, the national self-awareness of its peoples, the ideas of its greatness, scale, patriotism and devotion to the fatherland - Mother Rus', about special way Russia, etc. Moreover, faith in Orthodoxy and devotion to it were considered the true criterion of “Russianness.”

In Western Europe, the Catholic Church managed to take precedence over the state throughout the Middle Ages. In the Byzantine Empire, throughout its history until the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the principle of erastianism continued to operate, according to which the church remained subordinate to the emperors. Continuing this tradition, the Moscow Grand Dukes, as the centralized state and their power strengthened, step by step subordinated the Russian Orthodox Church to their control.

As shown in the corresponding chapter, the Church was eventually elevated to the rank of government agency. As a result of one of important features Russian Empire became the merger of church and state, the church turned into state institute, rigidly built into the system of state power.

In the previous two chapters it was shown that what is common to the national identity and, accordingly, the political culture of the peoples of both the United States and Russia is the idea of exclusivity and messianism. It was on this idea that, to a large extent, this essentially special phenomenon of the 20th century was based, such as the ideologization of not only domestic policy, but also foreign policy strategy.

It's obvious that everyone great people who created his own nation state, forms its own national idea, the main purpose of which is to determine the national-state identity among other nations. An integral component of such an idea is the belief in the exclusivity and messianic destiny of the corresponding people.

Often the formation of a particular nation and its entry into the historical arena is justified by references to divine providence. In search of arguments, they often turn to the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud and other holy books, especially those places where it is said that God not only rules the world, but also chooses from among all nations only one people to whom he sends his grace. The extreme forms of this myth assign other peoples and countries only the role of a background against which the history of God's chosen people unfolds.

The peculiarity of the ideas of exclusivity and messianism is that the idea of chosenness is inseparable from the desire to become an example for other peoples, to teach them how to live, to impose on them their values and ideas about life. Historical experience shows that in one variation or another they were characteristic of many strong nations, especially during periods of their ascent.

From this point of view, the United States of America and Russia are no exception, which developed, respectively, American and Russian/Russian ideas, which during the period of the bipolar world order served as the basis for the ideologization of the foreign policy strategy of the two superpowers. In this vein, two specific phenomena opposing each other were formed and successfully used in the form of, respectively, anti-Americanism and anti-Sovietism. They had a significant influence on the political orientations, behavior, likes and dislikes of the two peoples, and their political culture.

Nowadays, if the new Russia, in general, has abandoned ideology both in its domestic and especially in its foreign policy strategy, the same cannot be said about the United States for a number of reasons. After the collapse of the USSR and the bipolar world order, which led to the disappearance of the main enemy from the geopolitical arena, Washington is looking for new enemies to justify its hegemonic positions in the world, the unipolar world order, and the policy of exporting the so-called democratic revolution. The result of this policy was aggressive wars in the Middle East, color revolutions that brought a number of states to the brink of collapse.

In this context, one cannot help but pay attention to such features of the mentality of the American and Russian peoples, which shed light on their differences. Thus, the Russian people did not and do not shy away from self-criticism, sometimes reaching the point of self-flagellation. He is always to blame in his own eyes. From him all and sundry, however, he himself demands repentance for his history.

As for the Western man in general and the American in particular, he does not feel guilty either for himself, or for his ancestors, or for his actions, or for the history of the country. He, as I.V. Kireevsky noted, “is almost always satisfied with his moral state.” For example, an American firmly believes in the inviolability and self-evidence of America's moral standards and demands that everyone follow these standards. A well-known former senator from the state of Arkansas eloquently spoke about this, giving his book, which gained wide popularity including in our country, the title “The Conceit of Power” ( The Arrogance of Power).

A clear idea of this can be obtained from the example of Ivan the Terrible, who in the works of both Western and a number of domestic historians appears as a unique, incomparable despot, tyrant and executioner. This does not always take into account the fact that Ivan the Terrible was a man of his time, and he differed from his contemporaries - the rulers of Western countries, such as Philip II, Henry VII, Charles IX and others, each of whom shed more blood than his subjects than the Russian Tsar.

Here it should be emphasized that Ivan the Terrible repented of his actions, which was by no means typical of Western rulers of that time. However, these days the first President Russian Federation, voluntarily leaving his post, publicly repented before Russian people for failing to adequately address a number of problems facing society. Such behavior can hardly be expected from the current leaders of Western countries.