18. Marxist theory of classes and class structure of society

The presence of classes in society is currently recognized by most sociologists; in Marxist sociology, the first and leading place is given to the social class structure of society. The central, main element of this structure is classes. Classes were formed at a certain stage in the development of society and became a consequence of the inequality of people in society. The concept of “classes” was first introduced at the beginning of the 19th century, and was widely used by scientists F. Guizot, O. Thierry, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, but the most complete and developed doctrine of classes and class struggle was presented in Marxism. K. Marx and F. Engels substantiated the economic reasons for the emergence and functioning 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 exploitation and appropriation of the results of labor of some classes by others is a manifestation of class relations in society. Classes are formed in two ways - by separating the clan community from the exploitative elite, which initially consisted of the clan nobility, and by enslaving prisoners of war and impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into insurmountable debt obligations.

For the first time he used an economic approach to classes and defined them in his work “The Great Initiative” by V.I. Lenin. According to Marxism, classes are divided into basic− those whose existence follows from the prevailing relations in a given socio-economic formation (property relations): slaves and slave owners (for a slave-owning system); peasants and feudal lords (for the feudal system); proletarians and bourgeoisie (for the capitalist system), and not basic− the remnants of the previous classes in the new socio-economic formation and the resurgent classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation.

Thus, according to Marxism, classes are developing large groups of people. Their fundamental social interests are those that determine their existence and position in society.

In foreign sociology, different bases are used to distinguish classes:

inequality of living conditions;

income level;

privilege;

attitude to power;

belonging to a certain group;

• access to information, etc.

The main features in determining classes are the attitude to the means of production and the method of obtaining income.

In modern Western society, most sociologists distinguish three main classes:

class of owners of economic resources;

middle class;

lower class.

19. Social communities are the main component of social structure

A social community is a collection of people characterized by the conditions of their life that are common to a given group of interacting individuals; belonging to historically established territorial entities, belonging of the studied group of interacting individuals to one or another social institution.

The most important condition for the emergence of social communities is solidarity - unanimity, awareness of commonality with the interests of other people. At the same time, the level of solidarity in different types of communities, as we will see below, can manifest itself in different ways.

Functionally, social communities direct the actions of their members to achieve group goals. The social community ensures the coordination of these actions, which leads to an increase in its internal cohesion. The latter is possible thanks to patterns of behavior, norms that define relationships within this community, as well as socio-psychological mechanisms that guide the behavior of its members.

Among the many types of social communities, such as family, work collective, groups of joint leisure activities, as well as various socio-territorial communities (village, small town, large cities, region, etc.) are of particular importance in terms of influencing behavior. . Let's say, the family socializes young people in the course of their mastering the norms of social life, forms a sense of security in them, satisfies the emotional need for shared experiences, prevents psychological imbalance, helps to overcome the state of isolation, etc.

The territorial community and its state also influence the behavior of its members, especially in the sphere of informal contacts. Professional groups, in addition to the opportunity to resolve purely professional issues, form a sense of labor solidarity among members, provide professional prestige and authority, and control people’s behavior from the standpoint of professional morality.

Social community is the main category of sociology. A social community is not a simple sum of individuals and not any group of people, but a more or less stable and holistic social formation, the subjects of which are united by a common interest and interact with each other. It is thanks to such interaction that social relations are formed, the social area is distinguished in society, and each person acquires his own social quality. Social community covers all types and forms of social existence of an individual, who usually belongs to various social communities and plays different social roles in them. It mediates the relationship and interaction of the individual and society. The category “social community” adequately reflects and especially highlights the subject-active side of phenomena and processes that are social in nature, which is extremely important for understanding the essence and specifics of sociology.

By type of social community differ in spatiotemporal scales (for example, the planetary community of people and their state communities; settlement communities of different scales; sociodemographic communities) and the content of the interests that unite them (for example, social-class, socio-professional, ethno-national and other communities).

Properties of social communities:

1) the presence of a common goal of activity or the coincidence of goals of the people making up the community;

2) the presence of uniform rules and norms shared by all participants in the community;

3) solidary social interactions of partners, due to the presence of coinciding goals and common norms.

Typology of social communities:

1. Depending on the level of solidarity:

1) sets in which imaginary solidarity is embodied (in the absence of mutual social actions, there are coinciding goals, interests, etc.). Set forms:

b) aggregation (unification of people spatially located in one place): passengers of one train, visitors of one supermarket, etc.;

c) masses (characterized by similar (homogeneous), but not social actions): people fleeing from a real or fictitious threat (a similar action is panic); people who strive to wear the same clothes (a similar action is following fashion), etc.;

2) contact communities in which real, but, as a rule, short-term solidarity is embodied. Their forms:

a) audiences – one-time, relatively short-term (from several minutes to several hours) interactions between the lecturer (singer, actor, etc.) and listeners;

b) crowds - communities of people united by the momentary present (varieties of crowds: random (onlookers at a fire), conditioned (queuing for tickets), active (rebels));

c) social circles - communities of people of the same social status who have gathered together to satisfy their social needs (for communication, caring for others, recognition, prestige, etc.): a meeting of friends, a conference of scientists, a school ball, etc. (social circles often become the basis for the formation of group communities);

3) group communities in which institutionalized (long-term, stable, determined by norms, customs, etc.) solidarity is embodied (5.2).

2 . By number:

1) dyads (interaction of two people);

2) small communities (include from 3 to several dozen people);

3) large communities (from hundreds to thousands of people);

4) super-communities (include tens of thousands and millions of people); 5) the entire world community.

3 . By lifetime:

1) short-term (exist from several minutes to several hours: the audience of a specific event, passengers of an intercity bus);

2) long-term (exist from several days to several years: enterprise teams, military units);

3) long-term (exist from several decades to centuries and millennia: territorial, ethnic communities, nations).

4. According to the density of connections between individuals:

1) closely knit (organizations);

2) amorphous formations (football club fans, beer drinkers).

5. According to the basic system-forming feature:

1) territorial (Far Eastern community),

2) ethnic (Russian),

3) demographic (youth, women),

4) cultural (subcultural), etc.

In social psychology at the beginning of the twentieth century. Another understanding of social communities has emerged. The most famous representatives of this trend - G. Tarde and G. Le Bon - argue that all associations of people can be designated by the concept of a crowd. In their opinion, a crowd is not only a spontaneous, unorganized accumulation of individuals, but also a more or less structured, organized association of people.

G. Le Bon identifies the following types of crowds:

1) heterogeneous, including a) anonymous (street crowd) and b) non-anonymous (parliamentary assembly);

2) homogeneous, including a) sects (political, religious) and b) castes (military, workers);

3) classes (bourgeoisie, merchants).

Thus, there are different interpretations of the concept of social community and diverse types of communities. In sociology, the type of group communities (social groups) has been most deeply studied, and this is not accidental.

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 social structure of society”

Completed by: Moldabaev Arman 237 OM

Checked by: Abdrkhimova S.E.

Astana 2013

Plan

Introduction

1. Understanding of the term “classes” in Marx

2. A narrow approach to understanding K. Marx’s class theory

3. A broad approach to understanding Marx’s class theory

4. Social stratification

5. The concept of 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 occupying certain positions (status) and performing certain social functions (roles), the unification of these individuals based on their status characteristics into groups, socio-territorial, ethnic and other communities, etc. Social structure expresses the objective division of society into communities, roles, layers, groups, etc., indicating the different positions 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. Understanding of the term “classes” in Marx

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, one can conclude that this is the main theme of his writings. And although the word “class” appears in most of his works, K. Marx never explored the issue systematically. He did not leave a coherent theory to his descendants, 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 reached 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 that in one way or another relate 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, independent farmers, and petty nobility (junkers) are called 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 personifies a certain group in the national economy of a given country, for example, in large-scale industry and agriculture, which is not the case talk about classes. He classifies both the bourgeoisie as a whole and its layers, namely the financial aristocracy, industrial bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, etc. Class refers to the petty bourgeoisie, peasantry, workers, etc.

2. A narrow approach to understanding the class theory of K. Marx

Since Marx did not precisely indicate the criteria for class formation, experts find it difficult to give an unambiguous interpretation of his theory. Nevertheless, his theory of classes can be reconstructed using all of his writings, as well as the works he prepared together with F. Engels, and the works written by Engels after Marx's death. In order to get a general idea of ​​his theory, it has to be reconstructed from various fragments scattered throughout the works of different years. To correctly understand Marx’s class theory, one must pay attention not to the verbal form, but to the socio-economic content hidden beneath it, which is revealed through the use of the method of sociological reconstruction of the worldview. This is precisely what allows us to carry out a logical reconstruction of Marx’s theory.

Such a reconstruction allows us to assert that, firstly, Marx analyzed classes through their relationship to ownership of capital and means of production. His class-forming basis was economics, i.e. nature and method 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 common interests of people and the role of psychological factors. Secondly, he distinguished two main classes - bourgeoisie(owners of means of production) and proletariat(subjects of hired labor receiving wages). Within the two main classes into which any society is divided, there are many separate groups. Thirdly, class, based on the entire body of Marx's works, can be characterized as a number of people occupying the same position in an economic structure. For Marx, this position was based on a person’s relationship to the means of production - ownership 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 characteristics, 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 likely, and this can be seen in the logic of his thoughts, that Marx adhered to not just one, economic, but several criteria for class formation. This means that the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” based the division of people into classes: 1) economic forces(sources and amount of income); 2) social factors(ownership or non-ownership of the means of production) and 3) political factors(dominance and influence in the power structure). In this form, Marx’s class theory resembles Weber’s class theory, which also identifies three class-forming characteristics: economic (property), social (prestige) and political (power). But this is only an external similarity; later we will see that the two theories are significantly different 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 are subordinate, but also because some exploit others. Operation is 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 food, i.e. satisfaction of primary life needs. In other words, they create surplus product. But they do not have the opportunity to use what they themselves produce. Those who own the means of production extract from the surplus product what they call “profit.” This is the economic source of exploitation, as well as of conflict between classes, which usually manifests itself in the form of class struggle.

4. Social stratification

In Marxism classes act as a universal-historical and the main form of stratification that permeates everything formations, all historical era. Marx believed that all societies that have ever existed and exist today are in one sense or another class. What makes classes a universal historical type of stratification is the fact that in all formations there was one of the main features - the exploitation of other people's labor. In all types of society, the owners who make up the ruling class exploit the non-owners who represent the other class. Throughout 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, patricians owned the land, and slaves were forced to work for them, receiving only living wage, primarily food and housing. In medieval Europe, feudal lords owned the land, and serfs performed economic and military duties, paying for a leased plot of land. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie owns enterprises, land and banks, and the proletarians, who have no property other than the ownership of their working hands, are forced to become hired workers. The salary they receive compensates only part of the costs, since it is set at the subsistence level.

However, class as the leading type of stratification underwent a significant evolution and only under capitalism showed itself in its most mature and complete form. In previous formations, it was relegated to the background by other types of stratification, for example, the class type. Marx distinguished between class and estate divisions, but such an assumption cannot be proven, 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 submit to the class type of stratification in certain historical periods because the class-forming factor - attitude to the means of production and free wage labor - gives way, in particular, under feudalism, to another criterion - personal dependence, which is a distinctive property of the class hierarchy. As soon as capitalism gains strength, personal dependence recedes into the background, and free wage labor comes to the fore.

From previous formations, residual classes are preserved in each subsequent formation, as a result of which the class structure of society is not a two-layer structure, for example, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but a multi-layered pie. Marx pointed out that the two main classes of capitalist society are falling apart into “fragments.” For example, within the bourgeoisie there are different industrialists, financiers, landowners, and merchants, between whom conflicting relationships may exist. Industrialists may be dissatisfied with the high rents paid to landowners, and merchants with interest on bank rates.

The proletariat is divided into those who have guaranteed employment and those who do not (the unemployed and the lumpen proletariat), into those employed in industry and in the service sector. In addition to them, there is the peasantry and the nobility, which do not fall into the two-member classification of classes. They have been preserved from previous formations. Peasants and small owners for modern capitalism are atavisms, which, according to Marx’s theory, should die out as capitalism develops. The withering away of intermediate and inherited strata from the past was dictated by Marx’s theoretical postulates of his teaching. The fact is that class struggle only becomes the driving force of history when it is built on the irreconcilable contradiction of two antagonistic classes. The appearance of additional ones prevents it from manifesting itself and disrupts the revolutionary spirit 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, social structure is the structure of society as a whole, a system of connections between all its main elements. With this approach, 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 a basic element of social structure

In sociology, there are a large number of concepts of the social structure of society; historically, one of the first is Marxist teaching. 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, represents the interaction of three main elements: classes, social strata and social groups. The core of social structure is classes. 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 English and French political economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo. However, the doctrine of classes received its greatest development in Marxism. K. Marx and F. Engels founded the economic reasons for 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 occurred in two ways: by identifying an exploitative elite in the clan community, which initially consisted of the clan nobility, and by enslaving prisoners of war, as well as impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt bondage.

This economic approach to classes is captured in the famous definition of classes, which was formulated by V.I. Lenin in his work “The Great Initiative” and which became textbook in Marxism for 70 years.

“Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtaining and size the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.” Thus, according to Lenin, the main feature of a class is the attitude towards the means of production (ownership or non-ownership) that determines the role of classes in the social organization of labor (managers and controlled), in the system of power (dominant and controlled), 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.

Minor ones are the remnants of previous classes in a new socio-economic formation or emerging classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation. In addition to the main and non-main classes, the structural element of society is the social strata (or strata).

Social strata are intermediate or transitional groups that do not have a clearly expressed specific relationship to the means of production and, therefore, do not possess all the characteristics of a class. Social strata can be intraclass (part of a class) or interclass. The first include large, medium,... Small, urban and rural monopoly and non-monopoly bourgeoisie, industrial and rural proletariat, labor aristocracy, etc. A historical example of inter-class strata is the “third estate”, during the period of the ripening of the first bourgeois revolutions in Egypt - the urban philistinism and handicrafts. In modern society - the intelligentsia. In turn, interclass elements of the modern structure can have their own internal division. Thus, the intelligentsia is divided into proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois. Thus, the social layer structure does not completely coincide with the class structure. Using the concept of social system according to the thoughts of Marxist sociologists allows us to concretize the social structure of society, point out its diversity and dynamism.

Despite the fact that in conditions of ideological dictate and the prosperity of dogmatism in Marxist sociology, Lenin’s definition of classes, based not on a purely economic approach, had absolute dominance, some Marxist sociologists realized that classes are a broader formation. Consequently, the concept of the social-class structure of society must include political, spiritual and other relational connections. 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, which they consciously or unconsciously guide in their actions and which determine their objective position in the social system. Social interests find the most general expression of the current needs of representatives of certain social communities. Awareness of interests is carried out during the process of social comparison that continuously occurs in society, that is, comparison of life status with comparison of other social groups. For understanding classes, the term “radical social interests” is essential, which reflects the presence of major social interests that determine its existence and social position. Based on all of the above, 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, and their own “code” of behavior.

Each social community is a subject of activity and relationships. Classes as a socio-political community have a common program of activity for all their members. This program, corresponding to the fundamental interests of this or that class, is developed by its ideologies.

Social strata in this approach are social communities that unite people on the basis of some private interests.

Conclusion

Modern history has proven fallacy some of Marx's propositions. Contrary to his predictions, there was no pauperization (impoverishment) of the working class. On the contrary, as society industrialized, its standards of living increased. Contrary to his forecast, the size of the working class was constantly declining, its wages were increasing, 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 forecast regarding the increasing social polarization in modern society undermined confidence in Marx's class theory.

Lliterature

1. A.A. Radugin, K.A. Radugin “Sociology” 1999 -160 p.

2. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Textbook_2001 -624

3. Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification: Textbook. M., 1995. P. 71

4. Classes, social strata and groups in the USSR / Rep. ed. Ts.A. Stepanyan and B.S. Semenov. - M.: Nauka, 1968.

5. Materials from Internet sites

Posted 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 post-industrial society according to E. Giddens. The 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, city and village 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.

course work, added 05/06/2010


Groups, layers, classes are the most important elements of the social structure of society. The relationship 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. Proposals and recommendations for the formation of a new social stratification and middle class social structure of Russian society.

course work, added 05/06/2010


Study of the social system of society: characteristics and development trends. Basic functions of social stratification. Analysis of contradictions in society. The concept of social structure. Features and attributes of a social group. Types of social mobility.

course work, added 03/05/2017


Sociology as a science about society. The concept of “social system” in the works of ancient thinkers. Elements of the social structure of society. The meaning of 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 social stratification of society. The emergence of classes. Social classification of society. Stratification of modern Russian society. Studying class consciousness: different approaches. "Middle class" in modern Russia.

abstract, added 04/04/2008


Basic elements of Ukrainian social structure. Hidden and obvious 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.

test, added 01/09/2008


The concept of the structure of society, its main elements and dynamics of development. Theories of social stratification. Personal status and prestige as the basis for the stratification of society. Social mobility: group and individual, horizontal and vertical.

Considering Marx's theory, 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 a 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 established as property

Cultural – education

Social – A set of real or potential resources connected by a social network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition, i.e. group membership

Symbolic – prestige, reputation.

9. Theorists of globalism about new social stratification.

Stratification– social cross-section structures that reveal the place of certain social groups in the social system hierarchy (the term is borrowed from geology).

Globalization represents the processes of political-economic and intersocial social interdependence of different societies, due to the extension of powers, actions and interests beyond national borders and state territories, which entails the standardization of the 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 globally rich and locally poor; global economic threat; the new power of the global virtual industry; automation of labor, causing unemployment; the emergence of a class of people who cannot be in demand by modern society due to educational and intellectual qualifications, which generally leads to the undermining of the principle of integration of various life experiences.

Wallerstein and Beck:

The positions of Wallerstein and Beck are to a certain extent opposed to each other. Wallerstein's approach is revealed through such categories as the world system, world community, globalization of the economy. From the point of view of this approach, a new international division of labor with new models of global stratification is currently developing. The “restructuring” of capitalism that occurred 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 determined by state borders; the international division of labor presupposes the creation of global systems of domination and power, a global system of social inequality and global classes.

According to Beck, in modern 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 light of the ongoing transformation processes, thinking and research in the traditional categories of large social groups - estates, classes and social strata - becomes problematic. Beck concludes that “a society that no longer functions in socially distinguishable class categories is in search of a different social structure and cannot, at the cost of a dangerous loss of validity and relevance, be forced again and again into the category of class with impunity.”

Giddens, work “Stratification and Class Structure”. Conclusions:

1. Social stratification means the division of society into layers and strata. Speaking of social stratification, attention is paid to the inequality of positions occupied by individuals in society. Stratification by gender and age exists in all societies. Today, in traditional and industrial 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 divisions are not “officially” recognized, but arise from 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 an individual, it is more likely to be achieved by a person than simply “given” to him from birth. Social mobility both upward and downward in the class structure has very characteristic features.

4. Most people in modern societies are wealthier today than they were a few generations ago. The rich use various means to transfer their property from one generation to the next.

5. Class is of utmost importance in modern societies. Most Western scholars accept the view that the population falls within the upper, middle, and working classes and that class consciousness is highly developed.

6. The influence of gender on stratification in modern societies is to some 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 underwent 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 survived in a number of regions almost to the present day. It existed in the USA back in the 19th century. Slavery is an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. It has evolved historically. The primitive form, or patriarchal slavery, and the developed form, or classical slavery, differ significantly. In the first case, the slave had all the rights of a junior member of the family; lived in the same house with the owners, participated in public life, married free people, and inherited the owner’s property. It was forbidden to kill him. He did not own property, but was himself considered the property of the owner (a “talking instrument”).

Castes– closed social groups connected by common origin and legal status. Caste membership is determined solely by birth, and marriages between members of different castes are prohibited. 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 traders), shudras (untouchables).

Estates– social groups whose rights and obligations, enshrined in law and traditions, are transmitted hereditarily. Unlike caste, the principle of inheritance in estates is not so absolute, and membership can be purchased, granted, or recruited. Below are the main estates characteristic of Europe in the 18th-19th centuries:

· nobility - a privileged class consisting of large landowners and distinguished officials. An indicator of nobility is usually a title: prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, etc.;

· clergy - ministers of worship and church with the exception of priests. In Orthodoxy, there are black clergy (monastic) and white (non-monastic);

· merchants - a trading class that included owners of private enterprises;

· peasantry - a class of farmers engaged in agricultural labor as their main profession;

· philistinism - an urban class consisting of artisans, small traders and low-level employees.

In some countries, a military class was distinguished (for example, knighthood). In the Russian Empire, the Cossacks were sometimes classified as a special class. Unlike the caste system, marriages between representatives of different classes are permissible. It is possible (although difficult) to move from one class to another (for example, the purchase of nobility by a merchant).

Classes– large groups of people differing in their attitude towards property, etc. (MORS). The German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883), who proposed the historical classification of classes, pointed out that an important criterion for identifying classes is the position of their members - oppressed or oppressed:

· in a slave-owning society, these 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, we often talk about classes in the most general sense - as collections of people who have similar life chances, mediated by income, prestige and power:

· upper class: divided into upper upper (rich people from “old families”) and lower upper (newly rich people);

· middle class: divided into upper middle (professionals) and lower middle (skilled workers and employees);

· the lower class is divided into upper lower (unskilled workers) and lower lower (lumpen and marginalized).

Strata– groups of people with similar characteristics in social space. This is the most universal and broad concept, which allows us to identify any fractional elements in the structure of society according to a set of various socially significant criteria. For example, strata such as elite specialists, professional entrepreneurs, government officials, office workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, etc. are distinguished. Classes, estates and castes can be considered types of strata.

Social stratification reflects the presence inequalities in society. It shows that strata exist in different conditions and people have unequal opportunities to satisfy their needs. Inequality is a 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; significant changes are demonstrated by the structure of social stratification. These changes are due to the fact that in the 90s new grounds for the social stratification of society emerged. In Russia, a society began to take shape with a new correlation of classes and social groups, differences in income, status, and culture increased, the polarization of society intensified, and inequality increased.

The specificity of this process is the process of changing 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 management, the justice system, the system and way of life are changing. The process of transformation of Russian society represents many complexly intertwined economic, political and social processes.

The main areas of research on social stratification developed during the development of sociological theory in the twentieth century in modern Russian sociology are studies of wealth and poverty; middle class; elite of modern Russian society.

The analyzed studies devoted to the analysis of the design of the social stratification system allow us to highlight 8 Most Fundamental Approaches to the Study of Social Stratification and inequalities 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. Podoynitsyna, N.E. Tikhonova, O.I. Shkaratana, Z.T. Golenkova and M.N.Gorshkova.

For the most part, these approaches lead to the construction of a sociological theory aimed at identifying:

Firstly, the main criteria for constructing stratification inequality;

Secondly, the profile of the social stratification system;

Third, determine the stability of the social structure;

Fourthly, to identify possible dynamics and trends in changes in the emerging systems of social stratification.

1) T.I.'s approach Zaslavskaya . According to Zaslavskaya, a person’s position in the modern stratification system is determined by his place in the power-state structure and participation in the privatization process. The place of public groups is determined by their role in economic management and 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 recognizes that in the systems of stratification of modern societies, material and economic elements never exhaust all its factors. However, in Russian society, it was the criterion of property and income that acquired a decisive role, which acquired an intrinsic value. 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.'s approach Belyaeva . L.A. Belyaeva notes that in the mid-90s the stimulating role of wages and 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 unequal degrees of manifestation and structure Russian society in a new way during the transition period.

4) M.N.'s approach Rutkevich . The scientist is convinced that Marx's methodology has significant advantages over Weber's methodology. The number of criteria for social stratification is enormous, 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 wealth, that is, movable and immovable property accumulated by an individual or family, bank accounts, securities, since it easily flows into monthly (annual) income and vice versa, as well as the source of income.

5) I.I. approach Podoynitsina . This researcher fully shares Sorokin’s opinion regarding the socio-professional stratification of society, which is that the formation of groups along professional lines is the cornerstone of society. At the same time, in modern Russian society, income level 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 equivalent to the lost status based on job characteristics. A very high level of income is usually 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) O.I. Shkaratan's approach . Calculations carried out by Shkaratan using entropy analysis showed that the most sharply differentiated set of respondents are the following variables: power (measured by the number of direct subordinates), property (expressed through 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 “having additional work” when measuring social stratification.

8) In recent years, another paradigm for the study of social stratification has emerged: multidimensional hierarchical approach Z.T. Golenkova and M.N. Gorshkova. In previous concepts of studying the social structure of Soviet society, the study of objective trends dominated, and the subjective side of sociocultural processes was ignored. This led primarily to the construction of class systems of social stratification. Currently, thanks to research into sociocultural factors involved in the construction of systems of social stratification, a complex model of the class-stratified 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 “Main 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) Approach T.I. Zaslavskaya. According to Zaslavskaya, a person’s position in the modern stratification system is determined by his place in the power-state structure and participation in the privatization process. The place of public groups is determined by their role in economic management and 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 recognizes that in the systems of stratification of modern societies, material and economic elements never exhaust all its factors. However, in Russian society, it was the criterion of property and income that acquired a decisive role, which acquired an intrinsic value. 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-90s the stimulating role of wages and 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 unequal degrees of manifestation and structure Russian society in a new way during the transition period.

4) Approach M.N. Rutkevich. The scientist is convinced that Marx's methodology has significant advantages over Weber's methodology. The number of criteria for social stratification is enormous, 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 wealth, that is, movable and immovable property accumulated by an individual or family, bank accounts, securities, since it easily flows into monthly (annual) income and vice versa, as well as the source of income.

5) I.I. approach Podoynitsina. This researcher fully shares Sorokin’s opinion regarding the socio-professional stratification of society, which is that the formation of groups along professional lines is the cornerstone of society. At the same time, in modern Russian society, income level 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 equivalent to the lost status based on job characteristics. A very high level of income is usually 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) Approach of O.I. Shkaratan. Calculations carried out by Shkaratan using entropy analysis showed that the set of respondents differentiated most sharply the variables: power (measured by the number of direct subordinates), property (expressed through ownership of an enterprise), the presence of other paid work, entrepreneurial activity (an attempt to organize one’s own business). O.I. Shkaratan specifically notes the importance of such a variable as “having additional work” when measuring social stratification.

8) In recent years, another paradigm for the study of social stratification has been emerging: the multidimensional hierarchical approach of Z.T. Golenkova and M.N. Gorshkova. In previous concepts of studying the social structure of Soviet society, the study of objective trends dominated, and the subjective side of sociocultural processes was ignored. This led primarily to the construction of class systems of social stratification. Currently, thanks to research into sociocultural factors involved in the construction of systems of social stratification, a complex model of the class-stratified structure of society has taken shape.

An analysis of Russian sociological literature on the problems of social inequality and stratification allows us to identify 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”, comparative analysis of stratified opposite groups;

Middle Class Research;

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 60s. under the leadership of G.V. Osipov in the Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Gorky regions and other regions of the country, based on the concept of bringing classes together under socialism. If forms of ownership (state and collective farm) did not reveal significant differences neither in property status, nor in power relations, nor in relation to work, then differences in the nature and content of labor come to the fore - area of ​​employment, qualifications - and related to the type of settlement (city, village) differences in lifestyle

. The last category becomes especially important much later - in the early 80s. Its analogue in the 60s. – life and leisure of various population groups, city - village, family, age, income, etc. Scientific and technological progress and labor qualifications 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” was held in Minsk, bringing together over 300 participants. The conference revealed a whole range of problems, essentially confirming the legitimacy of new areas of analysis, but most importantly -“legitimized” the departure from the “three-member division” (working class - peasantry - intelligentsia) . A 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 distinguish the unskilled and those engaged in heavy physical labor, on the one hand, and intellectual workers, on the other. In agriculture, the emphasis is not so much on distinguishing between state farm workers and collective farm peasants, but on identifying groups of low-skilled labor (field farmers, livestock breeders) and highly qualified layer

machine operators. The stratum of the intelligentsia includes middle-skilled employees, highly qualified specialists, etc. Sociological community,, in the central research sections continues research work. Within 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. Social structure was presented as a set of interconnected 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 social structure are being developed and clarified.

Researchers are beginning to widely use government statistics: materials from the statistics of the national economy of the USSR and union republics, and professional accounting. The analysis of these data takes on a sociological-theoretical paradigm.

Research on stratification (under the name of the social-stratum structure of society) and social mobility (that is, social movements, as established in the sociological terminology of that time) is being widely deployed.

A wealth of empirical material was provided by surveys conducted at various enterprises in the country. Under the direction of In 1965, O. Shkaratan undertook a study of machine builders in Leningrad. G The boundaries of the working class are specified as “historically fluid.” The social stratification approach is quite clearly visible here: “... in a socialist society there is an intensive process of erasing class boundaries, groups mixed in class terms emerge population." Following this logic, the author includes in the workforce vast layers of non-manual workers, including the technical intelligentsia. Objecting to M.N. Rutkevich (one of the supporters of separating the intelligentsia into a special social stratum and an opponent of an expansive interpretation of the boundaries of the working class), O.I. Shkaratan notes that the differences between the working class and the intelligentsia, due to changes in the functions of the latter, increasingly appear as a side of intra-class, albeit significant differences. Therefore, he argues, a significant part of the Soviet intelligentsia and other non-manual workers can be included in the working class, and the intelligentsia associated with collective farm production can be included in the collective farm peasantry.

Data obtained in 1963 as a result of a survey of the rural and urban population by Ural sociologists (research director L.N. Kogan) indicated significant differences in cultural needs primarily rural and urban residents. As a result, it is stated methodological principle of multi-criteria selection social layers. At the same time Yu.V. Harutyunyan began larger-scale surveys of the village. The main content of these and other surveys was to identify socially formative characteristics and 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 During these years, work of a theoretical, methodological and empirical nature was devoted - the intelligentsia in a socialist society is understood as a social group, a layer “consisting of persons professionally engaged in highly qualified mental work, requiring special, secondary or higher education.” The authors introduced into scientific circulation the concept "practices", I mean specialists without certified education corresponding to their position. The intelligentsia acquires the features of a special social group; employed in production, but its place in the social division of labor and distribution of material goods is not considered as a class-forming feature.

60s are marked by the rapid development of mental work 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-like” growth 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 in the country, and although the most representative works appeared later, already in 1963, the sociological laboratory of the Ural University conducted surveys of 11th grade school graduates, the process of recruiting specialists from various social groups is being studied, i.e. social mobility.

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. Concepts such as “social mobility” and, finally, “social movement”, “social movements” are used. The latter is asserted as a “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 that name. The book presented research materials covering various aspects of 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 thanks to it, it was possible to identify the specifics of mobility in industrial and urbanized areas of the country, intergenerational and intragenerational social movements.

In 1974 (“for official use,” as was the practice 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. Svastoga et al. Actually the formation of a branch of sociological knowledge, sociology of social structure is taking place.

70-80s: what was discovered research on the “social homogeneity of Soviet society”. The conceptual apparatus of such categories as “social equality” and its relationship with the concept of “social homogeneity” (the latter is considered as “leading” in the system of categories of social structure) is clarified.

The criteria for social differentiation and the conceptual meaning of the terms are discussed: social difference and social unity, integration, differentiation, class, group, layer.

The “main social formations” (workers, peasants and intelligentsia) are studied in particular detail. This term made it possible to combine the meaning of the categories of class and social layer. At the Institute of Sociological Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences, sectors of the working class, peasantry, and intelligentsia were created, united in the department of social structure (headed by F.R. Filippov). The emphasis shifts to. analysis of intraclass differences Nature of work is being considered Differences in the nature of labor become the main criteria of differentiation not only between the working class and employees, but also within them. Thus, in the working class there were three main layers (according to skill level) and a boundary layer of intellectual workers - highly qualified workers engaged in the most complex types of physical labor, rich in intellectualized elements. In addition, it was proposed to divide the intelligentsia into specialists and non-specialist employees. Among the specialists, they are beginning 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 Western literature of that time, the issue of the class of nomenklatura in Soviet society was widely discussed.

A study begun in 1975 in Gorky under the international project “Automation and Industrial Workers” (led by V.I. Usenin) established that the transition from mechanization to automation leads to undoubted changes in the nature, content and conditions of work. 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. A decrease in the proportion of people from peasant backgrounds and an increase in the proportion of people from working class backgrounds was recorded. intelligentsia, employees; the increasing role of industry and regional factors; qualitative changes in educational and qualification levels; differences in the adaptation of young workers in production, etc.

Are going in the same direction higher education research. Survey of higher school students in the mid-70s. in six regions of the country, he discovered significant differences between students of universities of various profiles in terms of “exit” from different social groups, motives for entering higher school, life plans, value orientations, etc. And here again increasing social heterogeneity was recorded.

Another conclusion was that one of the main sources of recruitment for the intelligentsia was the working class.

Thus, if ideological guidelines affirmed the formation of a socially homogeneous society, sociological research essentially refuted them. As a rule, proving growing social differences, sociologists did not openly criticize the thesis of homogeneity, but quoted one or another official document (usually these were references to decisions of the CPSU Central Committee and reports at party congresses), and then considered the problem as such.

A new “programmatic” setting was given by the XXV Congress of the CPSU (1976) in the thesis about “the creation of a similar social structure in all regions of the country, among all socialist nations that are part of a new historical community - the Soviet people.” In accordance with it they unfold research on regional and urban development: social structure of the urban population, differences between large and small cities, migration mobility of the population, urban family, etc. Studies of 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 the characteristics of demography, in the socio-cultural appearance. Among the initiators of studying this issue are Yu.V Harutyunyan, V.V. Boyko, L.M. Drobizheva, M.S. Dzhunusov, Yu.Yu. Kahk et al. Research was carried out in Tataria, 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 prospects for their development were discussed.

However, a predominantly one-dimensional view of social structure still dominates. Criteria such as participation in power relations and prestige were used rather for decorative purposes (participation in public work, professional preferences, etc.). Meanwhile, in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, colleagues of Soviet researchers studied social structure using various criteria and indicators of social stratification, including the criterion of power or the implementation 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 an already formed social structure, but the role of the latter becomes more significant due to the complication of social organization and as production is actually socialized. A bureaucratic apparatus is growing, managing “public property” and using its position as a source of power.

The most de-ideologized sphere was development of research tools for social class stratification, within the framework of 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 work, professional qualification characteristics, working and living conditions, the structure of working and non-working time, etc. were carefully verified.

A notable role in the area under consideration was played by an all-Union study carried out by the Institute of Social Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences together with other sociological centers of the country (headed by G.V. Osipov), entitled “Indicators of 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 fairly high dynamics of social and structural changes, but later society loses its dynamism, stagnates, and reproductive processes prevail. At the same time, reproduction itself is deformed - the number of bureaucracy and “non-labor elements” is growing, figures in the shadow economy are turning into a latent structure factor, highly qualified workers and specialists often perform work below the level of their education and qualifications. These “scissors” on average across the country ranged from 10 to 50% for various social strata.

In Soviet society in the 70-80s. A layer of bureaucracy took shape more and more clearly, which received different names from different authors: nomenklatura, partocracy, new class, counterclass. This layer had exclusive and natural rights, benefits, and privileges available at individual 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 layer was the nomenklatura, which included the highest layers of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She happens to be owner of national wealth, which he uses at his own discretion. The lower class is formed by hired workers of the state: workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. They have no property and no rights to participate in the distribution of public property. The social layer between the upper and lower classes is formed by social groups serving the nomenklatura, who do not have private property and the right to dispose of public property, and are dependent in everything.

In the mid-80s. L.A. Gordon and A.K. Nazimova using materials of official statistics, showed that the changes taking place within the working class are taking place mainly as a result of technical and technological progress, changes in the social stratification structure of Soviet society as a whole. This approach seems to integrate the professional and technological features of labor and the essential features of the social appearance of the worker: working conditions, his social functions, the uniqueness of life, culture, social psychology and lifestyle.

Special place in the second half of the 70s-80s. occupied comparative studies, conducted jointly with sociologists from South-Eastern and Central Europe.

In 1976-1982. an international empirical comparative study was carried out on the dynamics of social changes in the working class and the engineering and technical intelligentsia in conditions of a general slowdown in the pace of development of the socialist countries of Europe, stagnation of the social sphere and the dominance of illusory concepts of “social homogeneity”. Ideas about the disappearance and withering away of social diversity were imposed: in the economy - only one, state ownership, in the social sphere - the erasure of all differences, in the political sphere - the immutability of political structures, one management scheme. International research has identified areas where within-class differences become more significant than between-class differences, e.g. 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 Higher 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 V All-Union Conference on Problems of Social-Class Structure (Tallinn, 1981) the need was stated creating a modern concept of social structure, giving realistic assessments of the trends in the emergence of new forms of social integration and differentiation, because research has 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 through the destruction of old and the creation of new social structures and institutions. The forms and relations of ownership, forms of political power and management, the system and way of life are changing. The process of transformation of Russian society represents many complexly intertwined economic, political and social processes. Based on an 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 the majority of its members.

The analyzed studies devoted to the analysis of the design of the social stratification system allow us to identify 8 of the 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. Podoynitsyna, N.E. Tikhonova, O.I. Shkaratana, Z.T. Golenkova and M.N.Gorshkova.

There are many concepts of social class structure in sociology. Historically, one of the first is the Marxist version. K. Marx noted the merits of his predecessors in describing the class structure: the French historians F. Guizot and O. Thierry, the English political economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo. Studying the nature of social classes, he made the following conclusions:

§ The division of society into classes is the result of the social division of labor, which, in turn, is determined by the level of development and qualitative characteristics of the productive forces (primitive manual labor is incompatible with the existence of capitalists and workers, and machine industry excludes slavery);

§ Every society produces a surplus of food, clothing and other resources. Class differences arise when one group appropriates these surpluses and treats them as private property;

§ Classes are determined based on the fact of ownership or non-ownership of property. In different historical periods, there were different types of property (slaves, land, money capital). All social systems since the emergence of civilization were based on antagonistic (irreconcilable) social classes;

§ The importance of studying classes lies in the fact that class relations involve the exploitation of one class by another. One class appropriates the results of the labor of another and suppresses its resistance. This kind of relationship constantly reproduces class conflict, which is the source of social change in society;

§ There are objective and subjective characteristics of class. The objective socio-economic situation is not always realized by class representatives. Only by realizing one’s belonging and social interests does the “class in itself” become a “class for itself.”

§ 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. Minor ones are the remnants of former classes, emerging classes, as well as social strata. Social strata -these are intermediate or transitional social groups that do not have a clearly expressed specific relationship to the means of production, and, therefore, do not possess all the characteristics of a class. Social strata can be intra-class and inter-class.

This approach to the analysis of classes was recorded by V.I. Lenin in his work “The Great Initiative”. He defines classes as large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production (division of labor), in ownership of property, role in management and organization of labor, size and methods of generating income. The main feature of class is the attitude towards the means of production and property.

An alternative to the Marxist theory of social classes is the approach of M. Weber, who identifies other factors of class inequality. He considers the prestige of social status to be one of the signs of class. Property is recognized as the basis for the formation of classes, at the same time M. Weber emphasized that on this basis groups arise with similar career opportunities and movement towards more attractive statuses. M. Weber paid much more attention to the division within the main classes. For example, he divides the class of owners into industrial and commercial capitalists, the working class into several classes, depending on the type of ownership of enterprises, etc. M. Weber considered the bureaucracy to be an independent class. In fact, he lays the basis of the class structure for a system of stratification, described in detail later by P.A. Sorokin. Modern theories of social class structure are based on the theory of stratification.

Among the models of class structure adopted in modern Western sociology, the most famous is the theory of W. L. Warner, who conducted research in the 30s among residents of provincial American towns, using a complex empirical methodology that included self-assessment of one’s place in the class structure. He identified six main classes.

Supreme-supreme The class consists of representatives of influential and wealthy dynasties, whose fortunes have developed over a long period of time, and whose economic situation depends little on competition and socio-economic changes. They have significant resources to influence government policy.

Inferior-superior The class consists of bankers, owners of large firms who have achieved the highest status through competition and the use of chance. These are nouveau riche, upstarts (“new Russians”), whose political influence is unstable, but noticeable.

High-intermediate The class includes successful representatives of medium-sized businesses, hired managers, prominent lawyers, outstanding athletes, and the scientific elite. They have prestige in their fields of activity, but cannot influence government policy.

Low-medium the class consists of hired workers - engineers (“white collar”), middle and low-level officials, teachers, scientists, small entrepreneurs, highly skilled workers, etc. This class is the most numerous and ensures the social and political stability of Western society.

Higher-inferior The class consists mainly of wage workers (“blue collar”).

Inferior-inferior the class consists of beggars, the unemployed, the homeless, foreign workers and other members of the poor.

Currently, in connection with the structural restructuring of the Russian economy, Warner's class model is widely used to describe the social class structure of Russia by such famous sociologists as T.I. Zaslavskaya, R.V. Ryvkina, A.V. Dmitriev, N.M. Rimashevskaya, Z.T. Golenkova and others.

The traditions of the Marxist approach are also preserved. For example, the intelligentsia is considered as a special social stratum.

Intelligentsia -this is a social stratum consisting of social groups of doctors, teachers, engineers, managers who are engaged in skilled mental work that requires special education . It is traditional to distinguish in the social class structure employees, employed in public, private and public organizations. Some employees are also intellectuals, since they perform qualified work in management, training, etc. The lowest stratum of employees are watchmen, couriers, laboratory assistants, typists, assistants, etc. - are not representatives of the intelligentsia layer.

In the social-class structure of Russia, along with the old classes of peasant collective farmers, hired workers, layers of the intelligentsia and employees, new classes and groups appeared.

Entrepreneurs - a class-like group that risks its own capital to make a profit and is engaged in business in the field of production, trade, finance, etc. Entrepreneurs are called a class-like group (or business layer) on the grounds that the external boundaries of this community are unstable and lack the traditions and social habits characteristic of a mature social class. It cannot be otherwise in a transitional economy, where there is still no free circulation of land, natural state monopolies dominate, and financial crises periodically occur, sharply reducing the number and influence of the class. The share of the big bourgeoisie in the social class structure, according to sociological research, does not exceed 0.3%. But medium and small entrepreneurs make up about 26%. The highest mobility, naturally, is characteristic of small entrepreneurs.

In the 90s, a dynamic social group of unemployed, inevitable in a market economy, emerged in Russia.

Unemployed -these are those who are of working age, do not currently have a job, but are looking for one on their own or register with the employment service. The number of unemployed tends to increase, which is associated with structural restructuring of the economy, bankruptcies and a number of other factors.

Those of the unemployed who despair of finding work join the layer marginalized. The concept of “marginality” is used in economics, psychology, and philosophy. Sociologists understand marginality as the intermediate position of an individual or group occupying an extreme borderline position in a stratum, group, class, society, and therefore not fully included in a given social entity.

The theory of marginals and marginal communities was put forward in the first quarter of the twentieth century by one of the founders of the Chicago sociological school, R. E. Park. A deep interpretation of marginality was also given by M. Weber, who tried to explain the process of formation of new status, professional, and religious communities. In particular, European Protestants, persecuted by official society, with their special work and religious ethics, according to M. Weber, eventually became the main class of bourgeois society.

A marginalized group is located on the border of two cultures or subcultures and has some identification with each of them. A person structurally belongs to any social group, but is not satisfied with the quality of realization of his interests, is in “internal opposition”, and sometimes simultaneously fits into neighboring layers. The marginal layer of Russia includes groups of beggars begging for alms; homeless people who have lost their housing; street children who have lost their parents or run away from home; alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, refugees, disabled people, pensioners who have fallen into extreme poverty, etc. According to N.M. Rimashevskaya, the number of marginalized people exceeds 10% of the Russian population.

That is why it is important to study development trends and status characteristics of marginal groups. For example, the majority of Russian homeless people are men and women aged 40-55, who, as a rule, have a secondary education and good working qualifications. 93% of them are trying to change their lifestyle, but most attempts are rejected by employers. Sociologists note the growth of marginal strata and the trend of general marginalization of the social class structure. We are talking about the blurring of the boundaries of main classes and social groups under the influence of economic crises, falling living standards, the need to earn money simultaneously in various fields of activity, and high social mobility.

Along with marginalization, there is a degradation of the social-class structure as a whole, caused by a sharp drop in industrial and agricultural production. The growth in production volumes that began in Russia in 1999-2000. has almost disappeared. For example, the share of the working class in Russia has fallen from 60% to 35% over the past ten years. The share of engineering and technical workers decreased by a third.

Significant segments of the social class structure are closed to research because they are associated with organized crime and the shadow economy.

The number of certified civil servants is constantly growing, by about one hundred thousand per year, which is a sign of the bureaucratization of society, since the efficiency of public administration does not change. The number of self-employed people, entrepreneurs, and workers in the service sector is increasing. Despite the growth of pensions and incomes of public sector employees, the trend of social polarization of society, the concentration of people at the poles of wealth and poverty, continues. According to sociologists' forecasts, reforms of public services and the elimination of a number of social benefits will strengthen the tendencies of social polarization of society.

3. Stratification theory of the social structure of society (M. Weber’s theory).

4. Additional issue to consider:
Worldview division of society.

Social structure of society
1. Social structure of society: definition, elements and their interaction.

Definition:
Society is a complex organization of interactions and interrelations between people, groups, castes, layers, strata, classes.
The structure of society is a set of large and small social groups, collective and individual relations between them.
A social group is a community (association) of people distinguished on the basis of a certain characteristic (for example, the nature of joint activities, common interests and values).
Modern sociology defines social interaction as a system of interdependent social actions associated with cyclical dependence, in which the action of one subject is both the cause and consequence of the response actions of other subjects.
P.A. Sorokin identified the following elements of social interaction:
- subjects of interaction;
- mutual expectations of the subjects of interaction;
- purposeful activities of each party;
- conductors of social interaction.
Classification of forms of social interaction is carried out on various grounds.
Depending on the number of participants:
- interaction between two people (two comrades);
- interaction of one and many (lecturer and audience);
- interaction of many, many (cooperation of states, parties, etc.)
Depending on the similarity or difference in the qualities of the participants in the interaction:
- same or different genders;
- same or different nationalities;
- similar or different in level of wealth, etc.
Depending on the nature of the acts of interaction:
- one-sided or two-sided;
- solidary or antagonistic;
- organized or unorganized;
- template or non-standard;
- intellectual, sensual or volitional.
Depending on the duration:
- short-term or long-term;
- having short-term or long-term consequences.
Depending on the nature of the conductors - direct or indirect.
Depending on the frequency of repetition and stability, sociology distinguishes the following types of social interaction: social contacts, social relationships, social institutions.
Social contact in sociology is usually understood as a type of short-term, easily interrupted social interaction caused by the contact of people in physical and social space.
Social contacts can be divided on different grounds. S. Frolov most clearly identifies the types of social contacts. He structured them in the following order:
Spatial contacts that help an individual determine the direction of the intended contact and navigate in space and time. Two types of spatial contacts:
Inferred spatial contact, when human behavior changes due to the assumption of the presence of individuals in a place. For example, a driver reduces speed after seeing a poster “There is a video surveillance and speed control system on this section of the road.”
Visual spatial contact, or “silent presence” contact, when an individual’s behavior changes under the influence of the visual observation of other people.
Interest contacts highlight the social selectivity of our choices. For example, if you are attacked, you will look for a person with great physical strength or power.
Exchange contacts. This is already a higher level in the desire of individuals for social interaction. The main thing that is emphasized when analyzing this type of contact is the absence in the actions of individuals of a goal to change behavior or other socially significant characteristics of each other, i.e. The attention of individuals is currently focused not on the result of the connection, but on the process itself.
“Social relations” are sequences, “chains” of repeated social interactions, correlated in meaning with each other and characterized by stable norms and patterns of behavior.
The next type and qualitatively new level of development of social interaction is a social institution.

2. Class theory of the social structure of society (the theory of K. Marx).

Despite the fact that social class is one of the central concepts in sociology, scientists still do not have a common point of view regarding the content of this concept. For the first time we find a detailed picture of class society in the works of K. Marx. We can say that social classes in Marx are economically determined and genetically conflicting groups. The basis for division into groups is the presence or absence of property. The feudal lord and the serf in a feudal society, the bourgeois and the proletarian in a capitalist society are antagonistic classes that inevitably appear in any society that has a complex hierarchical structure based on inequality. Marx also admitted the existence in society of small social groups that could influence class conflicts...
And the minority, the most powerful in society and reproducing itself in the continuity of generations in each culturally unique society on a well-defined moral and ethical basis, is destined for “mosaics”, developed in the direction “from the general to the specific” as more functional and ensuring superiority in the capacity of their bearers over other members of society.

Literature:
Toshchenko Zh.T. Sociology. General course. – 2nd ed., add. and processed – M.: Prometheus: Yurayt-M, 2001. – 511 p. ISBN 5-7042-0893-2 ISBN 5-94227-012-0
Frolov S.S. Sociology - Textbook. – 3rd ed., add. – M.-Gardari
VP of the USSR. Fundamentals of Sociology. Production materials for the training course. Volume 1. - M.: NOU "Academy of Management", 2010 - 412 p.
including:
Sorokin.html
soc_a