Social systems are a collection of social elements organized in a certain way that have goals and means to achieve them. Social systems are the source of processes occurring in society that serve as the subject of scientific consideration. The basis of social systems is made up of social stereotypes, expressed in the form of typical orientations of representatives of individual social groups connected by common interests and goals. Social stereotypes serve as a way of typifying social processes and, as a consequence, an expression of the systemic integrity of communities of social subjects united through the manifestation of this stereotype.

As R. Ackoff writes, “social (public) systems, such as corporations, universities and societies, have their own goals, contain parts (other social systems or animate organisms) that also have their own goals and are usually parts of larger social systems, for example, corporations or nations"

In general, R. Ackoff identifies three types of systems, among which social systems have a characteristic feature consisting in the commonality of target orientations of the system as a whole and its constituent parts.
Thus, we are talking about three types of systems.
1. Deterministic - systems and models that neither the whole nor their parts are purposeful.
2. Animated (animated) - systems and models that as a whole pursue certain goals, and their parts are purposeless.
3. Social (public) - systems and models in which both their parts and they as a whole are purposeful.

Social systems can act as both referential and self-referential systems. Reference systems are those communities within which people consciously or unconsciously compare their actions with patterns of normative behavior in the group, in relation to which they explain the reasons for possible deviations from these patterns. The reference to these patterns constitutes the integrity of individual orientations on the basis of the special quality formed in the course of their interaction. As a rule, reference systems are social groups that easily establish communication links with each other.

Self-referential systems are those communities whose elements are correlated exclusively with each other, which makes them opaque to each other and complicates mutual agreement. Large functional systems (law, morality, economics, politics, religion, science, etc.) act as self-referential systems, the characteristic features of which are autonomy, the ability to reproduce themselves, their own symbolic system, etc.

Social systems act as subjects and participants in social processes. The role of the subject of social processes is to determine the directions of changes occurring in society, consciously resist them, and also to create conditions for behavior specified in relation to these processes. We can talk about three main levels of the subject of social processes that determine the relationship with the object various ways perception and assessment of such changes: personality, social group (community) and culture.

A person, in his pursuit of the goals set for himself, to a much greater extent than any other subject, is forced to take into account the characteristics of specific situations that form the basis of local processes that receive their cognitive actualization only if the process acquires typical features, the formative beginning of which are other individuals. As a system, a person forms around himself a set of symbolic guidelines that create conditions for him to choose the best option for his behavior. The range of possibilities determined by the presence of such a symbolic system sets the range of actions within which the degree of rationality in a person’s actions and the nature of his perception of the changes occurring around him are determined. Each such process is conditioned by the personal participation of an individual in it, who during the period of involvement in it discovers special qualities that crown his social status. The list of such processes includes all social changes associated with the socialization of a person, his interaction with social institutions, aimed at him as an independent unit: training, treatment, change of place of residence, marriage, divorce, choice of profession, etc. The results of such processes can be reflected differently on specific destinies of people and therefore do not always have any connection with each other.

Social groups (communities) form social processes of this type when their source and targeted object of influence are large-scale transformations in society. In relation to them, people display similar orientations that have a common degree of actualization of the problems associated with them. Examples of this kind of processes are: military clashes, stock trading, the electoral process, the system of higher and secondary education, etc. During the implementation of such processes in society, changes can occur that affect the existing communication system in society, transferring it to a qualitatively new level .

Culture is a system of a special type, which is characterized by the presence of a significant layer of material and spiritual prerequisites that serve as a formative factor for such systems. Social processes caused by differences between different cultures have the highest duration and maximum stability in relation to possible regulators. Knowledge of the mechanisms of such processes requires a deep analysis of historical, philosophical and literary sources information about the development of communities, their psychology and production activities.

Introduction 2

1. Concept of social system 3

2. Social system and its structure 3

3. Functional problems of social systems 8

4. Hierarchy of social systems 12

5. Social connections and types of social systems 13

6. Types of social interactions between subsystems 17

7. Societies and social systems 21

8. Social and cultural systems 28

9. Social systems and the individual 30

10. Paradigm for the analysis of social systems 31

Conclusion 32

References 33

Introduction

The theoretical and methodological foundations for the development of the theory of social systems are associated with the names of G.V.F. Hegel as the founder of systemic analysis and worldview, as well as A.A. Bogdanov (pseudonym of A.A. Malinovsky) and L. Bertalanffy. Methodologically, the theory of social systems is oriented towards a functional methodology based on the principle of the primacy of the identification of the whole (system) and its elements. Such identification must be carried out at the level of explaining the behavior and properties of the whole. Since subsystem elements are connected by various cause-and-effect relationships, the problems existing in them can, to one degree or another, be generated by the system and affect the state of the system as a whole.

Each social system can be an element of a more global social formation. It is this fact that causes the greatest difficulties in constructing conceptual models of a problem situation and the subject of sociological analysis. The micromodel of a social system is a personality - a stable integrity (system) of socially significant traits, characteristics of an individual as a member of society, group, community. A special role in the process of conceptualization is played by the problem of establishing the boundaries of the social system being studied.

1. Concept of social system

A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships forming a single whole. Such a system, when interacting with external environment capable of changing the relationships of elements, i.e. its structure, representing a network of ordered and interdependent connections between the elements of the system.

The problem of social systems was most deeply developed by the American sociologist and theorist T. Parsons (1902 - 1979) in his work “The Social System”. Despite the fact that T. Parsons's works mainly examine society as a whole, from the point of view of the social system the interactions of social sets at the micro level can be analyzed. As a social system, one can analyze university students, an informal group, etc.

The mechanism of a social system that strives to maintain balance is self-preservation. Since every social system is interested in self-preservation, the problem of social control arises, which can be defined as a process that counteracts social deviations in the social system. Social control, along with the processes of socialization, ensures the integration of individuals into society. This occurs through the individual's internalization of social norms, roles and patterns of behavior. Mechanisms of social control, according to T. Parsons, include: institutionalization; interpersonal sanctions and influences; ritual actions; structures that ensure the preservation of values; institutionalization of a system capable of carrying out violence and coercion. The determining role in the process of socialization and forms of social control is played by culture, which reflects the nature of interactions between individuals and groups, as well as “ideas” that mediate cultural patterns of behavior. This means that the social system is a product and a special type of interaction between people, their feelings, emotions, and moods.

Each of the main functions of the social system is differentiated into a large number of subfunctions (less general functions), which are implemented by people included in one or another normative and organizational social structure that more or less meets the functional requirements of society. The interaction of micro- and macro-subjective and objective elements included in a given organizational structure for the implementation of the functions (economic, political, etc.) of a social organism gives it the character of a social system.

Functioning within the framework of one or more basic structures of the social system, social systems act as structural elements of social reality, and, consequently, the initial elements of sociological knowledge of its structures.

2. Social system and its structure

A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of qualitatively a certain population elements that are in mutual connections and relationships form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. The essential features of any system are integrity and integration.

The first concept (integrity) captures the objective form of existence of a phenomenon, i.e. its existence as a whole, and the second (integration) is the process and mechanism of combining its parts. Whole more than the amount the parts included in it. This means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements, and reveals a certain “integral effect.” These new qualities inherent in the phenomenon as a whole are usually referred to as systemic and integral qualities.

The specificity of a social system is that it is formed on the basis of one or another community of people, and its elements are people whose behavior is determined by certain social positions that they occupy and specific social functions that they perform; social norms and values ​​accepted in a given social system, as well as their various individual qualities. The elements of a social system may include various ideal and random elements.

An individual does not carry out his activities in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people, united in various communities under the influence of a combination of factors influencing the formation and behavior of the individual. In the process of this interaction, people and the social environment have a systematic impact on a given individual, just as he has a reverse impact on other individuals and the environment. As a result, this community of people becomes a social system, an integrity that has systemic qualities, i.e. qualities that none of the elements included in it have separately.

A certain way of connecting the interaction of elements, i.e. individuals occupying certain social positions and performing certain social functions in accordance with the set of norms and values ​​accepted in a given social system form the structure of the social system. In sociology there is no generally accepted definition of the concept “social structure”. In various scientific works this concept is defined as “organization of relations”, “certain articulation, order of arrangement of parts”; “consecutive, more or less constant regularities”; “a pattern of behavior, i.e. observed informal action or sequence of actions"; “relations between groups and individuals, which are manifested in their behavior”, etc. All these examples, in our opinion, do not oppose, but complement each other, and allow us to create an integral idea of ​​the elements and properties of the social structure.

Types of social structure are: an ideal structure that binds together beliefs, convictions, and imagination; normative structure, including values, norms, prescribed social roles; organizational structure, which determines the way positions or statuses are interconnected and determines the nature of repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning that are currently available. The first two types of social structure are associated with the concept of cultural structure, and the other two are associated with the concept of societal structure. Regulatory and organizational structures are considered as a single whole, and the elements included in their functioning are considered strategic. Ideal and random structures and their elements, being included in the functioning of the social structure as a whole, can cause both positive and negative deviations in its behavior. This, in turn, results in a mismatch in the interaction of various structures that act as elements of a more general social system, dysfunctional disorders of this system.

The structure of a social system as a functional unity of a set of elements is regulated only by its inherent laws and regularities and has its own determinism. As a result, the existence, functioning and change of the structure is not determined by a law that stands, as it were, “outside it”, but has the character of self-regulation, maintaining - under certain conditions - the balance of elements within the system, restoring it in the event of certain violations and directing the change of these elements and the structure itself.

The patterns of development and functioning of a given social system may or may not coincide with the corresponding patterns of the societal system, and have positive or negative socially significant consequences for a given society.

3. Functional problems of social systems

Interaction relationships, analyzed in terms of statuses and roles, take place in the system. If such a system forms a stable order or is able to support an orderly process of changes aimed at development, then for this there must be certain functional prerequisites within it. The action system is structured according to three integrative starting points: the individual actor, the interaction system, and the cultural reference system. Each of them presupposes the presence of others, and, therefore, the variability of each is limited by the need to meet a certain minimum of conditions for the functioning of each of the other two.

If we look from the point of view of any of these points of integration of action, for example, a social system, then we can distinguish two aspects of its additional relationships with each of the other two. First, a social system cannot be structured in a way that is radically incompatible with the conditions of functioning of its components, individual actors as biological organisms and as individuals, or with the conditions of maintaining a relatively stable integration of a cultural system. Secondly, the social system requires the minimum “support” it needs from each of the other systems. It must have a sufficient number of its components, actors, adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of its role system, positively disposed towards fulfilling expectations, and negatively towards things that are too destructive, i.e. deviant behavior. On the other hand, it must maintain agreement with cultural standards which will otherwise either be unable to provide the necessary minimum order or will make impossible demands on people and thereby give rise to deviation and conflict to a degree that will be incompatible with the minimum conditions of stability or orderly change .

The minimum needs of an individual actor form a set of conditions to which the social system must adapt. If the variability of the latter goes too far in this regard, then a “recoil” may arise, which will give rise to deviant behavior of the actors included in it, behavior that will either be directly destructive or will be expressed in the avoidance of functionally important activities. Such inevitability, as a functional prerequisite, can arise abruptly. The latter type of avoidance behavior occurs under conditions of increasing "pressure" to implement certain standards of social action, which limits the use of energy for other purposes. At a certain point, for some individuals or classes of individuals, this pressure may become too strong, and then a destructive shift is possible: these people will no longer participate in interaction with the social system.

The functional problem for a social system that minimizes potentially destructive behavior and its motivation can generally be formulated as an order motivation problem. There are countless specific acts that are destructive because they invade the sphere of fulfillment of the roles of one or more other actors. But as long as they remain random, they can reduce the effectiveness of the system, negatively affecting the level of role fulfillment, but do not pose a threat to its stability. Danger can arise when destructive tendencies begin to organize themselves into subsystems in such a way that these subsystems come into collision at strategic points with the social system itself. And precisely such strategically important points are the problems of opportunity, prestige and power.

In the present context of the problem of adequate motivation to fulfill role expectations, we should further briefly consider the significance for the social system of two fundamental properties of biological human nature. The first of them is the heatedly debated plasticity of the human body, its ability to learn any of numerous standards of behavior without being bound by its genetic constitution to only a limited number of alternatives. Of course, only within the limits of this plasticity can the independently determined action of cultural and social factors matter. This clearly demonstrates the conditioning of genes to automatically narrow the range of relevant factors that are of interest to the sciences of action, limiting it only to those that are associated with the problems of their possible combinations influencing the processes of increase and decrease of genetic directions. The limits of plasticity are, for the most part, still unclear. Another characteristic of human nature in the biological sense is what may be called sensitivity. Sensitivity is understood as the susceptibility of a human individual to the influence of the attitudes of others in the process of social interaction and, as a result, its dependence on perceived individual specific reactions. This essentially provides the motivational basis for response sensitivity in the learning process.

It is not customary to include explicit questions about cultural prerequisites in discussions of the functional prerequisites of social systems, but the need for this follows from the main tenet of the theory of action. The integration of cultural standards, as well as their specific content, brings into play factors that at any given time are independent of, and therefore must be related to, other elements of the action system. A social system that allows too deep destruction of its culture, for example, by blocking the processes of its renewal, would be doomed to social and cultural disintegration.

It can be said with confidence that not only a social system must be capable of maintaining a minimum of cultural action, but also, conversely, any given culture must be compatible with the social system to some minimal extent so that its standards do not “fade out”, but continue function unchanged.

4. Hierarchy of social systems

There is a complex hierarchy of social systems that differ qualitatively from each other. The supersystem, or, according to accepted terminology, the societal system, is society. The most important elements of a societal system are its economic, social, political and ideological structures, the interaction of elements of which (systems less general order) institutionalizes them into social systems (economic, social, political, etc.). Each of these most general social systems occupies a certain place in the societal system and performs (well, poorly, or not at all) strictly defined functions. In turn, each of the most general systems includes in its structure as elements an infinite number of social systems of a less general order (family, work collective, etc.).

With the development of society as a societal system, along with those mentioned, other social systems and bodies of social influence arise in it on the socialization of the individual (upbringing, education), on his aesthetic ( aesthetic education), moral (moral education and suppression various forms deviant behavior), physical (health care, physical education) development. This system itself, as an aggregate whole, has its own prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subjugating all elements of society or creating from it the organs it still lacks. In this way, the system in the course of historical development turns into integrity.

5. Social connections and types of social systems

The classification of social systems can be based on the types of connections and the corresponding types of social objects.

A connection is defined as a relationship between objects where a change in one object or element corresponds to a change in other objects that make up the object.

The specificity of sociology is characterized by the fact that the connections that it studies are social connections. The term “social connection” refers to the entire set of factors that determine the joint activities of people in specific conditions of place and time in order to achieve specific goals. The connection is established for a very long period of time, regardless of the social and individual qualities of individuals. These are the connections of individuals with each other, as well as their connections with the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world, which develop during their practical activities. The essence of social connections is manifested in the content and nature of social actions of individuals, or, in other words, in social facts.

The micro- and macro-continuum includes personal, social-group, organizational, institutional and societal connections. The social objects corresponding to these types of connections are the individual (his consciousness and actions), social interaction, social group, social organization, social institution and society. Within the subjective-objective continuum, subjective, objective and mixed connections are distinguished and, accordingly, objective ones (acting person, law, control system, etc.); subjective (personal norms and values, assessment of social reality, etc.); subjective-objective (family, religion, etc.) objects.

The first aspect characterizing the social system is associated with the concept of individuality, the second - social group, the third - social community, fourth - social organization, fifth - social institution and culture. Thus, the social system acts as the interaction of its main structural elements.

Social interaction. The starting point for the emergence of a social connection is the interaction of individuals or groups of individuals to satisfy certain needs.

Interaction is any behavior of an individual or group of individuals that has significance for other individuals and groups of individuals or society as a whole, now and in the future. The category of interaction expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups as permanent carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, differing in social positions (statuses) and roles (functions). Regardless of what sphere of life of society (economic, political, etc.) interaction takes place, it is always social in nature, since it expresses connections between individuals and groups of individuals; connections mediated by the goals that each of the interacting parties pursues.

Social interaction has objective and subjective sides. The objective side of interaction is connections that are independent of individuals, but mediate and control the content and nature of their interaction. The subjective side of interaction is the conscious attitude of individuals towards each other, based on mutual expectations of appropriate behavior. These are interpersonal relationships, which represent direct connections and relationships between individuals that develop under specific conditions of place and time.

The mechanism of social interaction includes: individuals performing certain actions; changes in outside world caused by these actions; the impact of these changes on other individuals and, finally, the reverse reaction of the individuals who were affected.

The everyday experiences, symbols and meanings that guide interacting individuals give their interaction, and it cannot be otherwise, a certain quality. But in this case, the main qualitative side of interaction remains aside - those real social processes and phenomena that appear for people in the form of symbols; meanings, everyday experience.

As a result, social reality and its constituent social objects appear as a chaos of mutual actions based on the interpretive role of the individual in determining the situation or on everyday creation. Without denying the semantic, symbolic and other aspects of the process of social interaction, we must admit that its genetic source is labor, material production, and the economy. In turn, everything derived from the basis can and does have a reverse effect on the basis.

Social relations. Interaction leads to the establishment of social relationships. Social relations are relatively stable connections between individuals and social groups as permanent carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, differing in social statuses and roles in social structures.

Social communities. Social communities are characterized by: the presence of living conditions common to a group of interacting individuals; way of interaction of a given set of individuals (nation, social classes etc.), i.e. social group; belonging to historically established territorial associations (city, village, town), i.e. territorial communities; the degree of limitation of the functioning of social groups by a strictly defined system of social norms and values, the belonging of the studied group of interacting individuals to certain social institutions (family, education, science, etc.).

6. Types of social interactions between subsystems

The orderliness of social systems is represented in the concepts of “social structure”, “social organization”, “social behavior”. The connections of elements (subsystems) can be divided into hierarchical, functional, interfunctional, which in general can be defined as role-based, since in social systems we are talking about ideas about people.

However, there are also specific features of the system structures and, accordingly, connections. Hierarchical connections are described when subsystems at various levels are analyzed. For example, director - workshop manager - foreman. In management of this type, connections are also called linear. Functional connections represent the interaction of subsystems that perform the same functions on different levels systems. For example, educational functions can be performed by family, school, and public organizations. At the same time, the family, as the primary group of socialization, will be at a lower level of the education system than the school. Interfunctional connections exist between subsystems of the same level. If we are talking about a system of communities, then such connections can be between national and territorial communities.

The nature of the connections in the subsystem is also determined by the goals of the research and the specifics of the system that scientists are studying. Particular importance is given to the role structure of the system - a generalized social indicator in which both functional and hierarchical structures. Performing certain roles in systems, individuals occupy social positions (statuses) corresponding to these roles. At the same time, normative forms of behavior can be different depending on the nature of the connections within the system and between the system and the environment.

In accordance with the structure of connections, the system can be analyzed from different points of view. With the functional approach, we are talking about the study of ordered forms of social activity that ensure the functioning and development of the system as an integrity. In this case, the units of analysis can be the nature of the division of labor, spheres of society (economic, political, etc.), social institutions. With the organizational approach, we are talking about the study of the system of connections that form various types of social groups characteristic of the social structure. In this case, the units of analysis are teams, organizations and their structural elements. The value-orientation approach is characterized by the study of certain orientations towards types of social action, norms of behavior, and values. In this case, the units of analysis are the elements of social action (goals, means, motives, norms, etc.).

These approaches can act as complements to each other and as the main directions of analysis. And each type of analysis has both theoretical and empirical levels.

From the point of view of the methodology of cognition, when analyzing social systems, we highlight a system-forming principle that characterizes relationships, interactions, connections between structural elements. At the same time, we not only describe all the elements and structures of connections in the system, but, most importantly, we highlight those of them that are dominant, ensuring the stability and integrity of this system. For example, in the system of the former USSR, political ties between the union republics were so dominant, on the basis of which all other ties were formed: economic, cultural, etc. The breakdown of the dominant connection - the political system of the USSR - led to the collapse of other forms of interaction between the former Soviet republics, for example, economic ones.

When analyzing social systems, special attention should also be paid to the target characteristics of the system. They have great importance for the stability of the system, since it is through changing the target characteristics of the system that the system itself can change, i.e. its structure. At the level of social systems, target characteristics can be mediated by value systems, value orientations, interests and needs. It is with the concept of goal that another term of system analysis is associated - “social organization”.

The concept of “social organization” has several meanings. First, it is a task force that brings together people who strive to achieve a common goal in an organized manner. In this case, it is this goal that connects these people (through interest) to the target system (organization). A number of sociologists believe that the emergence of a large number of such associations with a complex internal structure is a characteristic feature of industrial societies. Hence the term "organized society".

In the second approach, the concept of “social organization” is associated with the way of leading and managing people, the corresponding means of action and methods of coordinating functions.

The third approach is associated with the definition of social organization as a system of patterns of activity of individuals, groups, institutions, social roles, a system of values ​​that ensure life together members of society. This creates the prerequisites for people to live comfortably and have the opportunity to satisfy their numerous needs, both material and spiritual. It is this functioning of entire communities in an orderly manner that J. Szczepanski calls social organization.

Thus, we can say that an organization is a social system with a specific purpose that unites individuals, a group, a community or society on the basis of a common interest (or interests). For example, the NATO organization links a number of Western countries based on military-political interests.

The largest of this kind of target systems (organizations) is society and its corresponding structures. As the American functionalist sociologist E. Shils notes, society is not just a collection of people, primordial and cultural groups interacting and exchanging services with each other. All these groups form a society due to the fact that they have a common power, which exercises control over the territory delineated by borders, supports and enforces more or less general culture. These factors transform a set of relatively specialized initially corporate and cultural subsystems into a social system.

Each of the subsystems bears the stamp of belonging to a given society and to no other. One of the many tasks of sociology is to identify the mechanisms and processes by which these subsystems (groups) function as a society (and, accordingly, as a system). Along with the system of power, society has a common cultural system, consisting of dominant values, beliefs, social norms, and beliefs.

The cultural system is represented by its social institutions: schools, churches, universities, libraries, theaters, etc. Along with the subsystem of culture, one can distinguish the subsystem of social control, socialization, etc. Studying society, we see the problem from a “bird's eye view,” but to really get an idea of ​​it, we need to study all its subsystems separately, look at them from the inside. This is the only way to understand the world in which we live, which can be called the complex scientific term “social system.”

7. Societies and social systems

It is easy to see that in most cases the term society is used in two main meanings. One of them treats society as a social association or interaction; the other as a unit with its own boundaries that separate it from neighboring or nearby societies. The vagueness and ambiguity of this concept is not as problematic as it might seem. The tendency to view society as a social whole as an easily interpretable unit of study is influenced by a number of pernicious social scientific assumptions. One of them is the conceptual correlation of social and biological systems, understanding the former by analogy with the parts of biological organisms. Nowadays, there are not many people left who, like Durkheim, Spencer and many other representatives of social thought of the 19th century, use direct analogies with biological organisms. However, hidden parallels are quite common even in the work of those who talk about societies as open systems. The second assumption mentioned is the prevalence of unfolding models in the social sciences. According to these models, the main structural characteristics of society, providing stability and change at the same time, are internal to it. It is quite obvious why these models correspond to the first point of view: societies are assumed to have qualities similar to those that make it possible to control the formation and development of an organism. Finally, we should not forget about the well-known tendency to endow any form of social structure with features characteristic of modern societies as nation-states. The latter are distinguished by clearly defined territorial boundaries, which, however, are not characteristic of most other historical types of societies.

One can counter these assumptions by recognizing the fact that societal communities exist only in the context of intersocietal systems. All societies are social systems and are simultaneously generated by their intersection. In other words, we are talking about systems of domination, the study of which is possible through reference to the relationships of autonomy and dependence established between them. Thus, societies are social systems that stand out from a number of others. systemic relations in which they are included. Their special position is due to clearly expressed structural principles. This kind of grouping is the first and most significant characteristic of society, but there are others. These include:

1) the connection between the social system and a certain locality or territory. The localities occupied by societies do not necessarily represent stationary areas that are fixed in their constancy. Nomadic societies travel along changing space-time paths;

2) the presence of regulatory elements that determine the legality of using locality. The tones and styles of claims to conformity with laws and principles vary widely and are subject to varying degrees of challenge;

3) the feeling by members of society of a special identity, regardless of how it is expressed or manifested. Such feelings are found at the level of practical and discursive consciousness and do not imply “unanimity of opinion.” Individuals may be aware of their belonging to a certain community without being sure that this is correct and fair.

Let us emphasize once again that the term “social system” should not be used only to designate clearly limited sets of social relations.

The tendency to regard nation-states as the typical forms of society against which all other varieties can be assessed is so strong that it deserves special mention. The three criteria behave in changing societal contexts. Consider, for example, traditional china a relatively late period - around 1700. When discussing this era, sinologists often talk about Chinese society. In this case, we are talking about state institutions, small nobility, economic units, family structure and other phenomena united in a common, rather specific social system called China. However, China defined in this way is only a small area of ​​territory that a government official declares to be a Chinese state. From the point of view of this official, there is only one society on earth, the center of which is China as the capital of cultural and political life; at the same time it expands to absorb numerous barbarian tribes living in close proximity on the outer edges of this society. Although the latter acted as if they were independent social groups, the official point of view viewed them as belonging to China. At that time, the Chinese believed that China included Tibet, Burma and Korea, since the latter were in a certain way connected with the center. Western historians and social analysts approached its definition from a more rigid and limited position. However, the very recognition of the fact of existence in the 1700s. a special Chinese society, separate from Tibet and others, involves the annexation of several million ethnically diverse groups of the population of southern China. The latter considered themselves independent and had their own government structures. At the same time, their rights were constantly violated by representatives of Chinese officials, who believed that they were closely connected with the central state.

Compared to large-scale agrarian societies, modern Western nation-states are internally coordinated administrative units. Moving into the depths of centuries, we consider as an example China in the form in which it existed in the fifth century. Let us ask ourselves what social connections could exist between the Chinese peasant from Honan province and the Toba (Tabachi) ruling class. From the point of view of representatives of the ruling class, the peasant stood at the lowest rung of the hierarchical ladder. However, his social connections were completely different from Toba's social world. In most cases, communication did not extend beyond the nuclear or extended family: many villages consisted of related clans. The fields were located in such a way that during the working day, clan members rarely encountered strangers. Typically, a peasant visited neighboring villages no more than two or three times a year, and the nearest city even less often. On the market square of a nearby village or city, he encountered representatives of other classes, estates and strata of society - craftsmen, artisans, artisans, merchants, lower government officials to whom he was obliged to pay taxes. In his entire life, the peasant might never meet Toba. Local officials visiting the village could carry out deliveries of grain or cloth. However, in all other respects, the villagers sought to avoid contact with higher authorities, even when they seemed inevitable. Either these contacts foreshadowed interactions with the courts, imprisonment or forced military service.

The boundaries officially set by the Toba government may not coincide with the scope economic activity a peasant living in certain areas of Honan Province. During the Toba dynasty, many villagers established contacts with members of related clans living across the border in the southern states. However, the peasant, deprived of such connections, tended to consider individuals outside the border as representatives of his people rather than as strangers. Supposedly, he met with someone from Kansu Province, located in the northwest of Toba State. This person will be considered by our peasants as an absolute stranger, even if they were cultivating nearby fields. Or he will speak a different language, dress differently and adhere to unfamiliar traditions and customs. Neither the peasant nor the visitor may even realize that both are citizens of the Toba Empire.

The position of Buddhist priests looked different. However, with the exception of a small minority directly called to perform services in the official temples of the Toba minor nobility, these people interacted with the ruling class infrequently. Their life took place in the locality of the monastery, however, they had a developed system of social relationships, stretching from Central Asia to the southern regions of China and Korea. In the monasteries, people of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds lived side by side, brought together through a common spiritual quest. Compared to other social groups, priests and monks stood out for their education and erudition. Without any restrictions, they traveled throughout the country and crossed its borders, regardless of those to whom they were nominally subordinate. Despite all this, they were not perceived as something external to Chinese society, as was the case with the Arab community of Canton during the Tang dynasty. The government believed that the community in question was under its jurisdiction, demanded the payment of taxes, and even established special services responsible for maintaining mutual relations. However, everyone understood that the community represents a special type of social structure, and therefore is not comparable with other communities existing on the territory of the state. Here's a final example:

In the 19th century In Yunan Province, the political power of the bureaucracy was established, which was controlled by Beijing and personified the Chinese government; on the plains there were villages and towns inhabited by Chinese who interacted with representatives of the government and, to a certain extent, shared its views. On the slopes of the mountains there were other tribes, theoretically subordinate to China, but despite this, they lived own life who had special values ​​and institutions and even had an original economic system. Interaction with the Chinese living in the valleys was minimal and limited to the sale of firewood and the purchase of table salt and textiles. Finally, high in the mountains lived a third group of tribes, which had their own institutions, language, values, and religion. If we wish, we will ignore such circumstances and call these people a minority. However, what early periods explore, the more often one encounters imaginary minorities that are in reality self-sufficient societies, sometimes connected to each other by economic relations and periodic interactions; the relationship of such societies with the authorities was, as a rule, reminiscent of the relationship between the vanquished and the winner at the end of the war, with both sides trying to minimize possible contacts.

Discussions about units larger than imperial states should not fall into ethnocentrism. Thus, today we tend to talk about Europe as a special sociopolitical category, however, this is the result of reading history in reverse. Historians exploring perspectives beyond the boundaries of individual nations note that if the totality of societies occupying the space of Afro-Eurasia were divided into two parts, the division into Europe (West) and East would lose all meaning. The Mediterranean Basin, for example, was a historical union that long predates the Roman Empire and remained so for hundreds of years later. The cultural disunity of India increased as it moved east and was greater than the differences between the states of the Middle East and the countries of Europe; China was even more heterogeneous. Often the differences between the main areas of culture are no less noticeable than those that exist between the compounds we know as societies. Large-scale regionalization should not be perceived only as a set of complex relationships between societies. Such a point of view has a right to exist if we use it in the context of the modern world with its internally centralized nation-states, but it is completely unsuitable for previous eras. Thus, in certain cases, the entire Afro-Eurasian zone can be considered as a single whole. Since the 6th century. BC, civilization developed not only by creating centers scattered in space and distinct from each other; in some way, there was a process of constant and continuous expansion of the Afro-Eurasian region as such.

8. Social and cultural systems

In the most significant intellectual movement of all, widespread in English-speaking countries, i.e. In the tradition originating in utilitarianism and Darwinian biology, the independent position of the social sciences was the result of the identification of a special sphere of interest that did not fit within the boundaries of general biology. First of all, in the center of the highlighted sphere was the rubric of Spencer’s social heredity and Taylor’s culture. Viewed in terms of general biology, this area obviously corresponded to the area of ​​environmental influence rather than heredity. At this stage the category of social interaction played a subordinate role, although it was clearly implied by Spencer when he emphasized social differentiation.

What modern sociology and anthropology have in common is the recognition of the existence of a sociocultural sphere. In this area, a normalized cultural tradition is created and preserved, shared to one degree or another by all members of society and transmitted from generation to generation through the learning process, and not through biological heredity. It involves organized systems of structured, or institutionalized, interaction between a large number of individuals.

In the United States, anthropologists tend to emphasize the cultural aspect of this complex, and sociologists the interactional aspect. It seems important to them that these two aspects, although they relate to each other empirically, are analytically treated as separate. The focus of a social system is the condition of interaction between human beings who constitute specific collectivities, with definable membership. The focus of a cultural system, on the contrary, is in semantic models, in other words, in models of values, norms, organized knowledge and beliefs, and expressive forms. The main concept for integrating and interpreting both aspects is institutionalization.

Thus, an essential part of the tactic is to distinguish the social system from the cultural system and to consider the former as the sphere in which the analytical interests of sociological theory are primarily concentrated. However, systems of these two types are closely related.

As noted, the provision of an analytically independent sociocultural sphere represented a through line of history scientific ideas, who were most directly related to the emergence of modern sociological theory. The development of such an analytical concept was very important, but its proponents went too far, trying to deny both the existence of social interaction at subhuman levels of the biological world and the existence of subhuman prototypes of human culture. But once the fundamental theoretical boundaries have been established, restoring the required balance is no longer difficult, and we will try to do this in a more detailed presentation of the material. Ultimately, a single trend emerged most clearly, consisting of an increasingly insistent assertion of the importance of motivated social interaction throughout the scale of biological evolution, especially at its upper stages.

9. Social systems and the individual.

Another set of problems arose in parallel with the basic distinction between the sociocultural and individual spheres. Just as in sociology there was no clear differentiation between social and cultural systems, so in psychology there was an even more pronounced tendency to treat the behavior of an organism as a single object of scientific analysis. The problem of learning was placed at the center of psychological interests. Recently, an analytical distinction has also appeared here, analogous to the difference between social and cultural systems, opposing, on the one hand, the organism as an analytical category concentrated around its genetically given structure (to the extent that this latter is relevant to the analysis of behavior), and, on the other hand, personality, a system that consists of components of the organization of behavior acquired by the body during training.

10. Paradigm for the analysis of social systems

The concept of interpenetration implies that, whatever the meaning of logical closure as a theoretical ideal, from an empirical point of view, social systems are viewed as open systems, engaged in complex processes of interaction with the systems around them. The environmental systems in this case include cultural and personal systems, behavioral and other subsystems of the body, and also, through the latter, the physical environment. The same logic applies to the internal structure of the social system itself, considered as a system differentiated and divided into many subsystems, each of which, from an analytical point of view, must be interpreted as an open system interacting with surrounding subsystems within the larger system.

The idea of ​​an open system interacting with the systems around it presupposes the presence of boundaries and their stability. When a certain set of interrelated phenomena exhibits a sufficiently definite order and stability over time, then this structure has a structure and that it would be useful to treat it as a system. The concept of a boundary expresses only the fact that a theoretically and empirically significant difference between structures and processes internal to a given system and processes external to it exists and tends to persist. As long as there are no boundaries of this kind, a certain set of interdependent phenomena cannot be defined as a system: this set is absorbed by some other, more extensive set that forms the system. It is important, therefore, to distinguish a collection of phenomena that is not supposed to form a system in the theoretically significant sense of the word from a genuine system.

Conclusion

A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships forming a single whole. Types of social structure are: an ideal structure that binds together beliefs and convictions; normative structure, including values, norms; organizational structure, which determines the way positions or statuses are interconnected and determines the nature of repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning.

The social system can be represented in five aspects:

1) as an interaction of individuals, each of which is a bearer of individual qualities;

2) as social interaction, resulting in the formation of social relations and the formation of a social group;

3) as a group interaction, which is based on certain general circumstances (city, village, work collective, etc.);

4) as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) occupied by individuals included in the activities of a given social system, and the social functions that they perform based on these social positions;

5) as a set of norms and values ​​that determine the nature and content of the activities of the elements of a given system.

Bibliography

1. Ageev V.S. Social and psychological problems. M.: MSU, 2000.

2. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. 4th ed. M.: MSU, 2002.

3. Artemov V.A. Introduction to social psychology. M., 2001.

4. Bazarov T.Yu. Personnel Management. M.: Unity, 2001.

5. Belinskaya E.P. Social psychology of personality. M., 2001.

6. Bobneva M.I. Social norms and regulation of behavior. M., 2002.

7. Budilova E.A. Philosophical problems in secular psychology. M., 2000.

8. Giddens E. The structure of society. M., 2003.

9. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

10. Zimbardo F. Social influence. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

11. Ivchenko B.P. Management in economic and social systems. SPb.: St. Petersburg. 2001.

12. Quinn V. Applied psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.

13. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. M.: Politizdat, 2000.

14. Kornilova T.V. Experimental psychology. M.: Aspect Press, 2002.

15. Kokhanovsky V.P. Philosophy of Science. M., 2005.

16. Krichevsky R.L. Psychology of the small group. M.: Aspect Press, 2001.

17. Levin K. Field theory in social sciences. M.: Rech, 2000.

18. Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. Tartu, 2000.

19. Mudrik A.V. Social pedagogy. M.: Inlit, 2001.

20. Pines E. Workshop on social psychology. St. Petersburg, 2000.

21. Parsons T. About social systems. M., 2002.

22. Parygin B.D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. M.: Mysl, 2002.

23. Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history. M.: Nauka, 2002.

24. Kharcheva V. Fundamentals of Sociology. M., 2001.

25. Houston M. Perspectives of social psychology. M.: EKSMO, 2001.

26. Sharkov F.I. Sociology: theory and methods. M., 2007.

27. Shibutani T. Social psychology. Rostov-on-Don.: Phoenix, 2003.

28. Yurevich A.V. Social psychology science. M., 2000.

29. Yadov A.V. Sociological research. M.: Nauka, 2000.

30. Yadov A.V. Social identity of the individual. M.: Dobrosvet, 2000.

31. Sociology. Fundamentals of general theory. M., 2002.

Introduction

The study of any science begins with clarifying its subject, structure, functions, place of role in the system of sciences and the life of society. Over the course of the century, the subject of sociology has continually changed. There was both a clarification of it, this was expressed in the separation of sociology from philosophy, and an increase in the number of concepts of theoretical sociology. There are more than a hundred definitions of sociology. The fundamental thing, with all this diversity, remains that sociology is the science of society.

Social system

The concept of “social system” was used in their works by ancient thinkers. But this concept was formulated more precisely only recently. For the correct understanding and use of concepts, it is necessary to clearly understand what is meant by the categories “system” and “structure”, as well as how they relate to each other.

IN scientific literature There are over fifty definitions of "system". Summarizing them, we can say that a system is a collection of elements that are interconnected and form a single whole. Moreover, the latter acts as a new formation in relation to the distant elements of which it consists, and its properties are not reducible to the properties of the elements.

Thus, the system, on the one hand, is something independent and different from its elements, and on the other hand, it at the same time depends on them. And the elements included in the system, in turn, acquire its inherent properties and behavioral traits. The study of objects and processes using system analysis is the clarification of the nature of system connections as a whole and its interaction with environment; studying the properties of the whole of interest through its structure, as well as detailed consideration the role played by one or another element in this structure. The systemic connections existing in practice are multi-level in nature. For example, it is possible to identify connections both between the elements of the system and between the system as a whole and its constituent elements. And since each system can include subsystems, the number of connections increases. Subsystems within the main system have a certain subordination, therefore, identifying the defining subsystem allows the researcher to reveal the patterns of development and functioning of the entire system.

Social structure

Structure is of great importance in systems analysis. The concept of “structure” (from the Latin word “structura” - structure, arrangement, order) means the totality of the relative position and stable connections of the component parts of an object, thanks to which its integrity and identity to itself are ensured.

Social structure is “a certain way of communication and interaction of elements, that is, individuals occupying certain positions (status) and performing certain social functions (role) in accordance with the set of norms and values ​​​​accepted in a given social system.”

If we try to clarify this concept, it can be presented as follows:

Social structure presupposes:

1) stable connections between any elements of society, stable relationships.

2) regularity, stability, repeatability of these interactions;

3) the presence of levels, “floors”, according to the significance of the elements included in the structure;

4) regulating, initiating, dynamic control over the behavior of elements.

The listed factors are of decisive importance in the creation and maintenance of the entire society and its components.

Thus, social structure is understood as a set of stable connections and relationships between the elements that make up the system, which determine its qualitative identity and structure.

Any society appears not as something homogeneous and monolithic, but as internally divided into various groups, layers and national communities. All of them are among themselves in a state of objectively determined connections and relationships - socio-economic, political, spiritual. Moreover, only within the framework of these connections and relationships can they exist and manifest themselves in society. This determines the integrity of society, its functioning as a single social organism, the essence of which was revealed in their theories by O. Comte, G. Spencer, K. Marx, M. Weber, T. Parson and others.

It can be said that

The social structure of society is the totality of those connections and relationships that social groups and communities of people enter into among themselves regarding the economic, social, political and spiritual conditions of their life.

The development of the social structure of society is based on the social division of labor and relations of ownership of the means of production and its products.

The social division of labor determines the emergence and continued existence of such social groups as classes, professional groups, as well as large groups consisting of people from the city and countryside, representatives of mental and physical labor.

Relations of ownership of the means of production economically consolidate the internal division of society and the social structure emerging within it. Both the social division of labor and property relations are objective socio-economic prerequisites.

The great role of the division of labor in the life of society, in the emergence of various types of human activity, the development of material production and spiritual culture was justifiably pointed out in their time by O. Comte, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, M.M. Kavalevsky and others. A detailed doctrine of the role of the social division of labor in historical process, including in the development of the social structure of society, is contained in the social economic theory Marxism, which also reveals the role of property relations in this process.

The main elements of the social structure of society include:

classes that occupy different places in the systems of social division of labor, relations of ownership of the means of production and distribution of the social product;

city ​​and village residents;

representatives of mental and physical labor;

estates;

socio-demographic groups (youth, women and men, older generation);

national communities (nations, nationalities, ethnic groups).

Almost all elements of the social structure are heterogeneous in composition and, in turn, are divided into separate layers and groups, appearing as independent elements of the social structure with its inherent interests, which they realize in interaction with other subjects.

So the social structure in any society is quite complex and is the subject of attention not only by sociologists, but also by representatives of such a science as social management, as well as politicians and government officials. It is important to understand that without understanding the social structure of society, without a clear idea of ​​what social groups exist within it and what their interests are, i.e. in which direction they will act, it is impossible for them to take a step forward in the leadership of society, including in the field of economics, social, political and spiritual life.

Based on the above, the question arises of how system and structure relate. Since structural connections depend on the place occupied by one or another element, the development of the structure itself is expressed in the interaction of leading elements with secondary ones (the role of a leader in a team). The interaction and development of elements leads to the fact that they become more diverse. This means that any significant change in structure affects the system. The system also influences the structure, but, of course, not directly, but through the elements of the system, it promotes or inhibits their development in any direction.

Thanks to this dialectical interaction, it is possible to clarify the basic patterns of system development. To do this, the meaning of the elements, their place in the structure, and then the most significant connections in the system are first determined. The selected connections are considered in the context of the subordination of systems. As a result, the boundaries of the system as an object of study are determined, and its primary element is identified.

Then the main subsystems and the hierarchical relationship that exists between them are identified. Determining the structure of the system already makes it possible to move on to clarifying the main system connections, which are directly dependent on changes in the structure.

In order to understand how all this happens when studying the social sphere, it is necessary to analyze society as such, that is, as a single whole.

In the scientific literature, they mean an extremely broad community of people, which unites individuals and groups into a certain integrity based on common activity and culture, and a rationally organized form of joint activity of people.

In the Sociological Encyclopedic Dictionary, one of the given definitions of society is as follows: “Society is a relatively stable system of social connections and relationships between people that has developed in the process of historical development on the basis of joint activities aimed at reproducing the material conditions of existence and satisfying needs.” Thus, in the broad sense of the word, society is a historically specific collection of people, which is the product of their interaction in the process of activity. This is a very complex system that has its own internal social structure. For example, the social structure of work collectives is a certain set of socio-demographic (youth, pensioners), social (group, stratum, class), professional and qualification, territorial (city, village) and ethnic communities that are interconnected by relatively stable mutual relations . The main focus of sociology is the study of social structure and ways to improve it.

A characteristic feature of social systems is their human essence and nature. Social systems are both a product and a sphere of human activity. This must be taken into account when considering the structure of society. In all subsystems and spheres of social life, a person, an individual, acts as a universal element. Mutual influence occurs, society produces man, and at the same time man produces society.

The interaction of specific people ultimately forms a social structure. Therefore, social structure is the totality of human relationships, personal relationships between people, and social functions are the result of human activity.

Thus, personality is a universal, initial element of the social system. A person carries out his activities in the process of interaction with other people who are united in various social communities, and not isolated from them. This interaction of individuals turns their sum into a social system. In this case, there is both an impact of the social environment on a given individual, and a reverse impact of the individual on other individuals and the social environment.

The social environment (not in the biological sense of the word) is a certain number of individuals, circles, groups and other communities that a person has to encounter during his life and which influence his behavior. It must be emphasized that the concept of environment is always relative, since even identical environmental systems for two different organisms can be different environments. Ultimately, the impact noted above leads to the formation of a systemic integrity that has qualities that none of the elements included in it individually have.

In a broad sense, social structure is understood as the structure of society as a whole, a set of stable connections between its main functional areas (economics, politics, culture and others), acting as a set of forms of social organization and activity. In this case, its elements are individual spheres of public life and the corresponding social institutions.

In a narrow sense, the social structure of society is understood as the division of society into various social groups, systems of stable connections between them, as well as the internal structure of various social communities.

Depending on the type of social community, scientists distinguish two main levels of structural organization: macrostructure and microstructure.

Macrostructure shows the composition of classes, strata, ethnic groups and social categories characteristic of a particular society, as well as the set of stable relationships between them and the features of their internal structural organization.

The microstructure shows stable connections in small groups (student group, school class, etc.). In this case, the elements of structural analysis are individual individuals occupying certain positions (status) and performing certain social functions (ros). The study of microstructure is very important, since it has a significant impact on many processes of social life (socialization, formation public opinion and others).

The social system is one of the most complex systems of living nature, representing a collection of people, the relationships between them, their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Main generic sign a social system is their human nature and essence, since it is formed by people, is the sphere of their activity, the object of their influence. This is both the strength and vulnerability of social management, its creative nature and the possibility of manifestations of subjectivism and voluntarism.

The concept of a “social system” is based on a systematic approach to the study of ourselves and the world around us, and therefore this definition can be considered both in a “broad” and in a “narrow” sense. In accordance with this, a social system can be understood as either human society as a whole, or its individual components - groups of people (societies) united along some basis (territorial, temporary, professional, etc.). At the same time, it should be taken into account that the essential features of any system are: multiplicity of elements (at least two); existence of connections; holistic nature of this education.

Social systems, unlike others that received the program of their behavior from the outside, are self-regulated, which is internal to society at any stage of its development. As an integral totality, the social system has specific stable qualities that make it possible to distinguish social systems from each other. These characteristics are called systemic features.

It is necessary to distinguish the concept of “signs of a system” from the concept of “system signs”. The first characterizes the main features of the system, i.e. those features of society, a social group, or a collective that give us reason to call a given social entity a system. Secondly, the quality characteristics inherent specific system and distinguishing it from the other.

The signs of a social system or, in other words, society, can be divided into two groups, the first of which characterizes the external conditions of life of a social organism, the second reveals the internal, most important moments of its existence.

External signs .

First a sign of society is usually called territory, on which the development of various social relations takes place. In this case, the territory can be called social space.

Second sign of society - chronological framework his existence. Any society exists as long as it is expedient to continue the social ties that constitute it, or as long as there are no external reasons that could liquidate this society.

Third a sign of society is relative isolation, which allows us to consider it as a system. Systematicity allows us to divide all individuals into members and non-members of a given society. This leads to a person's identification with a certain society and viewing other people as ″strangers″. Unlike the animal herd, where identification with society occurs on the basis of instinct, in the human collective the correlation of oneself with a given society is built primarily on the basis of reason.

Internal signs.

First the characteristic of a society is its relative stability, achieved through the constant development and modification of social connections existing in it. Society, as a social system, can exist only through the constant development and modification of the social connections that exist in it. The stability of a social system is thus closely related to its ability to develop.

Second sign - presence internal public structures. In this case, structure refers to stable social formations (institutions), connections, relationships that exist on the basis of any principles and norms specific to this society.

Third the hallmark of a society is its ability to be self-sufficient self-regulating mechanism. Any society creates its own specialization and infrastructure, which allow it to have everything necessary for normal existence. Any society is multifunctional. Various social institutions and relationships ensure the satisfaction of the needs of members of society and the development of society as a whole.

Finally, ability to integrate, is seventh a sign of society. This feature lies in the ability of a society (social system) to include new generations (systems, subsystems), to modify the forms and principles of some of its institutions and connections on the basic principles that determine one or another character of social consciousness.

I would like to especially note that the main distinctive feature social systems, resulting from their nature, is the presence goal setting. Social systems always strive to achieve certain goals. Here nothing is done without conscious intention, without a desired goal. People unite in various kinds of organizations, communities, classes, social groups and other types of systems, which necessarily have certain interests and common goals. Between the concepts of “goal” and “interest” there is close connection. Where there is no community of interests, there cannot be unity of goals, since unity of goals based on common interests creates the necessary prerequisites for the development and improvement of such a supersystem as society as a whole.

The same object (including the social system), depending on the goals of the study, can be considered both statically and dynamically. Moreover, in the first case we are talking about the structure of the object of study, and in the second - about its functions.

All the diversity of social relations are grouped into certain areas that allow social system identify separate subsystems, each of which performs its own functional purpose. The relationships within each subsystem are functionally dependent, i.e. together acquire properties that they do not possess individually.

The social system can effectively implement its tasks when performing the following functions:

1) it must have the ability to adapt, adapt to changed conditions, be able to rationally organize and distribute internal resources;

2) it must be goal-oriented, capable of setting main goals, objectives and maintaining the process of achieving them;

3) it must remain stable on the basis of common norms and values ​​that are internalized by individuals and relieve tension in the system;

4) it must have the ability to integrate, to include new generations in the system. As you can see, the above is not only a set of functions, but also distinctive features of social systems from others (biological, technical, etc.).

In the structure of society, the following main subsystems (spheres) are usually distinguished:

- economic- includes social relations of ownership, production, exchange, distribution and consumption of material and spiritual goods;

- political- a set of social relations regarding the functioning of political power in society;

- social- a set of social relations (in the narrow sense of the term) between groups of people and individuals who occupy a certain position in society, have a corresponding status and social roles;

- spiritual and cultural- includes relationships between individuals and groups of individuals regarding spiritual and cultural benefits.

When studying any phenomenon, it is important to highlight not only its character traits, distinguishing it from other social formations, but also to show the diversity of its manifestation, development in real life. Even a superficial glance allows one to capture a multicolored picture of the social systems that exist in modern world. Chronological, territorial, economic, etc. are used as criteria for differentiating types of social systems. factors, depending on the goals and objectives of the study.

The most common and generalized is the differentiation of social systems in accordance with the structure of social activity and social relations, for example, in such spheres of social life as material and production, social (in the narrow sense), political, spiritual, family and everyday life. The listed main spheres of public life are divided into private areas and their corresponding systems. All of them form a multi-level hierarchy, the diversity of which is due to the complexity of society itself. Society itself is a social system of the highest complexity, which is in constant development.

Without dwelling in detail on the types of social systems and their characteristics (since this is not the scope of this course), we will only note that the system of internal affairs bodies is also one of the types of social systems. We will dwell on its features and structure below.

Each of the main functions of the societal system is differentiated into a large number of subfunctions (less general functions), which are implemented by people included in one or another normative and organizational social structure that more or less meets (or, conversely, contradicts) the functional requirements of society. The interaction of micro- and macro-subjective and objective elements included in a given organizational structure for the implementation of the functions (economic, political, etc.) of a social organism gives it the character of a social system.

Functioning within the framework of one or more basic structures of the societal system, social systems act as structural elements of social reality, and, consequently, the initial elements of sociological knowledge of its structures.

Social system and its structure. A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. The essential features of any system are integrity and integration.

The first concept (integrity) captures the objective form of existence of a phenomenon, i.e. its existence as a whole, and the second (integration) is the process and mechanism of combining its parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements, and reveals a certain “integral effect.” These new qualities inherent in the phenomenon as a whole are usually designated as systemic or integral qualities.

The specificity of a social system is that it is formed on the basis of one or another community of people (social group, social organization, etc.), and its elements are people whose behavior is determined by certain social positions (statuses) that they occupy, and specific social functions (roles) that they perform; social norms and values ​​accepted in a given social system, as well as their various individual qualities. The elements of a social system may include various ideal (beliefs, ideas, etc.) and random elements.

An individual does not carry out his activities in isolation, but in the process of interaction with other people united in various communities under the influence of a combination of factors influencing the formation and behavior of the individual.

In the process of this interaction, people and the social environment have a systematic impact on a given individual, just as he has a reverse impact on other individuals and the environment. As a result, this community of people becomes a social system, an integrity that has systemic qualities, that is, qualities that none of the elements included in it separately have

A certain way of connecting the interaction of elements, i.e., individuals occupying certain social positions (statuses) and performing certain social functions (roles) in accordance with the set of norms and values ​​accepted in a given social system, form the structure of the social system. In sociology there is no generally accepted definition of the concept “social structure”. In various scientific works this concept is defined as “organization of relations”, “certain articulation, order of arrangement of parts”; “consecutive, more or less constant regularities”; “a pattern of behavior, i.e., an observed informal action or sequence of actions”; “essential, in-depth, defining conditions”, “characteristics more fundamental than others, superficial”, “the arrangement of parts that controls the entire diversity of the phenomenon”, “relations between groups and individuals that manifest themselves in their behavior”, etc. All these definitions , in our opinion, do not oppose, but complement each other, allowing us to create an integral idea of ​​the elements and properties of the social structure.

Types of social structure are: an ideal structure that binds together beliefs, convictions, and imagination; normative structure, including values, norms, prescribed social roles; organizational structure, which determines the way positions or statuses are interconnected and determines the nature of repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning that are currently available (specific interest of the individual, randomly received resources, etc.).

The first two types of social structure are associated with the concept of cultural structure, and the other two are associated with the concept of societal structure. Regulatory and organizational structures are considered as a single whole, and the elements included in their functioning are considered strategic. Ideal and random structures and their elements, being included in the functioning of the social structure as a whole, can cause both positive and negative deviations in its behavior.

This, in turn, results in a mismatch in the interaction of various structures that act as elements of a more general social system, dysfunctional disorders of this system.

The structure of a social system as a functional unity of a set of elements is determined by its inherent laws and regularities and has its own determinism. As a result, the existence, functioning and change of structure is not determined by a law that stands, as it were, “outside it”, but has the character of self-regulation, maintaining - under certain conditions - the balance of elements within the system, restoring it in the event of certain violations and directing the change of these elements and the structure itself.

The patterns of development and functioning of a given social system may or may not coincide with the corresponding patterns of the societal system, and have positive or negative socially significant consequences for a given society.

Hierarchy of social systems. There is a complex hierarchy of social systems that differ qualitatively from each other.

The supersystem, or, according to the terminology we accept, the societal system, is society. The most important elements of a societal system are its economic, social, political and ideological structures, the interaction of elements of which (systems of a less general order) institutionalizes them into social systems (economic, social, political, ideological, etc.). Each of these most general social systems occupies a certain place in the societal system and performs (well, poorly, or not at all) strictly defined functions. In turn, each of the most general systems includes in its structure as elements an infinite number of social systems of a less general order (family, work collective, etc.).

With the development of society as a societal system, along with those mentioned, other social systems and bodies of social influence arise on the socialization of the individual (upbringing, education), on his aesthetic (aesthetic education), moral (moral education and suppression of various forms of deviant behavior), physical (health, physical education) development. “This organic system itself, as an aggregate whole, has its own prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subjugating all the elements of society or creating from it the organs that it still lacks. In this way, the system, in the course of historical development, turns into integrity”1.

Social connections and types of social systems. The classification of social systems can be based on the types of connections and the corresponding types of social objects.

A relationship is defined as a relationship between objects (or elements within them) where a change in one object or element corresponds to a change in other objects (or elements) that make up the object.

The specificity of sociology is characterized by the fact that the connections that it studies are social connections. The term “social connection” refers to the entire set of factors that determine the joint activities of people in specific conditions of place and time in order to achieve specific goals. The connection is established for a very long period of time, regardless of the social and individual qualities of individuals. These are the connections of individuals with each other, as well as their connections with the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world, which develop in the course of their practical activities.

The essence of social connections is manifested in the content and nature of social actions of individuals, or, in other words, in social facts.

The micro- and macro-continuum includes personal, social-group, organizational, institutional and societal connections. The social objects corresponding to these types of connections are the individual (his consciousness and actions), social interaction, social group, social organization, social institution and society. Within the subjective-objective continuum, subjective, objective and mixed connections are distinguished and, accordingly, objective (acting personality, social action, law, management system, etc.); subjective (personal norms and values, assessment of social reality, etc.); subjective-objective (family, religion, etc.) objects.

The social system can be represented in five aspects:

1) as an interaction of individuals, each of which is a bearer of individual qualities;

2) as social interaction, resulting in the formation of social relations and the formation of a social group;

3) as a group interaction, which is based on customs or other general circumstances (city, village, work collective, etc.);

4) as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) occupied by individuals included in the activities of a given social system, and the social functions (roles) that they perform based on these social positions;

5) as a set of norms and values ​​that determine the nature and content of the activities (behavior) of the elements of a given system.

The first aspect characterizing the social system is associated with the concept of individuality, the second - a social group, the third - a social community, the fourth - a social organization, the fifth - a social institution and culture.

Thus, the social system acts as the interaction of its main structural elements.

Social connections and the societal system. The distinction between types of social systems is very arbitrary. Isolating them according to one or another criterion is determined by the task of sociological research. The same social system (for example, a family) can be equally considered both as a social group, and as an element of social control, and as a social institution, and as a social organization. Social facilities, located on macro-, micro- and objective-subjective continuums, form complex system connections that manage the needs, interests and values ​​of people. It can be designated as a system of societal connections. It is ordered in each specific social system in such a way that when tangles and knots appear on it, then society, in turn, provides a system of means to be able to unravel these tangles and untie the knots. If it is unable to do this, then the system of means existing and used in a given society has become inadequate to the current social situation. And depending on the practical attitude of society to a given situation, it may find itself in a state of decline, stagnation or radical reform.

The system of societal connections acts as an organized set of various forms of social connections that unite individuals and groups of individuals into a single functional whole, that is, into a social system. Whatever form of social connection between phenomena we take, they always exist in the system and cannot exist outside of it. The variety of types of societal connections corresponds to the variety of types of social systems that determine these connections.

Let's consider such types of social groups as primary and secondary:

Primary groups. Consists of a small number of people between whom relationships are established based on their individual characteristics. Primary groups are not large, because otherwise it is difficult to establish direct, personal relationships between all members. Charles Cooley (1909) first introduced the concept of the primary group in relation to the family, between the members of which stable emotional relationships develop. Subsequently, sociologists began to use this term when studying any group in which close personal relationships have formed that define the essence of this group. They are formed on the basis of the emergence of more or less constant and close contacts between several people or as a result of the collapse of any secondary social group. Often both of these processes occur simultaneously. It happens that a number of primary groups appear and act within the framework of some secondary social group. The number of people in small groups ranges from two to ten, rarely several more. In such a group, the social and psychological contacts of the people included in it are better preserved, often relating to significant moments of their lives and activities. The primary group can be a group of friends, acquaintances, or a group of people connected by professional interests, working in a factory, in a scientific institution, in a theater, etc. While performing production functions, they at the same time establish interpersonal contacts with each other, characterized by psychological harmony and common interest in something. Such groups can play a large role in the formation of value orientations and in determining the direction of behavior and activities of their representatives. Their role in this may be more significant than the role of secondary social groups and the media. Thus, they constitute a specific social environment that influences the individual.

Secondary group. Formed from people between whom there are almost no emotional relationships, their interaction is determined by the desire to achieve certain goals. In these groups, the main importance is attached not to personal qualities, but to the ability to perform certain functions. An example of a secondary group would be industrial enterprise. In a secondary group, roles are clearly defined, and its members often know very little about each other. As a rule, they do not hug when they meet. They do not develop the emotional relationships that are typical for friends and family members. In an organization related labor activity, the main ones are industrial relations. Among these social groups, formal and informal organizations can be distinguished. Formal ones act more often on the basis of the charters and programs they have adopted, and have their own permanent coordinating and governing bodies. In informal organizations all this is absent. They are created to achieve very specific goals - current and long-term. In Western sociology, functional groups are especially distinguished, uniting depending on the functions they perform and social roles. We are talking about professional groups engaged in the sphere of political, economic and spiritual activity, about groups of people of different qualifications, about groups occupying different social positions - entrepreneurs, workers, employees, etc. The beginning of a serious sociological study of the functional activities of various social groups was laid in his time by E. Durkheim.

Analyzing all of the above, one cannot fail to note the importance of studying the entire diversity of social groups existing in society. Firstly, because the social structure of society itself is a set of connections and relationships into which social groups and communities of people enter into contact with each other. Secondly, the entire life of a person living in a society of people takes place in social groups and under their direct influence: at school, at work, etc., because only in group life does he develop as a personality, find self-expression and support.

In the modern world, there are different types of societies that differ from each other in many ways, both explicit (language of communication, culture, geographical location, size, etc.) and hidden (degree of social integration, level of stability, etc.). Scientific classification involves identifying the most significant, typical features that distinguish one feature from another and unite societies of the same group. The complexity of social systems called societies determines both the diversity of their specific manifestations and the absence of a single universal criterion on the basis of which they could be classified.

In the mid-19th century, K. Marx proposed a typology of societies, which was based on the method of production of material goods and production relations - primarily property relations. He divided all societies into 5 main types (according to the type of socio-economic formations): primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist ( initial phase- socialist society).

Another typology divides all societies into simple and complex. The criterion is the number of levels of management and the degree of social differentiation (stratification). A simple society is a society in which the constituent parts are homogeneous, there are no rich and poor, no leaders and subordinates, the structure and functions here are poorly differentiated and can be easily interchanged. These are primitive tribes, which are still preserved in some places.

A complex society is a society with highly differentiated structures and functions, interconnected and interdependent on each other, which necessitates their coordination.

K. Popper distinguishes two types of societies: closed and open. The differences between them are based on a number of factors, and, above all, the relationship of social control and individual freedom. A closed society is characterized by a static social structure, limited mobility, immunity to innovation, traditionalism, dogmatic authoritarian ideology, and collectivism. K. Popper included Sparta, Prussia, Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union of the Stalin era to this type of society. An open society is characterized by a dynamic social structure, high mobility, the ability to innovate, criticism, individualism and a democratic pluralistic ideology. K. Popper considered ancient Athens and modern Western democracies to be examples of open societies.

The division of societies into traditional, industrial and post-industrial, proposed by the American sociologist D. Bell on the basis of changes in the technological basis - improvement of the means of production and knowledge, is stable and widespread.

Traditional (pre-industrial) society is a society with an agrarian structure, with a predominance of subsistence farming, class hierarchy, sedentary structures and a method of sociocultural regulation based on tradition. It is characterized by manual labor and extremely low rates of development of production, which can satisfy people's needs only at a minimum level. It is extremely inertial, therefore it is not very susceptible to innovation. The behavior of individuals in such a society is regulated by customs, norms, and social institutions. Customs, norms, institutions, sanctified by traditions, are considered unshakable, not allowing even the thought of changing them. Carrying out their integrative function, culture and social institutions suppress any manifestation of personal freedom, which is a necessary condition gradual renewal of society.

The term industrial society was introduced by A. Saint-Simon, emphasizing its new technical basis. Industrial society - (in modern terms) is a complex society, with a method of economic management based on industry, with flexible, dynamic and modifying structures, a method of socio-cultural regulation based on a combination of individual freedom and the interests of society. These societies are characterized by a developed division of labor, the development of mass communications, urbanization, etc.

Post-industrial society (sometimes called information society) is a society developed on an information basis: extraction (in traditional societies) and processing (in industrial societies) of natural products are replaced by the acquisition and processing of information, as well as preferential development (instead of agriculture in traditional societies and industry in industrial) service sectors. As a result, the employment structure and the ratio of various professional and qualification groups are also changing. According to forecasts, already at the beginning of the 21st century in advanced countries half work force will be employed in the sphere of information, a quarter - in the sphere of material production and a quarter - in the production of services, including information ones.

A change in the technological basis also affects the organization of the entire system of social connections and relationships. If in an industrial society the mass class was made up of workers, then in a post-industrial society it was employees and managers. At the same time, the importance of class differentiation weakens; instead of a status (“granular”) social structure, a functional (“ready-made”) one is formed. Instead of leadership, coordination becomes the principle of management, and representative democracy is replaced by direct democracy and self-government. As a result, instead of a hierarchy of structures, a new type a network organization focused on rapid change depending on the situation.

True, at the same time, some sociologists draw attention to contradictory possibilities: on the one hand, ensuring more high level freedom of the individual, and on the other hand, to the emergence of new, more hidden and therefore more dangerous forms of social control over it.