The role of economics in the life of social structures. Socio-economic structure of society. W. Sombart's approach

Economics plays a key role in the life of society. The economic system of the state is a kind of source that feeds all spheres of society.

Economy as a subsystem of society

As we know, public life consists of such components as politics, economics, and culture. The economy is one of the most important subsystems of society, since without its normal functioning, the existence of both other subsystems and society as a whole is impossible.

So, at the expense of funds that come from economic relations, cultural buildings, in particular religious ones, are built. Increasing the spirituality of society is also facilitated by the availability of funds for the opportunity to carry out their cultural development. The economic sphere is also closely connected with politics, as it directly coordinates the alignment of political forces.

Economics and social structure

The level of national production, as well as the level of inflation, influences the formation and change of the social structure of society. In economically developed countries, the number of people who belong to the middle class is dominant. While the indicators of poor and rich people should be the same and not exceed 5%.

As national production declines, the size of the middle class shrinks: as a rule, people who belonged to the middle class occupy a place in the group of poor people.

Economic development affects the birth rate in a country, as well as the number of working-age population (the retirement age in developed countries is much higher than in developing countries).

Mutual influence of economics and politics

There is an inextricable link between economics and politics. These two institutions often complement each other. Persons with political power directly influence the vector of economic development.

A striking example is the annual approval of the state budget. With a good level of economic development in the state, political forces have a high chance of consolidating their positions of power.

At the same time, economic relations also influence politics. Thus, global economic development trends often require from government authorities a certain scheme for the development of the national economy, in particular, national production.

If the political power of the state is not able to keep up with the general trend, the state withdraws from international market relations. This inevitably entails a decrease in the standard of living of citizens, and ultimately a change in political power.

Social structure is a fairly constant interconnection of social elements, for example, the social class structure of society. Social structure of society is a relatively constant pattern of social classifications in a particular society, for example, the social structure of modern Russian society.

The main elements of the social structure of society: social groups, social strata, social communities and social institutions are interconnected by social relations, the bearers of which are people. There is also a classification that distinguishes such components of the social structure of society as: estates, castes, classes.

11. Social connections and relationships.

Social connection- a social action expressing the dependence and compatibility of people or groups. This is a set of special dependencies of some social subjects on others, their mutual relationships that unite people into corresponding social communities and indicate their collective existence. This is a concept that denotes any sociocultural responsibilities of individuals or groups of individuals relative to each other.

Social relations- these are relatively stable connections between individuals and social groups, due to their unequal position in society and role in public life

The subjects of social relations are various social communities and individuals

1 - social relations of socio-historical communities (between countries, classes, nations, social groups, city and countryside);

2 - social relations between public organizations, institutions and work collectives;

3 - social relations in the form of interpersonal interaction and communication within work groups

There are different types of social relations:

by the scope of power: horizontal relations and vertical relations;

by degree of regulation: formal (certified) and informal;

by the way individuals communicate: impersonal or indirect, interpersonal or direct;

for subjects of activity: between organizational, intra-organizational;

by level of fairness: fair and unfair

The basis of the differences between social relations are motives and needs, the main of which are primary and secondary needs

As a result of the contradiction of social relations, social conflict becomes one of the forms of social interaction

12. Social groups: essence and classification.

Social group is a collection of individuals interacting in a certain way based on the shared expectations of each group member regarding the others.

In this definition, one can see two essential conditions necessary for a collection to be considered a group: 1) the presence of interactions between its members; 2) the emergence of shared expectations of each group member regarding its other members. A social group is characterized by a number of specific characteristics:

stability, duration of existence;

certainty of composition and boundaries;

a common system of values ​​and social norms;

awareness of one’s belonging to a given social community;

the voluntary nature of the association of individuals (for small social groups);

unification of individuals by external conditions of existence (for large social groups);

the ability to enter as elements into other social communities.

Social group– a relatively stable set of people connected by common relationships, activities, their motivation and norms Classification of groups, as a rule, is based on the subject area of ​​analysis, in which the main feature that determines the stability of a given group formation is identified. Seven main classification features:

based on ethnicity or race;

based on the level of cultural development;

based on the types of structure that exist in groups;

based on the tasks and functions performed by the group in wider communities;

based on the prevailing types of contacts between group members;

based on various types of connections existing in groups;

on other principles.

13. Social institutions: essence, typology, functions.

Social Institute– a historically established stable form of organizing joint activities and relationships between people, performing socially significant functions.

Typology social institutions can be compiled based on the idea that each institution satisfies one or another fundamental social need. Five fundamental social needs (for the reproduction of the family; for security and social order; for obtaining a means of subsistence; for the socialization of the younger generation; for solving spiritual problems) correspond to five basic social institutions: the institution of the family, the political institution (state), the economic institution (production) , education, religion.

The function of consolidating and reproducing social relations. Each social institution is created in response to the emergence of a certain social need in order to develop certain standards of behavior among its members.

The adaptation function lies in the fact that the functioning of social institutions in society ensures the adaptability of society to the changing conditions of the internal and external environment - both natural and social.

The integrative function is that the social institutions existing in society, through their actions, norms, and regulations, ensure interdependence, mutual responsibility, solidarity and cohesion of their constituent individuals and/or all members of a given society.

The communicative function lies in the fact that information (scientific, artistic, political, etc.) produced in one social institution is distributed both within this institution and beyond, in interaction between institutions and organizations operating in society.

The socializing function is manifested in the fact that social institutions play a decisive role in the formation and development of the individual, in his assimilation of social values, norms and roles, in the orientation and realization of his social status.

The regulatory function is embodied in the fact that social institutions, in the process of their functioning, ensure the regulation of interactions between individuals and social communities through the development of certain norms and standards of behavior, a system of rewards for the most effective actions that correspond to the norms, values, expectations of society or community, and sanctions (punishments ) for actions that deviate from these values ​​and norms.

2.4. Social structure of society and economy. “Non-economic” factors of social differentiation

A more in-depth understanding of “social”, “social relations” is that the latter are also considered as the relationships between groups that form a social structure and play a certain role in the organization of social production. This role, in turn, is determined by the group’s place in a complex system of property, functioning through real economic mechanisms of ownership, use and disposal of various elements of property.

The social structure is formed not only through the relationship of classes - social groups, whose position in society is that some of them are the owners of the means of production, while others are not. Accordingly, the former, in the process of production, have the opportunity to use the labor of others to maintain and increase their own wealth. The social structure of society is a more complex formation. It is also due to the differentiation of the part of the population that does not belong to any classes (for example, artist, teacher, cashier, etc.), and intra-class division. This is evidenced by both the historical analysis of the social structure of past societies (which has already been discussed) and the social differentiation of modern societies. The diverse nature of the use of means of production, their disposal, as well as the disposal of people carrying out this or that activity, the various possibilities for appropriating a variety of goods and services, as well as the variety of characteristics that determine property status - all this determines the nature of the social subject and the social position of the group to which he belongs. The totality of such groups, their connections and interactions form the social structure of society, which cannot be reduced to class relations.

Attitudes towards the means of production can also be diverse. Even the use of means of production can be of a different nature and, accordingly, determine the social position of the user differently. The modern sociologist T. Zaslavskaya drew attention to the double meaning of the concept of “use of means of production” under conditions of state ownership. Firstly, this is the use of means of production by various professional groups, characterized by the quantity and quality of these means, their technical perfection. The need and ability to use complex and unique technical devices in the labor process increase the social status of certain groups of workers. Secondly, this is the use of means of production (semi-legal) or part of the finished product for personal needs or external sales. Modern sociologists also pay attention to social class characteristics and their “operationalization”. In conditions of widespread functioning or predominance of state property (as was the case, for example, in Soviet society), the decisive factor determining the position in the social hierarchy was the mechanism for disposing of property: who, how, on what basis and to what extent disposes of it. This is the essence of the question of the connection between the managerial hierarchy and real economic power and, accordingly, with social differentiation.

However, the nature of the disposal of property can also be different, which should be taken into account when determining how the disposal affects the management mechanism and its efficiency. There are, for example, unconditional, sovereign disposal and conditional - operating of property on behalf and by proxy of the owner by authorized persons and groups. The hierarchy of conditional managers, responsible to the owner and senior managers, can be formed by both managers and ordinary employees. Good management, as is commonly believed, requires the presence of sovereign power, effective control of the owner over the conditional managers and their (the managers) stimulation.

The sad experience of the functioning of the so-called public property in the USSR was that there were no procedures for the exercise of sovereign powers by workers (the people seemed to be the owners!). There was no sovereign control over property; property was actually “nobody’s.” This gave rise to the “oddities of the subjectless world” inherent in that society: “each social group experienced an acute shortage of the right to decide what was due to it by rank in the management hierarchy.” The absence of a sovereign owner who would control and stimulate conditional managers led to the fact that the so-called conditional managers (as a rule, representatives of the state-party apparatus), firstly, often used state property for personal enrichment; secondly, they actually did not bear responsibility for mistakes in management and illiterate management. This also determined the nature of denationalization and privatization carried out in the post-Soviet period: neither one nor the other led to the expected increase in business efficiency. The former conditional managers, i.e. those who illegally disposed of state property as personal, ultimately only legitimized their economic dominance (this is the essence of the so-called nomenklatura privatization). The social position of the former conditional managers who become owners has also changed: they now enter into relationships other than with representatives of groups that are not owners.

Next, it is important to dwell on the characteristics of the aspect of sociality, which, as noted, is sometimes interpreted as its distinctive feature: sociality as a connection, as a joint nature of life, as a characteristic of integrity. It is this meaning of the concept of “sociality” that is often pointed out in the literature. Isolating this meaning and fixing attention on it is not only justified, but also necessary. However, it is inappropriate to contrast these meanings (differentiation based on various possibilities of appropriation and unity, integrity). Unity, connection, integrity, community of different groups are formed under the conditions of the social division of labor. It is in these conditions that there is an objective need for unity and interdependence, which are the basis of any other unity and integrity. This circumstance is indicated in both classical Marxist and non-Marxist sociological literature. K. Marx and F. Engels believed that the interdependence of individuals, between whom labor is divided, precisely represents the consolidation of social activity. The French sociologist E. Durkheim, who attributed the division of labor to the “fundamental foundations of the social system,” also considered it as the basis of social solidarity.

Let us also pay attention to the correlative nature of social status (position)*, defined as a “place” as a whole, as the relationship of some groups to others, which makes it necessary to use the comparison operation to characterize social statuses. This was also pointed out by K. Marx: “If capital increases quickly, wages may rise, but the profit of the capitalist rises incomparably faster. The worker’s financial situation improves, but at the expense of his social status.” The described situation also indicates the illegality of identifying economic and social.

Empirically recording the social position of various groups in certain specific historical conditions (fixing the social structure of society) is a very difficult task. Its solution presupposes, firstly, the identification of those material conditions and means of existence and life activity that, in specific historical circumstances, are necessary for the reproduction of man as a subject of social life. Secondly, it is necessary to determine the real possibilities of appropriation of conditions and means available to various groups. But this place itself and the “opportunities for appropriation” do not lie on the surface (especially in conditions of social and legal discrepancy). This “place” must be identified through certain research procedures. For example, researchers encountered particular difficulties when trying to characterize the social structure of the former socialist society. At that time, it was rightly noted that the tool available for analyzing social structure could not be used. As R. Ryvkin figuratively characterized this research situation in Soviet popular literature of the perestroika period, “the structure goes into the shadows.” Indeed, a deep study of the social structure of the former Soviet Union implied the identification of various, and most importantly, factors specific to this particular society that determined the group’s place in the system of diverse conditions of existence, conditions and means of production, its results, for example, the availability of the so-called shortage. At the same time, many questions arose: what criterion is used to determine the place of this or that group in the hierarchical social structure? What determines the distance between positions? How to evaluate the existing differences in the degree of social equality–inequality?

In the literature (mainly journalistic) of the early perestroika period, there were discussions about how legitimate it is to judge the level of well-being based on the wages received. After all, a significant part of the population had either illegal sources of income or semi-legal benefits that provided access to high-quality goods and services. As E. Panfilova, who was once the chairman of the commission on privileges of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, put it, “we are talking about a fundamentally different life support system.” Accordingly, an attempt to stratify the population primarily through fixing wages and other officially recognized government payments led to slightly different results than those calculated on the basis of the availability of a variety of goods and services. With the same three-layer division, in one case it turned out that in the country 7.1% belonged to the “upper” layer, 31.3% to the “middle” layer, 61.6% to the “lower” layer, in another case to 2.3% were considered “rich” (while only 0.7% had legal sources of wealth), 11.2% were classified as moderately wealthy, and 86.5% were classified as poor.

In the world sociological literature, the term “stratification” is widely used to denote social structure. As a rule, it is understood as the structure of inequality in society. Stratification is the division of society into groups located at different levels of a multi-layered hierarchical system of their interaction. However, there were heated debates regarding the conditionality of stratification (what determines entry into one or another layer), and different points of view were expressed. The tradition, dating back to the views of the German sociologist M. Weber, is to consider stratification as a multidimensional formation determined by three dimensions: economic (wealth), social (prestige) and political (power). M. Weber interpreted the “social dimension” and “social status” accordingly. In contrast to the economic position, the latter was determined by the rank of the group prescribed by the value system of society, i.e., respect, honor, which accrued to certain groups. As we see, M. Weber put a completely different meaning into “social” than the one specified. Therefore, when using the term “social stratification”, it is necessary to clarify what is meant and what “dimensions” are used to divide society into layers.

Of course, stratification (stratification) of society into groups, expressing an unequal position in it, is possible according to various criteria. It is clear, however, that social stratification itself should be distinguished from any other, because stratifications determined by different reasons may correspond to one degree or another. Thus, involvement in political power and a place in the political hierarchy can also determine a position in the system of social stratification. This is clearly demonstrated when the appropriation of material goods and services (including means of production) by the Soviet nomenklatura and the modern neonomenklatura, which is gaining not only political but also dominant economic positions in the reformed post-Soviet society, is analyzed.

The same can be said about prestige. The latter is intended to subordinate objects and evaluate them using the scale of values ​​​​accepted in society. The prestige of a group is determined by the idea of ​​a “standard” group, to which various approved and desirable qualities are attributed. Respect and authority can, under certain specific historical conditions, be a means of acquiring social advantages and determine a position in the social hierarchy. But they may not influence it or not correspond to it. Thus, in the pre-perestroika period in the Soviet Union, famous scientists, doctors, and artists, to one degree or another, were “included” in the distribution system of the nomenklatura. Prestige seemed to become a factor determining position in the system of social stratification. However, the lack of authority of state and party officials, their unpopularity in public opinion during the stagnation and especially early perestroika periods, did not in the least prevent them from occupying disproportionately high positions in the system of social hierarchy.

The question arises: are power and prestige factors that determine social position, place in the system of social stratification (if, of course, we keep in mind the specially defined meaning of the social)? This question can only be answered on the basis of a specific analysis carried out by sociological means and involving taking into account the action of various social factors in a particular society. But if you do not highlight the actual social factors and do not specify social stratification, then such an analysis is not required. Returning to the problem of the relationship between prestige and wealth, we can also refer to the dispute about the specifics of the historically established Russian mentality, which is allegedly characterized by disrespect for wealth and admiration for asceticism and poverty. There is, however, evidence that at least at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the highest value for the Russian peasantry was prosperity, which was understood not as hoarding, but as the presence of a strong economy.

This nuance (the difference between a strong economy and wealth in general) is also important in the following respect: in non-Marxist sociological literature, the peculiarity of Marx’s concept of class is seen in its one-dimensionality (in contrast, for example, to M. Weber’s multidimensional understanding of class). At the same time, K. Marx is credited with using only the “economic dimension”, characterized by wealth and income, to distinguish a class. This characterization of Marx's position is incorrect in at least two respects. For K. Marx, class is not only an economic, but also a social category, which, as noted, is advisable to distinguish. But, what is also important to take into account, wealth and income characterize a place in the distribution system, which is not limited to not only the economic, but also the social position of a class, any group located at one or another level of the stratification hierarchy. Wealth and income are, rather, external, superficial signs of social stratification.

A more profound, essential stratification characteristic, indicating a social position (status), is, as noted, the place of a group in the organization of social production, the function that some groups perform in it in comparison with others. For example, in American society, lawyers and doctors are at one of the highest levels of social stratification**, which indicates the objective significance of their activities for modern social production in general and material production in particular: the healing of expensive labor and its legal support are necessary conditions for its functioning and development. Accordingly, the assessment of the activities of representatives of these professions, ultimately expressed in their income, indicates their demand. The low level of income of domestic representatives of science, education, culture, and specialists in general who are not employed in commercial structures is explained in a similar way. In conditions of economic crisis, virtually complete destruction of production, their activities turn out to be unclaimed and, accordingly, low-paid. This, in turn, determines the limited range of opportunities for them to appropriate various goods and services.

An important problem discussed in connection with the study of stratification is the relationship between its so-called vertical and horizontal varieties. The first, consisting in the hierarchization of society, the determination of people’s activities “by their position in the system of property/power relations,” is connected in different ways (which is always determined by specific historical circumstances) with the second, due to ethnodemographic, regional and other differences. But ethnic or demographic characteristics, residence in a particular region can become signs of social stratification if they also determine the role in social production, the volume of material goods and services received, i.e. if the presence or absence of these characteristics entails belonging to a certain social status. Thus, P. Sorokin argued that the so-called “national inequality is only a particular form of general social inequality.” More or less social difference may be determined by living in a certain region, the specific conditions of which form, in particular, the social infrastructure of the economy. In the conditions of, for example, the USSR, these differences were especially significant.

Methodological principles for taking into account the vertical and horizontal sections of stratification, the imposition of diverse characteristics on those that characterize the actual social class status, were proposed by scientists T. Zaslavskaya and R. Ryvkina. By identifying in the “sociology of economic life” such substructures of society as ethnodemographic, socio-territorial, professional-official, social-labor and family-economic, these sociologists tried to characterize a holistic social-stratification formation, which they called the “economic-sociological structure of society.” In their opinion, the social-labor and professional-official aspects are of decisive importance in this structure (relative to the USSR). Then one should also take into account belonging to such substructures as socio-territorial, ethno-demographic and family-economic. Summing up the discussion about the economic and sociological structure of society, T. Zaslavskaya and R. Ryvkina point out that the elements of the latter “are groups that differ markedly not only in their functions in the social organization of labor, in its division and specialization, but also occupy different positions in terms of at least in several private substructures.” It is these groups that are the social subjects of the economic life of society, and also have different needs and interests, different behavior in the economic sphere.

The dominant role in the economic life of Soviet society was played by the party-Soviet bureaucracy, which predetermined the social appearance of the post-Soviet reform. Decisive positions in economic life during the period of transformation and so-called social reform were also occupied by the bureaucratic apparatus, with the only difference that the convertibility of political capital into economic capital*** received legal registration and unprecedented scope during this period. This feature of the post-Soviet reform, as many researchers believe, was predicted by L. Trotsky. The Soviet bureaucracy, in his opinion, will seek support in its property position, seeking to legitimize its dominant position in the economy. “Privileges are only half their value if they cannot be left to children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of ownership. It is not enough to be a director of a trust, you need to be a shareholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive area would mean its transformation into a new propertied class.”

So, social stratification is the differentiation of people and groups according to their place in a historically specific system of social division of labor in accordance with the possibilities of appropriating the means of production, labor, material goods and services. Various social characteristics can determine this place and the corresponding opportunities: power and prestige, professional affiliation, ethnic, demographic and territorial characteristics. The significance of various characteristics for differentiating people and groups according to social characteristics for social stratification is specific. This significance, as well as the system of social stratification specific to a particular society, is described and explained by sociological means. Its analysis is one of the most important tasks of the sociological study of society.

* The term “status”, which was introduced into sociology in the mid-30s of the 20th century. R. Linton, was used in two meanings: as a social position, understood as a real position independent of assessments and values, and as a rank, the prestige of a position, determined by the totality of rights and obligations, the dominant value system of society. Hereinafter, by social status we mean a social position that characterizes the place of a subject (individual, group) in the system of activity, and the real possibilities of appropriating material goods and services.
** Stratification status was calculated based on income.
*** An expression currently widely used to characterize transformation processes, borrowed from the modern French sociologist P. Bourdieu, who understands “capital” as various types of power (political, economic, social, cultural, symbolic), which determines the position of the subject in social space .

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10