Few of the Soviet social scientists tried to “look” beyond the limit that was determined by program projects - the development of society, and answer the question of what a socially homogeneous society would be like. On the one hand, such a society should not be structureless, on the other hand, the criteria for the new structuring, the main elements of the social structure, the differences between them, etc. were not clear.

In the early 80s, a hypothesis was put forward that “a classless social structure will have a sort of “cellular” character.” The elements of the social structure, its “cells,” will be work collectives, as real prototypes of communist associations. However, this approach did not take into account those social differences that went beyond the boundaries of individual classes (territorial, family, household, demographic, etc.). Labor collectives employed in different industries and regions differed from each other much more than workers and peasants. Thus, the problem moved to another plane, although its relevance did not decrease. Theoretical modeling reached a dead end, primarily due to the fact that the terms “difference,” “equality,” and “homogeneity” were understood in a very abstract way. The idea was introduced into the mass consciousness that equality (without the predicate “social”, which meant nothing to the majority) was the same property status, salary and consumption. K. Marx’s warnings about crude, ascetic “equalizing communism”, which not only did not rise above private property, but did not even rise to it and is only capable of generating general envy, even if they were mentioned not only in a historical context, but in no way in relation to modernity or the future.

The category of social differentiation, central for the theoretical analysis of social structure and for predicting its development trends, turned out to be unclaimed.

What is the nature of social differentiation, the reasons for its emergence and reproduction, whether the task of eliminating it is feasible for society (of any type), and if not, then in what ways and within what boundaries it is necessary to regulate the processes of stratification - all these questions are of paramount theoretical and practical importance.

So, social differentiation is the division of people according to indicators of social status and the corresponding unification into more or less homogeneous groups of people, the social distance between which is insignificant, is not fixed either in the form of law or in other social norms, and their common position serves as a criterion for self-identification.

Let's pay attention to the following.

1. We are not talking about any differences, the number of which is endless, but only about those that are associated with the social position of the individual (group). For example, differences in education are social, since, according to the law of division of labor, education significantly affects the possibility of occupying certain positions in society. But the differences are gender, age, territorial (by place of residence), national, religious objectively, i.e. according to the law of social division of labor, do not determine a person’s position in society, and if they acquire a social character, then for political reasons: due to artificial discrimination or unjustified privileges.

2. At the individual level, a lag in one of the indicators can be compensated for by some advantages in other indicators. Differences in education are often smoothed out by more responsible or meaningful work, social prestige compensates for power, salary compensates for income from personal farming, etc. With a reasonable social policy, benefits and privileges, as well as a system of income redistribution, serve the same goals. But in these matters, genuine art of maneuvering, flexibility, strategy, and high moral principles are required. It is no secret that the carelessness in relation to benefits and privileges that arose in the 60s - 7s, the desire to establish them behind the scenes and mainly based on positions, and not on merit, not only strengthened unjustified differentiation, but also caused destructive trends in social policy. Gorbachev’s dream of a strong social policy was, in principle, unrealizable, since the ruling elite did not understand the situation and did not want to give up the accumulated advantages. Unfortunately, a similar situation, albeit on a different basis, is developing today in some CIS countries.

There are a huge number of points of view about the origin of social inequality, as well as about ways to overcome it. Summarizing those of them that have scientific status, and discarding everyday, emotional, mystical ideas, we can distinguish three approaches.

First– the approach is represented by various modifications of the “theory of violence”, which was very widespread in its time, seeing the causes of stratification in capture, theft, crime, enslavement, etc. All this took place in human history, but without internal sources the reproduction of wealth, as well as the social structure as a whole, is impossible. The inconsistency of this approach is obvious; what is surprising is that in lately There are often references to Proudhon (“private property is theft”), to Balzac (“behind every fortune there is a crime”) and others.

In second differences between people in abilities, diligence, etc. are emphasized. as the initial cause of social differentiation. Proponents of this approach argue that life itself constantly conducts a “natural experiment”, putting many people on equal footing. And since they achieve different results, then the problem is in them. Opponents provide equally convincing data on how, when conditions change, those who previously had no chance achieve success. The paradox is that both are right in their own way, but between these extreme positions the aspect is not the truth, but the problem.

Third approach can be called institutional. It is most justified, albeit with different final conclusions, in the Marxist theory of classes and the theory of social action. In the first, the reasons for social differentiation (division of society into opposite classes) are called: a) division of labor; b) private property; and c) “insufficient production for the entire society.” “The basis of the division into classes,” according to F. Engels, “is the law of division of labor.” The social division of labor gives rise to private ownership of the means of production and the institution of inheritance, due to which social differences are consolidated and transmitted from generation to generation. Hence the logical scheme for eliminating classes and class inequality. First of all, it is necessary to eliminate private property. “Communists can express their theory in one proposition: the abolition of private property,” Marx and Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto. Then we can move on to eliminating the social division of labor and preparing “people who can do everything.”

The demand for the “destruction” of private property is justified and inevitable under certain conditions; it is no coincidence that it arose in ancient times as a “community of property.” True, history has shown that the revolutionary path of expropriation, nationalization, confiscation, etc. turns out to be less effective than the evolutionary transformations of private property in the direction of its corporatization, socialization, and commonization.

As for the “abolition” of the social division of labor, this is, from a scientific point of view, pure voluntarism. It is impossible to cancel the operation of objective laws in nature or society. They need to be recognized and taken into account in your activities. The difficulty is that in the sphere of labor many laws operate simultaneously: division of labor, including international; labor changes; cooperation; socialization of labor, the law of value, including the cost of labor, etc. The combined effect of these laws is not at all as clear as a single one.

To eliminate the third reason - the insufficient level of production - other methods are needed: motivation and stimulation of labor, scientific and technological progress, inclusion in the international division of labor, readiness for innovative search, independence of producers and much more. Fourier, for example, retained private property in his “Harmony” only because he did not see more effective incentives to attract labor. If social production is not developed, then social differences are reproduced and intensified.

In the theory of social action, social differentiation is associated with the allocation of functions vital for the existence of society (which can be successfully performed by more or less specialized institutions). It is proved that the probability of innovations appearing in it depends on the degree of differentiation of the system.

In general, the main objective source of the genesis and reproduction of social differentiation is the number of answers for each option, the law of social division of labor. Its effect is supplemented (strengthened or weakened) by a number of factors - economic, political, cultural, etc. Based on factor analysis, it can be argued, for example, that the reduction of social differentiation is facilitated by:

1) expansion of channels of inter- and intragenerational (intergenerational) mobility, greater opportunities for movement of people, choice of place of work and residence;

2) higher level of education, qualifications, culture in general;

3) diversity of the economy, diversification of production, limitation of monopolies;

4) developed labor market;

5) the system of social protection, pensions and social insurance;

6) an effective mechanism for stimulating and motivating work;

7) a clear regulatory framework, a high level of legal awareness of the population.

Some level of social differentiation is inevitable in any society. Thus, in economically developed countries, income inequality is considered acceptable not exceeding a coefficient of 5 (the ratio of 20% of high- and low-income social classes). Such inequality would be acceptable for our society, at least on a psychological level. Thus, to the question of what, in your opinion, the salary of the head of an enterprise (institution) should be, the population of the republic, surveyed using a representative republican sample (1487 people), gave the following answers:

1) at the level average salary workers – 23.4% of respondents;

2) 2-3 times higher than average – 36.6%;

3) 4 times higher than average – 26.6%;

4) 10 times higher than average – 8.4%;

5) 15 times higher than average – 2.3%;

6) depending on the situation, depending on how things are going – 1.2%.

N – total number of answers;

n – number of answers for each option;

t – the excess coefficient corresponding to the option, how many times.Z.

When predicting the level of income per family member that would ensure, in the opinion of respondents, a normal life, requests differ significantly, but for the majority, an increase in the current level by 2–3 times would be sufficient. Surveys show that if the difference in wages were determined not by the standard setters of the Ministry of Labor, but by the population, say, in a referendum, it would be significantly greater than it is now, especially for the category of highly skilled labor. This means that the population would vote for increased social differentiation.

It seems that such a conclusion contradicts not only previous egalitarian stereotypes, but also widespread ideas about the modern state of mass consciousness. However, it is important to take into account that declarations about the “smoothing and final erasure of social differences” could not hide the real stratification of society from the population.

As for mass consciousness, today two trends are clearly expressed in it: firstly, growing indignation at unjustifiably high and often semi-criminal incomes, secondly, rejection of unjustified equalization of wages and pensions, those who do not have these are rights, etc. Let us note that for propaganda purposes these tendencies are mixed or replaced with each other, depending on what they want to prove.

Public opinion, in principle, does not disagree with the theoretical conclusion that unfair stratification, receiving unfair advantages by representatives of the upper classes, and equalization in the sphere of income and consumption, unification of social parameters, and lifestyle are equally unacceptable and dangerous for society. etc. The injustice of equal pay for unequal work, ignoring differences in education, qualifications, experience, knowledge, attitude to work is just as offensive and intolerant as deriving undeserved benefits from position, property, etc.

Private property, as an epiphenomenon of the social division of labor, is certainly one of the strong causes of stratification, both historically and actually. But not the only one. History knows the Asian mode of production, which did not know private property. Property rights belonged to the state; workers were only users of land, water, irrigation devices and other means of production. Free small producers were dependent on the state and exploited through the tax and service system. In the social structure, such groups were distinguished as the “supreme despotic principle,” represented by the pharaonic and priestly nobility; lower state apparatus - heads of communities and other bosses; army; artisans; peasants and slaves. There were few of the latter, they performed the functions of servants, however, assessing the position of the people in Asian society, it is called “universal slavery.”

The social differences between the “tops” and the “bottoms” were enormous and, as a rule, insurmountable, there was no vertical mobility, social production lost incentives for work, for technological improvements, and degraded. The Russian landed peasant community did not know private property either. The land was owned by the entire community, the “world”, by the right of common, collective property. Land redistributions were periodically carried out in order to equalize the plots of individual families. It would seem that the redistribution of land according to the fairest criterion - “according to eaters”, should have excluded the very possibility of differentiation within the community. But property stratification increased after the abolition of serfdom. More active families were engaged in fishing, carting, migrant work, etc. Communal ownership, according to Engelhardt, saves many who are less capable of farming from final ruin. At the same time, the economic efficiency of the community decreased. The division “according to eaters” stimulated the birth rate. Thus, in 45 years, from 1861 to 1905, the peasant population more than doubled. Accordingly, the plots decreased and the marketability of production decreased. The community, by preventing migration and delaying the mobility of peasants, could, with increasing land shortages, only reproduce the equality of poverty.

He (the Russian farmer) now needs cooperative labor, organized on a large scale. But equipment, fertilizer, agronomic methods, etc. - all the means necessary for collective work - where to find them? It is here that the great superiority of the Russian “rural community” will be felt. 3 It is clear that we are not talking about a collective farm based on state-owned means of production, but about a voluntary association for independent management. Property, as if bypassing the phase of individual ownership, or more precisely, having only undergone legal registration, is immediately socialized, acquiring the status of share, joint-stock, cooperative property. This allows large-scale production to be carried out without going beyond the boundaries of total alienation of a person from property and the results of joint labor. In fact, this is the same way of socializing property, but taking into account the artel traditions and communal morality of the Russian peasantry.

These experiments attracted the close attention of K. Marx. And if he did not change his views on the fate of private property, then, I think, for the following reasons. Firstly, he did not consider it possible for the victory of socialism in one, especially a poorly developed, country. A new society could emerge only after capitalism had fulfilled its “civilizing role”, namely, developed the productive forces, disciplined workers, completed the creation of the world market, and eliminated all remnants of feudalism. Firstly, according to Marx, history does not know retrogression, and therefore the return of any elements of “Asian despotism”, “Egyptian pharaohdom”, “casteism”, etc. was completely excluded. And thirdly, at that time there was no reason to assume that the ruling classes were capable of social partnership and compromise solutions to class conflicts. Their strength lies in private property, and it was to be destroyed.

History once again in the 20th century. showed that the liquidation of private property and the general nationalization of the means of production in itself does not automatically solve social problems.

Short-term work enthusiasm and enthusiasm gradually decreased due to the lack of an effective and permanent motivational stimulation mechanism. Although class inequality is increasing, social differences of non-class origin are increasing.

China, having abandoned the dogmatic thesis about the incompatibility of private property with socialism, relied on the use of the stimulating effect of property, and achieved a sharp increase in production. Fourier was right; not the directive elimination of private property, but its gradual socialization using its inherent high labor motivation - this is a theoretically justified way to transform property and the entire structure public life. This leads to another conclusion: attempts to return in post-socialist countries to classical forms of private property, which have long ceased to exist in developed countries, are based on very superficial historical analogies and ultimately can only increase social tension. But the conservation of previous structures and the refusal of reforms in the economy and social sphere inevitably leads to the accumulation of social impatience with all the negative consequences.

Regulating social differentiation is too important a task to be left to the elements, and at the same time too complex to be tackled on the basis of everyday ideas or concepts created in relation to other historical conditions, a different level of economy, culture, political traditions Without simplifying the problem, consider the following.

1. Social differentiation arises and is reproduced due to the objective action of the law of social division of labor. This law is manifested in the variety of functions vital for the existence of society as a system, which are most successfully performed by specialized institutions and a cadre of professionals. This is how a set of social positions arises, initially seemingly impersonal. For example, when starting the exploration of outer space, society does not know who will perform this function, but to a certain extent tries to establish in advance the social position of the astronauts, based on the social significance of the new function. Society is interested in having the most significant functions performed by the most capable people, and for this purpose it hierarchizes the structure of social positions, establishing a certain distance between them, to overcome which applicants must make considerable efforts and prove their professionalism.

This is the general theoretical model scheme for the social structuring of society. It is significantly deformed when:

social positions are inherited, regardless of personal merit and abilities;

the distance between positions decreases so much that advancement up the hierarchical ladder does not justify the effort expended;

this or that group acquires the ability to determine its significance and advantages at its own discretion, despite the changing needs of society. An extreme case: the function disappears, but the people who performed it insist on its continuation;

“shadow structures” of a criminal nature, “closed distributors”, “new classes” and other formations arise in the “pores” or outside the normative hierarchy of positions.

This kind of relationship violates the objective logic of “positioning”: here it is no longer functions that give rise to certain elements of structure, but on the contrary – groups strive to maintain their position, regardless of the function.

2. A certain level of social differentiation is necessary for society and meets people's expectations. According to the law of social comparison, individuals strive to advance, to occupy higher social positions, and a better social position. This is the basis for high competitive activity, motivation for achievement, success, initiative, and search. It is only important that the opportunity for promotion is not only declared, but also real. Social differentiation becomes threatening to the stability of society if it:

becomes excessive, i.e. exceeds economically and psychologically acceptable levels;

determined not by personal merit, but by various incidental circumstances (origin, connections, etc.);

gives rise to shadow or criminal groups that go beyond the functional structuring of society;

closes channels of social mobility, democratic forms of changing leaders, and personnel rotation.

3. In regulating social status, special attention is required to the lower limit of differentiation: standard of living, education, access to sociocultural benefits, and other indicators. The “poverty line” should not put people in a critical position of threat to survival. The UN Declaration of Human Rights requires the establishment of a certain minimum of state-guaranteed social services to support human existence. It is extremely important that the first distance to a higher position be the easiest, accessible to everyone, and encouraging to overcome it. In addition to the material level, it is necessary to maintain optimism, communication, informal networks of mutual assistance, and solidarity towards those who are temporarily in difficulty.

However, experts do not have a consensus in determining the basic needs of a “normal” (or “decent”) standard of living and the corresponding goods and services to maintain it. Thus, the American sociologist Pinch identifies four approaches to its definition: a) Anglo-Saxon; b) Western European; c) American; d) Japanese. Despite the fact that all these approaches are implemented within the framework of the economic development of countries, they differ significantly in the volume of benefits and services guaranteed by the state to a person, depending on tradition, culture, labor costs, and social policy strategies.

In our society this problem began to be discussed only in recent years. The “normative method” that was dominant in Soviet times was not based on the real needs of people, but on average indicators (per 1000 people, etc.), which hid the minimum level of security and, moreover, were not always met. Such generally accepted categories as “living wage” and “minimum consumer budget” were not calculated and were not used in planning the quality and standard of living.

It is believed that at present there are not enough funds to increase the lower limit of the standard of living in our country. This is true, however, and the available allocations are not always used effectively and targeted. The initiated social reforms should create a regulatory framework by providing budgetary funds, form new mechanisms for the implementation of social programs based on the principles of targeted subsidiarity and incentives.

4. The regulation of social differentiation presupposes, as a first condition, certainty and transparency, social usefulness and effectiveness of the criteria for social advancement. You may recall that in Tsarist Russia there was a rule according to which a soldier who came from a peasant or bourgeois background, who rose to the rank of colonel, received the rank of nobility. The certainty and clarity of this incentive made it very attractive to many people from the common people.

Unfortunately, such historical examples are the exception rather than the rule. In Soviet society, first of all, party affiliation, origin, and partly nationality were taken into account, as well as the presence of a diploma (no matter what), marital status, moral stability, etc., and only after them professional ability and knowledge of the matter. If in developed countries the role model was a self-made man, then in our country a man of the system was formed who was able to adapt to its criteria to the greatest extent, using, among other things, their shortcomings. There were, of course, positions that could not be filled by “promotes.” Korolev, Tupolev, Antonov, Kalashnikov, Orlovsky and dozens of other professionals, whose high status was determined by their personal talent and recognized by the people, did not change the general trend.

The transition period destroyed not only the “nomenklatura” criteria, but also those remnants of socially justified social advancement based on merit that the system was forced to allow.

In sociological studies, the question of what is most to a greater extent promotes advancement today, the first dreams are called: a) having connections; b) access to loans, licenses, etc.; c) the opportunity to use state property, and on the latter - education and personal abilities. This means that mass consciousness does not yet see the optimal, from a social point of view, normative criteria for social advancement. It is clear that such a situation does not contribute to the ordering of social relations and the stabilization of society.

5. Formation of the middle class. Due to the growth of the middle class, the social structure changes its shape: from pyramidal to diamond-shaped. Between the “tops” and the “bottoms” there appears a “buffer layer” of a self-sufficient population, which is most interested in stability and has a strong immunity to any revolutionism. Due to this, the degree of stratification decreases, but at the same time, the stimulating role of the position hierarchy itself is preserved.

Ways to create a middle class in our country will be discussed below.

In foreign sociological science, the concept has become widespread social stratification. In principle, if we keep in mind the ontology of these terms, then they are identical, i.e. about the same thing. Methodological differences can be seen in the fact that the concept of social structure allows one to include in the analysis socio-demographic and socio-professional groups that do not coincide with strata. It is no coincidence that N. Smelser called one of the chapters of his textbook “ Social structure", not stratification. It seems that the noted point, as well as a long tradition, allow us to use the concept of social structure, without, of course, reducing it to the well-known three-term formula.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal State Educational budgetary institution higher professional education

"FINANCIAL UNIVERSITY UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION"

Department of Macroeconomic Regulation

Abstract

on the topic: "Social differentiation of societyTva"

Completed by: Dudkin A.D.

Scientific supervisor: Shmanev S.V.

Moscow 2013

• Introduction
• 1. Concepts of social division
• Sorokin's theory
• Warner's theory
• Weber's theory
• 2. Conflicts associated with social differentiation
• 3. Social differentiation in Russia
• Conclusion
• References

Introduction

At all times of the existence of human society, from primitive communities to modern, more complex structures, man has tended to delimit and isolate separate groups people from others for the purpose of raising or lowering their social and economic status. In primitive tribes, the division was relatively simple: an influential and respected leader, his associates, ordinary members of communities, as well as those living “outside the law,” the outcasts.

At subsequent stages of development, social stratification became more complex and more obvious. The division of labor, responsibilities, the emergence of a stratum of entrepreneurs, the middle class - all this led to the inevitable expansion and complexity of social ties within both society and the whole world.

What are the causes of social inequality? In modern Western sociology, the dominant view is that social stratification grows out of natural need society in stimulating the activities of individuals, motivating their activities through appropriate systems of rewards and incentives. However, this stimulation is interpreted differently in different scientific and methodological schools and directions. In this regard, we can distinguish functionalism, status, economic theories, etc.

Representatives of functionalism explain the cause of social inequality by the differentiation of functions performed by different groups, layers, classes. The functioning of society, in their opinion, is possible only thanks to the division of labor, when each social group, stratum, class carries out the solution of relevant tasks that are vital for the entire social organism; some are engaged in the production of material goods, others create spiritual values, others manage, etc. For the normal functioning of a social organism it is necessary optimal combination all types of activities, but some of them are more important from the position of this organism, others are less important. Thus, on the basis of the hierarchy of social functions, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, layers, and classes performing them is formed. Those who exercise general leadership and management are placed at the top of the social pyramid, because only they can maintain the unity of the state and create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other functions.

Such a hierarchy exists not only at the level of the state as a whole, but also in each social institution. Thus, according to P. Sorokin, at the enterprise level, the basis of interprofessional stratification is made up of two parameters: 1. the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the organism as a whole; 2. the level of intelligence necessary to successfully perform professional duties. P.A. Sorokin believes that the most socially significant professions are those associated with the functions of organization and control.

Consequently, high statuses and the people who occupy them are better rewarded, have more power, the prestige of their occupation is higher, and the level of education should be higher. So we have four main dimensions of stratification - income, power, education, prestige. But because they exhaust the range of social benefits that people strive for. More precisely, not the benefits themselves (there may be many of them), but the channels of access to them. A house abroad, a luxury car, a yacht, a holiday in the Canary Islands, etc. - social benefits that are always in short supply (i.e. expensive and inaccessible to the majority) and are acquired through access to money and power, which in turn are achieved thanks to high education and personal qualities. Thus, social structure arises from the social division of labor, and social stratification arises from the social distribution of the results of labor, i.e. social benefits. Speaking about the differentiation of society, one cannot help but say about Russian society, which, on at the moment, it is impossible to imagine without stratification division. Social differentiation was initially one of the foundations for the creation of a post-communist society in our country, one of the conditions for the formation of a fundamentally different human view of the world.

1. Concepts of social division

Speaking about social differentiation, first of all, I would like to describe modern concepts of social division.

Sorokin's theory

Famous sociologist P.A. Sorokin considered stratification as an integral characteristic of any complexly organized society. He saw the essence of stratification in the unequal distribution of economic resources, power and influence, rights and responsibilities between members of society. According to this sociologist, three main forms of stratification could be distinguished - economic, political and professional. Economic stratification was due to the unequal distribution of material, financial resources. Political stratification was associated with unequal access to power, and the basis of professional stratification was formed by the division of social labor and the formation of various professions, among which more and less preferable ones were identified.

Sorokin studied the features of social stratification in various societies. Considering economic stratification, he analyzed two hypotheses that were formulated respectively by Karl Marx and Vilfredo Pareto. According to Marx, as capitalism developed, the stratification of society increased. Wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of large owners, which was accompanied by the impoverishment of large sections of the population. In contrast, Pareto put forward the idea that in all societies the share of economic wealth in the hands of the ruling class is relatively constant. But, as Sorokin showed in his research, ultimately, both of these hypotheses were not confirmed by historical facts. The nature of economic stratification could change over time, but in such changes it was impossible to detect any permanent trend.

In addition to the concepts of social division, Sorokin also introduced the concept of social mobility. Social mobility is a change in the place occupied by a person or group of people in the social structure of society. The more mobile a society is, the easier it is to move from one stratum to another, the more stable it is, according to supporters of the theory of social stratification.

There are two main types of social mobility - vertical and horizontal. Vertical mobility involves moving from one stratum to another. Depending on the direction of movement, there is upward vertical mobility (social ascent, upward movement) and downward vertical mobility (social descent, downward movement). Promotion - example upward mobility, dismissal, demotion - an example of downward mobility.

With the vertical type of mobility, a person can make both ascents, for example, from a cashier to a bank manager, and falls. An entrepreneur may lose part of his fortune and move to a group of people with lower incomes.

Having lost a qualified job, a person may not find an equivalent one and, as a result, lose some of the characteristics that characterize his previous job. social status. Horizontal mobility involves the movement of a person from one group to another, located at the same level, on the same step.

With this type of mobility, a person, as a rule, retains the basic characteristics of the group, for example, a worker moved to work at another enterprise, maintaining the salary level and the same rank, or moved to another city; the same in number of inhabitants, etc. Social movements also lead to the emergence of intermediate, border layers, which are called marginal.

Warner's theory

Lloyd Warner, in his book Yankee City, presented the first large-scale empirical study of social stratification in the United States. Warner followed the Weberian tradition regarding status groups. He attempted to develop a Standard Index of Status Characteristics, starting from such points as education, place of residence, income and origin. All these factors, from Warner's point of view, are used by Americans when assessing their social value, when choosing friends for themselves and for their children. In contrast to Marx, Warner relied more on "subjective" criteria for stratification, i.e. on how members of a particular community (community) assess each other’s social status, rather than on such “objective” differences as, for example, income.

Warner's main contribution to the division of American society into classes is considered to be a theory in which groups consist of individuals with the same prestigious rank. It was Warner who put forward the idea of ​​​​the existence of a six-class structure (“reputation theory”) instead of the usual two or three classes, which included:

· Upper layer The upper class consisted of wealthy aristocrats.

· The lower layer of the upper class - included people of high income, but they did not come from aristocratic families, they flaunted their wealth, managed to “grow through the asphalt, have strong character, arrogance and phenomenal enterprise.

· Upper middle class - consisted of highly educated people engaged in intellectual work and business people with high incomes: doctors, lawyers, capital owners.

· The lower layer of the middle class - represented mainly by "white collar" workers (secretaries, clerks, clerical workers, cashiers).

· The upper stratum of the lower class was made up of “blue collar workers” (skilled workers and other manual workers).

· The lowest stratum of the lower class - included the poorest and most outcast members of the community, very similar to the lumpen proletariat (homeless vagabonds, beggars and the unemployed).

Warner defined classes as groups that members of society believe exist and are placed at higher or lower levels respectively.

Weber's theory

The famous sociologist Max Weber, conducting many years of research that laid the foundation for his theory of social stratification, developed his own three-dimensional approach to it, completely different from the vision of other theorists. The basis of his three dimensions of social stratification are: economy, power and prestige. Subsequently, these three dimensions were called autonomous by him. According to Max Weber's theory, it is property, or, more precisely, the types of its ownership, that makes it possible for the emergence of economic classes, in which measures of access to power, the formation of political parties are distinguished, and the prestige of individual of them creates status groupings.

Weber defines class as the ability of an individual to gain access to various goods and income in market conditions. Simply put, a class consists of individuals with backgrounds, occupations, incomes, and access to resource opportunities. This sociologist, not without reason, believed that classes exist only in a society with a capitalist system, since it is this system that is determined by market relations. But in market conditions, individuals are divided into two types: the first offer goods and services, and the second only labor. In turn, the former differ from the latter only in the quantitative possession of property. Like other sociological theorists, Max Weber does not have a clear classification of the structure of the society he studied, in particular the capitalist one, in any of his works. Therefore, most sociologists who study the work of this theorist give us completely different lists depending on their own interpretation. The classifications defined on the basis of the works of Weber by Radaev and Shkaratan are considered to be the closest. It looks like this:

Working class;

Petty bourgeoisie;

Intellectuals and technical workers;

Administrative and management personnel;

Owners;

Landlords;

Entrepreneurs

The economic component, mentally divided into two parts, allows us to include in one of the parts the owners with an invariably positive attitude and the proletariat with its negative sentiments due to the lack of property and, by and large, qualifications for its possible implementation in market conditions. With this stratification, a middle class is formed in the center, which includes small owners and people who have certain skills and knowledge required in market conditions. The next division, according to Weber's theory, is division based on prestige and the resulting vertical status group, or, in other words, hierarchy. The basis in which communities serve, in which the concept of honor is formed, defined as any of the qualities valued a large number individuals of the community. Often this kind of assessment was associated with class differences, in which it is necessary to notice property, or rather, quantitative possession of it played not the least role, and perhaps the dominant one, but one status group could include both people who have property and those who do not. Max Weber imagined the acquisition of honor (prestige) in status groups as possible only by firmly assigning strictly exclusive types of activity to group members, imposing a ban on other individuals doing the same, in other words, monopolizing any benefits. This was manifested within groups in the following way - the possibility of wearing certain clothes, jewelry, insignia, producing a certain product, resting separately and different from other individuals of the group to emphasize the exclusivity of the members of this particular status group and the possible strengthening and increasing of the distance between groups. Also, to create exclusivity, marriage ties between persons within the same circle and similar measures of separation through exclusivity were widely used. All this led to the formation of a progressive isolation of the status group. Weber considered the third basis for social division to be differences in power, which in turn gave rise to the emergence of parties into which people united according to their beliefs. According to Weber, a person belonging to a certain group has equal amounts of power, wealth and prestige, which are independent of each other. Parties represent interests according to the status position of the individuals included in them and, of course, with the possibility of replenishing their ranks from their own status groups, but an optional condition for the formation of parties is class or status orientation, but rather loyalty to any status groups ideally.

Weber's only expressed agreement with other theorists who studied the theory of sociological stratification was to accept the existence of social differentiation as an axiom.

2. Conflicts associated with social differentiation

social inequality differentiation society

It is obvious that social differentiation generated by differences in income, status, and opportunities inevitably leads to conflicts in society. In this case, the conflict will be a clash of opposing goals, positions, opinions and views of the subjects of social interaction. By understanding the causes of conflicts occurring in society, one can not only solve the problems of these particular conflicts, but also generally analyze the main consequences of social differentiation of society.

Each of the sociologists studying the issue of social differentiation and conflicts associated with this concept sought to give their own classification, supplementing or reducing existing knowledge.

Thus, Max Weber gave a classification according to the direction of the conflict: goal-oriented and value-oriented. Purposeful actions strive for success using outside world as a means, value-oriented actions do not have any goal and are valuable in themselves. The mindset of people of the first type of action is: “I seek, achieve, using others,” the second type of action is “I believe in some value and want to act for the sake of this ideal, even if it harms me.” The difference between value-based and goal-oriented types of activity is that the goal is understood as an idea of ​​success, which becomes the reason for action, and value is the idea of ​​duty, which becomes the basis for action. People in their actions can be both goal-oriented and value-oriented, but, nevertheless, they act in certain social connections without isolation.

Karl Marx studied the theory of social conflict and came to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable in any group, organization, or society. Marx identified the main reason for the conflict as the shortage and unfair division of resources and, of course, power. The negative consequences of the conflict are predetermined and a priori.

Georg Simmel, considered the founder of theoretical conflictology, argued that conflict in society is inevitable because conflict is a natural component of some social processes. But unlike Marx’s theory, in Simmel’s theory the conflict did not necessarily lead to negative consequences and destruction of social systems. The conflict introduced into society and positive points- strengthening social systems, their cohesion. Simmel considered possible sources of conflict not only to be a clash of interests, but also to the manifestation of hostility and aggressiveness by people towards each other. Based on this, he identified factors governing the nature of the conflict - the instincts of hatred and love.

Ralf Dahrendorf defines modern conflict as a conflict between resources and claims. Economic progress by itself will not eliminate either unemployment or poverty. The majority class has found a relatively comfortable existence, protects its interests in the same way as other ruling classes did, and does not seek to break the circle of deprivations of people who have sunk to the position of the declassed. On the contrary, in time of troubles he actively pushes some of his fellow citizens beyond the threshold of society and keeps them there, protecting the position of those inside. Like the former ruling classes, they find enough reasons for the need for such boundaries and are ready to “let in” those who accept their values. At the same time, they prove that there should be no boundaries between classes. They want to remove the barriers that divide society, but are completely unwilling to do anything about it. The majority class draws boundaries not only horizontally, but also vertically (racial-ethnic problem). Dahrendorf writes that the delights of a multi-ethnic society were wasted on the majority, who were more concerned about maintaining interracial barriers than achieving openness. This state of society is a step back in the history of the development of citizenship. Affirmative action is needed: providing minorities and other disadvantaged people with some social benefits in education and employment. A new type of “undermined” liberalism has emerged, abandoning the great gains in the field of universal civil rights and norms in order to satisfy the separatist demands of national minorities. Minority rights were initially misunderstood and consequently became minorities.

Lewis Coser, approaching the problem of conflict, agrees with the works of G. Simmel, whose monograph “Conflict” is built around the main thesis: “Conflict is a form of socialization.” For L. Coser, conflicts are not social anomalies, but necessary, normal natural forms of existence and development social life. Almost every act of social interaction contains the possibility of conflict. He defines conflict as confrontation social subjects(individuals, groups), arising due to a lack of power, status or means necessary to satisfy value claims, and involving the neutralization, infringement or destruction (symbolic, ideological, practical) of the enemy. The subject over which the vast majority of conflicts arise are real social benefits, recognized as such by both sides. The main causes of the conflict are the shortage of resources and violation of the principles of social justice in their distribution. The initiators of aggravation of relations and bringing them to the point of conflict are most often representatives of those social groups that consider themselves socially disadvantaged. The more stable their confidence in this, the more actively they initiate conflicts and the more often they take them into illegal, violent forms.

As can be seen, the authors social theories adhere, for the most part, to two opposite poles: conflicts in society generated by various forms differentiation can be either negative for society, leading to irreversible changes, or neutral, being a special form of socialization for strata.

Modern conflictology has formulated the conditions under which successful resolution is possible social conflicts. Firstly, this is a timely and accurate diagnosis of the causes of the conflict. Secondly, it is a mutual interest in overcoming contradictions on the basis of mutual recognition of the interests of each party. The third, indispensable condition is a joint search for ways to overcome the conflict. Here it is possible to use a whole arsenal of means and methods: direct dialogue between the parties, negotiations through an intermediary, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc. The final, post-conflict stage is of great importance. At this stage, efforts must be made to finally eliminate the contradictions of interests, goals, and attitudes of the warring parties, and eliminate the socio-psychological tension between them.

Based on the above, I would like to note that the most effective way to reduce the level of tension in society associated with differences in strata is to simplify the transition from one social group to another; which, in general, has been implemented in modern society and the mechanism for this continues to be improved.

3. Social differentiation in Russia

Despite the fact that the Russian economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union acquired clearly market and Western outlines, one cannot talk about the ongoing differentiation of society towards the “Western” side. The creation of a “middle class”, free enterprise, privatization of former state property - everything that the political authorities so strived for, although it reflected obvious changes in society in the process of moving away from the communist system, has its own unique features.

The formation of a post-industrial society in Russia is manifested not only in the creation of an information and technological basis for material and spiritual production, but also in the development of market relations based on various forms of ownership, changes in the mechanism of state regulation, a significant increase in the role of the service sector, large-scale concentration of production while small-scale production lags behind. and medium-sized businesses. The economic reforms carried out in recent decades have had a direct impact on the condition of social groups and strata.

The most significant changes have occurred in the content of social groups, identified on the basis of the criteria of position in the system of social production, division and sphere of application of labor. First of all, I mean the new parameters of the economically active population, which is directly related to the production of goods and services. Statistical data show that a stable trend in the development of social differentiation in post-industrial countries has been the growth of the labor force (for example, in the USA it changed from 125.8 million people in 1990 to 153 million people in 2010); however, exactly the opposite changes occurred in Russian society - a decrease in the quantitative parameters of the economically active population from 75.1 million people. in 1990 to 72.9 million people. in 2003 and only by 2010 it was possible to reach the figure of 75.4 million people, which reflected the crisis development of the economy in this period. Also, I would like to provide the following data on the social gradation of Russian society: despite the steady growth in the number of employed people in the world (for example, the USA - from 118.8 million people in 1990 to 139.0 million people. in 2010), the dynamics of the average annual number of people employed in the economy in Russia was characterized by ambiguous indicators: 1990 - 71.2 million people, 2000 - 65.1 million people, 2010 - 69.8 million .people The reduction in production volumes during the crisis led to a decrease in the parameters of the employed labor force. At the same time, the quantitative indicators of the group of unemployed and its share in the economically active population increased from 3.9 million people. in 1990 to 5.6 million people. in 2010, which was largely a consequence of the ongoing processes of industrialization of the country.

Analyzing the works of famous sociologists, we can come to the conclusion that in any developing society, the so-called class of “entrepreneurs” is identified, which represents a significant transition to a new round of development of economic relations. However, modern statistical data indicate the opposite: the results of population censuses indicate that the absolute majority of those employed in the economy are employed (2002 - 58 million people (95%), 2010 - 61.6 million. people (94%). We must also not forget about the spontaneous and extremely rapid formation of the class of entrepreneurs in Russia (in 2002, almost 1 million employees (1.5%) were employers who hired employees to carry out their activities; in 2010 . their quantitative composition increased to 1.4 million). The formation of large owners and the possibility of them receiving extremely high incomes is directly related to the reckless privatization of state property, the transfer of production and sales to the private sector. natural resources, redistribution of power. It also does not contribute to the development of entrepreneurship in modern Russia judicial and criminal law: thus, according to Forbes magazine, every fifth convict in Russia in 2012 received a sentence precisely because of his entrepreneurial activity- be it misleading accounting, speculative operations or the simple desire of government authorities to maintain a monopoly in a particular field of activity.

Also, the above-mentioned “polarization” leads to a certain intensity of relations in society: in a short period in Russia, a ruling class (large owners, top managers, politicians) was formed, characterized by an extremely high level of income, and a lower class, uniting hired workers performing the functions of executive labor in various spheres of social production and characterized by low income (according to this indicator, up to 70% of the population can currently be classified as lower class).

Finally, I would like to provide information on the created “middle class,” which unites individuals characterized by a standard level of income and consumption, with a fairly high level of education, professional status, and certain political and moral values. Specifics Russian reality is that, despite the development of small and medium-sized businesses and the increasing educational level of the population, representatives of these groups are characterized by a low property status and income level. In this regard, at present, one can only raise the question of the formation of a middle class in Russia, subject to the implementation of appropriate state policies, but not the full functioning of this class as a subsystem of society.

Conclusion

To summarize, I would like to say that modern differentiation of society is the result of complex social, political and economic processes that took place in the societies of various countries in Europe, Russia, Asia and the United States during the period of their existence and, in many respects, determined by them.

It is obvious that, over time, there is a decrease in the pressure of the spiritual and moral spheres on human freedom of thought and speech, the creation of new strata, new categories of social division, the existence of which is unimaginable in the realities of past centuries. There is, in the literal sense, an evolution of society, which is based on the ideas and thoughts of past centuries, but makes its own, fundamentally new, adjustments.

However, despite the strong softening of the framework, today it is impossible to declare a clear victory of reason over differentiation - and people still evaluate each other not so much by moral and personal qualities, but by internal systems of assessment and categorization, taking into account social class classification.

I believe that one of the most important directions in the evolution of social differentiation of society in the coming years should be the abandonment of the categorization scheme of thinking and assessment by social elements of each other and the transition to a new system that guarantees even greater freedom of self-expression and self-determination.

References

1. Belokrylova O. S., Mikhalkina E. V., Bannikova A. V., Agapov E. P. Social science. Moscow: Phoenix, 2010.

2. Kasyanov V.V. Social science. Moscow: Phoenix, 2009.

3. Kokhanovsky V.P., Matyash G.P., Yakovlev V.P., Zharov L.V. Sociology for secondary and special education educational institutions. Tver, 2008.

4. Kravchenko A.I. Social science. M.: Russian Word, 2006.

5. Kurbatov V.I. Social science. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2008.

6. Rosenko Svetlana Ivanovna: “Society as a whole. Social development": M.: EKSMO, 2012.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Social differentiation and social inequality as the basis of theories of social stratification and mobility. Concept, essence and types of social responsibility. General characteristics, the main causes and stages of social conflicts, ways to resolve them.

abstract, added 05/19/2010


Theoretical and methodological foundations for the study of social differentiation of the population, its concept, essence and causes. Current state and the main directions for improving the level and quality of life of the population in Russia. Forms and types of social inequality.

course work, added 01/21/2015


Stratification concepts, social differentiation of populations of people into classes in a hierarchical rank. The main forms of stratification and the relationships between them, the causes of social inequality. The relationship between inequality, equality and justice.

abstract, added 11/17/2010


Social inequality resulting from social differences and differentiation. Factors of social difference. Natural differences between people. Fundamentals of differentiation of society. The structure of social stratification. Basic principles of division.

presentation, added 12/11/2016


Comparative characteristics social inequality in Russia and Brazil. Research on social differentiation. Measuring economic inequality by population group. Studying the poverty line and the level of material security in the state.

course work, added 10/11/2014


Characteristics of the main systems of social stratification. Study of stratification trends of modern Russian society. Analysis of the problem of the origin of social inequality. Marx's class theory. Social mobility: channels and mechanisms.

abstract, added 02/13/2016


Inequality between layers of society. Social differentiation of society. The division of society into social groups that occupy different positions in society. Social inequality as a stimulator for self-development and achieving one’s goals.

abstract, added 01/27/2016


Characteristics of the fundamentals of forecasting the social structure of society, consideration of its role in the sustainable development of society in the conditions of market transformations. Analysis of trends and prospects for the development of the social structure of society in the Russian Federation.

course work, added 04/09/2015


Changes in the social stratification of Russian society during the development of democratic reforms. Differentiation of income of the population and polar stratification of society. Marginalization of society as a loss of connection with one’s social, national and ethnic group.

presentation, added 04/12/2015


Analysis of the role of integration and differentiation processes in the formation and development of society in the context social system, their functions and systemic significance, practical significance. Methods of classifying social communities. The concept of classes and social strata.

Social differentiation

The word differentiation comes from a Latin root meaning difference. Social differentiation is the division of society into groups occupying different social positions. Many researchers believe that social stratification is characteristic of any society. Even in primitive tribes, groups were distinguished according to gender and age, with their inherent privileges and responsibilities. Here was an influential and humiliated leader, and his entourage, as well as outcasts living “outside the law.” At subsequent stages of development, social stratification became more complex and more obvious.

It is customary to distinguish between economic, political and professional differentiation. Economic differentiation is expressed in differences in income, living standards, in the existence of rich, poor and middle layers of the population. The division of society into managers and governed, political leaders and the masses is a manifestation of political differentiation. Professional differentiation includes being singled out in society various groups according to their type of activity and occupation. Moreover, some professions are considered more prestigious than others. Thus, clarifying the concept of social differentiation, we can say that it means not just the identification of any groups, but also a certain inequality between them in terms of their social status, the scope and nature of rights, privileges and responsibilities, prestige and influence. Is this inequality removable? There are different answers to this question. For example, the Marxist doctrine of society is based on the necessity and possibility of eliminating this inequality as the most striking manifestation social injustice. To solve this problem, it is necessary, first of all, to change the system of economic relations, to eliminate private ownership of the means of production. In other theories, social stratification is also regarded as evil, but it cannot be eliminated. People must accept this situation as inevitable.

According to another point of view, inequality is regarded as a positive phenomenon. It makes people strive to improve social relations. Social homogeneity will lead society to destruction. At the same time, many researchers note that in most developed countries there is a decrease in social polarization, the middle strata are increasing and the groups belonging to the extreme social poles are decreasing.

Trends in the development of social relations

Societies that have entered the era of industrialization and modernization are distinguished by high social dynamics. Groups associated with major industrial production, the urban population is growing.

Significant social changes are taking place in developed Western countries. One trend is the rise of a “new” middle class. It includes the majority of the intelligentsia, middle and lower managers, and highly qualified workers. The incomes of these layers, in most cases employed, are no lower than those of the middle and petty bourgeoisie (the “old” middle class). The growth of the middle class reduces social differentiation and makes society more politically stable.

This group of countries has a large proportion of the population employed. At the same time, structural changes in the economy are leading to a reduction in the size of the industrial working class. There are also fewer independent peasants (farmers). At the same time, under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, the importance of highly qualified mental labor is increasing. Unemployment remains an acute social problem. State power seeks to exert a certain regulatory influence on social relations. In a number of cases, the state supports the ideas of social equality, and in extreme cases, egalitarianism. This applies, for example, to former socialist countries, present-day Cuba, and North Korea.

In Western countries, one of the main concerns of the state is the prevention of social conflicts. Much is being done to support the most vulnerable segments of the population in a competitive economy - the elderly, the disabled, and large families.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL STATE

BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"DON STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY"

Correspondence faculty

DEPARTMENT OF "PHILOSOPHY"

Test on “________________”

For _________course

Student: Full name Address_____________

_________________________________

Group___________ Code___________

(grade book number)

Rostov-on-Don

Topic 9. Social structure of society.

Introduction

1. Social differentiation and social inequality. Historical types of social inequality.

2. K. Marx and M. Weber on the foundations of social inequality.

3. Social structure of modern Russia.

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Modern sociology is an independent science about society as an integral social system, its subsystems and individual elements. Any social phenomenon - be it a family, a class, a revolution, a state or an election campaign technology - appears as an element of a social system, which is society. Within the framework of this system, all social phenomena and processes taken in their interaction are analyzed.

Meanwhile, any society appears not as something monolithic, but as internally divided into various social groups, layers and national communities. All of them are in a state of objectively determined connections and relationships with each other - socio-economic, political, spiritual.

The problem of the social structure of society is one of the central ones in sociology. It is no coincidence that in a number of scientific works and textbooks published in the West, sociology is defined as the science of the social structure of society, social groups and their influence on people’s behavior. There are, of course, other interpretations of the subject of sociology. But in all cases, the problem of the social structure of society is given a prominent place. The same can be said about the place of this problem in Russian sociological literature.

1. Social differentiation and social inequality. Historical types of social inequality.

Initially, inequality is based on natural differentiation - differences between people due to their physiological, mental and intellectual characteristics. They can be either congenital (gender, race, mental abilities, physical strength, state of health, etc.) or acquired (due to education, training, illness, etc.). Here it is appropriate to recall the Bible’s statement that God created people unequal; in the Christian tradition, the natural characteristics of people are understood as the result of God’s providence for a particular person.

Natural differences are one of the foundations for the development of unequal relations between people - social inequality. These differences constituted the most important basis of inequality in primitive times, and have great value and today. The differences lie in the shift in emphasis from one factor to another. Despite examples of such phenomena as racism, Nazism, apartheid of the twentieth century, in most modern democratic countries the impact on social inequality of such natural differences as race and skin color, nationality, and health status is minimized. Further weakening of these factors is the concern of many political forces (for example, creating conditions for work and a full-fledged life for people with disabilities, the fight against racial prejudice, etc.). At the same time, natural factors such as talent in various areas, mental, intellectual and spiritual qualities acquire greater weight.

Another level of differentiation of individuals is social. Social differences are those generated by social factors, the main of which are the following:

Division of social labor, giving rise to various types occupations and professions of individuals;

A person’s occupation is determined solely by the content of his activity (housework, hobbies, gardening in the country, etc., as well as professional activities). The profession requires special training to obtain a specific specialty (doctor, mechanic, driver, etc.). Both professional and non-professional activities can generate income. There are numerous classifications of people's occupations and professions. Let us present some dichotomous divisions: mental and physical occupations, skilled and unskilled, creative and monotonous, executive and managerial, social and antisocial (including criminal).

Different lifestyles and lifestyles;

The way of life is associated with conditions external to the individual - both physical and cultural. Physical conditions: natural-climatic, ecological, landscape, population density, urbanization (saturation of urban living conditions). Cultural conditions are determined by the sociocultural environment in which a person lives (language, norms, traditions, religion, ideology, etc.). It is customary to distinguish between the traditional way of life, based on religious norms and pre-industrial relations, and the modern way of life, which is secular, industrial, and urbanized. This is a socially determined characteristic, since it is largely determined by the social environment (norms and traditions) in which the individual lives. Lifestyle is a personal characteristic of a person - it depends on the age of the individual, his education, occupation, level of spiritual culture, needs and other similar factors. The formation of a way of life is determined both by the way of life in a given area and by the process of socialization of the individual. Let us indicate some dichotomous divisions of lifestyle types: healthy and unhealthy, day and night, moral and immoral, labor and non-labor.

Performed social roles (general, professional, family, social), i.e. role personality set.

Social differences often serve as a continuation of natural ones. For example, a child with an ear for music becomes a composer, while a child with mental retardation is forced to work as a simple loader. However, there are also happy exceptions - for example, a person who is bypassed by natural gifts, nevertheless, realizes his meager capabilities. However, even in this case one can see the presence of some inherent will in man. At the same time, when considering the social trajectory of an individual, one cannot exclude either chance (or providence), or free choice and concentration of willpower by the person himself.

Thus, society represents a multidimensional picture of indicators characterizing its members. Social differentiation is a prerequisite for the very functioning of society, since society cannot exist without the performance of various functions. Another thing is social inequality. By precise definition N. Smelser, social inequality is the conditions under which people have unequal access to social benefits.

Historical types of social inequality.

Depending on the degree and type of inequality, four main historical types of stratification are distinguished.

The first type is slavery - economic, social and legal form enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. Historically, there are two forms of slavery - patriarchal (primitive) and classical (ancient). In the primitive form of slavery, the slave, being a member of the same ethnic group, was actually a junior member of the patriarchal family. He lived in the same house with the owners, could participate in social life, marry free people, and inherit the owner’s property. His life was protected by legal norms. O. Patterson identified three universal features of slavery. First, the slave owner has virtually unlimited rights to violence or the threat of violence against the slave. Second, the slave experiences “alienation by birth,” being genealogically isolated and deprived of all birthrights. Thirdly, there is no feeling of respect for the slave.

A primitive form of slavery existed in the past in all societies. Classical slavery developed into Ancient Greece and Rome, in the 40-60s of the XIX century. in the southern USA, in medieval China and the Soviet Gulag.

The second historical type of stratification is caste. A classic example of a caste society is India. Apart from this, castes are partially observed only in some African societies.

A caste is a stratum in which a person owes membership only by his birth. The caste position is enshrined in Hinduism, the national religion. According to its basic principles, people live countless lives: they die and are born again, each in a caste corresponding to their behavior in a previous life. If a person behaved badly, violating caste customs, he was born into a low caste, and vice versa. The caste is closed - you cannot leave it, endogamous - only intra-caste marriages are allowed. Castes are ranked according to the degree of “ritual purity” attributed to their members and occupation.

The classic example of the class division of society is medieval Europe, Russia - from the second half of the 18th century.

The rights and duties of each class were not only determined by law, but also sanctified by religion. Membership in the estate was inherited. Each class was divided into many layers, ranks, levels, and professions. The nobility supplied officers and politicians; the clergy guided the spiritual life of the population and legitimized the system. The third estate included peasants, traders, artisans, scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. It paid taxes and replenished the state bureaucracy. Unlike castes, inter-class marriages were allowed. Sometimes high status could be bought (in England, starting with King Richard Lionheart) or receive as a reward, a gift from the monarch (an example is the fate of Alexander Menshikov, a favorite of Peter I). In modern Britain, very often famous politicians famous actors, athletes, etc. receive an aristocratic title of nobility as a reward (for example, Baroness M. Thatcher).

Slavery, caste and estate systems form a closed society, where social movements from stratum to stratum are prohibited or significantly limited.

An open society begins to take shape with the advent of class (fourth) type of stratification.

Classes are understood in the broad and narrow sense of the word. In a broad sense (Marxist approach), a class is understood as a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupy a certain place in the system of social division of labor and are characterized by a specific way of generating income.

stratification of society into different, often warring groups based on nationality, property, sociocultural, religious, political and other characteristics, which can lead to rivalry and conflicts.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION

differences between macro- and microgroups, as well as individuals, identified for many reasons. Attitude towards D.s. constitutes the specificity of different ideologies, political. currents and cultures At one pole - the attitude towards D.s. as an independent value, a source of social diversity; many social environments, levels gives a person the opportunity to choose, encourages him to be active and at the same time ensures complementarity or constructive contradiction of different lifestyles. Hence the dynamism and diversity of societies. development. In this context, particular attention is paid to individual differences. Recognition of the intrinsic value of each individual, her uniqueness, and therefore the right to her own self-affirmation, to autonomy in a group, society, and ethics. sense means high mutual tolerance, wide space for personal sovereignty. In politics In a sense, this means developed freedom of vertical and horizontal mobility, special minority status, as well as the individual taking responsibility for his own destiny, for the risk of his own choice. At the opposite pole is the attitude towards D.s. as a vice of society, a source of injustice and mass conflicts. Caused by D.s. property and status inequality inevitably leads to exploitation, the class struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. Therefore D.s. needs to be overcome, and society needs to be leveled out, any social. differences. The individual in this orientation acts as an element of the whole, his value is determined by his contribution to the whole (organization, common work). Between both poles, intermediate variants of attitude towards D.s. have developed. Grounds for D.s. can relate both to objective signs (economic, professional, educational, demographic, etc.) and to signs of mass and individual consciousness. These reasons do not always coincide. Thus, certain groups of consciousness - macro- and microgroups - cover different professional, age and other groups (for example, according to ideology, cultural preferences). Analysis of D.s. very important for social management. processes. Especially during transitional periods of development of the society. Such an analysis is of great importance, for example, for determining social the basis for reforms, i.e., searching for that category of the population on which this or that reform can be based. For example, the commercialization of the national economy requires the allocation of the so-called. a socially active element of the society as a structural formation that is the bearer of the innovative principle in the society. As the society develops, some reasons for D.s. may increase (e.g. property, ideology, etc.) etc.), and others are capable of disappearing (class), social. the significance of the third is smoothed out (gender), and the variability of the fourth may increase (religious). See also Concepts of social differentiation. Lit.: Prigozhin A.I. Perestroika: transition processes and mechanisms. M., 1990. A.M. Prigogine