The term "structure" in relation to human society began to be used in the 19th century. The concept of “social structure” was introduced into theoretical sociology in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The first attempt to divide social structure into positions occupied by individuals, members of society, was made by the American anthropologist Ralph Lauren (1893-1953). He called each of these positions a status. Since then, the terms “position”, “position” and “status” have been used interchangeably.

As we have already found out, in sociology (and not only in it, but, perhaps, in any other social science), the greatest debate flares up around fundamental concepts. The category “social structure” did not escape the same fate. At the same time, different points of view are put forward. For some sociologists, and there are many of them, social structure is seen as any repeating pattern of social behavior. Any repeated action over time turns either into a habit when it comes to an individual, or crystallizes into an institution. If the residents of the country have been accustomed for years to walk on the right side of the street and return on the left side, then gradually all traffic becomes right-handed, the government issues laws and instructions regulating compliance with such rules, and the entire infrastructure of society, its laws, institutions and institutions take this norm into account as mandatory in its activities. In this case, it is quite possible to consider social structure as the result of the existence of long-term, orderly and typical connections between individuals and institutions of society. Apparently, this is the origin of the repeated attempt to compare society with a machine or an organism.

Social structure in sociology is analyzed in close connection with the concepts of status, social institutions and social change.

In the theory of structuration by E. Giddens, structure is understood as a set of rules that are both the result and the condition of an individual’s action. The subject at the same time creates the rules, reproduces them, follows them. In this case, institutions act as social practices extended in time and space. Thus, social structure is a mechanism

nisms of maintaining sustainable forms of social action, created in the process of repetition of actions. Repeated actions form a structure that guides and controls subsequent actions.

The difference in views and approaches most likely reflects not personal preferences or the search for scientific truth, but the specialist’s belonging to one or another ideological camp, theoretical direction, methodological orientation or scientific school. In particular, R. Mills understood social structure as a combination of institutional orders, i.e. a set of institutions in various spheres of society. For J. Bernard and L. Thompson, social structure is a special order (location) of institutions that helps people

interact and arrange living together 1 . These sociologists have a so-called institutionalist approach.

On the contrary, P. Berger and T. Luckman, adherents of phenomenological sociology, are confident that social institutions do not have ontological status, and therefore objective existence. The social structure that is derived from them is also deprived of this quality. And in general, well-known sociologists believe, a person constructs the world around him himself - from his expectations, stereotypes, rules, traditions. This is how a spider weaves its web. Since social structures are constructed by man himself, they exist only for him alone. Elephants or rhinoceroses cannot see them. In this sense, social structures, social systems and institutions are not only relative to our existence, but they are also immaterial. Let's say, a huge boulder on the road is objective and material, since not only a person, but also an elephant and a rhinoceros walk around it.

A generalization of all points of view gives two main options for interpreting social structure. The first one can be called structuralist, and second - interactionist. In many ways they are opposite to each other. For structuralists, social structure exists independently of the will, consciousness and behavior of people; for others, structure is inextricably linked with consciousness and behavior, moreover, it is the result of people’s subjective intentions and actions.

The conventional designation of the first approach as structuralist is explained by the fact that it can include representatives of a wide variety of ideological and methodological orientations, similar to each other only in that they generally have the same understanding of social structure. Within the framework of the structuralist approach, there are two major sociological schools (directions): the structural-functional approach (E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, R. Merton, etc.) and the Marxist (K. Marx, F. Engels, etc.)

For representatives Marxist approach, including its Soviet variety, the social structure of society is created by a combination of large social groups of people, primarily social classes. Hence the second name - “class structure of society”. Thus, the initial building blocks of the social structure of society here are real population groups.

Bernard J., Thompson L.F. Sociology. Nurses and their Patients in a Modern Society. Saint Louis, 1970.

The Marxist view of society is firmly established in Russian science. In the reference literature of the late 1980s and early 1990s. a definition of social structure is provided, which combines the principles of group and institutional approaches: social structure is “a set of interconnected and interacting social groups, as well as social institutions and relations between them” 2.

For representatives structural functionalism on the contrary, the initial building blocks are positions - cells-cells in the social structure, which are subsequently occupied by people. The structure holds positions together, but not the individuals themselves. Structures are not uniquely associated with specific individuals, but form set of positions participation of individuals in the system. Filling certain positions means for participating individuals the acquisition of some social status 3 .

Structure here is a rigid frame that holds together fixed cells, the function of which can be performed by social statuses, institutions, institutions. Positions, more often called statuses, are the main structural elements, and what they perform is called function. In accordance with this, the very division into structures and functions becomes very conditional: what from one point of view appears as a structure, from another is a function, and vice versa.

Both approaches within the framework of the structuralist variant assume that structure is primary and people are secondary. In management, structuralism corresponds to the classical approach, according to which it is first necessary to create a well-planned structure of the organization, expressed in its job chart, and then select performers. It is not a person who paints a place, but vice versa.

True, there are known discrepancies between these approaches. For K. Marx, the source of transformation of the social structure of society is the nature of the dominant mode of production, i.e. economics and technology. For T. Parsons, structure is associated with norms and social relations: norms bind social relations into a rigid structure, which should be called social structure.

“A structure is a set of relatively stable standardized relationships of elements. And since the element of the social system is the actor, the social structure is a standardized system of social relations of actors with each other” 4. Acting people have expectations of each other, these expectations constitute an indispensable condition for the action of each actor, part of his situation, and “systems of standardized expectations, considered in relation to their place in the general system and permeating the action deeply enough so that they can be accepted without evidence as legitimate, are conventionally called institutions” 5 .

It is a stabilizing part of the social structure. Institutions most clearly embody the types of general value integration of a system of action. Parsons associated two processes with social structure - social

2 Brief dictionary of sociology. M., 1988. P. 392.

Anurin V.F. Fundamentals of sociological knowledge. N. Novgorod, 1998. P. 115.

4 Parsons T. On the structure of social action. 2nd ed. M., 2002. P. 320.

5 Ibid. P. 319.

ation and social control and understood it as “institutionalized patterns of normative culture.” In 1964, his fundamental work “Social Structure and Personality” appeared, where he argued that the source of changes in social structure is culture, which includes values, meanings, beliefs, and symbols.

Structuralism is anti-psychological, objectivist in nature, since it seeks to explain the behavior of an individual or group in terms of their place in the social structure. Another feature of it is connected with this - the recognition of the determining role of social structure in relation to its constituent elements 6 . One of the leading representatives of structural functionalism, R. Merton, believed that inequality of power and wealth plays a decisive role in the formation of social structure. Inequality forms a hierarchy of social strata, which create a class structure. Therefore, the social structure can be considered as a structure of power, where the decisive positions are occupied by the class of owners, who managed to institutionalize their own interests into laws governing the behavior of all members of society.

In contrast to this for symbolic interactionism social structure is formed in everyday communication and interaction of people 7 . Once people stop interacting, structure disappears. It is not something durable and independent of people’s consciousness, but rather mobile and amorphous.

Thus, the two sociological perspectives - structuralist and interactionist - view the social structure of society differently.

For structural functionalism, the social structure of society exists independently of the will and consciousness of people as something stable, frozen. It, like a huge empire stretching over all its subjects, is independent of the personalities, subjective emotions and actions of people. This is not to say that structuralists ignore, and interactionists highlight, the role of social interaction between people. Both approaches start from this, but see the object from different angles. Structuralists try to discover in the rapidly changing fabric of human actions and actions some stable elements, a kind of invariants of social action, and, having grouped them, call them social structure. Interactionists believe that social interaction is indecomposable by nothing and in any way; it is created. Interaction is a creative act action, projection of their values, beliefs, habits, emotions, meanings. The fabric of social interaction is being recreated anew, and what exists now will not exist tomorrow. If there is anything stable in it, it is rather the ways of creating this fabric, the procedures and algorithms of interaction, or, to put it differently, social practices.

^ Modern Western Sociology: Dictionary. M., 1990. P. 335.

See: Berger P.L. Invitation to Sociology: Humanistic Perspective / Transl. from English; Ed. G.S. Batygina. M., 1996.

So, structural functionalism does not refuse to consider the social interactions of people. They are important to him in the same way that they are important to symbolic interactionism.

In other words, in the first case, people enter into relationships and interact only after they occupy the cells assigned to them in the social structure. The teacher shows a certain attitude towards the student only after he has taken up the post of teacher, but not before.

On the contrary, in the second case, social structure is a consequence of human interaction, and not its cause. Someone can instruct, teach life (act as a guru), advise and impart wisdom regardless of whether he holds the post of teacher or not, since teaching or mentoring for him is an integral feature of his way of life. In everyday life, teacher-student relationships occur much more often than is prescribed by the school charter: parents teach children, elders teach younger ones, wife teaches husband (and vice versa), officer teaches soldiers, police officers teach offenders, etc.

Following this logic of reasoning, in human society in ancient times stable types of instructive interaction should have developed (in a tribe, old people taught young people) and only after many millennia did they acquire an institutional form (the formation of a school as an institution) and organized a rigid framework of the social structure of society.

It is difficult to say which of the two points of view is more correct. They both reflect objective reality from the right positions, but illuminate it from different angles. The scientistic and humanistic perspectives of sociology do not contradict or reject each other, although their methodological principles are contradictory. They must be considered according to the principle of complementarity. Both approaches are necessary to create a complete picture of social reality.

Without detracting from the merits of any of them, nevertheless, in this chapter we will take the structural-functional approach as the basis for understanding the social structure of society. Its advantage is that it deals with current society, which has ready-made structures and established institutions that have become such powerful factors in social life that they have literally suppressed the will of individuals. In modern society, structures are not created from the everyday practices of communication and relationships of people.

From a scientistic perspective social structure - This anatomical skeleton of society. Structure is understood as a set of functionally interrelated elements that make up the internal structure of an object. However, in sociology there is no consensus on what exactly or who exactly should be considered an “element” of society. For example, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown understood social structure as general, regular relationships between elements in the form of individual people, and for S.F. Neil's elements were roles. A significant part of sociologists, in particular functionalists, propose to consider social institutions as organized patterns of social behavior as elements of social structure. Functional relations between social institutions, representing a huge and invisible social web, in fact, create the social structure about which many polemical copies have been broken.

In our opinion, the elements of social structure are social statuses And roles. Their number, order of arrangement and nature of dependence on each other determine the content of the specific structure of a particular society. It is clear that the social structures of ancient and modern societies are very different.

Although structure describes a stable, immobile moment in the structure of society, it changes historically. Mobility is given to it by social roles that are fulfilled in the process of interaction between individuals.

The multidimensionality of the social structure is also manifested in the fact that it can be considered in three levels (Fig. 25) - functional (as an ordered set of spheres of social activity, social institutions and other forms of social life), organizational (as a set of connections that form various types of social groups ; the units of analysis are collectives, organizations and their structural elements) and, finally, as a system of orientation of social actions (the units of analysis here are goals and means, motives, incentives, norms, patterns, programs and subprograms of social action) 8 .

Rice. 25. Three theoretical models of social structure:

A- Marxism: social structure- set of real groups:

6 - structural functionalism: social structure- set of positions:

in symbolic interactionism: social structure- result of human interaction

Based on the above theoretical approaches to social structure, formed over many years in world sociology, the authors present their own vision of this topic.

In a broad sense, social structure is the form or pattern of social relations in groups, and it does not specify what kind of groups they are - humans, hominids or ants. It is assumed that social structure characterizes relationships in groups not only of social animals and people (who can be considered the highest type of social animals), but also of living beings in general, for example, a flock of birds or a colony of viruses.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. M., 1970. T. 5. P. 142-144.

In a narrow sense, social structure refers only to people, but also characterizes the form of relationships in groups and communities - from small groups and social organizations to society as a whole.

Each species of living beings, of course, and humans too, has not one, but many models of social (intra-group) relations. For example, the social structure of chimpanzees depends on the habitat: populations inhabiting the border of the savanna, unlike their forest relatives, form close-knit and numerous communities, and are less likely to split into small groups in search of prey. The variability of social structures is due to many things: environmental conditions, time of year and actual weather conditions (for example, unprecedented drought or abundance of rain), the presence of neighboring communities (i.e. population density) or a second closely related group laying claim to similar food resources. Thus, during periods of severe drought, herds of anubis baboons form unusual groups for themselves, which resemble the harems of hamadryas baboons 9 .

Having summarized everything that has been created in foreign and domestic science in the field of the theory of social structure, we will try to connect this concept with another one mentioned above - the concept of social space. With its help, we depicted all the positions that a person or group can occupy in society. And they are called social statuses.

At the intersection of axes OYw(Asocial space (Fig. 26) a new concept is being formed - “social structure of society.”

Rice. 26". Social structure of society in two dimensions as a unity of social stratification and social composition of the population

Social structure must be understood in at least two meanings. IN broad meaning social structure is the totality of all social groups and layers, including classes, and in a narrow sense - the totality of functionally interrelated statuses that exist in a given society at a given historical moment. In other words, in the first case this is the sum of the axes OYw OX, and in the second, the sum of points (called statuses in sociology) in social space.

4 Butovskaya M.L. Evolution of man and his social structure // Nature. 1998. No. 9.

The social structure of society includes not only strata, groups, but also institutes. There is no place to place social institutions on the two axes of the Cartesian coordinate system - they are both already filled. Social institutions cannot be placed on the same axis with social composition or social stratification, since this is a completely special phenomenon.

Social Institute is a set of norms and institutions regulating a certain sphere of social relations. Social institutions organize human activity into a certain system of roles and statuses, establishing patterns of human behavior in various spheres of public life. For example, a social institution such as a school includes the roles of teacher and student, and a family includes the roles of parents and children. Certain role relationships develop between them. These relations are regulated by a set of specific norms and regulations. The most important norms are enshrined in law, others are supported by traditions, customs, and public opinion. Any social institution includes a system of sanctions - from legal to moral and ethical, which ensure compliance with relevant values ​​and norms and the reproduction of appropriate role relationships.

Social institutions streamline, coordinate many individual actions of people, give them an organized and predictable character, and ensure standard behavior of people in socially typical situations.

Thus, an institution is not the same as a social class, such as the rich class, or a social group, say, all pensioners. Both are aggregates of people. A social institution is a mechanism or a set of institutions, but not a mechanical set of elements. It is worth taking a closer look at any institution, or better yet, a social organization, and we will see clearly established control, planning, accounting, staff, buildings and equipment, management hierarchy and much more, which is not found either in classes or in demographic or professional groups.

Since they have different essences, a third axis should be introduced OZb diagram of social space (Fig. 27).

Instead of a two-dimensional social space, we get a three-dimensional one. The third axis is the entire set of social institutions. Let us briefly characterize them.

Social structure represents one of three subject areas - structure, organization, personality - which together form a single whole and form fundamental knowledge of general sociology. The social structure with its numerous substructures (socioprofessional, sociostatus, socioregional, socioethnic) depicts statics of society, his "social skeleton". Against, social organization shows social life in development, which always occurs through the emergence and resolution of contradictions, the clash of interests of various groups, through the struggle of historically obsolete, exhausted forms and new, just emerging ones. We are talking about the “social physiology” of society, its historical dynamics.

At the intersection of structure and organization is the personality. It is considered by sociology not in terms of individually unique traits

(this is the task of psychology), but in social-typical terms. In other words, in sociology, a person is not so much a part of a small contact group, but rather a typical representative of a large social group, a bearer of the norms, traditions, values, interests and relationships inherent in this group.

Rice. 27. Three-dimensional social image system structures of society

Social structure- a set of statuses and roles that are functionally interconnected. Status is the social position of an individual in society. A role is a model of behavior corresponding to a given status, its dynamic characteristic. The content of the status is revealed through a set of rights and obligations. Teacher - status in the education system. He is obliged to transfer new knowledge to students, evaluate and check the level of their knowledge, and monitor their discipline. In turn, the responsibility of students is to regularly attend school, learn new knowledge, do homework, etc. Both the teacher and the student have their own rights. The set of rights and responsibilities of a teacher is the content of the “teacher” status, the set of rights and responsibilities of a student is the content of the “student” status. The status of a teacher makes sense only in relation to the status of a student. They are interconnected functionally (the function of the teacher is to transmit knowledge, the student’s function is to assimilate it). For his colleagues, the teacher is simply a comrade. The status of “soldier” only makes sense in relation to the status of “commander”, etc. Statuses occupy a certain place in the status hierarchy. It is created by public opinion. In society, the status of a banker is valued above the status of a plumber, etc. The place in the hierarchy is called rank. Status ranks can be high, medium and low.

The higher the rank, the more society values ​​status, the greater privileges, benefits, honors, symbols, awards and prestige it is endowed with. The rank of status can acquire formal consolidation, or legitimation. In this case it is called a title, rank. Baron, lord, prince, count - titles of the highest statuses in feudal society, which received formal recognition. Officer is a generic title (rank), the varieties of which are colonel, major, lieutenant, etc. Most status ranks in society are not formally established; they exist only in the mass consciousness as some assessments. Every person

several statuses and social roles: father (mother), man (woman), engineer, trade union member, middle-aged person, Russian, Orthodox, republican, etc. A person behaves according to his status, i.e. performs a role that is determined by social norms from society and expectations (expectations) from surrounding people. There is no status without a role and no role without status. Each status is an empty cell, like a cell in a honeycomb. All cells are linked together functionally - by mutual rights and responsibilities.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE is also the totality of all functionally related statuses that exist at a given historical time in a given society.

If we arrange the entire set of empty cells, connected to each other, on a plane, we obtain the social structure of society.

In primitive society there are few statuses: leader, shaman, man, woman, husband, wife, son, daughter, hunter, warrior, gatherer, child, adult, old man. In principle, they can be counted on one hand. And in modern society there are about 40,000 professional statuses alone, more than 200 family-marriage-related relationships (brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, cousin... continue the list yourself), many hundreds of political, religious, economic ones. There are 3000 languages ​​on our planet, and behind each of them there is an ethnic group - a nation, people, nationality, tribe. And these are also statuses. They are included in the demographic system along with gender and age statuses.

Thus, the social structure is built on the principle of “one status - one cell.” When the cells are filled with individuals, we get one large social group for each status. In modern society there are millions of drivers, engineers, postmen, tens of thousands of professors, doctors, etc.

The totality of large social groups (filled statuses) gives a new concept - social composition of the population. If large social groups are arranged vertically and arranged according to the degree of inequality of income, power, education and prestige, then we get another concept - "social stratification". Thus, stratification is the same statuses, but grouped according to other criteria and arranged along “shelves” (strata) from top to bottom. A sample of stratification is the class stratification of society.

Social status is a generic concept. Its varieties are demographic (nationality, race, gender, age), family-related (husband, wife, son, daughter, father, nephew, father-in-law, mother-in-law, cousin, stepbrother, widow, bachelor, unmarried, bride, etc.) .d.), economic (entrepreneur, owner, employee, capitalist, businessman, etc.), professional (engineer, driver, miner, banker, etc.), religious (priest, parishioner, believer, etc.) etc.), political (liberal, democrat, voter, etc.), territorial-settlement (city dweller, villager, temporarily registered, etc.). These groups of statuses form substructures of the social structure of society. As a result, we have economic, political, religious, demographic, professional, family-kinship, territorial-settlement structures of society. Each of these substructures can be divided

look from a different angle - as institutional spheres. Family and kinship structure describes the institution of family and marriage, professional and economic - the most numerous and heterogeneous - form several social institutions at once - state and law, production, education. Religious structure refers to the institution of religion. Only demographic and territorial-settlement structures do not create social institutions.

So, the three fundamental concepts of sociology - “social structure”, “social stratification” and “social institutions” - are closely related to each other due to statuses and roles. The historical mechanism common to all of them is the social division of labor. The deepening division of labor and specialization created a whole variety of statuses and roles.

The social structure can rightfully be called collective status portrait (similar to individual), or status portrait of society.

One can depict the social structure as status cells tightly fitted to each other, where one cell is one name of status (mother, Russian, miner, student, etc.). We left all statuses existing in society (and there are tens of thousands of them) empty - like the cells of a beehive not filled with honey (Fig. 28). There are no people, there are only empty statuses: one name - one status. A collection of empty ones, i.e. statuses not filled by people, forms the social structure of society. But only in the narrow sense of the word.

Rice. 28. Social structure- the totality of all statuses existing at a given historical moment in a given society

So let's do it conclusion: The first building blocks of the subject of sociology and social structure are statuses. They give a static picture of society. But this is not surprising, because the term “structure” precisely implies limitations.

a valuable number of elements rigidly interconnected like a crystal lattice.

Like an individual, any society at any historical moment has a status portrait characteristic only of it - the totality of all statuses that exist in it. Primitive society has no more than two dozen of them. Russian society in 1913 had in its social structure such statuses that disappeared after the revolution of 1917, for example, emperor, police chief, nobleman.

Thus, the collective status portrait (social structure of society), as well as the individual status portrait (status set), are very individual. They tell literally everything about a given society, its culture and economy, the level of development at a given historical moment. By comparing collective portraits of different societies in one era, say France and Russia in the 17th century, or one society in different eras, for example Muscovite and Kievan Rus, one can make many interesting observations.

YES - SOCIALIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION! YOU GIVE SOCIAL GUARANTEES AND PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS!

SOCIAL BASE OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

27 January 2013 14:56:44

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE PARTY OF THE COMMUNISTS OF RUSSIA K.A. ZHUKOV AT THE IOC SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE 01/26/2013

“The class structure of modern Russian society

And the social base of the communist movement."

Abstracts of the report of the Executive Secretary of the Central Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhukov K.A. at the scientific and practical conference of the Interregional Association of Communists on January 26, 2013.

Introduction

Scientific analysis and forecast of changes in the existing class structure of modern Russian society, contradictions between classes and social groups, has not only theoretical, but also the most important applied significance for all political forces in Russia.

This question is especially important for communists who are guided by the scientific Marxist materialist and dialectical approach when analyzing economic and social relations.

Class approach

Marxist sociology is guided by a class approach to the analysis of the social and class structure of society.

The definition of classes according to V.I. Lenin fully retains its significance, according to which classes are “... large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy” (V.I. Lenin, Complete Works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 15).

Non-Marxist approaches to analysis

Social class structure of society

The main directions in bourgeois sociology are the stratification approach, the founder of which is M. Weber, as well as functionalism.

Functionalism

Theorists of functionalism view society as consisting in the interpretation of society as a social system that has its own structure and mechanisms of interaction of structural elements, each of which performs its own function.

Functionalism, as formulated by its theorists, should be recognized as an unscientific reactionary bourgeois theory, since its basis is the idea of ​​​​"social order" and virtually excludes contradictions between classes and class struggle.

Stratification approach

The stratification approach is based on taking into account not only economic, but also political, social, as well as socio-psychological factors.

This implies that there is not always a rigid connection between them: a high position in one position can be combined with a low position in another.

Thus, the main difference between the stratification and class approaches is that within the latter, economic factors are of primary importance, all other criteria are their derivatives.

In a society with an established social structure, economic factors are certainly dominant and, of course, the classical Marxist class approach is correct.

However, the classical class approach was developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin to societies with an established social class structure.

Modern Russian society is a society with a rapidly changing and still unstable social-class structure, when analyzing which additional dynamic factors must be taken into account.

Such a society is characterized by:

Mass transition of people from one class or social group to another class or social group,

Rapid change in property relations,

Lack of established class consciousness,

Lack of established mechanisms for the reproduction of the social class structure,

The presence of a number of transitional social groups.

Therefore, in conditions of rapid changes in the social-class structure of society, along with economic factors, other factors of a political, social, and socio-psychological order can take on a commensurate importance.

In this regard, individual studies and conclusions made by bourgeois sociologists on the basis of a stratification approach in relation to societies with a rapidly changing social class structure may correspond to reality and not contradict Marxist analysis.

Theory of post-industrial society

and the bourgeois sociological theories arising from it

At the same time, attempts by non-Marxist theorists of the stratification approach to apply the non-Marxist theory of the so-called to Russia are completely unscientific and untrue. post-industrial society, and the resulting theories of the division of society into upper, middle and lower classes.

Even the absurd concept of a “creative” class appeared.

The theorists of “post-industrial society” themselves admit that due to the looseness and multi-layered nature, it is very difficult for them to give a clear definition of the concepts of upper, middle and lower, especially “creative” class.

According to bourgeois theories, post-industrial society is the next stage in the development of society and the economy after the so-called. an industrial society in which the economy is dominated by the innovative sector of the economy with highly productive industry, knowledge industry, with a high share of high-quality and innovative services in GDP, and with competition in all types of economic and other activities. In a post-industrial society, an effective innovative industry satisfies the needs of all economic agents, consumers and the population, gradually reducing its growth rate and increasing qualitative, innovative changes. Scientific developments become the main driving force of the economy - the basis of the knowledge industry.

The most valuable qualities are the level of education, professionalism, learning ability and creativity of the employee. The main intensive factor in the development of post-industrial society is human capital - professionals, highly educated people, science and knowledge in all types of economic innovation activities.

Thus, if you believe the theorists who substantiate the concept of a post-industrial society, then this society is very close to communist.

In fact, we have no signs of such a society or movement towards it in Russia or in other countries.

In modern Russia there is not only no innovative economy, but also the industrial economy has collapsed, and the level of education and professionalism of workers is not growing, but has been steadily declining in recent years.

State monopoly capitalism in Russia

There are many answers to the key question about what kind of society we live in now; there is no unity among theorists of the communist movement on this issue.

The assessment that was fair in the 90s of the last century of the regime established during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency as bourgeois and comprador, which some continue to repeat now, is completely incorrect at the present time.

Let us recall the concept of state capitalism from the Soviet dictionary of scientific communism of 1983:

State capitalism is an economy conducted by the state either together with private capital or for it, but on the principles of capitalist entrepreneurship.

In relation to Russia, the state currently, using the raw material model of economic development, controls more than 90 percent of the economy, acting in the interests of the large national bourgeoisie and bureaucracy (bureaucracy).

Thus, in Russia there is no so-called “post-industrial society”, neither a comprador bourgeois regime, nor some unique model of Russian capitalism.

In Russia, after the bloc of the national bureaucracy and the national bourgeoisie came to power in 2000, whose interests were expressed by V.V. Putin, and the bloc of the comprador bourgeoisie was removed from power, the regime of state monopoly capitalism, long studied theoretically and practically, was gradually established.

This is what we must proceed from when analyzing the existing social-class structure of Russian society and forecasting its changes.

The ruling classes of modern Russia

In modern Russia, a bloc of two ruling classes has emerged - the bureaucracy (bureaucracy) on the one hand and the large and middle bourgeoisie on the other.

Bureaucracy (officialdom)

The question of whether under capitalism the bureaucracy (officialdom) is an independent social class, or a social group expressing the interests of the ruling class, is debatable, including among theorists of the communist and left movements.

Marx, Engels and Lenin did not classify the bureaucracy as an independent social class.

Meanwhile, in countries where there is a regime of state monopoly capitalism, due to the peculiarities of managing the means of production and the resulting surplus value, the role of the bureaucracy is fundamentally different from that in countries with a classical capitalist economy.

Based on Lenin’s definition of classes, in Russia the highest bureaucracy at the moment is not only and not so much an exponent of the will of the oligarchic bourgeoisie, but an independent social class:

Independently managing raw materials and natural monopolies,

Independently managing the surplus value obtained from the extraction and sale of a significant part of raw materials and from the activities of natural monopolies,

Having class consciousness and aware of his interests,

Having established the mechanisms of its reproduction, since the children of senior government officials, prosecutors, and judges en masse become government officials, prosecutors, and judges,

Having certain contradictions with another ruling class - the bourgeoisie, imposing tribute on it in the form of bribes and kickbacks, resolving its contradictions with the bourgeoisie using mechanisms of economic and non-economic coercion.

If we draw historical parallels, then to some extent (in terms of functional position in society) the analogue of the modern Russian bureaucracy is the nobility in Tsarist Russia.

It is no coincidence that back in 2000, the then director of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, called career state security officers “the new nobility.”

The Russian bureaucracy is an independent ruling social class, and not a social group serving the interests of another ruling class - the bourgeoisie.

Bourgeoisie

The second ruling class of modern Russia is the large (“oligarchs”) and middle (“regional barons”) bourgeoisie.

The large and middle Russian bourgeoisie should become the subject of permanent monitoring and independent research by Marxist scientists.

This issue, due to its scale, is not within the scope of this report.

The petty bourgeoisie in Russia is not the ruling class and, rather, can be classified as an oppressed social group.

3. Oppressed classes and social groups of modern Russia.

Industrial working class

The size of the industrial working class in Russia over the past 20 years, due to deindustrialization, has decreased significantly, according to unreliable official statistics, up to 1.5 times, to approximately 40 percent.

Part of the industrial working class changed their social status by going into small business, while another part stopped working due to age.

In the industrial working class, there is a significant stratification by income, primarily between workers in the energy sector, natural monopolies, enterprises serving them, forming the “labor aristocracy,” and everyone else.

There is a noticeable deskilling of workers caused by the retirement of skilled workers and the destruction of the vocational training system.

The bourgeoisie is actively using migrants who are afraid to express their protest, and the possibility of manipulation by them on the part of enterprise administrations is much higher.

As a consequence of the above factors, over the past 20 years the role of the industrial working class in society has declined; at the moment, unlike the beginning of the 20th century, the industrial working class is not in the vanguard of the class struggle.

The reduction in the number and role of the industrial working class was significantly affected by the raw materials model of functioning of the Russian economy.

Other wage earners (including intellectuals)

The number of persons employed in wage labor, physical and intellectual, who do not belong to the industrial proletariat, is commensurate with the number of the latter.

At the same time, the possibility of organization and self-organization of wage earners working in trade, public catering, and service enterprises is significantly lower than that of the industrial working class.

It should be noted that the INTERNET is becoming an important element of self-organization of hired labor, physical and intellectual, not related to the industrial proletariat.

A significant part of hired labor consists of workers in state enterprises and institutions, where the possibilities of manipulating employees are much higher, and where the employer is actually the bureaucracy (officialdom).

Persons of wage labor, physical and intellectual, who do not belong to the industrial proletariat, can be divided into various social groups (according to occupation, income level and other criteria).

Homogeneous, so-called These social groups do not form a “middle class”; some of them may be the social base of the Communist Party.

Peasantry

The collective farm peasantry, as a class, has been virtually destroyed in modern Russia.

The ruling classes managed, basically, to carry out decollectivization in the countryside, which was reflected in the destruction of most collective farms of the Soviet period and the purchase of a significant part of attractive agricultural land by the large and middle bourgeoisie.

Over the past 20 years, the reduction in numbers and property stratification of the former collective farm peasantry has continued. In particular, a new, but still small class of rural bourgeoisie (farmers) was formed.

Of course, both the industrial working class and the majority of other wage earners who do not belong to the industrial working class, as well as the rural proletariat, are the social base and support group of the Communist Party.

Petty bourgeoisie

In recent years, the ruling classes have been using administrative methods to curtail the economic activity of the population and limit small private business.

The most noticeable results of this policy are in the sphere of trade, in which its monopolization by trade networks belonging to the large and middle bourgeoisie is increasingly visible.

As a result, a significant part of the petty bourgeoisie has a negative attitude towards the ruling regime, which creates objective preconditions for its temporary alliance with other oppressed classes and social groups.

At the same time, as V.I. Lenin noted, the petty bourgeoisie is characterized by instability, swaying from side to side, which allows us to consider this social group only as a possible fellow traveler of the working people, led by the Communist Party, at certain stages of the struggle.

Pensioners

Pensioners form a special social group of significant numbers, which, as a rule, has lost contact with their social groups and classes, and is dependent on the state, on whose behalf the bureaucracy acts.

At the moment, the number of pensioners in Russia is more than 39 million people, which exceeds the number of the industrial working class, the peasantry, and any other individual classes and social groups.

The dependence of pensioners on the bureaucracy and the policy of social maneuvering carried out by the bureaucracy since 2000 have significantly reduced protest sentiments among pensioners.

At the same time, such a socio-psychological factor as the positive perception by the majority of pensioners of the Stalin and Brezhnev periods of development of our country allows us to continue to consider the majority of pensioners as a social base and support group for the Communist Party.

Declassed elements

The number of declassed elements in Russia is very large compared to the Soviet period of development and has increased by several orders of magnitude.

To estimate the size of this social group, due to the lack of official data, one can use expert estimates, according to which declassed elements make up up to 14 percent of the working population (about 10 million people).

For obvious reasons, this social group as a whole cannot be a social base or a support group for communists, although individual members of it can participate in the communist movement.

Class struggle in modern Russia

Already in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” it was stated that the history of all existing societies was the history of class struggle, that is, that it is the class struggle that drives the development of human society, since it inevitably leads to a social revolution, which is the culmination of the class struggle, and to the transition to new social order. From the point of view of Marxists, class struggle will always and everywhere, in any society where antagonistic classes exist.

In modern Russia, the antagonist classes are, on the one hand, the bureaucracy (officialdom), the large and middle bourgeoisie, and, on the other hand, the industrial working class, other wage earners, and the majority of peasants.

Politics of the ruling classes:

aimed at the almost complete appropriation of surplus value created by the labor of the entire people, the privatization of raw materials, land, water bodies, rivers and lakes;

Led to the deindustrialization of Russia, deskilling of the working class, destruction of agriculture, science and culture, loss of social guarantees of the Soviet period;

It hinders the reintegration of Russia and some of the former Soviet republics, generates interethnic tension;

Leads to the infringement of general democratic rights and freedoms;

It infringes on the economic interests of not only workers, but also the petty bourgeoisie.

Meanwhile, the interests of all social classes and social groups not related to the ruling classes correspond to a mixed socialist model of the economy, the restoration of democracy and state unity of the country, destroyed in 1991.

It is these preferences of the working masses, the majority of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officials, and pensioners that the results of numerous sociological surveys, including those conducted by bourgeois sociologists, indicate.

Thus, the state monopoly capitalism established in Russia contradicts the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, with the exception of the ruling classes.

Therefore, the socialist revolution can be supported, under certain conditions, in addition to the working masses by part of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officers; part of the petty bourgeoisie and individual representatives of the middle bourgeoisie; most of them are pensioners.

An important negative feature of the modern stage of the class struggle due to the transitional unstable social-class structure of Russian society is the absence of a clearly defined avant-garde revolutionary class.

Social base of Russian communists

As V.I. Lenin wrote in his work “The Infantile Disease of Leftism in Communism”:

Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; - that it is possible to contrast masses and classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, not divided according to their position in the social system of production, to categories that occupy a special position in the social system of production; -that classes are usually and in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, led by political parties.

The ruling class of bureaucracy in Russia, represented by specialists in “situational analysis” and “political modeling” from the Main Directorate of Internal Policy of the Administration of the Russian Federation, decided to go down in history by refuting this indisputable and generally accepted conclusion of Lenin.

The perverted economic model of state monopoly capitalism that has developed in Russia has also given rise to a perverted political system.

The majority of political parties in Russia are not created naturally as a spokesman for the interests of certain classes and social groups, but are constructed by the ruling regime, for the most part, artificially, with “leaders” at the head of these parties imitating the fight against the regime.

Meanwhile, the technology for creating “deception parties” is becoming less and less effective.

Life shows that the existing social classes and social groups no longer trust and are not going to trust the pseudo-parties created by the ruling regime to express their interests.

The Communists of Russia, regardless of their division into political parties and organizations, have long had their own social base, which, however, is insufficient for a victorious socialist revolution.

The potential social basis for expanding the influence of communists at the current stage of development of Russia are those social classes and social groups whose interests correspond to the mixed socialist model of the economy, the restoration of democracy and state unity of the country:

The majority of wage earners (both industrial workers and those employed in the service sector, trade, and intellectual activity);

Most of the peasantry;

Part of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officials;

Part of the petty bourgeoisie and some representatives of the middle bourgeoisie;

Most of them are pensioners.

The main task of the organizational, ideological and propaganda work of Russian communists is to ensure that this potentially broad social base of the communist movement turns into a real one, so that broad sections of the working people entrust the communists with the right to express their interests.

Broad support of the working masses is a necessary condition for removing the bloc of bureaucracy and bourgeoisie from power and returning Russia to the path of socialist development.

unique.

Finalize

Class is a natural historical phenomenon of society, an element of the social structure, since it acts as a stable carrier of economic, political, and ideological relations. Class formation is a complex historical process, the result of social stratification.

The category “class” is most actively used in Marxism. In general, Marx, as follows from his works, derived the most important feature of class from its place in the system of social relations, in social production, and considered the exploitation of one class by another to be an essential manifestation of class relations.

Later, in 1919 V.I. Lenin gave a fairly definite formulation of classes, which was widely used in the Marxist theory of the 20th century: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production , according to their role in the social organization of labor, and therefore, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.”

In general, in the 20th century. Repeated attempts are made to provide a more specific understanding of social class, bringing it into line with the real changes characteristic of capitalist society of this period. Thus, M. Weber, unlike K. Marx, refuses an expanded interpretation of class, moving the content of this concept to the economic space.

Weber reduces the basic regulator of class relations to “property” and to “lack of property”;

Between the polar classes of owners and the working class, Weber sees the presence of a so-called middle class.

According to R. Dahrendorf, class structure is derived from the structure of power, and the category of class is determined through the relationship of power.

Despite the difference in approaches to defining the concept of social class, in Western sociology and political science of the 20th century. common features can be seen. The main signs of identifying a class among non-Marxist theorists are: the attitude of people to the means of production, the nature of the appropriation of goods in conditions of market relations.

Class is understood in two senses: broad and narrow. IN broad meaning class means a large social group of people who own or do not own the means of production, occupying a certain place in the system of social division of labor and characterized by a specific way of generating income.

Since private property arises during the birth of the state, it is believed that already in the Ancient East and ancient Greece there were two opposing classes - slaves and slave owners. Feudalism and capitalism are no exception - and there were antagonistic classes: exploiters and exploited. This is the point of view of K. Marx, which is still adhered to today not only by domestic, but also by many foreign sociologists.

IN narrow meaningClass - any social stratum in modern society that differs from others in income, education, power and prestige. The second point of view prevails in foreign sociology, and is now acquiring the rights of citizenship in domestic sociology as well. In modern society, based on the described criteria, there are not two opposite, but several transitional strata, called classes. Some sociologists find six classes, others count five, etc. According to a narrow interpretation, there were neither classes under slavery nor under feudalism. They appeared only under capitalism and mark the transition from a closed to a covered society.

Although ownership of the means of production plays an important role in modern society, its importance is gradually declining. The era of individual and family capitalism is becoming a thing of the past. The 20th century is dominated by collective capital. Hundreds or thousands of people can own shares in one company. There are more than 50 million shareholders in the United States. And although ownership is dispersed among a huge number of owners, only those who hold a controlling stake are able to make key decisions. Often they are senior managers - presidents and directors of companies, chairmen of boards of management. The managerial stratum is gradually coming to the fore, pushing aside the traditional class of owners. The concept of “managerial revolution”, which appeared thanks to J. Bernheim in the middle of the 20th century, reflects the new reality - the “splitting of the atom”, property, the disappearance of classes in the old sense, the entry into the historical arena of non-owners (after all, managers are hired workers) as leading class or stratum of modern society.

However, there was a time when the concept of “class” was not considered an anachronism. On the contrary, it just appeared and reflected the onset of a new historical era. This happened at the end of the 18th century, when a new historical force loudly declared itself - the bourgeoisie, which decisively pushed the noble class into the background. The emergence of the bourgeoisie on the historical stage previously had the same revolutionary impact on society as the emergence of the managerial class has today.

The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries destroyed the feudal system and brought to life social forces that led to the formation of the class system. While the number of the clergy, nobility and peasantry either did not increase or decreased, the number of the third estate increased sharply. The development of trade and industry gave rise to new professions: entrepreneurs, merchants, bankers, merchants. A large petty bourgeoisie emerged. The ruin of the peasants and their move to the city led to a reduction in their numbers and the emergence of a new stratum that feudal society did not know - hired industrial workers.

Gradually formed new type of economy - capitalist, which corresponds to a new type of social stratification - class system. The growth of cities, industry and services, the decline in power and prestige of the aristocracy and the strengthening of the status and wealth of the bourgeoisie radically changed the face of European society. New professional groups that entered the historical arena (workers, bankers, entrepreneurs, etc.) strengthened their positions and demanded privileges and recognition of their status. Soon they became equal in importance to the previous classes, but they could not become new classes. The term “estate” reflected a historically receding reality. The new reality was best reflected by the term “class.” It expressed the economic status of people who were able to move up and down.

The transition from a closed society to an open one demonstrated the increased ability of a person to independently make his own destiny. Class restrictions collapsed, everyone could rise to the heights of social recognition, move from one class to another, with effort, talent and hard work. And although only a few succeed in this, even in modern America, the expression “self-made man” holds steady here.

Thus, money and commodity-money relations played the role of a detonator. They did not take into account class barriers, aristocratic privileges, or inherited titles. Money equalized everyone, it was universal and accessible to everyone, even those who did not inherit wealth and titles. A society dominated by ascribed statuses gave way to a society where achieved statuses began to play the main role. That's what it is open society.

Classes and estates in pre-revolutionary Russia. Before the revolution in Russia it was official class, rather than a class division of the population. It was divided into two main classes - tax-paying(peasants, burghers) and tax-exempt(nobility, clergy). Within each class there were smaller classes and layers. The state provided them with certain rights enshrined in law. They were guaranteed only insofar as the classes performed certain duties, for example, grew grain or were engaged in crafts. The apparatus of officials regulated relations between classes, which was his “duty.” Thus, the class system was inseparable from the state system. This is why we can determine estates as socio-legal groups that differ in the scope of rights and obligations in relation to the state.

According to the 1897 census, the entire population of the country, which is 125 million people, was distributed into the following classes: nobles- 1.5% of the total population, clergy - 0,5%,merchants - 0,3%,philistines - 10,6%,peasants - 77,1%, Cossacks- 2.3%. The first privileged class in Russia was considered the nobility, the second - the clergy. The rest were not among the privileged. The nobles were divided into hereditary and personal. Not all of them were landowners; many were in public service. Landowners constituted a special group - landowners(among the hereditary nobles there were no more than 30% landowners).

Gradually, as in Europe, independent social strata - the embryos of classes - are formed within the estates.

In connection with the development of capitalism, the once united peasantry at the turn of the century was stratified into poor people (34,7%), middle peasants (15%), wealthy (12,9%), kulaks(1.4%), as well as small and landless peasants, who together made up one third. They were a heterogeneous formation bourgeois - middle urban strata, which included small employees, artisans, handicraftsmen, domestic servants, postal and telegraph employees, students, etc. From among them and the peasantry came Russian industrialists, small, medium and large bourgeoisie. True, the latter was dominated by yesterday's merchants. The Cossacks were a privileged military class that served on the border.

The October Revolution easily destroyed the social structure of Russian society, many old statuses disappeared - nobleman, bourgeois, tradesman, police chief, etc., therefore, their bearers - large social groups of people - disappeared. The objective and only basis for the emergence of classes - private coherence - has been destroyed. The process of class formation, which began at the end of the 19th century, was completely eliminated in 1917. The official ideology of Marxism, which equalized everyone in rights and financial status, did not allow the restoration of the estate or class system. As a result, a unique historical situation arose: within one country, all known types of social stratification - slavery, castes, estates and classes - were destroyed and not recognized as legitimate. Officially, the Bolshevik Party declared a course towards building a classless society. But, as we know, no society can exist without a social hierarchy, even in its simplest form.

Belonging to a social stratum in slave-owning, caste and class-feudal societies was fixed by official legal or religious norms. In pre-revolutionary Russia, every person knew what class he belonged to. People were, as they say, assigned to one or another social stratum.

In a class society the situation is different. The state does not deal with issues of social security of its citizens. The only controller is the public opinion of people, which is guided by customs, established practices, income, lifestyle and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately and unambiguously determine the number of classes in a particular country, the number of strata or layers into which they are divided, and the belonging of people to strata. Criteria are needed that are chosen quite arbitrarily. This is why, in a country as sociologically developed as the United States, different sociologists offer different typologies of classes. In one there are seven, in another there are six, in the third there are five, etc., social strata. The first typology of US classes was proposed in the 40s. XX century American sociologist L. Warner. L. Warner conducted sociological research in American cities using the method of participant observation and, based on subjective self-assessments of people regarding their social position according to 4 parameters: income, professional prestige, education, ethnicity - he identified in the ruling social groups: higher, higher intermediate, middle-high , intermediate-intermediate, intermediate-high, intermediate-intermediate.

Other schemes are also proposed, for example: upper-higher, upper-lower, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, working, lower classes. Or: upper class, upper-middle class, middle and lower-middle class, upper working class and lower working class, underclass. There are many options, but it is important to understand two fundamental points: there are only three main classes, no matter what they are called: rich, wealthy and poor; non-primary classes arise from the addition of strata or layers lying within one of the major classes.

More than half a century has passed since L. Warner developed his concept of classes. Today it has been replenished with another layer and in its final form it represents a seven-point scale.

Upper-highestClass includes "aristocrats by blood" who emigrated to America 200 years ago and over many generations amassed untold wealth. They are distinguished by a special way of life, high society manners, impeccable taste and behavior.

Lower-higherClass consists mainly of the “new rich” who have not yet managed to create powerful clans that have seized the highest positions in industry, business, and politics. Typical representatives are a professional basketball player or a pop star, who receive tens of millions, but who have no “aristocrats by blood” in their family.

Upper-middleClass consists of the petty bourgeoisie and highly paid professionals - large lawyers, famous doctors, actors or television commentators. Their lifestyle is approaching high society, but they cannot afford a fashionable villa in the most expensive resorts in the world or a rare collection of artistic rarities.

Middle-middle class represents the most massive stratum of a developed industrial society. It includes all well-paid employees, moderately paid professionals, in a word, people of intelligent professions, including teachers, teachers, and middle managers. This is the backbone of the information society and the service sector.

Upper-lowerClass includes semi- and semi-skilled workers employed in mass production, in local factories, living in relative prosperity, but in a manner of behavior significantly different from the upper and middle classes. Distinctive features: low education (usually complete or incomplete secondary, specialized secondary), passive leisure (watching TV, playing cards or dominoes), primitive entertainment, often excessive consumption of alcohol and non-literary language.

Lower-inferiorClass are the inhabitants of basements, attics, slums and other places unsuitable for living. They either have no education or only primary education; most often they eke out odd jobs, begging, and constantly feel an inferiority complex due to hopeless poverty and humiliation. They are usually called the “social bottom”, or underclass. Most often, their ranks are recruited from chronic alcoholics, former prisoners, homeless people, etc.

Comparing Western and Russian society, many scientists (and not only them) are inclined to believe that in Russia there is no middle class in the generally accepted sense of the word, or it is extremely small. The basis is two criteria: 1) scientific and technical (Russia has not yet moved to the stage of post-industrial development and therefore the layer of managers, programmers, engineers and workers associated with knowledge-intensive production is smaller here than in England, Japan or the USA); 2) material (the income of the Russian population is immeasurably lower than in Western European society, so a representative of the middle class in the West will turn out to be rich, and our middle class ekes out an existence at the level of the European poor).

List of used literature.

1. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. - Ekaterinburg: Business book. - 1998.
2. Kravchenko A. I. Sociology and political science: Textbook. aid for students avg. prof. Textbook establishments. - M.: Publishing center "Academy"; Craftsmanship; Higher school - 2000.
3. Fundamentals of modern philosophy / Ed. RosenkoM.N.- St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Lan" - 2001.
4. Political Science: Textbook / Ed. BobkovaV.A. and Braima I.N.- Mn.: “Ecoperspective” - 2000.
5. PotashevaG.A. Sociology and political science: Textbook. - M.: MGIU - 2000.
6. Sociology: Textbook for law schools. - St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia - 2001.
7. Philosophy / Ed. Zhukova N.I.. - Mn.: STC "API" - 2000.
8. Philosophy / Under. ed. KokhanovskyV.P.- Rostov-on-Don “Phoenix” - 1998.

Be careful! Do not submit downloaded work to your teacher.

Teachers always check the uniqueness of the submitted work. You can use this work to prepare your project or order unique.

Finalize

• Next material →

  Human integrity

• ← Previous material

  Franciszak Skaryna as a mentor of the “people of the paspalitag”

Social stratification(from lat. stratum - layer and facere - do) is a concept reflecting the differentiation of society into socially unequal groups. Its more complete definition is as follows: "Social stratification - it is a hierarchically organized structure of social inequality that exists in a certain society in a certain historical period of time.” Moreover, social inequality is reproduced in fairly stable forms as a reflection of the political, economic, cultural and normative structure of society.

Social stratification or social-stratification type of structure of society, which is called in the scientific literature social structure in the narrow sense, it is a multifactorial (multidimensional) hierarchical differentiation of society.

The concept itself stratification to describe the system of inequality in society, he introduced it into sociology in the 20s. XX century P.A. Sorokin. He proposed to identify three criteria by which, mainly, the social position of people (social status) is differentiated and by which it is possible to stratify a particular society:

• 1) income level (rich and poor);
• 2) political status (those with power and those without);
• 3) professional roles.

Modern English sociologist Anthony Giddens(born in 1938) identifies four main historically established systems of social stratification: slaveholding, caste, class And class.

The first three characterize closed societies, and the last type is open. Closed is a society where social movements from lower strata (layers) to higher ones are either completely impossible or significantly limited. Open is called a society where movement from one stratum to another is not officially limited in any way.

Slavery - an economic, social and legal form of enslavement of people, bordering on complete lack of rights and extreme inequality. This is the first historical system of stratification. Slavery arose in ancient times in China, Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Greece and existed in one form or another in many countries; Some of its manifestations can be seen in modern societies.

Caste - a social stratum in which a person owes his membership solely by his birth. In this type of social stratification, castes are arranged in a hierarchical order and separated from each other according to rules of ritual purity, and transition from one caste to another is impossible. The classical type of caste stratification existed and is still found in India. Caste division is sanctified by Hinduism, according to the tenets of which, a person who lived righteously within his caste, after death through reincarnation, lives in a higher caste, and vice versa. There are four main castes in India: Shudras - peasants, Vaishyas - merchants, Kshatriyas - warriors and Brahmins - priests. Besides these, there are still about five thousand castes and sub-castes. The lowest position in Indian society is occupied by representatives of the untouchable caste.

Estate- a social group that has rights and obligations that are enshrined by custom or legal law and are inheritable. A class system that includes several strata is characterized by hierarchy, expressed in inequality of position and privileges. In feudal Europe, the population was divided into two upper classes (nobility and clergy) and an unprivileged third class (artisans, merchants, peasants). In Russia from the second half of the 18th century. The class division into nobility, clergy, merchants, peasantry and philistinism was legally established. The class division was rigid. However, the possibility of moving from one class to another remained possible during one’s lifetime. Thus, nobility in Russia could be granted by the monarch for merit and (or) purchased. After the reforms of Peter I, the path to the upper class was possible through public service.

Classes. If we turn to etymology, then the concept Class(from Latin s/oush - group) denotes a group of people, objects or phenomena that have common characteristics. Hence the concept classification - division into groups carried out according to a predetermined criterion.

Consequently, classes in society can be considered as social groups identified on the basis of some criterion (or criteria). It is precisely this interpretation of the term that we encounter in the field of pre-sociological knowledge. This broad interpretation of the concept Class akin to the concept social stratification generally.

However, more often in sociology the concept Class is interpreted in a narrower sense and is understood as the division of society into groups (strata) as a result of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, when class barriers were eliminated. Classes with the class division of society, understood as something different from the class division of society, there are large social groups that differ from each other in income, power, prestige, with open borders of these groups, when a legally not prohibited, free transition of people from one group to another is possible.

The difference between classes and other types of strata is that membership in a class is not based on inherited status; the boundaries between classes are not clearly defined; an individual most often achieves membership in a particular class because it is not given to him at birth; classes are determined primarily by economic differences between groups of people; relations between representatives of different classes in the class system are impersonal.

Most sociological research on class and stratification (based on class identification) is based on ideas formulated Karl Marx And Max Weber. The most famous of modern class theories is the theory developed by the American scientist Eric Olin Wright(born in 1947).

Considering Marx's theory, he concludes that it is necessary to abandon the class theory, because Marx viewed classes as real groups. Modern society cannot be viewed through the theory of closed groups. To understand the social structure of a society, one must take into account all types of capital and the laws by which different forms of capital can be transformed into each other. Offers to explore the position of the individual, which is represented through lifestyles.

Capital is accumulated labor. Types of capital:

Economic – directly convertible into money and can be established as property

Cultural – education

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

Symbolic – prestige, reputation.

9. Theorists of globalism about new social stratification.

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

Globalization represents the processes of political-economic and intersocial social interdependence of different societies, due to the extension of powers, actions and interests beyond national borders and state territories, which entails the standardization of the worldview, the imposition of behavioral and value stereotypes.

The transnational social space has given rise to many contradictions and latent conflicts, which include the emergence of a new social stratification– the emergence of globally rich and locally poor; global economic threat; the new power of the global virtual industry; automation of labor, causing unemployment; the emergence of a class of people who cannot be in demand by modern society due to educational and intellectual qualifications, which generally leads to the undermining of the principle of integration of various life experiences.

Wallerstein and Beck:

The positions of Wallerstein and Beck are to a certain extent opposed to each other. Wallerstein's approach is revealed through such categories as the world system, world community, globalization of the economy. From the point of view of this approach, a new international division of labor with new models of global stratification is currently developing. The “restructuring” of capitalism that occurred in the twentieth century means that modern capitalism has gone beyond national boundaries, therefore, according to Wallerstein, in modern society there is no reason to believe that classes are in any sense determined by state borders; the international division of labor presupposes the creation of global systems of domination and power, a global system of social inequality and global classes.

According to Beck, in modern global society, the ratio of social inequality and its social class character can change independently of each other. The main feature of modern society is the individualization of social inequality. In light of the ongoing transformation processes, thinking and research in the traditional categories of large social groups - estates, classes and social strata - becomes problematic. Beck concludes that “a society that no longer functions in socially distinguishable class categories is in search of a different social structure and cannot, at the cost of a dangerous loss of validity and relevance, be forced again and again into the category of class with impunity.”

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

1. Social stratification means the division of society into layers and strata. Speaking of social stratification, attention is paid to the inequality of positions occupied by individuals in society. Stratification by gender and age exists in all societies. Today, in traditional and industrial countries, stratification appears in terms of wealth, property and is characterized by access to material values ​​and cultural products.

2. Four main types of stratification systems can be installed: slavery, castes, estates and classes. While the first three depend on inequalities sanctioned by law or religion, class divisions are not “officially” recognized, but arise from the influence of economic factors on the material circumstances of people's lives.

3. Classes arise from inequalities in the ownership and control of material resources. As for the class position of an individual, it is more likely to be achieved by a person than simply “given” to him from birth. Social mobility both upward and downward in the class structure has very characteristic features.

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

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

6. The influence of gender on stratification in modern societies is to some extent independent of class.

10. Historical types of stratification.

Social stratification reflects the stratification of society depending on access to power, income, education, profession and other social characteristics. It originated in primitive society and underwent significant evolution. Historical types of social stratification– slavery, castes, estates, classes, strata.

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

Castes– closed social groups connected by common origin and legal status. Caste membership is determined solely by birth, and marriages between members of different castes are prohibited. The most famous is the caste system of India, originally based on the division of the population into four varnas (brahmins, kshatriyas (warriors), vaishyas (peasants and traders), shudras (untouchables).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· in a slave-owning society, these were slaves and slave owners;

· in a feudal society - feudal lords and dependent peasants;

· in a capitalist society - capitalists (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat);

· There will be no classes in a communist society.

In modern sociology, we often talk about classes in the most general sense - as collections of people who have similar life chances, mediated by income, prestige and power:

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

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

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

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

Social stratification reflects the presence inequalities in society. It shows that strata exist in different conditions and people have unequal opportunities to satisfy their needs. Inequality is a source of stratification in society. Thus, inequality reflects differences in the access of representatives of each layer to social benefits, and stratification is a sociological characteristic of the structure of society as a set of layers.

11. Basic approaches to the study of social stratification of modern Russian society.

Modern Russian society is undergoing serious social transformations; significant changes are demonstrated by the structure of social stratification. These changes are due to the fact that in the 90s new grounds for the social stratification of society emerged. In Russia, a society began to take shape with a new correlation of classes and social groups, differences in income, status, and culture increased, the polarization of society intensified, and inequality increased.

The specificity of this process is the process of changing social nature, which occurs through the destruction of old and the creation of new social structures and institutions. The forms and relations of property, forms of political power and management, the justice system, the system and way of life are changing. The process of transformation of Russian society represents many complexly intertwined economic, political and social processes.

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

The analyzed studies devoted to the analysis of the design of the social stratification system allow us to highlight 8 Most Fundamental Approaches to the Study of Social Stratification and inequalities in modern Russian society, developed by Russian scientists. These are the approaches: T.I. Zaslavskaya, L.A. Gordon, L.A. Belyaeva, M.N. Rutkevich, I.I. Podoynitsyna, N.E. Tikhonova, O.I. Shkaratana, Z.T. Golenkova and M.N.Gorshkova.

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

Firstly, the main criteria for constructing stratification inequality;

Secondly, the profile of the social stratification system;

Third, determine the stability of the social structure;

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

1) T.I.'s approach Zaslavskaya . According to Zaslavskaya, a person’s position in the modern stratification system is determined by his place in the power-state structure and participation in the privatization process. The place of public groups is determined by their role in economic management and in the disposal of material and financial resources. The most important factor determining, in particular, the social status of management groups is direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property.

2) L.A. Gordon's approach. L.A. Gordon recognizes that in the systems of stratification of modern societies, material and economic elements never exhaust all its factors. However, in Russian society, it was the criterion of property and income that acquired a decisive role, which acquired an intrinsic value. The material and economic situation of people and groups for some time became a surrogate for ideological and political criteria, and is the main indicator of life achievements.

3) L.A.'s approach Belyaeva . L.A. Belyaeva notes that in the mid-90s the stimulating role of wages and its connection with qualifications and professional training sharply weakened. Belyaeva comes to the conclusion that income differentiation and social stratification according to this criterion occur in different directions, have unequal degrees of manifestation and structure Russian society in a new way during the transition period.

4) M.N.'s approach Rutkevich . The scientist is convinced that Marx's methodology has significant advantages over Weber's methodology. The number of criteria for social stratification is enormous, but the economic criterion is the main one, where in addition to the size of income, it is also necessary to know the size of the so-called wealth, that is, movable and immovable property accumulated by an individual or family, bank accounts, securities, since it easily flows into monthly (annual) income and vice versa, as well as the source of income.

5) I.I. approach Podoynitsina . This researcher fully shares Sorokin’s opinion regarding the socio-professional stratification of society, which is that the formation of groups along professional lines is the cornerstone of society. At the same time, in modern Russian society, income level is one of the main criteria for stratification. And in assessing the level of material well-being, there are currently many approaches.

6) Approach N.E. Tikhonova. In accordance with it, not only the criteria for stratification change, but also its very systemic basis. The basis of social status for Russians is the level of well-being, which becomes equivalent to the lost status based on job characteristics. A very high level of income is usually considered, which can indicate a high status position and successful “fitting” into a new stratification system based on differences in the level of well-being.

7) O.I. Shkaratan's approach . Calculations carried out by Shkaratan using entropy analysis showed that the most sharply differentiated set of respondents are the following variables: power (measured by the number of direct subordinates), property (expressed through ownership of an enterprise), the presence of another paid job, entrepreneurial activity (an attempt to organize one’s own business). O.I. Shkaratan specifically notes the importance of such a variable as “having additional work” when measuring social stratification.

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

12. The main directions of scientific interest in the field of research of social stratification of modern Russian society.

In paragraph 2.1 “Main theoretical approaches to the study of social stratification of modern Russian society,” the identified main approaches to the study of social stratification and inequality in modern Russian society are discussed in detail.

1) Approach T.I. Zaslavskaya. According to Zaslavskaya, a person’s position in the modern stratification system is determined by his place in the power-state structure and participation in the privatization process. The place of public groups is determined by their role in economic management and in the disposal of material and financial resources. The most important factor determining, in particular, the social status of management groups is direct or indirect involvement in the redistribution of state property.

2) L.A. Gordon's approach. L.A. Gordon recognizes that in the systems of stratification of modern societies, material and economic elements never exhaust all its factors. However, in Russian society, it was the criterion of property and income that acquired a decisive role, which acquired an intrinsic value. The material and economic situation of people and groups for some time became a surrogate for ideological and political criteria, and is the main indicator of life achievements.

3) L.A. approach Belyaeva. L.A. Belyaeva notes that in the mid-90s the stimulating role of wages and its connection with qualifications and professional training sharply weakened. Belyaeva comes to the conclusion that income differentiation and social stratification according to this criterion occur in different directions, have unequal degrees of manifestation and structure Russian society in a new way during the transition period.

4) Approach M.N. Rutkevich. The scientist is convinced that Marx's methodology has significant advantages over Weber's methodology. The number of criteria for social stratification is enormous, but the economic criterion is the main one, where in addition to the size of income, it is also necessary to know the size of the so-called wealth, that is, movable and immovable property accumulated by an individual or family, bank accounts, securities, since it easily flows into monthly (annual) income and vice versa, as well as the source of income.

5) I.I. approach Podoynitsina. This researcher fully shares Sorokin’s opinion regarding the socio-professional stratification of society, which is that the formation of groups along professional lines is the cornerstone of society. At the same time, in modern Russian society, income level is one of the main criteria for stratification. And in assessing the level of material well-being, there are currently many approaches.

6) Approach N.E. Tikhonova. In accordance with it, not only the criteria for stratification change, but also its very systemic basis. The basis of social status for Russians is the level of well-being, which becomes equivalent to the lost status based on job characteristics. A very high level of income is usually considered, which can indicate a high status position and successful “fitting” into a new stratification system based on differences in the level of well-being.

7) Approach of O.I. Shkaratan. Calculations carried out by Shkaratan using entropy analysis showed that the set of respondents differentiated most sharply the variables: power (measured by the number of direct subordinates), property (expressed through ownership of an enterprise), the presence of other paid work, entrepreneurial activity (an attempt to organize one’s own business). O.I. Shkaratan specifically notes the importance of such a variable as “having additional work” when measuring social stratification.

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

An analysis of Russian sociological literature on the problems of social inequality and stratification allows us to identify four main areas of sociological research:

Study of the design of the system of social stratification as a basic and holistic process;

Study of the wealth and poverty of modern Russia, the social “bottom” and “new Russians”, comparative analysis of stratified opposite groups;

Middle Class Research;

Study of the elite of modern Russian society.

13. Social stratification of Soviet society: researchers, approaches, profiles, criteria, main features and other characteristics of the stratification system.

The first large-scale surveys were carried out in the early 60s. under the leadership of G.V. Osipov in the Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Gorky regions and other regions of the country, based on the concept of bringing classes together under socialism. If forms of ownership (state and collective farm) did not reveal significant differences neither in property status, nor in power relations, nor in relation to work, then differences in the nature and content of labor come to the fore- area of ​​employment, qualifications - and related to the type of settlement (city, village) differences in lifestyle. The last category becomes especially important much later - in the early 80s. Its analogue in the 60s. – life and leisure of various population groups, city - village, family, age, income, etc. Scientific and technological progress and labor qualifications are considered as the main factor of social differentiation.

In January 1966, the first scientific conference on the topic “Changes in the social structure of Soviet society” was held in Minsk, bringing together over 300 participants. The conference revealed a whole range of problems, essentially confirming the legitimacy of new areas of analysis, but most importantly - “legitimized” the departure from the “three-member division” (working class - peasantry - intelligentsia). A leading role in this discussion and subsequent research was played by N. Aitov, L. Kogan, S. Kugel, M. Rutkevich, V. Semenov, F. Filippov, O. Shkaratan and etc.

In the working class, they began to distinguish the unskilled and those engaged in heavy physical labor, on the one hand, and intellectual workers, on the other. In agriculture, the emphasis is not so much on distinguishing between state farm workers and collective farm peasants, but on identifying groups of low-skilled labor(field farmers, livestock breeders) and highly qualified layer machine operators. The stratum of the intelligentsia includes middle-skilled employees, highly qualified specialists, etc.

Sociological community, by the end of the 60s. already united into the Soviet Sociological Association, in the central research sections continues research work. Within section of the social structure of the SSA (its chairman was V.S. Semenov) a discussion was initiated regarding the definition of the very concept of “social structure” and its elements. Social structure was presented as a set of interconnected and interacting elements, that is, classes (groups), and a social group as a relatively stable set, united by a commonality of functions, interests and goals of activity. Criteria for social-class and intra-class differentiation, the relationship between the professional division of labor and social structure are being developed and clarified.

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

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

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

Data obtained in 1963 as a result of a survey of the rural and urban population by Ural sociologists (research director L.N. Kogan) indicated significant differences in cultural needs primarily rural and urban residents. As a result, it is stated methodological principle of multi-criteria selection social layers. At the same time Yu.V. Harutyunyan began larger-scale surveys of the village. The main content of these and other surveys was to identify socially formative characteristics and identify the quantitative proportions of individual strata of the rural population.

Analysis structure and boundaries of the intelligentsia, knowledge workers, and the problem of overcoming the differences between physical and mental labor During these years, work of a theoretical, methodological and empirical nature was devoted - the intelligentsia in a socialist society is understood as a social group, a layer “consisting of persons professionally engaged in highly qualified mental work, requiring special, secondary or higher education.” The authors introduced into scientific circulation the concept "practices", I mean specialists without certified education corresponding to their position. The intelligentsia acquires the features of a special social group; employed in production, but its place in the social division of labor and distribution of material goods is not considered as a class-forming feature.

60s are marked by the rapid development of mental work professions, an increase in the share of intellectual activities, an increase in the number and proportion of highly qualified specialists. The scientific and technological revolution causes an “avalanche-like” growth in the number of scientists, increases the social prestige of higher education and scientific activity, which becomes a special subject of study. Changes in the social composition of students were studied by many sociological centers in the country, and although the most representative works appeared later, already in 1963, the sociological laboratory of the Ural University conducted surveys of 11th grade school graduates, the process of recruiting specialists from various social groups is being studied, i.e. social mobility.

Analysis of trends and mechanisms of social mobility reveals changes in the quantitative proportions of social groups. In fact, until the 60s. There were no studies of social mobility in the USSR. The very formulation of the question required a certain scientific courage. Concepts such as “social mobility” and, finally, “social movement”, “social movements” are used. The latter is asserted as a “Soviet version” of the concept of social mobility after the publication in 1970 of the book by M.N. Rutkevich and F.R. Filippov under that name. The book presented research materials covering various aspects of social mobility of the population in certain regions of the country (the Urals and the Sverdlovsk region, in particular). But despite the regional nature of the research, and perhaps thanks to it, it was possible to identify the specifics of mobility in industrial and urbanized areas of the country, intergenerational and intragenerational social movements.

In 1974 (“for official use,” as was the practice in those years), a collection of translations and review articles on the problems of social mobility was published: P. Sorokin, R. Ellis, V. Lane, S. Lipset, R. Bendix, K Bolte, K. Svastoga, etc. In fact the formation of a branch of sociological knowledge, sociology of social structure is taking place.

70-80s: what was discovered research on the “social homogeneity of Soviet society”. The conceptual apparatus of such categories as “social equality” and its relationship with the concept of “social homogeneity” (the latter is considered as “leading” in the system of categories of social structure) is clarified. The criteria for social differentiation and the conceptual meaning of the terms are discussed: social difference and social unity, integration, differentiation, class, group, layer.

The “main social formations” (workers, peasants and intelligentsia) are studied in particular detail. This term made it possible to combine the meaning of the categories of class and social layer. At the Institute of Sociological Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences, sectors of the working class, peasantry, and intelligentsia were created, united in the department of social structure (headed by F.R. Filippov).

The emphasis shifts to analysis of intraclass differences. Nature of work is being considered as the main layer-forming feature. Differences in the nature of labor become the main criteria of differentiation not only between the working class and employees, but also within them. Thus, in the working class there were three main layers (according to skill level) and a boundary layer of intellectual workers - highly qualified workers engaged in the most complex types of physical labor, rich in intellectualized elements. In addition, it was proposed to divide the intelligentsia into specialists and non-specialist employees. Among the specialists, they are beginning to single out that part that is engaged in organizational work, and the idea of ​​​​forming a special social group, a new class, a party-economic bureaucracy is categorically rejected, although In Western literature of that time, the issue of the class of nomenklatura in Soviet society was widely discussed.

A study begun in 1975 in Gorky under the international project “Automation and Industrial Workers” (led by V.I. Usenin) established that the transition from mechanization to automation leads to undoubted changes in the nature, content and conditions of work. In 1979, all skill groups of workers were surveyed, which confirmed the significant heterogeneity of the composition of the working class.

In connection with the analysis of the structure of individual classes and groups, interest arises in the problems of their social reproduction: changes in the socio-demographic composition, social sources of replenishment, professional and educational mobility, etc. A decrease in the proportion of people from peasant backgrounds and an increase in the proportion of people from working class backgrounds was recorded. intelligentsia, employees; the increasing role of industry and regional factors; qualitative changes in educational and qualification levels; differences in the adaptation of young workers in production, etc.

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

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

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

A new “programmatic” setting was given by the XXV Congress of the CPSU (1976) in the thesis about “the creation of a similar social structure in all regions of the country, among all socialist nations that are part of a new historical community - the Soviet people.” In accordance with it they unfold research on regional and urban development: social structure of the urban population, differences between large and small cities, migration mobility of the population, urban family, etc. Studies of social class structure and national relations were previously carried out separately; Now their combination made it possible to clarify the dynamics of the social composition of “nations” and “nationalities”, to discover real, and not far-fetched differences between them in the processes of changes in the social structure, in the direction of social mobility, in the characteristics of demography, in the socio-cultural appearance. Among the initiators of studying this issue are Yu.V Harutyunyan, V.V. Boyko, L.M. Drobizheva, M.S. Dzhunusov, Yu.Yu. Kahk et al. Research was carried out in Tataria, Estonia, Latvia, Siberia and other regions THE USSR. Issues related to the nature of territorial differences came to the fore; the typology of regions and prospects for their development were discussed.

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

The most de-ideologized sphere was development of research tools for social class stratification, within the framework of which the system of criteria for interclass and intraclass differences was translated into the corresponding indicators and indicators. For example, indicators of the nature and content of work, professional qualification characteristics, working and living conditions, the structure of working and non-working time, etc. were carefully verified.

A notable role in the area under consideration was played by an all-Union study carried out by the Institute of Social Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences together with other sociological centers of the country (headed by G.V. Osipov), entitled “Indicators of Social Development of Soviet Society.” It covered workers and engineering and production intelligentsia in the main sectors of the national economy of nine regions and recorded a number of important trends. Until the beginning of the 80s. There was a fairly high dynamics of social and structural changes, but later society loses its dynamism, stagnates, and reproductive processes prevail. At the same time, reproduction itself is deformed - the number of bureaucracy and “non-labor elements” is growing, figures in the shadow economy are turning into a latent structure factor, highly qualified workers and specialists often perform work below the level of their education and qualifications. These “scissors” on average across the country ranged from 10 to 50% for various social strata.

In Soviet society in the 70-80s. A layer of bureaucracy took shape more and more clearly, which received different names from different authors: nomenklatura, partocracy, new class, counterclass. This layer had exclusive and natural rights, benefits, and privileges available at individual levels of the hierarchy to holders of certain statuses reserved for them by the nomenclature mechanism for the distribution of functions and corresponding benefits. Later T.I. Zaslavskaya identified three groups in the social structure: the upper class, the lower class and the stratum separating them. The basis of the upper layer was the nomenklatura, which included the highest layers of the party, military, state and economic bureaucracy. She happens to be owner of national wealth, which he uses at his own discretion. The lower class is formed by hired workers of the state: workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. They have no property and no rights to participate in the distribution of public property. The social stratum between the upper and lower classes is formed by social groups that serve the nomenklatura, do not have private property and the right to dispose of public property, and are dependent in everything.

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

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

In 1976-1982 an international empirical comparative study was carried out on the dynamics of social changes in the working class and the engineering and technical intelligentsia in conditions of a general slowdown in the pace of development of the socialist countries of Europe, stagnation of the social sphere and the dominance of illusory concepts of “social homogeneity”. Ideas about the disappearance and withering away of social diversity were imposed: in the economy - only one, state ownership, in the social sphere - the erasure of all differences, in the political sphere - the immutability of political structures, one management scheme. International research has identified areas where within-class differences become more significant than between-class differences, e.g. discovered a new type of social differentiation in the continuum of mental-physical labor. In addition, it has been convincingly shown that integration mechanisms and differentiation mechanisms operate with varying degrees of intensity in different countries.

An international comparative study on the problems of higher education and youth showed that Higher school in the CMEA countries played the role of the most important channel of social mobility, and the social sources of student formation largely reproduced the existing structure.

On V All-Union Conference on Problems of Social-Class Structure (Tallinn, 1981) the need was stated creating a modern concept of social structure, giving realistic assessments of the trends in the emergence of new forms of social integration and differentiation, because research has identified diverse criteria for the social differentiation of society.

14. Profile, criteria and main features of social stratification of modern Russian society.

Completely new criteria for social stratification have emerged. There was a need to analyze the significance of such criteria as “ownership of property”, “availability of financial and economic capital”, “social prestige”.

Since the beginning of the 90s of the twentieth century, Russian society has been undergoing a process of transformation, changing its social nature through the destruction of old and the creation of new social structures and institutions. The forms and relations of ownership, forms of political power and management, the system and way of life are changing. The process of transformation of Russian society represents many complexly intertwined economic, political and social processes. Based on an analysis of modern Russian sociological literature, theories are considered that reflect complex transformation processes that have qualitatively changed the system of social stratification of Russian society and the social status of the majority of its members.

The analyzed studies devoted to the analysis of the design of the social stratification system allow us to identify 8 of the most fundamental approaches to the study of social stratification and inequality in modern Russian society, developed by Russian scientists. These are the approaches: T.I. Zaslavskaya, L.A. Gordon, L.A. Belyaeva, M.N. Rutkevich, I.I. Podoynitsyna, N.E. Tikhonova, O.I. Shkaratana, Z.T. Golenkova and M.N.Gorshkova.