The third frame of reference: critical sociology. Plakhov V

The Frankfurt School represents a significant part of the ideas of Western Marxism (as opposed to its Soviet ideological and dogmatic version). In 1923 at the University. W. Goethe created a structural unit in Frankfurt am Main - the Institute for Social Research (ISI). A scientific community arose in it, which, using its original method of theorizing, founded a large interdisciplinary and multi-thematic research area that studies the problems of the development of modern society and civilization with the aim of realizing the values of human emancipation and creating a society without domination and oppression. It brought together sociologists, social philosophers, historians, psychologists, economists and representatives of political science, as well as the intellectual community, and has a significant influence on social changes in modern society.

Historical reference

Socio-political development after the First World War in Europe demonstrates features that are inexplicable from the point of view of existing theories of society. For example, according to Marxism, all the conditions for the transition to socialism have developed in Germany - a high level of development of the productive forces is evident, the developed class consciousness of the proletariat was supported by millions of votes in the elections for the Communist Party of Germany. From the point of view of liberal ideology, a high level of education of Germans should lead them to democracy (in the 21st century it is also believed that a high level of education is associated with democratic political attitudes).

Although democracy was established after the First World War in most European countries, by the end of the 1930s. it has survived in only 13 countries: England, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, France, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and Sweden. In the other 16 larger and more populous countries, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes were established: the USSR, Austria, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Estonia. True, in many countries democracy was established by the Entente, which included it in the terms of peace treaties, that is, under external pressure. (Russia is an exception here). The fact of democracy's rejection was perceived by contemporaries as its inherent weakness. In fact, the rejection of democracy is the result of its conflict with the authoritarian-patriarchal political tradition, which helped to open in the 1960s. phenomenon of political culture. In the 1930s there was no such concept yet, no one was thinking in political and cultural categories, but it became clear that a socialist revolution in Europe should not be expected. Moreover, fascism was rapidly gaining strength in Germany, and the Stalinist totalitarian state was created in the USSR.

Under these conditions, not only an unusually tense domestic political life arose in Germany, but also an intense intellectual discussion from different, and very radical, ideological positions inspired by political development. Their peculiarity was intransigence, the impossibility of covering them with a certain general concept. This is one of the important reasons for the creation of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Social Research, supported by the decision of the Prussian Ministry of Education, which favored sociology, which expanded the academic framework to include new theoretical positions. The institute was officially opened on June 22, 1924 and closed by the Nazis on March 13, 1933. It is noteworthy that it was from this event that the unification of the education system began in the Third Reich, causing irreparable damage to it. We can limit ourselves to these facts of the beginning of the academic institutionalization of Marxism, leaving the details and circumstances of the history of sociology.

In 1933, the Institute's employees were forced to emigrate. In 1934, the leadership of Columbia University provided them with all the conditions to continue their scientific work and teaching. Most of their research was carried out in exile, in the USA.

Rice. 7.5. From the correspondence of Frankfurt School theorists

A- fragment of a letter from J. Bach to M. Horkheimer dated December 18, 1944 with congratulations on the 10th anniversary of the Institute for Social Research 2; 6 - fragment of letter K). Habermas to the director of the Institute for Social Research M. Horkheimer dated 04/22/1971 about moving to work at the Institute for the Study of Living Conditions in the Scientific and Technical World named after. M. Planck in Stariberg 3

After World War II and the recovery period, the Institute's staff returned to Germany. From 1950, the Institute continued its work at the University of Frankfurt am Main, becoming increasingly famous not only in academic circles, but also among the public, especially in connection with its work on the student movement of 1968.

Rice. 7.6.

Here it is appropriate to note not only the theoretical, but also the organizational connection of the Institute of Social Research with Marxism. Historical and sociological studies of the early Frankfurt School confirm that the decision to create the Institute was made at the “Marxist Work Week”, held on May 20, 1923 in a hotel near Arnstadt (Thuringia), owned by the communist F. Genne. The circle of participants included extraordinary personalities, for example Richard Sorge (Richard Sorge, 1895-1944), who later became a talented intelligence officer of the Second World War.

Method: from traditional to critical theory. By the time he took office as director of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main in 1931, M. Horkheimer was already an established supporter of Marxism, like his colleagues. He developed a theoretical program, which is outlined in the article “Traditional and Critical Theory” (1937).

Horkheimer notes that in different sociological schools there is a common desire to limit oneself to the collection of empirical material to the detriment of theoretical generalizations. Generalizations of empirics are embodied in mathematization, which does not embrace society as a whole. A comprehensive theoretical description of society becomes impossible. Horkheimer states that “there is no doubt about the coincidence of the understanding of theory in different sociological schools and in the natural sciences. This tendency represents an approach to the theory of society that Horkheimer called traditional theory (he means

not only positivism in sociology and a pragmatic attitude, but also German classical philosophy).

Traditional theory, according to M. Horkheimer’s definition, operates with conditional judgments about a specific situation. "If circumstances exist A, b, With, d events to be expected q, when the circumstance disappears d- events d, upon occurrence g an event comes s etc. Such calculations belong to the logical arsenal of both historical and natural sciences. This is the way theory exists in the traditional sense,” he writes. Thus, traditional theory is divorced from processes in society and becomes a historically limited ideology. After all, based only on empirical material and the desire for “clear, observable formulations, one can obtain the kind of knowledge that one wants.”

When new connections are discovered in social reality that contradict some of the dominant ideas about it, there is a need to change the theory. Instead, Horkheimer writes, auxiliary hypotheses are put forward so as not to change the theory of society as a whole. The social function of theory - to provide a holistic understanding of society - is not being realized. The main reason for this is the division of labor in science, similar to the sectoral division of labor under capitalism, so that there is simply no one to take a holistic picture of society. This goal must be realized by sociology - the main science of society. The path of sociology is a difficult ascent from the description of social phenomena, their comparison, and only from here to the formation of general concepts. To do this, the deficiency in the method of theory development must be filled.

Critical theory of society. This method was the “critical theory of society” developed by M. Horkheimer, which gave the Institute’s staff a general theoretical and methodological orientation. He writes: “The self-knowledge of modern man is realized not in the mathematical apparatus of the natural sciences, not in the eternal logos of philosophers, but in an interest in the rational state of society - an interest that permeates the critical theory of existing society.” He stipulates that “transforming critical social theory into sociology is a problematic undertaking.” Let us consider critical theory with this important caveat in mind.

The starting point of the theory is “the relationship between facts and their conceptual description.” The condition for its development is the refusal to consider individual spheres of society in isolation. We should move on to a concept that removes this isolation. Critical theory denies the separation of man and society that seems natural. Critical thinking and theory are not a function of either an individual or a social community. It does not seek a social position that ensures the truth of knowledge, since such a position represents the future society. “In thinking about a person, subject and object diverge,” “their identity lies in the future, not in the present,” says Horkheimer.

The desire for a better social order, according to Marx and Engels, arises from the class position of the proletariat and is formulated by its political representative - the party, its leadership. However, in a world of unemployment, economic crises, militarization, terrorist governments, the position of the proletariat does not provide a “guarantee of correct knowledge.” The same applies to bourgeois theories of fair exchange, free competition, harmony of interests. Even an orderly description of bourgeois self-consciousness and systematization of the content of proletarian consciousness do not provide a clear picture of their existence and interests. “They would be a traditional theory with a special formulation of problems, and not the intellectual side of the historical process of emancipation,” he writes.

Thus, critical theory parts with the Marxist thesis about class interest as a condition for the reliability of knowledge, but with a caveat: “Thinking, the construction of theory is one thing, its subject is the proletariat, that is another,” writes Horkheimer. - If, nevertheless, the theorist and his specific activity are considered as a dynamic unity with the ruling class, so that the depiction of social contradictions acts not just as an expression of a specific historical situation, but as a stimulating, changing factor in it, then the function of critical theory comes to the fore ". Thus, there is a change of priorities: not class position and class interest become the basis of the theory of society, but the theory of society becomes a means of changing the class position of the proletariat (and not only it).

Solving the problem of class interest and reliability of knowledge Horkheimer is based on the thesis of the independence of the theorist’s thinking due to his belonging to the intelligentsia, capable of distancing himself from the struggle of class interests. Political struggle is one thing, theory is another: “To the avant-garde (to the working class - J. G.) What is needed is wisdom in the political struggle, and not an academic teaching about his so-called situation.”

True, the independent, supra-class position of the critical theorist makes him “uncomfortable.” “Whenever social change has been the order of the day, people who think 'too much' have been considered dangerous. This leads to the general problem of the attitude of the intelligentsia to society."

Discussing the logical structure of critical theory, Horkheimer points to dialectical logic. “The traditional image of theory, one of the sides of which is formal logic, refers to processes of activity based on the division of the pile in its modern form.” Formal logic does not lose its scientific significance in the future, since man will continue to deal with nature, working with it on the basis of the division of labor. Critical theory, unlike traditional theory, is not a “gear” of the current social mechanism. Using all the logical forms of traditional theory, it is aimed at a more reasonable social order. Its goal is "a future association of free people." Thus, critical theory inherits Marxist, and, looking deeper, Enlightenment political values.

The tendencies leading to a rational society “are created on the wrong side of thinking, by external forces, in the products of which they can be found by chance. They are represented by the same subject who strives to realize them, to realize a better future." The difference between critical theory and philosophical concepts is that it is based on real trends in social development.

Thus, the theory maintains a connection with social reality and is based on it. Moreover, it covers traditional theory using empirical materials, their analysis and processing. Ideal (Utopia) acquires a goal-setting function in the development of theory.

The critical theorist chooses a humanitarian position in the famous German philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. dispute about the differences between the sciences of nature and the sciences of culture: “The subject with which the natural scientist deals is not at all affected by his own theory. Subject and object are strictly separated, even if it later turns out that the objective course of circumstances contains human intervention; in science it is still considered a fact. An objective event is transcendental to theory, and independence from it refers to its necessity: the observer as such cannot change anything, but is included in the development of society conscious critical behavior. Each of its parts presupposes criticism and struggle against the existing in the direction determined by this development." Thereby support for the ideal receives reasoned support in the results of the German debate about the natural sciences and the cultural sciences.

Let us emphasize that the scientific nature of critical theory is not based on Hegelian dialectics or Marx’s “Capital”, but on its development - the constant change of “theoretical judgment about the existence of society, conditioned by a conscious connection with historical practice.” Becoming a conscious subject of history, humanity relies on its already existing elements during the transition to a future society, including during the “new design of economic relations.”

Scientificity is ensured by the connection of a theory with a specific era. “Critical theory does not teach one thing today and another tomorrow. She does not move on to new views until the era changes. The stability of the theory is based on the fact that with all changes in society, its economic structure, class relations in their simplest form, and thus also the idea of their sublation, remain identical." The theory changes during the transition from classical capitalism to monopoly capitalism, with the onset of totalitarianism, when “the end of the individual’s independence has come.” Consequently, it will change in the future along with the change in the type of society, stage or period of its history.

Developing this methodological idea, Horkheimer reconsiders Marxist thesis about the determining role of economics , which is important for critical theory in the future. “...The concept of the dependence of culture on the economy has changed. Together with the destruction of the typical individual, it should be understood as if even more vulgarly materialistic than before. Explanations of social phenomena have become simpler and at the same time more complex. It is simpler because the economy more directly and more consciously defines a person, and the relative strength of resistance and the substantiality of the cultural sphere disappears. It’s more difficult, because the unleashed economic dynamics, to which the majority of individuals are reduced, quickly changes appearance...”, says the sociologist.

The thesis about the transition of the determining role from the economy to other spheres is strengthened: “The historical change of society concerns the relations between spheres of culture. If, in the present state of society, the economy controls people, forming a lever with the help of which it will be overcome, then people in the future must themselves, by natural necessity, determine all their relations; therefore, individual economic data cannot serve as a measure for society either. This also applies to the transition period, in which economic policy gains new independence. As a result, political problems turn into issues of managing things. But first, everything can change; the very nature of the transition remains uncertain.”

The evolution of the theory as a whole is determined by the fact that its meaning is determined by the modern situation, but its subject - “the essence of modern society, even if it becomes different thanks to its latest transformations, does not change.”

There are no general criteria for critical theory. They are specific and follow from the self-reproduction of the integrity of society. Likewise, there is no social class on which to rely for support. “The future of humanism today lies in critical behavior, which of course includes elements of traditional theories and this passing culture,” argues Horkheimer. He confirms the practical orientation of the theory, considering it a special “behavior that has society itself as its subject. Hereinafter it is called “critical”. The term is used here not in the sense of an idealistic critique of pure reason or a dialectical critique of political economy. It means an essential property of the dialectical theory of society."

So, let us list the following features of critical theory as method of development of the theory of society.

1. It opposes positivism in sociology, philosophical pragmatism, and idealism of German classical philosophy in the development of the theory of society. Unlike positivism, critical theory strives to embrace the meaningful integrity of society, without dealing only with its individual spheres and without losing meaningful social problems behind abstract mathematical generalizations and manipulation of statistics.
2. Critical theory maintains a connection with the values of Marxism, primarily with the thesis of the emancipation of the proletariat. At the same time, she understands these values more broadly - as the emancipation of humanity, which is closer to the ideals of the Enlightenment than to the Marxist slogans of class struggle. By using ideals to mobilize society toward a better future, critical theory denies the thesis about the ultimate goal of social development. The ideal of a better society is not a utopia in the traditional sense of the term (ancient Greek. ov - not even that*; - place. Utopia is a place that does not exist), but a methodological technique that allows one to determine the actual direction of development of society and give its theoretical model based on Enlightenment values.
3. In critical theory, a significant place is given not only to the ideal of a better society, but also to the search for a path to it. Real trends in social change are considered, which should be studied and based on them, using the entire arsenal of sociology, including empirical methods. In other words, critical theory embraces traditional theory, using its methods, including quantitative analysis, but is not reduced to it, raising and resolving the question of a better society from a value-based position.
4. While maintaining the criticism of Marxism, the theory revises the previous theory of knowledge. She rejects the thesis about the connection between reliable knowledge of society and the social position of the proletariat. Concern for the proletariat as a class is one thing, but a theoretical analysis of society is another. The social position of the working class does not contribute anything to the understanding of society, nor does the position in the leadership of the Communist Party. Cognition is ensured by the theorist's distance from direct connection with the class.
5. In revealing the ugly secrets of capitalist society, theory must take care of itself. The reason for this is the fact of fundamental social changes: a change in the type of society, historical stage or historical period. Critical theory is a work in progress, but a work in progress. Being abstracted from its specific historical content, it can be argued that this is primarily a method of theorizing, a method of constant development of theory.

Trends in the development of modern civilization. The research of the first generation of the Frankfurt School uses the method of critical theory outlined above. Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm cover many topics devoted to the problems of socio-political development of modern civilization (while remaining Eurocentric).

The “Frankfurters” were interested in the question of the absence of a socialist revolution in the West in the presence of its objective conditions according to Marx’s theory. Instead of strengthening revolutionary movements after the only successful socialist revolution of 1917 in Russia, in the 1930s. fascism has arrived. In other words, the need for human emancipation is clearly not being realized. Having rejected the Marxist theoretical position on the leading role of the socio-economic basis, the “Frankfurters” turned to clarifying the role of culture (including art, ideology, religion) in social development, assessing it differently. Horkheimer believed that in culture the true needs of man for emancipation appear in a false form. By studying culture, he hopes to discover in art signs of true human needs and help them come true. Marcuse, on the contrary, believed that art creates an image of a better social order. At the same time, he accuses art of serving the existing order, realizing ideals in an abstract form, for example, glorifying the beauty of the human soul, without delving into its specific needs. Thus, culture is affirmative (lat. affirmativus - affirmative, affirmative) and does not free a person from his humiliated position in society. T. Adorno, on the contrary, emphasized the critical function of art, its oppositional role.

Explore the new situation in 20th century society. What helped was an appeal, in particular, to the theoretical principles of psychoanalysis by Z. Freud, which are of great importance for the sociology of the Frankfurt School. (Studying the causes of patients’ neuroses, Freud drew attention to the importance of the social conditions of their lives. It is this circumstance that connects psychoanalysis and the socioanalysis of the “Frankfurters”).

Socialization Research. The connection between the structure of personality and the structure of society is revealed in the first major study carried out by Horkheimer, Marcuse and Fromm entitled “Authority and the Family” (1936). The study begins with the question of why German workers quickly switched to supporting fascism.

Based on qualitative interviews, the book examines the relationship between culture type and family. One of the functions of the family is to support the existing culture. The child is under the strong influence of the father's authority - which is typical for the patriarchal family culture of those years. The authority of the head of the family represents authority in general for the child, including the authority of state power. In modern society, the family is losing some functions, in particular socialization. It is taken over by educational institutions. In those decades, schools became such an institution that fostered authoritarian character.

In the book, for the first time, the idea of criticism of reason arises, which was later important for the Frankfurt School. On the one hand, reason tells a person that he needs to adapt to the existing social order. On the other hand, in a totalitarian state, fear blocks the formation of a person’s social identity. To cope with a state of fear, a person must submit to authority. As a result, there arises "sadomasochistic submission to authority“- by submitting to power, a person identifies himself with it.

After World War II, the findings of this book served as the starting point for many studies of socialization in the family and school. It is noted that modern families and schools no longer educate an authoritarian personality; rather, on the contrary, more and more families adhere to a democratic style of raising and educating a child.

Criticism of rationality. "Dialectics of Enlightenment" (1947). Let us recall once again that the political background of the Frankfurt School’s research is the spread of fascism in Europe and the expansion of the scope of the Second World War. At some time it seemed that there was no limit to these processes. The question arises whether, in addition to the political events that led to fascism, there are roots of totalitarianism in the very logic of the development of European civilization. The origins of totalitarianism were found in the ideas of Enlightenment philosophy and became the subject of the book Dialectics of Enlightenment by Horkheimer and Adorno (prepared in 1944, published in 1947). The central idea of the essay is a critique of the total dominance of instrumental reason based on rationality.

At first glance, the book is a philosophical work, but in essence it is a theory of society, presented in an abstract and polemical manner. According to the main theme, starting from the 17th century. The philosophy of the Enlightenment with its idea of reason became the basis for the development of society. The idea of rebuilding it on a reasonable basis led to many revolutions in Europe. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. as a result of industrialization, the scientific and technological revolution, and the development of mass production, the opportunity arose to realize the ideals of the Enlightenment, creating a society without poverty, war and oppression. However, development went in a different direction. “For a long time, the Enlightenment, in the broadest sense of progressive thinking, has had the goal of ridding people of fear and making them masters. In the end, the enlightened planet shone under the sign of the triumph of evil,” note the authors, who themselves fled from Germany from Nazi obscurantism.

The question arises, why on the “enlightened planet”, instead of a humane and free society, “the shoots of a new barbarism are ripening.” Enlightenment philosophers did not have a chance to observe this. Kant and Hegel believed in the triumph of reason and the rationality of history. Marx, as the heir to the ideas of the Enlightenment, believed in the emancipation of labor through socialist revolution. The principles of rationality, efficiency, and high productivity were used in totalitarian rule, in wars, and in the mass extermination of people. “The absurdity of the state in which the violence of the system against people grows with every step that frees them from natural violence exposes the atrophy of the mind of a reasonable society.”

Horkheimer and Adorno explored the underlying causes of the absurd state to which reason has reached: how reason, rational and good intentions in theory turned into their opposite in practice. The question arises about public dialectics of Enlightenment, i.e. the presence of opposite development trends: progress and regression, creation and destruction.

The dialectic of the Enlightenment is that the liberation of man is connected with his oppression. In pre-Enlightenment times, people explained the world mythologically. “The program of the Enlightenment was the disenchantment of the world. It sought to destroy myths and fantasies through knowledge." Freeing himself from dependence on nature, a person at the same time becomes dependent on the social system, created by him, which increasingly controls and oppresses him. Transforming into barbarism, fascism, Stalinism or capitalist society, Enlightenment Reason realizes its dual logic. For example, machines that make work easier discipline and even enslave a person, and so cleverly that he doesn’t even notice anything. Having discovered this, Marx introduced the concept alienation a person from his own essence, when the products of labor confront him as an external hostile force, and Horkheimer and Adorno expressed this with the metaphor of “blinding interconnection” ( Verblendungszusammenhang). Enlightenment philosophers tried to “disenchant” the world from being blinded by myth and to arm people with the power of knowledge. However, “a person pays for strengthening his power at the cost of alienation from all objects of his power. Enlightenment is to things as a dictator is to people. It knows him to the extent that it is capable of manipulating them." Man, having acquired power over the forces of nature, at the same time gives it to the system, including machines. This dialectic is unbalanced; the tendency to oppress a person is intensifying. If in the time of Marx he was subject to economic exploitation, then in modern society the oppression of his own I.“The trouble is not that individuals are unable to meet the level of development of society, its material production and become outsiders. Where the development of technology has already turned into the machinery of domination, so that technical and social trends, intertwined, finally converge in the total embrace of man, outsiders do not simply demonstrate untruth. On the contrary, adaptation to the power of progress entails the progress of power, each time anew generating those involutionary processes, which, in turn, mark not failed, but precisely accomplished progress. The curse of unbridled progress is unbridled regression." The basis of this negative dialectic is the rational model of behavior created by the Enlightenment, based on instrumental reason. It suppresses human nature (which is reminiscent of Freud’s theory of personality, including the repressive authority “Super-Ego”), the so-called instrumental reason, based on mathematical thinking adopted by positivism. Instrumental reason, being the only acceptable one, is the cause of cruel totalitarian domination:

“The Enlightenment is totalitarian like no other system. His untruth is not rooted in what his romantically minded opponents have long reproached him for, not in the analytical method, not in reduction to elements, not in destruction through reflection, but in the fact that for him every process is already predetermined from the very beginning. Nature, both before and after quantum theory, must be comprehended mathematically; that which opposes this, everything indecomposable and irrational is persecuted by mathematical theorems.” The question arises: is the duality of the Enlightenment surmountable? If we turn to other theories that embrace the irrational for help, for example, the theory of illogical actions

V. Pareto, we will receive confirmation that rationality is a small part of all human behavior. Behavior at the micro level is complementary to the macro level, and Pareto's theory can serve as a confirmation of the “Dialectics of Enlightenment.” Its empirical proof is Auschwitz - a symbol of the mass extermination of people deprived of all human dignity and even the right to individual death.

Thus, from “Dialectics of Enlightenment” it follows that the Marxist thesis about the identity of being and thinking, inherited from Hegel’s philosophy, does not correspond to reality. Reality is neither reasonable nor rational. She is largely irrational. The book describes the destruction of personality and rationality under the influence of instrumental reason, in essence it is self-destruction. Horkheimer and Adorno contrast the repressive nature of Enlightenment reason critical thinking, opposing the unification of the world. This topic has become of great importance for further analysis of trends in society. It follows from the book that along with the destruction of mythological thinking comes the unification of rational culture, its massification, which entails an apology for the existing order. The book promotes the rejection of optimistic hope for progress as a stepwise advancement of society towards a better future.

The criticism of reason is continued in a major work by M. Horkheimer "Critique of Instrumental Reason""(1947) and in Adorno's book "Negative dialectic"(1966) The “Critique of Instrumental Reason”, firstly, examines the social and ideological functions of technology, and secondly, contains criticism of the USSR, from which the “Frankfurters” had previously refrained, since the USSR was fighting Nazi Germany. In this book, Horkheimer analyzes the course of philosophical thinking until the mid-20th century, when the problem of the connection between reason and rationality became more acute, continuing to study the questions he posed in 1937 in his programmatic article “Traditional and Critical Theory.” According to Horkheimer, the instrumentality of reason lies in the combination of both positivism and pragmatism without a philosophical generalization of knowledge about society from a humanistic position. The reason is the transformation of the concept of reason from objective to subjective and instrumental.

In modern society, reason is understood as subjective, as opposed to past eras, where it was assigned the role of a factor in the objective world. The loss of the idea of an objective rational world leads to the instrumentalization of the subjective mind, which “is reduced to a set of elementary actions or their sequence, and these actions are so impersonal that they can be presented as an algorithm.” Thus, axiological guidelines are removed: it is unclear what goals should be strived for (as is known, critical theory includes humanistic values). Science becomes the new authority, but by classifying facts and calculating probabilities, it cannot prove that freedom and justice are “better” than injustice and oppression. In other words, the objective mind, which reveals a person’s purpose, is oppressed by the instrumental (subjective) mind, which imposes the “end-means” behavior pattern. Progress based on instrumental reason destroys the very idea of man. The subject denies himself. This state of affairs suits the powers that be, providing them with convenient control over society.

The book introduces a new important concept industrialism, which was continued in the criticism of industrial civilization by G. Marcuse. Industrialism means not only the oppression of nature and economic exploitation, but also the self-oppression of man. “The human being, in the process of his emancipation, shares the fate of the rest of the world. Dominion over nature leads to domination over man. Since each subject must take part not only in the conquest of external nature, but for this purpose must also conquer nature within himself, domination turns into “internalized” domination for the sake of domination... The self-denial of the individual in industrial society is not connected with any goal, which would be transcendent to this society. Such refusal means rationality in relation to means and irrationality in relation to human existence. The mark of this discord, no less than the individual, is also borne by society and its institutions,” argues Horkheimer. The future is a totally controlled world, crypto-fascism, in which people are voiceless.

The only salvation from oppression, according to Horkheimer, is to liberate critical thinking. This conclusion reflects the pessimism of the representatives of the first generation of the Frankfurt School, who did not see a way out of totalitarian rule, which turned out to be historically transitory. “What is missing now are people who understand that they themselves are the subjects of their own oppression,” writes Horkheimer. In other words, the rejection of the thesis about the historical mission of the proletariat, although it is an empirical justification for the theory of society in the 20th century, leaves open the question of its connection with political practice, about the subject of the transformation of society.

In Negative Dialectics, Adorno defends the dialectical basis of the theory of society, reinterpreting it in polemics with other proposals in the marketplace of ideas. “No theory escapes the market: any theory offers itself as possible among competing points of view and opinions... Therefore, dialectics is not obliged to remain silent in response to... accusations of superficiality...”, he writes, emphasizing that “dialectics contributes to knowledge of the integrity of an object, without going into the pure methodology of science, but focusing on contradictions. “Through the actualization of continuous movement in contradictions, it seems that it is possible to master the whole, the totality of the spirit (albeit, as always, in a transformed form)..."

The peculiarity of the sociology of the Frankfurt School is that, using extensive empirical material, it puts in the foreground the theory of society with the solution of ideological issues. Emphasizing this aspect, Adorno refers to the significance of “philosophical experience”: “The objectivity of dialectical knowledge, rigidly opposing itself to the traditional ideal of science, needs not a “less”, but a “more” presence of the subject. Otherwise, philosophical experience becomes obsolete." Moreover, “the course of history has legitimized its antinominalistic orientation.” Adorno summarizes the criticism of positivism formulated by Horkheimer: “Positivism turns into an ideology only when it first excludes [from analysis] the category of essence, and then (sequentially) the interest in the essential. The essence and essential are not exhausted by the hidden and secret universal law. The positive potential of the essence lives on in the non-essential; this non-essential is comprehended by the law, becomes the extreme and ultimate sentence to the world process of affirmation of non-essentiality; further - loss of control, skidding, disaster.” He develops critical theory taking into account the history of dialectics in modern philosophy, expressively identifying with Horkheimer: “Horkheimer’s formula “critical theory” (Kritische Theorie) hardly wanted to ensure the acceptability of materialism; she sought to come, within the framework of a materialist attitude, to theoretical self-consciousness; its real level in materialism differed little from both the amateurish explanation of the world and the “traditional theory” of science. A theory, if it is dialectical (as Marx's once was), must be immanent, even if it ends up negating the entire sphere of its movement as a whole. This is its contrast from the sociology of knowledge that is simply applied from the outside and (as philosophy easily established) powerless in contrast to the dialectic of the sociology of knowledge. The sociology of knowledge gives in to philosophy; it replaces the function and conditionality of interests with truth content.” It is important to note the importance of "interests" in theory over the positivist pursuit of objective truth.

In this book, Adorno continues his criticism of Soviet socialism: “...Wherever communism achieved power, it destroyed itself by turning into a system of violence. The institutions of a neutralist state party make a mockery of the whole idea of connection with state power."

The phenomenon of fascism, authoritarian character. The topic of totalitarianism is one of the most important for the Frankfurt School. In her intellectual milieu, researcher Heina Arendt (Hannah Arendt, 1906-1975) created a general theory of totalitarian domination, explaining it by the severance of social ties between people, reminiscent of the atomization of a substance in the chemical process of its dissolution. Something similar happens in a mass society based on the media - which is what authoritarian political power takes advantage of, eliminating democratic institutions. However, it also needs mass support, since the long-term use of violence is problematic; It is more attractive to rely on the loyal qualities of the individual, cultivated in the process of socialization.

After World War II and the re-establishment of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, a major study of the roots of authoritarianism was carried out under the leadership of T. W. Adorno. Empirical data were collected in Germany and the USA. They covered different segments of the population and age groups. That the study had political relevance is supported by other data. Thus, organized by SINUS-Institute (Sinus Institute) a study of right-wing radicalism in West Germany in the 1979-1980s. with a sample of almost 7 thousand respondents, it was revealed that this attitude is characteristic of 13% of voters. 14% agreed with the thesis of right-wing extremist propaganda that “we again need a Fuhrer who leads Germany with a strong hand for the benefit of all” 1 . In the 1970s Germany's political culture has changed. It became democratic largely thanks to the course of Federal Chancellor W. Brandt towards democratization, continuous economic growth, rising living standards and generational change. Right-wing extremist movements also persist, in many countries.

The result of the study of the “Frankfurters” was the book “The Authoritarian Personality” (1950), which received a huge response from specialists and the public, which became a classic study of latent political attitudes in sociology. The theoretical position was used that social structure is reflected in the structure of character, formulated back in 1936 in the book “Authority and Family.” In “The Authoritarian Personality,” scales were developed to analyze hidden complex characterological complexes: fascism, political-economic conservatism, anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism - all these are varieties of the authoritarian personality.

The study was motivated by the fact that the Nazis planned to create a homogeneous national community in Germany on a racial basis without class barriers. They declared the Jews as the main enemy of the nation, unleashing unprecedented state terror against them (later it was called Holocaust). Fascist propaganda appealed to the unconscious desires, expectations and fears that overwhelmed people during the war and the post-war hardships of the world's largest economic crisis of the 1930s.

Sociologists have turned to studying the content of the propaganda of authoritarian demagogues. In scales for empirical research of political

the new ones included their typical clichés. At first these were scales of anti-Semitism ( A-S scale) and ethnocentrism (E-scale), then a scale of political-economic conservatism was developed ( RES scale) and fascism scale ( F-scale), finally, a generalized scale. With the help of appropriate questionnaires, it was possible to measure political and racial prejudices without revealing the purpose of the study and without telling the respondent a spade a spade. They included irrational and rational judgments, but the respondent felt that he had been given an ordinary questionnaire to study public opinion. In fact, it was about measuring the anti-democratic potential inherent in the structure of character. The results obtained confirmed the real threat of new fascism. The Frankfurters emphasized that, unlike opinion polls, they examined the structure of character at the level of social groups. As a result, the named scales were obtained.

The fascism scale (F-scale) allows us to identify the political and psychological traits of this social type. When constructing it, sociologists tried to capture anti-democratic “character structures” when studying attitudes toward war, toward ideologies, and toward Jews. For example, anti-Semitism is based on the irrational thesis that Jews do not adhere to general moral standards. This misconception is explained by the respondent's strong commitment to shared values. However, anti-Semitism is also based on the general orientation of the individual, which includes an intolerant attitude towards any deviations from traditional norms and the desire to punish for this. So, after several clarifications, a set of variables was obtained that essentially provide a sociological answer to the question of what a fascist is. The fascist complex includes the following components of personal traits:

1) conventionalism - a strict connection with the values shared by representatives of the middle layer (conventional values). An example is agreement with the following statements: “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues that should be taught to children”; “A person with bad manners and habits, an ill-mannered person, cannot count on a good reception and respect from decent people”; “The main problem today is that people talk too much and work too little.” However, the positive correlation between conventionalism and fascist attitudes is small;
2) authoritarian servility - uncritical submission to the idealized authorities of one's social group. It is measured by agreement with the following statements: “Sciences have advanced humanity far forward, but there are many important things that the human spirit will never comprehend”; “To work well, it is necessary for bosses to explain in detail what to do and where exactly to start”;
3) authoritarian aggression(the desire to seek out violators of conventional norms in order to punish them). This component is recorded through agreement with statements such as: “Whoever hurt our honor must be punished in any case”; “What youth need most is strict discipline, strong determination and the will to work and fight for the sake of family and country”; “Most of our social problems would be solved if we got rid of antisocial elements, swindlers and weak-minded people,” etc. A person whose needs are not satisfied, who limits himself and feels deceived, is looking for an object, support in life, and at the same time he may not like that someone has settled down well. Researchers consider “authoritarian aggression” to be a sadistic component of authoritarianism, “authoritarian servility” to be a masochistic component, and combine them into a “sadomasochistic complex”;
4) apti-iptraception - another important feature of the fascist character, meaning the rejection of everything subjective, filled with fantasy, and sensual. This trait shows weakness I, which is manifested in a low assessment of “curiosity”, the opinions of others (“chatter”), a preference for practical activities, and a refusal to think about internal conflicts, instead of which it is better to think about more pleasant things. “Dementia can sometimes be the result of mental overstrain.” This attitude leads to underestimation of a person and facilitates manipulation by political demagogues;
5) superstition and stereotyping, i.e. belief in predetermined fate, a tendency to think in rigid categories: “Some people have an innate desire to go downhill”; “People can be divided into two classes: weak and strong”; “Every person should have unlimited faith in a supernatural power, the decisions of which he does not question.” Superstition and stereotyping indicate weakness of the individual and contribute to the adoption of the role of a follower;
6) cult of power means thinking in the categories of dominance - subordination, strength - weakness, identification with the bearers of power, approval of the demonstration of strength. These qualities are captured in the following statements: “Neither weakness nor difficulties can stop us if we have enough willpower.” The cult of power is complemented by the so-called power complex, its emphasis in relationships. At the same time, the categories “strong - weak” are projected onto “us” and “strangers”;
7) destructiveness and cynicism - a general hostile attitude towards everything human, its negative assessment, which is reflected in such statements: “There will always be wars and conflicts, that’s just the way people are”; “Trust turns into disrespect.” These statements reveal a generalized negative and aggressive attitude towards the world, especially towards minorities;
8) projectivity - the tendency to believe in absurd and dangerous processes occurring in the world, the projection of unconscious emotional impulses outward: “Today, when so many different people are constantly on the move and move so freely among each other, it is necessary to especially carefully protect against infections and diseases”; “It is possible that wars and social unrest will be brought to an end once and for all by an earthquake or a flood that destroys the world”; “Most people do not realize the extent to which our lives are determined by the secret conspiracies of politicians.” An authoritarian personality projects his repressed fears and drives onto others, then blaming them for his own failures. Moreover, projections are not based on anything, they only serve to justify their own aggressiveness;
9) increased interest in issues of sexuality and a desire for severity of punishments is also an integral part of the fascist complex and is registered by agreement with the following statements: “The sexual promiscuity of the ancient Greeks and Romans is childish pranks compared to what is happening in our country today, even in those circles where this was least expected”; “Homosexuals are nothing but degenerates and should be severely punished.” The desire for special severity of punishment is a manifestation of a strict adherence to conventional norms.

This description of fascism is broad and even vague. Having become public knowledge, it sometimes serves as a way for political speculators to search for fascism where there is none. This is facilitated by Adorno’s thesis that bourgeois culture gives rise to fascism.

Within the framework of the school under consideration, it deserves special attention creativity of G. Marcuse. He is not only an original theorist, but also a recognized leader and ideologist of the new left social movements (anti-war, women's movement, various movements for democratization, emancipation, new forms of life), which arose in Western European countries and the United States in 1968. Herbert Marcuse is known as the author historical and philosophical study “Reason and Revolution” (1941), where he proved the lack of connection between Hegel’s deep philosophy and its very superficial and tendentious interpretations by Nazi ideologists. However, his wider fame and influence was ensured by the book “One-Dimensional Man. A Study of the Ideology of a Developed Industrial Society" (1964), which is a critique of the industrial consumer society and the socialization of man in it.

A person in a consumer society acquires a one-dimensional vision of the world, namely: he absolutizes production efficiency and economic growth; falls into dependence on false needs that enslave him; believes that expanding technical capabilities contributes to the spiritual development of society; I am confident that society is moving towards universal egalitarian equality or economic well-being. In fact, he falls under impersonal power systems - important concept anonymous domination, formulated by Marcuse and later used in the sociology of J. Habermas. The system prevents the realization of genuine human emancipatory needs. Marcuse does not formulate a specific way to overcome the system, limiting himself to the metaphor of the Great Refusal from it, i.e. some semblance of a revolutionary general boycott of it for the sake of the values of emancipation. At the same time, he considers new social movements that are not integrated into the system to be the subject of the transformation of society.

History of the creation of the Frankfurt School of Critical Sociology. Characteristics of the periods of its development. Ideological socio-philosophical origins: Marxism, Freudianism, existentialism. Ideologists and critics of the Frankfurt School. The formation of necrophilia and fascism.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

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

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

Frankfurt School (critical sociology)

The Frankfurt school developed into an independent movement in the 30s and 40s. XX century on the basis of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main (Germany).

This school not only united in its ranks many outstanding scientists - philosophers, psychologists, historians, cultural scientists, but also, with all the diversity of points of view and scientific inclinations of its members, entered the history of social science as a fairly integral critical theory - critical sociology. sociology Frankfurt necrophilia fascism

This direction has a double meaning:

firstly, as a critical sociology, the Frankfurt teaching is in a certain way opposed to “traditional theory”,

coming from dualism: the cognizing subject is objective reality (subject - object),

whereas in fact, society, according to the Frankfurtians, is both “subject” and “object” (i.e., the identity of both);

secondly, all representatives of the school in question, without exception, acted as ardent and convinced critics of modern capitalist society.

The ideological, social and philosophical sources of the diverse research, scientific and theoretical works done by the Frankfurt people are Marxism, Freudianism, and existentialism.

During its history, the Frankfurt School has experienced three periods, which are characterized not only by time frames, but also by scientific topics, priority issues, and personal leadership.

The first period in specialized literature is usually called “European”, since the geographical location of the Frankfurt school at this time is associated with European countries and cities (Germany, Frankfurt am Main, and Switzerland, Geneva, where scientists were forced to emigrate after the Nazis came to power) .

The largest representative of the Frankfurt school and its actual founder and leader is Mark HORKHEIMER (1895-1973).

Guided by some ideas of neo-Marxism, which made the processes of social alienation the central subject of its attention, Horkheimer and his followers and students tried to create a sociological theory that, on the one hand, would bridge the gap between empirical sociology and philosophical theory (philosophy of history), and, on the other on the other hand, would inherit the dialectics of Marx.

At the same time, Marx’s one-sidedly interpreted “Capital” was accepted as the ideal of criticism.

Horkheimer and his students were guided by Marx’s “critique of bourgeois political economy” and tried to give a “critique of bourgeois sociology,” and in a broad sense, of the entire modern society, and the criticism was conceived as universal, total.

This approach is reflected in the concept of “total negation,” which is widely represented in the ideas and positions of Frankfurt scientists.

It is also characteristic that “criticism” itself was identified with “dialectics” (the dialectics of Marxism).

Thus, we are faced with a very one-sided reading and understanding of Marxist teaching.

Dialectics in the reasoning of the Frankfurtists takes a “negative” form, which is why the philosophical position and the general method of their research are called “negative dialectics.”

In general, in connection with the above circumstances, the Frankfurt school is considered neo-Marxist (i.e., a form of neo-Marxism); it is classified as bourgeois Marxology, which means the interpretation of Marxism by scientists who adhere to liberal and even class-loyal beliefs.

The next important feature of the Frankfurt school is its connection with Freudianism and neo-Freudianism.

This connection is clearly manifested, in particular, in the work of the well-known sociologist Fromm, who collaborated with the Frankfurt people for many years.

For example, let's take the development of problems of destructive behavior.

Rejecting the instinctive-biological explanation, the scientist offers a sociological interpretation of human destructive actions (destruction), and it is precisely the impossibility in the conditions of modern society of realizing creative potentials, which constitutes the meaning of human life and is even connected, as has already been noted, with the unconscious in its positive modes.

Modern exploitative, idolatrous, technicalized, bureaucratized, in a word, inhumane society breeds necrophiles on a massive scale.

Necrophile is a child of a rational (rational) civilization. Criminal and political crimes, totalitarianism, fascism, dictatorship, terror, violence, bacchanalian passions - all these are the consequences of destructiveness triumphant in modern civilization. Fromm creates psychoanalytic portraits of necrophiles. He is especially interested in this side by the fascists Hitler and Himmler, and the Soviet dictator Stalin.

If Fromm sees a way out in the communitarian-socialist organization of society, then another prominent representative of the Frankfurt school, Herbert Marcuse, relies on a revolution leading to the liberation - quite according to Freud - of human instincts, especially sexual, “suppressed” by rationalistic culture. This is how the Freudo-Marxist orientation of the teachings of the Frankfurt School is formed and strengthened.

The “American” period begins when the Second World War forces Frankfurt residents to move from Europe to the United States. During this period, one of the first places in the sociological research of members of this school was put forward by a block of problems associated with the phenomenon of authoritarianism, which was largely prompted by the war, the fascist state in Germany, the personality of the Fuhrer and his minions.

In 1950, a group of authors led by Theodor ADORNO (1903-1969) published a fundamental work, “The Authoritarian Personality,” containing sociological and psychological (in the spirit of neo-Freudian) material that allows one to characterize the type of personality generated by totalitarian regimes as “fascist” (this term, as well as the term “authoritarian personality” itself, belongs to Fromm) society.

In the preface to the book, Horheimer wrote about the authoritarian personality as a new anthropological type that emerged in the 20th century. Adorno and his co-authors developed a typology of authoritarian personality; conventionalist, sadomasochistic, whimsical, melancholic and manipulative types were developed.

Having carried out a historical and philosophical analysis of the entire previous culture since Homeric times, the authors conclude that the sad result to which human civilization has come is the result of the “spirit of enlightenment” that defines its face.

By “enlightenment” we mean the entire process of rationalization, understanding by man and humanity of the natural and extra-natural environment around them, which inevitably required a more or less definite opposition of them to each other.

In contrast to Weber's approach, Adorno and Horkheimer interpret rationality more broadly: as submission, domination, power, violence.

Philosophy, science, technology, according to the ideas of Frankfurt residents, are the fiends of hell. They are the source of civilized slavery.

Technical rationality, as stated by the authors of the above-mentioned book, is today the rationality of power itself.

In general, the result of the "enlightenment" is characterized as the alienation of man and human civilization, torn from their natural context and, thereby, predetermining its collapse.

The results of “enlightenment” are the rupture of a single nature into subject and object, and their opposition; the separation of social relations from natural ones and the transfer into the social sphere of the antagonism that has arisen between man and nature, and - as a result - the formation of antagonistic social relations; the bifurcation of human subjectivity into physical and spiritual essences, the opposition and subordination of “lower” physicality to a “higher” abstract spirituality; the gap between the rational and emotional human beginnings with the intention to suppress and repress the latter, etc.

The diagnosis made by F.Sh. modern society - madness, mass paranoia, passion for the overvalued idea of domination over everyone and everything.

The possibility of achieving this dominance over nature, other people, etc. - a myth of the 20th century, the existence of which confirms the presence of the disease.

Fascism, world wars, death camps are eloquent symptoms of the disease of modern society, and the “international danger of fascism” becomes a political version of the development of a “failed civilization.” Coming from a critique of “traditional theory” and the image of science characteristic of their time, and based on the principles of unambiguous sociocultural determination of theoretical concepts, the Frankfurters come to criticize the realities of modern society. At the same time, they do not see any rudiments of a new world order in existing specific social systems. In accordance with the general attitudes of Frankfurt residents, the search for factors, the use of which could alleviate the fate of modern society, modern culture, is carried out in the sphere of subjectivity, although its social conditionality is constantly emphasized.

Fascism and the “brown plague” are explained by the authors as the “spirit of enlightenment”, “culture”, which are associated with the development of rationalism (Weber’s ideas are used here, and his understanding of “rationality” as a feature of Western civilization is clothed in a slightly different form - “enlightenment”).

The entire “bourgeois enlightenment” is characterized as a “myth of the 20th century.” It is a great misconception to consider modern society free, democratic, and enlightened.

In fact, it is "sick". It is dominated by collective madness and mass paranoia. Dialectics, therefore, lies in the fact that there is a transformation of enlightenment, reason into madness, darkness. Horkheimer’s book that precedes the “Dialectics of Enlightenment” is called: “Darkness of Reason” (1947).

The “West German” period is associated with the return to their homeland after the Second World War of a number of prominent representatives of the Frankfurt school. During this period, such researchers as G. Marcuse and J. Habermas especially made themselves known.

The central question that interests G. MARCUSE (1898 --1979) is about the causes of the “illness” of modern society and the search for a way out of the crisis state of bourgeois culture.

Even during the “American” period, Marcuse published the book “Reason and Revolution”. Then follow “Eros and Civilization”, “One-Dimensional Man”, “Essay on Liberation”, “Counter-Revolution and Rebellion”, etc. As can be seen from the titles of Marcuse’s main works, the author’s sociological views have a pronounced political overtones. Schematically, Marcuse's reasoning boils down to the following.

Modern, in Marcuse’s terminology, “late capitalist society” forms a “one-dimensional structure of drives” in the individual.

Sharing Freud's ideas, Marcuse believed that sexual desires are basic in the structure of an individual's needs.

In other words, in the conditions of a modern “rationalized”, “bureaucratized” society, in the conditions of a “repressive civilization”, a certain type of personality is formed, which Marcuse calls “one-dimensional” (“one-dimensional person”).

This person has an atrophied social-critical attitude to reality; he is nothing more than a “functionary” of the system.

Conformal consciousness, which determines appropriate behavior, serves to stabilize existing social structures.

Society manipulates the consciousness of individuals, shaping it in the direction necessary to maintain social stability.

The “one-dimensionality” that is formed by modern society can be overcome as a result of revolutionary changes in the structure of the human personality.

They can only be broken by a social force that is outside these structures and not subject to their influence. From here follows an extremely revolutionary, left-radical attitude, which especially distinguishes Marcuse.

The anthropological revolution must begin with the sexual revolution.

The modern revolution (and how and under what conditions it can take place in the modern historical period - this is the question that occupies the sociologist most of all) must affect the “anthropological structure” of the individual. In other words, a revolution cannot be radical if it does not liberate the deepest instincts suppressed by society, the main of which - Marcuse here follows Freud - is the instinct of Eros. The real revolution is a revolution in the structure of instincts, declares Marcuse.

Another conclusion he comes to in his reasoning concerns the driving forces of the modern revolution.

“People with a one-dimensional structure of drives” are not capable of any radical transformations.

And if in his time Marx connected revolutionary changes in society with the working class (proletariat), in modern conditions the ability for social criticism passes to those who have not yet “settled”, have not “ossified.”

These include young men (schoolchildren and students aged 17 to 25 years) - they are called the “Freudian proletariat”, various marginal layers of society, outsiders, lumpens, etc., in a word, everyone who “falls out” of the modern “corrupt civilization" of society (Marcuse here uses the term "dropoutmen").

On a global scale, the carriers of revolutionary energy are the “poor” countries opposing the capitalist and socialist countries pursuing “collaborationist” policies.

He builds a utopian theory of post-industrial society, which, in his opinion, should be established during the revolution in the structure of human instincts.

This new society will be based on the original drives of man, which Marcuse generally calls “holy nature.” Accordingly, the German-American sociologist presents the revolution as a “revolution of ecstasy.” The centuries-old civilization with its worship of Prometheus must be replaced by a new civilization, the main principle of human relationships in which will be the “principle of pleasure,” and it is symbolized by Orpheus and Narcissus.

In all of Marcuse’s reasoning, Marx’s eclectic thoughts, which at one time did not withstand the scientific criticism of Freud’s position, are intricately intertwined. Marcuse’s rather extravagant views are regarded as “neo-Marxism”, “Freudo-Marxism”, etc., and his “revolutionary” calls and slogans are essentially pseudo-revolutionary.

The extremism, nihilism, and amoralism widely cultivated by the “new left” so compromised Marcuse’s “revolutionary” ideas that he subsequently had to make serious adjustments to his views and publicly dissociate himself from the youth “leftist” radical movement.

By the 1960s, when a number of theoretical positions of the Frankfurtists began to be expressed in the extremist political guidelines of the “new left,” disagreements clearly emerged between the founders of “critical sociology.”

After Adorno's death (1969), the school virtually collapsed.

German sociologist, b. in 1929, Jurgen Habermas left the University of Frankfurt and began to engage in a theoretical search for conditions for creating a politicized public that could make theoretically meaningful, humanistic political decisions.

While maintaining his commitment to the basic ideas of “critical sociology,” Habermas actively uses in his theoretical constructions provisions developed in such trends of modern philosophy and sociology as linguistic philosophy, hermeneutics, phenomenology, etc.

Habermas's works "Theory of Society or Social Technology?" (1973); “Problems of legitimation in the conditions of late capitalism” (1973), “Theory of communicative action” (1981).

The theory of communicative action by Jurgen Habermas.

Critically rethinks Marxism and post-Marxist theories.

Marx studied primarily relations in the sphere of labor.

Habermas believed that an important phenomenon expressing the essence of man is communication.

At a certain stage, natural communication existed - it is carried out through direct communication, when meanings and social realities are preserved.

Subsequently, economic, political, information structures, regardless of the will of people, begin to impose their meanings, colonize the life world of the individual, alienating people from natural communications and themselves.

Social structures are dominated by formal rationality or technical, instrumental rationality.

Interaction is dominated by money, power, bureaucratic principles, and selfish calculation. Interpersonal relationships are dehumanized. The system and the lifeworld diverge.

For Marx, the path to freedom is the abolition of private property.

For Habermas - natural, genuine communication, based on humanistic cooperation, understanding, consensus, and the power of arguments.

Such communication is facilitated by self-reflection.

Self-reflection is the ability of people to reflect their own development, to act consciously, autonomously from the influence of external structures.

The level of education, awareness, and social activity of agents is important.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The formation of the Frankfurt school as a direction of left-radical social and philosophical thought, periods of its development. Model of non-identical thinking by T. Adorno. The concept of rationality by G. Marcuse. E. Fromm's point of view on the evolution of man and society.

abstract, added 12/04/2012

Object, subject, functions and methods of sociology, types and structure of sociological knowledge. History of the formation and development of sociology: the formation of sociological ideas, classical and Marxist sociology. Schools and directions of modern sociology.

course of lectures, added 06/02/2009

The origins and features of the formation of the Chicago School, its main generations and contribution to the development of sociology as a science. The most important representatives of this direction and their concepts. Key ideas of the Chicago School, their use in modern sociology.

course work, added 09/06/2012

Studying the history of the origin and stages of development of the Russian sociological school. Rationalization of nihilism. Soviet Marxism and sociology. Social surveys and political control. Modernization of Soviet sociological doctrine in the 1950s.

abstract, added 11/20/2010

The origins of sociological knowledge: from antiquity to the era of enlightenment. Socio-historical and theoretical prerequisites for the emergence of theoretical sociology. O. Comte as the founder of positive sociology. G. Spencer and the organic school in sociology.

test, added 03/07/2011

Characteristics of the Ural sociological school and its characteristic features. Biography of the founder of the Kogan school. The formation of sociology in the Urals, creative communities of sociologists and the Ural Readings. The main directions of research of Ekaterinburg scientists.

abstract, added 01/25/2010

Studying empirical sociology as an independent branch of sociology and determining the influence of the Chicago School on its development. Reasons for the “Americanization” of academic and applied sociology. The gap between theoretical and empirical research.

test, added 10/24/2013

Introduction to the basics of sociology by O. Comte. Consideration of the period of development of science in England and France (late 19th - early 20th centuries). Sociological tradition of Germany: G. Simmel, F. Tönnies, M. Weber. Theory of Marxism. Main schools of Western sociology.

presentation, added 11/11/2014

Sociological theories of the populists. Organicism and naturalistic direction. Subjective, pluralistic school of Kovalevsky. Orthodox Marxism. Criticism of the concepts and language of sociology. Priority of logical foundations. Epistemological philosophizing.

presentation, added 11/29/2013

Analysis of the Marxist school in sociology. The classical stage of the development of sociology, the main scientific concepts and theoretical foundations for the study of social phenomena. K. Marx's methodology in analyzing the problems of social labor, the theory of social conflict.

1. Critical sociology of the Frankfurt School. The work of G. Marcuse “One-Dimensional Man”.

The central question that interests G. MARCUSE (1898 -1979) is about the causes of the “illness” of modern society and the search for a way out of the crisis state of bourgeois culture. Even during the “American” period, Marcuse published the book “Reason and Revolution”. Then follow “Eros and Civilization”, “One-Dimensional Man”, “Essay on Liberation”, “Counter-Revolution and Rebellion”, etc. As can be seen from the titles of Marcuse’s main works, the author’s sociological views have a pronounced political overtones. Schematically, Marcuse's reasoning boils down to the following.
Modern, in Marcuse’s terminology, “late capitalist society” forms a “one-dimensional structure of drives” in the individual. In other words, in the conditions of a modern “rationalized”, “bureaucratized” society, in the conditions of a “repressive civilization”, a certain type of personality is formed, which Marcuse calls “one-dimensional” (“one-dimensional person”). This person has an atrophied social-critical attitude to reality; he is nothing more than a “functionary” of the system. Therefore, the modern revolution (and how and under what conditions it can take place in the modern historical period - this question occupies the sociologist most of all) must affect the “anthropological structure” of the individual. In other words, a revolution cannot be radical if it does not liberate the deepest instincts suppressed by society, the main of which - Marcuse here follows Freud - is the instinct of Eros. The real revolution is a revolution in the structure of instincts, declares Marcuse.
Another conclusion that he comes to in his reasoning concerns the driving forces of the modern revolution: “People with a one-dimensional structure of drives” are not capable of any radical transformations. And if in his time Marx connected revolutionary changes in society with the working class (proletariat), in modern conditions the ability for social criticism passes to those who have not yet “settled”, have not “ossified.” These include young men (schoolchildren and students aged 17 to 25 years) - they are called the “Freudian proletariat”, various marginal layers of society, outsiders, lumpens, etc., in a word, everyone who “falls out” of the modern “corrupt civilization” "society (Marcuse here uses the term "dropoutmen"). On a global scale, the carriers of revolutionary energy are the “poor” countries opposing the capitalist and socialist countries pursuing “collaborationist” policies.
How should a modern revolution take place? Marcuse denies the role of parties as the organizer and leader of the political struggle, rejects legal methods and forms of reorganizing society, considering them only as a “parliamentary game.” He places his main emphasis on the “Great Refusal” - the “absolute denial” of modern Society and modern “repressive culture”. He builds a utopian theory of a post-industrial society, which should, in his opinion, be established during the revolution in the structure of human instincts. This new society will be based on the original drives of man, which Marcuse generally calls “holy nature.” Accordingly, the German-American sociologist presents the revolution as a “revolution of ecstasy.

The Frankfurt school developed into an independent movement in the 30s and 40s. XX century on the basis of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main (Germany). This school not only united in its ranks many outstanding scientists - philosophers, psychologists, historians, cultural scientists, but also, with all the diversity of points of view and scientific inclinations of its members, entered the history of social science as a fairly integral critical theory - critical sociology. has a double meaning: firstly, as a critical sociology, the teaching of the Frankfurtians in a certain way opposes the “traditional theory” based on dualism: the cognizing subject is an objective reality (subject - object), while in fact society, according to the Frankfurtians, is at the same time both “subject” and “object” (i.e., the identity of both); secondly, all representatives of the school in question, without exception, acted as ardent and convinced critics of modern capitalist society. The ideological, social and philosophical sources of the diverse research, scientific and theoretical works done by the Frankfurt people are Marxism, Freudianism, and existentialism. During its history, the Frankfurt School has experienced three periods, which are characterized not only by time frames, but also by scientific topics, priority issues, and personal leadership.
The first period in specialized literature is usually called “European”, since the geographical location of the Frankfurt school at this time is associated with European countries and cities (Germany, Frankfurt am Main, and Switzerland, Geneva, where scientists were forced to emigrate after the Nazis came to power) .
The largest representative of the Frankfurt school and its actual founder and leader is M. HORKHEIMER (1895-1973). Guided by some ideas of neo-Marxism, which made the processes of social alienation the central subject of its attention, Horkheimer and his followers and students tried to create a sociological theory that, on the one hand, would bridge the gap between empirical sociology and philosophical theory (philosophy of history), and, on the other hand, would inherit the dialectic of Marx,
The paradox is that the general sociological theory, which was created by representatives of the Frankfurt school and, above all, its founder Horkheimer, did not have a positive orientation; it was built on critical foundations. At the same time, Marx’s one-sidedly interpreted “Capital” was accepted as the ideal of criticism. Horkheimer and his students were guided by Marx’s “critique of bourgeois political economy” and tried to give a “critique of bourgeois sociology,” and in a broad sense, of the entire modern society, and the criticism was intended to be universal, total. This approach is reflected in the concept of “total negation,” which is widely represented in the ideas and positions of Frankfurt scientists. It is also characteristic that “criticism” itself was identified with “dialectics” (the dialectics of Marxism). Thus, we are faced with a very one-sided reading and understanding of Marxist teaching. Dialectics in the reasoning of the Frankfurtists takes a “negative” form, which is why the philosophical position and the general method of their research are called “negative dialectics.” In general, in connection with the above circumstances, the Frankfurt school is considered neo-Marxist (i.e., a form of neo-Marxism); it is classified as bourgeois Marxology, which means the interpretation of Marxism by scientists who adhere to liberal and even class-loyal beliefs.
The next important feature of the Frankfurt school is its connection with Freudianism and neo-Freudianism. This connection is clearly manifested, in particular, in the work of the well-known sociologist Fromm, who collaborated with the Frankfurt people for many years. For example, let's take the development of problems of destructive behavior. Rejecting the instinctive-biological explanation, the scientist offers a sociological interpretation of human destructive actions (destruction), and it is precisely the impossibility in the conditions of modern society of realizing creative potentials, which constitutes the meaning of human life and is even connected, as has already been noted, with the unconscious in its positive modes.
According to Freudian principles, every person has two basic drives: towards life (Eros) and death (Thanatos). Which of them will prevail depends, Fromm especially emphasizes, on the social environment and culture. When an individual loses the desire for life and the death instinct triumphs, a necrophilic person is formed (as opposed to a biophile). Modern exploitative, idolatrous, technicalized, bureaucratized, in a word, inhumane society breeds necrophiles on a massive scale. Necrophile is a child of a rational (rational) civilization. Criminal and political crimes, totalitarianism, fascism, dictatorship, terror, violence, bacchanalian passions - all these are the consequences of destructiveness triumphant in modern civilization. Fromm creates psychoanalytic portraits of necrophiles. He is especially interested in this side by the fascists Hitler and Himmler, and the Soviet dictator Stalin. If Fromm sees a way out in the communitarian-socialist organization of society, then another prominent representative of the Frankfurt school, Marcuse, relies on a revolution leading to the liberation - quite according to Freud - of human instincts, primarily sexual, “suppressed” by a rationalistic culture. This is how the Freudo-Marxist orientation of the teachings of the Frankfurt School is formed and strengthened.
The “American” period begins when the Second World War forces Frankfurt residents to move from Europe to the United States. During this period, one of the first places in the sociological research of members of this school was put forward by a block of problems associated with the phenomenon of authoritarianism, which was largely prompted by the war, the fascist state in Germany, the personality of the Fuhrer and his minions.
In 1950, a group of authors led by T. ADORNO (1903-1969) published a fundamental work, “The Authoritarian Personality,” containing sociological and psychological (in the spirit of neo-Freudian) material that allows one to characterize the type of personality generated by totalitarian regimes as “fascist” (this term, as well as the term “authoritarian personality” itself, belongs to Fromm) society. Among these traits, the authors highlight conservatism, aggressiveness, authority, hatred of intelligence, stereotypical thinking, conformism, hatred of representatives of other ethnic groups, etc. In the preface to the book, Horheimer wrote about the authoritarian personality as a new anthropological type that arose in the 20th century. Adorno and his co-authors developed a typology of authoritarian personality; conventionalist, sadomasochistic, whimsical, melancholic and manipulative types were developed.
Somewhat earlier (1948), Adorno and Horkheimer were preparing for publication a book that should be considered as a kind of quintessence of the entire socio-philosophical and sociological teaching of the Frankfurt school. This book is called "Dialectics of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments." Fascism, the “brown plague” is explained by the authors as the “spirit of enlightenment”, “culture”, which are associated with the development of rationalism (the ideas of Weber are used here, and his understanding of “rationality” as a feature of Western civilization is clothed in a slightly different form - “enlightenment”). In contrast to Weber's approach, Adorno and Horkheimer interpret rationality more broadly: as submission, domination, power, violence.
The entire “bourgeois enlightenment” is characterized as a “myth of the 20th century.” It is a great misconception to consider modern society free, democratic, and enlightened. In fact, it is "sick". It is dominated by collective madness and mass paranoia. Dialectics, therefore, lies in the fact that there is a transformation of enlightenment, reason into madness, darkness. Horkheimer’s book that precedes the “Dialectics of Enlightenment” is called: “Darkness of Reason” (1947).
Philosophy, science, technology, according to the Frankfurt residents, are the fiends of hell. They are the source of civilized slavery. Technical rationality, as stated by the authors of the above-mentioned book, is today the rationality of power itself.
The “West German” period is associated with the return to their homeland after the Second World War of a number of prominent representatives of the Frankfurt school. During this period, such researchers as G. Marcuse and J. Habermas especially made themselves known.
The central question that interests G. MARCUSE (1898 -1979) is about the causes of the “illness” of modern society and the search for a way out of the crisis state of bourgeois culture. Even during the “American” period, Marcuse published the book “Reason and Revolution”. Then follow “Eros and Civilization”, “One-Dimensional Man”, “Essay on Liberation”, “Counter-Revolution and Rebellion”, etc. As can be seen from the titles of Marcuse’s main works, the author’s sociological views have a pronounced political overtones. Schematically, Marcuse's reasoning boils down to the following.
Modern, in Marcuse’s terminology, “late capitalist society” forms a “one-dimensional structure of drives” in the individual. In other words, in the conditions of a modern “rationalized”, “bureaucratized” society, in the conditions of a “repressive civilization”, a certain type of personality is formed, which Marcuse calls “one-dimensional” (“one-dimensional person”). This person has an atrophied social-critical attitude to reality; he is nothing more than a “functionary” of the system. Therefore, the modern revolution (and how and under what conditions it can take place in the modern historical period - this question occupies the sociologist most of all) must affect the “anthropological structure” of the individual. In other words, a revolution cannot be radical if it does not liberate the deepest instincts suppressed by society, the main of which - Marcuse here follows Freud - is the instinct of Eros. The real revolution is a revolution in the structure of instincts, declares Marcuse.
Another conclusion that he comes to in his reasoning concerns the driving forces of the modern revolution: “People with a one-dimensional structure of drives” are not capable of any radical transformations. And if in his time Marx connected revolutionary changes in society with the working class (proletariat), in modern conditions the ability for social criticism passes to those who have not yet “settled”, have not “ossified.” These include young men (schoolchildren and students aged 17 to 25 years) - they are called the “Freudian proletariat”, various marginal layers of society, outsiders, lumpens, etc., in a word, everyone who “falls out” of the modern “corrupt civilization” "society (Marcuse here uses the term "dropoutmen"). On a global scale, the carriers of revolutionary energy are the “poor” countries opposing the capitalist and socialist countries pursuing “collaborationist” policies.
How should a modern revolution take place? Marcuse denies the role of parties as the organizer and leader of the political struggle, rejects legal methods and forms of reorganizing society, considering them only as a “parliamentary game.” He places his main emphasis on the “Great Refusal” - the “absolute denial” of modern Society and modern “repressive culture”. He builds a utopian theory of a post-industrial society, which should, in his opinion, be established during the revolution in the structure of human instincts. This new society will be based on the original drives of man, which Marcuse generally calls “holy nature.” Accordingly, the German-American sociologist presents the revolution as a “revolution of ecstasy.” The centuries-old civilization with its worship of Prometheus must be replaced by a new civilization, the main principle of human relationships in which will be the “principle of pleasure,” and it is symbolized by Orpheus and Narcissus.
In all of Marcuse’s reasoning, Marx’s eclectic thoughts, which did not withstand the scientific criticism of Freud’s position at the time, are intricately intertwined. Marcuse’s rather extravagant views are regarded as “neo-Marxism”, “Freudo-Marxism”, etc., and his “revolutionary” calls and slogans are essentially pseudo-revolutionary.
Nevertheless, Marcuse's false-romantic theory found a response among a certain part of Western youth. Marcuse became the ideological leader of the “new left” movement (the term was coined by the prominent American sociologist of our time, C.R. Mills), whose representatives placed their main hopes on terror, violence, “exporting revolution,” etc. The extremism, nihilism, and amoralism widely cultivated by the “new left” so compromised Marcuse’s “revolutionary” ideas that he subsequently had to make serious adjustments to his views and publicly dissociate himself from the youth “leftist” radical movement.

The largest representative of the Frankfurt school and its actual founder and leader is M. HORKHEIMER (1895-1973). Guided by some ideas of neo-Marxism, which made the processes of social alienation the central subject of its attention, Horkheimer and his followers and students tried to create a sociological theory that, on the one hand, would bridge the gap between empirical sociology and philosophical theory (philosophy of history), and, on the other hand, would inherit the dialectic of Marx,

The paradox is that the general sociological theory, which was created by representatives of the Frankfurt school and, above all, its founder Horkheimer, did not have a positive orientation; it was built on critical foundations. At the same time, Marx’s one-sidedly interpreted “Capital” was accepted as the ideal of criticism. Horkheimer and his students were guided by Marx’s “critique of bourgeois political economy” and tried to give a “critique of bourgeois sociology,” and in a broad sense, of the entire modern society, and the criticism was intended to be universal, total. This approach is reflected in the concept of “total negation,” which is widely represented in the ideas and positions of Frankfurt scientists.

It is also characteristic that “criticism” itself was identified with “dialectics” (the dialectics of Marxism). Thus, we are faced with a very one-sided reading and understanding of Marxist teaching. Dialectics in the reasoning of the Frankfurtists takes a “negative” form, which is why the philosophical position and the general method of their research are called “negative dialectics.” In general, in connection with the above circumstances, the Frankfurt school is considered neo-Marxist (i.e., a form of neo-Marxism); it is classified as bourgeois Marxology, which means the interpretation of Marxism by scientists who adhere to liberal and even class-loyal beliefs.

The next important feature of the Frankfurt school is its connection with Freudianism and neo-Freudianism. This connection is clearly manifested, in particular, in the work of the well-known sociologist Fromm, who collaborated with the Frankfurt people for many years. For example, let's take the development of problems of destructive behavior. Rejecting the instinctive-biological explanation, the scientist offers a sociological interpretation of human destructive actions (destruction), and it is precisely the impossibility in the conditions of modern society of realizing creative potentials, which constitutes the meaning of human life and is even connected, as has already been noted, with the unconscious in its positive modes.

According to Freudian principles, every person has two basic drives: towards life (Eros) and death (Thanatos). Which of them will prevail depends, Fromm especially emphasizes, on the social environment and culture. When an individual loses the desire for life and the death instinct triumphs, a necrophilic person is formed (as opposed to a biophile). Modern exploitative, idolatrous, technicalized, bureaucratized, in a word, inhumane society breeds necrophiles on a massive scale. Necrophile is a child of a rational (rational) civilization. Criminal and political crimes, totalitarianism, fascism, dictatorship, terror, violence, bacchanalian passions - all these are the consequences of destructiveness triumphant in modern civilization. Fromm creates psychoanalytic portraits of necrophiles. He is especially interested in this side by the fascists Hitler and Himmler, and the Soviet dictator Stalin. If Fromm sees a way out in the communitarian-socialist organization of society, then another prominent representative of the Frankfurt school, Marcuse, relies on a revolution leading to the liberation - quite according to Freud - of human instincts, primarily sexual, “suppressed” by a rationalistic culture. This is how the Freudo-Marxist orientation of the teachings of the Frankfurt School is formed and strengthened.

In 1950, a group of authors led by T. ADORNO (1903-1969) published a fundamental work, “The Authoritarian Personality,” containing sociological and psychological (in the spirit of neo-Freudian) material that allows one to characterize the type of personality generated by totalitarian regimes as “fascist” (this term, as well as the term “authoritarian personality” itself, belongs to Fromm) society. Among these traits, the authors highlight conservatism, aggressiveness, authority, hatred of intelligence, stereotypical thinking, conformism, hatred of representatives of other ethnic groups, etc. In the preface to the book, Horheimer wrote about the authoritarian personality as a new anthropological type that arose in the 20th century. Adorno and his co-authors developed a typology of authoritarian personality; conventionalist, sadomasochistic, whimsical, melancholic and manipulative types were developed.

Somewhat earlier (1948), Adorno and Horkheimer were preparing for publication a book that should be considered as a kind of quintessence of the entire socio-philosophical and sociological teaching of the Frankfurt school. This book is called "Dialectics of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments." Fascism, the “brown plague” is explained by the authors as the “spirit of enlightenment”, “culture”, which are associated with the development of rationalism (the ideas of Weber are used here, and his understanding of “rationality” as a feature of Western civilization is clothed in a slightly different form - “enlightenment”). In contrast to Weber's approach, Adorno and Horkheimer interpret rationality more broadly: as submission, domination, power, violence.

The entire “bourgeois enlightenment” is characterized as a “myth of the 20th century.” It is a great misconception to consider modern society free, democratic, and enlightened. In fact, it is "sick". It is dominated by collective madness and mass paranoia. Dialectics, therefore, lies in the fact that there is a transformation of enlightenment, reason into madness, darkness. Horkheimer’s book that precedes the “Dialectics of Enlightenment” is called: “Darkness of Reason” (1947).

Philosophy, science, technology, according to the Frankfurt residents, are the fiends of hell. They are the source of civilized slavery. Technical rationality, as stated by the authors of the above-mentioned book, is today the rationality of power itself.

Modern, in Marcuse’s terminology, “late capitalist society” forms a “one-dimensional structure of drives” in the individual. In other words, in the conditions of a modern “rationalized”, “bureaucratized” society, in the conditions of a “repressive civilization”, a certain type of personality is formed, which Marcuse calls “one-dimensional” (“one-dimensional person”). This person has an atrophied social-critical attitude to reality; he is nothing more than a “functionary” of the system. Therefore, the modern revolution (and how and under what conditions it can take place in the modern historical period - this question occupies the sociologist most of all) must affect the “anthropological structure” of the individual. In other words, a revolution cannot be radical if it does not liberate the deepest instincts suppressed by society, the main of which - Marcuse here follows Freud - is the instinct of Eros. The real revolution is a revolution in the structure of instincts, declares Marcuse.

Another conclusion that he comes to in his reasoning concerns the driving forces of the modern revolution: “People with a one-dimensional structure of drives” are not capable of any radical transformations. And if in his time Marx connected revolutionary changes in society with the working class (proletariat), in modern conditions the ability for social criticism passes to those who have not yet “settled”, have not “ossified.” These include young men (schoolchildren and students aged 17 to 25 years) - they are called the “Freudian proletariat”, various marginal layers of society, outsiders, lumpens, etc., in a word, everyone who “falls out” of the modern “corrupt civilization” "society (Marcuse here uses the term "dropoutmen"). On a global scale, the carriers of revolutionary energy are the “poor” countries opposing the capitalist and socialist countries pursuing “collaborationist” policies.

How should a modern revolution take place? Marcuse denies the role of parties as the organizer and leader of the political struggle, rejects legal methods and forms of reorganizing society, considering them only as a “parliamentary game.” He places his main emphasis on the “Great Refusal” - the “absolute denial” of modern Society and modern “repressive culture”. He builds a utopian theory of a post-industrial society, which should, in his opinion, be established during the revolution in the structure of human instincts. This new society will be based on the original drives of man, which Marcuse generally calls “holy nature.” Accordingly, the German-American sociologist presents the revolution as a “revolution of ecstasy.” The centuries-old civilization with its worship of Prometheus must be replaced by a new civilization, the main principle of human relationships in which will be the “principle of pleasure,” and it is symbolized by Orpheus and Narcissus.

In all of Marcuse’s reasoning, Marx’s eclectically seized thoughts, which could not stand up in their own right, are intricately intertwined.

time of scientific criticism of Freud's position. Marcuse’s rather extravagant views are regarded as “neo-Marxism”, “Freudo-Marxism”, etc., and his “revolutionary” calls and slogans are essentially pseudo-revolutionary.

Nevertheless, Marcuse's false-romantic theory found a response among a certain part of Western youth. Marcuse became the ideological leader of the “new left” movement (the term was coined by the prominent American sociologist of our time, C.R. Mills), whose representatives placed their main hopes on terror, violence, “exporting revolution,” etc. The extremism, nihilism, and amoralism widely cultivated by the “new left” so compromised Marcuse’s “revolutionary” ideas that he subsequently had to make serious adjustments to his views and publicly dissociate himself from the youth “leftist” radical movement.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL SOCIOLOGY

Phenomenological sociology emerged in the 60-70s. of the present century on the basis of the phenomenological philosophy that became widespread at the beginning of the century. The founder of the latter is considered to be the German scientist E. Husserl (1859-1938), whose philosophical and theoretical principles formed the basis of phenomenological sociology. Therefore, the analysis of phenomenological sociology is organically associated with an understanding of the teachings of E. Husserl.

The main task that the scientist-philosopher has to solve, Husserl believed, is the origin of human knowledge. In other words, a scientist must first of all answer the question: where and how do people acquire knowledge about the world. When answering this fundamental question, E. Husserl continues his reasoning, it is necessary to get rid of all kinds of distortions generated by preconceived opinions, existing scientific theories, historical layers and cultural transformation. In general, the set of techniques for the “liberation of knowledge”, the identification of its certain pure core, the truth, according to Husserl, the “natural relationship” to the world in phenomenological philosophy is called “phenomenological reduction”, or “epoch” (“epoch”). In reality, this approach means characteristic of subjective idealistic philosophy is the view of knowledge not as a reflection of reality, but its construction. Knowledge, perception, experience, Husserl and his associates believe, are nothing more than a subjectively created construct, in the form of which reality appears to a person.

Husserl's second important position is related to the doctrine of the “life world”. Phenomenological reduction - this peculiar course of human thought in the “backward direction” from scientific knowledge to “natural”, pre-scientific, original meanings ends with human ideas, which are characterized by intuitive reliability, “anonymous” subjectivity, integrity, which, however, does not have a clear structure, uncertain in structure. Taken together, this kind of knowledge and ideas form the “life world.” It is organically included in human practice, in the behavior and activities of people.

And if the first position is connected to a greater extent with epistemology, then the second - with social life. It is this that becomes the starting point in phenomenological sociology. For an appeal to the “life world” is nothing more than an appeal to a “deep” social reality, which is not subject to scientific knowledge. In relation to it, one can only talk about “understanding”.

Understanding sociology, the emergence of which is associated with the name of the Austro-American philosopher and sociologist A. SCHUTZ (Schutz) (1899-1959), developed from these provisions of Husserl.

Schutz believed that the problem of “understanding” was posed by M. Weber, although correct in principle, but unclearly, in general terms. Husserl, Schutz’s teacher, came closer to the correct and more concrete solution to the problem posed by Weber, and it was precisely in the doctrine of the “life world”, comprehended not so much by scientific methods as by subjective construction, the indispensable elements of which, i.e., the “life world” itself. , is “the subject’s experience of reality.”

Schutz contrasts his “understanding sociology” with “traditional sociology.” The latter proceeds from the assumption that society is a reality accessible to reflection (cognition). “Traditional” sociology does not ask the question: how is society possible? Understanding Sociology makes this question central to its study of social life. The meaning of Schutz's reasoning is approximately as follows.

The “life world” designated by Husserl is in fact a stream of phenomena experienced by the subject. Not all phenomena experienced by the subject have “meaning” for him; not all of them are comprehended or reflected. They are comprehended in the Husserlian interpretation, that is, they understand mainly past phenomena that have already entered into subjective experience, but are not present, not relevant. In addition, “comprehension” (“understanding”) itself goes through two stages: lower and higher. At a lower level, significant elements of experience arise; at a higher level, stable configurations of meanings are formed, the basis of which are intentional acts. The constitution of meanings in Schutz’s “understanding sociology” is a very significant point.

Another significant point is the doctrine of intersubjectivity of the life world. The essence of this teaching is that the objectivity of social reality is of a special kind, different from the objectivity of nature, and namely, it is born in the relation of the “I” to another “I”. Moreover, this relationship itself is determined, again, by the consciousness (“experience”) of the “I.” That is, the other “I” is nothing more than the “experience”, “awareness” of the “I” of the other “I”.

The third important point of Schutz’s “understanding sociology” is the doctrine of the “intentionality” of understanding action. The scientist writes, in particular: all understanding is aimed at what matters. This direction of “understanding”, in a broader sense, and the actions of the subject, means intentionality. Schutz divides the “understanding action” itself into two types: one that does not have communication as its goal and the other that is performed for the purpose of communication. An example of the first would be “cutting down a tree.” Let's say I'm observing another person collecting firewood. An example of the second is a “conversation” between two subjects: “I” and “another I”. A true understanding of the meaning of the subject’s actions, according to Schutz, lies in the awareness of the subjective meanings of the actions for this “other I”.

Along with this type of understanding, “true understanding,” there are two other types: understanding as self-interpretation and typifying understanding. One (understanding as self-interpretation) means interpreting one's own experiences in terms of one's own context of meaning. In other words, the subject transfers, as it were, his own experience onto the behavior and actions of another subject, identifying the latter with his “I”. Another understanding is carried out either in the form of “ordinary typification” or in the form of “scientific typification”. The scheme here, however, is the same: subsuming “understanding” under systems of categories either accepted by the masses in everyday life, or under systems of scientific concepts.

So, the basis of social action is understanding. Moreover, according to Schutz, action and understanding are one and the same. Understanding is a form of subjective (human) activity. The same applies to explanation. The “life world” is a world of meanings, and meanings are created by people. Accordingly, social order is nothing more than a system of meanings. People live and act on the basis of a “natural attitude” that the world of each is at the same time the world of another (the principle of intersubjectivity of the life world). Typification is based on this principle - the creation of semantic connections common to all, as well as idealization - the implied “and so on” and “I can do it again” (Husserl’s formulas).

Distinguishing between social action and deed (social action is a process in which something is carried out, and an action is the result of this process), Schutz describes the temporal and semantic structure of social action, based on two types of subjective motivation. So, there are two most common motives: “in order” and “because”. The first is directed to the future, the second - to the past. In this way, social integrity, “continuity” is created.

Returning to the central idea of understanding sociology about the intersubjectivity of the life world, in connection with what has been said above, we must now pay attention to the fact that Schutz formulated two important conditions for said intersubjectivity, which are expressed in the concept of “idealization.” First, according to Schutz, there is an absolutely necessary “idealization of the interchangeability of points of view.” And, secondly, “the idealization of the coincidence of relevance systems.” In the first case, it is assumed that each perceives things like the other. In the second case, it is assumed that people judge things based on the same criteria. Both cases are integrated by Schutz into the general “thesis of the interchangeability of perspectives.” This thesis underlies all social action and understanding.

Ethnomethodology is a school that emerged within the framework of phenomenological sociology in the 70s. this century in the USA. Its founder is considered to be the American scientist G. GARFINKEL (b. 1917). The term “ethnomethodology” itself was introduced into scientific circulation by Garfinkel by analogy with the term “ethnoscience”, which in cultural anthropology denotes methods and forms of primitive non-scientific knowledge of social reality: magic, shamanism, spiritualism, etc. Ethnomethodology, according to Garfinkel, should oppose “ethnoscience” "as a set of scientific techniques and methods of understanding society. At the same time, Garfinkel proceeds from the main postulate: social life necessarily contains a moment of rationality.

In Garfinkel's argument, the central concepts are “background expectations” and “reflexivity.” The first concept - “background expectations” - means the representation of a social subject in the form of “rules” of action (behavior, understanding, explanation, etc.). According to Garfinkel, subjects create social reality according to accepted rules (standards, patterns), but these rules themselves are social “works.” Thus, social reality creates and recreates itself, and is born from the same subjective acts. Reflexivity, the second concept in Garfinkel's teaching, means the emergence of social structures in the course of their subjective interpretation.

A feature of the ethnomethodological approach to society is the identification of social interaction with verbal communication and not with semantic information, but with syntactic information, with “rules of speaking.” Garfinkel encourages social scientists to study not what is said, but how it is said. The social, according to Garfinkel, becomes generally possible solely due to the fact that communication between subjects is carried out according to certain rules, more precisely, “rules of speaking.” In a normal “conversation” between subjects, the following points take place:

1. The conversation certainly contains elements of mutual understanding, although the problems discussed are not mentioned.

2. Understanding is established not only on the basis of what is said, but also on the basis of what is not said.

3. In a number of cases, understanding is established not as a result of the strict use of concepts and terms, but only as a result of the temporal sequence of speech.

4. Understanding is achieved very often as a result not of an actual explanation, but of a previously known, i.e., some “subject model” of understanding.

5. Understanding is based to a certain extent on the available interpretation and the actual scheme of expression of thought.

6. Understanding necessarily includes the expectation of an appropriate reaction from partners, which, in turn, clarifies the meaning of speech, the positions of subjects, assessments, etc.

Ethnomethodology, as a special branch of phenomenological sociology, is characterized by the reduction of social communication to the organization of speech acts and mutual understanding of the subjects - participants in the “conversation”. Social reality itself, according to the reasoning of Garfinkel and his associates, is “constructed” in the process of speech communication.

Noteworthy is the division of speech semantics into “indexical” and “objective judgments”. The first ones are determined by the situation, context, and characteristics of the communicants. The latter do not depend on specific speech behavior and are quite stable. Through “objective expressions” the uncertainty and uniqueness of “index expressions” are overcome. Science in this case plays the role of objectification and ontologization of everyday communication, liberation of communication from “subjectivity”.

Existential sociology is a fairly independent teaching that can be considered within the framework of phenomenological sociology, since social reality is declared a “socio-psychological phenomenon.” The founder of this school is considered to be the American scientist E. TI-RIKIAN (Tiriakyan) (b. 1929). His teaching is also called structural sociology. Its main point is the position of “ecstasis” (the term of the German philosopher M. Heidegger), meaning the “proliferation” of social existence, on the one hand, into the past, on the other hand, into the future. And if historians are interested in the “past,” then sociologists study the “present.” The latter, according to Tirikyan, is nothing more than the actualization of the past, and this actualization is performed by the subject and, therefore, is in direct dependence on his, the subject’s, characteristics (abilities, goals, motives, etc.). Some correspondence between “past” structures and “present” ones forms the basis of the “future” and, subjectively, the basis for forecasting.

The discrepancy between the “past”, “present” and “future” structures causes a crisis in society, which, according to Tirikyan, is the cause of revolutions.

Touching on this problem, Tirikyan develops the doctrine of the “index of revolutionary potential,” consisting of the sum of “empirical indicators” of the upcoming “leap” in social development. Among these indicators are the increasing degree of urbanization of society, the spread of sexual promiscuity and the disappearance of public intolerance towards this “evil,” and the increase in the social structure of non-institutionalized religious elements. The “revolutionary potential index” itself is an interval scale from 0 (“zero”) to 1 (“one”). Point 0 represents a hypothetical state, “utopia”: “absence of social tension”, absence of contradiction between “morality and reality”, etc. Point 1 is the culmination of the revolution, which Tirikyan presents as “anarchy” and “anomie”, the destruction of old social structures. Intermediate points signify different moments and degrees of “social destruction.”

Cognitive sociology is also one of the variants of phenomenological sociology, associated mainly with the name of the American sociologist A. SICUREL. His main work, “Method and Measurement in Sociology,” is devoted to the analysis and description of sociological methods for studying social processes. Sicourel aims to clarify the question not only about the nature of social knowledge, but also about its storage, activation, and organization. Like all other representatives of phenomenological sociology, Cicourel proceeds from one main thesis that society is constructed and constituted in the subjective processes of social communication: cognition, speech, transmission of information.

According to Cicourel, there are three stages in the construction of social reality by people (subjects). The first stage is the subjective organization and classification of “empirics” (experience) in simple (elementary) acts of “speaking”, the second stage is the manifestation of “theoretical concepts”, the third stage involves the subjective analysis of a conversation or text. A significant place in Cicourel’s teaching is occupied by the analysis of “interpretation procedures.” The meaning of these procedures lies in the subjective “interpretation” of speech (text). He examines in detail possible “subjective” mechanisms for supplementing the text, the influence of the situation on the “conversation,” reliance on past experience (past knowledge), etc. Sicourel calls methods of storing, transmitting, and organizing knowledge “folk models.” He believes that every person has a knowledge base developed over centuries, inherited and acquired in the process of education, which participates in their subsequent organization, “interpretation” of the text, etc. The “folk model” is thus a way of existence (existence) of sociality.

The concept of constructing social reality, central to phenomenological sociology, received the most complete development in the book by P. BERGER (b. 1929) and T. LUK-MAN (b. 1927) “The Social Construction of Reality”, which has the subtitle “Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge” ". The publication of this book in 1966 (USA), which very soon became a scientific bestseller, can rightfully be considered as the final formulation of a relatively independent school of sociology of knowledge (the author of the term itself is the German philosopher M. Scheler). Among its tasks, this school names the study of the patterns of sociocultural determination of knowledge, its institutionalization, as well as forms and methods of transmission and storage of social experience, analysis of types of thinking in various historical periods, etc.

Starting from Pascal's famous expression: "What is true on one side of the Pyrenees is wrong on the other," Berger and Luckman try to understand the "order of meaning." According to these authors, “the structure of social reality is constituted by subjective meanings.” In other words, language plays a leading role in ordering the world: signs, sign systems with their inherent values (meaning). Moreover, in the process of designation (signification) the “objectification of being” occurs. For subjects, knowledge of everyday life is organized in terms of relevances. The basic relevant structures related to everyday life are given ready-made in the social stock of knowledge itself. Thus, in American society, Berger and Luckman argue, it is inappropriate to study the movements of stars in order to predict the state of affairs in the stock market.

On the contrary, in other societies astrology may be quite relevant to knowledge of economics.

Social organization, social order are constructed not only through knowledge and language, but also through and in the process of institutionalization. Its initial foundations are habitualization, sedimentation, tradition and reification. Habitus (habitus) is a way of action that has become a habit. Habitualization, accordingly, is habituation. Sedimentation literally means the process of sedimentation, transition to "sediment", i.e. social experience. Tradition is the process of inheritance of social experience by generations; it is of paramount importance in the preservation and distribution of roles that are a necessary moment of institutionalization - types of activities and figures. Through roles, Berger and Luckman write, institutions are embodied in individual experience. Reification is the reification of social reality, accompanied by the transformation of the man-made world into a “non-human”, “dehumanized”, “world of things”

Another important means and mechanism for constructing social reality is legitimation, which Berger and Luckman consider as “second-order semantic objectification.” Legitimation, in their opinion, “creates new meanings that serve to integrate those meanings that are already characteristic of various institutional processes.” In the process of legitimation, the institutional order acquires cognitive and normative, i.e. obligatory, imperative, character. Legitimation has levels - pre-theoretical (self-evident knowledge), theoretical, systemic with corresponding competence and specialization, and the level of the “symbolic universe”, when “the whole historical society and the whole individual biography are considered as phenomena occurring within the framework of this universe”, i.e. At this point, according to the creators of the school in question, “exhaustive integration of all disparate institutional processes” is carried out (an example here is the mythological construction of social reality).

An important point in the teachings of Berger and Luckmann for sociology are the provisions they developed on primary and secondary socialization. Primary socialization chronologically coincides with childhood and in content means becoming a “member of society.” Secondary socialization is the subsequent process of an already socialized individual entering “new sectors” of the social world (the sector of primary socialization, as a rule, is the family). The decisive phase of socialization is the formation in the mind of an image of a “generalized other.” It is in the process of primary socialization that the “first world of the individual” is constructed. Its most important points are identification and alternation. Socialization can be “successful” and “unsuccessful” (cripple, bastard, idiot, etc.). Distinguishing between objective reality (society) and subjective reality (individual, personality), Berger and Luckman emphasize that the key element of the second is identity, that is, the connection of the individual with society and the individual’s awareness of this connection. In any social system, processes historically develop aimed at the formation and maintenance of identity, which, in turn, are determined by the social structure. Thus, Americans, French, etc. are distinguished by their specific types of identity.

A very special place in phenomenological sociology is occupied by the works of J. HOFFMAN (1922 - 1982), who was once elected president of the American Sociological Association and writer, nicknamed the “Kafka of the new time”. Indeed, the work of this scientist differs from traditional research in the field of sociology not only in its paradoxical nature, but also in its style. For example, one of Goffman's books is called "Madhouse" and has the subtitle "On the treatment of disturbed identity." R. Dahrendorf saw in Hoffman a master of interpretation, and therefore the American sociologist can be considered as the creator of the school of interpretive sociology. The central issues of this school are social interaction (interaction) and social identity in connection with subjective interpretation, which represents a special type of construction of social reality. It is significant that Hoffman - which is the uniqueness of his scientific work - develops and widely uses the method of “shifting perspectives.” Social action and interaction in accordance with this method are considered from the point of view of manipulation of meaning. All social life takes on the character of a performance, a practical joke, a dramatic action, and people, the subjects of the action, become “actors.” Another noteworthy aspect of Hoffman’s scientific work is the approach to the “normal” from the side of the “absurd,” through the “absurd.” At the same time, the scientist is guided by one ideological attitude: that the world, especially the modern one, is a “threat to individuality.” The scientist tries to imagine how, in these socio-historical conditions, individuals play out their social roles in fairly typical situations: “failure” - when the mechanism of “cooling” is turned on and used - softening claims, preventing the destruction of identity, “totalitarianism” - when there are no means for expression identity (imprisonment, placement in a psychiatric hospital, etc.) and informal relationships are used ("underground life"), "violation of territory", i.e., symbolic space to create and strengthen identity - when apology mechanisms are turned on to correct the situation , explanations, etc., “in front of everyone,” that is, in public places - when the mechanism of individual presentation, putting on a mask, playing a certain role, etc. is turned on and used.

Goffman skillfully described numerous methods (techniques) for establishing the “interactional order.” Among them: “creating an image” - a second, additional “face” for “those around” with the corresponding “scene” and “backstage” in life, “stigma” - diverse technologies of behavior of stigmatized individuals (for example, prostitutes), “role distance” - in particular, the desire to show that an individual is capable of more than the role prescribes, “deception” - a lie in the name of salvation, a lie for profit, etc. “mystification” - in particular, in the name of authority, “idealization” - in particular, behavior , dictated by certain values (for example, a mother idolizing her only child), "dramatic staging" - for example, a politician playing the role of a benefactor, excessive use of "Latin" in order to emphasize learning, etc.

Recalling the words of Shakespeare: “The whole world is a stage,” Hoffmann wrote in one of his works that, of course, not the whole world is a theatrical stage, but it is difficult to find areas of life for which the statement of the great English playwright would not be true.

Many provisions of phenomenological sociology were subsequently included in the theoretical foundations of social communication.

POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

This direction is one of the oldest. In its foundation and transformation into a fairly independent scientific discipline, the ideas of such great thoughts as Plato and Aristotle, Machiavelli and Montesquieu, Saint-Simon and Rousseau, etc. played a large role. Political sociology studies politics as a social phenomenon, diverse political relations and the institutions that serve them . In a certain respect, it is close to political science and the sociology of law. Of the huge variety of problems that interest political sociology and are its subject, let us take only one - the problem of social structure and stratification, closely related to modern politics in the field of class relations and issues of political power.

Society is not a homogeneous amorphous mass of people. On the contrary, it consists of various groups, associations, etc. The connection between these groups, associations, communities forms a social structure. Social structuring is thus based on social differences, that is, differences between certain public associations (societies), ultimately determined by differences in forms and methods of activity, gender and age characteristics, ethnicity, culture, etc. Social structure societies are studied by macrosociology.

Most Western sociologists tend to include in social structure:

1. Classes and social strata. Political sociology studies social class structure. Marxist sociology examines social class relations in the most detail.

2. National-ethnic communities. They are studied along with political sociology, demography, ethnosociology and ethnography.

3. Groups of people that differ in demographic characteristics: gender, age, family, etc. The socio-demographic structure of society is studied along with political sociology, demography and diverse sectoral and applied sociologies: sociology of labor, sociology of gender relations, sociology of youth, sociology of family, etc.

4. Territorial communities. The units of territorial structure are urban settlements, the rural population, various regional communities, etc. In addition to political sociology, territorial structure is studied by demography and various sectoral and applied sociologies, in particular, urban sociology, rural sociology (village sociology), etc.

5. Professional communities and groups. The most common elements of the occupational structure of society are groups of people engaged in either physical or mental labor. This also includes groups of people differing in qualifications, professions, etc. Professional groups and communities, as well as the social processes associated with them, are studied by both political sociology and industrial sociology: labor sociology, industrial sociology, etc.

6. Tribal, class, clan-corporate, as well as caste communities. Their patterns, synchronous and diachronic connections are studied by ethnosociology and political sociology.

Let us consider in more detail the most widespread teachings in the West about classes and class structure, remembering that this is one of the central questions of political sociology.

A number of scientists (E Cligg, R. Boreim, J. Dow, etc.), with certain additions and changes, develop the Marxist concept of classes. To those characteristics of classes that were named by the founders of Marxism-Leninism (attitude to the means of production, place in the social organization of labor, the share of social wealth that the class has, participation in the social division of labor, etc.), new class-forming characteristics are usually added: participation in social control and management, attitude towards power, etc. Taken together, such teachings are characterized as neo-Marxist.

The doctrine of classes was also modernized by M. Weber, who based class differences on the type of market exchange, or, in other words, on the property indicator and income criterion (proprietary and commercial classes). Modern American sociologists N. Abercrombie and D. Urry point out that classes should be considered as groups formed in the process of division and labor, analyzed from the point of view of the market and professional situation, and examined from the side of the facts that determine their formation and social position. The development of such ideas in modern Western sociology is presented as neo-Weberian.

One of the founders of modern political sociology, the Italian scientist and politician G. MOSCA (1854-1941), in his works, in particular “Fundamentals of Political Science,” writes about the “political class.” According to his reasoning, in all societies, from the most ancient to the civilized, there are two classes - “managers” and “managed”. Power can never belong to all the people - it is an illusion. Political leadership is always carried out by the minority due to its organization, cohesion, and unanimity. But the ruling class itself is not homogeneous; it consists of “top management” and “middle management.” Only those who are distinguished by one or another superiority have access to the “political class”, the main ones being “military valor”, “wealth”, “ecclesiastical rank”, in connection with which the ruling elite is divided into military, financial and ecclesiastical. The dominant criterion for membership in the "political class" is the ability to govern, which can be either autocratic or liberal. The ideal is management based on knowledge, ability, education and true merit (Mosca here anticipates the idea of meritocracy);

In his theory, Mosca pays a lot of attention to the issue of “healthy development” of society. There are three possible options for the dynamics of the “political class”. First, its perpetuation without renewal (aristocracy). Secondly, perpetuation with renewal (democracy). Third, complete renewal (liberalism). Taking into account the above forms of government - autocratic and liberal - Mosca speaks of states: aristocratic-autocratic, aristocratic-liberal, democratic-autocratic and democratic-liberal.

One of the newest is the class theory of the major German sociologist R. DAHRENDORF (born 1928), the main provisions of which are outlined by the author in the monograph “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society.” According to this theory, classes are groups of people who differ in the system of relations: authority (manager) - subordinate. In particular, Dahrendorf connects the degree and nature of class conflicts with class position and levels of power mobility. The class model of the modern English sociologist E. Giddens and the model of the American E. Wright, which is close to it, with different variations, identify and consider the following class-forming features. Giddens: attitude to material resources, differences in working conditions and pay, inequality in rights and responsibilities. Wright: attitudes towards property, participation in exchange and power management.

There are other theories of classes. In particular, attention is drawn to the teachings of the famous American political scientist G. D. Lasswell, who built a bridge from the theory of classes to the theory of social elites. By class, the scientist understands the broadest group of individuals involved in activities that place them in a similar relationship to the education and distribution (consumption) of one or more values. Thus, Lasswell's classes mean groups of partners in the use of certain goods. Lasswell combined these goods (values) into eight general categories, which determine the number of social classes. Since goods (values) are historical in nature, the criteria for class division are also relative and historically changeable. Only one thing is constant: the division into the “elite”, which has the greatest number of “values” and which has access to power, and the poor “mass”, excommunicated from power.

The doctrine of the “ruling or ruling elite” occupies an important place in Lasswell’s concept. Defining the ruling elite as a group with access to power, the American scientist includes among them the industrial business circles, the “party propaganda apparatus,” the “state of the party bureaucracy,” and the most powerful group that carries out state violence, which, as Lasswell writes, is part of the “garrison state.” "

Elite concepts are extremely widespread in Western sociology and political science. The elite usually refers to a group of people who occupy a privileged position in society and have access to some higher values. There are different political, military, cultural, scientific elites, etc. The famous American humanist scientist of left-radical orientation, Charles Mills, in his book “The Power Elite” showed (using the example of the USA) the conservative and inhumane essence of the modern state, at the helm of which are the industrial (“leaders”) corporations"), political ("political bosses") and military-bureaucratic ("military elite") elites.

The Italian sociologist V. PARETO (1948-1923), who laid the foundations of the sociology of elitism, is known as the author of the concept of “circulating elites.” Social history, according to the teachings of Pareto, is a constant struggle and circulation of elites, one of which is “ruling”, the other is “non-ruling” (counter-elite). In order to establish yourself in power, it is necessary to meet certain requirements, in particular, to be able to persuade and use force when necessary; in addition, to catch and exploit the weaknesses of opponents, etc.

Developing the principles expressed in his time by N. Machiavelli about the political tactics of “lions” and “foxes,” Pareto identifies two corresponding types of political elite. “Lions” are convinced of their faith, energetic, strong, orthodox fanatics. They are distinguished by straightforwardness in achieving goals, inflexibility, and even a certain conservatism associated with this. They are opposed by "foxes". These are politicians who do not believe in ideas and have no ideals; power for them is only a means of political speculation. These are cunning, insidious people, Pareto calls them “demagogic plutocracy.” In the economic sphere, elite “rentiers” (the economic analogue of “lions”) and “speculators” (a kind of economic “foxes”) are fighting for power. In the spiritual field, ideology, the struggle is between “optimists” and “skeptics.” The victory and establishment of the dominance of one elite determines the character of the corresponding historical era.

A slightly different concept of the political elite was developed by another well-known representative of modern political sociology, R. MICHELS (1876-1936). Based on an analysis of the Social Democratic movement in Germany, he established a pattern: the larger the party organization and the higher the degree of its bureaucratization, the more power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people occupying the highest positions. Democracy inevitably degenerates into an oligarchy, which is manifested in the consolidation, often for life, of party posts and privileges, in political egoism, in the increasing isolation of the party elite from the masses, in betrayal of political ideals and the establishment of a conservative style in leadership, etc. This Michels called the trend in the life of the party organization the “iron law of oligarchy.” If in Marxist sociology, as already mentioned, classes are declared the main element of the social structure, then in modern Western sociology the stratification approach to social structure predominates. The term “social stratum” itself was introduced into scientific circulation by P. Sorokin. In accordance with this statistical approach, the entire society is divided into strata, layers, differing in the social hierarchy according to various criteria: income, education, power, etc. Society is all viewed as a stratification system. Usually highlighted:

1. Physical-genetic stratification system. It is based on the “natural” characteristics of people - more and less strong, healthy and weak, on racial and genetic differences, etc.

2. Slave stratification system. It is based on the relationship of "possession" and "violence". Accordingly, social groups differ, in particular, in rights, social privileges, etc.

3. Caste stratification system. It is based on caste division. There are known castes: agricultural, priestly, military, professional, political, etc.

4. Class stratification system. It is formed by classes - large groups of people differing in property, income, rights, responsibilities, observed moral standards (etiquette), etc.

5. Etacratic stratification system. It is associated with the phenomenon of power. Social differentiation in this case correlates with the attitude to power. In particular, “powerful”, “disenfranchised”, “nomenklatura-bureaucratic” structures, etc. are distinguished.

6. The socio-professional stratification system is determined by labor functions, profession, qualifications, etc. subject.

7. The class stratification system is established in a society based on private property and depends on the forms of the latter. In this regard, class stratification systems differ in slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and socialist formations.

8. The cultural-symbolic stratification system reflects the attitude of different social groups to information,

iconic, etc. systems. For example, “believers” and “non-believers”, “us” and “strangers”, “initiated” and “uninitiated”.

9. The cultural-normative stratification system is based on cultural differences. These include, in particular, differences due to knowledge of language, adherence to certain norms of behavior, and religion.

Having examined the essence of the stratification approach to society, we note that in Western sociology there are often very different and more differentiated approaches. For example, 3. Eisenshadt, E. Shils, K. Davis, W. Moore and other American scientists adhere to seven-tier vertical stratification to varying degrees. The highest tier is occupied by a stratum of other professionals and administrators. Then come the mid-level technical specialists. Next come representatives of commerce. Behind them is the petty bourgeoisie. In fifth place are technicians and workers performing managerial functions. The penultimate one instead belongs to skilled workers. And lastly, for unskilled workers.

There is social mobility between strata. This term, like “strata,” was introduced into sociology by P. Sorokin. He also wrote the first book on this topic, “Social Mobility. Its forms and fluctuations", in which mobility is defined as the transition of an individual or social subject from one social position to another. There are two main types of social mobility: horizontal and vertical. By horizontal mobility we mean the diverse movements of a social subject within one particular strata. For example, an employee - from one company to another, a worker - from one enterprise (factory) to another (factory), a resident of one territorial region (region, district) to another region, etc. Change in citizenship, religion, civil status (marriage, divorce) - also types of horizontal mobility

Vertical mobility refers to the movement of a social subject from one stratum to another. Depending on the direction, vertical mobility is divided into upward and downward. Ascending mobility occurs from a lower to a higher stratum, downward mobility, on the contrary, from a higher to a lower stratum. There are three forms of mobility: voluntary, forced and socially conditioned. In the third case, mobility is caused by a change in the stratification system of society itself.

Theories of social stratification and mobility also use the concept of “social escalators,” which are careers, income, creative achievements, and even... a successful marriage.

Both vertical and horizontal mobility take place exclusively in an “open society,” which means a social system free from class restrictions, political totalitarianism, etc.

In this case, by “open society” the creators of the theory of social stratification mean democratic states. On the contrary, “closed” are state systems where it is impossible to move from one class to another, from one caste to another, from one class to another. In a “closed society” its members are attached for life either to a territory, or to a profession, or to an estate or class, etc.

It is believed that modern capitalist society is characterized by “openness” thanks not only to democracy, but also to a developed system of social escalators. In this way it differs from previous - feudal and slave-owning - social systems, which did not allow any social dynamics. The “openness” of modern bourgeois society is seen as a historical achievement and a social value of high dignity.