A revolution is a complete or complex change in all or most of the parties public life affecting the foundations of the existing social order. Until recently, the revolution was seen as a universal "law of transition" from one socio-economic formation to another. But scientists could not find signs of a social revolution in the transition from a primitive communal system to a class one. It was necessary to expand the concept of revolution so much that it was suitable for any formational transition, but this led to the emasculation of the original content of the term. The "mechanism" of a real revolution could only be discovered in the social revolutions of modern times (during the transition from feudalism to capitalism).
According to Marxist methodology, a social revolution is understood as a radical change in the life of society, changing its structure and signifying a qualitative leap in its progressive development. The most common, deepest cause of the onset of the era of social revolution is the conflict between the growing productive forces and the established system. social relations and institutions. The aggravation of economic, political and other contradictions in society on this objective basis leads to a revolution.
A revolution is always an active political action of the popular masses and has as its first aim the transfer of the leadership of society into the hands of a new class. The social revolution differs from evolutionary transformations in that it is concentrated in time and the masses directly act in it.
The dialectic of the concepts of "reform - revolution" is very complex. Revolution, as a deeper action, usually "absorbs" the reform: the action "from below" is supplemented by the action "from above".
Today, many scholars call for abandoning the exaggeration in history of the role of the social phenomenon that is called the "social revolution", from declaring it a mandatory regularity in solving urgent problems. historical tasks, since the revolution has not always been the main form of social transformation. Much more often, changes in society occurred as a result of reforms.
Reform is a transformation, reorganization, a change in any aspect of social life that does not destroy the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class. Understood in this sense, the path of gradual transformation existing relationships opposed revolutionary explosions sweeping to the ground the old order, the old system. Marxism considered the evolutionary process, which preserved for a long time many remnants of the past, too painful for the people. And he argued that since reforms are always carried out "from above" by forces that already have power and do not want to part with it, the result of reforms is always lower than expected: the transformations are half-hearted and inconsistent.
The scornful attitude to reforms as forms of social progress was also explained by V. I. Ulyanov-Lenin's famous position about reforms as a "by-product of the revolutionary struggle." Actually, K. Marx already noted that “social reforms are never due to the weakness of the strong, they must be and will be brought to life by the strength of the“ weak ”. The denial of the possibility that the “tops” might have incentives at the start of reforms was strengthened by his Russian follower: “The real engine of history is the revolutionary struggle of classes; reforms are a by-product of this struggle, a by-product because they express unsuccessful attempts to weaken, to stifle this struggle.” Even in cases where the reforms were clearly not the result of mass demonstrations, Soviet historians explained them by the desire of the ruling classes to prevent any encroachment on the ruling system in the future. The reforms in these cases were the result of the potential threat of the revolutionary movement of the masses.
Gradually, Russian scientists freed themselves from traditional nihilism in relation to evolutionary transformations, recognizing at first the equivalence of reforms and revolutions, and then, changing signs, attacked revolutions with crushing criticism as extremely inefficient, bloody, replete with numerous costs and leading to dictatorship. path.
Today great reforms (i.e. revolutions "from above") are recognized as the same social anomalies as great revolutions. Both of these ways of resolving social contradictions are opposed to the normal, healthy practice of "permanent reform in a self-regulating society." The dilemma "reform - revolution" is replaced by the clarification of the relationship between permanent regulation and reform. In this context, both the reform and the revolution “treat” an already neglected disease (the first with therapeutic methods, the second with surgical intervention), while constant and possibly early prevention is necessary. Therefore, in modern social science, the emphasis is shifted from the antinomy of "reform - revolution" to "reform - innovation". Innovation is understood as an ordinary, one-time improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of a social organism in given conditions.
5. Global problems of our time
Global problems are the totality of the problems of mankind that confronted him in the second half of the 20th century. and on the solution of which the existence of civilization depends. These problems were the result of contradictions that have accumulated in the relationship between man and nature for a long time.
The first people who appeared on Earth, getting food for themselves, did not violate natural laws and natural circuits. But in the process of evolution, the relationship between man and environment have changed significantly. With the development of tools, man increasingly increased his "pressure" on nature. Already in ancient times, this led to the desertification of vast areas of Asia Minor and Central Asia and the Mediterranean.
Period of the Great geographical discoveries marked the beginning of predatory exploitation natural resources Africa, America and Australia, which seriously affected the state of the biosphere on the entire planet. And the development of capitalism and the industrial revolutions that took place in Europe gave rise to ecological problems and in this region. The impact of the human community on nature reached global proportions in the second half of the 20th century. And today the problem of overcoming the ecological crisis and its consequences is perhaps the most urgent and serious.
In the course of his economic activity, for a long time, man occupied the position of a consumer in relation to nature, exploited it mercilessly, believing that natural resources are inexhaustible.
One of the negative results human activity was the depletion of natural resources. So, in the process of historical development, people gradually mastered more and more new types of energy: physical strength (first of their own, and then of animals), wind energy, falling or flowing water, steam, electricity and, finally, atomic energy.
Currently, work is underway to obtain energy by thermonuclear fusion. However, the development of nuclear energy is constrained public opinion seriously concerned about the problem of ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants. As for other common energy sources - oil, gas, peat, coal - the danger of their depletion in the very near future is very high. So, if the growth rate of modern oil consumption does not grow (which is unlikely), then its proven reserves will last at best for the next fifty years. Meanwhile, most scientists do not confirm the forecasts, according to which in the near future it is possible to create this type of energy, the resources of which will become practically inexhaustible. Even if we assume that in the next 15-20 years thermonuclear fusion will still be able to "tame", then its widespread introduction (with the creation of the necessary infrastructure for this) will be delayed for more than one decade. And therefore humanity, apparently, should heed the opinion of those scientists who recommend him voluntary self-restraint both in the production and consumption of energy.
The second aspect of this problem is environmental pollution. Annually industrial enterprises, energy and transport complexes emit more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide and up to 700 million tons of vapor and gaseous compounds harmful to the human body into the Earth's atmosphere.
The most powerful accumulations of harmful substances lead to the appearance of the so-called "ozone holes" - such places in the atmosphere through which the depleted ozone layer allows ultraviolet rays sunlight reach the earth's surface more freely. It renders Negative influence on the health of the world's population. "Ozone holes" - one of the reasons for the increase in the number of cancers in humans. The tragedy of the situation, according to scientists, is also that in the event of the final depletion of the ozone layer, humanity will not have the means to restore it.
Not only air and land are polluted, but also the waters of the oceans. From 6 to 10 million tons of crude oil and oil products get into it every year (and taking into account their effluents, this figure can be doubled). All this leads both to the destruction (extinction) of entire species of animals and plants, and to the deterioration of the gene pool of all mankind. It is obvious that the problem of general degradation of the environment, the consequence of which is the deterioration of the living conditions of people, is a problem for all mankind. Humanity can solve it only together. In 1982, the UN adopted a special document - the World Charter for Conservation of Nature, and then created a special commission on the environment. In addition to the UN, non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace, the Club of Rome, etc. play an important role in developing and ensuring the environmental safety of mankind. As for the governments of the leading powers of the world, they are trying to combat environmental pollution by adopting special environmental legislation.
Lesson in social studies, grade 11.
Topic: “Revolution and reforms. The problem of social progress and its criteria"
Lesson plan:
1. Define the concepts: revolution and reform.
2. The concept of progress. social progress.
3. The problem of social progress and its criteria. Controversy of progress
4. The price of progress. The problem of meaning and direction historical process.
Basic concepts : reform, revolution, progress, social progress regression.
Goals and objectives of the lesson:
1. As a result of the lesson, students should become familiar with historical concepts and problems community development.
Learn how reform differs from revolution;
Recall which states went through revolutionary changes;
Get an idea of the price of progress;
Analyze the problem of the meaning and direction of the historical process;
Learn to argue your point of view;
Determine the range of problems of social development;
Use and explain basic concepts;
Educational goal: to love and respect your Motherland and its history.
1. The process of social development can be of a reformist or revolutionary nature, hence the derivative concepts of "reformism", "reformer", "revolutionary", "revolutionary".
Reform - this is a change (most often improvement) in any sphere of society, carried out simultaneously, through a series of gradual transformations that do not affect its fundamental foundations.
Reforms can take place in all spheres of public life.
Social reforms carried out from above ruling circles, are transformations, changes in any areas of public life that do not destroy the foundations of the existing social system (these reforms are directly related to people)
Economic - these are transformations of the economic mechanism - forms, methods, levers and organization of the country's economy management (privatization, bankruptcy law, tax laws, etc.)
Political – changes in the political sphere (changes in the constitution, expansion of civil liberties, electoral system, etc.)
The degree of reform reforms can be very significant, even changing the social system or types of economic activity: the reforms of Peter 1, the current reforms in Russia.
Reforms can beprogressive and regressive (reactionary).
The consequences of reforms do not always appear quickly, therefore, their objective assessment can only be given over time.
Another type of change isrevolution (turn, upheaval), that is, a fundamental qualitative change in the foundations of any phenomena of nature, society and knowledge. The social revolution affects the foundations of the social order.
2. Essence and criterion of social progress
Progress - this is a progressive movement, development, going along an ascending line from the lowest to the highest, from simple to complex.
Opposite in meaning is the concept of regression. This is a downward movement, decline, degradation.
The processes of progressive movement take place in the most diverse areas of reality - in inorganic nature, in organic nature, in the life of society. These are processes of great variety.
The universal dialectical laws of being manifest themselves in different ways in various forms of the motion of matter, in qualitatively different areas of reality, processes. Translational motion acquires special, specific features depending on the qualitative originality of those phenomena and processes in which this translational motion is carried out.
Progress in inorganic nature differs from progress in organic nature; progress in human society has its own special features that are unique to it. This is the basis for a special study of social progress, progress in the life of society.
Marx pointed out that "the concept of progress should not be taken in the usual abstraction."Progress - this is one of the forms of development, characterized by such irreversible changes in the phenomenon or holistic system, as a result of which their transition from the lower to the higher, from the less perfect to the more perfect state is carried out. Having defined progress, it is necessary first of all to find outabout whose progress - the individual, social group, society or all of humanity - are we talking about? This is far from
an idle question, because the progress of the individual has its own characteristics and its own criteria, which do not coincide with those applied to society or humanity.
Social Progress is the direction of development human society, the kind of "man", characterized by such irreversible changes in humanity with all aspects of its life, as a result of which the transition of mankind from a lower to a higher, from a less perfect to a more perfect state is carried out. Social progress is the development of the whole society as an integrity, the movement towards the perfection of all mankind. In the vast literature on social progress, there is currently no single answer to main question: what is the general sociological criterion of social progress? A relatively small number of authors argue that the very formulation of the question of a single criterion of social progress is unjustified, since human society is a complex organism, the development of which is carried out along different lines, which makes it impossible to formulate a single criterion. The majority of authors consider it possible to formulate a single general sociological criterion of social progress.
However, already in the very formulation of such a criterion, there are significant discrepancies. One part of the scientists argues that the general sociological criterion of social progress is the production forces of society.
A serious argument in favor of this position is that the very history of mankind begins with the manufacture of tools and exists due to continuity in the development of productive forces.
The disadvantage of this criterion is that the assessment of production forces in statics involves taking into account their number, nature, the level of development achieved and the productivity of labor associated with it, the ability to grow, which is very
important when comparing different countries and stages of historical development. For example, the number of productive forces in modern India is greater than in South Korea and their quality is lower. If the development of productive forces is taken as the criterion of progress; evaluating them in dynamics, this presupposes a comparison no longer from the point of view of the greater or lesser development of the productive forces, but from the point of view of the course, the speed of their development. But in this case, the question arises, which period should be taken for comparison.
Another part of the authors, taking into account the difficulties that arise when using the criterion discussed above, believes that all difficulties will be overcome if we take the mode of production of material goods as a general sociological criterion of social progress. A weighty argument in favor of such a position is that the foundation of social progress is the development of the mode of production as a whole, that by taking into account the state and growth of productive forces, as well as the nature of production relations, it is possible to show much more fully the progressive nature of one formation in relation to another.
Far from denying that the transition from one mode of production to another, more progressive, underlies progress in a number of other areas, opponents of the point of view under consideration almost always note that the main question remains unresolved: how to determine the very progressiveness of this new production method.
This dual criterion of social progress at first glance captivates by the fact that it is taken into account in the unity of man's relationship to nature and to society, to natural and social forces.
However " Achilles' heel This position lies not only in the internal inconsistency of the elements of the proposed criterion, but also in its focus on the analysis of the antagonistic form of social progress.
The fourth group of authors, rightly believing that human society is, first of all, a developing community of people, puts forward the development of man himself as a general sociological criterion of social progress.
The most important argument in favor of such a criterion of social progress is that what speaks of the progressive development of mankind, not to mention the progress of man, of the people who make up this humanity, is absurd. It is also indisputable that the course of human history really testifies to the development of people who make up human society, their social and individual strengths, abilities, and inclinations.
1. Yu. I. Semenov. An objective criterion of social progress. "Problems of Philosophy", 1962, No. 9.
2. For a more detailed presentation of the question of the criterion of social progress, see the book: a. A. Makarovsky. "social progress". M., politizdat, 1970, and in the article "On the Criteria of Social Progress" ("Philosophical Sciences", 1968, No. 2). See also book: c. Mishin. "social progress". Gorky, 1970.
One of the most important problems of sociology is the problem of social changes, their mechanisms, their main forms and orientation. The concept of "social change" is the most general. social change is the transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. Changes are inherent in all elements of the social structure of society and manifest themselves at all stages of its existence. Interacting with each other, they seem to determine each other: some changes cause others, their accumulation leads first to imperceptible, and then to more significant transformations. The process of social development is carried out on the basis of changes.
The concept of "social development" specifies the concept of "social change". social development- irreversible, directed change in social systems, communities, institutions and organizations. Development involves the transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, and so on. In turn, the concept of "social development" is specified in sociology by such qualitative characteristics as "social progress" and "social regression".
Social progress is a special type of development of society, in which society as a whole or its individual elements are moving to more high step, stage of maturity in accordance with objective criteria. Accordingly, social regression means the downward movement of social systems from more developed to less developed.
Sociologists put different content into the concepts of "social progress" and "social regression". Often these concepts characterize the progressive or downward movement of society. Progress seen as synonymous with development. If the sum of the positive consequences of large-scale changes in society exceeds the sum of the negative ones, then we speak of the progress of society. If the sum of negative changes exceeds the sum of positive ones, then it is considered that there is a regression.
However, the concept of "social progress" is most often used to assess the direction of social development. social progress in this sense is called the global, world-historical process of the ascent of human society from the lowest levels to the highest (from the state of savagery to the heights of civilization under civilizational approach and from the primitive communal formation to the communist one in the formational approach).
Objective indicators of social progress are associated with the improvement of tools of labor - other means of production, constantly increasing the productive power of man as a generic being.
In this case, the concept "social regression" cannot be considered as fully correlative to the concept of "social progress". The fact is that most sociologists believe that regression can be inherent only in certain areas of public life. It can cover individual spheres of public life: industrial, political, etc., hit individual states, entire civilizations and formations. But covering individual social structures of society, regress cannot spread to society as a whole, since society as a whole, humanity in its movement, despite all the zigzags, declines and destructive moments, continues to develop in an ascending line. In other words, society always has room for improvement, and no ideal state of it can be considered as its final goal.
There are gradual and spasmodic types of social progress. The first is called reformist, the second revolutionary.
Reforms and revolutions differ in scale, subject of implementation and their historical significance. reforms- partial improvements in any spheres of public life, a number of gradual transformations that do not affect the foundations of the existing social system.
The subject of social reforms the ruling strata of this or that society act.
Revolution- this is a complex change in all aspects of social life, transforming the foundations of the existing system. Reforms are called social if they relate to transformations in those areas of public life that are directly related to people, are reflected in their level and way of life, to social benefits. An example of economic reforms is the famous Stolypin reform. Agriculture(1905-1910), aimed at significantly limiting communal and feudal land tenure and developing market relations in agriculture.
The broad masses of the people are the subjects of social revolutions. Revolutions are spasmodic in nature and represent a form of transition of society from one qualitative state to another.
Reforms and revolutions are different instruments social change However, there is no impassable abyss between them. Reforms, as a rule, are conceived by the ruling elite as a single act or a series of successive actions that introduce some kind of innovation into public life. They begin with some kind of legislative act and provide for a series of organizational measures by the executive authorities. But if these innovations are of a serious nature, then the entire society is involved in the reform process. At some stage, the ruling elite, and the government in particular, may lose control of the social process, and reforms gradually turn into revolutions. The initial partial changes acquire a ubiquitous character, capture all spheres of public life and turn into a revolution.
Modern Western sociology recognizes modernization as one of the instruments for moving society along the path of social progress based on a combination of reforms and revolution. Term "modernization" does not refer to the entire period of social progress, but only to one of its stages - the modern one. Translated from English, "modernization" means modernizing. Since the modern period "New time" in human history dates from the moment of the birth and flourishing of capitalism, the essence of modernization is associated with the spread throughout the globe social relations and values of capitalism.
Modernization is a revolutionary transition from pre-industrial to industrial or capitalist society carried out through comprehensive reforms, it implies a fundamental change in social institutions and the way of life of people, covering all spheres of society. Modernization theory aims to explain how latecomers in their development can reach the modern stage and solve internal problems without breaking the order of stages.
Sociologists distinguish between two types of modernization: organic and inorganic. Organic modernization is a moment of the country's own development and has been prepared by the entire course of previous development. It occurs as a natural process of progressive development of social life during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Such modernization begins not with the economy, but with culture, and with a change in public consciousness. The process of natural modernization has now gone through the developed capitalist countries: England, France, the USA, and others.
Inorganic Modernization occurs as a response to an external challenge from more developed countries. It is a method of "catching up" development, undertaken by the ruling circles of a particular country, with the aim of overcoming historical backwardness and avoiding foreign dependence. Inorganic modernization does not begin with culture, but with economics and politics. Inorganic modernization is carried out by borrowing foreign experience, acquiring advanced equipment and technology, inviting specialists, studying abroad, restructuring forms government controlled and norms of cultural life on the model of advanced (“advanced”) countries.
An example of the policy of modernization is the activity of the ruling elites of Russia, Germany, Japan, and others at various stages of historical development. As a vivid manifestation of the policy of modernization, one can regard the Peter the Great reforms of the 18th century, the abolition of serfdom and the processes that followed it in the second half.
XIX - early XX century, Stalin's industrialization of the 30s of the XX century, Gorbachev's perestroika of 1985-1991, economic reforms of the 90s of the XX century.
organic modernization goes naturally, "from below". Therefore, it usually always gives a positive result. Inorganic modernization starts "from the top". In order for this policy to lead to positive results, it must be supported by broad sections of the population. In Japan, after the Second World War, this policy was favorably received by the population. As a result, over 20 years, based on foreign investment and borrowing advanced technology, Japan has managed to catch up and overtake the advanced capitalist countries. The main condition of the "Japanese miracle" is that its ruling elite and people managed to organically link the traditional culture of the people with the values of modern civilization, on the basis of this linkage, in a short time, inorganic modernization was replaced by organic.
In Russia, such a linkage has not been achieved for 200 years. Therefore, modernization policies have never had strong social support.
social change- one of the most general and broad sociological concepts. Depending on the research paradigm, social change is understood as the transition of a social object from one state to another, a change in the socio-economic formation, a significant modification in the social organization of society, its institutions and social structure, change in established social patterns of behavior, renewal and growth of the diversity of institutional forms, etc.
In sociology, since its inception, two types of social change have been singled out and studied, as a rule:
1) evolutionary - committed without violence
2) revolutionary - in which social actors reorganize the social order
The evolutionary approach originates and methodological support in the studies of Charles Darwin. The main problem of evolutionism in sociology was the identification of the determining factor of social change. O. Comte saw the progress of knowledge as such a decisive link.
Spencer saw the essence of the evolution and social changes of society in its complication, the strengthening of its differentiation, which is accompanied by the growth of integration processes that restore the unity of the social organism at each new stage of its development. Social progress is accompanied by the complication of society, leading to the growth of the independence of citizens, to the growth of individuals to a more complete service of their interests by society.
E. Durkheim considered the process of social change as a transition from mechanical solidarity, based on the underdevelopment and similarity of individuals and their social functions, to organic solidarity arising on the basis of the division of labor and social differentiation, which leads to the integration of people into a single society and is the highest moral principle of society .
K. Marx considered the production forces of society to be the determining factor, the growth of which leads to a change in the mode of production, which, being the basis for the development of the whole society, ensures a change in the social economic formation. On the one hand, the forces of production objectively and evolutionarily develop, increasing the power of man over nature. On the other hand, in the course of their development, new classes are formed whose interests come into conflict with the interests of the ruling classes, which determine the nature of existing production relations. Thus, a conflict arises within the mode of production, formed by the unity of the productive forces and production relations. The progress of society is possible only on the basis of a radical renewal of the mode of production, and new economic and political structures can appear only as a result of a social revolution carried out by new classes against the former, dominant ones.
M. Weber saw the driving force of social change in the fact that a person, relying on various religious, political, moral values, creates certain social structures that facilitate social development or hinder it.
Evolutionary concepts of social change have played a positive role in understanding the various causes that determine the development of society. At the same time, they could not explain crises, backward movements and the collapse of social structures. The limitations of these theories were overcome in the 20th century by searching for new approaches to social change, among which the theories of cyclical development (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee) and the theory of social change by T. Parsons stood out.
In the theory of cyclic development, the evolution of society was considered as a kind of closed cycle of rise, prosperity and decline, repeating again after its completion. Cyclic concepts of the development of society consider social changes by analogy with a pendulum, when a society unbalanced under the influence of any factors makes oscillatory movements from one point to another, freezing in the middle and thus restoring its stability.
The theory of social change according to T. Parsons is built on the basis of a mental model of the structures of society and its change according to the principle of a cybernetic hierarchy of various systems-organisms and personalities as steps of an increasing degree of complexity. For Parsons, the really profound changes are those that affect the cultural system. Economic and political upheavals that do not affect the level of culture in society, therefore, do not change society itself at its core.
social evolution- "the process of structural reorganization in time, as a result of which a social form or structure arises that is qualitatively different from the previous form." A special case of social evolution is social development.
Revolution- a radical, fundamental, deep, qualitative change, a leap in the development of society, nature or knowledge, associated with an open break with the previous state. Revolution as a qualitative leap in development, as faster and more significant changes, is distinguished both from evolution (where development occurs more slowly) and from reform (during which a change is made to any part of the system without affecting the existing foundations).
Reform- transformation introduced by the legislative way. In particular, the process of transformation of the state, initiated by the authorities out of necessity. The ultimate goal of any reform is to strengthen and update the state foundations, which, however, does not always lead to an improvement in living standards, a reduction in government spending, and vice versa - an increase in income. The reform involves significant changes in the mechanism of the object's functioning, it is possible to change the fundamental principles leading to a fundamentally new result and obtaining a fundamentally new object.
Modernization- the macro-process of transition from a traditional society to a modern society, from an agrarian to an industrial one, is considered mainly in three different meanings: 1) as the internal development of the countries of Western Europe and North America, relating to the European Modern Age; 2) catch-up modernization, which is practiced by countries that do not belong to the countries of the first group, but strive to catch up with them; 3) processes of evolutionary development of the most modernized societies ( Western Europe and North America), i.e. modernization as a permanent process carried out through reforms and innovations, which today means a transition to a post-industrial society.
Social Progress- the totality of all progressive changes in society, its development from simple to complex, the transition from a lower level to a higher one. Progress(from Latin progressus - moving forward) - the direction of development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from simple to more complex, moving forward to more perfect. Traditional progress criteria:
The development of the human mind
Improving people's morality
Progress of science and technology
The development of productive forces, including man himself
Increasing the degree of freedom that society can provide a person
public regression- type of social development, transition from more high forms to lower, lowering the level of organization, changes for the worse; the opposite of progress.
