Compiled by: A. Toynbee, U. Rostow, G. Jellinek, G. Kelsen and etc.
With a civilizational approach, the main criterion is the spiritual and cultural factor (religion, worldview, worldview, historical development, territorial location, originality of customs, traditions, etc.). A. J. Toynbee gave the following definition of civilization:
Civilization - this is a relatively closed and local state of society, characterized by a commonality of religious, psychological, cultural, geographical and other characteristics.
Civilization is a sociocultural system that includes the socio-economic conditions of society, its ethnic and religious foundations, the degree of harmonization of man and nature, as well as the level of economic, political, social and spiritual freedom of the individual.
Toynbee identified up to 100 independent civilizations, but then reduced their number to two dozen. Civilizations go through several stages in their development:
The first is local civilizations, each of which has its own set of interconnected social institutions, including the state (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Indus, Aegean, etc.);
The second is special civilizations (Indian, Chinese, Western European, Eastern European, Islamic, etc.) with corresponding types of states.
The third stage is modern civilization with its statehood, which is currently just emerging and is characterized by the coexistence of traditional and modern socio-political structures.
In the literature there are primary And secondary civilization. It is characteristic of the state in primary civilizations that they are part of the base, and not just the superstructure. At the same time, the state in primary civilization is connected with religion into a single political-religious complex. Primary civilizations include ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Sumerian, Japanese, Siamese, etc. The state of secondary civilization does not constitute an element of the basis, but is included as a component in the cultural-religious complex. Among the secondary civilizations there are Western European, Eastern European, North American, Latin American, etc.
W. Rostow classified states according to stages of economic development, dependent, in turn, on scientific and technological achievements:
Traditional (agricultural);
Industrial;
Post-industrial (informational).
G. Jellinek shared:
Ideal ( Utopia);
Empirical:
Ancient Eastern;
Antique;
Medieval;
Modern.
Formational approach to the typology of the state.
Formational approach based on the concept of socio-economic formation.
Formation is a historical type of society based on a specific mode of production and corresponding production relations.
Determining the type of state in this approach is equivalent to establishing which class dominates in a given society or in a given country. In addition, the main means of production, the ownership of which makes one or another social group (class) dominant, is of fundamental importance.
According to the formation criterion, the following types of states are distinguished: slave, feudal, bourgeois and socialist. Let's consider the main characteristics of these states.
Economic basis slave state constituted production relations in which the objects of property of slave owners were not only the means of production, but also production workers - slaves. A slave was considered a thing. In slave states there also existed groups of free but economically dependent people - small artisans, peasants, whose rights were severely limited.
The main functions of the slave state were to protect private property and suppress the resistance of slaves and other oppressed groups. External functions: defense, peaceful relations, conquest and enslavement of other peoples, administration of conquered territories.
The slave system, and with it the state and law, went through two main stages of development. The first stage is ancient eastern land ownership. It is characterized by the presence of significant remnants of the primitive communal system: the existence of primitive forms of patriarchal slavery and farming, in which the slave was allowed to have his own property and even a family. The second stage is Greek slavery, characterized by a higher level of development of the method of production, more developed forms of exploitation of slaves and poor citizens.
At the beginning of the development of the slave system, the state apparatus was distinguished by its relative diversity, underdevelopment, and weakness. It was formed strictly along class lines. The highest positions in the military-bureaucratic mechanism of the slave state were occupied by representatives of the ruling class, the nobility. Priests played a huge role in the state apparatus. They influenced the consciousness of people, deified kings, emperors, and pharaohs. Priests occupied a privileged position in society. Their person and property were considered inviolable.
The main objectives of slave law were: consolidating the private ownership of slave owners in the means of production and slaves, establishing a slave-owning social and state system, various forms of domination of the slave-owning class, legitimizing existing social inequality between different groups and strata of people.
The main forms of Roman law were customs, which until the 5th century BC. e. acted as the only source of law and differed little from religious and moral precepts. Later laws appeared. Edicts of magistrates, i.e., public announcements of rules that were prepared and promulgated by magistrates upon taking office, became widespread. Of great importance in the system of sources of Roman law were the “answers of jurists” - the opinions and judgments of outstanding jurists. As a rule, the slave system was replaced by a feudal system.
Most countries in the world have passed the stage feudal state. This type of state arises either through the gradual decomposition of the slave-owning economic and socio-political system and the emergence in its depths of the rudiments of a feudal system, or through the gradual development and then decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a feudal system on its basis. In the latter case, states bypass the stage of slaveholding law and the state. This is how Russian history took shape.
The main means of production in the feudal state was land, based on the relationship to which society was divided into its owners - landowners and persons who did not own land - peasants. The serf peasant of the feudal state was, in addition to this, also personally dependent on the feudal lord. This method of production was more effective than the slave method, since it aroused in the peasant some interest in the results of his labor: after paying the rent, part of the production remained with him. There were three types of rent: working rent, natural rent and cash rent.
The church played a huge role in the feudal state; secular and religious authorities were often united. Thus, under the conditions of the feudal system, economic coercion was organically combined with non-economic, direct coercion of the serfs.
The internal functions of such a state were aimed at maintaining feudal ownership of land, exploiting peasants, suppressing their resistance, external functions - at establishing and maintaining economic ties, as well as at seizing new territories.
A characteristic feature of the feudal state was the unification in one hand of land ownership and political power, economic management apparatus and the administration of administrative, fiscal, police and judicial functions.
Feudal law expressed the interests and will of the feudal lords. The main tasks of feudal law were to legally formalize and consolidate feudal ownership of land and other means of production, to consolidate the existing system of exploitation and maintain an order beneficial to the ruling class, to regulate the system of hierarchical relations that existed within the ruling class, to ensure economic, political and spiritual the dominance of feudal lords, in the protection of feudal property and power. The law had a pronounced class character and openly consolidated economic and socio-political inequality in society.
The privileged classes were the clergy and feudal lords. Citizens' rights were significantly limited. The peasants were a disenfranchised class; they could only own livestock and implements.
A characteristic feature of feudal law was particularism, that is, the absence of a unified system of law throughout the country and the predominance of local customs and acts of individual feudal lords, the fragmented nature of law. Feudal law did not know the division into branches and institutions. Its components were serfdom, city law, canon law and church law.
Bourgeois state characterized by the following features: the dominance of capitalist property, the presence of a bourgeois class that owns the overwhelming majority of the means of production, and a proletarian class that lives by wage labor. Private property and its possession is the basis, the measure of economic freedom under this type of state. And economic freedom serves as the foundation of human political, social and personal freedom. The main source of the emergence and subsequent accumulation of property is labor activity, as well as the exploitation of man by man, the oppression of broad sections of the working masses by the ruling strata, and their appropriation of the results of alien labor.
The social structure of bourgeois society is represented by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Modern approaches to dividing society in a capitalist state distinguish three classes: higher, middle and lower. The dominant position is occupied by the upper class; it determines domestic and foreign policy, the essence of the state.
Bourgeois law is divided into private and public. The main forms of law are normative acts: government decrees, decisions, regulations, instructions. The role of precedent, both administrative and judicial, is great.
A feature of bourgeois law is the proclamation of formal equality. We are talking primarily about legal equality: before the law, before the court, procedural equality of the parties, equality of men and women, equality of rights and responsibilities. Bourgeois law enshrines the basic values of a given state and society: freedom, equality and fraternity. It was under these slogans that bourgeois revolutions were carried out. The bourgeoisie, which had accumulated enormous material reserves even under feudalism, opposed the class privileges of feudalism in the revolution.
At the same time, this type of state and law, having stood up for the protection of private property, created conditions for property inequality in which the poorest population, having extensive rights, actually cannot take advantage of them.
The bourgeois state may be replaced by socialist state. The world's first socialist state arose as a result of the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917. Over more than 70 years, an extensive system of socialist states was formed: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the USSR and a number of others.
As a result of political transformations at the end of the 20th century, socialist states abandoned of this type through reforms or revolution. Today, Cuba and China have characteristics of this type.
The socialist state, unlike all other types, does not arise by evolutionary means. It is always the result of a revolution. A prerequisite for the formation and development of such a state is the demolition of the old state machine, the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus.
Of fundamental importance is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a class alliance between the proletariat and other sections of the working people. The economic basis of a socialist state is state ownership of the means of production. There is no private property, but there is individual property created as a result of one's own labor. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” is the formula of the socialist distribution system.
According to Marxist doctrine, defining the concept of the type of state is tantamount to establishing which class is politically dominant in a given society or in a given country.
The essence of socialist law lies in the expression of the will and interests of the working class. As class society develops and classes gradually die out, the state and law as class institutions and phenomena also die out. Socialist relations in such conditions will be replaced by communist relations.
Civilizational approach to the typology of the state.
Civilizational approach is a typologization built taking into account the diversity of the economic basis, the complexity of the social composition of each period, and cultural and historical characteristics.
The basis of this approach is the relationship between man and government.
The essence of the civilizational approach is that when characterizing the development of specific countries and peoples, one should take into account not only the development of production processes and class relations, but also spiritual and cultural factors. These include features of spiritual life, forms of consciousness, including religion, worldview, historical development, geographical location, originality of customs, traditions, etc. Together, these factors form the concept of culture, which serves as a specific way of being of a particular people . A collection of related cultures forms a civilization.
It has been noted that spiritual and cultural factors are capable of:
Completely block the influence of a particular production method;
Partially paralyze its action;
Interrupt the forward formation movement;
Strengthen socio-economic development.
Thus, according to the civilizational approach, economic processes and civilization factors closely interact, stimulating each other.
The question of the criteria for the typology of civilizations is difficult. The English historian Arnold John Toynbee called religion, a way of thinking, a common historical-political destiny and economic development, etc. as a type of civilization. Other bases for typologization are also used. Thus, a geographical criterion is used, according to which southern, northern and middle civilizations are distinguished. Based on the relationship between church, state and law, the following types are distinguished: theocratic, clerical, atheistic, secular. The sign of independence allows us to divide civilizations into primary and derivative ones. There are other grounds and, as a consequence, the type of state and law. Let's consider the characteristic features of individual types.
The historical process has led to the formation of over two dozen civilizations, differing from each other not only in the value systems established in them, the dominant culture, but also in the type of state characteristic of them. Civilizations go through several stages in their development.
The following are distinguished: types of civilization:
local civilizations existing in certain regions or among certain peoples (Sumerian, Aegean, etc.);
special civilizations (Chinese, Western European, Eastern European, Islamic, etc.);
worldwide a civilization that embraces all of humanity. It is formed on the basis of the principle of global humanism, which includes the achievements of human spirituality created throughout the history of world civilization.
Also distinguished primary And secondary civilizations, whose states differ in their place in society, social nature, and role.
It is characteristic of states of primary civilizations that they are part of the base, and not just the superstructure. This is explained by the key role of the state in the development of the socio-economic sphere. The state is connected with religion into a single political-religious complex. The primary ones include, in particular, the ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Sumerian, Japanese, and Siamese civilizations.
The state of a secondary civilization is not so omnipotent; it does not constitute an element of the basis, but is included as a component in the cultural-religious complex. Such civilizations include Western European, North American, Latin American, etc.
It is possible to classify states according to their attitude towards religion. There are secular, clerical, theocratic and atheistic states.
IN secular state All types of religious organizations are separated from the state; they have no right to perform either political or legal functions, and cannot interfere in the affairs of the state. In turn, the state and its bodies do not have the right to control the attitude of its citizens towards religion. The state does not interfere in intra-church activities unless they violate current legislation. The state does not provide any of the faiths with financial or any other assistance.
In secular states, religious organizations do not perform legal functions on state instructions. Confessions are engaged only in activities related to satisfying the religious needs of the population. The Church does not perform political functions and, therefore, is not an element of the political system of society. The secular state does not interfere in internal church activities if they do not violate current legislation, but it has the right to regulate the most important aspects from the point of view of general interest.
The state protects the legal activities of religious associations, guarantees freedom of religion, and ensures the equality of religious organizations before the law.
An intermediate option between secular and theocratic states - clerical. The peculiarity of this state is that it is not united with the church, but the church, through legally established institutions, has a decisive influence on state policy. A clerical state is considered to be a state where one or another religion officially has the status of a state and occupies a privileged position compared to other faiths. The status of a state religion presupposes close cooperation between the state and the church, which covers various spheres of social relations.
The status of a state religion is characterized by the following features:
Recognition of the church's ownership of a wide range of objects - land, buildings, structures, religious objects, etc.;
Receipt by the church of various subsidies and material assistance, tax benefits from the state;
Granting the church a number of legal powers, for example, the right to register marriage, birth, death and even regulate marital relations;
The right of the church to have its representation in government bodies;
The exercise of control by the church in the field of education, the introduction of religious censorship in printed materials, cinema, television, etc.
Currently, the clerical states are Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Israel and some others. Thus, in Great Britain, representatives of the highest clergy sit in the House of Lords. The Church deals with civil registration and sometimes regulates marriage and family relations. The Church has broad powers in the field of raising the younger generation and education, and conducts religious censorship of printed materials. It should also be noted that the church has a fairly strong economic position: it receives various subsidies from the state, is a major owner, and usually enjoys preferential taxation.
Atheist states are crowding out religion as a worldview, and the church as a social institution from public life. Religious organizations are either prohibited or placed in conditions in which they cannot function normally. Clergymen are persecuted, and the church's property, including churches and religious objects, is confiscated.
Religious associations do not have the rights of a legal entity and cannot perform legally significant actions. Priests and believers may be subject to repression; holding religious ceremonies, rituals in public places, publishing religious literature and its distribution is prohibited. Freedom of conscience comes down to freedom to promote atheism.
Article 44. Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience - the right to freely profess any religion or not to profess any, to choose, have and disseminate religious, non-religious or other beliefs and to act in accordance with them, subject to compliance with the law (Constitution of the Russian Federation)
Religious associations in the Russian Federation are separated from the state, and the state education system is secular in nature.
All religions and religious associations are equal before the law.
Insulting the beliefs of citizens is punishable by law.
Theocratic state is the opposite of a secular state, since in it state power belongs to the church. The monarch is also the supreme cleric. Such states are the Vatican, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc. Religious norms constitute the main source of legislation, regulate all spheres of private and public life and take precedence over secular law.
Jean Bodin divided states into three categories according to geographical criteria - southern, northern and middle. Southern nations surpass all other nations in subtlety and strength of mind. Northern Peoples differ in their physical strength. Average they are superior to the northerners in intelligence, but inferior in strength, and superior to the southerners in physical strength, but inferior to them in cunning and sophistication.
In accordance with the civilizational approach, the following types of states are also distinguished: democratic And anti-democratic(based on the form of a political regime).
The modern model of the civilizational approach is the libertarian-legal one. V.S. Nersesyants proposed to understand the type of state as the main historical forms of recognition and organization of people’s freedom, expressing the stages of its progress.
The 1st type of states represents the ethnic countries of the Ancient World. The subjects of state-legal relations are only persons of titular nations. All other people were considered objects of law.
Type 2 – estate state of the Middle Ages. The properties of subjects of law are predetermined by belonging to a certain class.
Type 3 – states of the individualistic type. This type corresponds to the understanding of a person by a subject of law only as an individual, outside of his social, ethnic, national, class and class ties.
The 4th type is the humanitarian legal type, in which a person has inalienable rights of natural origin. These rights are the basis of legislation created by the state.
1) law corresponding to the pre-civilization stage of legal development. An example is the right of leaders of ordinary origin;
2) fist law of Asian theocratic states of the era of slavery and feudalism. This law combined customary norms, elements of written state law, and a strong theological principle;
3) the right of power means the recognition by law of a special order of state origin;
4) the law of civil society, based on natural law. Law in general is understood as a humanitarian value.
The advantage of the civilizational approach is seen in the fact that it focuses on the knowledge of social values inherent in a particular society. It is more multidimensional than the formational approach, since it allows us to consider the state not only as an organization of political domination of one class over another, but also as a great value for society.
It is unconstructive to contrast formational and civilizational approaches. They should be used in combination, which will allow combining the materialistic achievements of the formational approach and the cultural, spiritual principles of the civilizational typology.
Pluralism in the understanding and definition of the state.
Since ancient times, thinkers have tried to answer the question of what a state is. Even the ancient Roman orator, philosopher and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero asked and at the same time answered: “And what is a state if not a general legal order?” Cicero had many followers at different times and in different countries - the founder of the normativist theory of law G. Kelsen, the Russian economist and philosopher P. Struve, etc. The prominent legal scholar N. M. Korkunov took a slightly different position. He argued that “the state is a social union of free people with a coercively established peaceful order by granting the exclusive right of coercion only to the organs of the state.” In a word, many scientists characterized the state as an organization of law and order, and saw this as its essence and main purpose. But this is only one of the signs of this phenomenon. In the bourgeois era, the definition of the state as a collection (union) of people, the territory occupied by these people, and power became widespread. The famous state scientist P. Duguit identifies four elements of the state: 1) the totality of human individuals; 2) a certain territory; 3) sovereign power; 4) government. “The name of the state,” wrote G. F. Shershenevich, “is understood as a union of people settled within certain boundaries and subordinate to one government.” The definition under consideration, which correctly reflects some features (signs) of the state, served as a reason for various simplifications. Referring to it, some authors identified the state with the country, others with society, and still others with the circle of persons exercising power (the government). V.I. Lenin criticized this definition for the fact that many of its supporters named coercive power among the distinctive features of the state: “Coercive power exists in every human community, in the clan structure, and in the family, but there was no state here.” Supporters of the psychological theory of law also disagree with this concept. “The state is not a collection of people of a certain kind,” argued F.F. Kokoshkin, “but the relationship between them, a form of community life, a certain mental connection between them.” However, the “form of community life,” the form of organization of society, is also only one of the signs, but not the entire state. The difficulties of developing a definition of the complex and changing phenomenon being analyzed gave rise in those years to disbelief in the possibility of its formulation at all. M. Weber, in particular, wrote: “After all, the state cannot be defined sociologically based on the content of its activities. There are almost no tasks that the political union does not take into its own hands here and there; on the other hand, there is no task about which it could be said that at any time it is completely, that is, exclusively, inherent in those unions that are called “political”, that is, in our days - states or unions that historically preceded the modern to the state." K. Marx and F. Engels turned to the definition of the state more than once. They believed that this is “the form in which individuals belonging to the ruling class realize their common interests and in which the entire civil society of a given era finds its concentration.” Many years later, F. Engels formulated a brief, but perhaps most confrontational definition according to which “the state is nothing more than a machine for the suppression of one class by another.” V.I. Lenin made some changes to the above definition. He wrote: “The state is a machine for maintaining the dominance of one class over another.” Both formulations were widespread both in science and in official propaganda. However, they are applicable only to states in which high class tension arises and political confrontation threatens to destroy society. In other words, these definitions apply to tyrannical and dictatorial states. By bringing their violent side to the fore, these definitions prevent one from seeing valuable phenomena of civilization, culture and social order in the state. In modern educational literature, the state is usually defined as a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, which has a special apparatus capable of making its orders binding on the entire country. This definition synthesizes the most essential features and characteristics of the state and is generally acceptable, but it poorly reflects the connection between the state and society. Therefore, we believe that the following formulation will be more accurate: the state is the political organization of society, ensuring its unity and integrity, exercising through the state mechanism the management of the affairs of society, sovereign public power, giving law a generally binding meaning, guaranteeing the rights, freedoms of citizens, legality and order . The above definition reflects the general concept of the state, but is more suitable for the modern state. It emphasizes that the state is the political organization of the entire society, all its citizens. It performs vital functions for society, ensures its unity and integrity, and manages the most important public affairs. At the same time, the state (especially the legal one) is called upon to comprehensively guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens and maintain a reliable and humane law and order in society.
The concept and characteristics of the state.
The state is a developed form of organization of human society. Thus, like any society, it has both general social characteristics and specific ones. General social characteristics 1. the presence of a community of people connected by a common communicative space 2. the presence of public authority, which is universal, legitimate and legal. Power is public because it represents the entire society in both internal and external conflicts. Legitimation can be charismatic, traditional, or legal. Specific features of the state: 1. the presence of a state apparatus. Only in the state do institutions such as courts and prisons appear. 2. The presence of taxes, through which the state apparatus is maintained; 3. The presence of a certain territory over which public power extends. Thus, the state is a hardware-organized public power exercised in a certain territory. Optional features of a state include a flag, coat of arms, anthem... Communicative approach. While maintaining all of the above features, it emphasizes that the state and society are not opposed to each other, they are interconnected. The state is a political union of all members of society for whose sake and through whom it exists.
Territory as a sign of a state.
One of the signs of a state at a later stage of social development. At the initial stages of their existence, many peoples lead a nomadic lifestyle, changing their location depending on the food supplies provided by nature and having at the same time a certain political organization consisting of two other main state elements: the people and state power. Thus, a certain T. is not the main feature of the state, without which the latter would be unthinkable. With the transition of peoples from nomadic to sedentary life, a certain T. is gradually established, which becomes the main basis for the development of the state. In view of this, many consider the territorial region to be the same basic feature of the state as the supreme power and the people. The boundaries of T. establish the limits of the action of the supreme power and the norms it issues.
The state is a single territorial organization of political power throughout the country. State power extends to the entire population within a certain territory, which entails the administrative-territorial division of the state. These territorial units are called differently in different countries: districts, regions, territories, districts, provinces, districts, municipalities, counties, provinces, etc. The exercise of power on a territorial principle leads to the establishment of its spatial limits - the state border, which separates one state from another;
Population as a sign of the state.
This feature characterizes people’s belonging to a given society and state, composition, citizenship, the order of its acquisition and loss, etc. It is “through the population” that within the framework of the state, people are united and they act as an integral organism - society;
Public political power as a sign of the state.
The state is a special organization of political power that has a special apparatus (mechanism) for managing society to ensure its normal functioning. The primary cell of this apparatus is government agency. Along with the apparatus of power and administration, the state has a special apparatus of coercion, consisting of the army, police, gendarmerie, intelligence, etc. in the form of various compulsory institutions (prisons, camps, hard labor, etc.). Through the system of its bodies and institutions, the state directly manages society and protects the inviolability of its borders. The most important government bodies, which to one degree or another were inherent in all historical types and varieties of the state, include legislative, executive and judicial. At various stages of social development, state bodies change structurally and solve problems that are different in their specific content;
Sovereignty as a sign of a state.
The state is a sovereign organization of power. State sovereignty is a property of state power that is expressed in the supremacy and independence of a given state in relation to any other authorities within the country, as well as. its independence in the international arena, subject to non-violation of the sovereignty of other states. The independence and supremacy of state power are expressed in the following: a) universality - only decisions of state power apply to the entire population and public organizations of a given country; b) prerogative - the possibility of canceling and invalidating any illegal act of another public authority: c) the presence of special means of influence (coercion) that no other public organization has at its disposal. Under certain conditions, the sovereignty of the state coincides with the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty of the people means supremacy, their right to decide their own destiny, to shape the direction of the policy of their state, the composition of its bodies, and to control the activities of state power. The concept of state sovereignty is closely related to the concept of national sovereignty. National sovereignty means the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including secession and the formation of independent states. Sovereignty can be formal when it is proclaimed legally and politically, but is not actually implemented due to dependence on another state dictating its will. A forced limitation of sovereignty takes place, for example, in relation to those defeated in a war by the victorious states, by decision of the international community (UN). Voluntary limitation of sovereignty can be allowed by the state itself by mutual agreement to achieve common goals, when uniting in a federation, etc.;
The essence and social purpose of the state.
The essence of the state is it is an organization of political power (social institution). The meaning is the main thing in it, which determines its content, purpose and functioning.
The essence of the state is manifested in its functions.
Morozov L.A. notes that currently there are two main approaches to interpreting the essence of any state:
1) class;
2) general social.
The first approach is that the essence of the state is defined as the expression of the interests and will of the economically dominant class and the imposition of the will of this class on the entire society. This approach is inherent in the Marxist understanding of the state. The state is interpreted as an apparatus of violence, coercion, suppression, and its essence is the dictatorship (domination) of the economically dominant class.
It should be noted that the founders of Marxist teaching recognized that the state, being primarily a class organization of political power, simultaneously carries out some “common affairs” inherent in any society and reflecting the interests of all or the majority of its members. This kind of common affairs includes the defense of the country, maintaining public order, and at the present stage - environmental safety of the population, social support for the poor, etc.
Speaking about the Marxist approach to the essence of the state, we must keep in mind that the characterization of the state as a means of violence, suppression, and coercion was used exclusively in relation to exploitative states.
Second approach comes from general social the essence of the state, its purpose to serve society. Accordingly, the essence of the state is seen in its ability to unite the entire society, resolve emerging contradictions and conflicts, and act as a means of achieving social harmony and compromise.
Along with these two approaches to the essence of the state, one can also distinguish national, religious, racial, etc. Depending on various conditions, certain interests may dominate.
Many scientists have interpreted the essence of the state in different ways. Some believed that the state is a political phenomenon inherent in any class society.
L. Gumplowicz argued that the state is the domination of a minority of haves over the mass of have-nots, based on economic power.
Jean Bodin viewed the state as “the legal administration of families and what they have in common with the supreme power, which must be guided by the eternal principles of goodness and justice. These principles must give the common good, which should be the goal of the state structure.”
In the modern period, a common point of view is that the state is a social organism, a political way of existence of civil society.
It is important to understand the essence of the state to understand its goals, objectives and social purpose.
All this captures only certain aspects of the social essence of the state. The main thing in the social essence of the state is that it is an organizational form of society, its unity and functioning on generally accepted principles and norms.
The essence of the state is closely related to the concept of the social purpose of the state.
Social purpose reveals what the state is intended for, what goals it should
The social purpose of the state is determined by its essence: what is the essence of the state,
These are the goals and objectives that it sets for itself.
Attempts to determine the social purpose of the state were made in different historical periods.
Plato and Aristotle, the social purpose of any state is the establishment of morality. This view was later supported by Hegel (1770-1831).
Supporters of the contractual theory of the origin of the state believe that it also arose from the common interests of citizens in ensuring their security (T. Hobbes), achieving the common good (G. Grotius), for the sake of ensuring common freedom (J.-J. Rousseau).
F. Lassalle (1824-1864) saw the main task of the state in the development and implementation of human freedom.
Modern views on the social purpose of the state are determined by those objective
conditions that are characteristic of a given level of development of society. Values such as democracy, equality and justice, and personal freedom have been established in society. All this contributes to the fact that the state must carry out general social functions, i.e. act in the interests of the whole society. But the social purpose of the state can also be influenced by subjective factors, for example, who is in power, how public life is changing under the influence of policies, etc.
The concept of state power. Legality and legitimacy of state power.
Power is, first of all, the ability to impose one's will.
Signs of power:
All power is social. It develops and manifests itself in relationships between people, that is, in society (society). Power is needed in order to organize society.
Power has a strong-willed nature. All power is a manifestation of human will. Power is the interaction of the will of those in power and the will of the ruled. Will is the side human consciousness, active, active, expressed in the desire to change the environment, change human relationships.
Every power has certain means for its implementation. Power must have support, otherwise the will of those in power cannot be realized.
Power in society varies. It can be considered depending on the areas in which it manifests itself. On this basis, we can distinguish such types of power as economic power, ideological power, family power, and political power.
State power is a type of social power.
State power differs from other types of social power by the presence of two distinctive features (which predetermine its characteristics):
Monopoly on the publication of generally binding decrees;
Monopoly on the use of state coercion.
Signs of state power:
Comprehensive character (universality). It means that state power extends to the entire territory and to the entire population of the state, to all persons located in this territory.
State power has the ability to lawfully use coercion.
Prerogative of state power. It means that state power can permit, suspend, prohibit, or invalidate the manifestation of any other power on its territory.
Structuralization of state power. State power manifests itself externally in the form of a special apparatus in which all organs are interconnected by hierarchical subordination. This is the external side of structure. In addition, each body has a certain rigid structure: it consists of bodies and officials interconnected by hierarchical subordination. This internal structure of state bodies means the internal side of the structuring of state power.
State power has special channels for transmitting its orders, which other authorities do not have (law, legislation) and special means of influencing the population, which other authorities do not have (the correctional system, police, internal troops, etc.).
State power is always authority. Authority is determined by various factors, most often it is violence, coercion, but it can also be genuine authority (more about this when characterizing the legitimacy of state power).
State power is associated with law, it has a monopoly on law-making activities, and law is the most effective regulator of social relations.
The basis of the state power of modern states is the principle of separation of powers (its more detailed description will be given in subsequent chapters).
The structure of state power is:
Subject (the state represented by its bodies);
Object (subjects, population of the state);
Any society needs management, coordination of the activities of different people and social groups in order to achieve common goals. Power is one of the main forms of management, which differs from others in that it is exercised by subordinating some people to others. Submission is associated with the possibility of applying coercion to the governed as a necessary sign of power.
Power is one of the forms of management of social processes, in which the consistency of the joint activities of many people is achieved by subordinating them to a single guiding principle; through the determining, dominant significance of the will of some people (subjects of power) for the will of other people (objects of power).
1) Power is associated with dominance, which is understood as coercive violence, command. The directive moment (imposing one's will in the form of an order) is present in power as a generalized symbol (the ability to use violence, punishment) and as real power in relation to those who have broken the laws. On the other hand, the category of domination is already a category of power, because power can act in the form of influence and authority and not resort to violence.
2) Power can be exercised in the form influence. But influence is broader in content than power. We can talk about power even if this influence is not of a random nature, but is observed constantly. Power as influence is exercised either in the form of persuasion (influencing the rational level of consciousness), or in the form of suggestion, which involves the use of special manipulation techniques (influencing the subconscious)
3)Authority is considered as a possible form and source of power. Authority is a leadership that is voluntarily recognized by the subject of power as having the right to power due to his moral qualities or business competence.
Power can be classified on various grounds. For example, from the point of view of its social level, power can be distinguished:
On a society-wide scale;
Within a particular team (organization)
In a relationship between two individuals
Those. power can act as social - be present in relationships between large social groups, and how interpersonal(in relationships between spouses, parents and children, friends, etc.)
Social power can manifest itself in political And non-political forms.
Among non-political types of power, we can highlight family power (parental power, power relations between spouses) as the most important and having a long history.
Political is the power that is capable of acting as a means of realizing and protecting the interests of large social groups. The types of political power are:
The power of one social group (community) over another (for example, the dominance of one class over another)
- government
- party power, as well as other political organizations and movements; power of political leaders
In the special legal and philosophical literature, along with the recognition by some authors of the identity of the concepts of political and state power, other authors advocate distinguishing between these categories. Supporters of the second point of view are united by the fact that they use the term and concept “political power” in a more broad meaning, rather than “state power” - in the sense of power exercised not only by the state, but also by other parts of the political organization of society.
Power in its most general form is the ability (property) of a certain subject (individual, collective, organization) to control the will and behavior of another subject (individual, collective, organization) in its own interests or in the interests of other persons.
State power, as a type of social power, fully possesses all of its signs:
1. Power is a phenomenon social, i.e. public
2. She is an attribute of society at all stages of its development, since society constantly needs to be controlled through power. From the point of view of genesis (origin), it is the need to manage society that determines the presence of such a phenomenon as power in it.
3. Power can only function within public relations, i.e. such a relationship that exists between people (individuals, their groups, other social entities). There cannot be a relationship of power between a person and a thing or between a person and an animal (even if that animal is his property). This quality is determined by the following characteristic feature of power.
4. The exercise of power always represents intellectual-volitional process, when the power impulse emanating from the ruling subject, before determining (conditioning, determining) the will and behavior of the subject, must be realized by the latter, perceived by his consciousness. For this reason, people with deformation of consciousness and will cannot be subjects of power and subordination.
5. Social relations within which power exists and is exercised are a type of social relations and have the name power relations. A power relationship is always a two-way relationship, one of the subjects of which is the one in power (the one in power), and the other is the subject subject. From a general social point of view, both of them are precisely subjects, i.e. people endowed with consciousness and will, however, in a specific power relationship, the subject subject acts as an object of the power influence of the ruling subject.
6. Power always based on strength. This is its most important feature, since it is the presence of power that determines the position of a particular subject as a ruler. Power can be of different nature. This can be physical strength, the power of weapons (club, gun, atomic bomb), the power of intellect, the power of authority, the power of persuasion, aesthetic influence (the power of beauty), etc.
In this regard, one should not confuse force with violence: “the authority of force” and “the power of authority” are still different things. Violence involves influencing a subject against his will through physical coercion or under the threat of such coercion. Moreover, the concept of “coercion” is broader than the concept of “violence”. Coercion is not always associated with violence: it can be indirect in nature and fundamentally presupposes a certain dependence of the will of the subject on the will of the ruler. However, such dependence also presupposes belief. What is the difference then? It seems that a characteristic feature of the coercion process is the awareness of the subject that, under the influence of power, he acts contrary to his own interests and value orientations. In the case of persuasion, the subject assumes that the variant of behavior proposed by the subject in power meets the interests of both and fits into the system of values of the subject.
7. Due to the fact that power can only take place in a conscious-volitional relationship and always presupposes the subordination of the will of the subject to the will of the ruling subject, the absence of such subordination in a specific relationship means the absence of power in this respect. In other words, conscious submission is a condition for the presence of power in a given specific relationship over a given specific subject.
Power within a particular social community (society, collective, organization, etc.), depending on the method of organization and power, can be
democratic and non-democratic
Moreover, this division concerns not only state power, but also any other power related to the management of collectives, since democracy can also be non-political.
State power in society can be legal (legal) and shadow (hidden, illegal)
The carriers of the latter can be informal groups in the ruling elite, political sects, mafia organizations, etc.
However, the concepts should not be confused "legal power" and "legitimate power". These concepts, although close, are not identical. Legality characterizes the legality of the existence of power from the formal legal side, without its ethical assessment, and legitimacy means the recognition of power by the population, its acceptance as a fair and politically justified phenomenon. And it may even be that state power is legal, but not legitimate. A great contribution to the development of the theory of the legitimacy of political domination (power) was made by the German political scientist, economist and sociologist M. Weber (1864-1920)
Speaking about the features of state power, its qualities and characteristics, two circumstances should be kept in mind: firstly, the close, one might say inextricable, connection between state power and the state; secondly, the fact that the state and state power are still different, non-identical phenomena. It follows that, on the one hand, the characteristics of state power and the state are interconnected and closely intertwined, but on the other hand, they do not completely coincide and approaches to their characterization should be different.
Let us list the special properties of state power:
By force, on which it is based, is state: no other government has such means of influence.
Government public. In a broad sense, public, i.e. public is all power. However, in the theory of the state, this characteristic traditionally has a different, specific meaning, namely that state power is exercised by a professional apparatus, separated from society as an object of power.
Government sovereign, which means its independence from the outside and supremacy within the country. The supremacy of state power, first of all, lies in the fact that it is superior to the power of all other organizations and communities in the country; all of them must submit to the power of the state.
Government universal: it extends its power to the entire territory and to the entire population of the country.
Government has the prerogative(exclusive right) to issue generally binding rules of conduct - legal norms.
Let us especially dwell on such a property of state power as sovereignty.
Sovereignty state power within the country is expressed:
in the unity and extension of state power to the entire population and public organizations of the country
in the general binding nature of decisions of state bodies on its territory and within the limits of extraterritoriality (for example, for citizens and institutions located abroad
in the prerogative, i.e. the possibility of canceling and invalidating any manifestation of other public power
in the exclusive powers of the state to independently publish, sanction and apply generally binding norms and other regulations expressed in regulations (laws, decrees, resolutions, orders, etc.), decisions of courts, governing bodies and other government institutions.
State sovereignty- this is the inherent supremacy of the state on its territory and independence in international relations.
The state exercises supreme power within its own borders. It itself determines what relations with other states will be, and the latter do not have the right to interfere in its internal affairs. The state has sovereignty regardless of the size of the territory, population, or political regime.
The supremacy of state power means:
Its unconditional spread to the population and all social structures of society;
Monopoly opportunity to use such means of influence (coercion, force, even death penalty) that other political subjects do not have;
Exercising power in specific forms, primarily legal (law-making, law enforcement and law enforcement);
The state has the prerogative to cancel and recognize as void the acts of other political subjects if they do not comply with the provisions of the state.
State sovereignty includes such fundamental principles as the unity and indivisibility of territory, the inviolability of territorial units and non-interference in internal affairs. If any foreign state or external force violates the borders of a given state or forces it to make one or another decision that does not meet the national interests of its people, they speak of a violation of its sovereignty.
Acting as a sign of a state, sovereignty characterizes it as a special subject of political relations, as the main component of the political system of society.
Sovereignty is complete and exclusive, one of the inalienable properties of the state. Moreover, it is precisely this criterion that allows us to distinguish a country from other public legal unions.
Today the prevailing point of view is that the basis of legitimacy is the belief in the legitimacy of a given system. The conclusion about the existence of a belief can be made, first of all, on the basis of the free expression of their will by citizens. The stability of the system in a particular country can also be considered a sign of the legitimacy of the government. Power becomes legitimate due to its achievement of stability, certainty, and the establishment of order. And vice versa, a government formed democratically, but unable to prevent civil and interethnic wars, confrontation between the center and localities, and a “parade” of sovereignties, is not legitimate.
In a society experiencing a transitional state, a change of authorities, legitimacy exists rather as a problem, in an established society - as a natural quality of political relations.
Speaking about state power as an object of legitimacy, it is necessary to focus on the concept of “power”. This concept is one of those widely used; despite all the heterogeneity and ambiguity of this concept, one can, however, note one unifying characteristic of its numerous definitions - they all reflect relationships in which the will and actions of some dominate the will and actions of others. Power is one of the basic and most capacious concepts, which is confirmed both by the absence in modern political thought of one generally accepted definition of it, and by the diversity of concepts of power.
Power is the main object of desire and interaction among groups, communities, and organizations. But power turns out to be the most mysterious phenomenon in politics, the nature of which is not easy to identify. In fact, what is power - an abstraction, a symbol or a real action? After all, we can talk about the power of a person, organization, society, but at the same time about the power of ideas, words, laws. What makes a person or society obey someone or something - fear of violence or desire to obey? With all its mystery and uncertainty, power did not leave anyone indifferent to itself: it was admired and cursed, it was raised to the skies and “trampled into the dirt.”
Many philosophers have turned to the study of the essence and content of power. For example, T. Hobbes defined power as a means to achieve good in the future and therefore put this inclination of all in first place. human race, as “an eternal and incessant desire for more and more power, a desire that ends only with death.” F. Nietzsche argued that life is the will to power.
In political literature, the correct definition of power is considered to be that given by the famous scientist Max Weber, who believed that power is “the possibility that one person within a social relationship will be able to carry out his will, despite resistance and regardless of what opportunity is founded.” The dictionary of political science defines power as “a strong-willed special relationship of the subject to the object of this relationship. It consists of an inducement to action, which the second subject must perform at the request of the first.” Power, therefore, is seen as a special relationship of domination, as a way of influencing someone, as “power over,” as coercion, as force.
As society democratized, power began to be viewed not only as domination, but also as an attitude of subjects based on conviction, authority, as the ability to reach agreements and resolve conflicts. Thus, power is also interpreted as a symbolic means of social communication.
The essence of power lies in the fact that it is a specific relationship of a subject to himself (power over himself), between subjects, which presupposes a certain interaction between them (power can be approved, tolerated or resisted), within the framework of which the ruling subject realizes his will and interests. Power based only on force, in the words of B. Russell, is “naked power.”
Legitimacy is a basic element of the existence and functioning of state power, as well as its consolidation in society.
Everything in the life of society has a beginning. The state power that dominates in a particular country also has its origin. As shown historical experience that much depends on what this beginning was like in her future fate. In most cases, state power can be formed as a result of free democratic elections, but it can also be as a result of a military coup or political revolution, which will be a terrible tragedy for many segments of the population and will claim millions or more human lives and can completely destroy the country's economy. The people do not forget and remember the tragedies closely linked to the establishment of power. Decades pass, generations change, but the feeling of people’s distrust of the authorities who illegally led the country remains ineradicable; the relationship between those in power and the masses is based, as a rule, on the fear of the latter.
The people have a different relationship with power, which was initially legitimate and officially recognized by society itself and foreign states. Such an initial empowered establishment of power contributes to the establishment of consent in relation to society and political power, recognition by society and the people of its right to a managerial role. It should be noted that the initially legal establishment of power in itself does not always guarantee that in the future this political power will fully justify the trust of the people. There are numerous examples of bitter disappointment in society. There are a lot of such examples that can be listed, including in the history of Russia there are a lot of such examples, especially in recent years.
So, society’s recognition of the legitimacy and legitimacy of official power is its fundamental characteristic. Speaking about legitimacy, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that we are talking about public recognition of power, about the trust and support that society and the people give it, and not about the legal, legal consolidation of political power in the relevant state documents. It is not difficult for those who have taken power into their own hands to obtain legal legitimacy. Therefore, the price of such formal recognition of power is not so great in comparison with the recognition of state power by the people, i.e. legitimacy of state power. Accordingly, one should distinguish between the concepts of “legitimacy of power” (public recognition of its legality) and “legality of power” (legal, formal consolidation of it).
Concept and characteristics of state functions.
The main activities of the state, the purpose of which is to maintain its structural integrity. The functions of the state are largely determined by the form of the state. So the ideological function in totalitarian state will not coincide in its scope and content with the ideological function in a liberal state. The functions of the state include the following: 1. Political f - organization of state and local government 2. Ideological f - any state is forced to promote any ideology, ranging from a strictly defined one in a totalitarian state, to an ideology of denial of the official ideology in a liberal state. 3. Cultural and educational f - if there is no educated generation, then you inevitably fall under the influence of another elite. 4. Economic f – the state is inevitably forced to participate in economic life, ensuring its proportional and harmonious development. 5. Fiscal f – taxes on the maintenance of the state apparatus. 6. Social f - maintaining appropriate living conditions....protection, labor, provision... 7. Environmental f 8. Information and communication state must ensure that the subjects receiving it receive both state and non-state information 9. F legal regulation is necessary for the implementation of the above f. It is carried out through lawmaking and law enforcement. f can also be divided into external and internal
The following features of state functions can be distinguished:
1. The function of the state is not any, but namely the main, main direction of its activity, without which the state at a given historical stage, or throughout its existence, cannot do. This is a stable, established substantive activity of the state in one area or another.
2. The functions express the essence of the state.
3. Carrying out its functions, the state solves the tasks facing it in managing society, and its activities acquire a practical orientation.
4. Functions of the state are a management concept. They concentrate the goals of public administration at each historical stage of the development of society.
5. Functions are implemented in certain forms and using special methods characteristic of state power.
The combination of these features allows us to assert that in reality we are talking about the functional characteristics of the state, about the presence of corresponding functions in a particular state.
Classification of state functions.
There are various bases for classifying the functions of the state. In the legal literature, the following classification criteria are identified in smaller or larger quantities:
By objects of influence;
According to social significance;
by objects of influence
Depending on the
S.A. Komarov gives an example of the temporary function of suppressing the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes when changing the state system during the revolution. As a result of either re-education or physical destruction of former exploiters, this function completely dies out or merges with another - the function of protecting law and order of the existing system). There are various bases for classifying the functions of the state. In the legal literature, the following classification criteria are identified in smaller or larger quantities:
By objects of influence;
By duration of action;
According to social significance;
According to legal forms of existence (the principle of separation of powers);
Based on territorial scale
It is generally accepted that there is a separation of functions by objects of influence into internal and external. Internal functions are associated with the implementation of tasks within the state. External functions are associated with the implementation of tasks at the interstate level, where the state acts as a subject of international legal relations.
It should be noted that there is no consensus among scientists regarding the list of internal and external functions of the state, which will be given attention during their further consideration.
Depending on the duration of its action State functions are divided into permanent and temporary. Permanent functions are inherent to the state at all stages of its existence and development (For example, the economic function), temporary functions are characterized by a short duration of existence, which is due to the specific tasks of the state at certain stages of its life.
S.A. Komarov gives an example of the temporary function of suppressing the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes when changing the state system during the revolution. As a result of either re-education or physical destruction of former exploiters, this function completely dies out or merges with another - the function of protecting law and order of the existing system).
By social significance
general separate
principle of separation of powers
Lawmaking;
Law enforcement;
in the field of political life
By social significance It is customary to distinguish between basic and non-basic.
Relatively well-established ideas about the main and non-core functions can be considered definitions according to which the main functions are understood as “the most important areas of its activities, covering a number of separate homogeneous areas of state work,” and the non-core functions of the state mean “relatively narrower areas of its activities, included into the core functions as an element of their internal structure.” This idea of basic and non-basic functions, formulated back in the 70s by N.V. Chernogolovkin, as N.N. Marchenko notes, retains its general theoretical significance to this day. However, there are other points of view.
So, for example, S.A. Komarov calls the main functions general on the basis that they are carried out by all its organs in interaction. They are inherent in every link of the state. He calls non-core functions separate, since they are characteristic of individual government bodies.
The general functions of the state are carried out through the individual functions of state bodies. And vice versa, individual functions are closely related to general ones, are subordinated to them, and are a means of their implementation, therefore, “to call them “non-core”, in our opinion, would be a mistake.”
It should be noted that this classification is traditional and controversial to the same extent. Many authors doubt the need to divide functions into basic and non-core, but at the same time cannot refute its rationality and necessity in full. It is impossible to refute the fact that, for example, in non-standard, emergency situations, one or another function of the state becomes “more equal” among other equal functions. For example, in conditions of war, the defense function dominates among the economic, social and others, and in conditions of environmental disasters and accidents, the environmental function comes to the fore.
In this regard, it is necessary to mention the related problem of the existence of a “main” function and “secondary” functions for the state.
The opinion is expressed that “the main function of the state cannot be recognized as economic and organizational activity, because this leads to the inevitable nationalization of public life,” and “the protection of human interests, the protection of his rights...” can be recognized as such.
There is no doubt that in a market economy, the scope of state regulation of the country’s economic life is very limited and cannot in any way be the main one among other spheres of activity of the state and people. But underestimating the economic impact of the state on the economy is also wrong. It was the Keynesian model of state behavior, expressed in the rejection of the policy of non-intervention by the state and the idealization of the principle of the “invisible hand” (self-regulation of the market), that saved the United States at one time, stopping the “Great Depression” of the 20s-40s. XX century.
As M.N. Marchenko notes, “a modern state... does not and cannot have only one, single main (main) function.”
The protection of human interests and his rights is rather not a function, but a goal of the state, and of any state that respects its citizens. But even if we consider such a goal to be a full-fledged function, then its implementation is impossible without the implementation of all other functions of the state, which in itself calls into question the primacy and autonomy of the function in question. Again, during the “Great Depression,” the United States directed all its efforts to economic development, recognizing precisely this as an opportunity to preserve the “American way of life” and the rights of its recent emigrant citizens to a decent life.
The criteria include principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial.
Indeed, the activities of the state to carry out its functions are clothed in legal forms:
Lawmaking;
Executive and administrative;
Law enforcement;
This means that the functions of the state are divided into legislative, administrative and judicial, which in principle reflects the mechanism for the implementation of state power. This opinion is shared, in particular, by S.A. Komarov and A.B. Vengerov.
A.B. Vengerov includes judicial and information functions among law enforcement functions.
Special attention should be paid to the information function, which characterizes the activities of the fourth estate - the media.
The specificity of this function lies in the ways of not influencing society: targeted awareness of the population, and sometimes manipulation of public consciousness, other methods of transmitting information create the necessary conditions for the existence and functioning of other branches of government, the entire state.
However, not all legal scholars accept this classification. Many believe that these are not actually functions of the state, but functions of exercising state power or branches of government. That is, there is a confusion of the functions of the state and state power.
The classification of state functions is also given based on territorial scale, within which they are implemented. In a federal state, this is a function of the federation as a whole and the constituent entities of the federation. In a unitary state, these are functions carried out on the territory of a single, only administratively-territorially divisible state. In a confederation, these are the coordinating functions of the entire community (union) of states and functions that are implemented on the territory of each of the participants in this union of states.
Western theorists – adherents of the concept of the “welfare state” (G. Laski, K. Corsland, J. Maden, etc.) believe that the modern state is characterized by the following functions:
in the field of political life– provision of social services, development of the social insurance system, ensuring full employment;
in the field of economic life– a course towards increasing state ownership, creating a “mixed” economy, and implementing its planning;
in social services– providing programs for education, medical care, professional, intellectual and moral “formation” of citizens.
External functions of the state: concept, types and their general characteristics.
Today, along with the formational approach to resolving the issue of the relationship between the state and the socio-economic system, another approach is used, which in the social sciences is called civilizational.
The concept of “civilization” became established in European science during the Enlightenment and has since acquired the same ambiguity as the concept of “culture.” Taking into account this ambiguity, the civilizational approach is being developed today by scientists of the West and East. In their research they rely on the works of such major representatives of philosophical and sociological thought as O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, M. Weber, S. Eisenstadt, P. Sorokin, M. Singer and others, who made a huge contribution to the development of this approach. In its most general form, the concept civilization(from the Latin “civilis” - “civil”, “public”, “state”) can be defined as sociocultural system, providing high degree differentiation of life activities in accordance with the needs of a complex, developed society and at the same time supporting its necessary integration through the creation of regulated spiritual and cultural factors and the necessary hierarchy of structures and values. This is both a synonym for culture, and a level, stage of development of material and spiritual culture, and even an era of degradation and decline of culture as opposed to its integrity and limitations.
Therefore, at present, the concept of civilization is increasingly considered in several aspects. In the first aspect, the concepts of “culture” and “civilization” are treated as synonyms. In the second, civilization is defined as the reification of material-technical and social-organizational instruments that provide people with their decent socio-economic organization of social life, relatively high level comfort consumption. In the third aspect, civilization is considered as a historical stage in the development of mankind, following barbarism.
The main difference between the concept of “civilization” and the concept of “formation” is the possibility of revealing the essence of any historical era through a person, through the totality of the prevailing ideas of each individual in a given period about the nature of social life, about the values and goals of his own activities. The civilizational approach is focused on understanding the past through all forms of human activity: labor, political, social - in all the diversity of social relations. With this approach, a person stands at the center of the study of the past and present society as a truly creative and specific personality, and not as a class-depersonalized individual.
The concept of civilization turns out to be much broader and richer than the formational approach to the study of social life. It allows us to distinguish not only the opposition of classes and social groups, but also the sphere of their interaction on the basis of universal human values, not only the manifestation of class contradictions, but also the commonality of spiritual principles that permeate all human behavior in various areas of human activity. Civilization forms norms of community life that, despite all their differences, are of great importance for all cultural and social groups, thereby keeping them within the framework of a single whole.
The civilizational approach thus allows us to see in the state not only an instrument of political domination of the exploiters over the exploited. IN political system society, the state acts as most important factor socio-economic and spiritual development of society, consolidation of people, satisfaction of various human needs.
The civilizational approach to resolving the issue of the relationship between the state and the socio-economic system comes from the desire to put an end to the absolutization of the material and economic principle, from a view of the state from an extremely broad perspective of the determining influence on it, primarily spiritual, moral and cultural factors of social development. In contrast to the formation theory, which substantiates the existence of a total determination of the state by economic reasons, the civilizational theory proves, along with it, the existence of an equally general determination by spiritual factors. Spiritual, cultural and moral factors can block or, conversely, encourage the development of the state.
Proponents of this approach argue as follows. The state is based on economic forces, but influence on these economic factors is achieved by developing such behavioral stereotypes that either promote or hinder productive work. And behavioral stereotypes, work morale, and human mentality are formed precisely in the sphere of human activity, which is designated by the term “culture” or “civilization.” As a result, “civilization,” its level, its values also influence the social, including state, organization of society. In other words, the cultural and ideological principles of life are quite capable of weakening the influence of the mode of production and thereby interrupting the progressive formational development of both production and the process of formation and functioning of the state determined by it. Evidence of this is provided by examples of the cyclical development of state forms in the countries of the Arab world, China, and America until the 9th century. etc. And vice versa, sociocultural and spiritual factors can sharply enhance the formation process of the economy and the state-legal sphere. A classic example of the latter is Europe, in which, for example, the Protestant church with its cult of work and work ethic played the role of a catalyst for the capitalist evolution of the region and the maturation of state and legal principles adequate to it, as well as modern Japan.
Each individual state becomes a field of struggle between two types of influence on it: formational, i.e. material-production, and cultural-spiritual, civilizational. It is impossible to say in advance which one will win. This is precisely what is associated with alternativeness and multivariate development in government and other spheres of public life. The above allows us to conclude that a correct understanding of the relationship between the state and the socio-economic system involves the use of both approaches: formational and civilizational. However, the historical experience of statehood, generalized at the theoretical level, shows that a strict link between the nature of a particular state and the socio-economic formation does not yet provide an answer to many questions that arise in the sphere of statehood.
Here lies a powerful layer of civilizational, sociocultural, national factors and traditions, along with, of course, economic factors.
The works of A. Toynbee, S. Huntington and others highlight those cultural and civilized criteria that make it possible to classify different kinds states, understand the events of cooperation, confrontation, even powerful confrontation between them. For example, S. Huntington distinguishes Christian, especially Orthodox, and Muslim civilizations, which, according to S. Huntington’s forecast, have already entered into confrontation. This approach fills such categories as “East-West”, “North-South” with certain political, legal and economic content.
According to the civilizational theory, the type of state and its social nature are ultimately determined not so much by material (as in the formational approach), but by ideally spiritual and cultural factors. As the famous English historian and philosopher A. Toynbee writes in his fundamental work “Comprehension of History,” “the cultural element represents the soul, blood, lymph, the essence of civilization; in comparison with it, economic and, even more so, political plans seem artificial, insignificant creations of nature and the driving forces of civilization.”
Thus, to summarize, we can identify three important principles of the relationship between the state and the spiritual and cultural life of society, which are highlighted by the civilizational approach.
1. The nature of the state is determined not only by the actually existing balance of forces, but also by ideas about the world, values, and patterns of behavior accumulated during the historical process and transmitted within the framework of culture. When considering the state, it is necessary to take into account not only social interests and active forces, but also stable, normative patterns of behavior, the entire historical experience of the past.
2. State power as a central phenomenon of the world of politics can be considered at the same time as part of the world of culture. This allows us to avoid schematizing the state and especially the policies it pursues as the result of an abstract play of forces and, on the contrary, to reveal the connection between state power and prestige, morality, value orientations, the prevailing worldview, symbolism, etc.
3. The heterogeneity of cultures - in time and space - allows us to understand why some types of states, corresponding to some conditions, stopped in their development in other conditions. In the field state life special meaning is given to differences arising from the originality national cultures and national character traits.
look at abstracts similar to "Civilizational approach to history"
Introduction 2
Civilization. The essence of the civilizational approach 3
Features of Russian civilization 10
Multidimensional vision of history 13
Conclusion 18
Bibliography 20
Introduction
Looking ahead a little, we note that the leitmotif of many speeches today is the desire to replace the formational approach to the large-scale division of the historical process with a civilizational one. In the clearest form, this position is stated by its supporters as follows: to transform the concept of civilization, which historiography has so far operated only as a descriptive tool, into the leading (highest) paradigm of historical knowledge.
So what is civilization?
The term “civilization” itself (from the Latin civilis - civil, state) still does not have an unambiguous interpretation. In world historical and philosophical (including futurological) literature it is used in four senses:
1. As a synonym for culture - for example, in A. Toynbee and other representatives of Anglo-Saxon schools in historiography and philosophy.
2. As a certain stage in the development of local cultures, namely the stage of their degradation and decline. Let us remember the book that was sensational in its time by O.
Spengler "The Decline of Europe".
3. As stages in the historical development of mankind following barbarism. We find this understanding of civilization in L. Morgan, followed by F. Engels, and today in A. Toffler (USA).
4. As the level (stage) of development of a particular region or individual ethnic group. In this sense, they talk about ancient civilization, the Inca civilization, etc.
We see that these understandings in some cases overlap and complement each other to a large extent, while in others they are mutually exclusive.
In order to define the concept of civilization, it is obviously necessary to first analyze its most essential features.
Civilization. The essence of the civilizational approach
Below we analyze the main features of civilization
Firstly, civilization is the actual social organization of society. This means that the transitional era, the leap from the animal kingdom to society, is completed; the organization of society according to the blood-kinship principle was replaced by its organization according to the neighboring-territorial, macro-ethnic principle; biological laws faded into the background, submitting in their action to sociological laws.
Secondly, civilization from the very beginning is characterized by a progressive social division of labor and the development of information and transport infrastructure. Of course, we are not talking about the infrastructure characteristic of the modern wave of civilization, but by the end of barbarism the leap from tribal isolation had already been made. This allows us to characterize civilization as a social organization with a universal connection between individuals and primary communities.
Thirdly, the goal of civilization is the reproduction and increase of social wealth. As a matter of fact, civilization itself was born on the basis of what appeared (as a result of the Neolithic technical revolution and sharp growth labor productivity) surplus product. Without the latter, the separation of mental labor from physical labor, the emergence of science and philosophy, would have been impossible. professional art etc. Accordingly, social wealth should be understood not only as its material embodiment, but also as values spiritual order, including the free time necessary for the individual and society as a whole for their comprehensive development. Social wealth also includes the culture of social relations.
Summarizing the highlighted features, we can agree with the definition according to which civilization is the actual social organization of society, characterized by the universal connection of individuals and primary communities for the purpose of reproduction and increase of social wealth.
A few words about the foundations (basis) of formations and civilizations, about the watershed between them. This question is still debatable, but, obviously, we must proceed from the fact that in both cases the basis is undoubtedly a material formation, although they belong to different spheres of social existence: in the foundation of civilization as a whole and each of its steps lies the technical and technological basis, and therefore it is reasonable to talk about three steps (waves) in the development of civilization - agricultural, industrial and information-computer. At the heart of the formation is an economic basis, that is, a set of production relations.
While emphasizing the role of the technical and technological basis of civilization, it is by no means necessary to directly and only from it deduce everything that characterizes a given specific society. In the real historical process, everything is much more complicated, because in the foundation of society, along with the technical and technological basis, there are also natural (including demographic) conditions of society’s life and ethnic, generally specific ones. historical features life and development of this society. All this taken together constitutes the real foundation of the life of society as a system. By eliminating any of these components from the interpretation of the historical process, we either distort the picture or are forced to abandon the solution to a specific problem altogether.
How, for example, can we explain why, with essentially the same technical and technological basis, we find variants of historical development that are seriously different from each other?
Why, say, in most regions of the globe the emergence of the state was a consequence of the process of class formation that had already gone far, and in some it noticeably advanced this process? Obviously, other things being equal and, above all, given the same technical and technological basis, there is some additional factor, which determines the specificity of the phenomenon under consideration. IN in this case Natural and climatic conditions acted as a differentiating factor, predetermining the need for centralized efforts to construct and operate large irrigation systems. Here the state initially acted primarily in its economic and organizational form, while in other regions it all began with the function of class suppression.
Or why do the historical paths of different socio-ethnic communities differ from each other? It would be reckless to discount the ethnic characteristics of peoples. In particular, with all the general rejection of the concept of ethnogenesis and understanding of the essence of an ethnos by L. N. Gumilyov, one cannot help but notice the rational grain that is contained in his judgments about passionarity as a measure of the energy filling, activity and resistance of an ethnos to external influences. It is no less reckless to discard accounts and historical features of the development of the society under study. This remark is also true when solving modern problems, predicting the success or failure of undertaken reforms. Thus, our optimism regarding the fate of current political and economic reforms decreases significantly as soon as we begin to even more or less take into account our own historical heritage. After all, the main thing, obviously, is not what inheritance we will be able to give up during the reforms, the main thing is which one we will not be able to give up. And our heritage includes centuries-old layers of patriarchal-communist, communal mentality with its both negative and positive aspects; and the mass conformism that has become flesh and blood in the last few decades; and no less massive disobedience; the absence of any significant democratic traditions and much more.
All three considered components of the foundation are reflected by social psychology, and this reflection turns out to be a necessary link between the foundation of social life and the production relations and economic basis that develop on this basis. Thus, the incompleteness of the traditional formation scheme is revealed not only in the elimination from the foundation of such important “building blocks” as natural (including demographic) conditions and ethnic (in general historical) characteristics, but also in ignoring the socio-psychological component of social development: the basis and the add-on are connected directly.
Numerous philosophical schools of the twentieth century have been and are very intensively studying the phenomenon of civilization. As a matter of fact, it was at this time that the philosophy of civilization arose as an independent philosophical discipline. Followers of neo-Kantianism (Rickert and M. Weber) viewed it primarily as a specific system of values and ideas, differing in their role in the life and organization of a society of one type or another. The concept of the German idealist philosopher O. Spengler is interesting. Its essence lies in considering culture as an organism that has unity and is isolated from other similar organisms. According to Spengler, each cultural organism has a limit measured in advance, after which the culture, dying, is reborn into civilization. Thus, civilization is seen as the opposite of culture. This means that one universal human culture no and cannot be.
From this point of view, culture is very closely related to the theory
"local" civilizations of the English historian A. Toynbee. Toynbee gives his definition of civilization - “the totality of spiritual, economic, political means with which man is armed in his struggle with the outside world.” Toynbee created the theory of the historical cycle of culture, presenting world history as a set of separate closed and unique civilizations, the number of which varied from 14 to 21.
Each civilization, like an organism, goes through the stages of origin, growth, crisis (breakdown, decomposition). On this basis, he deduced empirical laws of repeatability of social development, the driving force of which is the elite, the creative minority, the bearer of the “life impulse.”
Toynbee saw a single line of progressive development of humanity in religious evolution from primitive animistic beliefs through a universal religion to a single syncretic religion of the future.
In light of all that has been said, it becomes clear general meaning civilizational approach - to build a typology of social systems based on certain technical and technological bases that are qualitatively different from each other. Long-term ignorance of the civilizational approach seriously impoverished our historical science and social philosophy and prevented us from understanding many processes and phenomena. Restoring rights and enriching the civilizational approach will make our vision of history more multidimensional.
The red line for the development of civilization is the increase in integration tendencies in society - tendencies that cannot be derived directly and only from the laws of functioning and development of a particular formation. In particular, without a civilizational approach it is impossible to understand the essence and specificity of modern Western society, just as it is impossible to give a true assessment of the disintegration processes that unfolded on the scale of the former USSR and of Eastern Europe. This is all the more important because these processes are presented by many and accepted as a movement towards civilization.
Specific historical forms of social economic organization (natural, natural-commodity, commodity, commodity-planned) cannot be directly deduced from the essence and structure of socio-economic formations, since these forms are directly determined by the technical and technological basis underlying civilization. The combination of the forms of organization of the social economy with the waves (stages) of civilization makes it possible to understand that the naturalization of economic relations in any historical conditions is not a movement forward along the line of development of civilization: we have a backward historical movement.
The civilizational approach allows us to understand the genesis, characteristic features and development trends of various socio-ethnic communities, which, again, are not directly related to the formational division of society.
With a civilizational approach, our ideas about the socio-psychological appearance of a given specific society, its mentality are also enriched, and the active role of social consciousness appears more clearly, because many features of this appearance are a reflection of the technical and technological basis underlying this or that stage of civilization.
The civilizational approach is fully consistent with modern ideas about culture as an extra-biological, purely social way of human and social activity. Moreover, the civilizational approach allows us to consider culture in its entirety, without excluding any structural element. On the other hand, the transition to civilization itself can only be understood taking into account the fact that it was the key point in the formation of culture.
Thus, the civilizational approach allows us to delve deeply into another very important section of the historical process - the civilizational one.
Concluding the consideration of the civilizational approach, one question remains to be answered: how to explain the chronic lag of Marxism in the development and use of the civilizational approach?
Obviously, a whole complex of reasons was at work here.
A. Marxism was formed to a very significant extent as a Eurocentric teaching, as its founders themselves warned about.
The study of history in its civilizational context involves the use of the comparative method as the most important, that is comparative analysis various, often dissimilar local civilizations.
Since in this case the focus was on one region, which represents a unity in origin and modern (meaning the 19th century) state, the civilizational aspect of the analysis was forced to be in the shadows.
B. On the other hand, F. Engels introduced the final limiter: civilization is what was before communism, it is a series of antagonistic formations. In terms of research, this meant that Marx and Engels were directly interested only in that stage of civilization from which communism was supposed to arise. Taken out of the civilizational context, capitalism appeared to both the researcher and the reader exclusively (or primarily) in its formational guise.
B. Marxism is characterized by hypertrophied attention to the forces that disintegrate society, while simultaneously significantly underestimating the forces of integration, but civilization in its original meaning is a movement towards integration, towards curbing destructive forces. And if this is so, then the chronic lag of Marxism in the development of the civilizational concept becomes completely understandable.
D. The relationship with the long-term “inattention” of Marxism to the problem of the active role of non-economic factors is easily revealed. Responding to his opponents on this matter, Engels pointed out that the materialist understanding of history was formed in the struggle against idealism, due to which neither Marx nor he had enough time, reason or strength for decades to devote to non-economic phenomena (the state, spiritual superstructure, geographical conditions, etc.) the same attention as the economy. But the technical and technological basis that lies at the foundation of civilization is also a non-economic phenomenon.
Features of Russian civilization
Is Russia a special country or the same as everyone else? Both are true at the same time. Russia is both a unique part of the world with features that are exaggerated by its size and the specifics of its history, and an ordinary country, the exclusivity of which is no greater than that of each of the other members of the universal human family. And no matter what the interpreters of its “special” world destiny and historical
“destination”, they will not be able to refute the obvious: Russia, that is, the people inhabiting it, are by no means determined to once again fall out of world history only in order to emphasize its uniqueness. They understand that in the modern era this is simply impossible.
The specifics of Russia need to be understood by its Western partners, who should neither harbor unnecessary fears about it nor experience illusions. And then they will not be surprised that this country is so reluctant, with visible difficulty, suspicion, and even irritation, to accept even the most benevolent advice and does not squeeze into the political and social models offered to it from the outside. And perhaps, without prejudice and allergies, they will be able to perceive the new, although not entirely similar to the Western, look that she will take upon leaving the fitting room of history, if she finally decides, after trying out different clothes, to forever take off her Stalinist overcoat, which has become in the eyes of many Russians, almost a national costume.
Claiming that Russia is a “special civilization,” Andrei Sakharov, for example, simultaneously expressed another idea. It means that our country must go through, albeit with a significant delay, the same civilizational stages of evolution as other developed countries. One involuntarily asks the question: which point of view is more consistent with the true state of affairs? In my opinion, we should proceed from the fact that Russia is a special civilization that has absorbed a lot of Western and Eastern over the course of many centuries and has smelted something completely special in its cauldron. So, judging by some comments, Sakharov himself thinks so. While going through the path of modernization, he rightly notes, Russia followed its own unique path.
He saw not only the past, but also the future of our fatherland, which was already largely determined by its past, very different from other countries.
The special nature of our path suggests, among other things, that the same civilizational stages of development that the West has gone through, associated, for example, with the transition to democracy, civil society and the rule of law, will have noticeable differences in Russia from their foreign counterparts.
Each earthly civilization has its own prologue, its own path of development and its own epilogue, its own essence and forms.
The specialness and uniqueness of each civilization does not exclude their interaction, mutual influence, interpenetration and, finally, even rapprochement, which is very characteristic of the 20th century. But at the same time, we cannot exclude rejection, confrontation, and merciless struggle, waged not only in cold, but also in hot forms, and much more.
What are the features of Russian civilization? It seems that these features lie in the special organization of Russian social and state life; in the essence and structure of power, methods of its implementation; in the peculiarities of national psychology and worldview; in the organization of work and life of the population; in traditions, culture numerous peoples Russia, etc., etc. A very important feature (perhaps even the most important) of Russian civilization is the special relationship between the material and spiritual principles in favor of the latter. True, now this ratio is changing in favor of the first. And yet, from my point of view, the high role of spirituality in Russia will remain. And this will be for the benefit of both herself and the rest of the world.
This statement should not at all mean that the standard of living of Russians should remain low and be lower than in advanced countries. Vice versa.
It is highly desirable that it dynamically increases and eventually reaches world standards. To achieve this goal, Russia has everything it needs. But, increasing the level of comfort of his life and work, a person is obliged to remain a highly spiritual and humane being.
Based on the above, it is right to question the statement
Sakharov that “Russia, due to a number of historical reasons... found itself on the sidelines of the European world.” A special civilization with its own path of development cannot be on the sidelines of another path. The above does not at all exclude the possibility of comparing the levels of development of various civilizations, both past and present times, their achievements and value for all humanity. But when talking about the levels of civilization of certain societies, we must take into account the specific stage of their development.
At the end of the 20th century, thanks to perestroika and post-perestroika, Russian society, essentially for the first time in its history (1917 and the years of NEP were the first attempt to break through to freedom, but, unfortunately, unsuccessful) gained, albeit not quite complete and not entirely guaranteed, , but still freedom: economic, spiritual, informational. Without these freedoms, interest will not be born
- the most important engine of all progress, the nation will not exist, etc.
But it is one thing to have the right or freedoms themselves, and a completely different thing to be able to use them, combining freedom with self-restraints, strictly obeying the law. Unfortunately, our society is not yet fully prepared to rationally and prudently practice newfound freedoms in Everyday life for the benefit of yourself and others. But it is learning quickly, and it is hoped that the results will be impressive.
Sustainable long-term use of freedoms should have as its final result that Russia, as a “special civilization,” will show the world all its potential and all its power and will finally turn the course of its history in an evolutionary direction. This is precisely the main meaning and highest goal of what is happening in our time.
Multidimensional vision of history
As already noted, in the course of modern discussions there has clearly been a tendency to resolve the issue of the prospects for the application and the very fate of the formational and civilizational approaches according to the “either-or” principle. In all such concepts, historical science is, in fact, excluded from the scope of general scientific laws and, in particular, is not subject to the principle of correspondence, according to which the old theory is not completely denied, since it necessarily corresponds to something in the new theory, represents its particular, limiting case.
The problem that has arisen in historical science and social science in general can and should be solved according to the “both-and” principle. It is necessary to conduct a purposeful study and find such a combination of formational and civilizational paradigms that can be fruitfully applied to solving the problem of large-scale division of the historical process, which will make the very vision of history more multidimensional.
Each of the considered paradigms is necessary and important, but not sufficient on its own. Thus, the civilizational approach in itself cannot explain the reasons and mechanism of transition from one stage of civilization to another. A similar insufficiency is revealed when trying to explain why integration trends in past history for thousands of years, starting with slave society, made their way in disintegrative forms.
Both “formationists” and “civilizationists” have extensive capabilities to overcome one-sidedness and enrich their concepts.
In particular, the “formationists,” along with the task of freeing their concept from what has not stood the test of time, will have to make up for the decades-long lag of Marxism in the development of problems related to civilization.
The relationship between the formational (with its economic basis) and the civilizational (with its technical and technological basis) is real and tangible.
We are convinced of this as soon as we begin to connect two linear schematic images: the process of civilizational development of mankind and the process of its formational development (see diagram). When resorting to diagrams, it is appropriate to recall K. Jaspers: “An attempt to structure history, to divide it into a number of periods, always leads to gross simplifications, but these simplifications can serve as arrows pointing to essential moments.”
socialization
|Formation|Primitive |Slavelord|Feudal|Capitalism |
|new |society |change |change | |
|development | | | | |
|Civilization|Savagery |Barbarian|Agricultural |Industrial|Information-com|
|ionic | |your | | computer room |
|development | | | | | |
Pre-civilization period Waves of civilization
In some cases, as we see, on the same technical and technological basis (agricultural wave of civilization) they grow, successively replacing each other, or in parallel - in different nations in different ways - two fundamentally different socio-economic formations. In the top line of the diagram, the socio-economic formation (capitalism) “does not fit” into the wave that seems to belong to it
(industrial) and “invades” the next, currently free from designation, cell. This cell is not named because nowhere in the world has the formational system following capitalism been clearly and definitely defined, although in developed countries the processes of socialization have clearly emerged.
And yet, the diagram allows one to detect a significant overlap of two linear series of historical development, although this connection is not rigid, much less automatic. It is mediated by a number of factors (natural, ethnic, and finally, socio-psychological). Not last role Among these intermediary links is the form of organization of the social economy, determined by the technical and technological basis of a given wave of civilization in conjunction with the corresponding degree of social division of labor and the degree of development of the information and transport infrastructure.
An analysis of the historical process shows that, despite the close relationship between the technical and technological basis (and technical revolutions), this connection is very, very indirect, realized through a complex transmission mechanism.
The combination of formational and civilizational has a dialectically contradictory character, which is revealed even when analyzing the transition to civilization as a social revolution.
Here the question immediately arises: is the mentioned revolution identical to the social revolution that absorbed the main content of the transition from primitive society to the first class formation? It is hardly necessary to talk about complete identity (coincidence), if only because the beginning of the transition to civilization - and there was a certain logic in this - preceded the beginning of the transition to a class society.
But then the second question arises: if these two social revolutions are not identical, then to what extent do they overlap each other in social space and how do they correlate in time? Obviously, the first revolution precedes the second only to some extent, because, having arisen for integrative purposes, civilization in those specific historical conditions could perform this main function only in a disintegrative way.
(antagonistic) form. Hence the inconsistency of social institutions, their functions and activities in a class-antagonistic society.
In order to better understand the relationship between the two analyzed revolutions and the driving force behind their merger, it is advisable to at least outline the essence of each of them.
The impetus for a radical social revolution, called the transition to civilization, was the technical revolution, which gave birth to cultivated and sedentary agriculture, that is, historically the first type of productive economy. This was the starting position of agricultural civilization.
The essence of the transition to civilization was the displacement of blood ties and relationships (production, territorial, etc.) by purely social, supra-biological ones, and it was the transition to a productive economy that determined both the possibility and necessity of such displacement.
As for the surplus product, it itself was also a consequence of the transition to a producing economy, a consequence of its increasing economic efficiency. The connections between the process of transition to civilization and the emergence of a surplus product can be defined as functional, derived from the same causal factor. Another thing is that, having been born, the surplus product raised the question of the concrete historical - and therefore the only possible - form in which the development of civilization will continue. Under those conditions, such a concrete historical form could only be antagonistic, and here we have to talk about antagonism in two senses. First of all, to all of you further development civilization consolidated the antagonism that arose in the depths of society, Secondly However, a certain antagonistic contradiction has developed between the integrating essence of civilization and the disintegrating form of its functioning within the framework of a whole series of socio-economic formations.
The emerging classes, to consolidate their dominance, used the social institutions that had already developed during the transition to civilization. This became possible because a) the social institutions themselves potentially contained the possibility of alienation; b) this possibility could not be “muffled” in those historical conditions. In order to
To “muffle” it in the bud, a mature political culture of society and, above all, of the masses is required. On the threshold of civilization, political culture (as well as the sphere of politics as a whole) was just emerging.
The classes that took control of social institutions thereby gained the opportunity to leave a significant imprint on many other civilizational processes and subordinate them to their selfish class interests. (Since classes are phenomena of a formational order, their impact on civilizational processes expresses an essential aspect of the combination of formational and civilizational). This happened with the process of separating spiritual production from material production (the privilege of engaging in mental labor was assigned to the exploiters), with the process of urbanization (the differences between city and countryside turned into opposites, characterized by the exploitation of the countryside by the ruling classes of the city), with the process of crystallization of the personal element in history (the vegetation of the broad masses of the people for centuries served as the background for the activities of outstanding individuals from the exploiting strata).
Thus, both historical processes - the transition to civilization and the transition to the first class formation - overlapped each other in the most significant way and together constituted such a revolution, which in its radicalness can only be compared with the processes of socialization currently taking place in developed, civilized countries.
Conclusion
Connecting the civilizational component to the analysis allows us to make our vision of both the historical perspective and the historical retrospective more panoramic, to better understand those elements of society that in fact turn out to be more closely related to the civilizational rather than the formational.
Let's take, for example, the process of evolution of socio-ethnic communities.
When combining the socio-ethnic series only with the formational one, the conclusion inevitably arises that the connection between them is cause-and-effect, fundamental. But this raises several questions. And the main one: if the specific form of a socio-ethnic community depends decisively on the economic mode of production, and on both its sides - both on the level of productive forces and on the type of production relations, then how to explain that in some cases this community is preserved and with a fundamental change in the type of industrial relations
(nationality is characteristic of both slavery and feudalism), in others, the type of community is preserved even during the transition to a new wave of civilization, to a new technical and technological basis (this is a nation that, apparently, will remain for the foreseeable time and in the conditions of increasing the power of the information-computer wave of civilization)?
Obviously, in both cases there are factors at work that are more profound than formational ones, but less profound than civilizational ones, derived from the latter. Both in the case of a nationality and in the case of a nation, the final cause (causa finalis) is certain types of technical and technological basis that lie at the foundation of the successive agricultural, industrial and information-computer waves of civilization. Thus, the technical and technological basis of the agricultural wave, conditioning the preservation of the natural-commodity form of production organization throughout the entire wave, does not allow the formation of a single economic
(economic) life, that is, it imposes a ban on the transformation of a nationality into a nation. In the second case, the guarantor of the preservation of the nation as a form of community adequate to the given socio-economic conditions is again ultimately the technical and technological basis, and directly the forms of organization of the social economy that lie above it (but deeper than the formational one) and genetically related to it. Commodity in its classical form, commodity-planned and planned-commodity forms of organization of the social economy are united in the sense that they authorize the emergence, preservation, consolidation and development of the nation, because all three of these forms are characterized by the presence of marketability with an increase from zero to optimum degree its adjustability (planfulness).
So, the combination of formational and civilizational is clearly visible in the example of the genesis and development of socio-ethnic communities.
Bibliography
Krapivensky S.E. Social philosophy. – Volgograd, Press Committee,
1996.
V.A. Kanke. Philosophy. M., “Logos”, 1996.
Fundamentals of philosophy. Ed. E.V. Popova, M., “Vlados”, 1997
Philosophy. Tutorial. Ed. Kokhanovsky V.P., R/Don., “Phoenix”,
1998.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
The term “civilization”: (from Latin civilis – civil, state)
1. As a synonym for culture (A. Toynbee).
2. As a certain stage in the development of local cultures, characterized by their degradation and decline (O.
Spengler).
3. As a stage in the historical development of mankind, following barbarism (Toffler, F. Engels).
One of the modern definitions of this concept is this: civilization is the totality of material and spiritual achievements of society.
In fact, civilization is understood as a cultural community of people who have a certain social genotype, a social stereotype, who have mastered a large, fairly autonomous, closed world space and, because of this, have received a strong place in the world scenario.
The civilizational approach proceeds from the fact that in human history there are several independent formations, civilizations, each of which has its own, completely independent history. The entire history of mankind is an endless creation of many of the same processes. Each civilization is based on special “character traits”, “symbols of the soul”, cultural values, which it expresses, develops and embodies in the process of its life cycle. The development of civilizations here is interpreted as cyclical, as the historical cycle of civilizations. The general trend in the development of civilizations is gradual expansion of their degrees of freedom, rejection of one-dimensionality, search for the optimal balance of cyclicality and progression in the development of civilizations, recognition of the possibility of the birth of new civilizations through the influence of random factors (external environment, supersensible and superrational genius, the role of chance, etc.). Civilizations are characterized by two levels: regional and national (local). For example, French, German, Russian
There are various theories of civilization. Among them, two main varieties can be distinguished.
Theories of the staged development of civilization (K. Jaspers, P. Sorokin, W. Rostow, O. Tofler, etc.) consider civilization as a single process of progressive development of humanity, in which certain stages (stages) are distinguished.
Local theories (N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee) proceed from the fact that there are separate civilizations, large historical communities that occupy a certain territory and have their own characteristics of socio-economic, political and cultural development.
Both theories—stage and local—make it possible to see history differently.
In general, the civilizational approach represents man as the leading creator of history, paying great attention to the spiritual factors of the development of society, the uniqueness of the history of individual societies, countries and peoples.
Theory of local civilizations
The peak of popularity of these theories occurred in the first half of the 20th century. Theories of local civilizations study large historically established communities, cat. occupy a certain territory and have their own characteristics of socio-economic and cultural development. Turning to research oriental cultures and cultures of written backgammon, European thinkers hoped to discover in them those values and guidelines that the Europeans themselves lacked. Thus, the rejection of Eurocentrism as an ideology and scientific principle was the main reason for the emergence of theories of cultural-historical types. Spengler German philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) in his work “The Decline of Europe” attacks the idea of the unity of the worlds. culture. namely the culture of the phenomenon. a universal category in the study of society. Consideration of culture next. directions: 1) edges as the basis for integration or differentiation; 2) identifying the role of society in maintaining social stability, continuity, dynamics of development. His cyclical model is historical. the process is modified by the recognition of the unifying role of “world preaching religions” (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam), cat. and yavl. the highest values and historical guidelines. process. He put forward the concept of the cat. is not considered as a single universal human quality, but as split into 8 squares, each. from cat grows on the basis of St. own a unique “proto-phenomenon” - a way of “experiencing life”: Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Byzantine-Arabic, Mayan, Russian-Siberian; secondly, as subordinate to rigid biological. rhythm that determines the main phases of its internal. development; birth and childhood, youth and maturity, old age and decline. Based on this biological Rhythms in each culture have 2 main stages: the stage of ascent and descent (civilization). The first of them is characterized by an organic type of evolution in all spheres of man. life - social and political, religious. and ethical, artistic. and the scientific, second - the "mechanical" type of evolution - the "ossification" of the organic life of the crop and its decay. The entire contents of the herb are completely exhausted by individual ones, alternating, single, unrelated, one suppressing the other. With such an understanding, there can be no talk of any integrity of the world society.
Danilevsky Slavophile, Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822-1885) His book “Russia and Europe”.
In the world breed, closed species with a set of characteristics are distinguished - from ethnographic to geographical. Each type is closed, its existence is similar to life and the cycles of existence of living organisms. D. questions the idea of a single historical line. and cult. development of society, substantiates the thesis about glory. exclusivity. D. argues that history is not a continuous process, it is composed. of changing other cultural-historical types, each of the cat. lives own life, has its own destiny. Affirms the “self-sufficiency” and originality of cultures created by ethnic groups. To-ry in a mature state - subjugate biological. the life of the ethnos and therefore the true figures of world history. not peoples, but races. "evolutionary principle", according to cat. next class should be richer than the previous one, since it is able to assimilate the results achieved by its predecessors. In total, there are 13 cultural and historical types in history: Egyptian, Chinese, Ancient Semitic, Indian, Iranian, New Semitic, Greek, Roman, Arabic, European, Peruvian, Mexican. and Slavic. Relationships between cults. types can be friendly, competitive and hostile - depending on the degree of their maturity and their inherent internal principle. D. came to the idea that elements of the crop, when entering a foreign cultural environment, are rethought and acquire new functions. Danilevsky proves the idea of cultural identity by comparing the historical paths of Russia and Europe. Weak point there was a distinction between cultural types. Taking into account small cultures that have disappeared and exist today, ethnographers already count thousands of independent x types. On the other hand, the boundaries between them in space and time are much more difficult to draw than D. imagined. Being an “evolutionist,” D. emphasizes the role of internal. and underestimates the role of external development impulses. Protesting against the unilinear scheme of history and the extremes of “Eurocentrism,” D. rejected the idea of historical. unity of people. Meanwhile, Approval of a single legal, economic. and information space on the planet is becoming an increasingly urgent imperative for human survival.
Toynbee Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) - English. historian, sociologist, cultural philosopher, diplomat and public figure,
A. Toynbee’s concept is set out in the 12th volume of “A Study of History.” He devoted his work to reviewing the world. stories, cat. he builds on the basis of the idea of self-closed, separate formations-civilizations. The true objects of history are phenomena. society, civilization. His theory is the culmination. point in the development of theories of “local civilizations”. Toynbee - commitment to the idea of multilinear development of sovereign cultures. He argued that the thesis about the unity of civilizations is a fallacy. The author counts from 21 to 26 independent c-th, the only thing that, in his opinion, can hold these diverse formations together is religion. T. carried out research based on ideas about closed discrete units, on the cat. historical falls apart existence of man and cat. he calls it "tsiv-mi". T. recognizes a person’s ability for independent self-determination, and determines the dynamics of the person by the law of “call and response,” according to the cat. every step forward is associated with an adequate response to the challenge of history. situations. The adequate answer is the merit of the “creative minority”, which first rules by the power of its authority, and then turns into a dominant minority. The emergence of culture, its growth, decline and decay are associated with the ability or inability of the “creative minority” to find an adequate response to the challenge of history. In contrast to the life cycle of culture according to Spengler, the cycle of civilization according to Toynbee is not such in the strict sense of the word. The life of civilization is rather a continuous forward movement along the path of spiritual development, on which traps constantly arise that can break and destroy the soul. Moving along this path is difficult, but there is always a chance to overcome all obstacles, and not to miss this chance is the task of the individuals who make up a given society. It is h-k who is responsible for the growth of his society.
Pros and cons of the approach: Pros: 1) its principles are applicable to the history of any country or group of countries. 2) the idea of history as a multilinear, multivariate process; 3) the approach does not reject, but assumes the integrity, unity of the people of history. 4) the identification of certain criteria for the development of civilization allows us to assess the level of achievements of countries, peoples and regions 5) the approach assigns an important role in the historical process to human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors.
The weakness of the civil methodology. approach lies in the amorphous nature of the criteria for identifying types of civilization. This selection is carried out according to a set of characteristics, which, on the one hand, must be general character, and on the other hand, it would allow us to designate specific features, characteristic of many societies. The approaches should not be viewed as mutually exclusive, given the positive aspects of each approach.
There are two main approaches to the study of history - formational and civilizational. First you need to understand how these approaches differ.
Formational approach was developed by K. Marx and F. Engels. Its meaning lies in the natural change of socio-economic formations. They proceeded from the fact that the material activity of people always appears in the form of a specific mode of production. The mode of production is the unity of productive forces and production relations. Productive forces include the subject of labor, the means of labor and man. The productive forces are the content of the mode of production, and the relations of production are the form. As the content changes, the form also changes. This happens through revolution. And accordingly, various socio-economic formations change each other. According to these formations, the stages of development of society are distinguished: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist.
The disadvantages of the formational approach can be considered that many processes of cultural and spiritual life are sometimes considered in a simplified manner, little attention is paid to the role of the individual in history, the human factor, as well as the fact that the transition from one formation to another was absolutized (some peoples did not go through all formations and changes do not always occur through revolutions)
Civilizational approach The main criterion implies the spiritual and cultural sphere. The concept of civilization has many different meanings. There are as many interpretations of this concept as there are authors. And therefore, these authors identify different numbers of civilizations and classify the state in different ways. In general, the denial of the unity of human history and universal historical patterns is characteristic
The disadvantages of the civilizational approach are that it does not allow us to look at history as a holistic, natural process; Using a civilizational approach, it is difficult to study the patterns of historical development.
Since the beginning of the 90s, there has been a desire to “get rid” of the formational approach and everything related to Marxism. Therefore, a civilizational approach was actively introduced.
In themselves, these approaches are neither good nor bad. Each of them has pros and cons. And both of these approaches have a right to exist. They simply look at history from different angles. If history is studied using these approaches, monographs and articles written using these approaches are published - this is good.
Something else is bad. It turned out to be wrong to introduce a civilizational approach to school without proper preparation. Firstly, in historical science there is no consensus on what approach to use. Therefore, for now, the formational approach should be considered the most correct (subject to taking into account all its shortcomings). Secondly, the supporters of the civilizational approach have not even decided on the key concept of their concept of “civilization”. And all this led to the appearance of various textbooks - with a formational approach and different civilizational approaches.
History is a multifaceted phenomenon and it is necessary to study it from all sides. When studying history, it is useful to use a variety of approaches - formational, civilizational, cultural, sociological and others.
When teaching at school, it is advisable to focus on one approach. And in this moment This, apparently, should be a formational approach, because it allows us to understand the patterns of historical development.