Man is a social animal endowed with reason. Aristotle, however, like Plato, considered the state not just a means of ensuring the security of individuals and regulating social life through laws. The highest goal of the state, according to Aristotle, is to achieve a virtuous life, and since virtue is a condition and guarantee of happiness, then accordingly a happy life. It is no coincidence that the Greek philosopher defined man as a social animal endowed with reason. Man by his very nature is destined to live together; Only in the community can people be formed and educated as moral beings. Such education, however, can only be carried out in a fair state: on the one hand, true justice, the presence of good laws and their observance improve a person and contribute to the development of noble inclinations in him, and on the other hand, “the goal of the state is a good life... the state is the communication of clans and villages for the sake of achieving a perfect self-sufficient existence,” the best life, which, according to Aristotle, presupposes not just material wealth (Aristotle was a supporter of average material wealth, when there are neither poor nor too rich people in society), but First of all, respect for justice. Justice crowns all the virtues, to which Aristotle also included prudence, generosity, self-restraint, courage, generosity, truthfulness, and benevolence.
The problem of the essence of man is at the center of the philosophical doctrine of man. Disclosure of the essence is included in the very definition of any object, and without this it is generally impossible to talk about its functions, meaning, existence, etc.
In the history of the development of science, its representatives saw the difference between man and animal and explained its essence using various specific qualities of man. Indeed, a person can be distinguished from an animal by flat nails, by a smile, by intelligence, by religion, etc. and so on. At the same time, one cannot help but notice that in this case they are trying to determine the essence of a person not based on the person himself, but by appealing to those characteristics that distinguish him from the closest species, i.e. as if from the outside. However, from a methodological point of view, such a technique turns out to be not entirely legitimate, since the essence of any object is determined, first of all, by the immanent way of being of this object itself, the internal laws of its own existence. Moreover, not all distinctive features of a person are essential.
As modern science testifies, the basis of the historical existence and development of man, determining his essence, is labor activity, always carried out within the framework of social production. A person cannot produce and engage in labor activity without directly or indirectly entering into social relations, the totality of which forms society. With the development of social production and labor activity, social relations of people also develop. To the extent that an individual accumulates, masters and implements the entire set of social relations, his own development occurs.
However, man is not only the result of society and social relations, he, in turn, is their creator. Thus, he turns out to be at the same time both an object and a subject of social relations. The unity and identity of subject and object is realized in man. There is a dialectical interaction between a person and society: a person is a micro-society, a manifestation of society at the micro level, and society is “the person himself in his social relations.”
Value orientations, being one of the central personal formations, express a person’s conscious attitude to social reality and in this capacity determine the broad motivation of his behavior and have a significant impact on all aspects of his reality. Of particular importance is the connection between value orientations and the orientation of the individual. The system of value orientations determines the content side of a person’s orientation and forms the basis of his views on the world around him, towards other people, towards himself, the basis of his worldview, the core of motivation and the “philosophy of life”. Value orientations are a way of differentiating objects of reality according to their significance (positive or negative). The orientation of the individual expresses one of its most essential characteristics, which determines the social and moral value of the individual. The content of the orientation is, first of all, the dominant, socially conditioned relationship of the individual to the surrounding reality. It is through the orientation of the individual that its value orientations find their real expression in the active activity of a person, that is, they must become stable motives for activity and turn into beliefs.
“Let's start with a banal truth: the central problem of all socialism - both utopian and scientific - is Man with all his affairs. This undoubtedly banal truth in a certain situation turns out - although it may sound like a paradox - to be heuristic and full of deep meaning. It is impossible to understand the meaning of socialism - neither its theoretical premises, nor its practice - without understanding this truth.”
Fine. This is perhaps truly banal and that is why it is an indisputable truth.
But if so, then it is all the more important to clearly show how it differs scientific understanding and solving this truly central problem from utopian? Where should we draw the boundary between them, what should be seen as the decisive criterion for distinguishing between the scientific and utopian understanding of “Man with all his deeds”?
Direct answer to this Adam Schaff does not give a directly posed question. He immediately eludes a direct answer, quickly turning to roundabout, roundabout paths, and the “truth” remains in its banality.
However, he still has a criterion, although not directly stated. After all, it turns out in the end that, in the department of “utopianism,” he writes off both the thesis about the inevitability of the “withering away of the state” in a classless society, and the thesis about the need to overcome commodity-money relations between people, and the prospect of eliminating “alienation in general.” After all, he puts forward as a “sober-scientific” - essentially moral interpretation of communism and all those concrete economic and concrete political measures with the help of which Marx and Lenin hoped to realize communism...
It’s just that he draws the border between “scientific” and “utopianism” not where we are used to seeing it in the old fashioned way. Let us try to identify for ourselves the unspoken criterion from the point of view of which Schaff distinguishes the “utopian” element in Marxism from the scientific one.
To do this, we will have to follow Adam Schaff on his detours.
So, the starting point is the “banal truth” we have already given. In order to turn this “banal truth” into a “genuinely Marxist thesis”, it must be specified and clarified. The clarification boils down to the following: the “Man” in question must be understood primarily as human individual, separate person, single representative of the human race.
And in no case one or another social group, totality individuals (such as “class”, “estate”, “profession”, “nation”, etc.). In other words, the “starting point” of the entire Marxist worldview should be “ the human individual with all his affairs" Then the “concept of the human individual” becomes the foundation of the whole edifice.
In such a decoding, “banal truth” immediately ceases to be “banal” and actually turns into a very controversial truth and - in any case - far from generally accepted among Marxists.
Yes, and it is difficult to agree with her, because in this case the situation turns out to be very delicate. In fact, the entire existing building of the Marxist worldview turns out to be a building without a foundation. The building was built, but they forgot to lay the foundation for it...
After all, a fact is a fact - Marxism still does not have any developed “concept of the human individual.”
Everyone agrees with this - both supporters of this concept and its opponents. Only Adam Schaff argues that since it does not exist, it must be created, while opponents, on the contrary, say that it does not exist by chance, that it cannot and should not be created, and especially as a “foundation”, since Marxism has there is a fairly solid foundation under it in the form of a historical-materialistic view of things, including the “individual”.
In defending his thesis, Adam Schaff extensively quotes Marx, emphasizing those passages in which it is said that the “starting point” of the materialist understanding of history is precisely individuals, “the existence of living human individuals,” “actual individuals in the actual conditions of their lives.” “Individuals producing in society - and therefore the socially determined production of individuals - is, naturally, the starting point.”
Of course, says Schaff, what is meant here are real individuals, that is, individuals born in society and formed by society, and not fictitious “Robinsons” - there is no disagreement between Marxists here.
But still individuals. Adam Schaff insists on this categorically, because it is here that he sees the crux of the issue, and thereby his difference from both the “orthodox” and the “Lukachists”, who proceed not from “individuals”, but from one or another “ totality individuals" - from one or another whole ("society", "class", "group", etc.), from the "totality of the historical process", in the bosom of which the individual, as such, dissolves and is completely forgotten...
Hence it turns out that all other Marxists (both “orthodox” and “Lukachists”) “forgot about man” and therefore lost understanding of the very essence of the matter - understanding of the “essence of man” and all matters.
And here Adam Schaff stumbles over a serious obstacle - Marx’s thesis:
“The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each individual. In its reality it is the totality of all social relations.”
To get around the obstacle, Adam Schaff is forced to expand his interpretation of this thesis.
Firstly, Adam Schaff explains to us, this thesis is directed against the specifically Feuerbachian understanding of the “essence of man”, against the “naturalistic” understanding of “man in general”.
What's bad about it? The bad thing is that Feuerbach forms his concept of “man in general” from signs (properties) that are equally inherent in each individual from birth by virtue of his belonging to the biological species “Homo sapiens”. In Feuerbach, “man” is defined only as an instance biological species, only as a “part of nature”, this is where the abstractness lies, that is, the one-sidedness and incompleteness of his “general concept”.
However, continues Adam Schaff, the matter changes significantly when such abstractly general (to each individual) characteristics are taken into account that are no longer characteristic of him by nature, but by history, i.e., they belong to him not as biological, but as social being in general. The complete “set of abstract general characteristics” characteristic of each human individual as a biosocial being determines the “essence of man”, the concept of “man in general”, “man as such” - in its difference from any other creature or object, from a non-human.
Therefore, the “essence of man,” according to Adam Schaff, is still an “abstract” inherent in each individual, or more precisely, totality such “abstracts”, properties, characteristics, traits equally inherent in each individual.
With this interpretation, the complete “set of abstractly common characteristics for each individual” is the specific concept of “man in general”, the specific concept of “the essence of man”, “the essence of the human individual”, and is the “concept” (or concept) of “Man with all his affairs "
This is how we should understand Marx and his words, according to which “the essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each individual,” but is “the totality of all social relations.”
As edited by Adam Schaff, this thesis looks like this:
The essence of man is an abstract inherent in every individual, understood as a product of all social relations.
Hence all the differences that emerge between Schaff and other Marxists regarding the ways of development of Marxist humanism - the Marxist solution to the “problem of man.”
“Orthodox” and “Lukachists” - due to their Hegelian attitudes towards the whole, towards the universal - want to understand the “essence of man” by studying the “totality of social relations”, understood as a kind of social whole at different stages of its historical maturity - on the paths analysis of this whole, this “concreteness” - its internal dismemberment and the contradictions immanent in it.
That is why the “orthodox” and “Lukachists” see the foundation of the Marxist understanding of “Man and all his affairs” in political economy, and see the main task in a strictly scientific statement of the existing social contradictions between people (between classes, groups of these people) and in finding the most rational ways to resolve these contradictions...
Not so with Schaff. He believes that the solution to the problem of “humanism” must begin from a completely different end - from the “concept of the human individual.” From his point of view, it is necessary, first of all, to study not this or that concrete social whole, but the individual. More precisely, individuals in the aspect of what they all have in common, despite the “differences” and “contradictions”...
It is easy to see that these are two very different ways of solving the problem of “Man and all his affairs.”
In the first case, the subject of attention is the “set of social relations” in the most direct and precise sense of these words, and in the second - “the set of universal human characteristics of each individual.” For it is here that Adam Schaff sees “the essence of Man with all his affairs.”
And from here - from this fundamental difference between Schaff and all the “backward” Marxists - all other differences follow logically and naturally. Including on the issue of alienation.
If we stand on the “orthodox” or “Lukachist” point of view, then alienation is a phenomenon that arises within the “set of social relations” between real (“empirical”) individuals, between “classes” of such individuals. In this case, “alienation” turns out to be a form of mutual relations between individuals and classes - a hostile and antagonistic form of relations between them. Alienation here is the alienation of people from people.
Not so with Schaff.
Since the “essence of man” is understood by him as “the totality of the universal human properties of the individual,” “alienation” is naturally interpreted by him as the act of loss by the individual of some (and, in the limit, all) “universal human characteristics.”
According to Schaff, “alienation” is a special form of an individual’s relationship to his own “generic characteristics,” to those very “abstracts” that are “common to every instance of the human race.”
In other words, “alienation” is the falling away, the distancing of an empirical individual from some impersonal abstract “essence”, or, conversely, this faceless abstract “essence” - from a real empirical individual...
This is the phenomenon of discrepancy between the empirical individual and some “abstract, ideal object.”
What is this “ideal abstract” from which the individual human individual is “alienated”? This is a “model of an ideal person”, some ideological “model for all-round imitation of him.”
Perhaps the funniest and saddest thing here is that this original (and in fact very unoriginal) concept of “alienation” is attributed by Adam Schaff to Karl Marx.
And this attribution is a direct result of the processing of early Marx’s texts by methods of “semantic analysis” - this supposedly “purely technical procedure”...
As a result of his treatment of the “Hegelian-ambiguous” expressions of the young Marx, Adam Schaff reveals in the expression “generic essence” two not only different, but also directly opposite “meanings”.
“First, one that emphasizes that man is an instance of a biological species and that he therefore possesses certain characteristics that he has in common with every other instance of this species” (p. 110).
(It goes without saying that the “general characteristics” of this series cannot be taken away from an individual without turning the “man” into a cripple or a corpse. These are, so to speak, “inalienable” properties of “human nature.”)
“Secondly, the one that emphasizes that a person has a known model of what kind of person it should be: a model that is the result of a person’s self-observation of the properties and tasks of his own species (genus), - a model on the basis of which the norms of his lifestyle as a “generic being” are set - that is, a creature corresponding to a known model or stereotype of a person ( "essence of man").
“In the first aspect, we are talking, therefore, about belonging to the genus, and in the second, about the need to conform to a certain model.”
It is here, in terms of the “second aspect”, that “alienation” arises - the phenomenon of mismatch between the “real, empirical individual” and the “ideal type of person in general.”
It goes without saying that this “ideal model” exists only in the consciousness, imagination and fantasy of people - as an idea of what kind of person it should be. Therefore, “alienation” is interpreted as a fact of discrepancy between the image of a real, empirical person and the image of an “ideal person” hovering in his imagination. “Alienation,” in other words, is a state of disagreement between reality and fantasy.
In a strange way, the difference between Marx and Feuerbach is established by Adam Schaff precisely in the presence of this “second aspect of the essence of man” - in the understanding of the fact that man, unlike any other mammal, has a “model” (“ideal stereotype”), an idea of “the limit of perfection of his own species,” to which he consciously strives to agree...
As if it was precisely in this that, before Feuerbach, all the minor followers of Kant and Fichte did not see the main difference between the “essence of man” and the “essence of an animal”...
Naturally, the “alienation” understood in this way turns out to be the eternal and insurmountable state of the earthly sinful person, for no real, empirical individual, of course, can hope to achieve complete coincidence with the “ideal”, with the “limit of improvement” of his own kind. Such a coincidence is conceivable only as a process of endless approach to the limit.
This is how, according to Adam Schaff, the young Marx imagined the problem of “alienation” and the ways to “overcome” it. And if the young Marx failed to express his understanding in the same “exact and precise” way, why not add “verification” to make it more scientific? - as Adam Schaff now did for him, armed with the powerful tools of “semantic analysis” and “verification” - then this happened only because Marx used “the ambiguous and imprecise language then accepted in the Hegelian environment”...
Cleared of traces of “Hegelianism,” Marx’s understanding of the “essence of man” is put by Adam Schaff as the basis for the distinction between “utopian and scientific socialism.”
Adam Schaff therefore calls “utopian” the idea that here, on this sinful earth, it is possible to actually realize the image of “communism” that Marx and Engels envisioned.
He calls the “scientific” interpretation of socialism the view according to which one must strive to realize the “ideal”, realizing, however, that it is unrealizable, unattainable except in “endless progress.”
“The ideal type of person of the communist era is a totally developed person freed from the power of alienation. And although this type of person is unrealizable - in the manner of the limit of a mathematical series - it is still possible and necessary to strive for it...” (p. 181).
“Utopian,” according to Adam Schaff, should be called socialism, which dogmatically adopted from Marx and Engels the belief in the possibility of actually building a society free from the power of “alienation,” that is, a society without “social stratification,” without a “state” as a hierarchical a built apparatus for managing people, without the “alienation of labor” and other atavisms of the private property myth. Belief in the possibility of creating here on earth conditions for the “comprehensive development of each individual” is the utopian moment in modern socialism. And this “utopianism” should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
In order to finally transform socialism from “utopia into science,” it is necessary, according to Adam Schaff, to interpret all the ideas of Marx and Engels regarding the principles of organizing communist society as utopian-unattainable on earth, as well as noble, and therefore morally valuable, regulatory principles of moral self-improvement.
It is precisely as “moral values” - as ideas about the “limit of improvement of the human race” - that all Marx’s “postulates” must be preserved as part of “scientific socialism” a la Schaff.
For, as Schaff also understands, without these “postulates” the Marxist doctrine of communism is generally unthinkable, since the communist movement in this case would be devoid of a “goal” that distinguishes this movement from any other “movement” of the 20th century.
“The task is, first of all, to see clearly, on the one hand, the nature of the actual situation, which is completely different and more complex than Marx foresaw, and at the same time, on the other hand, to preserve Marx’s ideal of the man of communism as the goal, - at least as a limit to which one should strive...” (p. 257).
The idea of this “limit” (of the “ideal type of man”) was borrowed by Marx from the classics of utopian socialism and represents precisely that element of “utopianism” from which not only should not be eliminated, but also impossible. It is necessary to preserve this utopian element, but only - and this is the main difference between Schaff and the “orthodox” - clearly understanding that this is exactly “ Utopian» element.
“We have already pointed out: Marx did not, and practically could not, escape the influence of the utopian concepts against which he fought. Moreover, his image of a communist man is absolutely necessary for creating an imaginary picture (“Vision”) of a communist society - like that Ideal, like that Model, like that Limit (“Limes”) to which one must strive in endless progress” (p. 258 ).
Scientifically, that is, with the help of strict methods of scientific-theoretical thinking, this ideal (“the ultimate goal” of all aspirations of the human race) cannot be substantiated by the very nature of the matter. It simply has to be accepted as part of “scientific socialism” as a theoretically unprovable, but as a “postulate” morally justified by its nobility. As a well-known emotional and ethical attitude of the individual, and not as a scientifically proven truth.
The difference between Marx and Schaff, as Schaff sees it, consists, therefore, in the fact that Marx did not understand this circumstance well, but Schaff does. Marx in relation to the “goal of the communist movement” was and remained a utopian, without clearly realizing it, and Schaff remains a utopian in this regard, realizing that he is a utopian, and without creating illusions regarding the “scientific” nature of his idea of the ideal, the the ultimate goal... Therefore, Schaff is Marx, who has achieved complete, clear and sober self-awareness.
It goes without saying that Schaff was helped to clear Marxist self-awareness of illusions regarding his own “scientificness” by that same “semantic analysis, which is unfairly identified with neopositivism,” that same “philosophy of modern science,” which proved that ideals, moral values, ideal models perfection and similar concepts related to the solution of the question of the “meaning of life” are a matter that is not subject to the knowledge of science in the strict and precise sense of the word. For we are talking here not about “simple description, but about evaluation” (for this, see p. 314).
Of course, if science is understood as a “simple description” of what exists, achieved by “exact-precise methods,” then “evaluation” (the act of correlation with one or another “scale of values”) cannot be the business and concern of strictly scientific research. After all, here we are no longer talking about There is, but about the fact that must perhaps not about objective-empirical reality, but about the direction of “our aspirations.”
Therefore, when it comes to the meaning of human life, scientific methods of thinking are no longer suitable.
“In this area, the philosopher acts primarily in the manner of an ancient sage reflecting on human life, and not as an experimenting natural scientist... The field of research here is different, it cannot be studied using the methods of exact natural science - at least at the current stage of development of knowledge, but I doubt whether the progress of knowledge can ever change anything in this respect...” (p. 315).
Therefore, we should not flatter ourselves with the hope that we will ever be able to construct an ideal or ultimate model of human perfection using “scientific methods.” The philosopher must understand “that this topic does not lend itself to an unambiguous and authoritative decision” (ibid.), but is subject to an act of “free choice”, not bound by any “strictly scientific” criteria and prerequisites.
“This is not a scientific philosophy, from which it still does not follow, as neopositivists imagine, that it is a non-scientific philosophy. Such a contrast between “scientific” and “non-scientific” simply does not make sense here, since we are in an area of philosophizing in which other scales should be applied. This is just as absurd from a logical point of view as if we had given a negative answer to the question: “Is love square?” - would conclude that love is “unsquare” (pp. 315–316).
Marx was mistaken when he believed that he had given a “scientific” justification for the “ultimate goal of the communist movement”, and thereby for the “vision of the communist system” that loomed in his imagination until the very end of his life and was then inherited by the “orthodox”. Marx did not and could not create anything like a “strictly scientific justification” for his “vision” of the communist system, because “scientific methods” here and then, as now, are fundamentally powerless. Just
He had one vision
Incomprehensible to the mind,
And deeply impressed
It cut into his heart...
So the idea of the fundamental contours of the coming communist system (and, therefore, of the goal towards which current socialism should develop) can only be preserved as a theoretically unprovable moral and value postulate, as a principle of moral self-improvement of the individual. In this form - in the form of a “vision incomprehensible to the mind”, the ideal of communism must be preserved, while realizing at the same time that this ideal cannot be realized on a sinful earth, and it is impossible precisely because the “industrial society of the 20th century” is developing in the opposite direction: and precisely in the direction of intensifying “alienation.”
This intensification of “alienation” is expressed in the fact that socialism, having destroyed the class-antagonistic structure of relations between people, instead develops a new system of “social layers and a new complex stratification” (p. 268), creates a “hierarchically organized ruling elite,” deepens and exacerbates the “division of labor” between one-sidedly developed professionals, etc., etc. All this, according to Adam Schaff, is “completely inevitable and socially justified,” because it is “a consequence not only of reification and alienation characteristic of capitalist relations between people, but a consequence of deep phenomena rooted within the basis of the entire modern society and equally common to all systems...” (p. 293).
But the utopian Marx did not see or foresee all this, because in his naivety he believed that “alienation” was associated with a certain form of property, namely private property, and therefore should disappear along with it.
In his time, Schaff condescendingly notes, such a mistake was forgivable. Marx and Engels could have dreamed of the “withering away of the state”, the “all-round development of the individual”, the “association of free producers”, the replacement of the “division of labor” by the “distribution of activities” and other similar troubles. Then all these utopian fantasies were and remained innocent dreams that had no direct practical significance. And now it’s a different matter. Now they actively interfere with a sober scientific understanding of reality and the prospects for its development, since they direct thinking towards obviously unrealizable projects...
Therefore, there is no need to attach to Marx’s “visions” the meaning of direct economic and political recommendations, that is, the meaning of “scientific truths”. As such, they are utopian. But they must be preserved - and precisely in their function that they “really” - contrary to the illusions of Marx himself on this score - performed in the process of development of his thought - in the function and role of moral ideals, i.e. emotional and ethical postulates and attitudes of his personality, in the function and role of scientifically unprovable attitudes towards “love for one’s neighbor”, towards “the happiness of each individual” and similar noble, although unrealizable on earth, goals...
It is in this - and only in this - form that the “true content of Marx’s thought” should be preserved as part of modern “sober” Marxism.
In this form, Marx’s “ideals” can and should help us in the fight against the negative consequences of “alienation,” that is, with those extreme psychological consequences that are not “absolutely inevitable.” And not with “alienation in general” and not with its absolutely inevitable manifestations in the sphere of the psyche. The latter should be reconciled. This is the sober scientific version of Marxism, as opposed to its orthodox utopian version.
Read the following text and answer the questions attached to it.
Maybe the essence of a person should be sought not in an individual person, but try to derive it from society, more precisely, one of those relations, which a person enters into? Indeed, in different historical periods we see completely different personality types. The choice of whether to be a slave or a master, a proletarian or a capitalist is often not made by us, but it depends on objective factors, on what historical time and within what social layer we were born. It was from this point of view that the German philosopher and economist KARL MARX (1818 – 1883) looked at the problem of man:
“The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Therefore, the first concrete fact that must be stated is the bodily organization of these individuals and their relationship to the rest of nature determined by it. People can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion - by anything at all. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce the means of life they need, a step that is determined by their bodily organization. By producing the means of life they need, people indirectly produce their own material life.
The way in which people produce the means of life they need depends, first of all, on the properties of these means themselves, which they find ready-made and subject to reproduction. This method of production must be considered not only from the point of view that it is the reproduction of the physical existence of individuals. To an even greater extent, this is a certain the way of activity of these individuals, a certain type of their life activity, their certain way of life. What is the life activity of individuals, so are they themselves. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production - coincides both with what they produce and with how they produce. What individuals are depends, therefore, on the material conditions of their production.
...The essence of man is not an abstract inherent in an individual. In reality she is the totality of all social relations.
…Consciousness das Bewusstsein can never be anything other than conscious being das bewusste Sein, and the existence of people is a real process of their life. ...We find that man also has “consciousness.” But a person does not possess this in the form of “pure” consciousness from the very beginning. From the very beginning, the “spirit” is cursed to be “burdened down” by matter, which appears here in the form of moving layers of air, sounds - in a word, in the form of language. Language is as ancient as consciousness; language is a practical consciousness that also exists for myself and is real, and, like consciousness, language arises only out of need, out of an urgent need to communicate with other people. Where any relation exists, it exists for me; the animal does not “relate” to anything and does not “relate” at all; For an animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation. Consciousness, therefore, from the very beginning is a social product and remains so as long as people exist at all. Consciousness, of course, is initially awareness of the immediate sensory environment and awareness of a limited connection with other persons and things located outside the individual beginning to become conscious of himself; at the same time, it is an awareness of nature, which initially confronts people as a completely alien, omnipotent and unapproachable force, to which people relate completely like animals and the power to which they submit like cattle; therefore, it is a purely animal awareness of nature (deification of nature).
Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being, moreover, a living natural being, he, on the one hand, is endowed with natural forces, vital forces, being an active natural being; these forces exist in him in the form of inclinations and abilities, in the form of drives; and on the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensory, objective being, he, like animals and plants, is a suffering, conditioned and limited being, that is, the objects of his desires exist outside of him, as objects independent of him; but these objects are the objects of his needs; these are objects necessary, essential for the manifestation and affirmation of his essential powers. The fact that a person is a corporeal, possessing natural powers, a living, real, sensual, objective being means that the subject of his essence, his manifestation of life, he has real, sensual objects, or that he can manifest his life only on real, sensual objects . To be objective, natural, sensory is the same as having an object, nature, feeling outside oneself, or being oneself an object, nature, feeling for some third being. Hunger is a natural need; therefore, for his satisfaction and satisfaction, he needs nature outside him, an object outside him. Hunger is the recognized need of my body for some object that exists outside my body and is necessary for its replenishment and for the manifestation of its essence. The sun is an object of the plant, a necessary object for it, an object that affirms its life, just as a plant is an object of the sun as a manifestation of the life-giving power of the sun, its objective essential power.”
Marx K., Engels F. German ideology // Collected Works. T. 3. P. 3-163
“In the very act of reproduction, not only objective conditions change - the producers themselves change, developing new qualities in themselves, developing and transforming themselves through production, creating new forces and new ideas, new ways of communication, new needs and a new language.”
Collected works. T. 46. Part 1. P. 483, 484
“He [man] himself confronts the substance of nature as a force of nature. In order to appropriate the substance of nature in a form suitable for his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms, legs, head and fingers. By influencing and changing external nature through this movement, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the forces dormant in her.”
(Marx K. Capital. T. 1 // Collected Works. T. 23. P. 188.)
“It is only thanks to the objectively developed wealth of the human being that the wealth of subjective human sensuality develops, and in part is first generated: the musical ear, feeling the beauty of the form of the eyes - in short, such feelings that assert themselves as human essential forces - the formation of the five external senses is the work of the entire history of the world that has passed so far.”
Marx K., Engels F. From early works. pp. 593-594
“What else is wealth if not the complete development of man’s dominion over the forces of nature, that is, both over the forces of so-called “nature” and over the forces of his own nature? What else is wealth if not the absolute manifestation of the creative talents of man, without any other prerequisites than previous historical development, that is, the development of all human powers as such, without regard to any predetermined scale. Man here does not reproduce himself in any single specificity, but produces himself in his entirety, he does not strive to remain something finally established, but is in the absolute movement of becoming».
Marx K. Economic manuscripts of 1857–1858 //
Collected works. T. 46. Part 1. P. 476
“The starting point for individuals has always been themselves, taken, of course, within the framework of given historical conditions and relationships - and not as a “pure” individual in the understanding of ideologists. But in the course of historical development, precisely due to the fact that with the division of labor, social relations inevitably turn into something independent, a difference appears between the lives of each individual; they are subordinated to one or another branch of labor and are connected with it by condition. (This should not be understood in the sense that, for example, a rentier, a capitalist, etc. cease to be individuals, but in the sense that their personality is conditioned and determined by very specific class relations. And this difference appears only in their opposition, and for them it is revealed only when they go bankrupt). In the estate (and even more so in the tribe) this is still covered up: for example, a nobleman always remains a nobleman, a commoner always remains a commoner, regardless of the other conditions of their life; this is a quality inseparable from their individuality. The difference between the individual as a person and a class individual, the accidental character that his life conditions have for the individual, appears only with the emergence of that class, which itself is a product of the bourgeoisie. Only competition and the struggle of individuals with each other give rise to and develop this random character as such. Therefore, under the rule of the bourgeoisie, individuals appear to be more free than they were before, because their living conditions are accidental to them, but in reality, of course, they are less free, because they are more subordinate to material force. The difference from the estate is especially clearly revealed in the contrast between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.”
Marx K., Engels F. German ideology // Collected Works. T. 3. P. 76, 77
Questions
1. How is the nature and essence of human consciousness understood in Marxist philosophy?
2. What, according to Marxism, is the connection between man and nature? What is the relationship between man and nature?
3. What is the significant difference between human activity and animal behavior?
4. How is the social essence of man understood in Marxism?
5. K. Marx claims that “language arises only from need.” Do you agree with this statement? Comment. Indeed, in this case, you can reason like this: I have a need to fly, which means sooner or later I will grow wings. Don't Marx's reasoning remind you of the idea of J.-B. Lamarck that one of the factors of biological evolution is the desire of living organisms for perfection?
This is a philosophical concept that reflects the natural properties and essential characteristics that are inherent in all people to one degree or another, distinguishing them from other forms and types of existence. You can find different views on this problem. This concept seems obvious to many, and often no one thinks about it. Some believe that there is no specific entity, or at least that it is incomprehensible. Others argue that it is knowable and put forward a variety of concepts. Another common point of view is that the essence of people is directly related to the personality, which is closely intertwined with the psyche, which means that by knowing the latter, one can understand the essence of a person.
Key Aspects
The main prerequisite for the existence of any human individual is the functioning of his body. It is part of the natural environment around us. From this point of view, man is a thing among other things and part of the evolutionary process of nature. But this definition is limited and underestimates the role of the active-conscious life of the individual, without going beyond the passive-contemplative view characteristic of the materialism of the 17th and 18th centuries.
In the modern view, man is not just a part of nature, but also the highest product of its development, the bearer of the social form of the evolution of matter. And not just a “product”, but also a creator. This is an active being, endowed with vital forces in the form of abilities and inclinations. Through conscious, purposeful actions, it actively changes the environment and, in the course of these changes, changes itself. transformed by labor, it becomes human reality, “second nature,” “the world of man.” Thus, this side of being represents the unity of nature and the spiritual knowledge of the producer, that is, it is socio-historical in nature. The process of improving technology and industry is an open book of the essential forces of humanity. Reading it, one can come to understand the term “essence of people” in an objectified, realized form, and not just as an abstract concept. It can be found in the nature of objective activity, when there is a dialectical interaction of natural material, creative material with a certain socio-economic structure.
Category "existence"
This term denotes the existence of an individual in everyday life. It is then that the essence of human activity is revealed, the strong relationship between all types of personality behavior, its abilities and existence with the evolution of human culture. Existence is much richer than essence and, being a form of its manifestation, includes, in addition to the manifestation of human powers, also a variety of social, moral, biological and psychological qualities. Only the unity of both these concepts forms human reality.
Category "human nature"
In the last century, nature and the essence of man were identified, and the need for a separate concept was questioned. But the development of biology, the study of the neural organization of the brain and genome makes us look at this relationship in a new way. The main question is whether human nature is unchanging, structured, independent of all influences, or whether it is plastic and changing in nature.
The US philosopher F. Fukuyama believes that there is one, and it ensures the continuity and stability of our existence as a species, and, together with religion, constitutes our most basic and fundamental values. Another American scientist, S. Pinker, defines human nature as a set of emotions, cognitive abilities and motives that are common to people with a normally functioning nervous system. From the above definitions it follows that the characteristics of the human individual are explained by biologically inherited properties. However, many scientists believe that the brain only predetermines the possibility of developing abilities, but does not condition them at all.
"The Essence in Itself"
Not everyone considers the concept of “the essence of people” to be legitimate. According to such a direction as existentialism, a person does not have a specific generic essence, since he is an “entity in himself.” K. Jaspers, its largest representative, believed that sciences such as sociology, physiology and others provide only knowledge about some individual aspects but cannot penetrate into its essence, which is existence (existence). This scientist believed that it is possible to study the individual in different aspects - in physiology as a body, in sociology as a social being, in psychology as a soul, and so on, but this does not answer the question of what is the nature and essence of man , because he always represents something more than he can know about himself. Neopositivists are also close to this point of view. They deny that anything common can be found in the individual.
Ideas about a person
In Western Europe, it is believed that the works of the German philosophers Scheller (“The Position of Man in the Universe”) and Plessner “Stages of the Organic and Man,” published in 1928, marked the beginning of philosophical anthropology. A number of philosophers: A. Gehlen (1904-1976), N. Henstenberg (1904), E. Rothacker (1888-1965), O. Bollnov (1913) - dealt exclusively with it. The thinkers of that time expressed many wise ideas about man, which have not yet lost their defining significance. For example, Socrates urged his contemporaries to know themselves. The philosophical essence of man, happiness and the meaning of life were associated with understanding the essence of man. Socrates' call was continued with the statement: "Know yourself - and you will be happy!" Protagoras argued that man is the measure of all things.
In Ancient Greece, the question of the origin of people first arose, but it was often resolved speculatively. The Syracusan philosopher Empedocles was the first to suggest the evolutionary, natural origin of man. He believed that everything in the world is driven by enmity and friendship (hatred and love). According to Plato's teachings, souls live in the empyrean world. He likened it to a chariot, the driver of which is the Will, and the Feelings and Mind are harnessed to it. Feelings pull her down - to rough, material pleasures, and Reason - upward, to the awareness of spiritual postulates. This is the essence of human life.
Aristotle saw 3 souls in people: rational, animal and vegetable. The plant soul is responsible for growth, maturity and aging of the body, the animal soul is responsible for independence in movements and the range of psychological feelings, the rational soul is responsible for self-awareness, spiritual life and thinking. Aristotle was the first to understand that the main essence of man is his life in society, defining him as a social animal.
The Stoics identified morality with spirituality, laying a strong foundation for the idea of him as a moral being. One can recall Diogenes, who lived in a barrel, and with a lit lantern in the light of day, looked for a person in the crowd. In the Middle Ages, ancient views were criticized and completely forgotten. Representatives of the Renaissance updated ancient views, placed Man at the very center of the worldview, and laid the foundation for Humanism.
About the essence of man
According to Dostoevsky, the essence of man is a mystery that must be unraveled, and let the one who takes it up and spends his whole life on it not say that he spent his time in vain. Engels believed that the problems of our lives will be solved only when man is fully understood, suggesting ways to achieve this.
Frolov describes him as a subject as a biosocial being, genetically related to other forms, but distinguished due to the ability to produce tools, possessing speech and consciousness. The origin and essence of man is best traced against the background of nature and the animal world. In contrast to the latter, people are seen as beings who have the following basic characteristics: consciousness, self-awareness, work and social life.
Linnaeus, classifying the animal world, included man in the animal kingdom, but classified him, along with apes, in the category of hominids. He placed Homo sapiens at the very top of his hierarchy. Man is the only creature that has consciousness. This is possible thanks to articulate speech. With the help of words, a person becomes aware of himself, as well as the surrounding reality. They are the primary cells, carriers of spiritual life, allowing people to exchange the content of their inner life with the help of sounds, images or signs. An integral place in the category of “the essence and existence of man” belongs to labor. The classic of political economy A. Smith, predecessor of K. Marx and student of D. Hume, wrote about this. He defined man as a “working animal.”
Work
In determining the specific nature of man, Marxism rightly attaches the main importance to labor. Engels said that it was he who accelerated the evolutionary development of biological nature. Man is completely free in his work, unlike animals, whose work is hard-coded. People can do completely different jobs and in different ways. We are so free to work that we can even... not work. The essence of human rights lies in the fact that in addition to the responsibilities accepted in society, there are also rights that are granted to the individual and are an instrument of his social protection. The behavior of people in society is regulated by public opinion. We, like animals, feel pain, thirst, hunger, sex drive, balance, etc., but all our instincts are controlled by society. So, work is a conscious activity acquired by a person in society. The content of consciousness was formed under his influence, and is consolidated in the process of participation in industrial relations.
Social essence of man
Socialization is the process of acquiring elements of social life. Only in society is behavior learned that is guided not by instincts, but by public opinion, animal instincts are curbed, language, traditions and customs are accepted. Here people learn the experience of industrial relations from previous generations. Since Aristotle, social nature has been considered central to the structure of personality. Marx, moreover, saw the essence of man only in social nature.
The personality does not choose the conditions of the external world, it simply always finds itself in them. Socialization occurs through the assimilation of social functions, roles, acquisition of social status, and adaptation to social norms. At the same time, the phenomena of social life are possible only through individual actions. An example is art, when artists, directors, poets and sculptors create it with their labor. Society sets the parameters for the social identity of the individual, approves the program of social inheritance, and maintains balance within this complex system.
Man in a religious worldview
A religious worldview is a worldview based on the belief in the existence of something supernatural (spirits, gods, miracles). Therefore, human problems are viewed here through the prism of the divine. According to the teachings of the Bible, which forms the basis of Christianity, God created man in his own image and likeness. Let's take a closer look at this teaching.
God created man from the dirt of the earth. Modern Catholic theologians argue that there were two acts in divine creation: the first was the creation of the entire world (Universe) and the second was the creation of the soul. The oldest biblical texts of the Jews state that the soul is the breath of a person, what he breathes. Therefore, God blows the soul through the nostrils. It is the same as that of an animal. After death, breathing stops, the body turns to dust, and the soul dissolves into air. After some time, Jews began to identify the soul with the blood of a person or animal.
The Bible assigns a large role to the spiritual essence of a person to the heart. According to the authors of the Old and New Testaments, thinking occurs not in the head, but in the heart. It also contains the wisdom given by God to man. And the head exists only for hair to grow on it. There is no hint in the Bible that people are capable of thinking with their heads. This idea had a great influence on European culture. The great scientist of the 18th century, researcher of the nervous system, Buffon, was sure that man thinks with his heart. The brain, in his opinion, is only the feeding organ of the nervous system. The New Testament writers recognize the existence of the soul as a substance independent of the body. But this concept itself is vague. Modern Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the texts in the spirit of the Old and do not recognize the immortality of the human soul, believing that after death existence ceases.
Spiritual nature of man. Concept of personality
Man is designed in such a way that in the conditions of social life he is able to transform into a spiritual person, into a personality. In the literature you can find many definitions of personality, its characteristics and characteristics. This is, first of all, a creature that consciously makes decisions and is responsible for all its behavior and actions.
The spiritual essence of a person is the content of personality. Worldview occupies a central place here. It is generated in the process of activity of the psyche, in which three components are distinguished: these are Will, Feelings and Mind. In the spiritual world there is nothing else except intellectual, emotional activity and volitional motives. Their relationship is ambiguous; they are in a dialectical connection. There is some inconsistency between feelings, will and reason. Balancing between these parts of the psyche constitutes a person’s spiritual life.
Personality is always a product and subject of individual life. It is shaped not only by its own existence, but also by the influence of other people with whom it comes into contact. The problem of human essence cannot be considered one-sidedly. Educators and psychologists believe that it is possible to talk about personal individualization only from the time when an individual’s perception of his Self is manifested, personal self-awareness is formed, when he begins to separate himself from other people. A person “builds” his own line of life and social behavior. In philosophical language this process is called individualization.
Purpose and meaning of life
The concept of the meaning of life is individual, since this problem is solved not by classes, not by work collectives, not by science, but by individuals, individuals. Solving this problem means finding your place in the world, your personal self-determination. For a long time, thinkers and philosophers have been looking for the answer to the question of why a person lives, the essence of the concept of “meaning of life,” why he came into the world and what happens to us after death. The call to self-knowledge was the main fundamental tenet of Greek culture.
“Know yourself,” Socrates urged. For this thinker it is about philosophizing, searching for oneself, overcoming trials and ignorance (searching for what good and evil, truth and error, beautiful and ugly mean). Plato argued that happiness is achievable only after death, in the afterlife, when the soul - the ideal essence of man - is free from the shackles of the body.
According to Plato, human nature is determined by his soul, or rather soul and body, but with the superiority of the divine, immortal principle over the corporeal, mortal. The human soul, according to this philosopher, consists of three parts: the first is ideally rational, the second is lustful-volitional, and the third is instinctive-affective. Human destiny, the meaning of life, and the direction of activity depend on which of them prevails.
Christianity in Rus' adopted a different concept. The highest spiritual principle becomes the main measure of all things. By realizing one’s sinfulness, smallness, even insignificance before the ideal, in the pursuit of it, the prospect of spiritual growth is revealed to a person, consciousness becomes directed towards constant moral improvement. The desire to do good becomes the core of the personality, the guarantor of its social development.
During the Enlightenment, French materialists rejected the concept of human nature as a combination of material, bodily substance and an immortal soul. Voltaire denied the immortality of the soul, and when asked whether divine justice exists after death, he preferred to maintain “reverent silence.” He did not agree with Pascal that man is a weak and insignificant creature in nature, a “thinking reed.” The philosopher believed that people are not as pitiful and evil as Pascal thought. Voltaire defines man as a social being striving to form “cultural communities.”
Thus, philosophy considers the essence of people in the context of universal aspects of existence. These are social and individual, historical and natural, political and economic, religious and moral, spiritual and practical reasons. The essence of man in philosophy is considered in many ways, as an integral, unified system. If you miss any aspect of existence, the whole picture collapses. The task of this science is the self-knowledge of man, his always new and eternal comprehension of his essence, nature, his purpose and the meaning of existence. The essence of man in philosophy, thus, is a concept that modern scientists also turn to, discovering its new facets.
In scientific literature, and even more so in everyday life, the concepts: “person”, “individual”, “individuality”, “personality” are widely used, often without making distinctions, whereas there is a significant difference between them.
Human- a biosocial being, the highest level of the animal type.
Individual- a single person.
Individuality- a special combination in a person of the natural and social, inherent in a specific, individual individual, distinguishing him from others. Each person is individual, figuratively speaking, has his own face, which is expressed by the concept of “personality”.
This is a complex concept, the study of which takes place at the intersection of the natural and the social. Moreover, representatives of different schools and directions view it through the prism of the subject of their science.
- Social-biological school (S. Freud etc.), is associated with the struggle in our consciousness of unconscious instincts and moral prohibitions dictated by society.
- Theory of the “mirror self” (C. Cooley, J. Mead), in which “I” is part of the personality, which consists of self-awareness and the image of “I”. According to this concept, personality is formed in the process of its social interaction and reflects a person’s ideas about how he is perceived and evaluated by other people. In the course of interpersonal communication, a person creates his mirror self, which consists of three elements:
- ideas about how other people perceive him;
- ideas about how they evaluate it;
- how a person responds to the perceived reactions of other people.
Thus, in theory “mirror self” personality acts as a result of social interaction, during which the individual acquires the ability to evaluate himself from the point of view of other members of a given social group.
As we see, Mead’s concept of personality, in contrast to S. Freud’s theory, is completely social.
- Role theory (Ya. Moreno, T. Parsons), according to which personality is a function of the totality of social roles that an individual performs in society.
- Anthropological School (M. Lundman), which does not separate the concepts of “person” and “personality”.
- Marxist sociology in the concept of “personality” reflects the social essence of a person as a set of social relations that determine the social, psychological and spiritual qualities of people, socialize their natural and biological properties.
- Sociological approach, which many modern sociologists are guided by, is to represent each person as an individual, to the extent that he has mastered and acquired socially significant traits and qualities. These include the level of education and professional training, a set of knowledge and skills that allow people to realize various positions and roles in society.
Based on the above theoretical principles, it is possible to determine personality How individual manifestation of the totality of social relations, social characteristics of a person.
As an integral social system, a personality has its own internal structure, consisting of levels.
Biological level includes natural, common personality qualities (body structure, gender and age characteristics, temperament, etc.).
Psychological level personality is united by its psychological characteristics (feelings, will, memory, thinking). Psychological characteristics are closely related to the heredity of the individual.
Finally, social level of personality is divided into three sublevel:
- actually sociological (motives of behavior, interests of the individual, life experience, goals), this sublevel is more closely connected with social consciousness, which is objective in relation to each person, acting as part of the social environment, as material for individual consciousness;
- specific cultural (value and other attitudes, norms of behavior);
- moral.
When studying personality as a subject of social relations, sociologists pay special attention to the internal determinants of its social behavior. Such determinants include, first of all, needs and interests.
Needs- these are those forms of interaction with the world (material and spiritual), the need for which is determined by the characteristics of the reproduction and development of its biological, psychological, social certainty, which are realized and felt by a person in some form.
Interests- These are the conscious needs of the individual.
The needs and interests of an individual underlie his value attitude towards the world around him, the basis of his system of values and value orientations.
Some authors in personality structure include and other elements: culture, knowledge, norms, values, activities, beliefs, value orientations and attitudes that form the core of the personality, acting as a regulator of behavior, directing it into the normative framework prescribed by society.
A special place in the personality structure is occupied by its role.
Having matured, a person actively enters, “infiltrates” into public life, striving to take his place in it, to satisfy personal needs and interests. The relationship between the individual and society can be described by the formula: society offers, the individual seeks, chooses his place, trying to realize his interests. At the same time, she shows and proves to society that she is in her place and will perform well in a certain role assigned to him.
Social status of the individual
The social functions of the individual and the ensuing rights and obligations in relation to other participants in social interaction determine it social status, i.e. that set of actions and corresponding conditions for their execution that are assigned to a given social status of an individual occupying a certain place or position in the social structure. Social status of the individual is a characteristic of social positions, on which it is located in a given social coordinate system.
Society ensures that individuals regularly fulfill their roles and social functions. Why does he endow her with a certain social status? Otherwise, it puts another person in this place, believing that she will better cope with social responsibilities and will bring more benefit to other members of society playing other roles in it.
There are social statuses prescribed(gender, age, nationality) and achieved(student, associate professor, professor).
Achieved statuses are consolidated taking into account abilities and achievements, which gives everyone a perspective. In an ideal society, most statuses are achievable. In reality, this is far from the case. Each person has many statuses: father, student, teacher, public figure, etc. Among them, the main one stands out, which is the most important and valuable for society. It corresponds to social prestige of this individual.
Each status is associated with certain expected behavior when performing the corresponding functions. In this case, we are talking about the social role of the individual.
Social role of the individual
Social role is a set of functions, a more or less clearly defined pattern of behavior that is expected from a person, holding a certain status in society. So, a family man plays the roles of son, husband, father. At work, he can simultaneously be an engineer, a technologist, a production site foreman, a trade union member, etc. Of course, not all social roles are equivalent for society and are equivalent for the individual. The main ones should be family, everyday, professional and socio-political roles. Thanks to their timely mastery and successful implementation by members of society, the normal functioning of the social organism is possible.
To each person you have to perform a lot situational roles. By entering the bus, we become passengers and are obliged to follow the rules of behavior in public transport. Having finished the trip, we turn into pedestrians and follow the traffic rules. We behave differently in a reading room and in a store because the role of the buyer and the role of the reader are different. Deviations from role requirements and violations of rules of behavior are fraught with unpleasant consequences for a person.
A social role is not a rigid model of behavior. People perceive and perform their roles differently. However, society is interested in people timely mastering, skillfully performing and enriching social roles in accordance with the requirements of life. First of all, this applies to the main roles: employee, family man, citizen, etc. In this case, the interests of society coincide with the interests of the individual. WITH social roles - forms of manifestation and development of personality, and their successful implementation is the key to human happiness. It is easy to notice that truly happy people have a good family and successfully cope with their professional responsibilities. They take a conscious part in the life of society and government affairs. As for friendly companies, leisure activities and hobbies, they enrich life, but are not able to compensate for failures in fulfilling basic social roles.
Social conflicts
However, achieving harmony of social roles in human life is not at all easy. This requires great effort, time, abilities, as well as the ability to resolve conflicts that arise when performing social roles. These could be intra-role, interrole And personal-role.
To intra-role Conflicts include those in which the demands of one role contradict or oppose each other. Mothers, for example, are instructed not only to treat their children kindly and affectionately, but also to be demanding and strict towards them. It is not easy to combine these instructions when a beloved child has done something wrong and deserves punishment.
Interrole Conflicts arise when the demands of one role contradict or oppose the demands of another role. A striking illustration of such a conflict is the double employment of women. The workload of family women in social production and in everyday life often does not allow them to fully and without harm to their health perform professional duties and run a household, be a charming wife and a caring mother. Many thoughts have been expressed about ways to resolve this conflict. The most realistic options at the present time and in the foreseeable future seem to be a relatively even distribution of household responsibilities among family members and a reduction in women’s employment in public production (working part-time, weekly, introducing a flexible schedule, spreading home-based work, etc. . P.).
Student life, contrary to popular belief, is also not without role conflicts. To master the chosen profession and obtain an education, concentration on educational and scientific activities is required. At the same time, a young person needs varied communication, free time for other activities and hobbies, without which it is impossible to form a full-fledged personality and create his own family. The situation is complicated by the fact that neither education nor varied communication can be postponed to a later date without prejudice to personality formation and professional training.
Personal-role conflicts arise in situations where the requirements of a social role contradict the properties and life aspirations of the individual. Thus, a social role requires from a person not only extensive knowledge, but also good willpower, energy, and the ability to communicate with people in various, including critical, situations. If a specialist lacks these qualities, then he cannot cope with his role. People say about this: “The hat doesn’t suit Senka.”
Each person included in the system of social relations has countless social connections, is endowed with many statuses, performs a whole set of different roles, is the bearer of certain ideas, feelings, character traits, etc. It is almost impossible to take into account all the diversity of the properties of each individual, but in this is not necessary. In sociology are essential not individual, but social properties and qualities of personality, i.e. quality, which many individuals possess, located in similar, objective conditions. Therefore, for the convenience of studying individuals who have a set of repeating essential social qualities, they are typologized, i.e., assigned to a specific social type.
Social personality type- a generalized reflection, a set of repeating social qualities inherent in many individuals belonging to any social community. For example, European, Asian, Caucasian types; students, workers, veterans, etc.
Typology of personalities can be carried out for various reasons. For example, by professional affiliation or type of activity: miner, farmer, economist, lawyer; by territorial affiliation or way of life: city dweller, village resident, northerner; by gender and age: boys, girls, pensioners; by degree of social activity: leader (leader, activist), follower (performer), etc.
In sociology there are modal,basic and ideal personality types. Modal They call the average type of personality that actually prevails in a given society. Under basic is understood as the type of personality that best meets the development needs of society. Ideal the personality type is not tied to specific conditions and is considered as a standard for the personality of the future.
An American sociologist and psychologist made a great contribution to the development of social typology of personality E. Fromm(1900-1980), who created the concept of social character. According to E. Fromm’s definition, social character- this is the core of character structure, characteristic of the majority members of a particular culture. E. Fromm saw the importance of social character in the fact that it allows one to most effectively adapt to the requirements of society and gain a sense of safety and security. Classical capitalism, according to E. Fromm, is characterized by such social character traits as individualism, aggressiveness, and the desire to accumulate. In modern bourgeois society, a social character emerges that is oriented towards mass consumption and is marked by feelings of satiety, boredom and preoccupation. Accordingly, E. Fromm identified fourtype of social character:receptive(passive), exploitative, accumulative And market He considered all these types unfruitful and contrasted them with the social character of a new type, promoting the formation of an independent, independent and active personality.
In modern sociology, the identification of personality types depending on the their value orientations.
- Traditionalists are focused mainly on the values of duty, order, discipline, and obedience to the law, and qualities such as independence and the desire for self-realization are very weakly expressed in this type of personality.
- Idealists, on the contrary, have strong independence, a critical attitude towards traditional norms, a focus on self-development and disdain for authority.
- Realists combine the desire for self-realization with a developed sense of duty and responsibility, healthy skepticism with self-discipline and self-control.
They show that the specificity of relationships in various spheres of social life stimulates the manifestation of certain personal qualities and types of behavior. Thus, market relations contribute to the development of entrepreneurship, pragmatism, cunning, prudence, and the ability to present oneself; interactions in the sphere of production form egoism, careerism and forced cooperation, and in the sphere of family and personal life - emotionality, cordiality, affection, and the search for harmony.
Interrelation, interdependence of the individual and society
Let's consider different concepts presented by M. Weber and K. Marx.
M. Weber sees in the role of a subject of public life only certain individuals who act meaningfully. And such social totalities as “classes”, “society”, “state”, in his opinion, are entirely abstract and cannot be subject to social analysis.
Another solution to this problem is the theory K. Marx. In his understanding, the subjects of social development are social formations of several levels: humanity, classes, nations, state, family and individual. The movement of society is carried out as a result of the actions of all these subjects. However, they are by no means equivalent and the strength of their impact varies depending on historical conditions. In different eras, the decisive subject is the one who is the main driving force of a given historical period.
Nevertheless, it is imperative to keep in mind that in Marx’s concept, all subjects of social development act in accordance with the objective laws of social development. They can neither change these laws nor repeal them. Their subjective activity either helps these laws to act freely and thereby accelerates social development, or prevents them from acting and then slows down the historical process.
How is the problem that interests us represented in this theory: personality and society? We see that the individual here is recognized as a subject of social development, although he does not come to the fore and does not become one of the driving forces of social progress. According to Marx's concept, personality Not only subject, but also object of society. It is not an abstract characteristic of an individual. In your reality it is the totality of all social relations. The development of an individual is conditioned by the development of all other individuals with whom he is in direct or indirect communication; it cannot be divorced from the history of previous and contemporary individuals. Thus, the life activity of an individual in Marx’s concept is comprehensively determined by society in the form of the social conditions of its existence, the heritage of the past, the objective laws of history, etc., although some space for its social action still remains. According to Marx, history is nothing more than the activity of a person pursuing his goals.
Now let’s return to reality, the life of modern Russians in the 21st century. The Soviet totalitarian state collapsed. New social conditions and values arose. And it turned out that many people cannot perceive them, master them, assimilate them, or find their new path in such a difficult time. Hence the social pathologies that are now the pain of our society - crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide.
Obviously, time will pass and people will learn to live in new social conditions, to seek and find the meaning of life, but this requires the experience of freedom. She created a vacuum of existence, breaking traditions, classes, etc., and she will teach how to fill it. In the West, people are already making some progress in this direction - they have studied longer. The Austrian scientist Dr. W. Frankl expresses very interesting ideas on this matter. He believes that it is human nature to strive for a meaningful life. If there is no meaning, this is the most difficult state of the individual. There is no common meaning in life for all people; it is unique for everyone. The meaning of life, Frankl believes, cannot be invented or invented; it needs to be found, it exists objectively outside of man. The tension that arises between a person and the external meaning is a normal, healthy state of mind.
Despite the fact that the meaning of life is unique to everyone, there are not so many ways in which a person can make his life meaningful: what we give to life (in the sense of our creative work); what we take from the world (in the sense of experiences, values); what position we take in relation to fate if we cannot change it. In accordance with this, three groups of values can be distinguished: the values of creativity, the values of experiences and the values of relationships. The realization of values (or at least one of them) can help make sense of human life. If a person does something beyond the prescribed duties, brings something of his own to work, then this is already a meaningful life. However, meaning in life can also be given by an experience, for example, love. Even one single vivid experience will make your past life meaningful. But the third group of values is deeper - relational values. A person is forced to resort to them when he cannot change circumstances, when he finds himself in an extreme situation (hopelessly ill, deprived of freedom, lost a loved one, etc.). Under any circumstances, a person can take a meaningful position, because a person’s life retains its meaning to the end.
The conclusion can be made quite optimistic: despite the spiritual crisis of many people in the modern world, a way out of this state will still be found as people master new free forms of life, opportunities for self-realization of their abilities, and achievement of life goals.
Personal self-realization, as a rule, occurs not in one, but in several types of activity. In addition to professional activities, most people strive to create a strong family, have good friends, interesting hobbies, etc. All the various types of activities and goals together create a kind of system of orienting the individual for the long term. Based on this perspective, the individual chooses the appropriate life strategy (the general direction of the life path).
Life strategies can be divided into three main types:
- strategy for life well-being - the desire to create favorable living conditions and earn another million;
- strategy for success in life - the desire to get the next position, the next title, conquer the next peak, etc.;
- strategy of life self-realization - the desire to maximize one’s abilities in certain types of activities.
The choice of one or another life strategy depends on three main factors:
- objective social conditions that society (the state) can provide to an individual for his self-realization;
- the individual’s belonging to a particular social community (class, ethnic group, social stratum, etc.);
- socio-psychological qualities of the individual himself.
For example, most members of a traditional or crisis society, in which the problem of survival is the main one, are forced to adhere to a strategy of life well-being. IN democratic society with developed market relations the most popular is life success strategy. In a social society(state) in which the main social problems have been solved for the vast majority of citizens, it can be very attractive life self-realization strategy.
A life strategy can be chosen by an individual once and for the rest of his life, or it can change depending on certain circumstances. Thus, the individual has fully realized the strategy of life success and decided to focus on a new strategy, or the individual is forced to abandon the previously chosen strategy (a scientist who has lost his job, a bankrupt businessman, a retired military man, etc.).