home Women By means direction. Progress and regression

By means direction. Progress and regression

Progress is understood as a direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from lower and simpler forms of social organization to higher and more complex ones. The concept of progress is opposed to the concept of regression, which is characterized by a reverse movement - from higher to lower, degradation, return to already outdated structures and relationships. The idea of the development of society as a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but was finally formed in the works of French enlighteners (A. Turgot, M. Condorcet, etc.) - They saw the criterion of progress in the development of the human mind, in the spread of enlightenment. Such an optimistic view of history changed in the 19th century. more complex ideas. Thus, Marxism sees progress in the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, higher one. Some sociologists considered complication to be the essence of progress. social structure, growth of social heterogeneity. In modern sociology, historical progress is associated with the process of modernization, that is, the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and then to a post-industrial one.
Some thinkers reject the idea of progress in social development, viewing history as a cyclical cycle with a series of ups and downs (G. Vico), predicting the imminent “end of history” or affirming ideas about a multilinear, independent from each other, parallel movement of different societies (N. Ya Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee). Thus, A. Toynbee, having abandoned the thesis of unity world history, identified 21 civilizations, in the development of each of which he distinguished the phases of emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and decay. O. Spengler also wrote about the “decline of Europe”. K. Popper’s “anti-progressism” is especially striking. Understanding progress as movement towards a goal, he considered it possible only for an individual, but not for history. The latter can be explained both as a progressive process and as a regression.
It is obvious that the progressive development of society does not exclude return movements, regression, civilizational dead ends and even breakdowns. And the development of humanity itself is unlikely to have an unambiguously linear character; accelerated leaps forward and rollbacks are possible in it. Moreover, progress in one area of social relations may be accompanied and even cause regression in another. The development of tools, technical and technological revolutions are clear evidence of economic progress, but they have brought the world to the brink environmental disaster, exhausted Natural resources Earth. Modern society They are accused of a decline in morality, a family crisis, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is also high: the conveniences of city life, for example, are accompanied by numerous “diseases of urbanization.” Sometimes the costs of progress are so great that the question arises: is it even possible to talk about humanity moving forward?
In this regard, the question of the criteria for progress is relevant. There is no agreement among scientists here either. French enlighteners saw the criterion in the development of reason, in the degree of rationality social order. A number of thinkers (for example, A. Saint-Simon) assessed the movement forward according to the state of public morality. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in the production sphere. He considered only those progressive social relations, which corresponded to the level of productive forces, opened up scope for the development of man (as the main productive force). The applicability of such a criterion is disputed in modern social science. The state of the economic basis does not determine the nature of development of all other spheres of society. The goal, not the means of any social progress is to create conditions for the comprehensive and harmonious development of man.
Consequently, the criterion of progress should be the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to an individual to maximize his potential. The degree of progressiveness of a particular social system must be assessed by the conditions created in it to satisfy all the needs of the individual, for the free development of man (or, as they say, by the degree of humanity of the social system).

It is fundamentally important to find out in which direction a society is moving, which is in a state of continuous development and change.

Progress is understood as a direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from lower and simpler forms of social organization to higher and more complex ones. The concept of progress is opposite to the concept regression, which is characterized by reverse movement - from higher to lower, degradation, return to already outdated structures and relationships. The idea of the development of society as a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but finally took shape in the works of French enlighteners (A. Turgot, M. Condorcet, etc.). They saw the criteria for progress in the development of the human mind and in the spread of enlightenment. Such an optimistic view of history changed in the 19th century. more complex ideas. Thus, Marxism sees progress in the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, higher one. Some sociologists considered the essence of progress to be the complication of the social structure and the growth of social heterogeneity. In modern sociology. historical progress is associated with the process of modernization, i.e. the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and then to a post-industrial one -

Some thinkers reject the idea of progress in social development, either viewing history as a cyclical cycle with a series of ups and downs (G. Vico), predicting the imminent “end of history,” or affirming ideas about a multilinear, independent from each other, parallel movement of different societies (N J. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee). Thus, A. Toynbee, abandoning the thesis about the unity of world history, identified 21 civilizations, in the development of each of which he distinguished the phases of emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and decomposition. O. Spengler also wrote about the “decline of Europe”. K. Popper’s “anti-progressism” is especially striking. Understanding progress as movement towards a goal, he considered it possible only for an individual, but not for history. The latter can be explained both as a progressive process and as a regression.

It is obvious that the progressive development of society does not exclude return movements, regression, civilizational dead ends and even breakdowns. And the development of humanity itself is unlikely to have an unambiguously linear character; accelerated leaps forward and rollbacks are possible in it. Moreover, progress in one area of social relations may cause regression in another. The development of tools, technical and technological revolutions are clear evidence of economic progress, but they have brought the world to the brink of an environmental disaster and have depleted the Earth's natural resources. Modern society is accused of a decline in morality, a family crisis, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is also high: the conveniences of city life, for example, are accompanied by numerous “diseases of urbanization.” Sometimes the costs of progress are so great that the question arises: is it even possible to talk about humanity moving forward?

In this regard, the question of the criteria for progress is relevant. There is no agreement among scientists here either. French enlighteners saw the criterion in the development of reason, in the degree of rationality of the social structure. A number of thinkers (for example, A. Saint-Simon) assessed the movement forward in terms of the state of public morality and its approach to early Christian ideals. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in the production sphere. He considered progressive only those social relations that corresponded to the level of productive forces and opened up scope for the development of man (as the main productive force). The applicability of such a criterion is disputed in modern social science. The state of the economic basis does not determine the nature of development of all other spheres of society. The goal, and not the means, of any social progress is to create conditions for the comprehensive and harmonious development of man.

Consequently, the criterion of progress should be the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to an individual for the maximum development of his potential. The degree of progressiveness of a particular social system must be assessed by the conditions created in it to satisfy all the needs of the individual, for the free development of man (or, as they say, by the degree of humanity of the social system).

There are two forms social progress: revolution And reform.

Revolution - This is a complete or comprehensive change in all or most aspects of social life, affecting the foundations of the existing social system. Until recently, revolution was viewed as a universal “law of transition” from one socio-economic formation to another. But scientists have never been able to detect signs of a social revolution during the transition from a primitive communal system to a class one. It was necessary to expand the concept of revolution so much that it was suitable for any formational transition, but this led to the emasculation of the original content of the term. The “mechanism” of a real revolution could only be discovered in the social revolutions of modern times (during the transition from feudalism to capitalism).

According to Marxist methodology, a social revolution is understood as a radical revolution in the life of society, changing its structure and meaning a qualitative leap in its progressive development. The most common, deep-seated reason for the onset of the era of social revolution is the conflict between the growing productive forces and the existing system of social relations and institutions. The aggravation of economic, political and other contradictions in society on this objective basis leads to revolution.

A revolution always represents an active political action of the masses and has the first goal of transferring the leadership of society into the hands of a new class. A social revolution differs from evolutionary transformations in that it is concentrated in time and the masses directly act in it.

The dialectic of the concepts “reform - revolution” is very complex. A revolution, as a deeper action, usually “absorbs” reform: action “from below” is complemented by action “from above”.

Today, many scientists call for abandoning the exaggeration in history of the role of the social phenomenon called “social revolution”, and for declaring it a mandatory pattern in solving pressing historical problems, since revolution has not always been the main form of social transformation. Much more often, changes in society occurred as a result of reforms.

Reform - this is a transformation, reorganization, change in any aspect of social life that does not destroy the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class. Understood in this sense, the path of gradual transformation of existing relations is contrasted with revolutionary explosions that sweep away the old order, the old system to the ground. Marxism considered an evolutionary process that preserved for a long time many relics of the past are too painful for the people. And he argued that since reforms are always carried out “from above” by forces that already have power and do not want to part with it, the result of reforms is always lower than expected: the transformations are half-hearted and inconsistent.

The disdainful attitude towards reforms as forms of social progress was also explained by the famous position of V. I. Ulyanov-Lenin about reforms as a “by-product of the revolutionary struggle.” Actually, K. Marx already noted that “ social reforms are never caused by the weakness of the strong, they must and will be brought to life by the strength of the “weak”. The denial of the possibility of the “top” having incentives to begin transformations was strengthened by his Russian follower: “The real engine of history is the revolutionary struggle of classes; reforms are a by-product of this struggle, a by-product because they express unsuccessful attempts to weaken, to extinguish this struggle.” Even in cases where reforms were clearly not the result of mass uprisings, Soviet historians explained them by the desire of the ruling classes to prevent any encroachments on the ruling system in the future. Reforms in these cases were the result of a potential threat from the revolutionary movement of the masses.

Gradually, Russian scientists freed themselves from traditional nihilism in relation to evolutionary transformations, first recognizing the equivalence of reforms and revolutions, and then, changing signs, attacked revolutions with crushing criticism as extremely ineffective, bloody, replete with numerous costs and leading to dictatorship path.

Today, great reforms (i.e., revolutions “from above”) are recognized as the same social anomalies as great revolutions. Both of these ways of solving social contradictions are opposed to the normal, healthy practice of “permanent reform in a self-regulating society.” The “reform - revolution” dilemma is being replaced by clarifying the relationship between permanent regulation and reform. In this context, both reform and revolution “treat” an already advanced disease (the first - with therapeutic methods, the second - surgical intervention), while constant and possibly early prevention is necessary. Therefore, in modern social science, the emphasis is shifted from the antinomy “reform - revolution” to “reform - innovation”. Innovation is understood as an ordinary, one-time improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of a social organism in given conditions.

| |

2. Political process.

3. “Economic life is influenced by all aspects of social life and in turn influences them.” Expand this statement using specific examples and social situations.

1. It is fundamentally important to find out in which direction a society is moving, which is in a state of continuous development and change.

Under progress understands the direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from lower and simpler forms of social organization to higher and more complex ones. The concept of “progress” is opposite to the concept of “regression”, which is characterized by a reverse movement - from higher to lower, degradation, return to already outdated structures and relationships. The idea of the development of society as a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but was finally formed in the works of French enlighteners (A. Turgot, M. Condorcet, etc.). They saw the criteria for progress in the development of the human mind and in the spread of enlightenment. Such an optimistic view of history changed in the 19th century. more complex ideas. Thus, Marxism saw progress in the transition from one socio-economic formation to another - a higher one. Some sociologists believed that the essence of progress lies in the complication of the social structure and the growth of social heterogeneity. In modern sociology, historical progress is associated with the process of modernization, that is, with the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and then to a post-industrial one. Some thinkers reject the idea of progress in social development, either viewing history as a cyclical cycle with a series of ups and downs (G. Vico), predicting the imminent “end of history,” or affirming ideas about a multilinear, independent from each other, parallel movement of different societies (N J. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee). Thus, A. Toynbee, abandoning the thesis about the unity of world history, identified 21 civilizations, in the development of each of which he distinguished the phases of emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and decomposition. O. Spengler also wrote about the “decline of Europe”. K. Popper’s “anti-progressism” is especially striking. Understanding progress as movement towards a goal, he considered it possible only for an individual, but not for history. The latter can be explained both as a progressive process and as a regression.

It is obvious that the progressive development of society does not exclude return movements, regression, civilizational dead ends and even breakdowns. And the development of humanity itself is unlikely to have an unambiguously linear character; accelerated leaps forward and rollbacks are possible in it. Moreover, progress in one area of social relations may cause regression in another. The development of tools, technical and technological revolutions are clear evidence of economic progress, but they have brought the world to the brink of an environmental disaster and have depleted the Earth's natural resources. Modern society is accused of a decline in morality, a family crisis, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is also high: the conveniences of city life, for example, are accompanied by numerous “diseases” of urbanization. Sometimes the costs of progress are so great that the question arises: is it even possible to talk about humanity moving forward?

French enlighteners saw the criterion in the development of reason, in the degree of rationality of the social structure. Some thinkers (for example, A. Saint-Simon) assessed the movement forward by the state of public morality, its approach to early Christian ideals. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in the production sphere. He considered progressive only those social relations that corresponded to the level of productive forces and opened up scope for the development of man (as the main productive force). The applicability of such a criterion is disputed in modern social science. The state of the economic basis does not determine the nature of the development of all other spheres of society. The goal, and not the means, of any social progress is to create conditions for the comprehensive and harmonious development of man.

There are two forms of social progress - revolution and reform.

Revolution - This is a complete, or complex, change in all or most aspects of social life, affecting the foundations of the existing social system.

Much more often, changes in society occurred as a result of reforms. Reform -this is a transformationreorganization, change of any aspect of the generalsocial life, without destroying the foundations of the existing social structure, leaving power in the hands of the former ruling class.

2. The word “politics” (Greek roNShsa) means “state affairs”, “the art of government”.

Politics did not always exist. The reasons for its occurrence were the polarization of society, the emergence of social contradictions and conflicts that needed resolution, as well as the increased level of complexity and importance of managing society, which required the formation of special authorities separated from the people. The emergence of political and state power is the most important prerequisite for politics.

Science offers various definitions I understand tia "politics".

1. Politics are relations between states, classes, social groups, nations that arise regarding the seizure, exercise and retention of political power in society, as well as relations between states in the international arena.

2. 1. Politics is the activity of government bodies, political parties, public associations in the sphere of relations between social groups (classes, nations, states), aimed at integrating their efforts with the aim of strengthening political power or gaining it.

2 . Policy- the sphere of activity of groups, parties, individuals, the state, associated with the implementation of generally significant interests with the help of political power.

Under policy functions understand the totality of processes that express its purpose in society. Among the functions of the policy are:

1) expression of significant interests of all groups and sectors of society;

2) integration of various social strata, maintaining the integrity of society;

3) ensuring further development of society;

4) management and direction of social processes, resolution of conflicts and contradictions;

5) political socialization of the individual (i.e., the process of an individual’s assimilation of socio-political knowledge, norms, values and skills, as a result of which he assumes a certain political role).

By scale of the distinguish between local, regional, national and international politics, and according to implementation deadlines - current, long-term and long-term.

Subjects of politics - these are individuals, social groups, layers, organizations directly or indirectly involved in the process of exercising political power or influencing it. Subjects of politics can be: a) social communities (classes, nations, etc.); b) various organizations and associations (states, parties, movements, churches, etc.); c) political elites (privileged groups occupying leadership positions in government structures, directly involved in government decision-making); d) individuals (including political leaders). The degree and boundaries of political activity of policy subjects depend on:

The social structure of society, the presence or absence of social barriers (qualifications, caste, national, religious, class and other restrictions);

The social status of a particular layer, personality, social institution;

Subjective factors (personal qualities of a person, the number and value system of political movements and parties, etc.);

Other circumstances (for example, the political situation in the country).

Policy objects(i.e. social relations, areas of public life to which policy is directed) are diverse. Domestic politics regulates relations arising from the exercise of political power within society, and external politics regulates relations between states in the international arena. and etc.

Politics, like any conscious activity, has specific goals. They can be long-term and current, relevant and irrelevant, real and unreal.

3. Society is a complex dynamic system that includes several spheres of social life as subsystems. Economic sphere is the most important of them, it plays a significant role in the existence of society: it ensures the very possibility of people’s lives (production of necessary goods), the possibility of “non-economic” human activity (scientific, cultural, etc.), the participation in one way or another of every member of society in its economic life (household work, consumption of industrial products, etc.). As one modern philosopher noted: “This sphere is not only historically the first, it is also the “progenitor” of all other spheres of society’s life - social, political, spiritual, environmental. It is the economic sphere that, as a basis, integrates all other subsystems of society into integrity.”

However, other areas of social life also affect the economy. Thus, from the point of view of the German sociologist M. Weber, the religious values of Protestantism played an exceptional role in the development of the economy of capitalist society. In his opinion, it was Protestantism, which gave a moral justification for wealth and business success, that opened up the opportunity for the widespread development of entrepreneurial activity - the “engine” of the new economy.

Thus, the functioning of society is impossible without the complex organized interaction of the main spheres of society’s life, without them performing certain functions. Only the coordinated work of all spheres of society’s life allows it to achieve a state of self-sufficiency.

3rd stage - post-industrial (D. Bell), or technotronic (A. Toffler), or technological (Z. Brzezinski).

At the first stage the main area economic activity is Agriculture, on the second - industry, on the third - the service sector. Each stage has its own special forms social organization and its own social structure.

Although these theories, as already indicated, were within the framework of the materialist understanding of the processes of social development, they had a significant difference from the views of Marx and Engels. According to the Marxist concept, the transition from one socio-economic formation to another was carried out on the basis of a social revolution, which was understood as a radical qualitative revolution in the entire system of social life. As for the theories of industrial and post-industrial society, they are within the framework of a movement called social evolutionism: according to them, technological revolutions occurring in the economy, although they entail revolutions in other spheres of social life, are not accompanied social conflicts and social revolutions.

3. Formational and civilizational approaches to the study of society

The most developed approaches in Russian historical and philosophical science to explaining the essence and characteristics of historical process are formational and civilizational.

The first of them belongs to the Marxist school of social science. Its key concept is the category “socio-economic formation”

Formation was understood as a historically specific type of society, considered in the organic interrelation of all its aspects and spheres, arising on the basis of a certain method of production of material goods. In the structure of each formation, an economic base and a superstructure were distinguished. The basis (otherwise it was called production relations) is a set of social relations that develop between people in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods (the main ones among them are relations of ownership of the means of production). The superstructure was understood as a set of political, legal, ideological, religious, cultural and other views, institutions and relations not covered by the base. Despite the relative independence, the type of superstructure was determined by the nature of the base. It also represented the basis of the formation, determining the formational affiliation of a particular society. Production relations (the economic basis of society) and productive forces constituted the mode of production, often understood as a synonym for socio-economic formation. The concept of “productive forces” included people as producers of material goods with their knowledge, skills and labor experience, and means of production: tools, objects, means of labor. Productive forces are a dynamic, constantly developing element of the method of production, while production relations are static and rigid, not changing for centuries. At a certain stage, a conflict arises between the productive forces and production relations, which is resolved during the social revolution, the breaking of the old basis and the transition to a new stage of social development, to a new socio-economic formation. Old relations of production are being replaced by new ones, which open up space for the development of productive forces. Thus, Marxism understands the historical process as a natural, objectively determined, natural-historical change of socio-economic formations.

In some of the works of K. Marx himself, only two large formations are identified - primary (archaic) and secondary (economic), which includes all societies based on private property. The third formation will be represented by communism. In other works of the classics of Marxism, a socio-economic formation is understood as a specific stage of development of a mode of production with its corresponding superstructure. It was on their basis that in Soviet social science by 1930 the so-called “five-member group” was formed and acquired the character of an indisputable dogma. According to this concept, all societies in their development alternately pass through five socio-economic formations: primitive, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist, the first phase of which is socialism. The formational approach is based on several postulates:

1) the idea of history as a natural, internally determined, progressive, world-historical and teleological (directed towards the goal - the construction of communism) process. The formational approach practically denied the national specificity and originality of individual states, focusing on what was common to all societies;

2) a vital role material production in the life of society, the idea of economic factors as basic for other social relations;

3) the need to match production relations with productive forces;

4) the inevitability of transition from one socio-economic formation to another.

At the present stage of development of social science in our country, the theory of socio-economic formations is experiencing an obvious crisis; many authors have highlighted the civilizational approach to the analysis of the historical process.

The concept of “civilization” is one of the most complex in modern science: Many definitions have been proposed. The term itself comes from the Latin word for "civil". In a broad sense, civilization is understood as the level, stage of development of society, material and spiritual culture, following barbarism and savagery. This concept is also used to designate a set of unique manifestations of social orders inherent in a certain historical community. In this sense, civilization is characterized as the qualitative specificity (originality of material, spiritual, social life) of a particular group of countries and peoples at a certain stage of development. The famous Russian historian M.A. Barg defined civilization this way: “...This is the way in which a given society resolves its material, socio-political and spiritual-ethical problems.” Different civilizations are fundamentally different from each other, since they are based not on similar production techniques and technology (as societies of the same Formation), but on incompatible systems of social and spiritual values. Any civilization is characterized not so much by its production base as by its specific way of life, value system, vision and ways of interrelating with the outside world.

IN modern theory Civilizations include both linear-stage concepts (in which civilization is understood as a certain stage of world development, contrasted with “uncivilized” societies), and concepts of local civilizations. The existence of the former is explained by the Eurocentrism of their authors, who represent the world historical process as the gradual introduction of barbarian peoples and societies to the Western European system of values and the gradual advancement of humanity towards a single world civilization based on these same values. Proponents of the second group of concepts use the term “civilization” in plural and proceed from the idea of the diversity of development paths for different civilizations.

Various historians have identified many local civilizations, which may coincide with the borders of states (Chinese civilization) or cover several countries (ancient, Western European civilization). Over time, civilizations change, but their “core,” which makes one civilization different from another, remains. The uniqueness of each civilization should not be absolutized: they all go through stages common to the world historical process. Usually, the entire diversity of local civilizations is divided into two large groups - eastern and western. The former are characterized by a high degree of dependence of the individual on nature and the geographical environment, a close connection between man and his social group, low social mobility, dominance of traditions and customs among regulators of social relations. Western civilizations, on the contrary, are characterized by the desire to subordinate nature to human power, the priority of individual rights and freedoms over social communities, high social mobility, a democratic political regime and the rule of law.

Thus, if a formation concentrates attention on the universal, general, repeating, then civilization focuses on the local-regional, unique, and peculiar. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. In modern social science there is a search in the direction of their mutual synthesis.

4. Social progress and its criteria

It is fundamentally important to find out in which direction a society is moving, which is in a state of continuous development and change.

Progress is understood as a direction of development, which is characterized by the progressive movement of society from lower and simpler forms of social organization to higher and more complex ones. A number of thinkers assessed the movement forward based on the state of public morality. G. Hegel connected progress with the degree of consciousness of freedom. Marxism also proposed a universal criterion of progress - the development of productive forces. Seeing the essence of forward movement in the increasing subordination of the forces of nature to man, K. Marx reduced social development to progress in the production sphere. He considered progressive only those social relations that corresponded to the level of productive forces and opened up scope for human development. The goal, and not the means, of any social progress is to create conditions for the comprehensive and harmonious development of man.

Consequently, the criterion of progress should be the measure of freedom that society is able to provide. The degree of progressiveness of a particular social system must be assessed by the conditions created in it to satisfy all the needs of the individual, for the free development of man

The concept of socio-economic formation (SEF). Formation theory and real social process. Modern discussions on the problem of formational and civilizational approaches to world history.

Society is a self-developing system; it is in change and development. OEF is a social system consisting

of interconnected elements and in a state of unstable equilibrium.

The formation includes productive forces and production relations, which constitute its material basis; certain social subjects, represented by various historical forms of community of people: clans and tribes, estates and classes, nationalities and nations, political parties And public organizations. Criticism of formation theory: 1) Marx developed this theory based on the development of Western countries. Europe and

decided that his laws are universal for all societies. 2) considers socio-economic. factor as the main one 3) society is based on one basis, but any reduction to one is untenable. Civilization (C) is a large self-sufficient community of countries and peoples, identified on a sociocultural basis and preserving their originality and uniqueness over long periods of historical time, despite all the changes and influences to which they are subjected.

Criteria for identifying civilizations: religion, history, language, customs. C is characterized by self-determination - its own destiny, it has developed. only based on myself. Civilization approach: 1 C is created by people 2. Study of the influence of cultural forms. 3. Horizontal analysis (C which exists today) 4 Culturological. analysis (certain forms of the spirit of life). 5. History of the development of society outside of it. Formational approach: 1History is a natural process.2.This is an existential analysis of history - we must find the fundamental principle of history.Z. Vertical analysis - from antiquity to the present day.4. Social-economic analysis of society.5 Attention is focused on internal sources of development. 6. There is more exploration of what divides people.

43. Concepts of “technological determinism”. Industrial and post-industrial society. Post-industrial perspective and possibilities for the survival of other regional types.

Technological determinism (60-70s of the XX century) - reflects the idea that the development of society is determined by the development of technology, i.e. development of technology. 3 stages of development: traditional, industrial, post-industrial.

Characteristics of the industrial community:

1) A high level of technology development is a source of social development

2) Mass production

3) Energy consumption has increased, instead of natural sources - artificially created ones

4) New means of communications

5) Break with tradition

Key values of the industrial society:

1) The value of achievement and success

2) Individualism

3) The value of activity and labor

4) Faith in progress

Changes in industrial society:

1) information and information technology are playing an important role in the overall picture – a key change

2) the sharply aging role of the economy and services;

3) the production has become science-based (using a large number of discoveries and developments). Post-industrial society considers investing in a person as an important part of its development, in his health and education.

Characteristics of a post-industrial society:

1) the basis of life is information technology;

2) a person who is a carrier of knowledge;

3) the basic principles of industrial society have been preserved in post-industrial society; 4) quantitative growth, but no depth of growth

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

By means direction. Progress and regression

2. Political process.

3. “Economic life is influenced by all aspects of social life and in turn influences them.” Expand this statement using specific examples and social situations.

3. Formational and civilizational approaches to the study of society

4. Social progress and its criteria