We have a curious tendency to expand our self-image by overestimating or underestimating the extent to which others think or act as we do, a phenomenon called the “false consensus effect.” If we consider the opinion, we find support for our positions, believing that the majority agrees with us. It can be argued that false consensus occurs because we are making a generalization from a limited sample. When it comes to our abilities or situations, the false uniqueness effect is more common. This perception arises in part from the motive to maintain and enhance self-esteem, a drive that saves people from depression but contributes to undervaluation and group conflict. Self-presentation refers to our desire to present a desired image to both an audience outside (other people) and an audience inside (ourselves). We express our identity by showing ourselves as a certain type of person. For some, conscious self-presentation is a way of life. Those who score high on the self-monitoring tendency scale act like social chameleons, that is, they adapt their behavior in accordance with external situations. People low in self-monitoring care less about what others think of them. They are more guided by internal sensations, so they will speak and act as they really feel. The problem of self-monitoring is quite relevant in our time. To varying degrees, we are self-monitors; we pay attention to our behavior and regulate it to produce the desired impression.

Summing up certain results for the chapter, we cannot compare the same definitions with our domestic textbooks, for example, self-efficacy, self-presentation or self-monitoring. They are not even in the psychological dictionary of A.V. Petrovsky; perhaps they have a different interpretation and a different definition. In my opinion, D. Myers went too deep into personality psychology, using A. Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy and D. Rotter’s locus of control. However, in the section Self-concept, the “self-reference effect” was described quite convincingly. Self-presentation is presented here as the second main part of this chapter, including the phenomenon of false modesty and the new definition of self-monitoring.

Difference between sociology and social psychology.

One possible definition of the subject of social psychology can be formulated as follows: social psychology is the science that studies how people think about each other, how they influence each other and how they relate to each other.

At the same time, it is important to distinguish between the subject of social psychology, on the one hand, and the subject of sociology and personality psychology:

Sociology and social psychology do have a common interest in studying how people behave in groups. However, each science places its own emphasis on studying the behavior of people in groups. Sociology studies groups(from small to very large - societies). Social psychology studies - individuals, the people who make up these groups - what a person thinks about others, how they influence him, how he treats them. This includes the study of the influence of a group on individuals, and an individual on a group. For example, when looking at marital relationships, a sociologist would focus on trends in marriages, divorces, etc., while a social psychologist would focus on why certain people are attracted to each other in the first place.

The similarity between social psychology and personality psychology is that both of these branches of psychological science study the individual. However, personality psychologists focus on individual internal mechanisms and differences between individuals, asking questions such as why some people are more aggressive than others. Social psychologists focus on how in general people evaluate each other, how social situations can force most people to act humanely or cruelly, to be conformist or independent, etc.

Individual and social psychology.

If we talk about individual psychology, then its object and the object of sociology are different. Individual psychology studies the composition, structure and processes of the individual psyche and consciousness.

It cannot unravel the tangle of social factors, and, therefore, cannot be identified with sociology.

Collective or, as it is otherwise called, social Psychology has an object of study that partially coincides with the object of sociology: these are phenomena of human interaction, the units of which are individuals “heterogeneous” and “having a weakly organized connection” (crowd, theater audience, etc.) In such groups, interaction takes on different forms than in aggregate “homogeneous” and “organically connected”, which are studied by sociology.

It is clear that they (individual and social psychology) do not replace each other, and moreover, social psychology could become the main one of its sections, as a science that studies all the main forms of interaction between people.

Psychology focuses on the inner world of a person, his perception, and co-studies a person through the prism of his social connections and relationships.

Public opinion as a subject of study of social psychology.

Public opinion is one of the phenomena studied by social psychology and included in its subject. Precisely because public opinion is one of the phenomena that is very difficult to comprehensively analyze and strictly define, public opinion is considered in this essay from the point of view of the relevance of its study and the significance of such research. In Russian literature alone one can find about two dozen definitions of public opinion. If we try to summarize them, we can say the following: the public opinion of a social community is a specific way of manifestation of the state of consciousness of this community, which indirectly and generally reflects the attitude of the majority of its members to facts, events, phenomena in objective or subjective reality that aroused their interest and discussion , and which is embodied in value judgments or practical actions of members of a given community.

The phrase “public opinion” has been around for a long time. It is one of those social phenomena that do not lack attention today. It is studied and analyzed by specialists in almost all areas of social science, journalists think and write about it, and politicians and leaders of various ranks jealously follow its sympathies. Public opinion is studied, formed, predicted, sought to be taken into account in the practice of social management, in a word, a lot of effort is made to win its favor.

Such a noticeable increase in interest in public opinion has its own explanation:

Firstly, as a unique phenomenon of spiritual life, public opinion is directly related to the material carrier, which determines the real strength of this opinion, its features and properties. At the same time, the broader strata that act as bearers of public opinion, the greater social authority and effectiveness it has, the more to a greater extent makes one be considered.

1. Conduct a comparative analysis of the subjects of sociology and psychology.

Each branch of science has a subject revealed in its content, system of theories, laws, categories, principles, etc. and performs special functions in relation to practice, explores a certain area of ​​social relations, certain phenomena, processes, in general the whole society. There is a certain interdependence between the subject, content and functions of science. If, abstracting from other sciences and from the needs of practice understood in a broad sense, then it is impossible not to understand the functions of a separate science. It is the needs of practice that at every stage of society’s life put forward new demands for humanitarian knowledge in general and its individual branches. But modern society is not a mechanical combination of various management mechanisms, government institutions and structures, social spheres of politics, economics, but something whole. There is a need for a branch of knowledge that studies society in all its aspects. Such a science is sociology - the science of society.

Sociology (French sociologie, Latin Societas - society and Greek - Logos - the science of society) is the science of society, individual social institutions (state, law, morality, etc.), processes and public social communities of people. The concept of sociology was first introduced into scientific circulation in the middle of the 19th century. the founder of positivism, the French scientist Auguste Comte.

Initially, sociology meant social science, but over time the subject of sociology continuously changed and became more precise, accompanied by a gradual separation of sociology from philosophy. The fact is that by the middle of the 19th century. the needs of social development and the internal logic of the evolution of the science of society required new approaches, the formation of a type of social phenomena.

And in response to the needs of forming a civil society, sociology arises. After all, there was a process of formation of a society that affirmed the triumph of human rights and freedoms, the spiritual, economic independence and autonomy of the citizen instead of the usual normative order of the feudal-absolutist structure of society with its most severe total regulation of the socio-political, economic and spiritual life of people. The expansion of the limits of freedoms and human rights, a significant increase in the possibilities of choice aroused a person’s interest in knowing the basics of life of a social community of people, social processes and phenomena with the aim of rational, effective use of acquired rights and freedoms. But free competition in economics, politics, and the spiritual sphere has made the performance of entrepreneurs directly dependent on the ability and use of knowledge about specific social mechanisms, the moods and expectations of people, etc. And the branch of knowledge that helps to understand society more deeply and more specifically, the foundation social interaction of people for the purpose of rational use of freedom of self-organization became sociology.

After all, sociology has studied society, social relations and social communities, their activities, and philosophy, although it studies personality and social communities as objects and subjects of activity, does so at a high level of generalization - at the level of revealing their essence, and not in the unfolding of the essence in reality , revealing life in all its contradictory existence as sociology does. Gradually, as social knowledge accumulated, there was a growth in theoretical sociological concepts, each of which substantiated a certain aspect of social relations and provided integration of the social, which is the dominant category of sociology. Using various methods of scientific knowledge, sociology comprehends society and social life not as an extremely general abstraction, but as a reality, trying to sufficiently fully capture and express in positions and theories its diversity and internal heterogeneity. Sociology, as a certain type of knowledge about society, emerging from the depths of social philosophy, adopts philosophical culture, recognizing the special importance of theoretical generalization, a holistic conceptual understanding of social phenomena. At the same time, sociology strives to overcome the limitations that philosophy reveals in the analysis of real social problems. Within sociology, currents are emerging: positivism, which reduces the social to the natural, antipositivism, which insists on the specificity of the social.

An analysis of foreign sources shows that sociology is most often defined as the science of various social communities, social groups, their behavior, relationships between them and within them. Some American sociologists define sociology as the science of society, social groups and social behavior. Others believe that sociology does not study isolated individuals, but people in communities or social settings. The purpose of such study is to understand and explain the causes of social behavior or the interaction of social communities and groups and their results. According to the Belgian sociologist Mich de Costra, sociology studies the relationships between people that develop in the process of their activities. Yes, sociology aims to provide answers precisely to people’s vital questions. Indeed, in modern conditions, many people experience a feeling of fear. They are afraid of the possibility of nuclear war, the prospect of unemployment, the fragility of human relationships. And what makes their fear especially terrible is that they know nothing about it. Sociology has a goal: to help people understand the complex problems of life for themselves. After all, sociology is the understanding of society. People who create the society in which they live undoubtedly have the opportunity to change it, transform it, but first by knowing it.

Modern sociology is a variety of movements and scientific schools that explain its subject and role in different ways and answer the question of what sociology is in different ways. There are various definitions of sociology as the science of society. “A Brief Dictionary of Sociology” defines sociology as the science of the laws of formation, functioning, and development of society, social relations and social communities. The “Sociological Dictionary” defines sociology as the science of the laws of development and functioning of social communities and social processes, of social relations as a mechanism of interrelation and interaction between society and people, between communities, between communities and individuals. The book “Introduction to Sociology” notes that sociology is a science that focuses on social communities, their genesis, interaction and development trends. Each of the definitions has a rational grain. Most scientists tend to believe that the subject of sociology is society or certain social phenomena. However, one can object here.

Social phenomena are studied not only by sociology, but also by a number of other sciences - legal theory, political economy, history, psychology, philosophy, etc. Sociology, in contrast to the special sciences, does not study one or another social phenomenon, individual special aspects or series of social phenomena, but studies their most general generic properties, which are not studied by any of them. Political economy studies only the economic activities of society. Legal branches of knowledge study only law. The theory of art is only art, etc. None of the sciences studies those general properties that exist in economic, legal, artistic and religious phenomena, etc. And in view of the fact that they are private types of social activity, then everyone should have common generic characteristics and in life they should patterns common to all social phenomena appear. It is these most general properties and patterns, characteristic of all social phenomena and not studied by any social science, that are the closest object of sociology.

Consequently, sociology is the science of the generic properties and basic patterns of social phenomena. Sociology not only chooses empirical experience, that is, sensory perception as the only means of reliable knowledge and social change, but also theoretically generalizes it. With the advent of sociology, “new opportunities for penetrating into the inner world of the individual, understanding his life goals, interests, and needs have opened up. However, sociology does not study a person in general, but his specific world - the social environment, the communities in which he is included, lifestyle, social connections , social actions. Without diminishing the importance of numerous branches of social science, sociology is still unique in its ability to see the world as an integral system. Moreover, the system is considered by sociology not only as functioning and developing, but also as experiencing a state of deep crisis. Modern sociology is trying to study the causes of the crisis and find ways out of the crisis of society. The main problems of modern sociology are the survival of humanity and the renewal of civilization, raising it to a higher level of development. Sociology seeks solutions to problems not only at the global level, but also at the level of social communities, specific social institutions and associations, social behavior of an individual. Sociology is a multi-level science, representing the unity of abstract and concrete forms, macro- and microtheoretical approaches, theoretical and empirical knowledge.

What do the macro and micro levels of sociology represent? The wet-sociological level means an orientation towards the analysis of social structures, communities, large social groups, layers, systems and processes occurring in them. The social community that serves as the object of macrosociological analysis is civilization and its largest formations. The macrosociological approach does not require a detailed consideration of specific problems and situations, but is aimed at their comprehensive coverage. The macrosociological approach to phenomena is associated with social world systems and their interaction, with various types of cultures, with social institutions and social structures, with global processes. The macrosociological approach to phenomena is interested in society as an integral social organism. In contrast to macro-microsociology, it analyzes social processes in certain spheres of public life and social communities. Microsociology is addressed to social behavior, interpersonal communication, motivation of actions, incentives for group and community actions, etc.

Sociology is the science of the formation, development and functioning of social communities, of social processes and social relations between communities, between communities and individuals, the science of society and social relations.

Psychology as a science has special qualities that distinguish it from other disciplines. Few people know psychology as a system of proven knowledge, mainly only those who specifically study it, solving scientific and practical problems. At the same time, as a system of life phenomena, psychology is familiar to every person. It is presented to him in the form of his own sensations, images, ideas, phenomena of memory, thinking, speech, will, imagination, interests, motives, needs, emotions, feelings and much more. We can directly detect basic mental phenomena in ourselves and indirectly observe them in other people.

The term “psychology” first appeared in scientific use in the 16th century. Initially, it belonged to a special science that studied the so-called mental, or mental, phenomena, i.e. those that each person easily discovers in his own consciousness as a result of introspection. Later, in the 17th-19th centuries, the scope of psychologists' research expanded significantly to include unconscious mental processes (the unconscious) and human activity.

In the 20th century, psychological research went beyond the phenomena around which it had been concentrated for centuries. In this regard, the name “psychology” has partly lost its original, rather narrow meaning, when it referred only to subjective, directly perceived and experienced phenomena of consciousness by a person. However, according to the centuries-old tradition, this science still retains its former name.

Since the 19th century psychology becomes an independent and experimental field of scientific knowledge.

What is the subject of studying psychology? First of all, the psyche of humans and animals, which includes many subjective phenomena. With the help of some, such as sensations and perception, attention and memory, imagination, thinking and speech, a person understands the world. Therefore, they are often called cognitive processes. Other phenomena regulate his communication with people and directly control his actions and actions. They are called mental properties and states of personality, including needs, motives, goals, interests, will, feelings and emotions, inclinations and abilities, knowledge and consciousness. In addition, psychology studies human communication and behavior, their dependence on mental phenomena and, in turn, the dependence of the formation and development of mental phenomena on them.

Man does not simply penetrate the world through his cognitive processes. He lives and acts in this world, creating it for himself in order to satisfy his material, spiritual and other needs, and performs certain actions. In order to understand and explain human actions, we turn to such a concept as personality.

In turn, mental processes, states and properties of a person, especially in their highest manifestations, can hardly be fully comprehended if they are not considered depending on the conditions of a person’s life, on how his interaction with nature and society is organized (activities and communication). Communication and activity are also therefore the subject of modern psychological research.

Mental processes, properties and states of a person, his communication and activity are separated and studied separately, although in reality they are closely related to each other and form a single whole, called human life.

Studying the psychology and behavior of people, scientists look for their explanation, on the one hand, in the biological nature of man, on the other, in his individual experience, and on the third, in the laws on the basis of which society is built and according to which it functions. In the latter case, the dependence of a person’s psyche and behavior on the place he occupies in society, on the existing social system, system, methods of teaching and upbringing, the specific relationships that a given person develops with the people around him, on the social role that he plays in society is explored. , from the types of activities in which he is directly involved.

In addition to individual psychology of behavior, the range of phenomena studied by psychology also includes relationships between people in various human associations - large and small groups, teams.

The subject of psychology is the facts of mental life, the mechanisms and patterns of the human psyche and the formation of the psychological characteristics of his personality as a conscious subject of activity and an active figure in the socio-historical development of society.

The history of mankind consists of periods characterized by qualitative changes in living conditions, existence, and alternation of events. At the same time, it is a process of consistent qualitative changes in the state of consciousness included in the social life of people and represented by religion and theology, the dominant worldview and philosophy, discoveries and science. Psychology relatively recently emerged as an independent branch of scientific knowledge.

This was facilitated by the colossal discrepancy between knowledge about oneself and the world around us, the need to understand the mechanism of reflection of the external into the internal, to establish the laws of the relationship between the ideal and the real, the relationship between the subjective and the objective, the harmony of the soul, Spirit and body.

Psychology received a significant impetus to become an independent scientific discipline from the established understanding of an individual’s physical health and accumulated observations about the influence of the state of mind on the state of the body.

The study of states, changes, manifestations of consciousness in actions, behavior, activities, their explanation and forecasting remains relevant today and determines the search for systematic approaches, system-forming methods for structuring accumulated knowledge. For many years, with varying degrees of aggravation, philosophical discussions have been held about the primacy and secondary nature of being-consciousness. The philosophy of materialism assigned to consciousness the function of reflecting being, affirming the priorities of the material, which determines processes in consciousness and determines them. The philosophy of idealism asserted the opposite determination - the conditioning of events by consciousness. These philosophical concepts expressed opposing positions that reached extremes, and gave rise to many psychological theories that could not be harmonized with each other. At the beginning of the 20th century, the philosophical battles came to an end. The principle of complementarity, discovered by N. Bohr (1927), once again crossed out the “main question” of philosophy.

The universal rule formulated by N. Bohr - “Opposites are not contradictions, they are complements” - served as a new methodology not only for the natural sciences, but also for the humanities. It formed a new methodology for the development of psychological theories, a new logic for considering the structure of systems, new thinking, a new technology of communication and behavior. The principle of complementarity serves as the methodological basis for the theory of self-organizing systems (synergetics), the most complex of which is a person with his own consciousness, the dynamism of whose state can be described on the scale: “chaos - order”. Self-organization presupposes, instead of the struggle of opposites, which inevitably entails destruction, a transition to their mutual complement, creation, cooperation, and co-creation. The new philosophy presupposes independence, self-determination - freedom to choose decisions, rules, methods of behavior and activity, understanding everything internal (oneself) and external (specific situations), their addition and interpenetration. All these are processes of self-organization of consciousness.

A new psychological paradigm based on synergetic approaches requires, first of all, a systematic approach to understanding the essence of consciousness, which cannot be considered regardless of the surrounding world, its structure and content.

1. Each of us is a part of nature, its species, and a special one, called an individual. The consciousness of an individual is determined by nature, birth, race, i.e. has properties that are inherited. The consciousness of a woman and a man is specific (it’s not for nothing that we say “female logic”, “male action”), distinctive features are introduced into the consciousness by age (remember the proverb: “If youth knew, if old age could”), temperament and individual character traits. It has been proven that interaction with nature determines the state of health, mental (soul) and physical (body), just as their interrelation and mutual influence have been proven.

All this determines the individuality of each of us, both in external appearance and in internal image, which complement each other, are interconnected, interdependent, interdependent.

An unspiritual face cannot be beautiful, and if such beauty is recognized, it is called cold.

2. Individuals, entering into interaction, acquire a certain significance for their own kind, acquire a social face. Communication and interaction with other people fills consciousness with certain content, forming its social essence. In society, everyone appears as a person who brings others a certain benefit, the size of which is determined by personality and is accompanied by proportionate respect (note the closeness to the concept of importance). Some people pay more attention to respect, others less. Some achieve it purposefully by various means, while for others it comes by itself, but in proportion to their merits to society (individual - family - group - community - society - world community). In this process of personality formation, the individual’s acquisition of personality, the characteristics of the individual who selects for himself “social uniforms”, which can be neither large nor small, but must be just right, are of considerable importance. Personal position is manifested in a variety of social roles (passenger, buyer, student, teacher, etc.), which are either short-term or long-term and require the individual to be able to own this role and learn to perform it. Poor performance is perceived by others as bad behavior. It is the social component of our life that is characterized by the wise saying of W. Shakespeare: “All life is theater, all women and men in it are actors.” The burden of fulfilling social roles is stressful and affects the state of mental health, and through it physical health. It is important to understand and monitor the correspondence of the social burden to one’s own abilities, regulate them, and balance them.

3. The peculiarity of the individual is that he is born with a predisposition to thinking, producing his own thoughts, creativity, rationality, spirituality, which constitutes the human, spiritual essence in the consciousness, which gives the individual the special status of “homo sapiens” - a reasonable person. This is another determination of consciousness - participation in the spiritual space. Just as nature and society are studied by many different sciences, spirituality is an object of study for philosophy and religion, psychology and pedagogy, human studies, cultural studies and other sciences, each of which tries to explain its own special aspect corresponding to its subject. In our academic discipline, we will limit ourselves to considering concepts in accordance with the subject of psychology, which studies the spirit, soul, consciousness, its statics and dynamics, processes and phenomena, rules and patterns. Let us consider the place, role and influence of the spirit on the entire space of consciousness in the internal and external, on its manifestation in actions, behavior, and activity. The manifestation of the spiritual component in the position, goals, content, methods, and result of awareness distinguishes the activity of one from the activity of another, characterizes the degree of humanization of social processes, democratization of social relations. And the state of mind of a particular person determines the degree of his confidence, humanity and other manifestations of his state of consciousness. Some identify “spirit” with the beyond, the transcendent, the divine, and therefore do not approve of its mention in vain. They are probably right, as are those who cannot imagine our everyday life without spirituality, understand its everyday influence on specific events and advocate for its return to our lives, dissemination and strengthening. Probably everyone has their own subjective idea of ​​the spirit in our consciousness and existence, and this is good, because it indicates a certain interest in this issue and, therefore, in what others think about this matter. For example, L.N. Tolstoy defined the spirit as the core of consciousness. A completely acceptable image, because when we lack faith and strength, we say “lost spirit”, “not enough spirit”, and vice versa, the words “strong in spirit”, “perked up” speak of gaining firmness, confidence, and the ability to act . It is in the spirit that faith, hope, love exist, and it manifests itself, according to N.A. Berdyaev, “in freedom, creativity, love.” A huge amount of thought is devoted to the issue of spirit and spirituality in Eastern and Western cultures, and the Russian culture that connects them. Everyone agrees, for example, that the spirit lifts us above the ordinary, above existence, events; it is it that distinguishes man from nature and allows him to “not become bruised.”

The entire space of consciousness can be conventionally represented in the form of three components: the space of the unconscious (subconscious, soul), consciousness itself, where the processes of awareness take place, and superconsciousness - the space where the “spiritualized soul” (F.M. Dostoevsky). Psychology can also be divided into the psychology of the unconscious, the psychology of awareness, and the psychology of spirit. Our course, connecting psychology with pedagogy, will be devoted to a greater extent to the study of the processes of awareness that change the internal image and therefore can be called educational processes.

In relations with the outside world, a person acts as the subject of his own actions and interactions. His subjectivity in understanding interactions with the world can be described along the chain:

Awareness of the state of your consciousness (internal);

Awareness of the surrounding world (external);

Awareness of contact with the outside world (interaction between internal and external);

Awareness of the influence of interaction on the state of consciousness (internal).

In these relationships there are complex connections between the subjective and objective, ideal and real, internal and external, spiritual and material, consciousness and being.

Psychology studies consciousness as the cause and effect of the subject’s interaction with the outside world, internal and external influences on the state of consciousness. Its living state presupposes constant change and, therefore, growth processes in which some information is born and transformed; Once assimilated, it becomes internal knowledge, content."

In the process of processing information about the surrounding world and about oneself, a new product, new knowledge, new content appears in it. Satisfaction with what was born, joy and pride from looking into oneself (insight), faith in truth give rise to the state of the creator, the divine, and strengthen the spirit. This is a creative state of combining feeling and thinking. These processes are often involuntary.

At the same time, not only natural, but also artificial, volitional processes take place. Will as a mental mechanism characterizes processes that are called voluntary: voluntary attention, i.e. accompanied by the attitude “pay attention”, voluntary perception - “perceive”, voluntary memory - “remember”. These mental processes occur under control, under control, and the result is monitored. This type of process is characterized by its involvement in activity. The psyche in activity is characterized not only by a state, but also by processes, the main one among which is awareness, which includes awareness of motives (“for what?”), content (“what?”) and methods of activity (“how?”). This process can be impulsive, unorganized, when during an activity one or another of the listed issues arises, at different moments, in different sequences. Or it can be clearly organized by a cycle of awareness of actions “before” and “after” their implementation, by consistent answers to the questions: “for what?”, “what?”, “how?”.

Humanity, having entered the new millennium, has accumulated a huge amount of information. Its systematization was reflected in the branches of scientific knowledge about the surrounding world. What does a person know about himself? This knowledge is focused in the system of psychological science, which in the 20th century. received the status of an independent branch of scientific knowledge, embarked on the path of systematizing existing knowledge about the human soul, consciousness, and the relationship of man with the outside world. The subject of psychology, i.e. What is the field of study for psychology is rapidly expanding.

The semantics of the word “psychology” defines its subject as the doctrine of the soul (“psych” - soul, “logos” - doctrine).

Then psychology expanded its subject and studies consciousness, the semantic meaning of which is the associated continuous transition of information into knowledge (consciousness).

At the next stage, psychology again expanded its subject and, opening the circle of consciousness, raised the question of mental processes and phenomena caused by the mutual influence of internal and external.

Further expansion of the subject of research occurred in the process of considering the psychology of a collective subject (family, group, team, society) and activity. The expansion of the subject of psychology to study the concept of “activity” was a new stage in which considerable merit belongs to Soviet psychology. Today we can say that psychology studies not only the closed system of consciousness, its structure and functions, but also its relationship with the external, objective, objective world. Methods for studying the external world, aimed at studying the internal world, have become methods of psychological research. The accumulation of knowledge about the soul, which occurred in the process of a person’s awareness of himself, served as the first stage in the emergence of psychological science as a part of philosophical knowledge. Realizing the a priori nature of the category “soul”, given by nature, science gave birth to the category “consciousness”, which, due to its complexity, has a varied interpretation: in the semantic sense, it is the accumulation of knowledge (consciousness: knowledge + knowledge +...), their subjective connection in the internal the world; in a philosophical sense, according to the theory of reflection, “consciousness is the highest, human-specific form of generalized reflection of the objective stable properties and patterns of the surrounding world”; in a technological sense, consciousness is the formation of a subjective model of the objective world; in epistemological - consciousness determines the attitude towards the world, it contains components: natural - genetic information; social - information absorbed in social communication; spiritual - information produced by one's own mind - understanding, insight.

The second stage in the development of psychological science is the accumulation of information about human consciousness. Numerous efforts to make consciousness transparent and easy to understand turned out to be inadequate to the result. The sphere of consciousness continued to remain mysterious, a “thing in itself” and gave birth to a psychological direction - behaviorism, which, out of the hopelessness of trying to penetrate into the essence of consciousness, set up an experiment, carry out measurements, i.e. organize scientific research using known methods, declared the subject of psychology to be behavior as an external manifestation of consciousness, as a set of actions. This approach made it possible to carry out experiments, conduct observations, i.e. rely on the facts of manifestation of the characteristics of consciousness. The study of behavior overcame the narrowness of the subject of psychology, expanded its boundaries, provided the opportunity to connect the internal and external, and study the relations of the subjective and objective. However, dignity, having violated the measure, turned into disadvantage. Excessive materialization of the explanation of spiritual processes gave rise to inconsistency, problem, conflict. Behaviorism was criticized for being too mechanical in its explanation of behavior, and the question of the subject of psychology was again raised. And here again the philosophical paradigm of the relationship between being and consciousness turned out to be in demand. The unity of essence and phenomenon, expressed in the relationship between the ideal and the real, is reflected in the understanding of the awareness of action.

The function of goal awareness manifests itself in real activity as self-determination based on the correspondence of internal and external, needs and conditions. These processes are called motivation (activation of internal needs), adaptation (adaptation to external conditions).

The function of awareness of the criteria of activity, their selection in their own internal content and correlation with external norms and rules of activity also presupposes a philosophical understanding of the relations of consciousness and being as relations of theory and practice in their modern state.

The function of awareness of methods of activity is manifested in awareness of the method, correlated with awareness of one’s own abilities.

Thus, the connection between internal and external consists of “direct” and “inverse”. Primary awareness is the design of an action, secondary awareness is reflection, awareness after the action. The interpenetration of these processes presupposes awareness of one’s own consciousness, which philosophy calls self-awareness. If we talk about the current state of the subject of psychology, then it is probably self-awareness. Self-awareness presupposes awareness of the natural component (“remain oneself”), awareness of oneself as an individual (“have one’s own face”), awareness of one’s own spirit (be able to maintain the “core of consciousness - spirit,” strength of spirit).

2.Explain the content of the concept of “social institution”. What is the relationship between the types and functions of social institutions?

A social institution (from the Latin Institutum - arrangement, establishment) is a stable set of rules, norms, and guidelines that regulate various spheres of human activity and organize them into a system of social roles and statuses.

The concept of “institution” was borrowed by sociology from jurisprudence, where it was used to characterize a certain set of legal norms. Institutions in legal science were considered, for example, inheritance, marriage, property, etc. In sociology, the term “institution” has retained the semantic connotation associated with the normative regulation of activity, but has acquired a much broader interpretation as a designation of a certain special type of stable regulation of social connections and various, more or less organized, forms of social regulation of the behavior of subjects.

The existence of institutions is associated with the activities of people organized into groups in which they are divided into appropriate statuses that meet the needs of society or a given group. Institutional analysis of social life involves the study of recurring and most stable patterns of behavior, habits, and traditions passed on from generation to generation.

The variety of institutions corresponds to the variety of human needs, such as the need for the production of products and services, the need for the distribution of benefits and privileges, the need for security, the protection of life and well-being, the need for social control over the behavior of members of society, the need for communication.

The main institutions include: economic (division of labor, property, taxes, etc.); political (state, army, parties, etc.); educational and cultural, created for the development of culture, socialization of children, transmission to them of the cultural values ​​of society (institutions of marriage and family; schools, art institutions); social or public in the narrow sense, regulating everyday contacts (local societies, partnerships, associations); religious.

The more complex the society, the more developed the system of institutions. The history of the evolution of institutions follows the following pattern: from institutions of traditional society, based on rules of behavior and family ties prescribed by rituals and custom, to modern institutions, based on values ​​such as competence, independence, personal responsibility, rationality, relatively independent of moral precepts.

The main features of social institutions include:

Symbols are images, ideas about an institution, reflecting its specific features in a concentrated form;

The main roles are patterns of behavior;

Physical features are material embodiments of a social institution (buildings, things, objects);

Codes of conduct are the way roles are played and the exercise of social control.

These signs are not strictly normatively fixed. They rather stem from a generalization of analytical materials about various institutions of modern society. In some of them (primarily formal, such as the army, court, etc.) the signs can be recorded clearly and in full, in others, informal or just emerging, less clearly.

The whole variety of social institutions can be divided into two types:

subject institutions are organizations of different types and scales (state, parties, associations, firms, church, etc.);

institutions-mechanisms are stable value-normative complexes that regulate different spheres of people’s lives (marriage, family, property, religion).

The elementary unit of a social institution of any type is the act of social interaction. In its ideal form, it exists as a normative requirement of the law, job description, decree, etc.

The categories of social institution-subject and group are very close. However, a social group is a set of homogeneous status positions that are united due to this homogeneity in the social field. The Institute differs from the group by a much higher level of integration. There is no clear boundary between a group and an institution - any group tends to institutionalize.

The concepts of institution and collective are much closer. However, a collective is a collection of individuals uniting for joint action in order to realize their conscious interests. A team is created by the interaction of specific people and may cease to exist if the composition of people changes. An institute is a supra-individual formation, generally little susceptible to changes in personal characteristics.

Institutions are divided into formal (for example, the US Constitution) and informal (for example, the Soviet “telephone law”).

Informal usually refers to generally accepted conventions and ethical codes of conduct. These are customs, laws, habits or normative rules that result from the close coexistence of people. Thanks to them, people easily find out what others want from them and understand each other well. Culture shapes these codes of conduct.

Formal institutions refer to rules created and maintained by specially authorized people (government officials).

Rules of behavior are divided into inherited, naturally given, and acquired, transmitted through culture. The latter, in turn, are divided into personal and social, and social rules are divided into informal (enshrined in traditions and customs, etc.) and formal (enshrined in legal norms). Finally, formal social rules include private and public (public law). Private law regulates the behavior not only of individuals, but also of non-governmental organizations; within the framework of public law, rules are identified that limit the activities of government and the state.

In sociology, there are four types of explanation and justification of social institutions. According to the theory of J. Homans, this is, firstly, a psychological type of explanation, based on the fact that any social institution is a formation that is psychological in origin, a stable product of the exchange of activities. Secondly, it is historical, considering institutions as the final product of the historical development of a certain field of activity. Homans calls two more types of explanations for the existence of institutions, which are mainly used in structural-functional analysis, unconvincing. This is a structural type, when it is proven that “each institution exists as a consequence of its relations with other institutions in the social system,” and a functional type, according to which institutions exist because they perform certain functions in society.

The process of forming institutions—institutionalization—implies the replacement of spontaneous and experimental behavior with regulated, expected, predictable behavior. This is a process whose stages are:

the emergence of a need, the satisfaction of which requires joint organized action;

formation of common ideas;

the emergence of social norms and rules in the course of spontaneous social interaction carried out by trial and error;

the emergence of procedures related to norms and regulations;

institutionalization of norms and rules, procedures, i.e. their acceptance, practical application;

establishment of a system of sanctions to maintain norms and rules, differentiation of their application in individual cases;

material and symbolic design of the emerging institutional structure.

G. Spencer was one of the first who drew attention to the problem of institutionalization of society and stimulated interest in institutions in sociological thought. As part of his "organismic theory" of human society, based on the structural analogy between society and organism, he distinguishes three main types of institutions:

1) continuing the family line (marriage and family) (Kinship);

2) distribution (or economic);

3) regulating (religion, political systems).

This classification is based on identifying the main functions inherent in all institutions.

Western socio-structuralist P. Blau based his classification of existing institutions on the values ​​that they embody in their normative structure:

1) integrative institutions, “perpetuating particularistic (private - N.S.) values, support social solidarity and preserve the clear character and identity of the social structure,” i.e. their activities are aimed at supporting solidarity and existing particularistic values ​​in society.

2) Distributive institutions embody and realize universal values, which act as a means of “preserving social agreements developed for the production and distribution of necessary social benefits, investments and various types of rewards.”

3) organizational institutions use values ​​to achieve goals, they serve “to perpetuate the authority and organization necessary to mobilize resources and coordinate collective efforts aimed at achieving social goals.”

At the same time, J. Turner notes that P. Blau unconditionally makes social institutions dependent on the performance of their functions for society as a whole; integrative institutions must satisfy the needs for “hiddenness,” distrubutive institutions for “adaptation,” and organizational institutions for “integration.” and “achieving the goal.”

Depending on the scope and functions performed, social institutions, as L.A. Sedov notes, are divided by Western sociologists into three types; relational, regulative and integrative. Relational institutions determine the role structure of society according to a variety of criteria: from age and gender to type of occupation and abilities. Regulatory institutions determine the acceptable limits of individual behavior in relation to the norms of action existing in society, as well as sanctions that punish violations of these limits (this includes all types of social control mechanisms). Integrative institutions are associated with social roles responsible for ensuring the interests of the social community as a whole.

The Sociological Dictionary (translated from English) lists five main sets of social institutions: “(1) economic institutions that serve for the production and distribution of goods and services; (2) political institutions that regulate the exercise of and access to power; (3) stratification institutions that determine the allocation of positions and resources; (4) kinship institutions associated with marriage, family and socialization of youth; (5) cultural institutions associated with religious, scientific and artistic activities.”

3. Social stratification is:

a) social inequality

b) social activities

c) social mobility

d) social interaction

4.Why is sociology becoming one of the leading social sciences in the modern world? Analyze this problem.

Sociology is a relatively young, continuously developing science. This explains the multiplicity of approaches to defining its subject and essence as an independent branch of scientific knowledge.

Initially, sociology meant social science, but over time its object and subject changed and became more precise, gradually separating sociology from philosophy. The fact is that by the middle of the 19th century. social development and the internal logic of the evolution of the science of society required new approaches to its definition.

The place of sociology in the system of social and human sciences is determined, first of all, by the fact that sociology is the science of society, and, therefore, includes a general sociological theory, which can serve as the theory and methodology of all other social and human sciences.

Sociology in its field of research is one of the most “general” among the social sciences. In search of common features and patterns that manifest themselves in various social connections, sociology must also act in such areas and objects for the study of which there is its own field of science. For example, pedagogy studies phenomena related to education and teaching; economics studies economic mechanisms; doctrine of the state - political events and patterns; psychology – psychological phenomena. But behind all this there are also social relations, which is what sociology deals with.

Sociology is by no means the only science whose field of study covers the entire sphere of human behavior. Such sciences also include philosophy, history and anthropology. Sociology has close ties with these sciences and uses the knowledge accumulated by them for its own purposes.

Sociology has become an independent science, having separated from philosophy or history, so that it now has a natural connection with its origins.

The methods and techniques for studying man and his activities, the methods of social measurement developed by sociology, are used by all other humanities. In addition, in modern conditions, a system of research has developed that is conducted at the intersection of sociology and other branches of knowledge. They are usually called social. Sociology as a system of knowledge cannot develop and fulfill its functions without interacting with other sciences. In relation to the special social sciences, sociology is in the same position as general biology is in relation to special biological branches of knowledge: zoology, botany, etc. Just as general biology serves as the basis for botany and other branches of knowledge about nature, so sociology serves as the foundation for special social sciences.

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: SIMILARITIES AND DISTINCTIONS

Lazareva Oksana Aleksandrovna
Saratov State University of N.G. Chernyshevsky
Student of the 5th course of sociological faculty

“Sociology is the science of society” is the most common definition you might ever hear. If you look at the word “sociology”, then from Latin it is literally translated like this: “socio” - society, “logos” - science. But in fact, sociology is not just a science, but one of the most important disciplines about man. Sociology is closely interrelated with psychology as well as social psychology.

Sociologists are interested not just in a person, but in an individual as an emerging personality, a member of a group or institution from birth. Personalities influence each other and interact with each other. The reasons for this interaction can be explained with the help of sociology, biology, psychology, and even philosophy.

Thus, sociologists and social psychologists share a common interest in the behavior of people in groups. However, while most sociologists study groups ranging in size from small to very large (such as societies and their inherent tendencies), social psychologists study the average person—how an individual simultaneously thinks about, is influenced by, and relates to others. (i.e., more special cases).

Let's look at a few examples to see the difference between the object of study of a sociologist and a social psychologist. In studying intimate relationships, a sociologist might be interested in the number of formal and common-law marriages and divorces and trends in this area, and a social psychologist would try to understand how people become attractive to each other and why they get married. The same can be said about the study of such a category as happiness: a sociologist would begin to find out how many happy people there are among students and what indicators are most often found in the concept of happiness, and a social psychologist would begin to study the psychological signs of the manifestation of a state of happiness and find out that everything - there is happiness - an emotion or feeling.

Although sociologists and social psychologists sometimes use the same research methods, social psychologists rely more on experiments in which they can manipulate a factor. For example, in order to understand whether an individual of the same gender, age, etc., has an influence on a person, a social psychologist can create experimental conditions under which it will be present or absent. A sociologist will most likely conduct an interview, focus group, or survey research using methods such as correlation. A sociologist cannot study each individual and assume a pattern of his behavior, but he can say or suggest how this or that group or the majority (the bulk of people) will behave. Research by sociologists is very important for marketing, management and advertising, as it allows them to identify the preferences of their main target audiences. But you can always go deeper and turn to psychologists in order, for example, to identify the buyer’s taste characteristics or motives for making purchases, but it will be difficult to call the psychologists’ data representative, corresponding to the law of large numbers (i.e., extrapolate the data to the bulk of buyers).

Anyone who has ever studied even the basics of sociology or psychology knows that we are shaped by nature and nurture. As evolutionary psychologists remind us, because of our inherited human nature, we are predisposed to behave like our ancestors who survived and reproduced. We carry within us the genes of those who had traits that allowed them to survive and reproduce, and whose children were able to do the same. Nature has also blessed us with a tremendous capacity for learning. We are sensitive to and responsive to our social factors. Sociology is precisely concerned with the management, prevention and influence of factors on the life of society and individual groups.

It is worth noting that sociology studies categories that are not studied in any other science (social memory, small group, social mobility, social institution, etc.). All the classics of sociology spent years of their work to get to the bottom of the truth of each concept. For example, M. Weber and his types of actions. After all, it is thanks to him that we can now distinguish between simply an action performed as a reflex or habit, and an action aimed at something or someone. And it is sociology that studies the motives, goals and results of such interactions. And in the modern world it is no longer possible to do without social interaction, because we are exposed to daily influence from the media, friends, etc. .

Thus, I would like to note the important role of sociology in the study of the individual, its formation, interaction with other individuals, with groups, with institutions, as well as in the study of the influence of individuals, groups and institutions on each other. Any statistics can be useful in any of the four existing spheres of society. And, of course, we should not forget about psychology and biology, which help sociology to study all these processes. Also, special attention should be paid to such a science as social psychology, which is now becoming popular due to the combination of the methodology of two related sciences. It is useful in marketing, in advertising, in psychology and pedagogy, as well as in everyday life.

Economic problems concern everyone today. The global financial crisis has affected and continues to affect the lives of many of us, so the stability of the national economy continues to be one of the main sources of concern. David Korten, a famous American economist, talks about the causes of global financial turmoil and ways to overcome them. In his opinion, the main cause of economic disasters is the collapse of Wall Street, the center of New York's financial district, in 2008. "Because Wall Street makes money in incredible quantities, we have allowed it to take over the entire economy? And this is where all our problems lie," the author believes. He proposes a plan for creating a New Economy - an economy focused not on profit, which is expressed in monetary terms, but on the wise use of resources and a healthy environment. David Korten advises how to properly allocate funds and reduce expenses, and also teaches us how to accept...

The monographic study is based on a new look at the sociology and economics of knowledge. The focus is on the substantive, structural and methodological convergence of sociology and economics in the new historical conditions of the beginning of the 21st century. The history and theory of these disciplines are rethought, foreign experience is analyzed, and practically significant conclusions are formulated that correspond to the changed realities. The current problems of the transition of Russian society to that stage of civilizational and sociocultural development are considered, at which the economy, driven primarily by innovation, serves as the foundation for the formation of a post-industrial knowledge society, and humanitarian achievements stimulate economic innovation. For economists, sociologists, political scientists, politicians, government officials and everyone who is not indifferent to the fate of their native country.

This book examines the economic and social results of market reforms in transition countries over a 15-year period, including: reform of property relations; dynamics of GDP, industrial production and employment; current directions of territorial and sectoral transformations in market conditions; social and environmental consequences of industrial restructuring, as well as issues of its financing. Particular attention is paid to such a strategic problem of transition to the market as the development of the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. The lessons learned from the past stage of industrial restructuring in countries with economies in transition are characterized and new challenges to its further development on the principles of post-industrial society and globalization of the world economy are reflected. The analytical review is based on the research carried out by the authors and materials from the forum "After fifteen years of market reforms in countries with economies in transition; new challenges and...

Economics is a broad science closely related to work, life, and the well-being of people. Without possessing economic knowledge, it is difficult to make the right choice in business, career, and to quickly and competently solve many everyday problems. This dictionary includes about two thousand terms of economic content, most often found in school textbooks on economics, economic geography, modern history, and also widely used by the media; a number of articles are devoted to the activities of outstanding economists, reformers, and entrepreneurs. Of independent interest is the “Appendices” section, which contains a variety of educational, reference and advisory materials intended for everyone interested in modern economics.

The main trends and stages of transformation of the military economy of the largest states of the world in the 20th - early 21st centuries are explored. Transformational processes caused by qualitative and quantitative changes in the nature of military needs and methods of satisfying them are comprehensively analyzed. It is shown how these changes lead to the emergence of a new type of military economy, fundamentally different from the previous one in its main parameters, system of organization and management, forms of relationships with the military organization of the state, the general economy and other areas of public life. Particular attention is paid to the latest processes in military-economic activity related to the ongoing revolution in military affairs, as well as possible ways to increase the efficiency of Russia's military economy. For scientists, managers and employees of law enforcement agencies and defense industry specialists, economists, and political scientists.

The book is the first attempt to systematically analyze the causes and consequences of the capitalist revolution in Russia in the early 90s. The author uses a huge amount of statistical material characterizing the state of the Russian economy in 1985 - 97. In addition, the book presents a historical retrospective of Russian reforms in the 17th - 20th centuries. The author paid much attention to the analysis and assessment of the shadow economy in modern Russia. The book is of interest to entrepreneurs, students and other readers interested in the Russian economy.

In this practical manual, the reader is presented with a brief summary of the conceptual apparatus of one of the most poorly studied areas of sociological science in our country - economics and the sociology of knowledge. The features of the economy and social sphere of modern society, the mechanisms of production and dissemination of knowledge in society, forms of knowledge management in organizations, strategies for creating innovative business, transformation of the higher education system in the conditions of modern society are considered. A historical overview of the understanding of the role of knowledge in sociological theories of society is presented. For economists, sociologists, political scientists, politicians, government officials.

The book offered to the attention of readers sets out in an accessible form the main categories of the modern world economy and international economic relations. The author of the book, American economist R.C. Epping, who has extensive experience working in international economic organizations, uses specific examples to reveal the content of key concepts of the world economy and the processes occurring in this area. The book provides an extensive glossary of the most commonly used economic terms. The book is intended for everyone who is involved in and interested in economic problems - from students and teachers to practical workers in business and in government economic management bodies.

The book by Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor A.A. Tavadyan presents the interval methods developed by the author for systematizing the interrelations of economic indicators and the principle he established of the correspondence of the system of price and natural indicators, which plays the structural-setting role of economic indicators. The author has identified the functional role of the uncertainty principle in economic theory and formulated a position on the relationship of uncertainties in economics. For the first time, the uncertainty interval of key economic indicators has been formulated. A toolkit has been developed for studying and improving the methodology for studying economic relationships. For specialists in the field of economic management, researchers, undergraduate and graduate students.

The textbook examines the structure, resources, trends and problems of the modern world economy. Particular attention is paid to human and natural resources as factors of growth and sustainable development. The economies of developed, newly industrialized, developing countries and countries with economies in transition, including Russia, are described in detail. The specifics of foreign economic relations are presented, highlighting foreign trade relations. The book is intended for undergraduates, graduate students, as well as teachers of economic departments of universities.

Plan

Topic 8. Sociology and other sciences

1. Sociology and philosophy.

2. Sociology and history.

3. Sociology and psychology.

4. Sociology and economic science.

1. Sociology and philosophy.

The relationship between philosophy and sociology depends on a special place in the subject field of the topic under consideration. This feature is determined, first of all, by the fact that in this case, unlike those that will be considered by us further, we are talking about clarifying the relationships of a discipline that is, in its own epistemological status, a science (of course, social with all the characteristics) and a discipline that is not a narrow range of characteristics of science itself, although it represents, without a doubt, a very important branch (or area) of human knowledge.

By the first we mean sociology, by the second, of course, philosophy. The first thing to start with in clarifying the question of the relationship between sociology and philosophy is to state that, unlike sociology, philosophy is not a science in the strict sense of the word. Of course, not all sociology is a science—at least not entirely a science. Sociology, which is not a science, but a quasi-science, quasi-sociology. And yet, philosophy is even more not a science.

We would suggest turning to the judgments of some very authoritative philosophers as to whether philosophy is a science in the precise sense of the word. Although, of course, one cannot help but say first that there are also philosophers who believe that philosophy has a right to be considered a science. So, for example, Aristotle believed that philosophy is the “science of sciences,” “the mother of all sciences,” Hegel called philosophy the queen among all sciences. How the sciences interpret philosophy are such famous philosophers as W. Windelband (1848-1915) and E. Husserl (1859-1938). E. Husserl, for example, wrote in his work “The Crisis of European Humanity and Philosophy” that the elements of science acquire in philosophy. A similar opinion is held by representatives of analytical philosophy, who interpret philosophy in the spirit of neopositivism and scientism as an analysis of the use of linguistic means and expressions.

Meanwhile, already with A. Saint-Simon and O. Comte, a different attitude towards philosophy began, of course towards philosophy, in its classical understanding, it was based on positivism. O. Comte rejected the truth of philosophical knowledge, since, in his opinion, it has an a priori, pre-experimental character. Based on this, he sets the task of creating a philosophy that would have the character of an exact science, like the natural sciences.

Then philosophers appeared who, without any reservations, declared philosophy not to be a science. So N. Grot, the founder and one of the editors of the well-known and quite popular in Russia magazine “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology” wrote: “Let us abandon the thousand-year-old illusion that philosophy is a science and bow before it in a new one, more suited to its face clothes." The famous Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev adheres to the same view of philosophy, writing that “philosophy is not the science of essences. And there is a creative awareness of the spirits of the meaning of human existence." The famous Russian philosopher P.S. Yushkevich in the article “On the Essence of Philosophy” wrote: “philosophy is not a science, but only a science.”

Now, as for what modern philosophers write on this subject in textbooks and teaching aids about whether philosophy is a science. For example, the famous author of educational books on philosophy P.S. Gurevich writes in one of his works: “However, in the public consciousness of the 20th century, another idea is increasingly gaining ground: “ philosophy is not a science, but a completely independent, unique form of understanding the world. Philosophy has features that science does not have. One can probably say that Philosophy has signs of science, or more precisely, scientific character, that it is guided by scientific criteria. But in order to understand philosophy, it is necessary to remember its originality, its difference from science. Philosophy in general refers to humanitarian knowledge, i.e. knowledge about man, the human spirit, humanity. And in the 20th century, many researchers made a distinction between natural science (also called concrete) and humanities knowledge. The first contains many formulas, axioms, proofs; the second in this sense is more free, it does not have final conclusions. Natural sciences require precision, humanities require rigor.

In this case, and in a number of other cases, see, for example, the textbook for students of higher educational institutions “Philosophy”, the authors of which are A.K. Rychkov. and Yashin B.G. This characteristic of philosophy as a field of humanitarian knowledge is given in comparison with the natural sciences. But there is also a difference between the humanitarian branches of knowledge themselves, in particular and especially between philosophy and specific scientific social science or human science disciplines, among which is sociology, although not a particular one, but a general, complex, but still a humanitarian discipline, a discipline albeit with its own characteristics, not in all, perhaps, in its parts, it is still a scientific discipline. It is important for us to emphasize this, since it is not enough to point out the difference between philosophy and the natural sciences. It is important to find and emphasize the difference between the social sciences and the humanities, namely the sciences and philosophy - the field of humanitarian knowledge, but the field of knowledge, which is not yet a science in the strict sense.

In some publications, the peculiarity of philosophy, considered in the context of the question of philosophy and other sciences, is posed and analyzed as a question about the relationship between philosophy and special sciences (this time not the humanities, but specifically the special sciences). See, for example, “Philosophy: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions. M.: Humanite. Ed. VLADOS Center, 2002. With. 25-26. “In fact, the relationship between philosophy and the private sciences,” this publication says, “appears before us as a symbolic tree of knowledge, the trunk of which is philosophy, and the crown is the private sciences. This means that philosophy, as universal knowledge about existence and the place of man in it, outlines the main directions of research in these sciences, comprehends their results, and gives them interpretation in the sociocultural context.

Unlike philosophy, private sciences study individual fragments of reality, but do not comprehend the world as a whole and its universal laws. Particular sciences serve as the empirical basis of philosophy, without which it can give rise to “meager” abstractions and scholastic theorizing. But this does not mean that it is completely and permanently dependent on these sciences. Philosophy cannot wait for them to make new discoveries. She has her own independent way of understanding the world through speculation and intuitive insight.

Therefore, it is incorrect to identify philosophy with science, to present it only as a logical system of knowledge, as is done by supporters of the scientistic approach (Husserl and others).

In philosophy, of course, one can distinguish the area of ​​rational knowledge, represented, for example, by epistemology, ontology, theoretical ethics or the history of philosophy. Moreover, she herself grew out of scientific knowledge, and never subsequently lost touch with it.

Thus, the systems of Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx and many other philosophers fully satisfy such scientific criteria as rationality, objectivity, systematicity, and intersubjectivity.

At the same time, it was incorrect to classify philosophy as a whole as one of the branches of scientific knowledge...

Consequently, philosophy can be presented at different levels of knowledge: scientific, everyday, artistic and mythological.”

Let us note, however, that private sciences are different from private sciences. Sociology, in relation to philosophy, can indeed be considered as a kind of private discipline, since it is a field of knowledge associated with the study of only one of the fragments of the world, which is also precisely the object of understanding philosophy - society. However, not only is sociology, even as a private discipline, a humanitarian science, it is a private science of a different order than, say, economic theory, political theory, demographic theory, etc. It has a different status than the disciplines just named. In relation to them, it acts as a general complex science that studies society as such, society as a whole, in contrast to the same, say, economic theory, which studies only one, separate side of society as an integral formation, system.

Thus, in one, namely the first case, the specificity of philosophy is determined in relation to the natural sciences (non-humanitarian) disciplines, in the other, that is, the second case, it (the specificity of philosophy) is fixed in relation to the private sciences. To clarify the question of the relationship between sociology and philosophy, it is not enough of the first and not enough of the second. The fact is that sociology is not a natural science discipline, but a humanitarian one, which, by the way, in this case is not about the difference, but the proximity, the commonality of philosophy and sociology (after all, we are now clarifying not only the difference between sociology and philosophy, but also what these disciplines have in common , what brings sociology closer to philosophy). At the same time, sociology is also a special science (less general) compared to philosophy. As already mentioned, in this case, that is, in comparison with philosophy, it is less general, and in relation to other humanitarian (and social) disciplines it is a more general science.

It is important to establish the relationship between sociology and philosophy to clarify the nature, character, and characteristics of knowledge itself, which forms philosophy on the one hand, and sociology on the other.

In essence, we are talking about arguing for the statement that philosophy is not a science proper or, what is the same thing, about answering the question - why philosophy cannot be regarded as a science, understood in the exact sense of the word.

Philosophy is also knowledge, or more precisely, the field of human knowledge. But knowledge of philosophy differs in many ways from the knowledge that represents science itself. We draw the reader's attention to the fact that we do not say: “Philosophy is unscientific knowledge”; we say: “The knowledge that forms philosophy is not scientific, but logical.” That is, we only say that philosophy is not in the exact sense a science, like, say, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and the same sociology. In addition, we proceed from the modern level of development of philosophy and, in general, modern human knowledge of the world.

Why can’t philosophy be called a science proper? What is this connected with? Answering these questions, it should be said that this is due to the special nature of the knowledge that forms it.

Among the most important characteristics of philosophical knowledge is its highest abstractness. And although it is apparently true, as K. Marx said, the higher the abstractness of a concept, the deeper it penetrates into the essence of things, yet it is precisely the extremely high level of abstraction that distinguishes it as a philosophy and worldview, as a special style (way) of thinking and reflection from science as such. Science presents a meaning that is more concrete, more definite; it primarily concerns directly the practical life of a person and in this regard it is more pragmatic, more practical; it affects mainly that area of ​​the world with which a person interacts directly, (practically) which is drawn into his practical life. Philosophical knowledge is a meaning concerning the very foundations of existence, the universe, the essence of life, its meaning, etc. These ultimate, final essences, the foundations of everything that exists, or rather the understanding of them, do not directly affect the practical, everyday life of people. Life (birth and death) is almost the same for people who hold diametrically opposed views on these issues. This is, first of all. Secondly, philosophical meaning is associated with the search for ultimate truths, with wisdom (philosophy - love and wisdom), free, while science is associated with necessity and law.

Philosophical meaning is a highly speculative, speculative meaning. Speculative from Late Latin speculativus, and this latter is from Lat. Speculos - I observe, I contemplate. That is, this is a meaning that arises and develops (some say “derived”) without recourse to experience, with the help of reflection and aimed at understanding the foundations of science and culture. Speculative knowledge is a historically specific way of substantiating and constructing philosophy. Thinking appears in philosophy as a detached, disinterested reflection on being; a person is treated as an abstract individual who cognizes subjects and represents them as a kind of observer, taken out of the socio-historical context. It as such cannot be reduced to either ordinary or specifically scientific knowledge. Such knowledge is usually identified with speculation (speculativeness, intellectual intuition, contemplation of supersensible and superempirical entities.

Kant interpreted, for example, philosophy as speculative knowledge by reason, soaring beyond the limits of experience. In the post-Hegelian period, criticism of speculative knowledge begins (L. Feuerbach, Kierkegaard, O. Comte, etc.). The last of these [philosophers] thinkers only advocated for a break with speculative philosophy and for the establishment of experimental science, but under the slogan: “Down with all philosophy, science is its own philosophy” of experimental science, of society - positive philosophy, (social physics) , later called sociology.

At the same time, it is necessary to understand that philosophy is speculative, speculative, abstract (by the way, representatives of Marxist philosophy interpret their philosophy as scientific - not speculative and not speculative).

This is not a shortcoming of philosophy, but its peculiarity, its specificity. And the above-mentioned features of philosophy have their merits, their positive sides. Even in the so-called Marxism-Leninism, which is declared by its representatives to be science, the merits of speculative philosophy are recognized - the important cognitive significance of logical thinking, as well as abstraction, reflecting the universal laws of objective reality, is affirmed. “Philosophical, speculative knowledge,” writes, for example, V. Kharcheva, “was man’s first attempt not only to explain reality and social problems. Social philosophy can be called the predecessor of sociology in the literal sense of the word, since it sought to understand the meaning and purpose of human existence, those fundamental laws on which the real social interactions of people in society are based.”

But the point is not only and not so much that philosophy is man’s first attempt to comprehend the world and social reality in an abstract form. Philosophy continues to remain the same even now, that is, the same special, specific form of knowledge of the world and the place of man in this world, for which the same abstractness, speculativeness and speculativeness, the predominance of logic, evidence of the main method of knowledge remain characteristic. Although, without any doubt, quite a few elements of scientific character penetrated into it, which occurred due to the emergence and development of scientific knowledge, science itself in all its modern diverse complex of specific natural scientific and socio-humanitarian disciplines. Philosophy, interacting with these latter, experiences their influence on itself. Moreover, it is to some extent supplanted by science in relation to (in terms of) man’s understanding and knowledge of the world around him, and of himself. And yet, experiencing the influence of science, giving way to some extent to the place for scientific knowledge (science), philosophy remains as before philosophy, retains its special way and style of thinking, its logic and form, its purpose and functions of purpose and how previously continues to have a strong, powerful reverse influence on science itself.

One of the features of philosophy as a special field of human knowledge is its significant pluralism, one might even say, super-pluralism. And it is true that, as P. Sorokin says, “as many sociologists, so many sociologies,” this is even more true in relation to philosophy. Here, without any doubt, there are so many philosophers, so many philosophies. No officially institutionalized philosophies have ever existed (of course, with the exception of Marxist-Lenenist philosophy in the USSR and Thomism in the Vatican) and do not exist. There are directions, schools of philosophy, but there are no official philosophies. Each, almost every more or less famous (and this is precisely why they are known) philosopher created and had his own philosophical system, explaining the world and the place of man in this world. Here we can say this: if science has more questions and fewer answers to them, then philosophy is a different matter: it has more answers than questions that concern it. And this despite the fact that everything that exists can be the subject of philosophical understanding. Although, again, “maybe (become),” well, it still focuses attention on questions, essential, fundamental questions of being, questions concerning the final causes of the very foundations of what the world, man in this world, is. Can a person truly and correctly record this world in his consciousness?

Philosophy by its very nature is free; it can't possibly be official. In this regard, it is very subjective and personal. Personalized. Her motto is freedom, independence. Science is also free (it should not depend on governments, although it does), but it is still bound both by official government decisions (in terms of funding, encouragement, prohibitions), and by the very pattern and necessity that it comprehends (studies). Science depends primarily on what it studies, at least in form. Philosophy is free both from governments and from necessity. It depends to a greater, much greater extent on the philosopher (the subject of thinking, contemplation), the vision of the world that is characteristic only of a given person (the subject of philosophizing).

Otherwise, philosophers and representatives of scientific knowledge consider knowledge of it to be one of the most important features of philosophical thinking. evaluative character. If science, in their opinion, tries to avoid any assessment (judgment on what is good and what is bad) of events and strives for an objective consideration of the phenomena and processes being studied as much as possible, then philosophy, on the contrary , strives to make value judgments on a variety of occasions. “Evaluation,” writes N.A. Berdyaev, “plays a huge role in philosophical knowledge. Without evaluation, the meaning of knowledge is not known. The meaning is first of all heartfelt.”

Currently, philosophy even distinguishes its axiology as a special structural component - the science of man’s value relationship to the world. Axiology (from the Greek Axios - value and logos - word, concepts, doctrine of values, the purpose of which is to explore the highest meaning-forming principles as conditions for the necessary and generally valid distinction between the true and the logical in the sphere of knowledge, good and evil in the ethical sphere, etc. . Axiology is a philosophical doctrine about the nature of values, their revenge in reality and the structure of values ​​in the world, i.e. about the connection between various values ​​among themselves, social cultural factors and structural personality. The main question of axiology as an integral part of philosophy is the question posed in his time by Socrates, “what is good?” G. Lotze is considered the founder of axiology as a philosophical doctrine, who brought to the fore the concepts of value in both logic and metaphysics.

As for sociology, it, as a socio-humanitarian discipline, also cannot do without evaluating the understanding, explanation and interpretation of various kinds of social phenomena studied by it. And yet, in it, value judgments make themselves felt to a much lesser extent. It is precisely for this reason that sociology, by its status as a science, should avoid all kinds of assessments; the main thing for it is the objectivity of data, their disinterested interpretation and conclusions.

Another and, perhaps, almost the most important feature of philosophical knowledge (philosophy) in comparison with scientific knowledge (science) is that many, and precisely on the most important issues studied by philosophy, the answers of philosophy are not verified, i.e. they cannot be verified (at least at the stage or level of modern philosophy, science and human practice).

Verification (from Late Lat. Verification - proof, confirmation, from Lat. Verus - true and facio - do), a concept used in logic and methodology of science to denote the process of establishing the truth of scientific statements as a result of their empirical verification.

Of course, testing various kinds of statements empirically is of paramount importance, however, the truth of certain statements can be determined (confirmed) logically based on a comparison of the statements made with those that have already been confirmed empirically (experimentally) by the very practical life of people or experimentally. And yet, science comes from philosophy, and in this philosophy nothing is taken for granted, but must be verified in one way or another. For the application of untested provisions in practice can (and this often happens) lead not only to various kinds of costs, but also to tragedy.

In philosophy, the situation is different. Let's take, for example, the so-called fundamental question of philosophy: what comes first: spirit or nature, consciousness or matter? For almost two and a half thousand years, there have been two diametrically different answers to it. Some believe that the spirit, consciousness, is primary; others proceed from the fact that the basis of the world is matter, nature is primary, and consciousness is secondary... And humanity does not experience any serious shocks from this, just as neither idealists nor materialists experience any losses from this: the sun rises and sets, people are born and die, life goes on.

Neither of these answers can today be definitively declared correct and the other false. The level of development of human practice, including experiment, and science itself as a special type of practice, does not provide that opportunity, and will people ever have such an opportunity?!

Such answers are largely based, on the one hand, on logic, and on the other, where logic is lacking, not on faith. And if, in the opinion of N.A. Berdyaev, even knowledge is not in conflict with faith, but leads to it, ultimately, to faith, then what can we say about philosophy, which is essentially religious and is based on faith in reality? the existence of this or that, the ability to penetrate secrets, etc. “Faith comes to every philosophical knowledge, the most rationalized. Depart, Spinoza and Hegel had it. And this is one of the reasons for the failure of the idea. Scientific philosophy, “Scientific philosophy is the philosophy of those deprived of a philosophical gift and calling. They invented it for those who have nothing philosophical to say.” Let’s say, the question: does the real world exist? For us living, it really exists and this is a fact, given both in our experience, in our sensations. For those who have not yet been born or have already died, there is no world, it does not exist. But how can something exist and not exist at the same time? The simultaneous existence and non-existence of the world is absurd. The absurd cannot be understood by reason, it is incomprehensible to the mind, one can only believe in it. Answers (any) to the fundamental questions of philosophy in its ontological part, and also in the part of epistemology, are inextricably linked with faith in their truth or logic.

In science, the situation is somewhat different: here, if the truth does not dominate, it dominates, prevails, and faith is significantly squeezed out. And this is explained by the fact that sciences (there is no single science, there is not science, but sciences) deal with a limited field, a fragment (and concrete) of reality, drawn into the practical life of people, connected with it by the direct experience (everyday) of people. Here, as already mentioned, much can be clarified, checked, double-checked, tested experimentally or practically. And sociology is characterized by the same thing: it is based on the experience of people, it deals with really, empirically existing things; its main task is the search for truth. And if elements of faith take place here, they do not determine the state of affairs. The state of affairs here is determined by truth - reliable, objective knowledge, tested for adequacy of truth or that can be tested for truth.

Of course, since philosophy is a complete complex of the most diverse fields of knowledge (ontology, epistemology, axiology, social philosophy, dialectics, logic, aesthetics, history of philosophy), it should be borne in mind that in these parts, philosophy is scientific, on the one hand, and unscientific ( speculativeness, speculativeness), on the other hand, it will look different: in some parts there are more scientific elements, in others there are less; Some parts of philosophy are more speculative, others less so.

The main characteristic of philosophy as a special area of ​​human knowledge, different from scientific knowledge proper, both in its object (and subject), and in the nature, nature of this knowledge, and in methods of reflection, understanding the world, and in its purpose (functions), and in relation to faith is that it represents a worldview. “For Thomas Aquinas, philosophy is the science of existence as such and its first causes,” notes N.A. Berdyaev, referring to the work “S. Thomas d’Aquin’ (from the series Les Grand Philisophes).

2.SOCIOLOGY AND HISTORY

In some textbooks and teaching aids, the question of the relationship between sociology and historical science is not only not considered, but is not even raised. As such, we can name the textbook by V. Kharcheva “Fundamentals of Sociology”, “Fundamentals of Sociology” Course of lectures. General ed. Doctor of Philosophy A. G. Efendieva S. S. Frolov “Fundamentals of Sociology. Tutorial". In the textbook Zh.T. Toshchenko “Sociology. General Course" seven incomplete lines are devoted to this issue, of an exclusively general abstract nature: "The fruitful role of sociology in interaction with the historical sciences, which allows them to expand the traditional tools for solving their individual problems ..." Nothing definite, concrete, or anything substantive is said here . There are indeed other examples. In the textbook “Sociology”, one and a half pages are devoted to this issue under the heading “Sociology and History”. The manual says that sociology and history have a lot in common. Both studies the entire society, and not just some part of it. Both of these sciences focus their attention on the subjective side of the historical process of society. Each of them is based on the study of specific facts of social life.

At the same time, sociology and historical science differ socially from each other. Their relationship is the relationship of the historical (history) and theoretical knowledge, history and theory of social development.

It seems that their relationship, in general, fits within the framework of the concept of the founder of the Baden school of neo-Kantianism - W. Windelband and G. Rickert. In accordance with their concept, historical sciences are interpreted as ideographic (descriptive) sciences. They are characterized by individualizing conceptualization and are represented by assertoric (single) judgments.

Let us clarify, however: we are talking here about the difference between historical sciences and natural disciplines - nomothetic sciences, dealing with generalizing conceptualization and represented by apodictic (general) statements, and not about theoretical social sciences. Windelband and Rickert, in addition, understand by historical sciences the sciences of culture, and not the historical sciences themselves, as they are commonly understood at the present time, at least in our domestic science, methodology and knowledge. It is impossible to agree on this with the statement of P. Sorokin, to whom, by the way, E. Tadevosyan refers, that Windelband and Rickert understood historical sciences as cultural sciences and that they supposedly considered sociology as a “generalizing”, generalized science, like natural sciences.

Wendelband and Rickert, firstly, do not specifically distinguish between historical sciences and sociology, and consider all sciences that study history (society) as sciences of culture, believing that these latter are ideographic; secondly, and even more so, they do not classify sociology as a natural discipline, which, in their opinion, is the only one that is generalizing.

So it is very difficult to agree with Tadevosyan when he says that the relationship between sociology and historical sciences fits into the framework of the concept of Windelband and Rickert. And if P. Sorokin thinks so, then we can only regret this inaccurate, in our opinion, assumption of the famous sociologist.

History as a science, of course, deals with the reflection of specific phenomena, events, processes in all their individuality. At the same time, it would not be entirely correct to assign it the role of just a factual discipline of a descriptive nature, and to deprive it of the ability to generalize historical facts. In Russian historical science, the question of a special group of laws of society - the so-called historical laws - has already been raised. The idea of ​​the existence of such laws was actively defended in his time, for example, by the famous Russian historian E.M. Zhukov. Of course, sociology and history have different levels of generalization of facts, however, it seems that history cannot be a science in the precise sense of the word without generalizing historical facts that are heterogeneous in many ways, but also in many ways similar.

Historical laws have their own specificity in the system of laws of society and, as current ones, also determine the nature of historical meaning as historical, but non-theoretical. The differences between these two types of knowledge are not the difference that one of them deals with the laws of society, and the other with the laws of nature or something else: both of them deal with the laws of society, but some are purely theoretical, others are historical.

Therefore, both of them belong to social knowledge. The first are associated with the study of so-called historical laws, the second are the study of simply the laws of society (the laws of the functioning and development of society).

History is the science of the past, while sociology is primarily about modern society: about how it is structured and how it functions, how it changes; what is characteristic of it, how it lives and the individuals that form it, as well as groups of individuals. History is a description and explanation of what happened, how it happened and why it happened, exactly this way and not otherwise, and moreover, in relation to a given historical situation. That is, history studies what has already happened. Sociology is about what is happening, happening today, as well as what may happen in the future tomorrow.

E.V. Tadevosyan, drawing a distinction between sociology and history, notes that the first object is narrower than the object of history, since it studies only the social, and the second, history, supposedly studies everything. One can hardly agree with this. After all, the social covers all aspects of the life of people and society. Economic, political, moral, aesthetic are also social. And even technology. The history of technological development is also social history. For within the framework of this industry, human activity is studied: the creation of something new on the basis of what already exists, the development of what has already been created and processed; affinity between old and new technical ideas. The history of science and technology is the same science of culture as many other social sciences, including the most social, if you like, of all social sciences, sociology. The history of technology is not a science of how a bolt and a nut find each other; This is the science of a person’s idea to find a special way of fastening parts and various types of structures. The history of technology is the history of the ideas of a bolt and a nut, and not the history of the bolt and the nut itself. Moreover, when we talk about the relationship between sociology and history, we mean by this latter historical history, that is, social history (society, man as a social, social being), and not, say, the history of the nature of man as a biological being. Science, technology, technology is a product of human activity not as a biological, but as a social being. It is an element of human culture, part of the social content in the system of cultural life of people’s activities.

Moreover, if history studies what has already happened (even if it just happened), then sociology studies both what was and what is, and what will be (or should be).

Therefore, it is unlikely that the difference between sociology and history is that the first object is narrower, and the second is wider. Both of them study all aspects of people’s lives without exception. Moreover, as already noted, history is only the past (albeit for the sake of the future, for the sake of looking into the future); sociology – both the present and the past (in order to better understand the present and, if possible, predict the future), with attention to the correally existing (actually existing), that is, the present.

“The relationship between the sociology of history is determined, first of all, by the fact, as E.V. Tadivosyan believes, that sociological concepts and conclusions are directly based on a generalization of historical facts, historical experience. Therefore, the development of historical research is an important condition, prerequisite and factor for new achievements in sociology, avoiding excessive abstraction and separation from real reality.” At the same time, sociology as a theoretical science enriches history, allows for a deeper explanation of historical events in the context of social life as a whole. , in connection with other aspects of social life. After all, this is the only way to adequately represent individual (specific) historical events, facts, phenomena, processes, and the activities of historical figures, various social groups, and the general public.

Sociology in relation to historical science is a general theoretical general methodological basis. A specific product of interaction (collaboration) between sociology and historical science is the emergence and existence of such a branch of knowledge as a subsidiary science sociology of history and historical sociology.

“Historical sociology is a direction of modern sociology, the purpose of which is to study historical processes, the development of societies, social systems, institutions and phenomena, as well as the development of sociological theories of historical development, sociological methods for analyzing historical data, etc.”

Historical sociology has emerged as a special branch of sociological knowledge thanks to the works of G. Becker, W. Kahnman, R. Bendips, I. Wallerstein, P. Flore and other researchers. Its formation was facilitated, in the opinion of historical sociologists themselves, by the comparative historical method developed and proposed by the famous American anthropologist L. Morgan, Russian sociologist M.M. Kovalevsky and others. In sociology itself, in the works of its founder O. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkeim, the tendency towards historicism made itself felt from the moment of its inception.

In sociological theories of the 19th century. Global historical-evolutionary schemes prevailed, which could not be verified at the level of empirical research. F. Tönnies and M. Weber tried to overcome this gap between sociological theories and their empirical justification. The first determined the directions of social development of European culture with the help of two concepts (“community”, “society”): the social community evolved from community to society. Fundamentally important concepts for modern historical sociology were developed by M. Weber. This is the concept of “ideal type”. By the way, M. Weber’s younger brother A. Weber did a lot for the development of historical sociologies, who understood disciplines as nothing more than sociological concretized, constructed based empirical analysis of historical material, philosophy of history, or sociology of the historical process.

In modern historical sociology, there are several paradigms or approaches.

The first is represented by concepts proposed by a number of scientists (F. Znaniecki, W. Thomas, E. Baltzel, R. Haberle and others) for describing and analyzing historical data, as well as for solving problems of the case when a generalization of a higher level than that is required which is usually sufficient for historians, namely when there is a need to identify social patterns using sociological analysis of historical development.

The second is characterized by the use of historical data to illustrate or verify the correctness of certain sociological concepts, to build other simulated theories. An attempt to implement this approach was made in the works of such researchers as G. Becker, G. Warns, I. Ullerstein and others.

The third is the interpretation of historical sociology primarily as a special set of methods used to analyze the historical development of society. This is how historical sociology is understood, for example, by American sociologists H. Moriampolsky and D. Hodges.

As another paradigm of modern historical sociology, we can consider cyclical theories (concepts), which have also become widespread in sociology. For example, the theory of the “Conflict Cycle” by G. Simmel, the concept of “economic succession” by R. Park and the theory of “cycles of racial relations” by E. Bogardus and others.

Today, applied historical and sociological research occupies an important place in historical sociology. Centers specializing in applied historical and sociological research are emerging.

The intensive specialization of modern humanitarian knowledge, as well as its associated differentiation and “departmentalization”, aimed at in-depth research by sciences of their special (specific) subjects, is just one side of the general process of intensive development of modern social science. The other side of this process is the cooperation (and integration) of the work of representatives of various fields of humanities, which ultimately represents a single complex of various sciences about man and society. And if specialization (and even more so departmentalization) of sciences is a process that needs less organization and management, then the process of cooperation and integration in the development of humanities (and only the humanities!?) needs more attention: its success is largely degree depends on conscious, purposeful management of it.

Meanwhile, in order for the organization of this process, as well as its controllability, to become more effective, it is necessary to develop a more or less clear idea of ​​how the various scientific disciplines that form the complex of modern human science relate to each other, how they differ from each other, what they have common, where it is located and what are the junctions that determine their interaction and the strengthening of which would greatly enhance the integration of the knowledge they represent and thereby enrich it: make it more complete, deep and gentle for the understanding of what a person and society are how they relate to the world around them (nature), what is their meaning and fate in this world.

The search for what is specific and common in various disciplines, the identification of junctions and channels of interaction of modern sciences are also aimed at more successfully teaching them in universities, in particular and especially in classical universities, in which the humanitarian component is given a significant place.

Of great importance in the context of the identified problems is the question of the correspondence of sociology with another, like sociology, human science - with psychology. Sometimes both are also called behavioral sciences, which study human behavior, and in relation to psychology, the behavior of animals. N. Smelser calls psychology, along with anthropology, economic and political science, a science related to sociology.

Psychology is neither a philosophical nor a historical discipline; Nor is it a private science, like economic theory or political science, which studies individual aspects of people’s social life. It is neither more nor less broad than sociology, a discipline. Psychological science stands out from other humanities on a different basis. It cannot be attributed to its own disciplines; Being a humanitarian science, psychology in a certain part, and a very significant one, is included as a kind of segment in the field of knowledge, which is usually called natural science. By the way, initially this humanitarian science, as it is understood today, was interpreted as a natural science discipline. "Having separated from philosophy, psychology entered its history as a natural science discipline. Like biology, physiology, physics, chemistry and other sciences, psychology also accepted objectivity, universality and necessity as criteria for the reliability of knowledge. This meant that human psychology began to be considered in the logic of cause-and-effect relationships and explained by the laws of the natural world»

By the way, initially (one might say, in its pre-scientific period), psychology, like sociology, developed within the framework of philosophy. This was the period of so-called “philosophical psychology”, similar to the period of existence of “philosophical sociology” - the field of predominantly philosophical knowledge about society.

The separation of psychology from philosophy and its formation as an independent science occurred only in the middle of the 19th century. At this time, she was focused primarily on natural scientific principles.

In general, as an independent science, psychology dates back to 1879, when the German psychologist, physiologist, philosopher and linguist W. Wundt (1832-1920) created an experimental psychological laboratory at the University of Leipzig. The first stage in the development of psychology as an independent science was the physiological psychology of W. Wundt.

Today, many psychologists classify their science as a humanities discipline.

If we proceed from this understanding of psychology (although there is still some inaccuracy here, since psychology studies not only human consciousness (this is a feature of Soviet human psychology), but also the psyche, and the psyche in general, which exists even before man not only as a social , but also as a natural being), then the relationship between sociology and psychology should be considered as a relationship between at least two humanitarian disciplines as disciplines that study man.

Sociology is often also defined as the science of man. Man is a biopsychological being. In this case, in the context of the issue being considered here, the psycho- (mental) is assigned to psychology in the specified context, and the socio- (social) to sociology. In sociology, man is studied as a social being, in psychology as a “psychic” being.

Another thing is that in the most real reality, these two, and indeed all three (including bio-) components of one whole - a person, are inextricably linked and mutually determine each other. The social is largely determined by the psychological, and the psychological, including a person’s consciousness, is largely determined by his social conditions of life. And the social is closely connected with the biological principle of man: anatomy, instincts. Physiology.

The sciences that study man—biology, psychology, and sociology—are in the same relationship as bio-, psycho-, and socio-. And if they are, as is commonly believed, separate. Independent disciplines, then this “separateness” and independence is very conditional. The “higher” areas of human knowledge are especially dependent on the “lower” ones in the classification series: psychology from biology, sociology from psychology (and, of course, from biology). These and other humanitarian (and non-humanitarian) disciplines are just a sphere (areas) of the same human knowledge, that is, a single set of human ideas about the world around us and the place of him, man, in this world. It is difficult to imagine how any of the modern sciences, including especially the humanities, could exist on its own, without other branches of knowledge, without other scientific disciplines.

The nature of the relationship between sociology and psychology is also determined by the fact that they (both) are behavioral sciences.

This feature manifested itself most comprehensively and radically in psychology in behaviorism, one of the leading areas of psychological science. The foundations of this direction were laid by J. Watson (USA) (1873-1958). “From the point of view of behaviorism,” he wrote, “the true subject of (human) psychology is human behavior from birth to death.” Modern behaviorism (neo-behaviourism) is represented by the research of psychologists such as E. Tolman, K. Hull, D. Galanter, K. Pribram, B. Skinner.

Despite the well-known limitations of behaviorism, the essence of which was the excessive biologization of man, the reduction of human behavior to a simple reaction to external influences, the exclusion from the subject of consideration of the psychology of creation (which has not only a biological, but also a social nature), behaviorism had a strong impact on the science of society, the result of which was such a direction in sociology as social behaviorism. Sociology, which studies man, also became influenced by behaviorism. He particularly influenced the theory of social exchange - an important behavioral paradigm in sociology according to the classification of J. Ritzer.

The main exponents of the idea of ​​social exchange as a synthesis of the psychology of behavior and various kinds of economic concepts of exchange (in this latter case the principle of interaction between sociology and economic theory is also implemented) are J. Homans and P. Blau. “Although some of Homans’s postulates,” writes J. Ritzer, “concern at least two interacting individuals. He clarified that they are no less based on the principles of psychology. According to this study, such postulates are mental in nature for two reasons. First, “they are usually established and empirically verified by people who call themselves psychologists.” Secondly, and more importantly, they are psychological in nature due to the level at which they study the individual in society. “These are postulates about the behavior of individual human beings, and not about groups or societies as such; and the behavior of a person precisely as a person, is generally considered a psychology competency."

So Homans agreed that he was—that terrible word—a “psychological reductionist.” Reductionism, from the point of view of this researcher, is “a demonstration of how the provisions of one science (in this case, sociology) logically follow from the more general provisions of another science (in this case, psychology).”

That is, Homans tried to explain social behavior on the basis of psychological principles.

Currently, as is known, in foreign science there are a number of conceptually formulated paradigms of social behaviorism, including the “stimulus-response” theory, the “field” theory, the theory of “social learning”, etc.

In the early 60s of the 20th century, humanistic psychology arose in the USA, which is, firstly, a set of theoretical views on man, and secondly, psychotherapeutic practice. It was conceived and developed as a kind of alternative to behaviorism and psychoanalysis, both inhumane in psychology, and accordingly in sociology, are G. Allport, G. A. Murray, G. Murphy, K. Rogers, A. Maslow, R. May.

Humanistic psychology is closely related to humanism in sociology, namely in the context of the study of man not only and not so much as an abstract being, but also as a living, concrete person, an individual. In this part, both psychology and sociology are closely intertwined, exerting mutual influence on each other.

Almost all the main paradigms and, accordingly, directions in psychology have had and continue to have a significant impact on sociology, contributing to the formation (institutionalization) of the Corresponding directions and schools in it. Behaviorism corresponds to the behavioral aspect of sociology, Freudianism (psychoanalysis) corresponds to the psychoanalytic direction of sociology, and humanistic psychology corresponds to the humanistic direction in sociology.

Today, almost all definitionist, interpretive sociology (according to J. Ritzer, the paradigm of social definition) is saturated with the names (and their ideas) of representatives of psychological science. We are no longer talking about the sociology of personality, the process of its formation. It is difficult to imagine this area of ​​sociology without such names as S. Freud (psychologist, psychiatrist), A. Maslow (psychologist), J. G. Mead (philosopher, sociologist, social psychologist), C. G. Jung (psychologist, psychiatrist), A. Adler (psychologist and psychiatrist), G. Yu. Eizenek (psychologist), G. Blumer (sociologist and social psychologist), R. Likert (psychologist and sociologist), G. Lebon (sociologist, social psychologist), K. Levin (social psychologist), H. M. Lind (social psychologist and sociologist), V. McDougal (social psychologist), Y. L. Moreno (psychologist, social psychologist), E. Mayo (sociologist, psychologist), G. Allport ( social psychologist), E. Fromm (social philosopher, sociologist and psychologist), J. K. Homans (sociologist, social psychologist).

Prominent representatives of psychologism and sociology were W. A. ​​Thomas, as well as L. F. Ward - (psychological evolutionism) (both USA).

All these scientists are, so to speak, sociologically (socially) thinking psychologists or psychologically thinking sociologists. Although, of course, no one would argue that these are sociologists “in their pure form.” These are, rather, psychologists who came to sociology due to their complex vision of problems.

If all these psychological concepts and theories are integrated (albeit conditionally), it should be recognized that in sociology there is a detailed, heuristically very significant paradigm and, accordingly, a direction - a psychological paradigm (psychological direction). It arose at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. as a reaction to mechanism and biologism in social science. The main principle of the direction in sociology that was formed on this paradigm was the desire to look for the key to explaining all social phenomena and processes in the mental phenomena and processes of an individual or society. There were (and still are) several varieties of this trend. This is, firstly, psychological evolutionism (Ward, Giddings) - with its desire to find the mental factors of civilization, which, according to its representatives, include either the various desires of individuals or the “consciousness of the race.” Secondly, instinctivism (W. McDougall), which sought the basis of social life in biologically inherited instincts. Thirdly, the psychology of peoples (M. Lazarus, H. Steinthal), which declared the “national spirit” to be the main driving force of history (the development of society). Fourthly, “group psychology” (Le Bon), the main concepts of which were anonymity, suggestibility, mental contagion, characterizing the crowd. Fifthly, the theory of imitation (Tarde), which sees an elementary social fact in the imitation of one individual by another. Sixth, early interactionism (Cooley), for which the primary factors of society are the ideas people have about each other.

A modern type of psychological direction in sociology, which has a certain autonomy and independence, is the so-called psychoanalytic orientation in sociology. It is represented by the psychoanalytic paradigm of Freud, Freudians and neo-Freudians. The main concept of this type of psychological trend in sociology, according to its representatives, is the subconscious - that is, what goes beyond the intellect and is fundamentally not controlled by the intellect and which ultimately determines human behavior, including in society (social behavior). The main problem of the psychoanalytic paradigm is the problem of the conflict between the individual and society, caused by the subconscious, including human instincts and the so-called repressed subconscious. Social prohibitions lead to the breakdown of personality, its deformation based on the repression of a person’s original drives and needs. Hence the nervousness, and then the conflicts between society and the individual. As a solution to these conflicts, within the framework of this orientation, sociopsychological theory is proposed, as well as, according to some scientists, the destruction of all social norms - moral, political, etc. and the liberation of primary human drives, particularly and especially those related to libido.

Psychoanalytic orientation is most strongly manifested today in such areas as the sociology of the family, deviant behavior, race relations, public opinion, war, etc.

The close proximity, interaction and mutual enrichment of sociology and psychology, especially the influence of psychology on sociology, is also evidenced by the fact that already in the 90s. XIX century In Russian social thought, the psychological paradigm of interpreting society and constructing sociology as a science about it was intensively used. Among the representatives of the psychological trend in Russian sociology are such well-known sociologists as E. V. de Roberti, N. I. Kareev, N. M. Korkunov. They believed that sociology should direct its main attention to the study of the psychological mechanism and social forms of manifestation of the behavior of an individual or group of individuals. “A sociologist,” wrote de Roberti, pursues one goal: knowledge of the laws of mental interaction. And therefore he especially diligently observes those facts in which this interaction, combined with the other two main types of energy in nature, is expressed with the greatest force and brightness, namely the facts usually called historical. Their totality constitutes a vast field - the natural history of societies, which is the main field of research of the sociologist, a huge laboratory in which his analysis strives to overcome the empirical obstacle: a concrete mixture of phenomena.

The psychologist, instead of considering the content of individual consciousnesses like a sociologist, in their external and mutual relations and those facts in which such relations are embodied, studies their internal connection, strives to reveal the deep mechanism of thought, to explain its stable and progressive or regressive development. Having before him the same concrete facts, he develops them differently than a sociologist. Using a number of methodological techniques leading to a different goal. In a word, if sociology is an abstract science and, therefore, primarily inductive, then psychology is a concrete science and therefore, of necessity, deductive.

N.I. Kareev, criticizing Comte for the fact that he immediately moved from biology to sociology, bypassing psychology. He wrote: “Between biology and sociology, we put psychology, but not individual, but collective.” Since only collective psychology can act as the true basis of sociology. After all, all social phenomena are ultimately nothing more than interactions between individuals.

Society, in his opinion, is a complex system of mental and practical interactions of individuals, a “supraorganic environment.” This environment is divided by him into cultural groups and social organization. Cultural groups are the subject of individual psychology.

Social organizations are the result of collective psychology and are the study of sociology.

N. M. Korkunov also believed that the connection that connects members of society together is of a spiritual, psychological nature, and that society is the result of “the mental unity of people.”

Sometimes when talking about the relationship between sociology and psychology, attention is paid only to the difference between these two sciences. This is what, for example, the authors of the textbook “General Sociology” do (Ed. by Prof. A. G. Efendiyev. - M., 2000). Let us note that the author of the chapter in which sociology and psychology are discussed is the study of the “spiritual life of people” by these disciplines.

The book makes reference to P. A. Sorokin, who argued that psychological research is aimed at studying (analysis) such variables (indicators) as instincts, desires, will, and human temperament as the basis of human behavior (actions). As for sociology, its tasks, the starting point of research, is to study the social position of a person, his status, traditions, customs. The study of all this is already a sociological study.

As for the actual position of G. A. Efendiev, it is expressed (in general) in his following reasoning. Let's bring them.

"So, first difference sociology from psychology: Sociology studies not the individual psychological characteristics of a person, but the socio-cultural causes, consequences and measures to prevent his actions. In other words, sociology explains the phenomenon not by the characteristics of the psyche of a particular person, but by the specifics of his status, place in social interactions, norms that have established themselves in a given environment, a given society.

Second difference(which is due to the first): for a psychologist, the psyche of a particular person is always a unique, unique world, while a sociologist considers the individual psyche of a person as a standard ability to understand, perceive, desire and interact with his own kind. A sociologist is most often distracted from the individual characteristics of the perception of desires and energy of a given person. And in this sense, the psyche for a sociologist is a typical ability inherent in any person.

Third difference: for a sociologist, a person is interesting primarily from the point of view of his rational component, i.e. sociology does not study the unconscious, the irrational."

Let us note, however, that the author of these words not only says virtually nothing about the interaction and mutual influence of sociology and psychology, but also reduces psychology (its subject and tasks) only to the study of the individual - “psychological characteristics of a person,” “the psyche of a specific person,” “the unique , the unique world of a particular person" (Meanwhile, psychology also studies the general (as well as sociology, by the way), and maybe first of all the general, which characterizes the psyche, as well as consciousness, i.e., the laws of the psyche, the laws of consciousness and behavior (behaviorism) of people. “Psychology is the science of the patterns of emergence, development and functioning of the psyche, of mental processes and properties that are components of human activity and communication, and animal behavior.” Yes, and sociology, by the way, is not directly concerned with identifying the specifics of status, places in the social interactions of a particular person, as follows from the reasoning of A. G. Efendiev. Sociology studies (by interviewing, say, a particular individual) not this particular individual in itself, but the individual as a representative of a special group or community of people; it studies the general, typical, which characterizes the social position of many individuals (group, community, layer, society, stratum, etc.). A.G. Efendiev cannot help but know this, so one can only be surprised at what he says about the specifics and features of sociology in relation to psychology.

In addition, when A.G. Efendiev writes that sociology is only interested in the rational and does not study the irrational, the unconscious..., the conclusion suggests itself that psychology studies both the rational and the irrational. And that's true. However, this is not only the point of difference between these two sciences, but also the point of their commonality, since the rational is studied not only by sociology, but also by psychology, of course, in the part that is represented by human psychology and not animal psychology.

The close connection and interaction of sociology and psychology is especially clearly represented today in the fact of the existence and successful development of social psychology, which is essentially a subsidiary discipline that arose at the intersection of these two sciences.

The psychological paradigm of studying man as a social being is so significant that some sociologists distinguish it as a special approach of sociological science. An example of this is the point of view of N. Smelser. He, speaking about approaches characteristic of sociology in the study and explanation of various facts, along with “demographic”, “collectivist” (the study of two or more people forming a group or organization), “interactionist” (the study of social life through the interaction of people determined by their roles ), “culturological” (analysis of people’s behavior based on cultural elements such as social rules and social values), also calls the psychological approach.” This latter “…explains behavior in terms of its significance for people as individuals. Motives, thoughts, skills, social attitudes, and a person’s ideas about himself are studied. The approach is characteristic of psychology, but it has also established itself in sociology. Social psychology studies many problems, including such as the formation of social attitudes, the interaction of society and the individual in the process of socialization, the formation and spread of moods in situations associated with panic and unrest."

Social psychology, some believe, should be concerned with the study of personality. Its subject is the patterns of personality formation, the relationship between the individual and the collective, the communication of individuals, conditioned by their joint activities and determining both the results of the latter and the actual content and forms of their mental activity. Others believe that this discipline has as its subject “mass mental phenomena,” “collective behavior,” and the psychology of classes, nations, and other social groups. There are also attempts to unite and integrate these points of view.

Be that as it may, it is clear that social psychology is a junctional branch of knowledge, existing as both a general branch of psychology and sociology. That is, it is a science about the psychological mechanisms, causes, patterns of behavior of people in groups and communities, as well as the psychological characteristics of people, groups and various kinds of communities.

The core of the subject of social psychology is the patterns of formation of group relations at various levels of the social system. These relationships are dual in nature: psychological in their mode of existence and regulation, “live” in the psyche and ultimately act through it; social in genesis and main function - coordination, integration and regulation of the life of social subjects. This determines the fact that the subject field of this discipline partly belongs to sociology and partly to psychology.

“Initially, socio-psychological problems were developed within the framework of philosophy. From the middle of the 19th century. Sociology and psychology, which emerged from philosophy, addressed (each within the framework of its subject) the same problems. However, precisely because of their specialization, they could not identify that specific logic of a specific object, which was supposed to constitute social psychology as an independent science” (ibid.).

Social psychology, as some authors rightly believe, cannot be successful as a science if it is built on psychology or sociology alone. If we consider it exclusively as a psychological discipline that exists within the framework of general psychology, then it will suffer from “methodological individualism,” that is, it, as P. N. Shikharev notes, will have to derive the laws of social interaction from the laws of the functioning of the individual psyche” (there same).

The holistic approach, as an approach opposed to methodological individualism,” which is rather sociological in nature and origin, can also hardly be the basis for the construction of social psychology as a special science. It is the other extreme and leads to the “depsychologization” of social psychology and its absorption into sociology. By the way, prosociological orientation in the understanding and development of social psychology has been gaining more and more supporters in recent years in the United States, as well as and especially in Western European countries