receive 40% of their total income from profits from their share capital. Thus, senior managers are both highly qualified specialists and bourgeois.
This situation, when the holders of shares are representatives of the most diverse segments of the population, including workers, has become typical for industrially developed countries. As a result, the boundaries between classes become less clear, blurred, which allows some Western sociologists to conclude that classes have disappeared. But since the majority of the economically active population lives mainly at the expense of remuneration for work, i.e. wages, or, on the contrary, is exempt from direct participation in the production process and is engaged only in commercial and entrepreneurial activities, then it is too early to talk about the disappearance of the working class and the bourgeoisie.
Changing the place occupied by a person or a group of people in a social structure is called social displacement (otherwise – mobility). For example, a peasant becomes a worker, representatives of the petty bourgeoisie move into the category of the middle or large bourgeoisie, etc. Changes in the social structure are confirmed by sociological research. Thus, among the intelligentsia of the developed countries of the world, the percentage of hereditary intelligentsia is small, the bulk of the current knowledge workers are from other social communities.
Large social movements are caused by the needs of the development of society. Thus, the transition of the mass of peasants to wage labor was historically natural and caused by the industrial stage of development. Objective patterns of changes in the social structure mean that a person’s belonging to a particular social stratum is not eternal. If, for example, your parents are peasants, then this does not mean that you should become a peasant, you can move to the city and study some kind of working profession or, after graduating from college, do mental work, or you can stay in the village to work on your native land.
In the countries of the modern world, the state is actively involved in the regulation of social processes. Not being able to eliminate objective trends in the changing social structure (for example, the movement of the peasantry to other classes, strata of the population), it can slow down or accelerate these processes, ease the situation of some groups of the population and complicate it for others, for which it uses laws, tax policy, other means of redistributing national income. So, our state currently helps the formation of independent peasant farms in the countryside, and in the city – the formation of a layer of entrepreneurs, etc. In developed European countries, in the United States, the state also supports the activities of farming and small enterprises.
State regulation of social relations is built taking into account the general goals of economic and political development of society, at the same time, the prevailing ideas of social justice in society are also taken into account. These ideas have changed in the course of historical development. In modern economically developed countries, the concept of «social justice» is primarily associated with the possibility of obtaining equal pay for equal work and special support for those segments of the population who are still or no longer able to work at full capacity (students, the elderly). The level of social protection of such segments of the population, which has increased in recent years in a number of developed countries, is attributed to general civilizational achievements.
Social justice is reflected in public opinion (the state of mass consciousness), and what the state does to ensure social justice in the life of society is seriously monitored by its citizens.
The word «differentiation» comes from the Latin root meaning difference. Social differentiation is the division of society into groups occupying different social positions. Many researchers believe that social division is characteristic of any society. Even in primitive tribes, groups were distinguished according to gender and age, with their inherent privileges and responsibilities. There was also an influential and respected leader and his entourage, as well as outcasts living «outside the law». At subsequent stages of development, social stratification became more complicated and became more and more obvious.
It is customary to distinguish between economic, political and professional differentiation. Economic differentiation is expressed in the difference in income, standard of living, in the existence of rich, poor and middle strata of the population. The division of society into managers and governed, political leaders and the masses is a manifestation of political differentiation. Professional differentiation can be attributed to the allocation of various groups in society by the nature of their activities, occupations. At the same time, some professions are considered more prestigious in comparison with others.
Thus, clarifying the concept of social differentiation, we can say that it means not just the allocation of any groups, but also a certain inequality between them in terms of their social status, the scope and nature of rights, privileges and responsibilities, prestige and influence.
Can this inequality be eliminated? There are different answers to this question. For example, the Marxist doctrine of society proceeds from the necessity and possibility of eliminating this inequality as the most vivid manifestation of social injustice. To solve this problem, it is necessary first of all to change the system of economic relations, to eliminate private ownership of the means of production. In other theories, social stratification is also regarded as evil, but it cannot be eliminated. People should accept this situation as inevitable.
According to another point of view, inequality is regarded as a positive phenomenon. It makes people strive to improve social relations. Social homogeneity will lead society to ruin. At the same time, many researchers note that in most developed countries there is a decrease in social polarization, the middle strata are increasing and the groups belonging to the extreme social poles are shrinking.
Reflect on the above points of view, try to correlate them with real socio-historical processes.
In their totality, social communities form the social structure of society. Sociologists have long tried to determine the main element of this structure. Many of them considered classes to be such an element. The very concept of «social class» appeared a long time ago. Initially, two classes were identified – the poor and the rich, i.e. only economic differentiation was taken into account. Later there was a division into classes of oppressed and oppressors. The emergence of classes was associated with political violence. In the XVIII century. distributive theory appeared (economist A. Smith, historian F. Gizo), according to which three main classes were distinguished: 1) owners of land (feudal lords) who receive rent; 2) owners of capital (bourgeoisie) who receive profit; 3) workers who have their labor, who receive wages. In the Marxist-Leninist theory, the main feature of the division of society into classes is property relations.
In modern Western sociology, the concept of «class» is also used (for example, there is a middle class, a class of managers).
But the concept of «strata» (Latin stratum – layer) is more universal. The division of society into strata is based on many criteria: income, profession, education, etc.
The social structure of society looks different through the prism of classes and strata. Let’s turn to the examples. The two main classes are the workers and the peasantry, and the social group is the intelligentsia. This was the structure of Soviet society from the standpoint of the Marxist class approach. And here is one of the variants of the social stratification of the Soviet society of the 80s. (the groups were distinguished taking into account the following characteristics: power, income level, prestige, education, lifestyle, consumption standards): the ruling class (0.7% of the employed population); management specialists (about 3.5%); creative intelligentsia (1.8%); skilled knowledge workers (18.8%); non-specialist employees (about 5%); industrial working class (22.3%); workers in various non-industrial and social sectors (19%); service personnel (about 13%); agricultural workers and peasants (15%) and other groups.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте