1.1. Social system: main components and levels
Social is called a system that a person enters into or that is intended for a person.
General system-forming factors of social systems:
The overall goal of the entire set of components;
Subordination of the goals of each component to the overall goal of the system and the awareness of each element of its tasks and understanding of the general goal;
Implementation of each element of its functions, due to the task;
Relations of subordination and coordination between the components of the system;
The presence of the principle of feedback between the control and controlled subsystems.
The main components of social systems are shown in the figure:
Rice. Components of social systems
The first, most important component of social systems is a person - a being, first of all, a social, conscious, goal-setting, connected with other people by a thousand different relationships and forms of interaction. In the process of labor, people
unite in groups, artels, social strata, communities and organizations. The presence of a human component is the main difference between a social system and other holistic systems.
Second group components of a social system - processes (economic, social, political, spiritual), the totality of which is a change in the states of the system as a whole or some part of its subsystems. Processes can be progressive and regressive. They are caused by the activities of people, social and professional groups.
Third group components of the social system - things, i.e. items involved in the orbit of economic and social life, the so-called second nature items (industrial buildings, tools and means of labor, computer and office equipment, communication and control equipment, technological devices created by man and used by him in the process of production, managerial and spiritual activities) ...
Fourth group components of the social system has a spiritual nature - these are social ideas, theories, cultural, moral values, customs, rituals, traditions, beliefs, which, again, are conditioned by the actions and deeds of various social groups and individuals.
 |
Depending on the essence, purpose, place in society, type of organization, functions, relationship with the environment, some basic levels of social systems can be identified (Fig.).
Rice. Levels of social systems
The widest and most difficult level- all concrete historical society (Russian, American, Chinese, etc.),
the totality of the members of this society and the entire complex of social relations - economic, political, proper social, spiritual and economic. In this broadest understanding of the social, a concrete society acts as a dynamic social system.
Second level social systems - communities, associations of people of a lesser order (nations, estates, social and ethnic groups, elites, settlements).
Third level social systems - organizations operating in the real sector of the economy (credit and financial institutions, scientific, scientific and educational firms, corporations, public associations, etc.).
Fourth (primary) level social systems - workshops, brigades, sections, professional groups within a firm, an enterprise. Their distinctive feature is the direct contacts of each with each.
Society is also characterized by other systemic formations, for example, administrative-territorial, having several levels: federation, subjects of the federation (republic, territory, region, national district, autonomous region), municipal associations (city, town, village, village, farm). Each of the levels, in turn, is a complex system with many different components, specific structure, functions, controls.
Another type of systems formation is in the spheres of public life: economic, political, social and spiritual.
For example, the economy is industry, agriculture, transport, communications, construction. Industry, agriculture, in turn, are divided into sectors, sub-sectors, and those into corporations, financial and industrial groups, firms, enterprises (small, medium, large), workshops, sections, departments, teams.
The political sphere is the state (legislative, executive and judicial bodies), public associations (political parties, social and political movements).
Spiritual sphere - mass media, cultural foundations, creative unions, scientific professional associations, etc.
End of work -
This topic belongs to the section:
Lectures on the course organization theory. Organization as a system
Compiled by k tn doc department construction management .. shevchenko lv .. lecture ..
If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our base of works:
What will we do with the received material:
If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
| Tweet |
All topics in this section:
The concept of organization and organizational phenomenon
Every person throughout his life is in one way or another connected with organizations. There are no organizations without people, just as there are no people who do not have to deal with organizations.
Systemic foundations of the organization
The main toolkit for studying organizations within the framework of organization theory is systems theory. The reasons for this are obvious - the signs and properties of any organization and any system, according to
Systems and subsystems
There are some general principles of a unified platform for studying technical, biological and social systems. Let us consider in more detail some of the general properties of si
Social organization as a social system
Social organizations unite the activities of people in society. The interaction of people through socialization creates the conditions and prerequisites for improving social and industrial relations
Goals of social organizations
Types of social organizations Goals 1. Socio-economic Main goal: maximizing profit in interest
Influence of the level of connections on the state of organizations
Social ties Economic ties Weak Medium Strong Weak Neus
State and municipal organizations
In accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, along with other types of organizations, state and municipal unitary enterprises are distinguished. They are legal entities. I exist
Formal and informal organizations
Any organization can be described using a number of parameters: purpose, legal and regulatory framework, resources, processes and structure, division of labor and distribution of roles, external
Evolution of socio-economic systems
The adaptation of a socio-economic system is not just an adaptation, but always a development following the path of systemic differentiation, aimed at achieving the maximum stability of the system.
Basic unit organizational forms of organizations
The single organizational forms are organizations that represent one legal entity. The name of the organizational form is determined by the type of products: goods, services, information
Basic group organizational forms of organizations
Group organizational forms include companies that represent the interests of several legal entities. They are associations of organizations through either cooperation or concentration of pro
Internal and external environment of the organization
Consider the organization as the main unit of the market economy, where management decisions are made. In any organization, three key processes are implemented:
Control system
The control system is a collection of all elements, subsystems and communications between them, as well as processes that ensure the specified functioning of the organization. She
Self-government and self-organization
In a broad sense, self-organization is understood as an irreversible process that, as a result of cooperative interaction of subsystems, leads to the formation of more efficient structures from the position
Communication and levels of contradiction
Communication in a broad sense is understood as communication, the transfer of information from person to person. In an organizational context, the concept of "communication" is considered as a process
Formation of the science of organization
1.1. The emergence of the theory of organization People often look for similarities in the processes and phenomena of the surrounding world, draw analogies between the behavior of biological communities and human
Synergy law
The energy potential of a business organization, which determines its ability to achieve this goal, depends on many factors. It is like material characteristics (territory, service etc.
The law of awareness - ordering
In modern society, the level of development of states is determined not only by economic and natural resources, but also by the state of information support or the state of the information environment, in
Volume of selected sectors of the e-commerce market
E-commerce market sector 1996 2000 Business - business $ 600 million $ 66 470 million
Development law
As a result of organizational processes, constant changes occur in systems of various natures; systems are in a dynamic mode - development. All nature participates in this process, isob
Specific laws of social organization
New information technologies, network communications and automation of managerial work contribute to the strengthening of the positive effect of the objective laws of the organization and the improvement of the principle
Equilibrium law
The structural stability of systems of mobile equilibrium is expressed by the law of equilibrium, formulated by Le Chatelier for physical and chemical systems (known as at Le Chatelier), but in reality
The law of relative resistances (the law of least). Concentric principle
The law of relative resistance says: the overall stability of the system as a whole is determined by the lowest relative stability of its constituent components in relation to a given external air
Statics and dynamics of organizational systems
The concepts of statics and dynamics, which are now widely used to characterize social organizations, are borrowed from mechanics and their meaning is similar to the corresponding physically
Comparative analysis of the principles of operation of static and dynamic organizations
The laws of an organization studied in this course determine the dynamics of its development. A dynamically developing system must be in a state of stable equilibrium. This lie means that she is finding
Principles of rationalization
Rationalization is an improvement, improvement, implementation of a more expedient organization of managerial and executive work. The term "rationalization" has occurred
Directions of rationalization of organizational and labor activities
Direction of rationalization Implementation Improvement of the scientific organization of labor. Creation of the most favorable services
Improving the quality of managerial and executive work
The application in practice of the principles of rationalization discussed above makes it possible to increase the profitability of the implementation, production or scientific activities, and also provides a positive di
The influence of new information technologies on the processes of rationalizing organizational activities
In the history of mankind, innovations in the field of technology have repeatedly had a revolutionary impact on social and economic development. In recent decades, thanks to the rapid development of information
Rationalizing Impact of the E-Commerce Environment on Transaction Cost Metrics
Transaction type Evaluation criteria Price Time »Risk Convenience
Formation of organizational structures
Organizational system design is the process of creating a prototype of a future organization. It should include not only a description of the organization on the
Design and methods of adjusting organizational systems
The processes of designing organizational systems are inextricably linked with the need to adjust (“redesign”) the structures of existing organizations. In the context of a common political and economic
Practical implementation of the method for assessing the effectiveness of the formed organizational system
In accordance with the previously considered algorithm for the design of organizational systems (Fig. 7.5), a mathematical model of the functioning of the future enterprise is formed. A mod is built on its basis
Historical development of organizational science
The choice of the best form of organizational activity and related organizational problems worried people throughout the history of human existence. Organizational Science
Development of organizational thought in Russia
In Russia, a significant role in the development of organizational activity was played by the reforms of public administration, which was carried out by Peter the Great (1672-1725). Reforms of states
Contribution of informatization to organizational science
The modern world has entered the era of the formation of the information space, which is based on the development of networked telecommunication systems and the use of computer technologies for collecting, processing
Organizational culture
Culture in the general human sense is a historically determined level of development of society and a person, expressed in the forms of organization of life, as well as in the created material and spiritual values
Subjects and objects of organizational activity
Organizational activity is the creation or improvement of a mechanism for managing an organization in accordance with the goals and objectives of organizational systems representing the
Plan:
System concept.
Social system: main components and levels.
Social organization.
Classification of modern organizations.
System concept
System(Greek. Systema - whole, made up of parts) is a set of elements that are in certain relationships (connections) with each other and form integrity, unity.
According to a scientist in the field of cybernetics, A.I. Berg, the system is that "we need to know about a given object in order to solve any specific problem of research, planning and management."
A significant contribution to the development of general systems theory was made by domestic and foreign scientists, including the "father" of cybernetics Norbert Wiener, as well as V.G. Afanasyev, I. V. Blauberg, J. Lorsch, V.N. Sadovsky and others. Thanks to their work, an understanding of the organization as a system has developed, but not any, but to a certain extent ordered, active, and effective.
The term "organization" reveals the essence of the system, indicates that it not only actually exists (is organized), but also functions in a certain way and has specific results.
At the first stage of development of the theory of organization (first half of the XX century)
it was dominated by the “closed system” paradigm, in which enterprises were viewed mainly as “self-sufficient”, isolated from external conditions. The main factor of success was considered to be the expansion of the scale of production of goods and services based on the stability of goals and objectives, efficient use of resources, increased productivity, control and discipline.
At the second stage (the second half of the 20th century), the focus of research was shifted towards external factors that determine the strategy and tactics of managing an organization, and the organizations themselves began to be presented as “open systems” (see Table 1). The same processes are typical for educational systems.
Table 1.
Organization as an open system
| Traits and properties | Description, rationale |
| Components | The system consists of a number of parts called components or elements; they are necessary to achieve goals |
| Connections | Components are interconnected to support the processes taking place in the system |
| Structure | The form of communication is organizationally fixed in the structure for its stability and stability. Systems are characterized by hierarchical structure, i.e. presence of subsystems |
| Interaction | Only in the interaction of all elements and connections are processes and results possible |
| Process | Several processes are simultaneously running in the system aimed at changing resources and "turning" them into a result |
| Holism | System - integrity, showing properties only as a result of the interaction of its components |
| Emergence | The presence of qualitatively new properties of the whole, which are absent in its components |
| Identification | Signs and properties that distinguish the system from other processes, systems. |
| Environment | Phenomena and processes that are not part of the system, but that affect it and form its external environment. |
| Concept | The main idea, the principle of achieving the set goal |
The concepts of the situational approach (1960s), strategy (1970s), innovation and leadership (1980s - 1990s) gradually approved the theorists and practitioners of management and marketing in the idea that both scientific paradigms ( “Closed”, corporate and “open”, focused on the client and society) “work”, mutually complementing one another.
The modern world that surrounds a person is a complex supersystem that can be represented in the unity of three main systems (large subsystems are usually called systems): biological, social and technical.
Biological, social and technical systems can be classified as artificial and natural, open and closed, completely and partially predictable, hard and soft.
2. Social system: main components and levels
Social system Is a set of relatively independent organizations created in the interests of various subjects (individuals, groups, institutions, states, the world community) and functioning to achieve certain goals.
Coordination of the activities of all subsystems and individual elements of the organization is an attribute of effective management and an indispensable condition for obtaining the desired results.
General system-forming factors of social systems:
the common goal of the entire set of elements;
the performance of each element of its functions, due to the task;
the relation of subordination and coordination between the managing and the controlled subsystems.
The first, most important component of social systems is a person - a being, first of all, social, conscious, goal-setting, connected with other people by a thousand different relationships and forms of interaction. The presence of a human component is the main difference between a social system and other holistic systems.
The second group consists of processes (economic, social, etc.), the totality of which represents a change in the states of the system as a whole or some part of its subsystems. Processes can be progressive and regressive. They are caused by the activities of people, social and professional groups.
The third group of components of the social system is things, i.e. objects involved in the orbit of economic and social life, the so-called objects of the second nature (industrial buildings, tools, computer and office equipment, communication and control equipment).
The fourth group of components is of a spiritual nature - these are social ideas, rituals, traditions, beliefs, which are conditioned by the actions and deeds of various social groups and individuals.
Depending on the essence, purpose, place in society, type of organization, functions, relations with the environment, some basic levels of social systems can be distinguished.
The broadest and most complex level is the entire concrete historical society (Russian, American, Chinese, etc.), the totality of the members of this society and the whole complex of social relations - economic, political, social, and spiritual. In this broadest understanding of the social, a concrete society acts as a dynamic social system.
The second level of social systems is a community, associations of people of a lesser order (nations, estates, social and ethnic groups, elites, settlements).
The third level of social systems - organizations operating in the real sector of the economy (credit and financial institutions, scientific and educational, public associations, etc.).
The fourth level of social systems - workshops, sections, professional groups, enterprises. Their distinctive feature is the direct contacts of each with each.
Society is also characterized by other systemic formations, for example, administrative-territorial, having several levels: federation, subjects of the federation, municipal associations.
Another type of systems formation is in the spheres of public life: economic, political, social, spiritual.
3. Social organization
Social organizations unite the activities of people in society. The interaction of people through socialization creates conditions and prerequisites for improving social and industrial relations
There are various approaches to defining the concept of "social organization".
1. The concept of "social organization" can imply an artificial association of an institutional nature, designed to perform a specific function.
2. The concept of "social organization" may coincide with the concept of "management". In this case, "social organization" means an activity for the distribution of, for example, functions, coordination, i.e. the process of purposeful impact on the object, which presupposes the figures of the organizer and those being organized.
3. The term "social organization" is used to characterize the degree of ordering of an object, i.e. to identify its structure and type of connections of the whole and its parts. In this sense, this term is usually used to refer to organized and unorganized systems, formal and informal organizations.
Social organization has inherent social properties, which include: organizational goals and functions, effectiveness of results, motivation and incentives for personnel.
In practice, social systems are implemented in the form of organizations, companies, firms, etc. In the theory of organization, various types of social organizations are distinguished: socio-economic, socio-political, socio-educational. Each of these types has the priority of its own goals (see Table 2).
table 2
Goals of social organizations
Classification of modern organizations
social status(governmental and non-governmental. Status government organization assigned to the highest official authorities. These include organizations fixed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, etc., for example, ministries, the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation.);
legal status(formal and informal);
purpose and way of being(commercial and non-commercial. K commercial organizations business partnerships and companies, production cooperatives, state and municipal unitary enterprises are classified; To non-profit- consumer cooperatives, public or religious organizations (associations), charitable and other foundations, institutions. Along with the listed "single" forms, there are also associations of commercial and non-commercial organizations - associations and unions);
sources of financing(budget and non-budget. Budgetary organizations plan the scale of their activities based on the allocated public funds.
scope of activity(local, regional, national, international);
focus of activity(economic and social. Business organizations are designed to meet the needs and interests of individuals and society, mainly in the external environment for the organization through the production of products. Public organizations created to meet the social needs and interests of members of their societies).
1) registered in accordance with the established procedure;
2) has a current account with a bank;
3) owns, economically or operatively, separate property;
4) is responsible for its obligations with this property;
5) may, on its own behalf, acquire and exercise property and personal non-property rights;
6) fulfills the assigned duties;
7) has an independent balance sheet or estimate;
8) can be a plaintiff or a defendant in court.
Table 3
Organizational forms of modern enterprises
| Classification of the "product" produced or provided |
||||
| Products | Services | Entertainment | Information | Knowledge |
| Venture Combine Workshop Factory | Studio Auditing Hotel Tour operator Fund | Variety show Hippodrome Cinema Club, etc. | Information Agency PR agency Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Public Opinion Research Center | Academy Institute Research Institute The university School |
| Typical organizational forms of enterprises |
||||
Topic: "Static and dynamic principles of organization"
Plan:
The essence and concept of the principles of organization.
General principles of organization and their characteristics.
Static and dynamic state of the organization. Principles of the statistical state of an organization.
The principles of the dynamic state of the organization.
Organization rationalization principles
B.V. Milner Organization theory. - M .: INFRA-M., 1998.
V. N. Parakhina Organization theory: Uch. allowance. - M .: KNORUS, 2004.
Smirnova E.A. Organization theory: Uch. allowance. - M .: INFRA-M, 2002.
I. The essence and concept of the principles of organization.
The principle (beginning, foundation) is the main starting point of theory, science; inner conviction of a person, which determines his attitude to reality; the norm, an objective rule, based on practical experience or the existing system of knowledge.
The principles of organization are not a dogma, they change in accordance with the economic life of society, reflect the objective laws of management practice. The first principles were formulated at the turn of the 19th century by F. Taylor.
The principles are many and varied. There are various classifications in the literature. Of practical value for managers is a classification in which the principles of organization are brought together into 4 main groups: general, static organization, dynamic organization and rationalization.
II. General principles of organization and their characteristics
Consider the general principles of organization, summarized in three main groups: basic, correspondence, optimality.
General principles of organization
| Basic (initial) | Compliance | Optimality |
| feedback principle (continuity) | goals and resources | combination of centralization and decentralization |
| development principle (innovation) | management and subordination | rhythm |
| principle of competition, competition (complexity) | production efficiency and economy | straightness |
| complementarity principle (verification, ambivalence) | synchronization |
Feedback principle. Socio-economic systems are mainly open and non-equilibrium systems. The imbalance in them is possible for various reasons. Their regulation is possible on the basis of feedback. After all, any control system consists of 2 subsystems: control and controlled. There are different communication links between them, which are channels for transferring management information from subject to object and vice versa. Feedback can be positive (amplifying the effect of the error signal) and negative. The assessment of information by the subject of management must be prompt and reliable.
Development principle... Development is an irreversible directional change in the system. There are 2 forms of development:
evolutionary which is characterized by gradual quantitative and qualitative changes;
revolutionary , which is a jump-like unconscious transition from one state of the system, the control process to another.
There is progressive and regressive development (change). Progressive and regressive development may not cover the entire system as a whole, but only one component, only over time the entire system will undergo changes.
Any of the stages of the organization's life cycle is accompanied by random deviations of instantaneous values from their average value. This ensures the movement of the nonequilibrium system towards the attractor of stability. (Synergetics defines an attractor as a relatively stable state of a system with many trajectories depending on different initial conditions. Attracting factors have a corrective effect on the system as a whole, on the possible trajectories of its motion).
The principle of competition, competition. Practice confirms that the viability of a social system depends on the degree of development of competitive, competitive principles. Competition reveals the most efficient and effective ways of development. This is reflected in the comparison, selection and implementation of the most effective methods of business and management. (For some time in economics, this principle was ignored, it was believed that competition could be harmful. In fact, the lack of competition led to the inhibition of private initiative, to the fact that the system switched to a "sluggish" run, and then to stagnation. Competitive relations are contradictory: the mechanism competition forms the social priorities of freedom of choice, active influence on the adoption of bold managerial decisions. But unfair competition is dangerous).
Complementarity principle. Organizational systems combine, on the one hand, objective, stable tendencies, and on the other, random, unstable ones. They complement each other. Their dialectical interaction is defined as the principle of complementarity, the essence of which is an ambivalent approach to disclosing the functioning and development of the system (ambivalence indicates the duality, inconsistency of all processes and phenomena of the organization's life. for some time, that the number of arguments "For" can be balanced by the same number of arguments "against").
Let's move on to considering the principles conformity
The principle of matching goals and resources. The key objectives adopted by the organization must be resourced in a timely manner. This principle is consistent with the target software technology of the production process and the development of solutions. It consists in issuing tasks (goals and objectives) for execution, indicating the means, methods and time for their implementation, with the organization of external or internal control of the intermediate states of this implementation. The professionalism of the assignment is determined by the qualifications of the manager who issued the assignment, and the qualifications of the performer play a secondary role.
The principle of conformity of management and subordination. Each employee should have one line manager and any number of functional ones when performing a specific job.
A function is considered administrative if, among the procedures that comprise it, the “Decision making” or “Decision approval” procedure is a priority. For the technological one, this is the presence of priority procedures among the procedures and its components: "Preparation of a solution", "Coordination" or "Organization of implementation of a solution". Patronage - when there are no priority functions in the set (may be assigned to specialists from other firms.
The principle of compliance with production efficiency and economy. For each organization, a balance must be found between efficiency and cost. Efficiency should be prioritized .
E = (Results / Cost) × 100%
Let's open a group of optimality principles (a combination of centralization and decentralization, direct flow, rhythm, synchronization).
The principle of optimal combination of centralization and decentralization of production and management requires managers at all levels to make rational use of the possibilities of administration and collegiality (depending on the size, structure of the organization, performance, external conditions).
Direct-flow principle means that production and information processes must follow the shortest path in order to avoid additional costs and distortions. The principle directs the administration and personnel to minimize production and management operations while adhering to technology and guaranteed quality of products.
The principle of rhythm means that production and information processes must go with a given level of uniformity during given time intervals. Rhythm ensures the planned functioning of all elements of the organization, excludes the alternation of periods of "calm" and "rush".
The principle of synchronization (consistency) contributes to the rapid restoration of the desired mode of functioning of the organization in the event of various deviations from the norm. (The dynamics of market relations requires flexibility in organizing business processes: something should be temporarily or permanently strengthened, something should be weakened. This principle contributes to the implementation of another “priority of structures over the functions of existing organizations.” Instead of changing the composition of the structure, it can be reoriented to new processes.)
III. Static and dynamic state of the organization. Organization Static State Principles
The static and dynamic state of the organization is determined by the stages of the life cycle of the organization. These stages can be roughly divided into two groups: static and dynamic.
Static is characterized by insensitivity. Static refers to the phase of liquidation, when companies are engaged in solving internal problems.
The dynamic group includes the stages of birth, growth, maturity, aging and rebirth. They are characterized by the solution of external and internal problems in interconnection.
The principles of the static state of an organization include: the principle of the priority of the goal, the priority of functions over the structure, the priority of the subject of control over the object.
The principle of the priority of the goal. In the system "goal - task - function - structure - personnel" the highest priority is given to purpose... It is the goal that must be well developed when creating, downsizing (etc.) an organization. It should be represented by smaller targets by area of activity. Each goal should be specified in the form of tasks with timelines, resources, etc. To solve a set of tasks, management functions are formed with an indication of labor intensity, complexity, and on their basis an optimal organizational structure is created. The structure serves as the basis for the formation of a contingent of employees of the organization.
The principle of priority of functions over structure it is implemented by those who do not seek to copy a “foreign” structure, but create a unique structure for a set of specific functions leading to the achievement of the set goals.
The principle of priority of the subject of control over the object expressed in the sequence of the creation of structural elements (departments), selection and placement of personnel. First, you need to select an experienced leader (specialist), and then entrust the creation of a team.
IV. Principles of the dynamic state of an organization
This: the principles of the highest priority of personnel, the priority of structures over functions, the object of management over the subject. They are implemented at the stages of withdrawal, growth, maturity, saturation, recession of the organization.
The principle of the highest priority of personnel provides for the establishment of the reverse sequence of system elements: "personnel - structure - tasks - function - goal". When the control mechanism is launched, a person becomes the main productive force and the highest value. The contribution of everyone is decisive for the achievement of the set goal.
Principle priority of structures over functions in operating organizations, it is expressed in the constant optimization of its structural components (some of the structural elements die off, the other is re-created). Such a flexible structure allows for a better reallocation of functions and tasks between employees to improve work efficiency. In addition, it diversifies professional activities, creates new opportunities for personnel development.
Principle priority of the object of control over the subject"Comes into effect" when the heads of structural divisions are replaced. In most cases, when deciding on personnel appointments, the administration must take into account the opinion of the work collective. After all, subordinates are the main resource of the organization, which often exceeds the total potential of the leader.
V. Principles of organizational rationalization
Term rationalization - ( reasonable) is interpreted as "improvement, more expedient organization of something."
This group includes the principle of sequential connection, the principle of comprehensiveness of input information, the principle of comprehensiveness of recommendations for rationalizing the company.
Serial connection principle implemented in a differentiated manner.
| Specific traits | The main stages (procedures) of transformations |
||
| Developing a philosophy and strategy | Defining principles and tactics | Design and implementation |
|
| Optimal type of thinking | Sensationalism | Irrationalism | Rationalism |
| Main problems | Formulation of main goals and objectives | Selection of models and solutions | Algorithmization of actions |
| Main questions | What should be achieved and why? | How to get what you want | How exactly to proceed? |
The principle of comprehensiveness of input information requires the incoming information to reflect all the main parameters that characterize its structure, processes and performance.
The principle of internal rationalization- the most important. Mass innovation is a well-proven form of stimulating initiative and creativity of employees, involving personnel in management.
A social organism has many complex structures, each of which is not just a collection, a set of certain components, but their integrity. The classification of this set is very important for comprehending the essence of society and at the same time is extremely difficult due to the fact that this set is very solid in size.
It seems to us that this classification can be based on the considerations of E.S. Markarian, who proposed to consider this problem from three qualitatively different points of view:
- 1. From the point of view of the subject of activity, answering the question: who is acting?
- 2. From the point of view of the area of application of the activity, which makes it possible to establish what the human activity is aimed at.
- 3. From the point of view of the method of activity, designed to answer the question: how, how is human activity carried out and its cumulative effect is formed? "
What does each of the main sections of society look like in this case (let's call them subjective-activity, functional and socio-cultural)?
- 1. Subjective-activity cut ("who acts?"), The components of which in any case are people "because in society there can be no other subjects of activity. People, as such, appear in two versions:
- a) as individuals, moreover, the individuality of the action, its relative autonomy are expressed the more vividly, the more personal characteristics are developed in a person (moral awareness of his position, understanding of the social necessity and significance of his activity, etc.);
- b) as associations of individuals in the form of large (ethnos, social class, or a layer within it) and small (family, primary labor or educational collective) social groups, although associations are also possible outside these groupings (for example, political parties, the army).
- 2. A functional cut ("what is human activity aimed at?"), Which allows to identify the main areas of application of socially significant activity. Taking into account both the biophysiological and social needs of a person, the following main areas of activity are usually distinguished: economics, transport and communications, upbringing, education, science, management, defense, health care, art, in modern society, they obviously include the sphere of ecology, and also the sphere with the conditional name "informatics", meaning by it not only information and computer support of all other spheres of human activity, but also the branch of the so-called mass media;
- 3. Socio-cultural cut ("how is the activity carried out?"), Revealing the means and mechanisms of effective functioning of society as an integral system. In giving such a definition of the cut, we take into account that basically (especially in the conditions of the modern wave of civilization) human activity is carried out by non-biological, socially acquired, that is, by their nature, socio-cultural means and mechanisms. These include phenomena that seem to be very distant from each other in their specific origin, in their substrate, range of applicability, etc.: the means of material production and consciousness, public institutions such as the state and socio-psychological traditions, language and dwelling.
And yet, the consideration of the main sections of society, in our opinion, will be incomplete if one more important section remains out of sight - the socio-structural one, which allows one to continue and deepen the analysis of both the subject of activity and the means-mechanisms of activity. The fact is that society has a super complex social, in the narrow sense of the word, structure, within which the following subsystems can be distinguished as the most significant, class-stratification (main and non-main classes, large strata within classes, estates, strata), social and ethnic (tribal associations, nationalities, nations), demographic (gender and age structure of the population, the ratio of the active and disabled population, the relative characteristics of the population's health), settlement (villagers and townspeople), vocational and educational (the division of individuals into physical and mental workers, their educational level, place in the professional division of labor).
By superimposing the socio-structural cut of society on the three previously considered, we get the opportunity to connect to the characteristics of the subject of activity the coordinates associated with his belonging to a completely specific class-stratification, ethnic, demographic, settlement, professional and educational groupings. Our possibilities for a more differentiated analysis of both spheres and methods of activity from the perspective of their inscribed in specific social substructures are increasing.
So, for example, the spheres of health care and education will certainly look different depending on the settlement context in which we have to consider them.
Despite the fact that the structures of systems differ from each other not only quantitatively, but also fundamentally, qualitatively, there is still no harmonious, and even more complete, typology of social systems on this basis. In this regard, it is legitimate to offer N. Yakhiela (Bulgaria) to distinguish within the class of social systems systems that have a "sociological structure". The latter means a structure that includes those components and relations that are necessary and sufficient for the functioning of society as a self-developing and self-regulating system.
These systems include society as a whole, each of the specific socio-economic formations, settlement structures (city and village). Perhaps, we can draw a line on this, because even such a system as economics, for all its importance, does not possess such a “sociological structure”.
A social system is the orderliness of interacting individuals, things and processes that form integrative qualities that are not characteristic of these components, considered autonomously.
Levels of social systems.
A) All concretely historical society, i.e. it is the totality of the members of a given society, as well as the entire complex of social relations: economic, political, social and spiritual.
B) communities and associations of people of a lesser order (nations, estates, ethnic groups, settlements, etc.)
C) organizations operating in real sectors of the economy (credit and financial institutions, scientific and educational institutions, firms, public associations, etc.)
D) primary level 3 of social systems (departments, divisions, work areas, project teams within firms and enterprises)
Synergistic effect of the formation of social systems.
The synergistic effect of the formation of social systems makes it possible to solve the following tasks:
1) ensuring survival
2) Increase in people, population
3) Expansion and development of the territory
4) Consolidation, conservation and use of resources
5) Division, specialization and distribution of labor
6) Formation of the necessary diversity for existence
7) Implementation of harmonious and comprehensive development.
The main components of social systems.
1. Person, i.e. a social being, conscious, goal-setting, connected with other people by a variety of relationships and forms of interaction. The presence of a human component is an essential and essential feature of a social system that distinguishes it from other systems.
2. Processes... Economic, social, political, spiritual. This is a change in the states of the system as a whole or of its individual subsystems. Processes can be progressive and regressive, but they are all caused by the activities of people, social and professional groups.
3. Things... Subjects involved in the orbit of economic and social life.
4. Components of the Spiritual Nature... These are social ideas, values, rituals, customs, rituals, traditions that are conditioned by the actions and deeds of various social groups and individuals.
2) The essence and characteristics of the organization.
Organization is a kind of social system . This is an association of 2 or more people who jointly realize a certain goal based on certain principles and rules. Organization is the primary element of any social system. This is the most common form of human community. Depending on the goal, organizations can be commercial or non-commercial (educational, political, medical, legal, etc.).
The main features of the organization:
- having a goal... It gives meaning to the entire existence of the organization, and also gives a specific direction to the actions of members of the organization and departments.
- the presence of a certain number of participants... Effective achievement of the organization's goal is possible if there is a certain critical number of participants with appropriate qualifications.
- division of labor. Allows to specialize the activities of participants, as well as to increase the productivity and quality of their work.
1) horizontal. By stages of the production process
2) vertical. By management levels.
- Hierarchical structure of the organization... reinforces the division of labor of participants in structural units and forms connections between them.
- The organization is a self-governing system... The presence of an internal coordinating center ensures the unity of action of all members of the organization
- principle of self-regulation or self-organization... the coordinating center independently decides on the internal life of the organization, its employees, and also ensures the rational behavior of the organization in the external environment.
- isolation of the organization... It is expressed in the closedness of internal processes, in the presence of a border that separates the organization from the external environment.
- the presence of an individual organizational culture. It is a collection of traditions, values, beliefs and symbols shared by the majority of members of the organization and predetermining the nature of relationships in the organization.
3) The main types of organizations (classification)
The organizations that make up the foundation of any civilization can be represented as a set of legal forms and organizational structures. Their classification is important for 3 reasons:
1. Grouping an organization by organizational parameters. Allows you to create a minimum of methods for their analysis and improvement.
2. Use of a unified classification. Promotes the creation of the necessary infrastructure, which includes
a) training system
b) planning the work of control services
c) preparation of the legislative system
3. Belonging of the organization to one or another group. Allows you to determine its relationship to tax and social benefits
Classification of organizations:
1) Commercial - their main purpose is to make a profit
Non-commercial - their main purpose is anything other than commercial.
2) Public - build their activities on the basis of meeting the needs of their members.
Economic - their activities are aimed at meeting the needs of society in goods and services.
3) Governmental - organizations with the appropriate status, such as ministries and departments.
Non-governmental organizations are organizations that do not have this status.
4) Formal - officially registered organizations.
Informal - not included in the registers and not having the appropriate documents.
4) factors that determine the nature of the organization.
There are a number of dynamically changing factors directly or indirectly affecting the nature and condition of the organization. These include:
1. External environment (direct and indirect impact). This is a set of variables that are outside the enterprise and are not directly influenced by the management of the organization.
A) direct impact. The set of organizations and subsystems with which ties of a given organization arise in the course of its functioning (consumers, suppliers, media, financial institutions, competitors)
B) indirect impact. These are factors that affect all organizations without exception and create opportunities or threats for the functioning of the organization (economic, political, technological, climatic, socio-demographic, cultural).
2. Objectives and strategies. Variables that are partly set by the organization itself, and partly regulated by the external environment.
A) goals. Reflection of the objective essence of the organization and its functions in society. These are the motives and incentives for the employees of the organization. These are the criteria for assessing the performance of the organization and its divisions.
B) strategies. On the one hand, this is the definition of the main long-term objectives of the organization, on the other hand, it is the course of action (structure, technology) necessary to achieve the main goals of the organization.
3. Technology of work. This factor predetermines the production structure, as well as the methods of organizing production, and through them the organizational structure and management ties. The achievement of goals depends on the general level of development of the productive forces and scientific and technical progress.
4. Staff... This is the staff of the organization. These are the socio-cultural and professional qualifications of employees, their individual goals and strategies, as well as values and motivation.
Introduction 2
1. The concept of a social system 3
2. Social system and its structure 3
3. Functional problems of social systems 8
4. The hierarchy of social systems 12
5. Social connections and types of social systems 13
6. Types of social interactions between subsystems 17
7. Societies and social systems 21
8. Social and cultural systems 28
9. Social systems and the individual 30
10. The paradigm of the analysis of social systems 31
Conclusion 32
References 33
Introduction
The theoretical and methodological foundations for the development of the theory of social systems are associated with the names of G.V.F. Hegel as the founder of systems analysis and worldview, as well as A.A. Bogdanov (pseudonym of A.A. Malinovsky) and L. Bertalanfi. Methodologically, the theory of social systems is guided by a functional methodology based on the principle of primary identification of the whole (system) and its elements. Such identification should be carried out at the level of explaining the behavior and properties of the whole. Since the subsystem elements are connected by various cause-and-effect relationships, the problems existing in them can, to one degree or another, be generated by the system and affect the state of the system as a whole.
Each social system can be an element of a more global social education. It is this fact that causes the greatest difficulties in the construction of conceptual models of a problem situation and the subject of sociological analysis. The micromodel of a social system is a personality - a stable integrity (system) of socially significant traits, characteristics of an individual as a member of society, group, community. The problem of setting the boundaries of the studied social system plays a special role in the process of conceptualization.
1. Social system concept
A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships that form a single whole. Such a system, when interacting with the external environment, is capable of changing the relations of elements, i.e. its structure, which is a network of ordered and interdependent connections between the elements of the system.
The problem of social systems was developed most deeply by the American theoretical sociologist T. Parsons (1902 - 1979) in his work "Social System". Despite the fact that in the works of T. Parsons, society as a whole is mainly considered, from the point of view of the social system, the interactions of social sets at the micro level can be analyzed. University students, an informal group, etc. can be analyzed as a social system.
Self-preservation is the mechanism of the social system that strives to maintain equilibrium. Since every social system is interested in self-preservation, the problem of social control arises, which can be defined as a process that counteracts social deviations in the social system. Social control, along with socialization processes, ensures the integration of individuals into society. This happens through the individual's internalization of social norms, roles and patterns of behavior. The mechanisms of social control, according to T. Parsons, include: institutionalization; interpersonal sanctions and influences; ritual actions; structures to ensure the preservation of values; institutionalizing a system capable of implementing violence and coercion. A decisive role in the process of socialization and forms of social control is played by culture, which reflects the nature of interactions between individuals and groups, as well as “ideas” that mediate cultural patterns of behavior. This means that the social system is a product and a special type of interaction between people, their feelings, emotions, moods.
Each of the main functions of the social system is differentiated into a large number of subfunctions (less general functions), which are implemented by people included in one or another normative and organizational social structure that more or less meets the functional requirements of society. The interaction of micro- and macro-subjective and objective elements included in this organizational structure for the implementation of the functions (economic, political, etc.) of the social organism, gives it the character of a social system.
Functioning within the framework of one or several basic structures of the social system, social systems act as structural elements of social reality, and, consequently, as the initial elements of sociological knowledge of its structures.
2. Social system and its structure
A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. Integrity and integration are essential features of any system.
The first concept (integrity) fixes the objective form of the existence of a phenomenon, i.e. its existence as a whole, and the second (integration) is the process and mechanism of combining its parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This means that each whole has new qualities that are not mechanically reducible to the sum of its elements, reveals a certain "integral effect". These new qualities, inherent in the phenomenon as a whole, are usually designated as systemic and integral qualities.
The specificity of a social system is that it is formed on the basis of one or another community of people, and its elements are people whose behavior is determined by certain social positions that they occupy and specific social functions that they perform; social norms and values adopted in this social system, as well as their various individual qualities. The elements of a social system can include various ideal and random elements.
An individual carries out his activities not in isolation, but in the process of interacting with other people, united in various communities under the conditions of the action of a set of factors influencing the formation and behavior of the individual. In the process of this interaction, people, the social environment have a systematic effect on a given individual, as well as he has a reverse effect on other individuals and the environment. As a result, a given community of people becomes a social system, an integrity with systemic qualities, i.e. qualities that none of the elements of separateness included in it.
A certain way of connecting the interaction of elements, i.e. individuals holding certain social positions and performing certain social functions in accordance with the set of norms and values adopted in a given social system, form the structure of the social system. In sociology, there is no generally accepted definition of the concept of "social structure". In various scientific works, this concept is defined as "the organization of relations", "a certain articulation, the order of the arrangement of parts"; "Consistent, more or less constant regularities"; “A pattern of behavior, i.e. observed informal action or sequence of actions ”; “Relations between groups and individuals, which are manifested in their behavior,” etc. All these examples, in our opinion, do not oppose, but complement each other, allow you to create an integral idea of the elements and properties of the social structure.
The types of social structure are: an ideal structure that links together beliefs, convictions, imaginations; normative structure, including values, norms, prescribed social roles; organizational structure, which determines the way of interconnection of positions or statuses and determines the nature of the repetition of systems; a random structure, consisting of the elements included in its functioning, available at the moment. The first two types of social structure are related to the concept of cultural structure, and the other two are related to the concept of societal structure. Regulatory and organizational structures are viewed as a coherent whole, and the elements included in their functioning are considered strategic. The ideal and random structures and their elements, being included in the functioning of the social structure as a whole, can cause both positive and negative deviations in its behavior. This, in turn, results in a mismatch in the interaction of various structures that act as elements of a more general social system, dysfunctional disorders of this system.
The structure of a social system as a functional unity of a set of elements is regulated only by its inherent laws and patterns, has its own determinism. As a result, the existence, functioning and change of the structure is not determined by a law that stands, as it were, "outside it", but has the character of self-regulation, which maintains - under certain conditions - the balance of elements within the system, restores it in case of known violations and directs the change in these elements and the structure itself.
The patterns of development and functioning of a given social system may or may not coincide with the corresponding patterns of the societal system, have positive or negative socially significant consequences for a given society.
3. Functional problems of social systems
Interaction relations, analyzed in terms of statuses and roles, take place in the system. If such a system forms a stable order or is able to maintain an ordered process of changes aimed at development, then certain functional prerequisites must exist within it. The system of action is structured in accordance with three integrative starting points: the individual actor, the system of interaction, and the system of cultural standards. Each of them presupposes the presence of others, and, therefore, the variability of each is limited by the need to meet a certain minimum of conditions for the functioning of each of the other two.
If we look from the point of view of any of these points of integration of an action, for example, a social system, then we can distinguish two aspects of its additional interconnections with each of the other two. First, a social system cannot be structured in a way that is radically incompatible with the conditions for the functioning of its components, individual actors as biological organisms and as individuals, or with the conditions for maintaining a relatively stable integration of the cultural system. Second, the social system requires the minimum "support" it needs from each of the other systems. She must have a sufficient number of her components, actors, adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of her role-playing system, positively disposed towards fulfilling expectations, and negatively towards being too destructive, i.e. deviant behavior. On the other hand, it must maintain compliance with cultural standards, which would otherwise either be unable to provide the necessary minimum order, or would impose impossible demands on people and thus cause deviations and conflicts to an extent that would be incompatible with the minimum conditions of stability or orderly change. ...
The minimum needs of an individual actor forms a number of conditions to which the social system must adapt. If the variability of the latter goes too far in this respect, then there may be "recoil", which will give rise to deviant behavior of the actors included in it, behavior that will either be directly destructive, or will be expressed in the avoidance of functionally important activities. Such an inevitability as a functional prerequisite can arise in leaps and bounds. The latter type of avoidance behavior occurs in the face of increasing "pressure" in favor of the implementation of certain standards of social action, which limits the use of energy for other purposes. At some point, for some individuals or classes of individuals, this pressure may turn out to be too strong, and then a destructive shift is possible: these people will cease to participate in interaction with the social system.
A functional problem for a social system that minimizes potentially destructive behavior and its motivation, in a general sense, can be formulated as a problem of order motivation. There are innumerable specific acts that are destructive because they invade the realm of fulfilling the roles of one or more other actors. But as long as they remain random, they can reduce the efficiency of the system, affecting negatively the level of performance of roles, but not pose a threat to its stability. The danger can arise when destructive tendencies begin to organize into subsystems in such a way that these subsystems come into collision at strategically important points with the social system itself. And it is precisely such strategically important points that are the problems of opportunity, prestige and power.
In the present context of the problem of adequate motivation to fulfill role expectations, one should further briefly consider the significance for the social system of two fundamental properties of biological human nature. The first of them is the vigorously debated plasticity of the human body, its ability to learn any of the numerous standards of behavior, without being associated by its genetic constitution with only a limited number of alternatives. Of course, only within the limits of this plasticity can the independently determined action of cultural and social factors matter. This clearly demonstrates the dependence of genes on the automatic narrowing of the range of relevant factors that are of interest to the sciences of action, limiting it only to those that are associated with the problems of their possible combinations that affect the processes of increasing and decreasing genetic directions. The limits of plasticity, for the most part, have not yet been clarified. Another characteristic of human nature in a biological sense is what might be called sensitivity. Sensitivity is understood as the susceptibility of the human individual to the influence of the attitudes of others in the process of social interaction and, as a result, his dependence on perceived individual specific reactions. This essentially provides a motivational basis for sensitivity to reactions in the learning process.
In a discussion of the functional premises of social systems, it is not customary to include explicit questions about cultural premises, but the need for this follows from the main point of the theory of action. The integration of cultural standards, as well as their specific content, triggers factors that at any given moment in time are independent of other elements of the system of action, and therefore must be correlated with them. A social system that allows too deep destruction of its culture, for example, by blocking the processes of its renewal, would be doomed to social and cultural de-integration.
It can be said with confidence that not only the social system should be capable of maintaining a minimum of cultural action, but also vice versa, any given culture should be compatible with the social system to some minimum extent so that its standards would not “fade away”, but continue function unchanged.
4. Hierarchy of social systems
There is a complex hierarchy of social systems that are qualitatively different from each other. The supersystem, or, according to the accepted terminology, the societal system, is society. The most important elements of a societal system are its economic, social, political and ideological structures, the interaction of elements of which (systems of a less general order) institutionalizes them into social systems (economic, social, political, etc.). Each of these most general social systems occupies a certain place in the societal system and performs (well, badly, or does not at all) strictly defined functions. In turn, each of the most general systems includes in its structure as elements an infinite number of social systems of a less general order (family, work collective, etc.).
With the development of society as a societal system, along with the named ones, other social systems and organs of social influence appear on the socialization of the individual (upbringing, education,), on his aesthetic (aesthetic upbringing), moral (moral upbringing and suppression of various forms of deviant behavior), physical (health care, physical education) development. This system itself as an aggregate whole has its preconditions, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subjugating all elements of society or creating out of it organs that are still missing for it. In this way, in the course of historical development, the system turns into an integrity.
5. Social connections and types of social systems
The classification of social systems can be based on the types of connections and the corresponding types of social objects.
A relationship is defined as a relationship between objects when a change in one object or element corresponds to a change in other objects that make up this object.
The specificity of sociology is characterized by the fact that the connections that it studies are social connections. The term "social connection" refers to the entire set of factors that determine the joint activities of people in specific conditions of place and time in the name of achieving specific goals. The connection is established for a very long period of time, regardless of the social and individual qualities of individuals. These are the connections of individuals with each other, as well as their connections with the phenomena and processes of the surrounding world, which are formed in the course of their practical activities. The essence of social ties is manifested in the content and nature of the social actions of individuals, or, in other words, in social facts.
Micro- and macro-continuum includes personal, social-group, organizational, institutional and societal connections. The social objects corresponding to these types of connections are the individual (his consciousness and actions), social interaction, social group, social organization, social institution and society. Within the subjective-objective continuum, subjective, objective and mixed connections and, accordingly, objective (acting personality, law, control system, etc.) are distinguished; subjective (personal norms and values, assessment of social reality, etc.); subjective-objective (family, religion, etc.) objects.
The first aspect, characterizing the social system, is associated with the concept of individuality, the second - the social group, the third - the social community, the fourth - the social organization, the fifth - the social institution and culture. Thus, the social system acts as the interaction of its main structural elements.
Social interaction. The starting point for the emergence of a social connection is the interaction of individuals or groups of individuals to meet certain needs.
Interaction is any behavior of an individual or a group of individuals that is important for other individuals and groups of individuals or society as a whole at the moment and in the future. The category of interaction expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups as permanent carriers of qualitatively different types of activity, differing in social positions (statuses) and roles (functions). Regardless of in what sphere of the life of society (economic, political, etc.) interaction takes place, it is always social in nature, since it expresses connections between individuals and groups of individuals; links mediated by the goals that each of the interacting parties pursues.
Social interaction has an objective and a subjective side. The objective side of interaction is connections that are independent of individuals, but mediate and control the content and nature of their interaction. The subjective side of interaction is the conscious attitude of individuals towards each other, based on mutual expectations of appropriate behavior. These are interpersonal relationships, which are direct connections and relationships between individuals that develop in specific conditions of place and time.
The mechanism of social interaction includes: individuals performing certain actions; changes in the outside world caused by these actions; the impact of these changes on other individuals; and, finally, the feedback from the affected individuals.
Everyday experience, symbols and meanings, which are guided by interacting individuals, give their interaction, and it cannot be otherwise, a certain quality. But in this case, the main qualitative aspect of interaction remains aside - those real social processes and phenomena that appear for people in the form of symbols; meanings, everyday experiences.
As a result, social reality and its constituent social objects act as a chaos of mutual actions based on the interpreting role of the individual in determining the situation or on an everyday creature. Without denying the semantic, symbolic and other aspects of the process of social interaction, it must be admitted that its genetic source is labor, material production, and the economy. In turn, all derivative from the basis can and does have an opposite effect on the basis.
Social relationships. Interaction leads to the establishment of social relationships. Social relations are relatively stable ties between individuals and social groups as permanent carriers of qualitatively different types of activity, differing in social status and roles in social structures.
Social communities. Social communities are characterized by: the presence of living conditions common to a group of interacting individuals; the way of interaction of a given set of individuals (nations, social classes, etc.), i.e. social group; belonging to historically established territorial associations (city, village, town), i.e. territorial communities; the degree of restriction of the functioning of social groups by a strictly defined system of social norms and values, the belonging of the studied group of interacting individuals to certain social institutions (family, education, science, etc.).
6. Types of social interactions between subsystems
The orderliness of social systems is presented in terms of "social structure", "social organization", "social behavior". Connections of elements (subsystems) can be divided into hierarchical, functional, cross-functional, which in general can be defined as role-based, since in social systems we are talking about ideas about people.
However, there is also a specificity of the structures of the system and, accordingly, connections. Hierarchical relationships are described when subsystems of various levels are analyzed. For example, the director - the head of the shop - the foreman. In management of this type, connections are also called linear. Functional connections represent the interaction of subsystems that perform the same functions at different levels of the system. For example, educational functions can be performed by a family, a school, and public organizations. At the same time, the family, as the primary group of socialization, will be at a lower level of the upbringing system than the school. Cross-functional links exist between subsystems of the same level. If we are talking about a system of communities, then this kind of relationship can be between national and territorial communities.
The nature of the connections in the subsystem is also determined by the objectives of the study and the specifics of the system that scientists are studying. Special attention is paid to the role structure of the system - a generalized social indicator in which both functional and hierarchical structures can be represented. Fulfilling certain roles in systems, individuals occupy social positions (statuses) corresponding to these roles. In this case, the normative forms of behavior can be different depending on the nature of the connections within the system and between the system and the environment.
In accordance with the structure of the links, the system can be analyzed from different points of view. With the functional approach, we are talking about the study of ordered forms of social activity that ensure the functioning and development of the system as a whole. In this case, the units of analysis can be the nature of the division of labor, the spheres of society (economic, political, etc.), and social institutions. With the organizational approach, we are talking about the study of a system of connections that form various types of social groups characteristic of a social structure. In this case, the units of analysis are collectives, organizations and their structural elements. The value-orientated approach is characterized by the study of certain orientations towards types of social action, norms of behavior, and values. In this case, the units of analysis are the elements of social action (goals, means, motives, norms, etc.).
These approaches can act as additions to each other and as the main directions of analysis. And each of the types of analysis has both theoretical and empirical levels.
From the point of view of the methodology of cognition, when analyzing social systems, we single out a system-forming principle that characterizes relations, interactions, connections between structural elements. At the same time, we not only describe all the elements and structures of connections in the system, but, most importantly, we single out those of them that are dominant, ensuring the stability and integrity of the system. For example, in the system of the former USSR, political ties between the union republics were so dominant, on the basis of which all other ties were formed: economic, cultural, etc. The severance of the dominant connection - the political system of the USSR - led to the disintegration of other forms of interaction between the former Soviet republics, for example, economic ones.
When analyzing social systems, special attention should also be paid to the target characteristics of the system. They are of great importance for the stability of the system, since it is through a change in the target characteristics of the system that it itself can change, i.e. its structure. At the level of social systems, target characteristics can be mediated by systems of values, value orientations, interests and needs. It is with the concept of purpose that another term of systems analysis is associated - "social organization".
The concept of "social organization" has several meanings. First, it is a target group that brings together people who strive to achieve a common goal in an organized way. In this case, it is this goal that connects these people (through interest) into the target system (organization). A number of sociologists believe that the emergence of a large number of such associations with a complex internal structure is a characteristic feature of industrial societies. Hence the term "organized society".
In the second approach, the concept of "social organization" is associated with the method of leadership and management of people, the appropriate means of action and methods of coordination of functions.
The third approach is associated with the definition of social organization as a system of samples of the activity of individuals, groups, institutions, social roles, a system of values that ensure the joint life of members of society. This creates the preconditions for the comfort of life for people, the ability to satisfy their numerous needs, both material and spiritual. It is precisely this functioning of whole communities in an orderly manner that J. Schepansky calls social organization.
Thus, we can say that an organization is a social system with a specific purpose, which unites on the basis of a common interest (or interests) of individuals, groups, communities or society. For example, the NATO organization links a number of Western countries on the basis of military-political interests.
The largest of this kind of target systems (organizations) is society and its corresponding structures. As the American sociologist of the functionalist direction E. Shils notes, society is not just a collection of people, primordial and cultural collectives, interacting and exchanging services with each other. All these collectives form a society by virtue of the fact that they have a common power, which exercises control over the territory delineated by borders, maintains and implants a more or less common culture. These factors transform the aggregate of relatively specialized initially corporate and cultural subsystems into a social system.
Each of the subsystems bears the stamp of belonging to a given society and not to any other. One of the many tasks of sociology is to identify the mechanisms and processes by virtue of which these subsystems (groups) function as a society (and, accordingly, as a system). Along with the system of power, society has a common cultural system formed from the dominant values, convictions, social norms, and beliefs.
The cultural system is represented by its social institutions: schools, churches, universities, libraries, theaters, etc. Along with the subsystem of culture, one can distinguish a subsystem of social control, socialization, etc. Studying society, we see the problem from a “bird's eye view”, but to really get an idea of it, we need to study all its subsystems separately, look at them from the inside. This is the only way to understand the world in which we live and which can be called a complex scientific term "social system".
7. Societies and social systems
It is easy to see that in most cases the term society is used in two main meanings. One of them treats society as a social association or interaction; the other - as a unit with its own boundaries, separating it from neighboring or nearby societies. Some uncertainty and ambiguity of this concept is not as problematic as it might seem. The tendency that society as a social whole is an easily interpretable unit of research is influenced by a number of pernicious socio-scientific assumptions. One of them is the conceptual correlation of social and biological systems, comprehension of the former by analogy with parts of biological organisms. Nowadays, there are not so many people who, like Durkheim, Spencer and many other representatives of social thought of the 19th century, use direct analogies with biological organisms to describe social systems. However, hidden parallels are quite common even in the works of those who speak of societies as open systems. The second of these assumptions is the prevalence of unfolding models in the social sciences. According to these models, the basic structural characteristics of a society that provide stability and change at the same time are internal to it. It is quite obvious why these models correlate with the first point of view: it is assumed that societies have qualities similar to those that make it possible to control the formation and development of the organism. Finally, we should not forget about the well-known tendency to endow any form of social structure with features characteristic of modern societies as nation-states. The latter are distinguished by clearly defined territorial boundaries, which, however, are not characteristic of most other historical types of societies.
These assumptions can be countered by recognizing the fact that societal communities exist only in the context of intersocial systems. All societies are social systems and are simultaneously generated by their intersection. In other words, we are talking about systems of domination, the study of which is possible through an appeal to the relations of autonomy and dependence established between them. Thus, societies are social systems that stand out against the background of a number of other systemic relations in which they are included. Their special position is due to clearly expressed structural principles. This kind of grouping is the first and most essential characteristic of society, but there are others. These include:
1) the relationship between the social system and a specific locality or territory. Locations occupied by societies are not necessarily fixed in their permanence, stationary areas. Nomadic societies wander along variable spatio-temporal paths;
2) the presence of regulatory elements that determine the legality of using the locality. Tones and styles of claims to conformity with laws and principles vary significantly and may be challenged to varying degrees;
3) the feeling by members of society of a special identity, regardless of how it is expressed or manifested. Such feelings are found at the level of practical and discursive consciousness and do not imply "unanimity of views." Individuals may be aware of their belonging to a certain community, not being sure that this is correct and fair.
We emphasize once again that the term "social system" should not be used only to designate clearly limited sets of social relations.
The tendency to regard nation-states as typical forms of societies against which all other varieties can be judged is so strong that it deserves special mention. Three criteria behave in changing societal contexts. Consider, for example, traditional China of a relatively late period - around 1700. When discussing this era, Sinologists often talk about Chinese society. In this case, we are talking about state institutions, the small landed nobility, economic and economic units, family structure and other phenomena that are united in a common, rather specific social system called China. However, defined in this way, China is only a small section of territory that a government official declares to be a Chinese state. From the point of view of this official, there is only one society on earth, the center of which is China as the capital of cultural and political life; at the same time, it is expanding in order to absorb the numerous barbarian tribes living in close proximity on the outer edges of this society. Although the latter acted as if they were independent social groups, the official point of view viewed them as belonging to China. At that time, the Chinese believed that China included Tibet, Burma and Korea, since the latter were in a certain way connected with the center. Western historians and social analysts have approached its definition from more rigid and limited positions. However, the very recognition of the fact of existence in the 1700s. a special Chinese society, isolated from Tibet and others, involves the annexation of several million ethnically different groups of the population of South China. The latter considered themselves independent and had their own government structures. At the same time, their rights were constantly violated by representatives of the Chinese officials, who believed that they were closely connected with the central state.
Compared to large-scale agrarian societies, modern Western nation-states are internally coordinated administrative units. Moving into the depths of the centuries, we consider China as an example in the form in which it was in the fifth century. Let us ask ourselves what social ties could exist between a Chinese peasant from Honan province and the ruling Toba (tobacco) class. From the point of view of the representatives of the ruling class, the peasant stood at the lowest rung of the hierarchical ladder. However, his social connections were completely different from the social world of Toba. In most cases, communication did not go beyond the nuclear or extended family: many villages consisted of related clans. The fields were located in such a way that during the working day, clan members rarely encountered strangers. Usually the peasant visited neighboring villages no more than two or three times a year, and the nearest town even less often. In the market square of a nearby village or city, he encountered representatives of other classes, estates and strata of society - craftsmen, artisans, handicraftsmen, merchants, lower government officials, to whom he was obliged to pay taxes. In his entire life, a peasant could never meet with Toba. Local officials visiting the village could supply grain or cloth. However, in all other respects, the villagers tried to avoid contacts with the higher authorities, even when they seemed to be inevitable. Either these contacts foreshadowed interactions with the courts, imprisonment, or forced military service.
The boundaries officially established by the Toba government might not coincide with the scope of the economic activities of the peasant who is in certain areas of Honan province. During the reign of the Toba dynasty, many villagers established contacts with members of kindred clans living on the other side of the border in the southern states. However, the peasant, lacking such connections, tended to regard individuals outside the border as representatives of his people rather than foreigners. Assuming he met someone from the Kansu province, located in the northwest of the state of Toba. This person will be considered by our peasant as an absolute stranger, even if they cultivated the nearby fields. Or he will speak a different language, dress differently and adhere to unfamiliar traditions and customs. Neither the peasant nor the guest may even realize that both are citizens of the Toba empire.
The situation of Buddhist priests looked different. However, with the exception of a small minority directly called upon to perform services in the official temples of the Toba nobility, these people did not often communicate with the ruling class. Their life took place in the locality of the monastery, while, however, they had a developed system of social relationships, stretching from Central Asia to the southern regions of China and Korea. People of various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds lived side by side in the monasteries, gathered together through a common spiritual quest. Compared to other social groups, priests and monks stood out for their education and erudition. Without any restrictions, they traveled around the country and crossed its borders, not paying attention to those to whom they nominally obeyed. Despite all this, they were not perceived as something external to Chinese society, as was the case with the Arab community of Canton during the Tang dynasty. The government believed that the said community was under its jurisdiction, demanded the payment of taxes, and even established special services responsible for maintaining mutual relations. However, everyone understood that a community is a special type of social structure, and therefore cannot be compared with other communities existing on the territory of the state. Here's a final example:
In the nineteenth century. In Yunnan province, the political power of a bureaucracy was established, which was controlled by Beijing and personified the Chinese government; on the plains there were villages and cities inhabited by the Chinese, who interacted with representatives of the government and, to a certain extent, shared its views. On the slopes of the mountains, there were other tribes, theoretically subordinate to China, but despite this, they lived their own lives, had special values and institutions, and even possessed an original economic system. Interaction with the Chinese in the valleys was minimal and limited to the sale of firewood and the purchase of table salt and textiles. Finally, high in the mountains lived a third group of tribes, which had their own institutions, language, values, religion. If we wish, we will ignore such circumstances, calling these people a minority. However, the earlier the periods are explored, the more often there will be imaginary minorities, which are in reality self-sufficient societies, sometimes linked to each other by economic relations and periodic interactions; The relations of such societies with the authorities, as a rule, resembled the relationship between the defeated and the victor at the end of the war, while both sides tried to minimize possible contacts.
Discussions about units that are larger than imperial states should not fall into ethnocentrism. So, today we tend to talk about Europe as a special sociopolitical category, however, this is the result of reading history the other way around. Historians exploring perspectives that go beyond the boundaries of individual nations note that if the totality of societies occupying the space of Afro-Eurasia were divided into two parts, the division into Europe (West) and East would lose all meaning. The Mediterranean Basin, for example, was a historical alliance long before the formation of the Roman Empire and remained so for hundreds of years. The cultural division of India increased as it moved eastward and was greater than the differences between the states of the Middle East and the countries of Europe; China was even more heterogeneous. Differences between major cultural areas are often as noticeable as those between the connections we know as societies. Large-scale regionalization should not be perceived only as a set of complex relations between societies. Such a point of view has a right to exist if we use it in the context of the modern world with its internally centralized nation-states, but it is completely inappropriate for previous eras. So, in certain cases, the entire Afro-Eurasian zone can be considered as a single whole. Since the VI century. BC, civilization developed not only through the creation of centers scattered in space and different from each other; in a way, there was a process of constant and continuous expansion of the Afro-Eurasian region as such.
8. Social and cultural systems
In the most significant intellectual trend of all common in the English-speaking countries, i.e. In a tradition rooted in utilitarianism and Darwinian biology, the independent position of the social sciences was the result of the allocation of a special sphere of interest that did not fit into the boundaries of general biology. First of all, in the center of the highlighted area was the rubric of Spencer's social inheritance, Taylor's culture. Considered in terms of general biology, this area, obviously, corresponded more to the area of influence of the environment, rather than heredity. At this stage, the category of social interaction played a subordinate role, although this was clearly implied by Spencer when he emphasized social differentiation.
Common to modern sociology and anthropology is the recognition of the existence of a sociocultural sphere. In this area, a normalized cultural tradition is created and preserved, shared to one degree or another by all members of society and transmitted from generation to generation through the learning process, and not through biological heredity. It includes organized systems of structured, or institutionalized, interaction between a large number of individuals.
In the United States, anthropologists tend to emphasize the cultural aspect of this complex, while sociologists tend to emphasize the interaction aspect. It seems to them important that these two aspects, although they relate to each other empirically, analytically are considered as separate. The focus of a social system is a condition for the interaction of human beings that make up specific collectives, with a definable membership. The focus of the cultural system, on the other hand, is in semantic models, in other words, in models of values, norms, organized knowledge and beliefs, and expressive forms. The basic concept for integrating and interpreting both aspects is institutionalization.
Thus, an essential part of tactics is to distinguish the social system from the cultural one and to regard the former as the sphere in which the analytical interests of sociological theory are primarily concentrated. However, these two types of systems are in close relationship.
As noted, the provision on an analytically independent sociocultural sphere was a continuous line in the history of scientific ideas that were most directly related to the emergence of modern sociological theory. The development of such an analytical view was very important, but its supporters went too far, seeking to deny both the existence of social interaction at the subhuman levels of the biological world, and the presence of subhuman prototypes of human culture. But once the fundamental theoretical boundaries have been established, restoring the required equilibrium is no longer difficult, and we will try to do this with a more detailed presentation of the material. Ultimately, a single trend emerged most clearly, consisting in an increasingly insistent assertion of the importance of motivated social interaction throughout the scale of biological evolution, especially at its upper levels.
9. Social systems and the individual.
Another set of problems arose in parallel with the basic distinction between sociocultural and individual spheres. Just as in sociology there was no clear differentiation between social and cultural systems, in the same way in psychology there was an even more pronounced tendency to interpret the behavior of the organism as a single object of scientific analysis. The problem of learning was placed at the center of psychological interests. Recently, an analytical difference has also appeared here, analogous to the difference between social and cultural systems, opposing, on the one hand, the organism as an analytical category, concentrated around its genetically given structure (insofar as this latter is related to the analysis of behavior), and, on the other hand, personality, a system that is made up of the components of the organization of behavior acquired by the body in the course of learning.
10. The paradigm of social systems analysis
The concept of interpenetration implies that, whatever the meaning of the logical closed as a theoretical ideal, from an empirical point of view, social systems are considered as open systems involved in complex processes of interaction with the systems that surround them. The surrounding systems in this case include cultural and personal systems, behavioral and other subsystems of the body, as well as, through this latter, the physical environment. The same logic applies to the internal structure of the social system itself, considered as a system differentiated and divided into many subsystems, each of which, from an analytical point of view, should be interpreted as an open system interacting with surrounding subsystems within a larger system.
The idea of an open system that interacts with the systems that surrounds it presupposes the existence of boundaries and their stability. When a certain set of interrelated phenomena exhibits a fairly definite orderliness and stability in time, then this structure has a structure and it would be useful to interpret it as a system. The concept of a border expresses only the fact that a theoretically and empirically significant difference between structures and processes internal to a given system and processes external to it exists and tends to persist. As soon as such boundaries are absent, a certain set of interdependent phenomena cannot be defined as a system: this set is absorbed by some other, more extensive set that forms a system. It is, therefore, important to distinguish a set of phenomena, in relation to which it is not assumed that it forms a system in the theoretically meaningful sense of the word, from a genuine system.
Conclusion
A system is an object, phenomenon or process consisting of a qualitatively defined set of elements that are in mutual connections and relationships, form a single whole and are capable of changing their structure in interaction with the external conditions of their existence. A social system is defined as a set of elements (individuals, groups, communities) that are in interactions and relationships that form a single whole. The types of social structure are: an ideal structure that links together beliefs, convictions; normative structure, including values, norms; organizational structure, which determines the way of interconnection of positions or statuses and determines the nature of the repetition of systems; a random structure consisting of elements included in its functioning.
The social system can be represented in five aspects:
1) as the interaction of individuals, each of which is the bearer of individual qualities;
2) as a social interaction, which results in the formation of social relations and the formation of a social group;
3) as a group interaction, which is based on certain general circumstances (city, village, labor collective, etc.);
4) as a hierarchy of social positions (statuses) held by individuals involved in the activity of this social system, and social functions that they perform on the basis of these social positions;
5) as a set of norms and values that determine the nature and content of the activities of the elements of a given system.
Bibliography
1. Ageev V.S. Socio-psychological problems. Moscow: Moscow State University, 2000.
2. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. 4th ed. Moscow: Moscow State University, 2002.
3. Artemov V.A. Introduction to Social Psychology. M., 2001.
4. Bazarov T.Yu. Personnel Management. M .: Unity, 2001.
5. Belinskaya E.P. Social psychology of personality. M., 2001.
6. Bobneva M.I. Social norms and regulation of behavior. M., 2002.
7. Budilova E.A. Philosophical problems in secular psychology. M., 2000.
8. Giddens E. Organization of society. M., 2003.
9. Grishina N.V. The psychology of conflict. SPb .: Peter, 2000.
10. Zimbardo F. Social impact. SPb .: Peter, 2000.
11. Ivchenko B.P. Management in economic and social systems. SPb .: Saint Petersburg. 2001.
12. Quinn V. Applied Psychology. SPb .: Peter, 2000.
13. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. M .: Politizdat, 2000.
14. Kornilova T.V. Experimental psychology. M .: Aspect Press, 2002.
15. Kokhanovsky V.P. Philosophy of Science. M., 2005.
16. Krichevsky R.L. Small group psychology. M .: Aspect Press, 2001.
17. Levin K. Field theory in the social sciences. M .: Rech, 2000.
18. Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. Tartu, 2000.
19. Mudrik A.V. Social pedagogy. M .: Inlit, 2001.
20. Pines E. Workshop on social psychology. SPb., 2000.
21. Parsons T. On social systems. M., 2002.
22. Parygin B.D. Foundations of socio-psychological theory. M .: Thought, 2002.
23. Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history. Moscow: Nauka, 2002.
24. Kharcheva V. Foundations of sociology. M., 2001.
25. Houston M. Perspectives of social psychology. M .: EKSMO, 2001.
26. F.I. Sharkov Sociology: theory and methods. M., 2007.
27. Shibutani T. Social psychology. Rostov-on-Don .: Phoenix, 2003.
28. Yurevich A.V. Social psychology of science. M., 2000.
29. A. V. Yadov. Sociological research. Moscow: Nauka, 2000.
30. A. V. Yadov. Social identity of a person. M .: Dobrosvet, 2000.
31. Sociology. Foundations of the general theory. M., 2002.
