Social order is a maximally generalized concept, organization of public life, orderliness of social action and the entire social system.
It assumes a conflict-free existence of society, due to the fact that all the relations in it are coordinated. It is believed that social order is an ideal goal that cannot be achieved in real life.
Content
Approaches to the study of the concept of social order
T. Hobbes's Approach to Understanding the Social Order
As an urgent problem, the social order was considered in the form of the Hobbes paradox: how is the coherent existence of society possible if “man to man is a wolf”.
The answer to the question of how to establish this existence and establish the social order given by Hobbes himself sounds like this: if chaos is a natural manifestation of the animal nature of man, then only the “Leviathan State” can contribute to controlling this process and creating a harmonious system. According to Hobbes, the social order is established thanks to the existence of the state, to which parts of individuals must obey.
An Approach to Understanding the Social Order of O. Comte
In Comte’s writings, the concept of social order is revealed in one of the most important aspects of sociological research for him - social statics, and progress, or social dynamics, is only a “development of order”. [one]
The social purpose of the government, from its point of view, is to fulfill the function of guardian of public order and be an organ of social solidarity.
An Approach to Understanding the Social Order of F. Tennis
One of the main ideas of Tönnis , formulated in the work "Community and Society" was to contrast the two social types. Tennis speaks of the transition from a “community” with undifferentiated social groups and attitudes to a “society”, in which the duties and relationships of people are clearly fixed by the agreement “you to me, I to you”. In the first case, order is ensured by the fact that in a society those relations are freely developed that are rooted in emotions, attachments, emotional inclination and retain their own self-identification, either by virtue of consciously following the tradition, or by virtue of emotional or linguistic ties. In the second case, the fundamental basis of social relations is rational exchange.
An Approach to Understanding the Social Order of E. Durkheim
The concept of social solidarity becomes central to the description of social order in the work of Durkheim , and the division of labor acts as the most important mechanism through which modern industrial societies reach a state of orderliness and consensus . [2]
Solidarity used to be mechanical due to the prevalence of stereotypes of consciousness over the actions of people. The rise of industrial civilization contributes to the destruction of the unity of "collective consciousness", the growth of individualism. Now solidarity in society is becoming organic. The price of this transition, according to Durkheim, is the phenomenon of the anomie of "anomie", social rootlessness, the loss of individuals from the structures of society and the traditional division of labor. Societies in this state lack order, and therefore, in order to maintain moral regulation, it is proposed to use corporate-professional cells.
T. Parsons' Approach to Understanding the Social Order
Parsons' work expresses an attempt to develop a theoretical scheme of “social behavior” within the framework of the theory of social action. Parsons acts as a supporter of the social order and justifies it as a “natural form” of society. Parsons' order is the dominance of social consent (consensus) over social conflict.
Criticism and contradictions in understanding the social order
Comte and Mill
Comte clearly indicated that society is an organic unity of all mankind or some significant part of it, which is connected by "universal agreement" and is characterized by the harmonious functioning of its structural elements. Such a view of society was in apparent contradiction with the theories of society as a product of a contract between individuals that were widespread in political philosophy. In particular, Comte sharpened his position, contrasting it with the convictions of J. St. Mill, who believed that all social laws come down to "the laws of individual human nature." According to Comte, such reductionism does not make it possible to adequately identify a society that can only be understood in the unity of its constituent parts.
Tennis and Durkheim
Being conservative, Tennis believed that the transition from community to society and a change in how to maintain social order could not be called favorable. E. Durkheim criticized this position, believing that the transition from mechanical (social traditions and stereotypes rose above the actions of people) to organic (each individual decides for himself) solidarity should be recognized as positive.
Notes
- ↑ Sobolevskaya M. A. The problem of social order in modern sociological theory: from the discourse of order to the order of discourse // Young Scientist. - 2013. - No. 12. - S. 794-798. - URL https://moluch.ru/archive/59/8423/.
- ↑ Sobolevskaya M. A. The problem of social order in modern sociological theory: from the discourse of order to the order of discourse // Young Scientist. - 2013. - No. 12. - S. 794-798. - URL https://moluch.ru/archive/59/8423/