Time as an attribute of social space and the individual

“The basic forms of all being,” wrote F. Engels, - the essence of space and time"(Vol.5: 86). Time is an attribute of everything material, including social space and the people inhabiting it. The flow of time can be compared to a fast-moving mountain river, which continuously (sometimes several times a day) changes its course and shape, moves large boulders and small pebbles, constantly shuffling them like a deck of cards. So the flow of time continuously sweeps over social structures and the people in them, moving them, changing their position in relation to each other.

In the flow of time, the social hierarchy is in constant transformation. It exists only as history. Yesterday's structure today has somewhat different outlines. Therefore, history is a form of existence of society, which is a constantly transforming flow in which social structures and people are located.

Concept of physical and social time

Physical time exists objectively, just as all physical world. It is outside of us and independent of us and our ideas. However, as soon as people try to measure physical time, they go beyond the boundaries of purely objective reality into the world of its intellectual construction in the form of categories. Time is objective, but the scales by which it is measured are subjective constructs. Physical time is not divided into centuries, years, days, hours and minutes - all these are categories with the help of which an attempt is made to grasp, understand and measure physical time. You can measure something only using some kind of scale external to the object being measured (we measure a notebook with a ruler, a vegetable garden with steps, etc.). Therefore, time is comprehended by the human mind not in pure form, but through the scale by which it is measured.

Leibniz in his time defined space as the order of coexistence, the arrangement of things, and time as the order of their sequence 20 . Time is described through the alternation of material objects and their states. So, the time of day, the seasons are the alternations of the positions of the Earth in relation to other space objects and, first of all, to the Sun. It must be borne in mind that the scale used is an intellectual construction: people select from the world of things and phenomena those that will be used to measure time as the alternation of these things and states. The relativity of intellectual constructions is manifested in their variability: people’s ideas about their content change from era to era, from culture to culture (for example, solar and lunar calendars), and are refined as science develops. The week had different lengths in different countries and at different epochs (5 – 10 days). And, perhaps, in a thousand years or even earlier, current ideas about the structure of time will seem naive and far from reality. It is already obvious that chronology is a social construct. The starting point for years is chosen based on the cultural context. Hence the presence of different chronology in different cultures.

Time is relative. It is determined through the nature of those objects that are used to structure it. Human consciousness can grasp the flow of time, comprehend and structure it only through objects used as units of account (for example, the revolution of the Earth around its axis).

Time has many dimensions, since there is not and cannot be a single scale for measuring it. Astronomical time is used to describe the history of mankind, but this history also has its own time, reflecting its nature. This is social time, which is structured using not cosmic, but social objects and their states. In other words, social time is measured using a scale of social practice.

The main characteristics of time are sequence and length (Sztompka 1996: 70). Events follow each other in a certain order, each of them has its own duration.

Practice and social time

Social space is the order of arrangement of social positions, and social time is the order of their alternation. Alternation means a change not only of positions, but also of their constantly changing states. In other words, in social space, positions A and B coexist simultaneously, located in different parts of it. One can be described through the other (for example, A is higher than B). Time describes the sequence of appearance of positions (for example, position B appeared to replace A). But a status position is a relatively stable form of social interaction, so the scale for measuring social time is social practice. Social time is a sequence of actions of people, their groups and institutions.

A unit of social time is an interval that coincides with a unit of some social activity. In a traditional agricultural society, the key unit was the season field work and breaks between them. It's the rhythm social life, according to E. Durkheim, underlies the category of time (Durkheim 1915: 456) 21 .

The structure of social time is a social construction because it is determined by the choice of reference points, which in turn depend on the designers’ ideas about the importance of events. In other words, the construction of social time occurs on the basis of a value system. Different systems mean different structures of social time, because the rhythm of social life is the generation of a certain social practice, perceived through a certain system values. For example, the traditional structuring of history through the reigns of emperors, dictators and general secretaries is not an objective characteristic of social time itself, but a reflection of the ideas of historians who believe that “great” individuals make history. Soviet history was officially divided into periods separated by congresses of the Communist Party. But, it seems to me, it is much more reasonable to take other intervals: for example, complexes of great scientific discoveries and inventions that determine production technology.

Different subjects mean different structure of social time. Thus, E. Giddens distinguishes three levels:

(1) level of everyday, routine life;

(2) standard of human life;

(3) level of existence social institutions(Giddens 1995: 28) 22 .

Each level has its own intervals. At the first level, a person measures time in intervals that coincide with the elements of his routine activity: breakfast, the road to work, work, the road home, evening rest, sleep. At the second level, the intervals are larger: birth, childhood, youth, maturity, old age, death. At the institutional level, the unit is historical periods in the development of society and its main institutions. It is precisely these intervals that historical science operates with. These intervals are social constructs used for structuring. They represent an individual or group view of practice and its evaluation. In society there is a struggle between these subjects for the right to impose their idea of ​​the structure of social time on other subjects, on society as a whole. The result of this struggle for the right to construct social time is determined by the structure of power (for example, after the October Revolution, intervals of reigns were replaced by intervals separated by “historical” congresses of the CPSU, which they tried to forget about in the 1990s).

Time and inequality of positions

It is impossible to enter the same position twice, therefore social status as its key characteristic is tied to social time. The same position in different intervals of social time can be both extremely high and extremely low (for example, an emperor before the revolution and at the time of a successful revolution, a merchant before the revolution and at the time of the “Red Terror”). It is very important right choice“time-position” complex in business: often those who enter a market niche too early or too late are doomed to losses, while those who arrive on time can make a sharp leap to the top of the hierarchy. This is described using the concept of “conjuncture”, which means the synthesis of place (market niche) and time 23. One of the functions of social time is the coordination of joint activities of people. If coordination is successful, then time is converted into other types of resources; if unsuccessful, then it results in the loss of money, material resources, freedom, and even life. Therefore, social hierarchy cannot be considered without regard to social time.

In America, when describing a loser, they often say : “He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”. Luck is described using a similar formula. Thus, status is determined not only by position, but equally by its position in the flow of social time. Taking a position today that was high-status yesterday often means boarding a train bound for disaster. Therefore, being late is often tantamount to loss.

Two positions at different points in the flow of time are socially different. I live now, and X lives a hundred years ago. This fact alone makes our positions in social space different, since positions in space can only be identical if they have an identical position in the flow of social time.

This difference turns into social inequality only when assessed through the prism of a value system. An infantry soldier in peacetime and wartime are two completely different status positions. From the point of view of the value system, which is often dominant in most societies, it is obvious that being an ordinary infantryman in war is a very low status (difficult conditions are very short life). However, this does not exclude the transformation of the value system in an atmosphere of romanticism and patriotism. In this case, the opportunity to fight on the front line with a huge risk of death (“for the revolution”, “for the faith”, “for the Motherland”, “for the Tsar”, “for Stalin”, etc.) turns into an indicator of high status.

Time is one of many social resources from which hierarchy is built. Under certain circumstances, it can be converted into other resources (for example, “time is money”). However, it must be emphasized that such a conversion is possible only under certain circumstances. In this case, time is wealth, capital. And it is possible to treat it like any other scarce resource, which, moreover, is not renewable. Time “passes away”, is “spent” usefully or uselessly, “works” for someone, etc.

Social time density

Social time is measured by practices that occur with varying intensities. Changing the activity of practice leads to compression or, conversely, lengthening of social time. The experience of a hundred-year-old man often accumulates in his youth. A similar compression of time as a consequence of the intensification of social practice occurs at the level of existence of social institutions and societies. Just look through a world history textbook: its acceleration catches your eye. If in the Stone Age technical and technological innovations that were small by today’s standards required thousands and tens of thousands of years, then in our time such shifts occur within the interval of one or at most several years. Travels that once took years are now completed within days or months.

The density of social time is closely related to the characteristics of social space, which is heterogeneous in nature. The more intense the social interaction in a given area of ​​space, the denser the social time there. Accordingly, individuals enter streams of social time of different density and, as a result, find themselves in socially unequal positions. As P. Sorokin noted, social time does not flow equally smoothly in different groups and societies (Sorokin 1964: 171). The infantilism of an old man and the experience of a young man is often a natural consequence of their being in social fields of different quality.

Time density as an indicator of status can go, like any other indicator (for example, the presence of money and monetary debts), with minus and plus signs: time can be filled with suffering or personality-enriching and pleasant activities.

Social time control

Man is a splinter in the stream of time. However, limiting ourselves to this banal statement would be an excessive tribute to the structuralist tradition. Both a person who cannot swim and an experienced swimmer or the owner of a boat, boat, etc. can find themselves in the stream. A person has a certain potential to regulate his stay in this flow, influencing its density and structure. However, the ability to control social time varies significantly between subjects. At one pole are powerless individuals who are unable to control even their own time during the day (its time and structure are set by someone from the outside), at the other are individuals and groups capable of imposing the pace of practice and the structure of time on fairly large areas of social space (for example, on a state scale). Therefore, as Pronovost (1989: 65) notes, one of the main manifestations social inequality associated with time is the autonomy of the individual in organizing his own time.

The sources of different power over social time can, in principle, be divided into two groups.

(1) Structural factors (place in the social hierarchy) give the individual the opportunity to rely on the potential of the structure in his attempts to control social time. Thus, the ruler of the country uses all its resources to subordinate social time to his will. At the same time, it is worth keeping in mind that in many cases it is desirable to complement the structuralist approach with a constructivist one: from a ruler with low personal potential, power is in one way or another taken away by his immediate and distant surroundings, while a strong personality on the same throne increases the social status of his position. Structural opportunities to control social time change accordingly.

(2) Personal factors enable individuals in the same social position to have different degrees of control over their social time simply due to differences in activity, strength of character, intellectual and cultural potential. True, we must not forget that a significant part of personal potential is ultimately the result of the influence of the environment (structure) in which socialization took place.

Thus, from the point of view of the structuralist-constructivist paradigm, a person is a sliver in the flow of time, however, floating in this flow, he can, to one degree or another, adjust his route, or even slow down or speed up the running of social time on the scale of his personal biographies, history of a family, a city, or even a country or continent. Differences in the scale of social time control are one of the most important manifestations of social inequality.

Free time and hierarchy

The amount of free time is one of the important indicators of social status, which is not given significant importance in the traditional theory of social stratification. Meanwhile, if you look at life not through the prism of money as a universal indicator of market success, then free time can be considered a deeper and more universal criterion (applicable also for non-market hierarchies). If you do not look at business as a form of game or sport (a common and legitimate approach), then one of the meanings of monetary wealth, in addition to the fact that it is a resource that allows you to satisfy material needs, is the free time that it gives.

A qualitative feature of free time is the freedom of the individual to choose its content, that is, to design his own life. Its prerequisite is a certain level of material well-being, which provides resources for such freedom of choice. Free time is filled with activities that are chosen by the individual based on his non-material needs (the struggle for the means of survival leads to the world of unfreedom). It can also be filled with hard work, if this work is not for the sake of a piece of bread, but for its own value (for example, building a summer house).

Throughout most of human history, the amount of free time has been one of the key differences in the lifestyle of the upper classes. Big income, earned at the cost of sacrificing all free time to this goal, with this approach seems to be a very relative indicator of high status. Lack of free time (an indicator of low status) neutralizes high income as an indicator of high status. If there is no free time, then what is wealth for?

Free time is not necessarily time free from work. Quality Feature This type of time is the freedom of the individual to choose how to use it. Therefore, if work coincides with a hobby, then the line between free and working time disappears. The status position of part of the middle classes (creative professions, partly business, management, etc.) is characterized by freedom in planning their time. People in these professions often work in work time what they are interested in and what they would do for free 24. If the “old upper class” is characterized by the presence of a large amount of idle time, then part of the middle class is characterized by the blurring of the line between free and working time, the transformation of work into a hobby 25. An indicator of time control is the degree of autonomy of the employee in structuring his working time.

The lower working strata are characterized by limited free time, since working time is in all respects of a forced nature (work for money, lack of freedom in regulating the daily routine, etc.).

The problem of free time for the unemployed is a special problem of transforming a phenomenon into its opposite due to excess. This is forced free time, which, due to the lack of freedom of choice, ceases to be free. This is an imposed freedom, which turns into a source of mental and moral suffering for many unemployed people.

Irina Olegovna Tyurina, Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Sociology Russian Academy Sci.

In many modern enterprises and organizations, management structures were built in accordance with management principles formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, the main attention was paid to the division of labor into separate functions and the correspondence of the responsibility of management employees to the powers granted to them. For many decades, organizations have created so-called formal management structures, called hierarchical, or bureaucratic, structures.

The concept of hierarchical structure was formulated by M. Weber, who developed a normative model of rational bureaucracy. It was based on the following fundamental principles:

a clear division of labor, which results in the need to use qualified specialists for each position;

hierarchy of management, in which the lower level is subordinate and controlled by the higher one;

the presence of formal rules and norms that ensure the uniformity of managers’ performance of their tasks and responsibilities;

the spirit of formal impersonality with which officials carry out their duties;

hiring in accordance with qualification requirements requirements for this position.

What is hierarchy? Hierarchy (from the Greek hieros - sacred and arche - power) - 1) the arrangement of parts or elements of the whole in order from highest to lowest; 2) the procedure for subordinating lower positions, divisions, bodies to higher ones; 3) the arrangement of service ranks and ranks in the order of their subordination (hierarchical ladder).

We will understand by hierarchy a set of positions, positions and jobs, arranged in ascending order from the least prestigious and least rewarded to the most prestigious and most rewarded. Wherever there is a hierarchy, there is an inequality of positions and levels of management. From a sociological point of view, it is incorrect to evaluate inequality in ethical terms, since it performs both negative and positive functions.

The nature of hierarchy and mobility is the superiority of one over the other. People with power are located at the top of the social pyramid, others without it are at the bottom. This order is called hierarchical. Any hierarchy can be represented as a pyramid, consisting of three main levels - upper, middle and lower. In the managerial hierarchy these are levels of management, in the social hierarchy these are classes.

The social hierarchy is structured in such a way that at the bottom (at the base of the pyramid) is the majority of the population, and at the top is the majority of the benefits and privileges that people strive for (power, wealth, influence, benefits, prestige). Social goods are scarce resources that are present or accessible to the greatest number of people in the smallest number.

If the top and bottom of the social pyramid are likened to the poles of a magnet, then it turns out that tension arises between them, which can be called social. Indeed, those at the bottom believe that wealth is distributed unevenly and, moreover, unfairly: a minority of the population owns most of the national wealth. There is a desire to redistribute everything so that everyone gets equally.

A slower and more conservative way of redistributing wealth is to move up, not as a group or en masse, but as individuals. This path does not require destruction: simply everyone who wants and has the opportunity makes a personal career. Moving to the top is called upward mobility.

People tend to strive from the bottom up, and not vice versa. Everyone wants to live better and no one wants to live worse. If possible, we, overtaking each other, rush upward - to where there is more power, privileges and benefits. Of course, not everyone has a passion for wealth or power, but everyone wants to live better. Some people see better life in communion with the spiritual, others - with the material.

So, the phenomenon of upward mobility (movement from bottom to top) is formed only where the majority of goods and the majority of people are at different poles of the social scale. If you combine both, no one will want to move up. Upward mobility corresponds to a phenomenon that we will call achievement motivation.

Social laws of hierarchy

We have already said that the social hierarchy can be represented in the form of a pyramid, built on the basis of a number of laws.

First law: the number of vacancies located at the bottom is always greater than the number of vacancies located at the top. Vacancies should be understood as jobs, positions, or positions in the formal structure of an organization. Due to the fact that there are fewer vacancies at the top, and the majority has a desire to fill them, it becomes possible to select people: competition arises. The pyramid principle in management involves selection among applicants for available vacancies. The higher the level of the hierarchy, the higher the level of reward, the closer the scarce goods.

Second Law: The amount of social benefits received by those at the top is always greater than the amount of social benefits received by those at the bottom. Thus, we get a reverse (inverted) pyramid.

From two universal laws follows the third - the law of social inequality. According to this law, in the social hierarchy, the majority of social benefits are always owned by a minority of the population, and vice versa. Between the two social poles (those who are at the bottom and have little, and those who are at the top and have a lot), social tension arises, turning into social conflict. People at the bottom tend to move up. In this case, we can talk about positive motivation, because people want to change their low position to a higher one and get more social benefits. When it comes to those at the top, we are faced with the phenomenon of negative motivation of people who do not want to voluntarily give up their position and social opportunities.

Closely related to it is the fourth law, the law of social polarization, which states: in any society there are two extreme points at which the number of benefits and vacancies is inversely proportional. This law describes a situation that is already familiar to us, in which the majority of people have a minority of social goods, and a minority of people have the majority of goods. Social polarization presupposes the absence of a middle class in the population, which fills the space between the poles and makes the transition from one pole to another gradual, or its presence is so insignificant that it does not allow it to have a significant influence on the process of property distribution and determining the stratification profile.

The fifth law follows from the law of social polarization - the law of social distance, which reflects several empirically observable features:

2. the more levels in the hierarchy and the longer the overall distance or distance between neighboring status positions, the more difficult it is for an individual to overcome this distance during his life;

3. the more levels in the hierarchy and the longer the distance between the poles, the:

the social pyramid is less transparent to the public;

it is more difficult for the bottom to control the actions of the top;

a wider range of freedom of maneuver and a higher likelihood of the top using illegitimate actions;

it is more likely that the people involved in maintaining this pyramid will strive to preserve it rather than change it;

to a greater extent, the fate of each individual official will depend not on his personal abilities, but on general rules games and traditions existing in the hierarchy;

it is more likely that promotion to the next step will be determined not by competitive rules, but by seniority and length of service;

It is more likely that the difficulty of passing each subsequent level will increase, and the access filters will become tougher.

By comparing management in market and non-market societies and comparing numerous historical evidence, a sociologist can conclude that in an administrative system the subjects of management (officials) are more interested in maintaining hierarchy than in management. If we take a market society as an object of study and compare state and private sector it turns out that in the public sector civil servants are interested in maintaining hierarchical relationships to a greater extent than in the private sector.

From here we can derive another, sixth, universal-historical law of management - the law of maintaining the status quo hierarchy, which states: the more benefits (benefits, privileges, advantages) the social hierarchy promises to the subjects of management, the higher their motivation to preserve rather than destroy it. The example of the famous institution of feeders, which existed in Rus' since time immemorial, convinces us that if service people, placed in place by the central authorities, receive their livelihood exclusively through fees from the local population, they are most interested in keeping the existing system intact. If in an organization, no matter large or medium, career advancement is based on the principle of seniority, and everyone waits their turn, then the interest in changing the existing state of affairs will be higher among those who have received the least amount of benefits from this system, and vice versa. In other words, older employees who have exhausted their mobility reserve and have risen up the hierarchy to the maximum position available to them will consider the current system in the organization to be fair and effective. In contrast, younger employees waiting their turn and at the bottom of the pyramid will have a more negative attitude towards it.

But the more interested in preserving existing system management of its subjects, officials, the lower the speed of its social renewal, the less quantity management innovations per unit of time. Let's call this statement the seventh law of government.

The speed of social renewal of management systems different types not the same. In a market society it is higher, in a non-market society it is lower. Since management develops, i.e. implements different quantities management methods, principles and techniques that radically change the state of affairs, with unequal speed, after some time a gap in time forms between the two types of societies. It shows how much a non-market society has lagged behind a market society in its development.

In a market society, which by its nature is interested in a low-level hierarchy and rapid rotation of personnel, social time moves faster and the number of innovations per unit of time is higher. On the scale of the entire society, as well as at the level of an individual organization, management is built, created and functions regarding the distribution of scarce goods.

Let us remember that good is everything that can satisfy people’s daily life needs and bring them benefit. Scarce goods are valued above others, namely, what is lacking, as a rule, these include power, income, education and prestige. If there is not enough money for everyone, there is a need for a reasonable distribution of it among population groups. In a socialist society, social and economic benefits sought to distribute equally, regardless of labor contribution, privileges or social status. This is the socialist ideal, embodied in real society with greater or lesser deviations. Under capitalism, no ideals are put forward, and benefits are distributed on the basis competition and market mechanisms. Since the competitiveness of people varies, benefits do not go to everyone equally, but in proportion to their personal labor contribution.

Not everything can be made into a scarce good, but only what a person needs, i.e. what he needs. Translated into the language of economics, need is demand. And, as you know, it gives birth to a proposal.

As we found out, the largest amount of social benefits in the pyramid is concentrated at the top, the smallest at the bottom. People rush not from top to bottom, but from bottom to top. But on their way, society builds a system of filter barriers. Why is this happening? American sociologists W. Moore and K. Davis created the theory social stratification and a managerial hierarchy that places the most valuable positions in society at the top; accepted there management decisions most important.

If any decision and mistake of an average manager (manager) concerns a limited number of people and can always be corrected by higher management, then the mistakes and decisions of top managers concern the entire population and are not corrected by anyone, and their activities are not insured.

A rationally organized organization - be it a society in general or an individual company in particular - is based on a number of axioms, which can be formulated as follows:

Axiom 1. The highest management positions in an organization should be occupied by the most capable and qualified employees.

Axiom 2. The higher the position in the hierarchy, the more capable and qualified the manager who occupies it should be.

Axiom 3. The higher the position in the hierarchy, the higher quality the management decisions made by the manager should be.

Axiom 4. The highest quality management decisions should be made at the highest level of the hierarchy.

Axiom 5. The higher the quality of a manager’s decision, the higher his responsibility should be to those affected by this decision.

Axiom 6. The higher the manager’s responsibility for the decision he makes, the more power he should have to implement it.

Axiom 7. The higher the quality and responsibility for the decision made, the more stringent the selection of candidates applying for high positions in the hierarchy should be.

Axiom 8. Filter barriers should be as rigid as possible on the upper steps of the pyramid.

No organization can function long and successfully if all its intellectual forces are concentrated at the bottom or in the middle, and all the mediocrity is at the top. Such an organization will simply fall apart. The vital principle of a successful organization is: open a green path to the top for the most talented and educated.

According to the functional theory of stratification, the highest positions should be occupied by the most qualified people. There is a mechanism of interest (mobility) at work here. But at the same time, there must also be mechanisms for reverse (downward) mobility, which should be understood as procedures such as demotion from military rank and dismissal, deprivation of titles and privileges, etc.

This leads to an important conclusion: the mechanism social mobility symmetrical with respect to positive and negative sanctions. A society in which there is no mechanism for recruiting (promoting) talented people and their further advancement becomes less stable.

SOCIAL HIERARCHY

SOCIAL HIERARCHY (Greek hierarhia, hieros - holy, arche - power, rule) - a system of sequentially subordinate elements located from lower to higher and characterizing the multi-level nature of the social whole. In this meaning, the concept of hierarchy can also be used to characterize private multi-level systems. For example, the concept of bureaucratic hierarchy became widespread after the works of M. Weber. The term was first used by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in his work “Heavenly Hierarchy and Spiritual Hierarchy” (second half of the 5th century). The term was used to refer to a system of ecclesiastical and spiritual ranks. In Roman catholic church the concept of “hierarchy” unites: (1) the hierarchy of theological law, (2) the hierarchy of spiritual law, (3) the hierarchy of jurisdiction. In this capacity, the concept of hierarchy was used almost until the mid-19th century, and did not have the semantic connotation of “social”. In modern social theories the concept of “hierarchy” is used to refer to: 1) any system of social agents and/or their relationships, ranked one in relation to another (hierarchy reflects their differences in power, authority, financial status, social status etc.); 2) organization or classification of ascending or descending generalizations - levels of complexity. That is, it is a system of levels in accordance with which social and other processes are organized. As an example, we can cite Comte’s hierarchy of sciences, where the levels of classification organization were the time and sequence of the emergence of sciences, the degree of their abstraction and concreteness, and the degree of complexity. Each science depends on and builds on those that preceded it, and is more complex. Concept of SI. widely used within the framework of the structural-functional direction. In particular, Parsons' concept postulates the presence of a hierarchy necessary conditions(normative and environmental conditions) to explain the function of cybernetic control. Moreover, in the functional tradition, the concept of SI. used to indicate relationships between systems and subsystems. For example, as “hierarchy of subsystems social action" It is interesting to use the concept of hierarchy in the concept of G. Becker (“Which side are we on?”, 1967), where it is used to designate the classification of the probabilities of “being heard” for an individual in society, which is based on the hierarchy of levels of social organization and the corresponding status prescriptions . In modern social philosophy, the concept of SI. is also used to denote the hierarchy of needs, hierarchy of values, hierarchy of motives, etc.

The latest philosophical dictionary. - Minsk: Book House. A. A. Gritsanov. 1999.

See what "SOCIAL HIERARCHY" is in other dictionaries:

This article lacks links to sources of information. Information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and deleted. You can... Wikipedia

SOCIAL HIERARCHY- (Greek hierarhia, hieros holy, arche power, rule) a system of sequentially subordinate elements, located from lower to higher, and characterizing the multi-level nature of the social whole. In this meaning, the concept of I. can also be used... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

- (from Latin stratum - layer and facio - do) one of the basic concepts of sociology, denoting a system of signs and criteria of social stratification, position in society; social structure of society; branch of sociology. Term... ... Wikipedia

See SOCIAL HIERARCHY... The latest philosophical dictionary

This term has other meanings, see Gerarchia. Hierarchy (from other Greek ἱεραρχία, from ἱερός “sacred” and ἀρχή “rule”) the order of subordination of lower links to higher ones, their organization into a tree-type structure; management principle in ... Wikipedia

SOCIAL STRUCTURE- a set of relatively stable connections between elements of a social system, reflecting its essential characteristics. The most important distinctive feature S.S. lies in the fact that it is identical to systemic (emergent) properties... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

English hierarchy, social; German Hierarchie, soziale. A hierarchical structure characterized by inequality of status, power relations, income, prestige, etc. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

AND; and. [from Greek hieros sacred and archē power] 1. Consecutive arrangement of official ranks, ranks from lowest to highest in the order of their subordination. Official, civil, etc. 2. Arrangement of parts or elements of the whole in order from highest to... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

SOCIAL HIERARCHY- English hierarchy, social; German Hierarchie, soziale. A hierarchical structure characterized by inequality of status, power relations, income, prestige, etc. STATUS HIERARCHY English. Hierarchy, status; German Statushierarchie. Classification... ... Dictionary in Sociology

A collection of people that makes up a unit social structure society. In general, S. g. can be divided into two types of groups. The first includes groups of people distinguished by one or another essential characteristic or characteristics, for example. socially... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Books

• Chinese Civilization, Marcel Granet. Chinese civilization is perhaps the most mysterious for European people. Since ancient times, China has developed incorrectly, not like the Western civilized world...

THEORY OF CLASSES

While there is no text of the summary page, I offer quotes from the article and chapter 3 from the article The Meaning of Hierarchical Instinct.

Many may think that an article about should relate to the field of biology or psychiatry, but the fact is that without concepts hierarchical instinct we will not understand anything in the section, and even in the heading, since hierarchical instinct is a factor social development everyone, and most importantly - there is a hierarchical instinct main factor the emergence and development of the economy among people. I made this discovery, so this is just my attempt to develop and substantiate the ideas of the creator.

What is hierarchical instinct

3.2. Over millions of years, hierarchy, as an evolutionary find to ensure the stability of units of the primate species, became immanent in a pack of monkeys, which required consolidation at the genetic level in the form hierarchical instinct.

Hierarchical structure of the units of humanity

3.1. I hope I made it clear external reasons for the way of life of people within the units of humanity. If we return to Kautsky's definition, he emphasized COHESION among group members as a weapon in the struggle for existence, which gives us reason to imagine each evolutionary natural unit of humanity as, the cohesion of whose members is ensured due to the presence of an internal hierarchical structure.

3.2. Let’s try to understand the unit of humanity “from the inside.” are a self-sufficient system that persists over time due to the fact that this form of existence guarantees each member maximum security and a minimally stable level of receipt of vital resources. The structural integrity of a species unit is ensured by a hierarchy, which arranges all members according to their places in the pyramid of privileges - from the leader to the very last member. Moreover, each member, except for the leader and the last, is in two hypostases - (1) he is inferior in relation to the members standing above him on the hierarchical ladder, and at the same time - (2) he himself heads the pyramid of those lower in the hierarchy. It is believed that there is some pacification module, thanks to which, with a certain amount of loyal manifestations on the part of the lower classes, repressions on the part of the upper classes cease. At the same time, various sincere manifestations of fear, reverence and responsibility before the superior hierarch are key support maintaining all vertical consolidation. The very last members, standing on the lowest rungs of the hierarchy ladder, have nothing against the vertical, while the main danger to the existing hierarchy is represented by the first few members in the list, who, thanks to self-affirmation module, strive to increase their status in the group or at least not to lower the achieved one if the first is done by someone else. See Human Instincts. An attempt at description and classification

3.3. In animals, the only criterion for ranking is physical strength. People already have several criteria according to which in any hierarchy system there is a constant struggle for a higher position, but even the lowest member does not seek to leave the group, since his position in the community, even at the level of the lowest member, is better if he were behind outside of it.

3.4. The phenomenon of hierarchy itself is a property of complex systems. In the general theory of systems in the section General system principles and laws you can find two laws:

• 3.5. " law of hierarchical compensation"(E. A. Sedov) records that "the real increase in diversity in top level is ensured by its effective limitation at previous levels”...;
• 3.6. " principle of monocentrism"(A.A. Bogdanov), records that a stable system “is characterized by one center, and if it is complex, chain, then it has one higher, common center”...;

3.7. Since communities of people are complex systems, then they must have a hierarchical structure. If a community is not a crowd, then it necessarily has a hierarchy with a single center. In contrast, “polycentric systems are characterized by dysfunction of coordination processes, disorganization, instability, etc.” At the same time, “biological systems demonstrate increasing hierarchical organization as they rise in evolutionary scale" (Peled A., Geva A. B., Brain organization and mental dynamics, Journal of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis, N 4, 2001.)

Since power is exercised by one person in relation to others, it affects social relations and itself acts as one of the types of these relationships - power relations.

The nature of hierarchy and mobility is the superiority of one over the other. People with power are at the top of the social pyramid, others without it are at the bottom. This order is called hierarchical (hierarchy is the arrangement of parts or elements of a whole in order from lowest to highest. This term in sociology is used to designate the social structure of society, bureaucracy; in organization theory - as a principle of management).

Any hierarchy can be represented as pyramids, where there are three main levels: upper, middle and lower. In the managerial hierarchy these are levels of management, in the social hierarchy these are classes.

The social hierarchy is structured in such a way that at the bottom (at the base of the pyramid) are most of the benefits and privileges that people strive for: power, wealth, influence, benefits, prestige, etc.

Social benefits are scarce resources that are present or available in the smallest amount to the greatest number of people. If the top and bottom of the social pyramid are the poles of a magnet, then a tension arises between them, which can be called social tension. Indeed, those at the bottom believe that benefits are distributed unevenly, even more unfairly: a minority of the population owns most of the national wealth. There is a natural desire to redistribute everything so that everyone gets an equal share, which is why history is full of revolutions, rebellions, and coups. The instigators are those who find themselves deprived, and they are joined by masses of the same people. But as soon as the revolutionaries succeed and seize power, the minority again finds itself in an unprivileged position, and the majority lacks profit. A slower and more conservative way to redistribute wealth is to move up not as a group, not as a mass, but as an individual, i.e. There is no need to destroy anything, just everyone who wants and who has the opportunity makes a personal career. Moving up is calledupward mobility.

People tend to strive from the bottom up, and not in the opposite direction; each of us wants to live better and no one wants to live worse. We live worse only when circumstances force us to. Whenever possible, a person overtakes others, strives to go where there is more power, privileges, and benefits. Not everyone strives to get rich or dominate, but everyone wants to live better; one sees life in joining spiritual, another to the material. Thus, the phenomenon of upward mobility (movement from bottom to top) is formed only where the majority of goods and the majority of people are at different poles of the social scale: at the bottom - the majority of people, at the top - the majority of social benefits. If both are combined, no one will want to move up. Ascending mobility corresponds to the phenomenon of achievement motivation.

Achievement motivation - this is the inherent desire of most people to move up and do their job, their business better than they did yesterday or than their competitors do.

Experience shows that achievement motivation increases rather than decreases over time. Having reached a higher standard of living or official position, we get used to the fact that we can now afford to dress better, eat better, buy more books, etc. Over time, the need for a higher quality of life becomes self-evident, and we have higher demands, our needs grow and expanding. To satisfy them we need more money, power, influence, so we again rush upward. Consequently, achievement motivation is spurred by an expanding range of needs. Achievement motivation is closely related to the law of increasing needs. In itself, this law is not good or harmful for a person; its negative side is that a person turns into a slave of growing privileges, i.e. moving up the career ladder, achieving titles and power, an individual essentially serves his ambitions, whims, and demands. But they also give a person a benefit - he gets used to a higher standard of living and he forms a new circle of acquaintances. But soon friends also turn from an end into a means.