Abdulina A.

Abdulina A.

The problem of social inequality in the history of European philosophy

Abdulina A.

Scientific adviser: Ph.D., associate professor Medvedeva E.N.

State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Saratov State Medical University im. IN AND. Razumovsky Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Department of Philosophy, Humanities and Psychology

The problem of social inequality in the history of European philosophy

Abdulina A.

Scientific adviser: Ph.D., associate professor Medvedeva E.N.

State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Saratov State Medical University im. IN AND. Razumovsky Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Department of Philosophy, Humanities and Psychology

A superficial look at the surrounding people already gives reason to talk about their dissimilarity and individuality. People differ in gender, temperament, hair and eye color, age, intelligence level and many other characteristics. Nature has endowed each of us with unique talents and abilities. One can play the violin, another can lift unbearable weights, a third can have excellent logic and thinking, and someone has become an infirm invalid. Differences between people that are due to their mental and physiological characteristics are called natural.

Differences in this category are not harmless. Sometimes they are the cause of the appearance of unequal relations between individuals. Inequality, which follows from natural differences, is the first form of inequality. It manifests itself not only in humans, but also in animals. Some researchers believe that social inequality is a mythological construct of modern society.

Since we are talking about human society, the main thing here is that social inequality is inseparable from other concepts, such as social differences and social differentiation.

Social differences are those characteristics that were previously generated by social factors:

· Way of life;

· Division of labor;

· Social roles and the like.

Everything that leads to differences is to some extent related to property, income level, power, education and the achievement of social status.

Any organized social institution strives to preserve inequality. After all, this is precisely what many see as an ordering principle, without which social ties and integration into society of something new are unthinkable.

Inequality exists in any society between people. This is a natural and natural process. In every society there are people who differ in their abilities and interests, in their financial capabilities and the availability of education. That is why the problem of the origin of social inequality, its structure and relations between individuals aroused such great interest among thinkers and politicians, and even ordinary people who consider social inequality as the pinnacle of injustice.

The history of social thought has often explained the inequality of people from different points of view: the initial inequality of souls, the imperfection of human nature, divine providence, and others.

The historical course of the development of all sociology, as well as the course of the history of one of its disciplines - social inequality, already has more than one century. At the same time, long before the 19th century, scientists and philosophers thought about the nature of relations between people, about the problem of justice and injustice of inequality, about the fate of the majority, and so on.

The first scientist who put forward his vision of social inequality was the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. In his work "The State" Plato clearly stated the idea of ​​​​how he understands the existence of inequality in society during his lifetime. So, the main idea of ​​this work was that, according to the philosopher, the state is two unequal formations. One is the poor, the other is the rich. But even though these two groups are so different, they live together, and always in enmity with each other. Both formations are haunted by uncertainty and fear.

Plato believed that a correct state is scientifically substantiated and therefore it is possible to create a society within it that will take the principles of justice as the basis of its life, ensure social stability and internal discipline.

Plato divided all citizens into three unequal classes:

The rulers are philosophers. They govern the state, develop new ways of development of society.

· Warriors - defenders. The main goal of these strata of society is to protect the state from enemies (internal or external).

Officials are employees. They are engaged in agriculture, handicrafts. It is in these layers that doctors, actors, and so on work. They financially provide the state, since their main goal is the extraction of resources for life support.

Having developed a detailed theory of the social and personal education of warriors and philosophers, Plato by no means attributed it to the so-called workers. Plato was convinced that private property should be abolished, thereby abolishing inequality.

Plato believed that the class division of society was based on a functional principle. Plato put forward the idea that a highly stratified society is characterized by the following parameters: the features of the ruling class are equality of chance or opportunity, there is no private property, and the entire population is concentrated on the general welfare. But the idea of ​​Plato was not the only one in the era of Antiquity.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle also dealt with the issue of social inequality. About his thoughts on this topic, he tells in the work "Politics". It was here that he singled out three class elements included in the state structure:

very wealthy class

very poor class

· middle class.

It was the middle class that Aristotle singled out as the best. Why? Because, in his opinion, the representatives of this class, according to the conditions of their lives, are more prepared to follow the rational principle. From polar unequal poor grow up in the future inveterate criminals, and from polar rich - swindlers.

At the same time, the middle class was also the best from the point of view of the state. It is more numerous and strong enough to "tip the scales in the right direction." The middle class is stable and well managed.

However, Aristotle urged all layers to think about the poor, since it is this class that is the "enemy" of the state. Where there are more poor people, the state will always have enemies in any internal and external affairs. It is poverty that creates chaos in the state and is the beginning of all complications. A state that does not fight poverty becomes unstable and is simply doomed to death and ruin. Aristotle was an opponent of inequality in society. He was negatively disposed both to the poor, who are deprived of their rights and their own property, and to the rich. He represented the ideal form of state government in those models where the selfish use of power is completely absent. By itself, power served the whole society, and therefore Aristotle ranked among the capable citizens only from the middle class - "polity".

Putting forward one idea after another, Aristotle believed that society and the state should strive for the equalization of property, and not for complete equality. That is why Aristotle hit the middle class so hard. This is a strong group, and it can definitely become dominant. In states where some have a lot of funds and resources, others have nothing, neither property nor money, two types of political regime appear:

1. "Oligarchy" - in this mode, everything is carried out only in the interests of wealthy citizens.

2. "Democracy" - this mode involves actions in the interests of the urban poor.

No matter what regime in the state, it reaches its extreme, this leads to "tyranny".

These are the views of the ancient Greek philosophers, which are still relevant today, for example, in sociology.

If we are talking about representatives of the Renaissance who decided to express their opinion on social inequality, then the views of the Italian thinker N. Machiavelli occupy the leading position here. One of his most famous works, which underlie the conduct of politics, is the composition "The Sovereign".

Machiavelli observed that the negative attitude, high nervousness and tension between the elite layer of society and the people is the result that unites both categories and this is the fear of each other.

Machiavelli was always on the side of the middle and upper strata of the Italian city. Since they were a confident and cohesive force, ready for change and work for the sake of society, and not for personal gain.

The English materialist philosopher T. Hobbes always emphasized equality, that all people are equal, and the first thing to do to unite the state and its development is to replace inequality in power and privileges. That is, people strive for power only because it gives them privileges, and since a person is an insatiable creature in his desires, such a system is detrimental to the state.

T. Hobbes considers the state as the result of a social contract concluded between people. This "contract" is a transfer of the rights of government of one person to another. That is, citizens voluntarily give up power, thereby limiting their rights and freedoms in favor of the state, whose goal is only one: to ensure peace and security on the territory of their country. T. Hobbes believes that the chosen ruler rules, but is guided only by laws and with the full consent of his subordinates and subjects. The role of the state according to T. Hobbes is extolled. The philosopher considers him an absolute sovereign. If such a state exists, then in its “ideal society” there will be no privileged classes, since they are not allowed and are the first impetus for the decomposition of equality of rights.

This theory had supporters for a long time, and today it finds authority among citizens, but it is worth noting that these were not the only views of scientists on the problem of social inequality.

So, D. Locke, I. Bentham, J.-J. Rousseau and G.W.F. Hegel also paid attention to issues of social inequality in their philosophical theories. All of them recognized that the issues of social inequality are a serious problem for the state.

A. Saint-Simon was the first to see and comprehend the basis of society in industrial production (industry). He was able not only to understand, but also to substantiate the role of economic activity by forms of ownership in the formation of classes. He first introduced the terms "industrialization", "industrial (industrial) society". The merit of A. Saint-Simon is that he will be able to lay in sociology that “paradigm of production”, which the famous thinkers O. Comte, and K. Marx, and M. Weber were able to continue in their teachings.

The first person to explore the problems of inequality in society was Auguste Comte. He developed theoretical and methodological ideas for the structuring of society. It was O. Comte who outlined the main aspects of this problem in his famous work “The System of Positive Politics”.

So, social formations involve cooperation, which is based on the division of labor. According to O. Comte, it is also a fundamental social fact. The division of labor is "the most important condition of our social life."

O. Comte affirms the natural, eternal and irremovable nature of the built social hierarchy. This is the very unnatural character of the idea of ​​social equality. The process of dividing society into classes follows from the division of managerial and executive functions. The thinker designates all classes in different ways, but they have two most general unequal categories:

· Heads;

· Performers.

O. Comte considered the society of his time and singled out the 2 most significant categories in them: the patriciate and the proletariat. In each of them, the thinker united smaller social groups. For example, bankers, wealth managers, and entrepreneurs are patriciates. Entrepreneurs are also divided into several groups: industrial and agricultural.

O. Comte singles out classes based on the criteria of power, property and prestige. Political power must be in the hands of the people who direct industry. It is the capitalists who have all the necessary means, which means that political power should belong to them. Although O. Comte suggests the possibility of unethical actions on the part of secular authorities, he still hopes for the existence of spiritual authority, even in the face of enmity with the secular.

O. Comte puts forward the hypothesis of the disappearance of the middle classes, since he does not find a place for the middle class in society, which should be built on a "positive" philosophy and sociology. He assumes that the “best” small proprietors must merge into the capitalist class, while the rest are obliged to replenish the ranks of the proletarian class. Only in this way will society consist only of the rich and the poor, where the duties of the rich will be entrusted only with the opportunity to improve the lot of the poor.

The emergence of such a direction in sociology, which studies social inequality, is closely connected with a scientist named K. Marx. It was he who deeply substantiated the class structure of society. The scientist is a classic representative of the theory of class analysis. It is in social inequality that Karl Marx sees the causes of class conflict.

For K. Marx and his followers, classes are social communities, and the resulting form of manifestation of the conflict is the class struggle. This conflict that arises between classes has arisen due to the formation of antagonistic contradictions that are firmly fixed in the political and economic system.

In the currently known works of K. Marx, "The Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850", "Manifesto of the Communist Party", "Capital" and others, he analyzed the structures of capitalist society. He was able to identify the conditions that are required for the formation of classes.

Thus, the basic concept of class points to a previously rethought economic inequality. That it is the objective and the only factor in the structure of society. Therefore, class affiliation is determined by objective conditions, and not by previously accepted ideas of people about the accepted social position.

It was K. Marx who filled the concept of "class" with a clear economic content. Thus, the main classes, according to the scientist, are the capitalists and wage workers. It is between these groups that initially there is a conflict, and all because they have completely different economic and political interests. The theory put forward predisposes to the fact that society as a whole is seen as a constant conflict.

K. Marx in his work "Manifesto of the Communist Party" creates a theory of the historical process. At the heart of this assumption lies precisely the class struggle, which will be the impetus for all possible transformations. K. Marx noted that everything new that he suggested consisted only in proving the following factors:

1. The existence of classes is connected with the historical phases of the development of production.

2. The class struggle inevitably leads the state to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

3. Dictatorship is the transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society without class inequality.

Today, in studies of social inequality in the structure of society, the stratification approach receives special attention. At the same time, the idea of ​​M. Weber and the multidimensional approach of P. Sorokin and P. Bourdieu received the greatest development of social inequality and the stratification approach.

Sociologist P. Sorokin explained the inevitability of social inequality by the internal biopsychic processes of people, the environment, unequal position, the collectivity of the life of individuals. All this requires the organization of relations and behavior, which leads to the stratification of society into two groups: managers and managed.

conclusions

To this day, the social structure of society is a fragile mechanism, and it cannot be justified because of its constant mobility. It is impossible to substantiate its work only on the basis of the class and social-stratification approach. Such unambiguity would allow us to present only a simplified model of social inequality, and this would in no way correspond to the real state of affairs.

Social inequality is an inevitable and necessary condition for the existence of society. It manifests itself at all stages of its historical development, and only the forms and degree of social inequality change. If social inequality did not exist, then individuals would not have the desire to engage in complex and labor-intensive activities, to improve their skills. With the help of income inequality, society induces individuals to the necessary, but difficult professions, using a system of rewarding the more educated and talented for greater stimulation.

Social inequality

Inequality of people and social inequality.

social stratification.

social mobility.

The problems of social inequality are very close to everyday, everyday consciousness and feelings of people. Since ancient times, people have noticed and experienced that some people are unequal to others. This was expressed in many ways: in the perception and definition of existing differences as fair or unfair; in secular and religious ideologies that substantiated, justified or, on the contrary, refuted, criticized the existing inequality; in political doctrines and programs that either emphasized the inevitability of inequality and even affirmed its useful social functions or, on the contrary, formulated the ideas of equality, demands for equalizing life chances; in developed philosophical concepts, including the search for sources of inequality in the fundamental features of the human race or in the social conditions of its existence; in ethical theories that interpret equality and inequality as moral categories (values). The problem of inequality and injustice was the topic around which the ground for mass riots, social movements, and revolutions was formed. All this indicates that inequality is an extremely important feature, a hallmark of the human community.

The fact that individuals, separate, concrete people are not equal to others, is a banal truth, an obvious fact. People are tall and short, thin and fat, more intelligent and more stupid, capable and stupid, old and young. Each person has a unique composition of genes, a unique biography and a unique personality warehouse. It is obvious. However, we are not talking about such inequality when we talk about social inequality, that is, about inequality that has social rather than individual characteristics and characteristics. And the most important of these social attributes for a person are the nature of the groups to which he belongs and the nature of the positions he occupies.

Social inequality - unequal access (or unequal chances of access) to socially valuable goods, arising from belonging to different groups or from occupying different social positions

Social inequality is a phenomenon that particularly affects the sphere of people's interests and causes strong emotions. Therefore, discussions on this topic often turn out to be closed within the framework of ideology, that is, such systems of thinking that obey and serve certain group interests. But inequality also remains an important subject of theoretical reflection, the purpose of which is not so much to justify or criticize inequality as to clarify the essence of this phenomenon.

ideologies inequalities.

Despite the many specific formulations and arguments, all ideologies of inequality can be classified into three types. The first is elitist ideologies. They argue that there are groups that, by their very nature, are "higher" than others and therefore should occupy a higher position in society, which finds expression in their privileges, fully justified and justified. Such groups can be formed by birthright, as is the case, for example, in the formation of dynasties, aristocratic circles, citizens of ancient Rome, castes in India. They may also include people who have special prerequisites for this, outstanding abilities, intellect, people who, as it were, are close to God. Examples are tribal elders, shamans, and members of the clergy.

Another type is egalitarian ideologies created by or on behalf of discriminated groups. In their most radical version, they opposed any social inequality and privileges, demanding the same living conditions for all people.

The third type of ideology is meritocratic (from the English merit - merit). According to this ideology, inequalities in society are justified to the extent that they are the result of one's own merit. How is it to be understood that certain groups, strata, classes have special merits? Two interrelated factors are decisive here. First, the level of one's own efforts, the intensity of labor applied, or the level of costs and sacrifices incurred, as well as the possession of exceptional and rare talents, skills, or prerequisites. Secondly, this is the contribution that this group makes to society as a whole, the extent to which this group satisfies the needs of the whole society, the benefits or pleasures that the activity of this group brings to other people and groups of society. From these two points of view, the groups are very different from each other. Social inequality becomes a kind of fair reward for one's own efforts and public benefit.

Theories of inequality

Reasoning about inequality is not only the subject of ideological justifications. This theme also penetrates into the realm of the sciences, first of all into the realm of philosophy, and later into the realm of the social sciences. The prevalence and painful sensitivity of manifestations of social inequality from ancient times caused a desire to find out the causes of this phenomenon.

The functional theory considers social inequality as an eternal, unavoidable phenomenon, moreover, inevitable, necessary for the existence and functioning of human communities. Social inequality provides motivation for compulsory education and training, which creates a certain pool of candidates for mastering the necessary professions, for performing the work necessary in a given type of society, which guarantees the very existence of this society. The conclusion naturally follows from this: in every existing society (for if it exists, it means that it has survived and functions) social inequality is found. Social inequality is a mandatory, indispensable, universal, eternal component of any society.

There are three major varieties of dichotomous inequality: the opposition of the class of owners and the class of the dispossessed in the sense in which Karl Marx first formulated this opposition; further, the confrontation between groups that form the majority and the minority (in particular, nations and ethnic minorities), as well as the confrontation of the sexes - men and women, which is the main theme of feminist concepts that are now gaining more and more sound.

social stratification

All goods or values: wealth, power, prestige, education and health are hierarchical. You can have them to a greater or lesser extent. From the highest to the lowest levels, a whole gradation scale or hierarchy unfolds. There are, as you know, hierarchies of wealth - from millionaires to the homeless; hierarchies of power - from emperors to slaves; hierarchies of prestige - from idols to nonentities; Olympic Games to the disabled. On such scales of comparison, one can find a place for individuals. Moreover, you can calculate how many people will be at each such level of the hierarchy. Then we get certain statistical categories, for example: very rich, rich, wealthy, people of average income, poor, the poorest. You can do it even more precisely by setting any quantitative limits on earnings. In this case, one can speak of stratification layers.

Social stratification (stratification) is a hierarchy of social groups that have greater or lesser access to any socially valued good: wealth, power, prestige, education.

The term "social stratification", or division into social strata, is used to describe group or status, but not individual, differences in approaching valued social goals. Each good or value of the five above has its own level of stratification. Groups and positions occupy certain levels, certain places on each of these hierarchies. For example, in the stratification by income level, a doctor will be at a higher level than a nurse. In the power stratification, the director will be placed at a higher level than the worker. A prestigious TV presenter will take a higher place than a teacher. But do these systems of stratification exist on their own, independently of each other? Already when describing the individual benefits included in this stratification, we mentioned that some of them may be of auxiliary importance in acquiring other benefits. Wealth can provide power and prestige. Power can help to get a fortune, as well as gain prestige. Prestige can have an impact on the process of achieving power, and on obtaining high wages and incomes. If such an interaction occurs, it may result in a situation in which the same group or position is approximately equally located at all three levels of stratification. Thus, the President of the United States is a position that is associated with high incomes, great wealth, great power and great fame. In this case, we should talk about the coincidence of the stratification parameters. However, much more often we are dealing with examples of a certain disharmony between stratification systems, which is based on the difference in the places occupied by the same group, the difference in the levels at which it finds itself in different stratification systems. A university professor in Poland has high prestige, an average income and little power; a politician, on the contrary, has high incomes and power, but monstrously low prestige; a football player has good prestige, high incomes and no power; prestige. There can be many combinations of this kind. In this case, we are talking about a discrepancy (mismatch) of the stratification parameters.

This discrepancy can have various consequences. Among the members of a given group or persons holding a given position, this may cause a certain sense of dissonance or a peculiarly understood injustice. For example, a person might reason like this: I'm so rich, I've achieved so much, and people are pointing their fingers at me and calling me an "upstart."

There are other features, signs that make it possible to put different phenomena on close or the same levels of the stratification hierarchy: a similar way of life, tastes and passions, customs and mores, religious practices, ideological views, entertainment, etc. For example, rich people in their way of life and thinking are similar to other rich people, and this way of life and thinking is completely different from that of poor people. Wealthy people build similar residences for themselves, drive similar brands of cars, dress from the same “trendsetters”, vacation on the same islands and constantly eat salmon with champagne. In many respects, the way of life of politicians or managers turns out to be similar. The everyday life of the stars of the TV screen, cinema or music has a special character. Ordinary people only timidly, out of the corner of their eye, penetrate this world with the help of illustrated weeklies.

Let us note that the similarity, as it were, accompanies the integrity of those groups or positions that individual individuals represent. Rich people create a certain, real social environment, a rather integral group, a close-knit community, despite the fact that such a community includes doctors, lawyers, businessmen, politicians, television representatives, and mafia bosses. The similarity in the level of wealth is expressed in similar interests (for example, in the desire to protect oneself from taxes).

The similarity in consumer opportunities finds expression in a similar way of life. Accordingly, certain social ties and comradely contacts are formed between people with such similarity, interactions arise and even stronger social relations are established, primarily instrumental, related to ensuring the so-called business interests. A different nature of communication, features of life, tastes in the consumer sphere characterize, say, the environment of managers or the so-called "leading cadres". And again, all this takes on a different character among that wide group of people of the so-called middle class, who are employed in various spheres of production and other professional activities that require high education and qualifications, as well as acting as entrepreneurs who have their own small firms or enterprises that provide them sufficient, though not elite material standard of living. Such close-knit communities - groups, varieties of a certain environment, made up of people who have approximately the same position in hierarchies, in systems of social stratification, regardless of their different group affiliation or other positions they occupy, we call social strata.

social mobility

People change their social positions, as well as their group affiliation. When they move between positions and groups located at different levels of stratification hierarchies, we are talking about social mobility, more precisely, about vertical mobility, which makes it possible to distinguish this process from the movement of people in space - from migrations, travel, tourism, travel to work, which we call horizontal mobility. We have spoken of this second form of mobility before. Now let's try to identify the most important aspects of vertical mobility, directly related to social inequality.

The simplest example of vertical mobility is promotion, which means gaining a higher professional position or entering a higher professional group than the position that the person currently holds, or the group to which he currently belongs. A school teacher who receives a job offer at a university; a journalist who becomes a minister - these are examples of a person changing his professional affiliation, changing it to one that brings more solid earnings, higher prestige, and in the second case also gives more power. Most often, examples of such career advancement are found within the same professional group, in which there are usually several levels of hierarchy. Assistant who moves to the post of adjunct; an assistant who becomes the head of a department are the first examples of this kind that came across. The succession of such promotions forms the phenomenon we call a career. Turning to the examples we have just given, we note: assistant - adjunct - associate professor - professor - this is one career scheme; referent - head of department - director - this is a scheme of a different kind. Of course, the direction of change may be opposite, people may lose their former, higher positions and move into groups occupying lower levels in the stratification system. An employee who was fired and became unemployed; the head of the department, who was demoted in the form of a disciplinary punishment and made a referent - these are examples of degradation, which sometimes consists in the complete withdrawal of a person from the composition of a given professional group, and sometimes is limited only to a decrease in his position within this group. And here, too, there is some consistency. When someone loses the higher position they have held in various social contexts, such as losing their job, being forced to leave a club they were a member of, being kicked out of a sports team, getting divorced, etc., we say they are "rolling". down".

In all the above examples, it was about the rise or fall of an individual in the system of existing, permanent, strong stratification hierarchies. However, mobility can also consist in the movement of entire groups at the same levels of stratification, as well as in a change in the stratification hierarchy itself, due to which the same groups or positions suddenly find themselves at different levels than before, higher or lower, that is subject to promotion or degradation.

Consider first the first case. Professional advancement can cover an entire social category. This was typical for the rural population during the period of modernization: migrating to the cities, rural residents, as a rule, occupied higher professional positions in terms of earnings and prestige, penetrating into the environment of the working class.

A change in the relative position of this group can also be caused by a change in the scale of stratification itself. This usually happens as a result of deep and radical social changes, revolutions, upheavals leading to the establishment of a new order, as well as technological and civilizational breaks. Then certain professional groups or other circles can gain access to higher wages, power or prestige. While others, on the contrary, will lose their privileged position. All the movements and changes described above can occur on different scales: within the boundaries of the life of one person, one generation, in a much longer historical period spanning several generations. Accordingly, we can talk about intragenerational and intergenerational mobility. Progress in the educational sphere is especially characteristic of intergenerational activity. Intergenerational activity is a typical phenomenon among emigrants who went to other countries in search of work and earnings: as a rule, in a new country they gain chances to radically improve their lives. The United States of America provides us with a huge number of such examples. Some poor villager of Asian origin in the first generation opens a restaurant there (as the Chinese and Indians often do) or sells vegetables and herbs (like the Vietnamese), but he already sends his children to study at the university, and in the second generation these people are members of the medical or scientific elite.

The American examples lead us to consider the general social conditions that promote mobility. The fact is that the United States is a typical open society in which individual or group advancement is not only possible in a wide area, but also turns out to be a “culturally demanded”, expected, social requirement. It is here that careers “from bootblack to millionaire” constantly happen.

At the other extreme are societies that are called closed. They exclude or at least greatly limit the possibilities of social mobility. Such was the feudal society, where a multi-level hierarchy, from monarchs, magnates through vassals and up to dependent peasants, was a petrified structure, and each individual estate was closed, inaccessible to representatives of other estates. It is difficult to imagine that a serf could be at the royal court. Today, something similar can be observed in India, where the transition of a person from one caste to another is extremely limited, and for the lower castes, the so-called "untouchables", this is absolutely impossible. The term "caste" is already customary to use not only in relation to this particular situation, but more broadly - as a definition of any closed estate, a closed group, belonging to which is clearly limited to a circle of people, and one can enter this circle only by birthright.

Of course, between the models of an open and a closed society, which are only "ideal types" and nowhere appear in such a pure form, somewhere in the middle between these extreme poles there is a whole range of different situations. The systems of stratification of these phenomena can be flexible enough to allow jumping over some intermediate levels. But there can also be very strict systems of stratification, requiring a clear, rigorous passage of all stages. A symptom of the first type of stratification is the desire to take into account the outstanding achievements of an individual, and a symptom of the second type is a strict requirement for "length of service", an appropriate level of income or life experience. It is instructive to compare the United States and Japan in this regard. Just as outstanding work results in the United States provide the opportunity for quick, “jumping” career advancement, so in Japan it is tough to go through all the stages of a professional career in set periods of time in order to only then reach the top in this hierarchy. Such a difference can also be revealed regardless of culture, but depending on the professional area in which the corresponding processes are unfolding. One can compare, for example, an artistic career, in which victory in some important music competition immediately opens up the opportunity for even the youngest people to perform on the best stages and largest stages in the world, and a scientific career, in which, as a rule, one has to go through everything. stages for which there are specific deadlines.

Within the various professional fields, individual groups differ from each other in the degree of exclusivity, that is, the rigidity of the criteria and procedures that are required and implemented in order to admit new members to the corresponding circle. Sometimes there are special organizations or institutions that stand guard over the "gates" through which one must pass in order to find oneself in a higher elite circle. These institutes select candidates for promotion through complex examination procedures; such a role is played, for example, by special medical commissions, bar associations, scientific councils at university faculties, state examination boards through which one must go through for appointment to a higher administrative position, committees of the Sejm organizing various kinds of hearings, for example, meetings at which candidates for ambassadorial positions answer questions, etc. In democratic societies, joining the political elite is conditioned by a complex election procedure, in which all citizens-voters take on the role of the selecting authority.

Social mobility is an area in which stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination characteristic of a given society are especially pronounced. The extreme form is the complete exclusion of any group, which loses any chance of promotion. For example, certain groups of emigrants or refugees may be denied the right to get a job. More often there is a situation characterized by partial discrimination, which manifests itself in three forms. The first is that for certain social groups the possibility of promotion to the highest positions is closed, regardless of which area it concerns. A kind of barrier of possible achievements is created, and representatives of these social groups cannot overcome this barrier. Studies show that despite the openness of American society, there is de facto a certain barrier to advancement for ethnic and racial minorities.

Social inequality - This is a type of social division in which individual members of a society or group are at different levels of the social ladder (hierarchy) and have unequal opportunities, rights and obligations.

Main indicators of inequality:

• different levels of access to resources, both physical and moral (for example, women in Ancient Greece, who were not allowed to participate in the Olympic Games);
• various working conditions.

Causes of social inequality.

The French sociologist Émile Durkheim deduced two causes of social inequality:

1. The need to encourage the best in their field, that is, those who bring great benefits to society.
2. Different levels of personal qualities and talent in people.

Robert Michels put forward another reason: the protection of the privileges of power. When the size of the community exceeds a certain number of people, they put forward a leader, or a whole group, and give him more authority than everyone else.

Criteria of social inequality.

Key inequality criteria Max Weber stated:

1. Wealth (difference in income).
2. Prestige (the difference in honor and respect).
3. Power (difference in the number of subordinates).

Hierarchy of inequality.

There are two types of hierarchy, which are usually represented as geometric shapes: pyramid(a handful of oligarchs and a huge number of poor, and the poorer, the greater their number) and rhombus(few oligarchs, few poor and the bulk of the middle class). A rhombus is preferable to a pyramid in terms of the stability of the social system. Roughly speaking, in a diamond-shaped version, the middle peasants, satisfied with their lives, will not allow a handful of poor people to stage a coup and a civil war. You don't have to go far for an example. In Ukraine, the middle class was far from being the majority, and disgruntled residents of poor western and central villages overthrew the government in the country. As a result, the pyramid turned over, but remained a pyramid. There are already other oligarchs at the top, and at the bottom there is still a large part of the country's population.

Solving the problem of social inequality.

It is natural that social inequality is perceived as social injustice, especially by those who are in the hierarchy of social division at the lowest level. In modern society, the issue of social inequality is in the introduction of social policy bodies. Their responsibilities include:

1. Introduction of various compensations for socially unprotected segments of the population.
2. Help poor families.
3. Benefit for the unemployed.
4. Determining the minimum wage.
5. Social insurance.
6. Development of education.
7. Healthcare.
8. Ecological problems .
9. Raising the qualifications of workers.

Social inequality - such a state of affairs in a society or a separate community, when their members have unequal access to such social benefits as wealth, power and prestige.

Any society is always structured on many grounds - national, social class, demographic, settlement, etc. Structuring, that is, the belonging of people to certain social, professional, socio-demographic groups, can give rise to social inequality. Even natural genetic or physical differences between people can be the basis for the formation of unequal relationships! But the main thing in society is those differences, those objective factors that give rise to the social inequality of people. Inequality is an enduring fact of every society. Ralf Dahrendorf wrote: “Even in a prosperous society, the unequal position of people remains an important enduring phenomenon ... Of course, these differences are no longer based on direct violence and legislative norms, which supported the system of privileges in a caste or estate society. Nevertheless, in addition to more gross divisions in terms of property and income, prestige and power, our society is characterized by many rank differences - so subtle and at the same time so deeply rooted that statements about the disappearance of all forms inequalities as a result of leveling processes can be perceived, at least, skeptically".

Social differences are those that are generated by social factors: the division of labor, the way life, social roles performed by individuals or social groups.

A structured society can be represented as a set of interrelated and interdependent areas social life: economic, political, spiritual, social, in which sometimes the family sphere is distinguished. Each of these spheres of social life has its own social stratification, its own structure. Social differences between people determine the social structure. In it, first of all, the economic structure of society is manifested. The main elements of this structure are classes, social and professional groups, and strata.

The largest social-stratification formation of society is the class. We should not forget the thesis of K. Marx about the fundamental importance of social classes in the history of human society.

The word "class" comes from ancient Rome, where it was used to divide the population into separate groups for tax purposes. At the top step were the Assidi - the richest Romans, at the bottom - the proletarians.

Plato in ancient Greece saw two classes - the rich and the poor. Aristotle divided society into a greedy upper class, a lower class of slaves, and a venerable middle class that can be trusted to take care of the common good, since it moderately possessed virtues and vices.

The scientific concept of the class appeared in the 19th century. Its author is K. Marx. He saw the whole history of society in the conflict of classes. Hence the idea of ​​a classless society, a society of complete social integration, social equality. K. Marx divided contemporary society into two main classes, primarily in relation to private property. Following his logic, we can assume that the socialist system ensures complete social equality, because property has become public, or state property, to which all members of society, all social groups should have an equal relationship. However, it was precisely on the basis of public property that the nomenclature and privileges flourished, and a shadow economy appeared. Why did the socialist experiment end in failure?

First, in any society, in addition to owning property, someone must exercise operational economic control over it. The possibility of distribution of material and monetary Resources often turns out to be more important and profitable than a direct drop in property. In this option, the manager has the advantage of irresponsibility, because he is dealing with someone else's property. Thus, with illiterate management of the army of officials, the risk is small, and the social benefits are obvious.

Secondly, society always has a certain state, political organization, which means that leaders, state managers, officials appear, who objectively should have more rights, otherwise they simply will not be able to perform the functions of state administration. In almost any society, such social groups occupy a certain status that objectively gives rise to social inequality.

Written story mankind does not yet know a single society without social inequalities. Social inequality has many faces, it manifests itself in a variety of ways. forms and at different levels of social organization. Polls show that people have a fairly good idea of ​​their place in the social hierarchy, they are keenly aware of and painfully react to social inequality, which is often expressed in social conflicts.

Thirdly, there is reason to believe that the genetic desire for dominance over other people is inherent in human nature. This desire is expressed to varying degrees in individuals. A person or a social group, having received power, always tries to use it openly or disguisedly. These processes can be regulated (representative democracy, separation of powers, rotation of state officials), but cannot be completely eliminated.

Fourthly, society is objectively interested in nominating the most capable, gifted for management, to the heights of power, and thus is forced to create such conditions that people aspire, have a desire to occupy these places. Social inequality is a kind of tool for the self-preservation of society, with the help of which it consciously ensures that the most important posts are filled by capable and qualified people, a kind of elite - political, economic, scientific, military, etc. The mistakes of such people or their incompetence can cost society too much. Therefore, it is necessary to create some advantages in social status, social position, stimulating the promotion of the most capable people.

Fundamental theoretical basis social inequalities, stratification is the very development of civilization. Each individual person cannot master all the achievements of material and spiritual culture. There is a specialization of people and with it - more and less valuable activities. People are equal in their abilities, upbringing and education. Here is the objective basis of stratification.

Causes social inequalities.
Functionalism:

When a certain type of activity or profession is valued more in society, a hierarchy in society is built depending on the significance of these professions.
People have different abilities, the most talented ones are engaged in the most prestigious professions, the talented ones should occupy the top of the social pyramid.
According to Marx:

Social inequality is based on economic.
Those who own property oppress those who do not.
By Weber. At the core social inequalities lie:

Wealth
Power
Prestige
According to Sorokin. Cause social inequalities are:

Own
Power
Profession
Forms social inequalities:
biosocial
sexual
ethnic
National
Gender

Social inequality seems to be a relic of the past and should go into oblivion, but the modern reality is such that, in one form or another, stratification in society is present today, and this gives rise to a sense of injustice among those people who have been affected by social inequality.

Social inequality - what is it?

Social class inequality has existed since ancient times of human evolution. The history of different countries is a clear proof of what the oppression and enslavement of people leads to - these are rebellions, food riots, wars and revolutions. But this experience, written in blood, teaches nothing. Yes, now it has taken on softer, more veiled forms. What is the expression of social inequality and what does it represent today?

Social inequality is the division or differentiation of people into classes, societies or groups, according to their position in society, which implies unequal use of opportunities, life's benefits and rights. If we imagine social inequality schematically in the form of a ladder, then on its lowest steps there will be the oppressed, the poor, and at the top the oppressors and those who have power and money in their hands. This is the main sign of the stratification of society into the poor and the rich. There are other indicators of social inequality.

Causes of social inequality

What are the causes of social inequality? Economists see the root cause in unequal treatment of property and the distribution of wealth in general. R. Michels (a German sociologist) saw the reason in giving great privileges and powers to the apparatus of power, which was chosen by the people themselves. The reasons for the emergence of social inequality, according to the French sociologist E. Durkheim:

1. Encouragement of people who bring the greatest benefit to society, the best in their field.
2. The unique personal qualities and talents of a person that distinguish him from the general society.

Types of social inequality

Forms of social inequality are different, so there are several classifications. Types of social inequality according to physiological characteristics:

• age - applies to all people in certain age intervals, this can be seen when applying for a job, young people are not hired due to lack of experience, older people with their vast experience are replaced by young people who are more promising from the point of view of their superiors;
• social sexual inequality - here you can consider such a phenomenon as, expressed in the fact that few women occupy responsible positions, participate in the economic life of the country, a woman is assigned the role of "behind her husband";
• social ethnic inequality - small ethnic groups, those that are not included in the concept of "white race" are largely oppressed because of such phenomena as xenophobia and racism.

Social inequality due to status in society:

• lack/presence of wealth;
• proximity to power.

Manifestation of social inequality

The main signs of social inequality are observed in such a phenomenon as the division of labor. Human activities are diverse and each person is endowed with some talents and skills, abilities to grow. In this case, social inequality manifests itself as the giving of privileges to those who are more talented and promising for society. The stratification of society or stratification (from the word "strata" - a geological layer) is the building of a hierarchical ladder, division into classes, and if earlier it was slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and servants, then at the present stage it is a division into:

• top class;
• middle class;
• low-income (socially vulnerable);
• below the poverty line.

Consequences of social inequality

Social inequality and poverty, generated by the fact that only the elite can use the main resources of the planet, gives rise to conflicts and wars among the population. The consequences develop gradually and are expressed in the slow development of many countries, which leads to the fact that progress in the economy is also slowing down, democracy as a system is losing its positions, tension, discontent, psychological pressure and social disharmony are growing in society. According to the UN, half of the world's resources are owned by 1% of the so-called top elite (world domination).

Pros of social inequality

Social inequality in society as a phenomenon does not carry only negative properties, if we consider social inequality from the positive side, then we can note important things, looking at which the thought arises that everything “has a place to be under the Sun”. The advantages of social inequality for a person:

• an incentive to become the best in your field, to show your abilities and talents to the maximum;
• motivation for those who want ;
• ordering in the economic sphere, those who have capital produce resources, in contrast to those who do not have capital and are only able to feed themselves and their families.

Examples of social inequality in history

Examples of social inequality or stratification systems:

1. Slavery- an extreme degree of enslavement, the original form of social inequality known since antiquity.
2. castes. A type of social stratification that has developed since antiquity, when social inequality was determined by caste, a child, being born from birth, belonged to a certain caste. In India, it was believed that the birth of a person in one or another caste depends on his deeds in a past life. There are 4 castes in total: the highest - Brahmins, Kshatriyas - warriors, Vaishyas - merchants, merchants, Shudras - peasants (the lowest caste).
3. Estates. The upper classes - the nobility and the clergy had the legal right to transfer property by inheritance. Unprivileged class - artisans, peasants.

Modern forms of social inequality

Social inequality in modern society is an inherent property, so the social theory of functionalism considers stratification in a positive way. The American sociologist B. Barber divided modern types of social stratification based on 6 criteria:

1. prestige of the profession.
2. The presence of power.
3. Wealth and income.
4. Religious affiliation.
5. Education, knowledge.
6. Belonging to one or another ethnic group, nation.

Social inequality in the world

The problem of social inequality is that racism, xenophobia, and discrimination are generated. The most revealing criterion of social inequality throughout the world is the different income of the population. The factors influencing stratification in society around the world remain the same as many years ago:

• way of life- urban or rural, a well-known fact that in the villages wages are lower than in the city, and conditions are often worse, and there is more work;
• social roles(mother, father, teacher, official) - determine the status, prestige, the presence of power, property;
• division of labor– physical and intellectual labor are paid differently.