Social progress

test

1.1 Criteria and signs of social progress

All societies are in constant development, in the process of change and transition from one state to another. At the same time, sociologists identify the main forms of social movement and modernization. First, let's look at the essence of the progressive and regressive directions.

Progress (from Latin - movement forward, success) means development with an upward trend, movement from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. It leads to positive changes in society and is manifested, for example:

In improving the means of production and work force;

In the development of the social division of labor and the growth of its productivity;

In new achievements of science;

In improving people's living conditions.

The criteria for progress are:

1. Complicated social organizations of society (G. Spencer),

2. Changes in the system of social connections and type of regulation public relations(Tennis),

3. Changes in the nature of production and consumption (W. Rostow, D. Bell),

4. The degree of mastery by society of the spontaneous forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the spontaneous forces of social development (K. Marx).

An important sign social progress, scientists consider a growing trend towards human liberation - i.e. release:

1. from state suppression;

2. from the dictates of the collective;

3. from any exploitation;

4. from closed living space;

5. out of fear for your safety and future.

In other words, it is a growing trend towards expanding and increasingly effective protection throughout the world civil rights and freedoms of people.

Progress can also be seen in human relationships themselves. More and more people understand that they must learn to live together and abide by the laws of society, must respect other people’s living standards and be able to seek compromises, must suppress their own aggressiveness, appreciate and protect nature and everything that previous generations have created. These are encouraging signs that humanity is steadily moving towards relationships of solidarity, harmony and goodness.

Thus, global social progress today includes:

· growth of well-being and social security of people;

· weakening confrontation between people;

· people's desire for peace and cooperation;

· approval of political democracy;

· growth of morality, humanity, spirituality of people;

· improvement of human relations themselves;

· increasing liberation of man;

N.I. Kareev: main areas of sociological creativity

Like most sociologists of his time, Kareev is a strict evolutionist. The essence of the historical process, according to Kareev, lies in the interaction of the individual and the environment...

N.K. Mikhailovsky on social progress

The idea of ​​social progress is not new. Many thinkers addressed this issue - from Heraclitus and Empedocles to K. Marx and F. Engels Spirkin A.G. Philosophy. M., 2002. P. 720.. In the history of social thought, perhaps, there was not a single major thinker...

Signs social institution in Christianity

Each social institution has both specific features and common features with other institutions. The following characteristics of social institutions are distinguished: attitudes and patterns of behavior (for the institution of the family - affection, respect...

There are several hypotheses that explain the progress of morality: 1) In tolerant societies, people’s energy is directed toward cooperation rather than fighting among themselves. Therefore, more moral societies are more economically efficient...

Progress and regression in morality

Throughout history, morality has always been the main condition for the socialization of the individual, taking it beyond the limits of purely natural significance. Problems of moral progress and its criteria are located at the intersection of various sciences: history and ethics...

Modern methods of social forecasting

The basis for the formation of forecasts is static information and an information array - the concept of characteristics and factors determined on a scientific basis that comprehensively characterize the forecast object...

Social progress

Social progress

society change social progress Sociology began with attempts to unravel the “meaning” of history and establish the laws of social change. The founders of sociology O. Comte and G. Spencer set as their goal to achieve an understanding of...

Social progress

The essence of any process of reality is the development of dialectical systems that form this process. The process of development of human society is, first of all, the development of the dialectical system “society - nature”...

Auguste Comte (1798-1857), having developed a three-stage model of the development of society (religious, metaphysical and positive stages), believed that his contemporary society was on the verge of transition to the third stage...

Social progress and social modernization of society

By its nature, social development is divided into evolutionary and revolutionary. The nature of a particular social development depends primarily on the method of social change...

Statistical reporting

Development economic reforms in Russia puts before state statistics new tasks in the field of methodology and organization of statistical observation...

Structure of social interactions

Issues social action introduced by Max Weber. He gave the following definition: “Social is an action that, in accordance with its subjective meaning, includes in the actor an attitude towards that...

Control social development organizations

Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the level of development, state, trends and directions of social dynamics, used in planning to assess the compliance of the actual situation with scientifically based requirements...

Factors and stages of formation of a social institution

To the number common features a social institution can be attributed to: - identifying a certain circle of subjects who enter into relationships in the process of activity...

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND YOUTH POLICY OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

KYRGYZ-RUSSIAN SLAVIC UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Economics

by subject "Philosophy"

"Criteria of social progress".

Completed Art. gr. M1-06: Khashimov N. R.

Teacher: Denisova O. G.

Bishkek - 2007

Introduction. …………………………………………………………………………………3

1. Social progress. Progress and regression. ……………..4

2. Social progress - idea and reality……………...8

3. Progress criteria.

Criteria for social progress………………………..12

Conclusion………………………………………………………..20

List of references…………………………….22

Introduction

The idea of ​​social progress is a product of the New Age. This means that it was at this time that the idea of ​​the progressive, upward development of society took root in people’s minds and began to shape their worldview. There was no such idea in antiquity. The ancient worldview, as is known, was cosmocentric in nature. This means that the man of antiquity was coordinated in relation to nature and the cosmos. Hellenic philosophy seemed to fit man into the cosmos, and the cosmos, in the minds of ancient thinkers, was something permanent, eternal and beautiful in its orderliness. And man had to find his place in this eternal cosmos, and not in history. The ancient worldview was also characterized by the idea of ​​an eternal cycle - a movement in which something, being created and destroyed, invariably returns to itself. The idea of ​​eternal recurrence is deeply rooted in ancient philosophy, we find it in Heraclitus, Empedocles, and the Stoics. In general, movement in a circle was considered in antiquity as ideally correct and perfect. It seemed perfect to ancient thinkers because it has no beginning and end and occurs in the same place, representing, as it were, immobility and eternity.

The idea of ​​social progress was established during the Enlightenment. This era raises the shield of reason, knowledge, science, human freedom and from this angle evaluates history, contrasting itself with previous eras, where, in the opinion of the enlighteners, ignorance and despotism prevailed. The Enlightenmentists in a certain way understood the era of their time (as the era of “enlightenment”), its role and significance for man, and through the prism of so-understood modernity they viewed the past of mankind. The contrast between modernity, interpreted as the advent of the era of reason, and the past of humanity contained, of course, a gap between the present and the past, but as soon as an attempt was made to restore the historical connection between them on the basis of reason and knowledge, the idea of ​​an upward movement in history immediately arose, about progress. The development and dissemination of knowledge was considered as a gradual and cumulative process. The accumulation of scientific knowledge that occurred in modern times served as an indisputable model for such a reconstruction of the historical process for the enlighteners. The mental formation and development of an individual, an individual, also served as a model for them: when transferred to humanity as a whole, it gave the historical progress of the human mind. Thus, Condorcet in his “Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the human mind” says that “this progress is subject to the same general laws that are observed in the development of our individual abilities...”.

The idea of ​​social progress is the idea of ​​history, more precisely - world history humanity*. This idea is meant to tie the story together, give it direction and meaning. But many Enlightenment thinkers, substantiating the idea of ​​progress, sought to consider it as a natural law, blurring to one degree or another the line between society and nature. The naturalistic interpretation of progress was their way of imparting an objective character to progress...

1. SOCIAL PROGRESS

Progress (from lat. progressus- movement forward) is a direction of development that is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. The credit for putting forward the idea and developing the theory of social progress belongs to the philosophers of the second half of the 18th century, and the socio-economic basis for the very emergence of the idea of ​​social progress was the formation of capitalism and the maturation of European bourgeois revolutions. By the way, both creators of the initial concepts of social progress - Turgot and Condorcet - were active public figures pre-revolutionary and revolutionary France. And this is quite understandable: the idea of ​​social progress, the recognition of the fact that humanity as a whole, in the main, is moving forward, is an expression of historical optimism characteristic of advanced social forces.
Three characteristic features distinguished the original progressivist concepts.

Firstly, this is idealism, i.e. an attempt to find the reasons for the progressive development of history in the spiritual beginning - in the endless ability to improve the human intellect (the same Turgot and Condorcet) or in the spontaneous self-development of the absolute spirit (Hegel). Accordingly, the criterion of progress was also seen in phenomena of a spiritual order, in the level of development of one or another form of social consciousness: science, morality, law, religion. By the way, progress was noticed primarily in the area scientific knowledge(F. Bacon, R. Descartes), and then the corresponding idea was extended to social relations in general.

Secondly, a significant shortcoming of many early concepts of social progress was the non-dialectical consideration public life. In such cases, social progress is understood as a smooth evolutionary development, without revolutionary leaps, without backward movements, as a continuous ascent in a straight line (O. Comte, G. Spencer).

Thirdly, upward development in form was limited to the achievement of any one favored social system. This rejection of the idea of ​​unlimited progress was very clearly reflected in Hegel’s statements. He proclaimed the Christian-German world, which affirmed freedom and equality in their traditional interpretation, as the pinnacle and completion of world progress.

These shortcomings were largely overcome in the Marxist understanding of the essence of social progress, which includes recognition of its inconsistency and, in particular, the fact that the same phenomenon and even stage historical development in general, they can be simultaneously progressive in one respect and regressive, reactionary in another. This is exactly what we have seen, one of possible options the impact of the state on economic development.

Consequently, when speaking about the progressive development of mankind, we mean the main, main direction of the historical process as a whole, its resultant in relation to the main stages of development. Primitive communal system, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, the era of socialized social relations in the formational cross-section of history; primitive pre-civilization, agricultural, industrial and information-computer waves in its civilizational cross-section act as the main “blocks” of historical progress, although in some of its specific parameters the subsequent formation and stage of civilization may be inferior to the previous ones. Thus, in a number of areas of spiritual culture, feudal society was inferior to slave society, which served as the basis for the enlighteners of the 18th century. look at the Middle Ages as a mere “break” in the course of history, without paying attention to the great strides made during the Middle Ages: the expansion of the cultural area of ​​​​Europe, the formation there of great viable nations in proximity to each other, and finally, the enormous technical successes of the 14th century. XV centuries and the creation of prerequisites for the emergence of experimental natural science.

If we try to define in general terms causes social progress, then they will be the needs of man, which are the generation and expression of his nature as a living and no less as a social being. As already noted in Chapter Two, these needs are diverse in nature, character, duration of action, but in any case they determine the motives of human activity. In everyday life for thousands of years, people did not at all set as their conscious goal to ensure social progress, and social progress itself is by no means some kind of idea (“program”) initially laid down in the course of history, the implementation of which constitutes its innermost meaning. In the process of real life, people are driven by needs generated by their biological and social nature; and in the course of realizing their vital needs, people change the conditions of their existence and themselves, for each satisfied need gives rise to a new one, and its satisfaction, in turn, requires new actions, the consequence of which is the development of society.

As you know, society is in constant flux. Thinkers have long pondered the question: in what direction is it moving? Can this movement be likened, for example, to cyclical changes in nature: after summer comes autumn, then winter, spring and summer again? And so it goes for thousands and thousands of years. Or maybe the life of society is similar to the life of a living being: an organism that is born grows up, becomes mature, then grows old and dies? Does the direction of development of society depend on the conscious activity of people?

Progress and regression

The direction of development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect, is called in science progress(a word of Latin origin meaning literally moving forward). The concept of progress is opposite to the concept regression. Regression is characterized by movement from higher to lower, processes of degradation, and a return to obsolete forms and structures.

Which path is society taking: the path of progress or regression? People’s idea of ​​the future depends on what the answer to this question is: does it bring better life or does it not bode well?

Ancient Greek poet Hesiod(VIII-VII centuries BC) wrote about five stages in the life of mankind. The first stage was the “golden age”, when people lived easily and carelessly, the second was the “silver age”, when the decline of morality and piety began. So, sinking lower and lower, people found themselves in the “Iron Age”, when evil and violence reign everywhere, and justice is trampled underfoot. It is probably not difficult for you to determine how Hesiod saw the path of humanity: progressive or regressive?

Unlike Hesiod, the ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle viewed history as a cyclical cycle, repeating the same stages.

The development of the idea of ​​historical progress is associated with the achievements of science, crafts, arts, and the revitalization of public life during the Renaissance. One of the first to put forward the theory of social progress was the French philosopher Anne Robert Turgot(1727-1781). His contemporary, French philosopher-enlightenment Jacques Antoine Condorcet(1743-1794) wrote that history presents a picture of continuous change, a picture of the progress of the human mind. Observation of this historical picture shows in the modifications of the human race, in its continuous renewal, in the infinity of centuries, the path it followed, the steps it took, striving for truth or happiness. Observations of what man was and of

what he has now become will help us, wrote Condorcet, to find means to ensure and accelerate the new successes for which his nature allows him to hope.

So, Condorcet sees the historical process as a path of social progress, at the center of which is the upward development of the human mind. Hegel considered progress not only a principle of reason, but also a principle of world events. This belief in progress was also adopted by K-Marx, who believed that humanity was moving toward greater mastery of nature, the development of production and man himself.

XIX and XX centuries were marked by turbulent events that gave new “information for thought” about progress and regression in the life of society. In the 20th century sociological theories appeared that abandoned the optimistic view of the development of society characteristic of the ideas of progress. Instead, theories of cyclical circulation, pessimistic ideas of the “end of history”, global environmental, energy and nuclear catastrophes are proposed. One of the points of view on the issue of progress was put forward by the philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper(b. 1902), who wrote: “If we think that history is progressing or that we are forced to progress, then we are making the same mistake as those who believe that history has the meaning that it may have open, not attached to it. After all, to progress means to move towards a certain goal that exists for us as human beings. This is impossible for history. Only we, human individuals, can progress, and we can do this by protecting and strengthening those democratic institutions on which freedom, and with it progress, depends. We will achieve greater success in this if we become more deeply aware of the fact that progress depends on us, on our vigilance, on our efforts, on the clarity of our concept regarding our goals and the realistic choice of such goals."

2. Social progress - idea and reality

The degree of satisfaction with the social order can be considered the most important sociological characteristic. But real customers are not interested in this characteristic of our society.

What kind of social structure do citizens need? Here we have, especially in Lately, unusual ambiguity.

The search for stable criteria for matching the social order with the aspirations of people, step by step, narrows the range of possible solutions. The only reductionist option left is to find a natural scientific basis for deriving criteria for assessing the social structure.

Social self-organization is the result of the behavior of reasonable people. And people's muscles are controlled by their brain. The most plausible model of brain function today is the idea of ​​a behavior-optimizing brain. The human brain selects the best next step from a set of possible options based on the prediction of the consequences.

The quality of predicting consequences distinguishes reasonable behavior from unreasonable behavior - human unreasonable or animal. The depth and scope of cause-and-effect relationships taken into account by humans are incommensurate with the capabilities of animals. How this separation occurred is a separate question. Moreover, in the field of public relations the accuracy of forecasts is poor.

From the idea of ​​biological species as self-organizing systems, competing in conditions of limited resources and being in a random flow of destructive external influences, the range of powers of which is unlimited, and the frequency of occurrence decreases with increasing power, it follows that the target function of the optimization problem solved by the brain is to maximize the mass of matter, organized into structures specific to a particular biological species. If biological species enter into competition, then, other things being equal, the one whose brain deviates from maximizing the mass of the species will lose.

Man survived biological competition, which means that the human brain initially maximized the mass of the “human” species.

The ability to predict the development of the situation led to a change in the objective function. A certain functional is maximized depending on the number and the degree of protection from destructive external influences, the value of which increases with the growth of each of the arguments. Let's call this functionality the potential of humanity.

The reliability of the forecast, which decreases with increasing depth in time, is not controlled by humans, which often leads to obvious losses. This gives rise to two extreme positions regarding the admissibility and usefulness of using a forecast in choosing the best next step. According to these positions, there are always two currents, two parties in human society - “rationalists” and “traditionalists”. “Rationalists” believe that (to put it mildly) it is permissible to act based on one’s own forecast. “Traditionalists” argue that interference with the “natural” (read “traditional”) order is harmful. Convinced supporters of both positions can cite a sufficient number of historical facts to support their case.

The noted feature of human psychology gives rise to a specific wave process at the level of human society, the “saw of social development.”

As the starting point of our consideration, let us take the socio-political crisis - a well-known state of human society.

The main goal achieved by uniting people into social structures is to gain in the degree of protection from destructive external influences by socializing part of their resources. Therefore, the main function of public structures is to ensure the effective use of socialized resources. The organization of society must be adequate to the chosen method of using resources.

A socio-political crisis develops when a discrepancy between the organization of society and the preferred method of using socialized resources is discovered.

Over the past ten years, Russian society has been on the downward section of the “saw of social development.” The efficiency of using socialized resources is low. There is an open competition of ideas. "What to do?" - the main question. The social weight of “rationalists” is increasing. There is no clear choice for society yet. And if none of the ideas receives a decisive advantage, then people will entrust control to a specific person - a leader, a leader. This is an emergency exit, fascism, protection from chaos, a hopeless war of everyone with everyone.

If any of the proposals manages to gain sufficient mass support, a crawl out of the crisis along the chosen path will begin. At this point, the idea that has received support is based on a close and, most likely, accurate forecast of the development of the situation. For some time, it is possible to solve the inevitable minor problems that arise. Confidence in the correctness of the chosen path increases. The steering wheel becomes more and more firmly fixed. The permanence of his position is defended by many people. Social structures are becoming better suited to the chosen movement. Dissidents are not treated on ceremony. Society finds itself on the ascending section of the saw.

As we move away from the crisis point of choosing an idea, the natural inaccuracy of the forecast begins to appear. Further more. And the steering wheel is fixed. By this time, at the helm are no longer those practical “rationalists” who took a risk, deciding to commit the sin of implementing what they had dreamed up, but officials whose position in society rests on the unchanging path.

Crisis phenomena are growing in society. This is the top of the saw tooth. The efficiency of using socialized resources is falling. "Stop experimenting on us!" - this is how public opinion becomes. This is where “traditionalists” enter the political scene. They convincingly prove that the chosen path was wrong from the very beginning. Everything would be fine if people did not listen to these adventurers - “rationalists”. We need to go back. But for some reason, not to the cave state, but one “saw” step. “Traditionalists”, with mass support, form the social structures of the transition period. "Rationalists" are rejected. And the crisis continues to grow, because “traditionalists” count on the natural “recovery” of society, without reasonable intervention.

Society again finds itself on the downward part of the “saw of social development.” Time passes. The acuteness of emotions caused by the revelations of the actions of the “rationalists” is erased. People are again faced with the question: “What to do?” The cycle repeats.

The proposed qualitative model describes the processes of social self-organization in societies of different numbers of people. The specific dynamics of structures can be traced in the history of countries, corporations, and small groups. The fundamental reasons for structural changes may be different, but the implementation of changes is always mediated by the rational behavior of people. This mediation disrupts the mechanical correspondence between the base and the superstructure. In the degree of satisfaction with the social order, the most important role is played by people's assessment of the effectiveness of the use of socialized resources. This estimate depends on many factors, and sudden changes can occur without actual significant changes in the effectiveness itself.

The initiators of competing variants of social order often declare their comparative “progressiveness.” This quality, without having a clear definition, influences public opinion.

The ability to compare options for a social structure according to their “progressiveness” presupposes a certain ordering of these options with the formation of a certain trajectory of the progressive movement of humanity towards a bright future. Despite historical experience, scientific forecasts, prospects drawn by world religions, the idea of ​​world progress generated by technological achievements of the late 19th - mid-20th centuries, occupies an important place in the everyday consciousness of people and influences their assessments.

As a real filler for the concept of “progress,” we can take the growth of humanity’s potential (functional based on the number of people and the degree of their protection from destructive external influences) as a result of human activity. At the same time, two processes are going on in parallel: the growth of humanity’s potential and the growing likelihood of encountering increasingly powerful (and rarer) external influences of various natures. This competition with time is reflected in people's minds as a contradiction between the assessment of the achieved potential and the idea of ​​the required level of potential.

In relation to the social order, the definition of the quality of “progressiveness” is not applicable. Here there is only a basis for assessing the adequacy of the social structure to the chosen path of capacity building and the technological level of the economy. And this adequacy does not at all imply a one-to-one correspondence.

The social structure must ensure (at least not inhibit) people's capacity-building activities. People's assessment of its satisfaction may be based on this requirement.

3. Progress criteria

mind. moral Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution to the question of historical progress is complicated by the fact that supporters and opponents of the belief in the perfectibility of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field morality, others are about progress science and technology, legal device.

Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in consciousnessfreedom.

In our time, philosophers also hold different views on the criterion of social progress. Let's look at some of them.

One of the current points of view is that the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is development of productive forces, includingdevelopment of man himself. It is argued that the direction of the historical process is determined by the growth and improvement of the productive forces of society, including the means of labor, the degree of man’s mastery of the forces of nature, and the possibility of using them as the basis of human life. The origins of all human life activities lie in social production. According to this criterion, those social relations are recognized as progressive, which correspond to the level of productive forces and open up the greatest scope for their development, for the growth of labor productivity, for human development. Man is here considered as the main thing in the productive forces, therefore their development is understood from this point of view as the development of the wealth of human nature.

This position has been criticized from another point of view. Just like you can't find everything general criterion progress only in social consciousness (in the development of reason, morality, consciousness of freedom), so it cannot be found only in the sphere of material production (technology, economic relations). History has provided examples of countries where high level material production was combined with the degradation of spiritual culture. In order to overcome the one-sidedness of criteria that reflect the state of only one sphere of social life, it is necessary to find a concept that would characterize the essence of human life and activity. In this capacity, philosophers propose the concept freedom.

Freedom, as you already know, is characterized not only by knowledge (the absence of which makes a person subjectively unfree), but also by the presence of conditions for its implementation. A decision made on the basis of free choice is also necessary. Finally, funds are also required, as well as actions aimed at implementing decision taken. Let us also recall that the freedom of one person should not be achieved by infringing on the freedom of another person. This restriction of freedom is of a social and moral nature.

The meaning of human life lies in self-realization, self-realization of the individual. So, Liberty acts as a necessary condition for self-realization. In fact, self-realization is possible if a person has knowledge about his abilities, the opportunities that society gives him, about the methods of activity in which he can realize himself. The wider the opportunities created by society, the freer a person is, the more options for activities in which his potential will be revealed. But in the process of multifaceted activity, the multilateral development of the person himself also occurs, and the spiritual wealth of the individual grows.

So, according to this point of view, criterion of socialprogress is the measure of freedom that society is able toto provide the individual with a degree guaranteed by societyindividual freedom. disclosure his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. This statement brings us to consider another perspective on social progress.

As we have seen, we cannot limit ourselves to characterizing man as an active being. He is also a rational and social being. Only with this in mind can we talk about the human in man, about humanity. But the development of human qualities depends on people's living conditions. The more fully a person’s various needs for food, clothing, housing, transport services, and his needs in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral the relations between people become, the more accessible to a person the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities become. The more favorable the conditions for the development of a person’s physical, intellectual, mental strength, his moral principles, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. In short, the more humane the living conditions, the more opportunities there are for the development of humanity in a person: reason, morality, creative powers.

Humanity, the recognition of man as the highest value, is expressed by the word “humanism”. From the above we can conclude about the universal criterion of social progress: aboutWhat is progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.

Criteria for social progress.

In the vast literature devoted to social progress, there is currently no single answer to main question: What is the general sociological criterion of social progress?

A relatively small number of authors argue that the very posing of the question of a single criterion of social progress is meaningless, since human society is complex organism, the development of which is carried out along different lines, which makes it impossible to formulate a single criterion. Most authors consider it possible to formulate a single general sociological criterion of social progress. However, even with the very formulation of such a criterion, there are significant discrepancies.

Condorcet (like other French educators) considered development to be the criterion of progress mind. Utopian socialists put forward moral criterion of progress. Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should adopt a form of organization that would lead to the implementation moral principle: All people should treat each other as brothers. Contemporary of the utopian socialists, German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution to the question of historical progress is complicated by the fact that supporters and opponents of the belief in the perfectibility of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field morality, others are about progress science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, from a historical point of view is rather a regression, and proposed his solution to the problem: the criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race can only be a gradual approach to legal device. Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in consciousness of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.

As we see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but they did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to overcome this task was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. Reason, morality, science, technology, legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these are very important indicators, but not universal, not covering human life and society as a whole.

The prevailing idea of ​​limitless progress inevitably led to the seemingly only possible solution question; the main, if not the only, criterion of social progress can only be the development of material production, which ultimately predetermines changes in all other aspects and spheres of social life. Among Marxists, V.I. Lenin more than once insisted on this conclusion, who back in 1908 called for considering the interests of the development of productive forces as the highest criterion of progress. After October, Lenin returned to this definition and emphasized that the state of the productive forces is the main criterion for all social development, since each subsequent socio-economic formation finally defeated the previous one precisely because it opened up more scope for the development of productive forces and achieved higher productivity of social labor .

A serious argument in favor of this position is that the history of mankind itself begins with the manufacture of tools and exists thanks to the continuity in the development of productive forces.

It is noteworthy that the conclusion about the state and level of development of the productive forces as the general criterion of progress was shared by opponents of Marxism - technicalists, on the one hand, and scientists, on the other. A legitimate question arises: how could the concepts of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and scientism (i.e., idealism) converge at one point? The logic of this convergence is as follows. The scientist discovers social progress, first of all, in the development of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge acquires its highest meaning only when it is realized in practice, and above all in material production.

In the process of the ideological confrontation between the two systems, which was just receding into the past, technologists used the thesis of productive forces as the general criterion of social progress to prove the superiority of the West, which was and is ahead in this indicator. The disadvantage of this criterion is that the assessment of production forces involves taking into account their quantity, nature, achieved level of development and associated labor productivity, ability to grow, which is very important when comparing different countries and stages of historical development. For example, the number of productive forces in modern India is greater than in South Korea, and their quality is lower.

If we take the development of production forces as a criterion of progress; assessing them in dynamics, this presupposes a comparison no longer from the point of view of greater or lesser development of production forces, but from the point of view of the course and speed of their development. But in this case the question arises, what period should be taken for comparison.

Some philosophers believe that all difficulties will be overcome if we take the method of production of material goods as a general sociological criterion of social progress. A strong argument in favor of this position is that the foundation of social progress is the development of a method
production as a whole, that by taking into account the state and growth of production forces, as well as the nature of production relations, it is possible to show much more fully the progressive nature of one formation in relation to another.

Without denying that the transition from one mode of production to another, more progressive one, underlies progress in a number of other areas, opponents of this point of view almost always note that the main question remains unresolved: how to determine the very progressiveness of this new production method.

Fairly considering that human society is, first of all, a developing community of people, another group of philosophers puts forward the development of man himself as a general sociological criterion for social progress. It is indisputable that the course of human history really testifies to the development of the people who make up human society, their social and individual strengths, abilities, and inclinations. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to measure social progress by the progressive development of the subjects of historical creativity themselves - people.

The most important criterion for progress is the level of humanism of society, i.e. the position of the individual in it: the degree of his economic, political and social liberation; the level of satisfaction of her material and spiritual needs; the state of her psychophysical and social health. According to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of man in a free society also means disclosure his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. The development of human qualities depends on people's living conditions. The more fully a person’s various needs for food, clothing, housing, transport services, and his requests in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral the relations between people become, the more accessible to a person the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities become. The more favorable the conditions for the development of a person’s physical, intellectual, mental strength, his moral principles, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. In short, the more humane the living conditions, the more opportunities there are for the development of humanity in a person: reason, morality, creative powers.

Let us note, by the way, that within this indicator, which is complex in its structure, it is possible and necessary to single out one that essentially combines all the others. This, in my opinion, is the average life expectancy. And if in a given country it is 10-12 years less than in the group of developed countries, and besides, it shows a tendency to further decrease, the question of the degree of progressiveness of this country must be decided accordingly. For, as one of them said famous poets, “all progress is reactionary if man collapses.”

The level of humanism of a society as an integrative criterion (i.e., passing through and absorbing changes in literally all spheres of society’s life) criterion incorporates the criteria discussed above. Each subsequent formational and civilizational stage is more progressive in personal terms - it expands the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, entails the development of his needs and the improvement of his abilities. It is enough to compare in this regard the status of slave and serf, serf and wage worker under capitalism. At first, it may seem that the slaveholding formation, which marked the beginning of the era of exploitation of man by man, stands apart in this regard. But, as F. Engels explained, even for a slave, not to mention free people, slavery was progress in personal terms: if before a prisoner was killed or eaten, now he was left to live.

So, the content of social progress was, is and will be the “humanization of man,” achieved through the contradictory development of his natural and social forces, i.e., productive forces and the entire gamut of social relations. From the above we can conclude about the universal criterion of social progress: Progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.

CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL PROGRESS

The world community's thoughts about the “limits of growth” have significantly updated the problem of criteria for social progress. Indeed, if in the environment around us social world not everything is as simple as it seemed and seems to progressives, then what are the most significant signs that can be used to judge the progress of social development as a whole, the progressiveness, conservatism or reactionary nature of certain phenomena?

Let us note right away that the question “how to measure” social progress has never received an unambiguous answer in the philosophical and sociological literature. This situation is largely explained by the complexity of society as a subject and object of progress, its diversity and quality. Hence the search for our own, local criterion for each sphere of public life. But at the same time, society is an integral organism and, as such, the main criterion of social progress must correspond to it. People, as G. V. Plekhanov noted, make not several stories, but one story of their own relationships. Our thinking is capable and must reflect this single historical practice in its integrity.

And yet, the prevailing idea of ​​limitless progress inevitably led to what seemed to be the only possible solution to the problem; the main, if not the only, criterion of social progress can only be the development of material production, which ultimately predetermines changes in all other aspects and spheres of social life. Among Marxists, V.I. Lenin more than once insisted on this conclusion, who back in 1908 called for considering the interests of the development of productive forces as the highest criterion of progress. After October, Lenin returned to this definition and emphasized that the state of the productive forces is the main criterion for all social development, since each subsequent socio-economic formation finally defeated the previous one precisely because it opened up more scope for the development of productive forces and achieved higher productivity of social labor .

It is noteworthy that the conclusion about the state and level of development of the productive forces as the general criterion of progress was shared by opponents of Marxism - technicalists, on the one hand, and scientists, on the other. The position of the latter obviously needs some comments, because a legitimate question arises: how could the concepts of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and scientism (i.e., idealism) converge at one point? The logic of this convergence is as follows. The scientist discovers social progress primarily in the development of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge acquires its highest meaning only when it is realized in practice, and above all in material production.

In the process of the ideological confrontation between the two systems, which was just receding into the past, technologists used the thesis of productive forces as the general criterion of social progress to prove the superiority of the West, which was and is ahead in this indicator. Then their opponents made a significant amendment to their own concept: this highest general sociological criterion cannot be taken in isolation from the nature of the production relations prevailing in a given society. After all, it is important not only the total amount of material goods produced in the country, but also how evenly and fairly they are distributed among the population, how this social organization contributes or hinders rational use productive forces and their further development. And although the amendment is truly significant, it does not take the criterion accepted as the main one beyond the limits of one - economic - sphere of social reality, does not make it truly integrative, that is, passing through and absorbing changes in literally all spheres of life society.

Such an integrative, and therefore the most important, criterion of progress is the level of humanization of society, that is, the position of the individual in it: the degree of his economic, political and social liberation; the level of satisfaction of her material and spiritual needs; the state of her psychophysical and social health. Let us note, by the way, that within this indicator, which is complex in its structure, it is possible and necessary to single out one that essentially combines all the others. This, in our opinion, is the average life expectancy. And if in a given country it is 10-12 years less than in the group of developed countries, and besides, it shows a tendency to further decrease, the question of the degree of progressiveness of this country must be decided accordingly. For, as one of the famous poets said, “all progress is reactionary if man collapses.”

The level of humanization of society as an integrative criterion absorbs the criteria discussed above in a subtracted form. Each subsequent formational and civilizational stage is more progressive in personal terms - it expands the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, entails the development of his needs and the improvement of his abilities. It is enough to compare in this regard the status of slave and serf, serf and wage worker under capitalism. At first, it may seem that the slaveholding formation, which marked the beginning of the era of exploitation of man by man, stands apart in this regard. But, as F. Engels explained, even for a slave, not to mention free people, slavery was progress in personal terms: if before a prisoner was killed or eaten, now he was left to live.

Conclusion

1). Society is a complex organism in which different “bodies” function (enterprises, associations of people, government institutions, etc.), various processes (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) occur simultaneously, and various human activities unfold. All these parts of one social organism, all these processes, various types of activities are interconnected and at the same time may not coincide in their development. Moreover, individual processes and changes occurring in different areas of society can be multidirectional, that is, progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another. Thus, it is impossible to find any general criterion by which one could judge the progress of a particular society. Like many processes in our lives, social progress, based on various criteria, can be characterized in different ways. Therefore, in my opinion, there is simply no general criterion.

2). Despite the inconsistency and ambiguity of many provisions of Aristotle’s socio-political concept, the approaches he proposed to the analysis of the state, the method of political science and its vocabulary (including the history of the issue, statement of the problem, arguments for and against, etc.), highlighting what is the subject of political thought and reasoning still have a fairly noticeable influence on political research today. A reference to Aristotle is still a fairly weighty scientific argument confirming the truth of conclusions about political processes and phenomena.

The concept of progress, as stated above, is based on some kind of value or set of values. But the concept of progress has become so firmly entrenched in modern mass consciousness that we are faced with a situation where the very idea of ​​progress - progress as such - acts as a value. Progress in this way, by itself, regardless of any values, tries to fill life and history with meaning, and verdicts are passed in its name. Progress can be thought of either as a desire for some goal, or as limitless movement and unfolding. It is obvious that progress without a basis in any other value that would serve as its goal is possible only as an endless ascent. Its paradox lies in the fact that movement without a goal, movement to nowhere, is, generally speaking, meaningless.

List of used literature:

1. Gubin V.D., Sidorina T.Yu., Philosophy, Moscow Gardarina 2005

2. Volchek E.Z., Philosophy, Minsk 1995.

3. Frolov N.V., Introduction to Philosophy, Moscow 1989.

4. Article “The Concept of Social Progress in Social Philosophy”

It is very important to understand the direction in which our society is moving, constantly changing and developing. This article is dedicated to this purpose. We will try to determine the criteria for social progress and answer a number of other questions. First of all, let's figure out what progress and regression are.

Consideration of concepts

Social progress is a direction of development that is characterized by a progressive movement from simple and lower forms of organization of society to more complex, higher ones. The opposite of this term is the concept of “regression”, that is, the reverse movement - a return to outdated relationships and structures, degradation, the direction of development from higher to lower.

The history of the formation of ideas about the measures of progress

The problem of criteria for social progress has long worried thinkers. The idea that changes in society are precisely a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but finally took shape in the works of M. Condorcet, A. Turgot and other French enlighteners. These thinkers saw the criteria for social progress in the development of reason and the spread of education. This optimistic view of the historical process gave way in the 19th century to other, more complex concepts. For example, Marxism sees progress in changing socio-economic formations from lower to higher. Some thinkers believed that the consequence of moving forward is the growing heterogeneity of society and the complication of its structure.

In modern science, historical progress is usually associated with a process such as modernization, that is, the transition of society from agrarian to industrial and further to post-industrial.

Scientists who do not share the idea of ​​progress

Not everyone accepts the idea of ​​progress. Some thinkers reject it in relation to social development - either predicting the “end of history”, or saying that societies develop independently of each other, multilinearly, in parallel (O. Spengler, N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee), or considering history as a cycle with a series of recessions and ascents (G. Vico).

For example, Arthur Toynbee identified 21 civilizations, each of which has distinct phases of formation: emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and, finally, decay. Thus, he abandoned the thesis about the unity of the historical process.

O. Spengler wrote about the “decline of Europe.” “Anti-progressism” is especially vivid in the works of K. Popper. In his view, progress is movement towards a specific goal, which is possible only for specific person, but not for the story as a whole. The latter can be considered both as a movement forward and as a regression.

Progress and regression are not mutually exclusive concepts

The progressive development of society, obviously, in certain periods does not exclude regression, return movements, civilizational dead ends, even breakdowns. And it is hardly possible to talk about a uniquely linear development of humanity, since both leaps forward and setbacks are clearly observed. Progress in a certain area, in addition, can be the cause of decline or regression in another. Thus, the development of technology, technology, and tools is a clear indication of progress in the economy, but it was precisely this that brought our world to the brink of a global environmental catastrophe, depleting the Earth’s natural reserves.

Society today is also accused of a family crisis, a decline in morality, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is high: for example, the conveniences of city life are accompanied by various “urbanization diseases.” Sometimes the negative consequences of progress are so obvious that a natural question arises as to whether it can even be said that humanity is moving forward.

Criteria for social progress: history

The question of the measures of social development is also relevant. There is also no agreement in the scientific world here. French enlighteners saw such a criterion in the development of reason, in increasing the degree of rationality of social organization. Some other thinkers and scientists (for example, A. Saint-Simon) believed that the highest criterion of social progress is the state of morality in society, approaching early Christian ideals.

G. Hegel had a different opinion. He connected progress with freedom - the degree of its awareness by people. Marxism also proposed its own criterion of development: according to supporters of this concept, it consists in the growth of productive forces.

K. Marx, seeing the essence of development in man's increasing subordination of the forces of nature, reduced progress in general to a more specific one - in the production sphere. He considered only those social relations that were conducive to development. at this stage correspond to the level of productive forces, and also open up scope for the improvement of man himself (acting as an instrument of production).

Criteria for social development: modernity

Philosophy has subjected the criteria of social progress to careful analysis and revision. IN modern social science the applicability of many of them is disputed. State economic basis does not at all determine the nature of the development of other spheres of social life.

The goal, and not just a means of social progress, is considered to be the creation of the necessary conditions for the harmonious and comprehensive development of the individual. Consequently, the criterion of social progress is precisely the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to a person to maximize his potential. Based on the conditions created in society to satisfy the totality of the needs of the individual and his free development, the degree of progressiveness of a given system and the criteria of social progress should be assessed.

Let's summarize the information. The table below will help you understand the main criteria for social progress.

The table can be expanded to include the views of other thinkers.

There are two forms of progress in society. Let's look at them below.

Revolution

A revolution is a comprehensive or complete change in most or all aspects of society, affecting the foundations of the existing system. Until quite recently, it was regarded as a universal universal “law of transition” from one socio-economic formation to another. However, scientists could not detect any signs of a social revolution during the transition to a class system from a primitive communal one. Therefore, it was necessary to expand the concept so that it could be applied to any transition between formations, but this led to the destruction of the original semantic content of the term. And the mechanism of a real revolution could only be discovered in phenomena dating back to the era of modern times (that is, during the transition to capitalism from feudalism).

Revolution from the point of view of Marxism

Following the Marxist methodology, we can say that a social revolution means a radical social revolution that changes the structure of society and means a qualitative leap in progressive development. The deepest and common cause The emergence of a social revolution is an otherwise insoluble conflict between the productive forces, which are growing, and the system of social institutions and relations, which remain unchanged. The aggravation of political, economic and other contradictions in society against this background ultimately leads to revolution.

The latter is always an active political action on the part of the people; its main goal is the transfer of management of society into the hands of a new social class. The difference between revolution and evolution is that the first is considered concentrated in time, that is, it happens quickly, and the masses become its direct participants.

The dialectic of such concepts as revolution and reform seems very complex. The first, as a deeper action, most often absorbs the latter, thus the action “from below” is complemented by the activity “from above”.

Many modern scientists urge us to abandon the excessive exaggeration of the significance of social revolution in history, the idea that it is an inevitable pattern in solving historical problems, because it has not always been the dominant form determining social progress. Much more often, changes in the life of society occurred as a result of action “from above,” that is, reforms.

Reform

This is a reorganization, transformation, change in some aspect of social life, which does not destroy the existing foundations of the social structure, retains power in the hands of ruling class. Thus, the understood path of step-by-step transformation of relations is contrasted with a revolution that completely sweeps away the old system and order. Marxism regarded the evolutionary process as for a long time preserving the remnants of the past as too painful and unacceptable for the people. Adherents of this concept believed that since reforms are carried out exclusively “from above” by forces that have power and do not want to give up it, their result will always be lower than expected: reforms are characterized by inconsistency and half-heartedness.

Underestimation of reforms

It was explained by the famous position formulated by V.I. Lenin, that reforms are “a by-product of the revolution.” Let us note: K. Marx already believed that reforms are never a consequence of the weakness of the strong, since they are brought to life precisely by the strength of the weak.

His Russian follower strengthened his denial of the possibility that the “tops” have their own incentives when starting reforms. IN AND. Lenin believed that reforms are a by-product of revolution because they represent unsuccessful attempts to dampen and weaken the revolutionary struggle. Even in cases where reforms were obviously not the result of popular protests, Soviet historians still explained them by the desire of the authorities to prevent encroachments on the existing system.

The “reform-revolution” relationship in modern social science

Over time, Russian scientists gradually freed themselves from the existing nihilism in relation to transformations through evolution, first recognizing the equivalence of revolutions and reforms, and then criticizing revolutions as a bloody, extremely ineffective path full of costs and leading to an inevitable dictatorship.

Now great reforms (that is, revolutions “from above”) are considered the same social anomalies as great revolutions. What they have in common is that these methods of resolving contradictions are opposed to the healthy, normal practice of gradual, continuous reform in a self-regulating society.

The “revolution-reform” dilemma is replaced by clarifying the relationship between reform and permanent regulation. In this context, both revolution and changes “from above” “cure” an advanced disease (the first is “ surgical intervention", second - " therapeutic methods"), while early and constant prevention may be necessary in order to ensure social progress.

Therefore, in social science today the emphasis is shifting from the “revolution-reform” antinomy to “innovation-reform”. Innovation means a one-time ordinary improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of society in specific conditions. It is precisely this that can ensure the greatest social progress in the future.

The criteria for social progress discussed above are not unconditional. Modern science recognizes the priority of the humanitarian over others. However, a general criterion for social progress has not yet been established.

All societies are in constant development, in the process of change and transition from one state to another. At the same time, sociologists distinguish two directions and three main forms of social movement. Let's look at the essence first progressive and regressive directions.

Progress(from Latin progressus – movement forward, success) means development with an upward tendency, movement from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. It leads to positive changes in society and manifests itself, for example, in the improvement of means of production and labor, in the development of the social division of labor and the growth of its productivity, in new achievements in science and culture, improvement in people’s living conditions, their comprehensive development, etc.

Regression(from Latin regressus - reverse movement), on the contrary, implies development with a downward tendency, movement backward, transition from higher to lower, which leads to negative consequences. It can manifest itself, say, in a decrease in production efficiency and the level of people’s well-being, in the spread of smoking, drunkenness, drug addiction in society, deterioration in public health, an increase in mortality, a drop in the level of spirituality and morality of people, etc.

Which path is society taking: the path of progress or regression? People's idea of ​​the future depends on the answer to this question: does it bring a better life or does it not promise anything good?

Ancient Greek poet Hesiod (8th-7th centuries BC) wrote about five stages in the life of mankind.

The first stage was "golden age", when people lived easily and carelessly.

Second - "silver Age"- the beginning of the decline of morality and piety. Descending lower and lower, people found themselves in "Iron Age" when evil and violence reign everywhere, justice is trampled underfoot.

How did Hesiod see the path of humanity: progressive or regressive?

Unlike Hesiod, ancient philosophers

Plato and Aristotle viewed history as a cyclical cycle, repeating the same stages.

The development of the idea of ​​historical progress is associated with the achievements of science, crafts, arts, and the revitalization of public life during the Renaissance.

One of the first to put forward the theory of social progress was the French philosopher Anne Robbert Turgot (1727-1781).

His contemporary, French philosopher-enlightenment Jacques Antoine Condorcet (1743-1794) sees historical progress as a path of social progress, at the center of which is the upward development of the human mind.

K. Marx believed that humanity was moving toward greater mastery of nature, the development of production and man himself.

Let us recall the facts from the history of the 19th-20th centuries. Revolutions were often followed by counter-revolutions, reforms by counter-reforms, radical changes in the political system by the restoration of the old order.

Think about what examples from national or world history can illustrate this idea.

If we tried to depict the progress of mankind graphically, we would end up with not a straight line, but a broken line, reflecting ups and downs. In history different countries There were periods when reaction triumphed, when the progressive forces of society were persecuted. For example, what disasters did fascism bring to Europe: the death of millions, the enslavement of many peoples, the destruction of cultural centers, bonfires from the books of the greatest thinkers and artists, the cult of brute force.

Individual changes occurring in different areas of society can be multidirectional, i.e. progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another.

Thus, throughout history, the progress of technology can be clearly traced: from stone tools to iron ones, from hand tools to machines, etc. But the progress of technology and the development of industry led to the destruction of nature.

Thus, progress in one area was accompanied by regression in another. The progress of science and technology has had mixed consequences. The use of computer technology has not only expanded the possibilities of work, but has led to new diseases associated with prolonged work at the display: visual impairment, etc.

The growth of large cities, the complication of production and the rhythms of everyday life have increased the load on the human body and created stress. Modern history, like the past, is perceived as the result of the creativity of people, where both progress and regression take place.

Humanity as a whole is characterized by upward development. Evidence of global social progress, in particular, can be not only an increase in material well-being and social security of people, but also a weakening of confrontation (confrontation – from Latin con – against + irons – front – confrontation, confrontation) between classes and peoples of different countries, the desire for peace and cooperation all more earthlings, the establishment of political democracy, the development of universal morality and a genuine humanistic culture, everything human in man, finally.

Further, scientists believe that an important sign of social progress is the growing tendency towards human liberation - liberation (a) from state suppression, (b) from the dictates of the collective, (c) from any exploitation, (d) from the enclosure of living space, (e) from fear for your safety and future. In other words, a trend towards expanding and increasingly effective protection of the civil rights and freedoms of people throughout the world.

According to the degree of ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens modern world presents a very motley picture. Thus, according to the estimates of the American organization in support of democracy in the world community, Freedom House (English: Freedom House, founded in 1941), which annually publishes a “freedom map” of the world, from 191 countries of the planet in 1997.

– 79 were completely free;

– partially free (which includes Russia) – 59;

– unfree – 53. Among the latter, the 17 most unfree states (category “worst of the worst”) are highlighted – such as Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and others. The geography of the spread of freedom across the globe is curious: its main centers are concentrated in Western Europe and North America. At the same time, out of 53 African countries, only 9 are recognized as free, and among Arab countries - not a single one.

Progress can also be seen in human relationships themselves. More and more people understand that they must learn to live together and abide by the laws of society, must respect other people's living standards and be able to seek compromises (compromise - from Latin compromissum - agreement based on mutual concessions), must suppress their own aggressiveness, appreciate and protect nature and everything that previous generations have created. These are encouraging signs that humanity is steadily moving towards relationships of solidarity, harmony and goodness.

Regression is often local in nature, i.e. it concerns either individual societies or spheres of life, or individual periods. For example, while Norway, Finland and Japan (our neighbors) and other Western countries were confidently climbing the steps of progress and prosperity, Soviet Union and its “comrades in socialist misfortune” [Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and others] regressed, sliding uncontrollably in the 1970s and 80s. into the abyss of collapse and crisis. Moreover, progress and regression are often intricately intertwined.

So, in Russia in the 1990s, both of them clearly take place. A decline in production, a break in previous economic ties between factories, a decline in the standard of living of many people and an increase in crime are obvious “marks” of regression. But there is also the opposite - signs of progress: the liberation of society from Soviet totalitarianism and the dictatorship of the CPSU, the beginning of the movement towards the market and democracy, the expansion of the rights and freedoms of citizens, significant freedom of the media, the transition from cold war to peaceful cooperation with the West, etc.

Questions and tasks

1. Define progress and regression.

2. How was the path of humanity viewed in ancient times?

3. What changed about this during the Renaissance?

4. Given the ambiguity of change, is it possible to talk about social progress as a whole?

5. Think about the questions posed in one of the philosophical books: is it progress to replace an arrow with a firearm, or a flintlock with a machine gun? Can replacing red-hot tongs during torture be considered progress? electric shock? Justify your answer.

6. Which of the following can be attributed to the contradictions of social progress:

A) the development of technology leads to the emergence of both means of creation and means of destruction;

B) the development of production leads to changes social status worker;

B) development scientific knowledge leads to a change in a person’s ideas about the world;

D) human culture undergoes changes under the influence of production.

Formational and civilizational approaches

3.2.1. Socio-economic formation- a historically specific type of society that arises on the basis of a specific method of production of material goods

Marxism: change of formations primitive - communal, feudal, capitalist, communist (1930 socialism, communism)

Features and concepts of the formational approach

– basis ( production relations that develop between people in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods). It is based on property relations

- superstructure – a set of legal, political, ideological, religious, cultural and other institutions and relations.

- production relations and productive forces ( people, tools) = method of production

- social revolution– with the development of productive forces and the aging of the production method

Principles of the approach: universality, patterns of change in socio-economic formations

3.2.2.Civilization- level, stage of development of society, material and spiritual culture, following barbarism and savagery. Civilizations differ from each other: in their specific way of life, value system, and ways of interrelating with the outside world.

Today scientists distinguish between Western and Eastern civilizations.

Comparison of Western and Eastern civilization

Progress

3.3.1. Progress (moving forward) – transition from lower to higher, from simple to complex, from imperfect to more perfect.

Social progress- this is a world-historical process, which is characterized by the ascent of humanity from primitiveness (savagery) to civilization, which is based on scientific, technical, political, legal, moral and ethical achievements.

Regression (movement backwards) – transition from higher to lower, degradation.

3.3.2..Types of social progress

· Progress of science and technology (NTP, NTR)

· Progress in the development of productive forces (industrial revolution)

· Political progress (transition from totalitarianism to democracy)

· Progress in the field of culture (recognition of man as the highest value)

3.3.3. Criteria for social progress:

Criterion– an indicator by which something can be assessed

§ development of the human mind

§ development of science and technology

§ development of productive forces

§ growth in living standards, degrees social protection

§ improving people's morality (humanism)

§ degree of individual freedom in society

The contradictions of social progress

3.3.5. Indicators of progressive development of society:

● average human life expectancy

● infant mortality

● health status

● level and quality of education

● level of cultural development

● feeling of satisfaction with life

● degree of respect for human rights

● attitude towards nature

Humanity as a whole has never regressed, but has stopped developing for a while - stagnation