SOCIAL
INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION SOCIAL
The bourgeoisie is clearly manifested in this teaching. sociology: driving force social unity people and social conflicts factors in the spiritual life of society are considered - the morality of people or the decomposition of the general value system (see P. Sorokin, Society, culture and personality..., 1947; R. E. L. Faris, Social disorganization, 1948; H. W. Odum, American social problems ..., 1946; E. S. Bogardus, Sociology, 1941). On this basis, bourgeois. sociologists distort the essence and true causes of such social phenomena, as well as classes, reducing them to contradictions and struggle in the ideological sphere (see K. Mac Iver, Society: its structure and changes, 1931; C. Brinton, The anatomy of revolution, 1938; P. Sorokin, and society in calamity , 1943).
Methodological The basis of theories of social integration and disintegration are mechanistic, anti-dialectical. ideas based on equilibrium theory (see Equilibrium theory). Anti-scientific are widespread attempts to bourgeois. sociologists can be used to explain the processes of unification and separation social groups and factors, laws and models of exact sciences - physics, chemistry, etc. (See G. Lundberg, Foundations of sociology, 1939; S. C. Dodd, Dimensions of society, 1942; J. W. Bews, Human ecology, 1935). As a state of social integration in modern times. capitalist bourgeois society sociologists advocate the establishment of class peace, class cooperation (see E. Mayo, The social problems of an industrial civilization, 1945; Industry and society, 1946).
Doctrines about I. and d.s. in modern bourgeois Sociologists have a reaction. ideological and are directed against the Marxist understanding of the development of society. Their goal is to obscure the class contradictions of capitalism. society.
Lit.: Spencer G., Foundations of Sociology, trans. from English, vol. 1–2, St. Petersburg, 1876–77; Durkheim E., On the division of social labor, trans. from French, O., 1900; Simmel G., Social, trans. from German, M., 1909; Park R. E., Burgess E. W., Introduction to the science of sociology, Chi., 1921; Mumford L., Technics and civilization, N.Y., 1934; his, In the name of sanity, N. Y., 1954; Ross E. A., Principles of sociology, 3 ed., N. Υ.–L., 1938; Elliot M. A. and Merrill F. E., Social disorganization, revised ed., N. Y.–L., 1941; Gillette J. M., Reinhardt J. M., Problems of a changing social order, N. Y.–L.–Toronto, 1942; Gillin J. L., Social problems, 4 ed., N. Y., 1952.
H. . Moscow.
Philosophical. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet encyclopedia. Edited by F.V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970.
Destruction) are concepts that are used in the bourgeoisie. sociology refers to the processes of combining social phenomena into a whole and the disintegration of the whole into. Integration - harmonization and unification of various social groups (class), various cultural elements in a single homogeneous culture (cultural integration), reconciliation and coincidence of different moral standards(moral integration), etc. Disintegration is the process of decomposition and disintegration of society into warring groups and groupings, groups into individuals pursuing personal, rather than social, interests. goals, etc. The state of integration and disintegration and the mutual transitions of these states are, according to the bourgeoisie. sociology, ch. moments of the process of societies. development. The doctrines of social integration and disintegration were developed by Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Simmel, Giddings, Small, Ross, Znaniecki, Sorokin, McIver, Bogardus, Wiese, Parsons and others.
The bourgeoisie is clearly manifested in this teaching. sociology: the driving force behind the social unity of people and social conflicts are considered to be factors in the spiritual life of society - the morality of people or the decomposition of the general system of values (see Sorokin, Society, culture and personality..., 1947; R. E. L. Faris, Social disorganization , 1948; H. W. Odum, American social problems..., 1946; E. S. Bogardus, Sociology, 1941). On this basis, bourgeois. sociologists distort the essence and true causes of such social phenomena, as well as the struggle of classes, reducing them to contradictions and struggle in the ideological sphere (see K. Mac Iver, Society: its structure and changes, 1931; C. Brinton, The anatomy of revolution, 1938; P. Sorokin, Man and society in calamity, 1943).
Methodological The basis of theories of social integration and disintegration are mechanistic, anti-dialectical. ideas based on equilibrium theory (see Equilibrium theory). Anti-scientific are widespread attempts to bourgeois. sociologists apply the laws and models of the exact sciences - physics, chemistry, etc. - to explain the processes of unification and separation of social groups and factors. (See G. Lundberg, Foundations of sociology, 1939; S. C. Dodd, Dimensions of society, 1942; J. W. Bews, Human ecology, 1935). As a state of social integration in modern times. capitalist bourgeois society sociologists advocate the establishment of class peace, class cooperation (see E. Mayo, The social problems of an industrial civilization, 1945; Industry and society, 1946).
Doctrines about I. and d.s. in modern bourgeois Sociologists have a reaction. ideological and are directed against the Marxist understanding of the development of society. Their goal is to obscure the class contradictions of capitalism. society.
Lit.: Spencer G., Foundations of Sociology, trans. from English, vol. 1–2, St. Petersburg, 1876–77; Durkheim E., On the division of social labor, trans. from French, O., 1900; Simmel G., Social, trans. from German, M., 1909; Park R. E., Burgess E. W., Introduction to the science of sociology, Chi., 1921; Mumford L., Technics and civilization, N.Y., 1934; his, In the name of sanity, N. Y., 1954; Ross E. A., Principles of sociology, 3 ed., N. Υ.–L., 1938; Elliot M. A. and Merrill F. E., Social disorganization, revised ed., N. Y.–L., 1941; Gillette J. M., Reinhardt J. M., Problems of a changing social order, N. Y.–L.–Toronto, 1942; Gillin J. L., Social problems, 4 ed., N. Y., 1952.
N. Novikov. Moscow.
Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .
See what “SOCIAL INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION” is in other dictionaries:
ROLE THEORY OF PERSONALITY- a theory according to which the personality is described by means of the social skills learned and accepted by the subject (internalized) or forced to be performed (non-internalized). functions and behavior patterns of roles determined by social the status of the individual in this community... Russian Sociological Encyclopedia
MANNHEIM (Mannheim) Karl (1893 1947) German. English philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge. He studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Paris. M.’s views were formed under the influence of the ideas of Lukács, B. Zalos, E. Lask, ... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies
Modernization- (Modernization) Modernization is the process of changing something in accordance with the requirements of modernity, the transition to more advanced conditions, through the introduction of various new updates The theory of modernization, types of modernization, organic... ... Investor Encyclopedia
personality- Congenital characteristics of thinking, sensations and behavior that determine the uniqueness of the individual, his lifestyle and the nature of adaptation and are the result of constitutional factors of development and social status. Brief explanatory psychological... ... Great psychological encyclopedia
- (KhSU “NUA”) Motto Education. Intelligence. Culture… Wikipedia
PERSONALITY- a person as a participant in history. evolutionary process. In society In the sciences, personality is also not considered as a special quality of a person acquired by him in an ensemble of societies. relationship in progress joint activities and communication. In humanistic Philosopher And… … Russian Pedagogical Encyclopedia
Globalization as a multifactorial phenomenon is also characterized by globalization financial markets, and the internationalization of corporate strategies, and the international transfer of technology and related research, development, and transformation consumer behavior, and the internationalization of the regulatory capabilities of national economies, and a certain reduction in the role of the national state.
World economy can no longer be analyzed as a set of mutually exclusive, self-sufficient national economies. The concept of “globalization” reflects new trends in the development of the world economy, structural changes in national economies, and a new quality of modern international economic transactions.
According to the definition of the Encyclopedia of Political Economy (edited by Philip Anthony O'Hara), internationalization can be understood in terms of balance of payments entries, while globalization implies the transformation of economic activity in different countries into a single unified process.
Modern globalization grows out of the transnationalization of the economy, due to the increasing scale of activity of transnational corporations and their special role in the development of foreign direct investment in the world economy.
At the same time, it should be noted that not all countries publish the relevant information; the data provided represents only a generalized assessment - the result of extrapolation of information about foreign branches of TNCs in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USA by sales, branches of TNCs in the USA and Japan - by exports, branches of US TNCs - by value added, and the USA and Germany - by assets For the period 1982-2004. the assets of foreign branches of TNCs grew more than 18 times, the scale of their production - more than 6 times, annual exports - more than 5 times. The national economy is increasingly transnationalized, since TNCs not only participate in export operations many countries of the world, but also actively operate in their domestic markets - directly and through investments in national production.
However, their direct investments include only those that provide ownership of at least 10% of ordinary shares, and thus make management control real. In some cases, however, this requires having 20 or even 50% of all shares.
The Statistical Office of the European Union defines foreign direct investment (FDI) as capital investment in the creation and expansion of operating enterprises in foreign countries, as well as loans from parent companies of TNCs to subsidiaries, and excludes reinvestment from FDI. The USA, Great Britain, Portugal, Germany also take into account reinvestments, which, according to BIS estimates, account for approximately half of all FDI. New types of investments such as attracting foreign capital under licensing, franchising agreements, management contracts, turnkey projects, and subcontracts are becoming increasingly important. They may not be reflected in the movement of financial resources, but very often they have a decisive influence on control and management. In this regard, OECD experts believe that a national company may find itself controlled by foreign capital even if its share in the company’s share capital is less than 10%.
IN last decades XX century A clear trend is increasing FDI in the newly industrialized countries (NICs) of Asia, as well as in China. Chinese People's Republic in the early 90s ranked fourth in the world in terms of FDI attracted. The influx was unprecedented - from 1991 to 1992 alone it increased by 155%. At the beginning of the 21st century, the pace of FDI inflows into China slowed down somewhat, but still remain very impressive: the inflow of FDI into China is comparable to its total value in all developing countries. Other significant changes in FDI are associated with the beginning of the third millennium.
FDI inflows to North America have declined significantly. Investments in the economy Western Europe exceeded half of all global FDI inflows. (The exception was 2001, in which the share of Western European countries was 45%).
Significant feature modern period is also the transformation of a number of developing countries into FDI exporters. True, so far they account for no more than a tenth of global FDI. The influx of foreign capital into the manufacturing industry and financial sector of developing countries has increased.
The structure of accumulated FDI in the world economy is becoming increasingly modern, meeting the requirements of information production. Already in the 90s, almost half of the accumulated FDI was concentrated in the service sector. This process develops more actively in the group developed countries, but also developing countries are increasing their share in the total volume of FDI in the services sector (from 18% in 1990 to 22% in 2003). The share of developed countries is correspondingly decreasing.
Globalization is beginning to be taken into account when developing a strategy for economic growth as a condition for increasing efficiency in all spheres of the economy, reducing costs, transforming the “traditional international economy of traders” into an “international economy of international producers” based on further development FDI by transnational corporations and other agents of international transactions.
The driving force behind the changes is the expanding use of standard products and services in the world economy, the globalization of not only production, but also consumer market. The consumption of citizens of a particular country in our time is much more susceptible to the influence of consumer patterns adopted in other countries. This is both a consequence of the increasing flow of information, and international influence on consumer preferences from the production side. And for this reason, production is becoming increasingly global. It is beginning to be dominated by the “main players,” and more and more organizations with a global outlook and culture are emerging. In this regard, a number of researchers draw conclusions about the inevitable decline in the role of the national state in the global economy, about the “destruction of borders”, the creation of a new “world without borders”, the “erosion of the autonomy of national states”, about the process in which the state becomes redundant and the market takes over top, about the “global shift” from predominantly national economic activity towards international, transnational and global. Responsibility for such a “shift” rests primarily with transnational corporations, financial institutions and international organizations, pushing nation states toward greater economic openness.
The most famous proponent of the concept of reducing the role of the nation state is the Japanese management consultant Kenichi Ohmae, author of the widely known works “A World Without Borders,” “The End of the Nation State,” and “The Invisible Continent.” From his point of view, the nation state becomes meaningless in modern world under the dominance of transnational corporations, in the presence of global markets for finance, goods and labor.
However, the thesis about reducing the role of the state is far from flawless. The very development of globalization requires a strong and capable nation state, including to counteract the negative consequences of the activities of TNCs. We should not forget about the different impacts of globalization on different countries. To many developing countries, countries with “transition economies” have to face a significant reduction in opportunities for government macroeconomic regulation in the context of increasingly “openness” of national economies. In developed countries, the influence of individual states on economic growth often increases.
Integration is a tendency towards rapprochement, coordination of activities, unification of states, their economic and social systems in a number of spheres or branches of economic, public and cultural life. Integration can occur at various levels - from local to interregional and global. At the moment, the most widespread and developed form of integration is regional, associated with the emergence of large integration associations in a number of regions of the world - Europe, North America, South-East Asia, Asia-Pacific region, Latin America and etc.
Integration is closely related to the trend of globalization and is a manifestation of the latter at the regional level. Despite the fact that the processes of convergence of economies and societies in a particular region may seem contrary to the logic of globalization, their depth and versatility allow us to say that they reveal the most promising directions of globalization processes. Thus, scientists believe that the European Union can be considered as a kind of laboratory or model of a future global political system (K. E. Jorgensen and B. Rosamond). Russian political scientist O. V. Butorina believes that regional integration is a model of conscious and active participation of a group of countries in the process of world stratification caused by globalization. This means that the globalization of the world economy and other spheres of life of the world community has created new system division of labor and distribution of the world product, a configuration of spheres of influence to which large integration blocs, rather than individual states, can better adapt.
On the one hand, integration as a trend international relations and world politics fits into the general process of social development and is seen as a natural manifestation of expansion and intensification public relations, an evolutionary stage in the formation of new forms of social and political organization. On the other hand, integration as a phenomenon of the second half of the 20th century has special features that distinguish it from previous forms of unification of societies, economies and political systems that we can discern in world history.
Firstly, integration is based on a new technical and economic structure and is directly related to the expansion of economic interaction beyond the national economy and the emergence of new means of information and communication that make broad and intensive socio-economic interaction possible. In addition, these circumstances increase competition in the global economy and directly link the competitive advantages of an economy to its scale.
Secondly, integration processes occur on a voluntary basis, as a result of the conscious choice of the participants. This is what distinguishes the integration of the last six decades (since the formation of the first European Community) from many unification processes in history that were of a violent nature. Here it is necessary to note the connection between the trends of integration and democratization - the choice in favor of unification in the economic, social, and humanitarian spheres is seen as the result of the democratization of the decision-making process in modern states.
Thirdly, integration processes have a multidimensional structure, occurring in a number of sectors of the economy, in many areas public life, which is a new phenomenon compared to earlier processes of unification based on some particular interest in the field of security, trade or religion, which may have motivated the temporary unification of states in earlier eras.
Integration processes are, of course, prepared by the previous history of interaction between states at the regional and global levels, including the negative experience of conflicts and wars. Often, modern integration processes are affected by the common religious and civilizational roots of the participants in the association, and the desire to prevent the repetition of wars that had catastrophic consequences for the region.
Existing approaches to understanding integration trends can be distinguished by the interpretation of the motives and ultimate goals of the integration process. Federalist the approach assumes that integration occurs as a result of mutual desire small states strengthen its influence, gain new political and economic opportunities through the formation of a federation - in fact, a new large state. Representatives of the federalist trend are such scientists and public figures as A. Spinelli, J. Monnet, W. Hallstein. Functionalist the approach implies that integration is motivated by the interests of cooperation between states, economic entities And community groups in areas and industries not related to high politics and ambitions of creating a superstate. It is assumed that the latter can become a demotivating factor for states that care about preserving their own sovereignty. Functionalists include such researchers and practitioners as D. Mitrani, E. Haas, R. Schumann. Communicative the approach that is associated with the name of K. Deutsch sees in integration, first of all, a complex learning process that creates common symbols, identities, interaction habits, shared memory, values, norms. During this process, individuals usually, over the course of several generations, “learn to become a people,” as Deutsch puts it. This approach has influenced various schools of integration studies and is used by researchers today institutional structure integration associations, for example W. Sandholtz and A. S. Sweet.
The trend of integration is also considered in the general context of theoretical discussions in the field of studying international relations and world politics. Realists remain skeptical about the prospects for this trend. S. Hoffman criticized functionalism, saying that regional associations are historically random and depend on the will of states. Functional integration cannot develop into political integration. In the 1970s It was this approach that prevailed due to the slowdown in the process of European integration. However, at the same time there appear neoliberal studies of interdependence and global development, which are abstracted from the experience of European integration itself and proclaim cooperation based on economic benefits and reduction of transaction costs as a global trend. They add a range of substate actors to the study of integration and highlight the communicative nature of integration.
It is important to note the development of approaches that interpret integration as a tendency towards the formation of new forms of political organization, not similar famous models(unitary state or federation). Since the mid-1990s. approaches are beginning to be developed that analyze the functioning of the EU as unified system management. One of the first and most influential was the approach of G. Marx, who in 1992 considered the EU system as a multi-level management. Marx, together with L. Hug, drew attention to the fact that integration is taking shape as a system of alliances between supranational bodies (the European Commission) and intranational actors, which relegates states to the background. Similar alliances are being formed at the substate level. Constructivist J. J. Ruggie calls the European integration model a “multi-perspectival polity,” believing that in this integration association a completely new political logic is being implemented, in which there is no single decision-making center, and policy is developed as a result of a multidimensional consensus.
From an international political point of view, one of the key questions is about the prospects for the integration trend and mainly about whether the process of economic, social and cultural integration will develop into a political unification. The model of integration stages, based on the experience of the European Union, is widely accepted in international political science and practice:
- 1) creation of a free trade zone (customs barriers in mutual trade are being removed);
- 2) customs union (uniform trade tariffs are established in relation to third countries);
- 3) common market (in addition to the free movement of goods, the movement of services, capital and labor is ensured);
- 4) economic and monetary union (created general system regulation economic policy and monetary system).
However, a possible phase of political unification causes heated debate among researchers of integration processes. On the one hand, modern Europe is becoming more and more united as an international actor (for example, with the introduction of a single diplomatic service of the European Union), on the other hand, political contradictions between countries are becoming even more acute during the financial and economic crisis. Crisis trends in the eurozone are seen as possible reason slowing down integration processes and even canceling the fourth phase of integration.
There are a number of other reasons that force researchers to talk about disintegration trends in the modern world.
Firstly, there are persistent disproportions in the development of countries that are members of integration associations. Even in European Union The level of per capita income in the poorest and richest member countries differs by an order of magnitude. This leads to internal friction and additional risks that all participants in the integration association are forced to share.
Secondly, these are escalating cultural and civilizational contradictions, which practically no integration entity can avoid, since in modern conditions any of them covers states with different cultural traditions and, in addition, is experiencing migration pressure.
Thirdly, these are differing political interests and priorities in the field international security. Modern disintegration is often associated with the authoritarian ambitions of the leaders and elites of a number of states or with the destructive influence of external forces in a particular region. We can say that in the modern world, various integration projects are entering into fierce competition and the success of one of them can mean disintegration consequences for another.
Nevertheless, integration remains the most influential trend in global development. IN different regions it occurs in different forms, and the competition of these forms can be considered a process of testing optimal models of economic, social and cultural unification in the modern world, which gradually leads to the formation of qualitatively new forms of political organization.
Lecture abstracts:
The word “integration” has long become familiar in the European lexicon. Its appearance was an inevitable dictate of the times, a kind of answer to the question of how and in what direction we should move further in order to build a “new” Europe. Of course, one cannot but agree with academician B.N. Topornin, who argues that today it has become much more difficult for EU member states to “operate with previous concepts like” international cooperation"or even "European cooperation", since they did not reflect the essence of new phenomena... Integration is understood primarily as going beyond the boundaries of such cooperation...". A similar point of view is expressed by Professor Yu. M. Yumashev, who asserts, in particular, that “The Community is an example of how, in new conditions, member states put broader content into the concept of interstate cooperation, and this dictates the model of their behavior and determines the nature of their relationship with the organization they created."
The concept of “integration” comes from the Latin “integratio”, which literally translates as “reunion, replenishment”. In relation to the sphere of interstate relations, it means the voluntary and mutually beneficial unification of individual parts (subjects) into some kind of independent integrity (community). Moreover, the latter is not just an arithmetic sum of its constituent parts, because in terms of its volume it is much larger and more meaningful. As Professor V. Bobkov rightly notes, “integration makes it possible to obtain such material, intellectual and other means that none of the participants would have had if they acted autonomously.”
It is interesting to note that until now, researchers on European integration topics have not developed a single point of view regarding what constitutes the integration of states within the European region. Although, perhaps, almost all of them were united in one thing, namely, in recognizing the fact that integration itself is considered today as a definitely positive phenomenon, as “a process necessarily conditioned by the receipt of advantages by all parties involved in it.”
According to the terminology of A. Etzoni, the concepts of “community” and “integration” are subject and predicate. At the same time, “community” is a kind of “community or even a system that has self-sufficient integration mechanisms,” while “integration” is a kind of “the ability of a given system to support itself as a result of the impact and influence of both internal and external changes.”
According to A. Etzoni, the concept of “integration” includes whole line necessary and essential elements, namely:
1) the presence of effective control over the use of coercive measures;
2) existence single center responsible for making and executing decisions;
3) the presence of a dominant center of political unity for the bulk of the politically active population.
Reproduction and consolidation of unevenness economic development individual countries and regions within the integrating space as a result of liberalization of the movement of goods, capital and labor, in practice become the main cause of disintegration.
The emergence and development of centrifugal trends in an integration association can also be provoked by the negative consequences of multi-level and multi-speed integration in trade, tax, information, currency and other areas of interaction. For example, an organization customs union only a part of the integration participants will mean a certain discrimination in the foreign trade sphere for other participants becoming “third countries” for those who have signed such a trade agreement.
Close monetary integration, creation of a zone with single currency may increase transaction costs in international exchange for non-aligned countries. Integration and disintegration processes are closely related to each other. The speed, direction and form of the former depend on the strength of not only promoting, but also counteracting causes. If the latter begin to prevail, then they can interrupt integration process, even despite the fact that it has a historically predetermined and progressive character. The unfolding of an integration trend is always associated with various disintegration processes, which are either its prerequisite, its consequence, or accompanying it.
Loading...
