Not everyone is convinced by the reasons that globalization of the economy requires the introduction of equal rules of the game, not everyone accepts references to the economic breakthrough made by Great Britain after the decisive reforms of Margaret Thatcher (a variant of the breakthrough of the United States after the reforms of Ronald Reagan). In the 20th century Japan has experienced tremendous success with its national economic model, and therefore it is natural that radical convergence has many opponents in Japanese society. Some believe that a change to this model is necessary, but it will not succeed, since the old institutions are too entrenched. Others say that a change is not necessary, since these institutions are obviously better than Western ones, because they are more effective and/or better correspond to the social values of the Japanese. But direct pro-
Strengthening convergence processes based on universal economic, cultural, moral, legal and humanitarian value orientations recognized by the world community at the end of the 20th century.
Indeed, the evolutionary transformation of capitalism in developed countries towards a post-industrial society, a modern mixed economy, took place, in particular, under the influence of both positive and, to an even greater extent, negative experience of countries that considered themselves socialist (USSR, countries of Eastern Europe) . However, the impossibility of successful development of these countries within the framework of the administrative-command system that existed in them, the deep crisis, and then the collapse of this system led to the fact that already in the 1980s. The theory of convergence lost its former popularity and became the subject of the history of economic thought.
Nowadays, the term convergence is used primarily to describe integration processes. The basis of global integration development is the general trends and imperatives of scientific, technological and socio-economic progress. They determine the rapprochement (convergence) of the economies of an increasing number of countries while maintaining their national characteristics. There are many models and variations of a mixed economy. Within the framework of this diversity, there are tendencies towards convergence of economic strategies and social policy models of developed countries. As a result of changes in development strategies in many developing countries, the gap between the industrial North and the developing South in a number of human development indicators (such as per capita income, life expectancy, adult literacy, daily calorie intake) is beginning to narrow, albeit at a slow pace. food, energy consumption per capita, etc.).
Which development path will the world choose? Which scenario for using existing assets will it choose? Russia XXI century The answers to these questions will essentially determine the pace of economic convergence, and consequently the processes of unification legislative framework, widespread informatization, ensuring transparency of the economic space, establishing a global financial and information network, organizing an effective system of global control over the configuration of world income and methods of its misappropriation. The income in question is the result of the use of the entire set of assets. It is their volumes, prices and liquidity that determine the priorities in the activities of organized crime. The set of stolen items is schematically presented in Fig. 7.
The efforts made were supported, it must be admitted, by the Marshall Plan. With reconstruction underway and their vitality restored, Europe and Japan, as well as other countries in the Western world (Canada, Australia and New Zealand), resorted to a strategy of economic growth that was a resounding success throughout the 1950s and 1960s. . The regions mentioned were able to catch up with the United States, which they unsuccessfully tried to do with late XIX V. The trend towards convergence has clearly emerged on the economic horizon of the Western world, gradually leveling the levels of development of its constituent countries and ushering in an era of unprecedented material prosperity and continued growth.
It is also necessary to introduce some nuances into the hypothesis, which involves the gradual elimination of the gap that separated the United States from the rest of the world. Convergence was the dominant trend in economic development in the 50s and 60s, as growth rates in Western Europe and Japan outpaced those in America. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that technological progress and methods of modern production management in the United States continued to evolve. In Europe and Japan, the catch-up process in new industries was much slower than in traditional ones. Thus, despite the general trend towards convergence, some sectors of the economy have shown signs of new divergence.
American sociologist P. Sorokin believes that the rapprochement of the two systems is taking place along all main lines in the field of natural science and technology, social sciences, law, education, art, religion, marriage and family, economic system, social relations, political system. According to P. Sorokin, as a result of this mutual convergence of the USA and the USSR, a certain intermediate society arises, different from both communism and capitalism.
Such models completely falsify the very essence of socialism and obscure its fundamental differences from capitalism. Bourgeois economists, when creating models of socialism, do not see fundamental differences in the class nature of the state under capitalism and under socialism. Namely, class nature determines in whose interests and for what purposes state property is created and used. Under the conditions of state-monopoly capitalism, state property is created and used in the interests of leading monopoly groups. Under socialism, the state expresses the interests of the entire socialist society. Therefore, state socialist property is the property of the whole people, in principle, essentially different from state capitalist property. A group of bourgeois theorists, ignoring the objective economic laws of socialism, declares the Soviet economy to be a command economy, allegedly acting on orders from above (see Command economy theory). All of these theories distort, each in its own way, the mechanism of the economic functioning of socialism. With the entry of the USSR into the stage of a mature socialist economy, with the processes of building developed socialism in other countries of the socialist community, the application to socialism of bourgeois theories of industrial society (see Industrial society theory), convergence (see Convergence theory), the authors of which are trying to erase the fundamental differences between capitalism and socialism, deny the benefits of socialism.
Various theories of the convergence of socialism and capitalism have become especially widespread. Supporters of these theories argue that socialism and capitalism as socio-economic systems are coming closer under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, the differences between them will be eliminated in the future and ultimately a single industrial society will be created.
The sociological direction also includes those theories that base the development of society on changes in production technology (the theory of stages of economic growth, theories of industrial society), as well as numerous other theories of the transformation of capitalism. All of them are characterized by ignoring capitalist relations of production and the desire to find some kind of alternative to communism. As a result of their reasoning, some bourgeois economists conclude that there is convergence, that is, a rapprochement, of the two world social systems.
There are several varieties of convergence theory. For example, Galbraith puts forward the development of technology as the basis for the rapprochement of two socio-economic systems. He discovers the trend of convergence in the growth of large-scale production, the preservation of the autonomy of enterprises, state regulation of aggregate demand, etc. We see, Galbraith concludes, that the convergence of two seemingly different industrial systems is occurring in all important areas.
With all the differences between the countries that form the modern structure of the world economy, the general trend of their development is expressed in mutual convergence, in which developing countries, in terms of the general level of their economic development, although slowly, are aligned with advanced industrialized countries, relying on their capital, technology and the infrastructure of the world economy they create. Advanced countries and their transnational companies, using market relations, financial resources and technology, ensure the expanded reproduction of their capital at the expense of developing countries and their large natural and labor resources.
Taking this into account, the equality of savings within the country with investments, that is, 8 = 1, is no longer a condition for achieving internal macroeconomic equilibrium. The capital and investments it lacks can be imported by the country from other states. Moreover, countries seeking to achieve economic convergence, that is, to reach a level close to developed countries, as a rule, first become chronic debtors with a passive balance of payments. It is important for them that external loans for investments find effective use, ensuring at first the servicing of external debt, that is, the payment of interest at the level of their international rate. Subsequently, such investments can serve to increase the production of goods for export and achieve a positive trade balance in international current transactions.
CONVERGENCE (from the Latin onverge - approaching, converging) - the bringing together of different economic systems, erasing the differences between them, due to the commonality of socio-economic problems and the presence of common objective patterns of development.
CONVERGENCE is a term used in economics to denote the convergence of different economic systems, economic and social policies of different countries. The term convergence gained recognition in economic science due to its widespread use in the 1960-1970s. convergence theories. This theory was developed in various versions by representatives of institutionalism (P. Sorokin, W. Rostow, J. C. Galbraith (USA), R. Aron (France), econometrics J. Tinbergen (Netherlands), D. Shelsky and O. Flecht- Heim (Germany). It contains the interaction and mutual influence of the two economic systems of capitalism and socialism during
IN social sciences For a long time, the West was faced with two opposing assessments of the changes taking place. The first - the “theory of convergence” - evaluates these phenomena as a process of rapprochement between capitalism and socialism as a result of the proximity of their industrial foundations. The second - the “theory of divergence” - is based on opposing assessments and proves the growing opposition of these systems. Convergence theory (lat.
convergentio - bringing together different things, up to the possible merging into a single one) - a doctrine that substantiated the peaceful coexistence of two systems, capitalism and socialism, the possibility and necessity of smoothing out the economic, political and ideological differences between capitalism and socialism, their subsequent synthesis into a kind of “mixed society”. It was developed in the mid-1950s by a number of Western sociologists, political scientists, economists and philosophers: J. Galbraith, W. Rostow, B. Russell, P. Sorokin, J. Tinbergen and others. This concept appeared during the years of ideological and military confrontation between two social -political systems, socialism and communism, whose representatives fought among themselves to redivide the world, trying to impose, often by military means, their order in all corners of the planet. The confrontation, in addition to the disgusting forms it took in the political arena (bribery of leaders African countries, military intervention, economic assistance, etc.), brought humanity the threat of thermonuclear war and global destruction of all living things. Progressive thinkers in the West increasingly came to the idea that the madness of competition and military race must be countered with something that would reconcile the two warring social systems. Thus was born the concept according to which, by borrowing all the best features from each other and thereby moving closer to each other, capitalism and socialism will be able to coexist on the same planet and guarantee its peaceful future. As a result of the synthesis, something between capitalism and socialism should appear. It was called the “third way” of development.
The objective conditions for the convergence of capitalism and socialism were revealed by the famous American economist and sociologist John Galbraith: “Convergence is associated primarily with the large scale of modern production, with large investments of capital, advanced technology and complex organization as the most important consequence of these factors. All this requires control over prices and, as far as possible, control over what is bought at those prices. In other words, the market must be replaced by planning. In Soviet-style economic systems, price control is a function of the state. In the United States, this management of consumer demand is carried out in a less formal manner by corporations, their advertising departments, sales agents, wholesalers and retailers. But the difference apparently lies rather in the methods employed than in the ends pursued... The industrial system does not have the inherent power... to provide purchasing power sufficient to absorb all that it produces. Therefore, it relies on the state in this area... In Soviet-style economic systems, careful calculations are also made of the relationship between the amount of income received and the cost of the commodity mass provided to customers... And finally, the industrial system has to rely on the state to provide trained and educated personnel, which have become a decisive factor in production in our time. The same thing happens in socialist industrial countries."
Speaking about the conditions for the emergence of the theory of convergence, its supporters pointed to the presence on both sides of the “Iron Curtain” and a number of other common features characteristic of the modern era. These included a single direction of scientific and technological progress, similarities in the forms of organization of labor and production (for example, automation), demographic processes common to developed countries, numerous parallels along the lines of urbanization, bureaucratization, “ popular culture"etc. Direct mutual influences were also noted, for example, the assimilation by Western governments and large firms of certain elements of the Soviet planning experience." 5 The political reason for the emergence of the theory of convergence was the geopolitical results of the Second World War, when a dozen socialist countries, closely connected itself, with a population of over a third of all living on Earth. The formation of the world socialist system led to a new redistribution of the world - the mutual rapprochement of previously separated capitalist countries, the division of humanity into two polar camps. Proving the need for their rapprochement, some scientists pointed to Sweden, which has achieved impressive successes. in the field of free enterprise and in the field of social protection of the population, proving the real feasibility of convergence. The complete preservation of private property with the leading role of the state in the redistribution of public wealth seemed to many Western sociologists to be the embodiment of true socialism. With the help of the mutual penetration of the two systems, the intellectuals intended to give socialism greater efficiency, and capitalism - humanism.
The idea of convergence came into the spotlight after the famous article by J. Tinbergen appeared in 1961. Jan Tinbergen (1903-1994) - an outstanding Dutch mathematician and economist, laureate of the first Nobel Prize in economics (1969), older brother of Nicholas Tinbergen, Nobel Prize winner in physiology or medicine (1973). He made a fundamental contribution to science with the discovery of the so-called “cobweb theorem”, as well as the development of problems in the theory of dynamics and methods for statistical testing of theories of the business cycle. In the 1930s, he built a complete macroeconomic model for the United States in the form of 48 different equations. He substantiated the need to bridge the gap between the “rich North” and the “poor South”, believing that, by developing the problems of developing countries, he would help correct the harmful consequences of colonial oppression and make his feasible contribution to the payment of their debts to former colonial countries from the former metropolises, including his own country. In the 1960s, J. Tinbergen was a consultant to the World Bank, the UN and a number of Third World countries. In 1966, he became chairman of the UN Development Planning Committee, having a significant influence on the formation of international development strategy in the 1970s. Throughout his life he adhered to the humanistic ideals of social justice, and in his youth he was a member of a socialist youth organization 226.
The idea of a synthesis of two opposing social systems - Western-style democracy and Russian (Soviet) communism, was put forward by P. Sorokin in 1960 in the article “Mutual rapprochement of the USA and the USSR towards a mixed socio-cultural type.” The friendship between capitalism and socialism will not come from a good life. Both of them are in deep crisis. The decline of capitalism is associated with the destruction of its foundations - free enterprise and private initiative; the crisis of communism is caused by its inability to satisfy the basic vital needs of people. At the same time, P. Sorokin considers the very concept of Soviet society to be deeply erroneous. It is based on totalitarianism. The communist regime in Russia will come to an end anyway, because, figuratively speaking, communism can win the war, but it cannot win the peace. The salvation of the USSR and the USA - two leaders of hostile camps - lies in mutual rapprochement. It is all the more possible since the Russian and American peoples, according to P. Sorokin, are very similar to each other, just as two countries, systems of values, law, science, education and culture are similar.
The creator proved himself to be a passionate fan of the theory of convergence atomic bomb in the USSR academician HELL. Sakharov, who dedicated his book “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom” (1968) to her. One of the first to recognize the nuclear threat, outstanding physicist back in 1955 he began a lonely and selfless fight for a test ban nuclear weapons, culminating in the famous Moscow Treaty of 1963. Sakharov repeatedly emphasized that he was not the author, but only a follower of the theory of convergence: “These ideas arose as a response to the problems of our era and became widespread among the Western intelligentsia, especially after the Second World War. They found their defenders among people such as Einstein, Bohr, Russell, Szilard. These ideas had a deep influence on me; I saw in them hope for overcoming the tragic crisis of our time." Another of its supporters, B. Russell, also a world-famous scientist, established the still existing international human rights organization Amnesty International, which takes prisoners of conscience from various countries under its legal protection. In the 1970s, Z. Brzezinski gave the theory of convergence a geopolitical dimension.
The theory of convergence served as a theoretical and methodological basis for the concepts of socialism with a human face and social democratic ideology that emerged later, namely in the 1980s. As a scientific theory it died, but as a guide to practice it influences Europeans well into the 21st century. Liberal capitalism in its original form no longer suits Europeans. That's why they're for recent years replaced conservative governments in the leading countries of the “old continent” - France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy. Socialists and Social Democrats came to power there. Of course, they are not going to abandon capitalism, but they intend to give it a “human face.” In 1999, then US President Bill Clinton took the initiative to create a Public Political Center, which, by uniting the best minds America, will become a link between governments and moderate movements in the West and Asia. The task of the new association is to create a “global economy with a human face.” This involves introducing the principles of social justice into the market economy. The American “Third Way” is designed to establish the leadership role of the United States in the world in the 21st century.
Its opposite, “divergence theory,” argues that there are far more differences than similarities between capitalism and socialism. And it intensifies over time, both systems, like escaping galaxies, are moving in opposite directions with increasing speed. There can be no flow or mixing between them. Finally, the third theory, or better yet, a set of theories, chose a compromise path, arguing that the two socio-political systems can unite, but first they must change greatly, and in an asymmetrical way: socialism must abandon its values and move closer to the ideals of a market economy . Otherwise, these theories are called the concept of modernization. Already at the end of the perestroika years, the paradoxical concept of Francis Fukuyama, an American scientist of Japanese origin, acquired great public resonance. Based on the theory of convergence and the historical changes that took place in the USSR, he concluded that with the collapse of communism as a historically significant social system, the last global contradiction, the contradiction between the two systems, is removed from world history. The world is becoming monopolar as the values of liberal democracy triumph where they were previously denied.
- Galbraith J. New industrial society, M., 1969, p. 453^-54.
- See: Burtin Yu. Russia and convergence // October, 1998, No. 1.
- Sakharov A. Memoirs, vol. 1, M., 1996, p. 388.
This chapter describes the special surrounding world of social systems - people and their relationships with these systems. We use the concept of “man,” which includes mental and organic systems. In this regard, we largely avoid using the concept of “personality,” leaving it to denote the social identification of a set of expectations for an individual.
The topic of man and his relationship to the social order has a long tradition, which we cannot fully disclose here 1 . It is embodied in “humanistic” ideas about norms and values. Since we want to dissociate ourselves from it, we need to pinpoint the points of divergence. After all, if a tradition cannot be continued (and we believe this is always the case in the case of a radical change in the structure of society), it is necessary to clarify the difference in order to find the possibility of translation into another language.
The point of divergence is that, according to the humanistic tradition, man was inside, not outside, the social order. He was considered integral part social order, an element of society itself. If a person was called an “individual,” it was because he was a further indecomposable limiting element for society. It was impossible to think about dividing his soul and
1 Wed: Luhmann N. Wie ist soziale Ordnung möglich? // Luhmann N. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik: Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. Bd 2. Frankfurt, 1981. S. 195-285.
bodies and their further separate analysis. Such a decomposition would destroy what a person is in and for society. Accordingly, it was believed that a person not only depends on the social order (which no one will argue with), but is also intended to live in society. The form of his existence could only be realized here. During the Middle Ages, the political (urban) nature of the social order was replaced by a social one; However, the principle did not thereby change, but only expanded. From the political animal (zoon politikon) arose the social animal (animal sociale). In both cases it was implied that nature person (ability to develop, to realize the form) is determined by regulatory requirements social order. Nature the man was his morality, his ability to gain or lose respect in social life. In this sense, his perfection was invested in social realization. This did not exclude the possibility that it could have been broken due to all kinds of corruption.
Semantics of this order had to be “natural law” in the strict sense. She had to understand nature itself as normalizing. This had not only legal, but also ontological aspects. It was impossible not to use a level of reality that could still be understood as “natural being.” Hence, man was understood as the ultimate element of nature, and society - as the joint life of people, formed in the city, as a body of a special kind, consisting of physically unrelated bodies, and, further, as a collection of people, humanity. Community was based on a concept of life that could include “ good life"as a sign. This image, in turn, supported impulses of a normative nature up to the neo-humanistic idea of W. Humboldt: a person must realize humanity in himself as far as possible. How could a person deny interest in humanity and reject such high demands?
The first step of semantic reconstruction is found in later natural law (rationalist) theories of the social contract. They in a certain way record changes in social structures that require more mobility and weaken the supposed connections (for example, with a limited local home life) 2 . The idea of viewing society as
2 For a very illustrative summary, see: James M. Family, Lineage, and Civil Society: A Study of Society, Politics, and Mentality in the Durham Region. Oxford, 1974. Based on our theoretical premises, we should first take into account the role of printing in this development.
Systems theory is based on the unity of differences between the system and the surrounding world. The surrounding world is a constitutive moment of this difference, and is therefore no less important for the system than itself. The theoretical setting of this level of abstraction is still quite open different estimates. The surrounding world may contain much more important for the system (from any point of view) than its components themselves; but the opposite situation in theory is also understandable. However, with the help of the difference between the system and the surrounding world, it becomes possible to understand a person as a part of the surrounding world of society more comprehensively and at the same time more freely than when understanding him as a part of society; for the surrounding world, in comparison with the system, is precisely the area of differentiation, revealing higher complexity and less order. Thus, more human freedom is allowed in relation to his the surrounding world, especially the freedom of unreasonable and immoral behavior. It no longer acts as a measure of society. This humanistic idea cannot be continued, because no one can deliberately and seriously assert that society can be created like a person, crowned with a head, etc.
We use the concept of “interpenetration” to denote a special kind of contribution to the creation of systems from systems in the surrounding world. This role of the concept in the relationship between the system and the surrounding world should be defined very precisely - especially due to the widespread unclear understanding of interpenetration 6.
First of all, we note that we are not talking about the relationship between the system and the surrounding world in general, but about the intersystem relations of the system.
6 In Parsons, this concept takes on distinct contours in the general architecture of his theory, although much is controversial here too. Wed. due to this: Jensen S. Interpenetration - Zum Verhältnis personaler und sozialer Systeme // Zeitschrift für Soziologie 7 (1978). S. 116-129; Luhmann N. Interpenetration bei Parsons // Zeitschrift für Soziologie 7 (1978). S. 299-302. Otherwise, it remains vague when, without further explanation, it only denotes mutual intersection systems Wed, for example: Breiger R. L. The Duality of Persons and Groups // Social Forces 53 (1974). P. 181-190; Münch R. 1) Über Parsons zu Weber: Von der Theorie der Rationalisierung zur Theorie der Interpenetration // Zeitschrift für Soziologie 9 (1980). S. 18-53; 2) Theorie des Handelns: Zur Rekonstruktion der Beitäge von T. Parsons, E. Durkheim und M. Weber. Frankfurt, 1982.
stems that act as the surrounding world for each other. In the sphere of intersystem relations, the concept of interpenetration should denote a narrower substantive content, which should differ primarily from the relations (contribution) of input and output 7 . We will talk about penetration, if one system makes available its own complexity(and at the same time uncertainty, contingency and forced selection) to build another system. It is in this sense that social systems presuppose “life.” Interpenetration accordingly takes place in the case when such a state of affairs takes place mutually, thus, if both systems contribute to each other due to the fact that each time they introduce their own, already constituted, complexity into the other. In case of penetration, it can be observed that behavior of the penetrating system is co-determined by the behavior of the receiving system (and, perhaps, outside it proceeds undirectedly and randomly, like the behavior of an ant without an anthill). In case of interpenetration, the receiving system has a reverse effect on structure formation penetrating systems; thus, it invades them twice: from the outside and from the inside. In this case, despite (no, thanks to!) this strengthening of dependencies, the possibility of greater freedom arises. This also means that over the course of evolution, interpenetration, rather than penetration, individualizes behavior.
This provision has special force in relation to people and social systems. The concept of interpenetration provides the key to its further analysis. It replaces not only natural law teachings, but also attempts in sociology to work with the basic concepts of role theory, with the conceptual apparatus relating to needs, with the concepts of socialization theories. As an interpenetration, this relationship can be understood more fundamentally than through the listed sociological concepts. Interpenetration does not exclude them, but includes them.
We remind you that complexity means that large number elements, in this case actions, can only be connected in a selected way. Therefore, complexity means the need for selection. This necessity is at the same time freedom, namely the freedom to condition choice in different ways. Hence, the definition of action usually has different sources, mental and social. Stability (= predictability) of actions of a certain kind is, therefore, the result of a combination
7 Wed. Ch. 5, VII.
nii, realizes in itself a different system as its difference between the system and the surrounding world, without disintegrating itself. Thus, each system can exercise in relation to another its superiority in complexity, its methods of description, its reductions, and on this basis make its complexity available to the other.
The systemic contribution of interpenetrating systems to each other, therefore, does not consist in the provision of resources, energy, or information. Of course, this is also possible. For example, a person sees something and talks about it, thereby contributing information to the social system. However, what we call interpenetration is still a deeper connection, a connection not of contributions, but of constitutions. Any system stabilizes its complexity. It maintains stability, although it consists of event elements, so it is forced by its structure to constantly change states. Thus, it simultaneously produces preservation and structurally determined changes. Somewhat aggravating, one could say: any system stabilizes its instability. In this way it guarantees the continuous reproduction of as yet undefined potentials. Their definition may be conditional. Conditioning is always self-referential and is thus always a moment of autopoietic reproduction of its elements; however, at the same time, precisely because pure self-reference would be tautological, it constantly perceives stimuli from the surrounding world. Therefore, self-referential systems are able to maintain the existing potential of building systems at emergent levels of reality and tune into the special surrounding world thus created. The concept of interpenetration, as can be seen, entails consequences from a paradigm shift in systems theory - the transition to the world-system paradigm and to the theory of self-referential systems. It involves a change in theoretical position in the sense that it understands the autonomy of interpenetrating systems as the strengthening and selection of dependencies on the surrounding world.
We should talk about interpenetration only when the systems that provide their complexity are also autopoietic. Therefore, interpenetration is the relationship of autopoietic systems. This limitation is understandable
The secret area provides the opportunity to consider the classical theme of man and society from a broader angle, which is not immediately given by the meaning of the term “interpenetration”.
Just as the self-reproduction of social systems, launching communication by communication, proceeds as if on its own, if it does not stop altogether, so there are types of reproduction that are self-referentially closed to a person, which, with a rough examination, sufficient here, can be distinguished as organic and mental. In one case, the medium and form of manifestation of 12 is life, in another - consciousness. Autopoiesis of both life and consciousness is a prerequisite for the formation of social systems, which means, among other things, that social systems can carry out their own reproduction only if the duration of life and consciousness is guaranteed.
This statement sounds trivial. It won't surprise anyone. However, the concept of autopoiesis brings additional perspectives to the picture. For both life and consciousness, self-reproduction is possible only in closed systems. This made it possible for the philosophy of life and the philosophy of consciousness to call their subject “subject”. Despite this, autopoiesis at both levels is possible only in environmental conditions, and the conditions of the surrounding world of self-reproduction of human life and consciousness include society. To formulate such an understanding, it is necessary, as has been repeatedly emphasized, to express the closedness and openness of systems not as opposition, but as a relationship of conditions. The social system, based on life and consciousness, for its part, ensures the autopoiesis of these conditions by promoting their constant renewal in a closed reproductive connection. Life and even consciousness do not need to “know” that they are behaving this way. However, they must organize their autopoiesis in such a way that closure functions as the basis of openness.
Interpenetration presupposes the ability to include various types of autopoiesis - in our case, organic life, consciousness and communication. It does not transform autopoiesis into allopoiesis, however, it creates relationships of dependence that have their evolutionary confirmation that they are compatible with autopoiesis. From this it becomes clearer why the concept of meaning in relation to the technique of theory construction should have such a high
12 I additionally call “form of manifestation” to indicate the possibility of observation arising from autopoiesis.
mi And social systems. Understanding this situation presupposes this interaction of most differences. Losing from; in sight of at least one of them, they fall back into the old and always fruitless ideological discussion about the relationship between the individual and society.
The conceptual decisions taken make it possible to say goodbye to any myths about community - more precisely, to send them to the level of self-description of social systems. If community means a partial fusion of personal and social systems, then this directly contradicts the concept of interpenetration. To clarify this issue, we will distinguish between inclusion and exclusion. Interpenetration leads to inclusion insofar as the complexity of the contributing systems is used by the receiving systems on a joint basis. However, it also leads to exclusion, since most interpenetrating systems, in order to ensure interpenetration, must differ in their autopoiesis. In less abstract terms, participation in a social system requires a personal contribution from a person and leads to the fact that people are different from each other, acting exclusively in relation to each other; for they must make their own contribution, must motivate themselves. Just when they cooperate, in spite of any natural similarity, it is necessary to find out who is making what contribution. E. Durkheim formulated this as the difference between mechanical and organic solidarity; But this is not about different forms of interpenetration, but about the fact that deeper interpenetration requires more inclusion and more (mutual) exclusion. The ensuing problem is solved through the “individualization” of individuals.
Drawing implications for the theory of mental systems is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it seems to me (this is still worth noting) that in this context some themes and even ambitions of the philosophy of mind resurface. True, we refuse the assertion that consciousness is a subject. It appears only to itself. Despite this, it can be added that autopoiesis in the environment of consciousness is both closed and open. By every structure he perceives, adapts, changes or rejects, he is linked to social systems. This is true for “pattern recognition,” for language, and for everything else. Despite this coupling, it is truly autonomous, since a structure can only be that which is capable of directing and reproducing the autopoiesis of consciousness. This reveals access to the potential of consciousness, which transcends any social
nal experience, and to such a typification of needs in meaning that guarantees consciousness its autopoiesis with the change of all specific semantic structures. In connection with the study of “interpretations of life,” D. G. Gluck considered happiness and need as interpretations of life that permeate all consciousness, without being expressed and changed in semantic forms 14.
If we proceed from this conclusion that interpenetration provides the relationship between autonomous autopoiesis and structural docking, then in the future we can consider and clarify the concept of “binding”. It must concern the relationship of structure and interpenetration. The formation of a structure is impossible either in a vacuum or only on the basis of autopoiesis of the structure-forming system. It presupposes the presence of “free”, unbound materials and energy or, more abstractly, the not yet fully defined possibilities of interpenetrating systems. Binding in this case is the definition of the meaning of using these open possibilities through the structure of the emergent system. We can recall the connection of neurophysiological processes with memory requests, i.e., the accumulation of information. In our case, we are, of course, talking about linking mental capabilities with social systems.
Thus, it is possible to combine and unify many inconsistent uses similar ideas. Most often, the concept is introduced as ordinary (or as basic?) and used without further comment. The frequently used formulation of time-binding is due to A. Korzybski and primarily refers to the ability of language to provide access to a single meaning 15 . T. Parsons, also without further
14 See: Glück D. H. Fluchtlinien: Philosophische Essays. Frankfurt, 1982. S. 11 ff.
15 Korzybski A. Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. 1933; reprinted: 3 ed. Lakeville Conn., 1949. See also the treatment of "time-binding" as an "elementary property" nervous system»: Pribram K.N. Languages of the Brain. Englewood Cliffs, 1971. P. 26; in addition, see cosmological generalizations regarding the idea of the connection between space and time: Jantsch E. The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Oxford, 1980. P. 231 ff.
This is largely accidental, i.e., not motivated by the advantages of the connection itself. However, if the corresponding selections are launched, then they demonstrate a tendency towards self-reinforcement, based on the irreversibility of time. This is then brought to purity in the form of feelings or justifications. It can be argued that selectively realized connection is no longer present. In this case, the power of binding, as in the myth of love, can be directly explained by freedom of choice. However, this only translates the paradox of chosen binding, necessita cercata*, arbitrary fatality, into a semantics that praises what cannot be changed anyway.
Relationships of interpenetration and connections exist not only between a person and a social system, but also between people. One person's complexity will matter to another, and vice versa. If this is exactly what we are talking about, then we will talk about inter-human interpenetration 20, and we should take this circumstance into account before talking about socialization.
The concept of interpenetration does not change with this use. The relation of man to man is thereby brought to the same understanding as the relation of man to the social order 21 . In this case, it is in an identical concept that different phenomena are revealed depending on what types of systems it refers to.
It goes without saying that the relationship of man to man remains a social phenomenon. It is only as such that sociology is interested in it. This means not only that the conditions and forms of its implementation are social and depend on further social conditions. In addition, social conditions and forms also include what people provide to each other as their company.
20 About terminology: moving away from previous usage, I am not talking here about interpersonal interpenetration, since bodily behavior should also be taken into account and since the mental should not be relied on in the socially constituted form of personality.
21 On the semantic tradition hinted at by this double formulation of the question, cf.: Luhmann N. Wie ist soziale Ordnung möglich? // Luhmann N. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Bd 2. Frankfurt, 1981. S. 195-285.
* Selected necessity ( Italian).- Note lane
cable, thus the experience of lack of communication. Alter becomes important to the Ego in those respects that the Ego cannot communicate to Alter. It's not a lack of words or a lack of time to communicate. This is not just about freeing another from overwhelming communications. Communication as a message can always give the message a different, not intended meaning; but this is immediately visible in intimate relationships. What fails in such cases is the principle of communication, namely the distinction between information and message, which gives the message itself the character of a selective event requiring a reaction. In conditions of intimacy, this need for a reaction is even more intensified and anticipated as such. They know each other so well that they cannot take a single step without provoking a response. Further - silence*.
It is perhaps no coincidence that it was the Age of Enlightenment, when all the concepts of the social sciences were considered akin to the concept of interaction, that dealt with this problem. Never again has such a rich array of tricks been offered - from the deliberately playful use of forms, the creation of paradoxes, irony and cynicism, right up to the concentration on sexuality as the only solid positive. At the same time, it was always about a failure in communication, and the question was in what forms it could be consciously allowed and, again, consciously avoided. This problem has been known since the discovery of intimate relationships, but it seems to defy any effective formulation. Sociology is perhaps the last one called upon to give advice to silent love.
Interpenetration confronts the participating systems with information processing problems that cannot be solved properly. This is equally true for social and interpersonal interaction. Interpenetrating systems can never fully use the variational capabilities of the complexity of the corresponding other system, that is, they can never completely transfer them into their system. In this sense, one should always remember: the nerve cell
* "The rest is silence". - A phrase from W. Shakespeare’s tragedy “Hamlet”, meaning a certain secret that the viewer is not allowed to know. - Note resp. ed.
is not part of the nervous system, and man is not part of society. Given this, we must clarify how, in such a case, it is nevertheless possible to use the complexity of the corresponding other system to build our own. For the field of mental and social systems, i.e. for semantic ones, the answer is: through binary schematization.
Integration does not occur through the addition of complexity to complexity. It does not consist in strict correspondence of elements various systems on all points, where each event in consciousness corresponds to a social event and vice versa. In this way, no system could exploit the complexity of another, in which case it would have to exhibit a corresponding complexity of its own. Instead another way must be found, “more economical” in the expenditure of elements and connections, conscious attention and communication time.
The first answer (which we will later disavow) can be formulated on the basis general theory systems of action by T. Parsons. It proceeds from structural connections guaranteed normatively 37 . It follows that any interpenetration leads to a scheme of conformity - deviation. Norma is never able to realize her vision of reality; therefore, it appears in reality as a process of splitting, as a difference between conformity and deviation. All regulatory facts are sorted according to the opportunity they represent. And depending on this, other connections are selected.
For the case of interaction between a person and social system this means that the social meaning of an action is assessed primarily by its compliance with the norm. Other possible semantic relations - for example, what character is being manifested here - gradually weaken. Social order is almost identified with legal order. On the basis of this preliminary agreement, the concept of “natural law” spread in Europe from the Middle Ages until the early modern period. It means that order in itself is always already given.
37 C point of view theory-building techniques, the normative guarantee of its structure is used as the “second best” form of theory; thus it is also destined for new decomposition. In this sense, Parsons spoke of “structural functionalism.” The need to be content follows from the complexity of reality, forcing the theorist start off from reductions and strongly advises him to rely on (normative!) reductions that already exist in reality.
interpenetration: the semantic form of schematized difference.
Against the backdrop of the complexity of interpenetrating systems, the well-known technical advantage of binary schematization is especially obvious - provided that the scheme is independently defined, the choice between two possibilities can be left to another system. The complexity of the other system is taken into account insofar as it is not known which of the two possibilities it implements; at the same time, complexity is de-problematized by the fact that for each of the two possibilities there is a ready-made joining behavior. The consequences of refusing preliminary calculations are minimized. The definition of a category can be done in different ways, and its operational function does not imply absolute consensus. One system may schematize another's use of complexity as friendly/hostile, right/false, conforming/deviant, beneficial/harmful, or whatever. Schematism itself forces the system to rely on the contingency of behavior and thereby on the autonomy of another system. To do this, the system must have a ready-made, suitable, autonomous complexity of its own. And at the same time, schematization is open to a second effort, channeled thereby - now you can try to find out whether another system is acting more friendly than hostile, more for good than for harm, and in this regard you can form expectations that contribute to crystallizations in your system 42.
Last but not least, it should be taken into account that binary schemes are also a prerequisite for the emergence of a figure called a subject in modern philosophy. A necessary prerequisite for this is the ability to have true and false judgments (namely: so that they were indisputable), as well as the ability to act correctly and wrong, good and Badly. Knowledge shows that the problem of the subject cannot be reduced only to the problem of freedom. The subject is individualized, rather, by the life history of true and false judgments, correct and wrong actions, which is unique of its kind in this specific form, while as only the sum of an adequate reflection of the world it would be no more than simply adequate. Thus, the “subject” is a subject (if the meaning of the concept is still seriously understood as the moment of ultimate representation).
42 The concept is used in: Stendhal. De l'amour; quoted from: Martineau H. Paris, 1959, see, for example, p. 8 ff., 17 ff.
ity) only for a confluence of designations and implementations, unique in the history of life, leaving open binary schematizations. He owes his possibility to a given given quantity, and not to himself. And if we take this into account, we can see that subjectivity is nothing more than the formulation of the result of interpenetration. Uniqueness and extreme position, for their part, are not figures of justification, but are the end product of history, outbursts and crystallizations of interpenetration, which are then reused in interpenetration.
The preliminary theoretical developments we take into account allow us to formulate the question. We have made a distinction between social and interpersonal interpenetration. In addition, based on the problems of complexity in interpenetration relationships, we have shown the advantages of binary schematizations. The question is: is there a binary schematization that simultaneously serves both types of interpenetration and operates functionally diffusely enough to reduce the complexity of both social and interhuman interpenetration. The answer is: yes. This is a special function of morality.
Before developing the concept of morality (it, of course, cannot be deduced from function), it is worth briefly stating the assumptions that follow from this functional constellation for everything in which the properties of morality are used. Being multifunctional, morality will limit the capabilities of the functional specification. In this case, social interpenetration cannot be distinguished without taking into account interhuman relations. Where this happens - we should recall, for example, the sphere of formally organized labor - its own morality arises. In the same way, it is impossible to deepen intimacy between people if it is connected with public morality. Thus, if society promotes greater intimacy, then the place of generally binding morality is replaced by unique codes of love passion, references to nature, and aesthetic statements. Such trends, which have spread widely in Europe since the 18th century, undermine the world of previous social forms, leave the impression that morality, which had a socially integrative function, no longer fulfills it fully. However, this understanding misses the point
not because it sanctions right or wrong behavior, but because it succeeds as communication 63 .
The consequences for the theory of education can only be outlined here. Education, and this is where it differs from socialization, is an intentional activity related to intention. It can achieve its goal (let’s ignore the possibility of indirect, imperceptible manipulation) only through communication. In this case, education as communication also socializes, but not as clearly as it imparts purposefulness. Anyone who needs education, through communication for such a purpose, rather acquires the freedom to either distance themselves or generally search for and find “other opportunities.” First of all, any specific pedagogical activity is loaded with differences. For example, it determines the direction of success and thereby justifies the possibility of failure. Learning and the ability to memorize also include forgetting; the limits of one’s capabilities are learned as impossible. In addition, along with all the specifications, the likelihood increases that the teacher and the pupil are based on different schemes of differences, different attributions, different preferences within the schemes of differences. Taking all this into account, education can hardly still be considered an effective action. It is much better to believe that, on the basis of pedagogically intentional and reasonable actions, a special functional system is distinguished that produces its socialization effects. In this case, pedagogical activities and corresponding communication must be reintroduced into this system as a contribution to the self-observation of the system and as a constant correction of the reality it creates.
Interpenetration concerns not only the human mental system. The body is also involved here. Of course, this does not happen to the full extent of all its physical, chemical and organic systems and processes. Therefore Parsons adopted the concept
63 Be that as it may, one should pay attention to the fact that it “manages” to include very negative experiences: failure is once again emphasized by communication, deviation becomes final thanks to communication, insult provokes a reaction, etc.
"behavioral system" (as opposed to the "organic system of man") in order to deduce aspects significant in relation to action 64. In accordance with this, it is necessary (always from the perspective of the action system!) to make a distinction between “the external surrounding world of the physical and biological conditions of action and the internal surrounding worlds” (meaning: behavioral, personal, social and cultural systems) 65 . Hence, the human organism remains to a large extent the surrounding world of the system of action; however, the action system differentiates its demands on the body, correlates them in a certain way with subsystems, and thereby can better adapt to the physical, chemical and organic conditions of life.
From a completely different perspective, the need for such a distinction follows for the theory of social systems presented here. Since, unlike Parsons, we do not start only from analytical systems, but must prove their formation concretely and empirically, it is not so easy for us to find a solution to this problem of difference. In any case, it is not enough to postulate a special "behavioral system" as one of the four aspects of action. The main question arises in connection with the concept of interpenetration: in what sense is the complexity of bodily being and physical behavior used in a social system to organize their connections? And how should the body be disciplined mentally to make this possible?
What the human body is in itself is unknown 66 . That it can be a valid subject of scientific research in human biology is beyond the scope of our research. We are concerned here with the everyday use of the body in social systems. From the point of view of theoretical requirements, the sociology of bodily behavior is still in a kind of emergency, especially since here it has nothing to offer.
64 See: Parsons T. A Paradigm of the Human Condition // Parsons T. Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York, 1978. P. 361, 382 ff. The impetus and the term come from: Lidz Ch. W., Lidz V. M. Piaget's Psychology of Intelligence and the Theory of Action // Explorations in General Theory in Social Science: Essays in Honor of Talcott Parsons / Ed. J. J. Loubser et al. New York, 1976. Vol. 1. P. 195-239 ( in particular, p. 215 ff.). In German translation: Allgemeine Handlungstheorie / Hrsg. J. a. Frankfurt, 1981. S. 265 ff.
65 Lidz Ch. W., Lidz V. M., a. a. O.P. 216.
66 Of course, this does not prevent one from observing, defining “life,” anticipating behavior, etc.
th, partly - by the difference between decent and clearly obscene literature 89.
With the disappearance of the basic distinction between corporeal and incorporeal, the previous semantic assumptions fall out of use. However, at the same time, the meaning of the body is also liberated for those special definitions that we have developed through the example of dance, sports and the mechanisms of symbiosis. The body itself partly becomes the point of crystallization of interpretations that include the social; partly - decomposed into aspects for use in combinatorial connections of large functional systems. Consequently, the semantics of corporeality, with its perhaps undeniable influence on the sensation and use of the body, correlates with changes in forms that arise in the course of sociocultural evolution. And this happens because the human body is not a bare substance (as a carrier method
If in the historical - diachronic - dimension the development and improvement of culture is ensured by continuity, then in the geographical - synchronous - dimension the same function is performed by the processes of interpenetration and mutual enrichment of cultures, often denoted by the broad term - acculturation. Just as an individual person is unthinkable in isolation from his own kind, in the same way no culture is capable of fully existing in absolute isolation from the material and spiritual achievements of other human groups. “The real values of culture,” writes D.S. Likhachev, “develop only in contact with other cultures, grow on rich cultural soil and take into account the experience of neighbors. Can grains develop in a glass of distilled water? Maybe! - but until the grain’s own strength is exhausted, then the plant dies very quickly. From here it is clear: the more “independent” any culture is, the more independent it is. Russian culture (and literature, of course) is very lucky. It grew on a wide plain, connected to East and West, North and South.” Nowadays there are practically no cultural communities completely isolated from the world, except, perhaps, for small indigenous tribes, lost in the jungles of Latin America or in some other secluded corner of our planet. In other words, any nation is, in one way or another, open to the perception of other people’s experiences and at the same time ready to share their own values with near and far neighbors. Thus, one culture, as it were, “penetrates” another and makes it richer and more universal.
The processes occurring" on the "cultural" map of humanity, which changes without sharp transitions and immeasurably slower than its economic and political panorama, are not, however, limited only to spontaneous and non-violent interpenetration and mutual enrichment of cultures, but also take on more radical forms, such as for example, like assimilation and transculturation.
Assimilation(from lat. assimilation- assimilation) consists in the complete or partial absorption of the culture of one, usually less civilized and weaker, people by another foreign culture, most often through conquest, subsequent mixed marriages and the purposeful “dissolution” of the enslaved ethnic group in the ethnic group of the enslaver. The last bastion in this case is language, with the loss of which the assimilated culture dies. Thus, with the arrival of Europeans, numerous tribes and nationalities of America, Africa and other regions of the “third world” were subjected to almost complete ethnocultural assimilation, just as it was in the imperial practice of Stalinism in relation to “small” peoples former USSR. Naturally, of course, the more numerous a nation is and the richer its culture and history, the more difficult it is to be influenced by external forces. In this case, what may happen is not the absorption of one people by another, but their mixing in some new synthesis, forming an original, already “hybrid” culture. Vivid examples of this are given by Latin America: the merger of the ancient and richest civilization of the Aztecs with the culture of Spain gave the world the unique culture of Mexico; the Inca Empire, destroyed by the conquistadors, continued in the equally distinctive “Indo-American” cultures of modern Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador; as a result of centuries-old mixing of the Portuguese, local ethnic groups and Africans in the person of millions of black slaves brought to America, the unique “African-American” culture of Brazil was born, etc. It should be borne in mind that many Latin American peoples still retain two- and even trilingualism, as evidence of the enormous vitality of their original cultural substrate.
Transculturation- a concept less developed in specialized literature, although widespread in life. It lies in the fact that a certain ethnocultural community, due to voluntary migration or forced relocation, moves to another, sometimes very distant habitat, where the foreign cultural environment is completely absent or is represented very little. Transculturation can be considered the settlement and development by white colonists of the vast lands of North America or Australia, where Aboriginal tribes, despite desperate military and spiritual resistance, were unable to have a noticeable impact on the culture of the conquerors. One way or another, the original culture of the United States can be considered the result of transculturation processes, although over time it turned into a kind of “melting pot” where the cultures of many ethnic groups and peoples are mixed; The fate of French-speaking Canada, the direct heir of French culture, was similar; With certain reservations, what has been said also applies to the formation of Haitian culture, which still, in its deepest origins, belongs more to Africa than to America or Europe. If we take examples from the life of Russia, then the entire history of vast German settlements and autonomies, which were later, as we know, liquidated by I. Stalin, is connected with transculturation, as well as his “experiments” with the forced resettlement of entire peoples.
The processes of transculturation for the people involved in them are far from painless. This or that ethnocultural community, like a plant, being transplanted to a different soil, can die or change noticeably, adapting to new circumstances and a new environment. However, some scientists, and in particular the largest German philologist, ethnographer and cultural scientist Leo Frobenius(1873 - 1938), they believe that due to the presence in each culture of a certain stable “code”, a certain “soul” that resists alien influences (padeuma) her vitality and ability to preserve her individuality are very great. “We can assert,” writes Frobenius, “that the style of cultures - in the highest sense of this concept - is determined by space and is constant, despite the different ways of manifestation, within this space. They will exist invariably: in the humid tropics and subtropics - a mystically colored culture; in a country like the United States, it is a hunting culture (it makes no difference whether the hunt is for buffalo or dollars).”
Mutual contacts and mutual enrichment of cultures, as well as the processes of assimilation and transculturation, can be facilitated or, conversely, inhibited by a number of objective factors. We have already spoken more than once about the role of the geographical environment and geographical space. For example, nations, even neighboring ones such as Russia and China, separated by powerful mountains and deserts, as well as Japan and the United States, between which a vast ocean stretches, have historically had fewer opportunities for any mutual influences than, say, the same Russia and European countries, connected by seas and plains and located in close proximity to each other. The linguistic and ethnic factor is no less important. For example, cultural interpenetration between related Slavic peoples, which found its expression, in particular, in the movement of Pan-Slavism, was carried out much easier than, say, their exchange with neighboring Hungary, whose ancient population, as a result of transculturation, found itself at the junction of the Slavic, Roman and Germanic worlds . At the same time, thanks to the same language and common original ethnic group, despite the vast distances, there are much fewer obstacles to spiritual exchange between such English-speaking “white” countries as Great Britain, the USA, Canada and Australia, which once represented the same European culture as part of the British colonial empire.
The favorable or unfavorable course of history itself can contribute to the mutual sympathies of peoples, and, consequently, to the processes of mutual enrichment of cultures, and sometimes slow them down. It is enough to compare, for example, the cultural ties of Russia with our two neighbors, the fraternal Slavic peoples - Bulgarian and Polish. Such historical events, like, on the one hand, the Russian-Turkish wars of the 19th century, which have been feeding the Bulgarian-Russian brotherhood for more than a hundred years; and on the other, our long-standing conflicts and disagreements with Poland - from the False Dmitrys in 1604 - 1610. to Katyn in 1940, which still burden the memory of Russians and Poles, despite their blood relationship.
Closely related to the historical factor influencing the destinies of national cultures is the political factor. After all, history, as we know, is the same politics, only thrown back into the past. The most obvious example of the detrimental impact of politics on culture and, in particular, on its ability to spread in space was the notorious “Iron Curtain” - an unsuitable, although not unsuccessful, attempt to cut off numerous peoples of the former USSR and, above all, the Russian people, from world civilization. In general, the natural processes of development of national cultures on the territory of our country were largely paralyzed by the Stalinist policy of deportations, genocide, great-power chauvinism and forced Russification. As a result of such practices of suppression of national and ethnic identity, combined with imperial isolationism, domestic culture suffered incalculable losses. However, speaking about the connection between politics and culture, it can be argued that the spiritual sovereignty of any, even the smallest ethnic group, being a challenge to any unitary government, has never coexisted with dictatorial regimes and totalitarianism.
As humanity develops, in the fate of the culture of all countries without exception, it has played an important, if not decisive, role since the middle of the 20th century. The global technological factor we have already mentioned begins to play. Here, from the point of view of the processes of acculturation, assimilation and transculturation, first of all, we mean progress in the field of electronic information technologies, means of transport, communications and preservation, replication and dissemination of information. Almost under their pressure, closed cultural communities are gradually “eroded”, their mutual diffusion takes on an irreversible and worldwide character. And the more “technological” a country is, the more opportunities for enrichment it acquires. An example in this case can be the United States, which not only strives to absorb all the most significant achievements of science and art of other peoples, but also becomes a huge reservoir where the “brains and talents” attracted high level life.
The problem of interpenetration and mutual enrichment of cultures is not limited to the description and analysis of various ethnocultural processes, but also poses another problem for scientists. theoretical question: Are all spheres of a particular cultural community equally permeable to foreign borrowings and at the same time capable of self-giving? It turns out not. Despite the artificial obstacles caused by competition, the achievements of technology, natural sciences and exact sciences spread most easily on a global scale, as A. Weber pointed out. The most striking discoveries and innovations in the field of art and literature are relatively freely adopted by other peoples, as evidenced, for example, by the universal significance of many artistic “isms” - from realism to abstractionism, recognized both in the West and in the East. Languages, especially vocabulary, are quite susceptible to mutual influences. A manifestation of this is the numerous foreign language layers in any developed language, as well as the steady growth of international terminology, understandable to a person of any nationality. There is, however, an area - the untouchable core of any culture - where interpenetration and interaction is reduced to a minimum or completely excluded. This is folklore, purely national artistic styles, refracted in folk crafts, morals and customs, everyday phraseology and some other manifestations of unrelated and territorially distant national-ethnic groups that have not yet been affected or slightly affected by the scientific and technological revolution.
Concepts/Theory of Convergence
Fear of fundamental social changes, of the coming revolution makes bourgeois ideologists rush feverishly in search of new “saving” theories. As noted, most bourgeois theorists argue that current capitalism not only has little in common with the capitalism of the past, but also continues to “transform.” In what direction? One of the most significant and characteristic phenomena in bourgeois social science over the past ten to fifteen years has been the widespread dissemination in many variants of the so-called convergence theory. This theory is adhered to to one degree or another by representatives of various sciences: historians, lawyers and even art critics. It is followed by bourgeois scientists belonging to schools and movements that are far from each other. The very term “convergence” was arbitrarily transferred by bourgeois ideologists to the field of social relations from biology, where it means the appearance of similar characteristics in different organisms under the influence of a common external environment. Juggling with similar analogies, anti-communists are trying to prove that under the influence of modern productive forces, socialism and capitalism allegedly begin to develop more and more similar features, evolve towards each other, sooner or later merge and form a kind of hybrid society. The lead in developing the theory of convergence belongs to the American economist Walter Buckingham. In 1958 he published the book “Theoretical Economic Systems. Comparative Analysis,” which concluded that “actually operating economic systems are becoming more similar than different.” The author further wrote that a “synthesized society” would borrow from capitalism private ownership of tools and means of production, competition, the market system, profit and other types of material incentives. From socialism, according to Buckingham, to the future economic system economic planning, workers' control over working conditions and equality in income will pass. Subsequently, the Dutchman Jan Tinbergen and the American John Galbraith added their anti-communist voices to W. Buckingham. In his book The New Industrial Society, Galbraith proclaims that it is enough to free the socialist economy from the control of the state planning apparatus and the Communist Party for it to become two peas in a pod like a “capitalist economy without capitalism.” The Chairman of the Communist Party of Luxembourg, Dominique Urbani, gave a very precise description of the theory of convergence in his speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow (1969). He said: “Attempts are also being made to make the working class believe that if Marxism-Leninism is softened at least a little, and a bit of socialist reality is added to the negative aspects of capitalist reality, then it will be digestible for everyone. From a scientific point of view, it is a mishmash of ideological views of the widespread so-called theory of convergence, which politically is called “humane socialism”, but in practice, to save capitalism means cooperation with it.” Raymond Aron and the previously mentioned Pitirim Sorokin also contributed to the propaganda of the ideas of convergence. In particular, Sorokin “enriched” anti-communism with the recognition valuable for bourgeois propaganda: the future society “will be neither capitalist nor communist.” According to Sorokin, it will be “a kind of unique type that we can call integral.” “It will be,” continues Sorokin, “something between the capitalist and communist orders and ways of life. The integral type will combine the greatest number of positive values of each of the present existing types , but free from the serious disadvantages inherent in them.” By preaching the idea of rapprochement and, as it were, interpenetration of two different socio-political systems, the idea of the similarity of the conditions of their existence, the authors and supporters of the theory of convergence thereby lay the ideological foundation for the implementation of the policy of “building bridges.” The ideologists of the anti-communist offensive understand that the theory of convergence provides an opportunity for a seemingly new approach to solving one of the main tasks of the anti-communists - the deformation of socialist ideology, and consequently, the undermining of the power and cohesion of the socialist camp. Preaching the theory of convergence seems beneficial to them, first of all, because it can be used for ideological sabotage, since the very idea of “interpenetration” of two systems, of their “commonality” automatically rejects the need for vigilant protection of the gains of socialism. The theory of convergence is extremely convenient for “internal use”, since it defends false ideas about the reactionary nature of capitalism and promises a certain harmony of interests of all segments of the population in the new “industrial society”. And the spread of illusions of this kind is vital for modern imperialism. Raymond Aron once wrote: “A hundred years ago, anti-capitalism was scandalous. Today, those who do not declare themselves anti-capitalists find themselves in an even more scandalous position.” The convenience of convergence theory lies in the fact that, while professing it, one can at the same time declare oneself an “anti-capitalist,” thereby not distracting, but even attracting listeners. Propaganda for the convergence of capitalism and socialism as a means of developing a distorted, distorted consciousness of the masses pursues reactionary political goals. Recently, the theory of convergence has begun to be criticized by a number of bourgeois sociologists and economists on the grounds that it has not achieved its goals - the absorption of socialism by capitalism - and sows illusions that disarm anti-communists. In 1969, a collection of articles by American “Sovietologists,” “The Future of Soviet Society,” was published in London. In the final article of the collection, Princeton University sociology professor Allen Kassoff tries to consider the prospects for the development of the Soviet Union. The meaning of his conclusions boils down to the following: an unprejudiced observer is struck not so much by the difference between Soviet and Western industrial societies, but by their similarity. But, despite the external similarity, we need to talk about a socialist version of an industrial society, different from a capitalist one. Therefore, Kassof believes: there is no reason to expect that the Soviet Union will inevitably become like the West, that convergence will occur. And now the floor goes to Brzezinski. He notes very soberly: so far the similarities between the two camps are found only in clothes, ties, and shoes. Yes, it’s not enough even to begin with. “I don’t believe in the theory of convergence,” Brzezinski said bluntly. The same point of view was expressed in their works by G. Fleischer, N. Birnbaum, P. Drucker and others.
Convergence theory, modern bourgeois theory according to which the economic, political and ideological differences between the capitalist and socialist systems gradually
One of the decisive factors in the rapprochement of two socio-economic systems Convergence theory considers technological progress and the growth of large-scale industry. Representatives Convergence theory point to the consolidation of the scale of enterprises, the increase in the share of industry in the national economy, the growing importance of new industries, etc., as factors contributing to the increasing similarity of systems. The fundamental flaw of such views is the technological approach to socio-economic systems, in which the social-production relations of people and classes are replaced by technology or the technical organization of production. The presence of common features in the development of technology, technical organization and the sectoral structure of industrial production in no way excludes the fundamental differences between capitalism and socialism.
Supporters Convergence theory They also put forward the thesis about the similarity of capitalism and socialism in socio-economic terms. Thus, they talk about the increasing convergence of the economic roles of the capitalist and socialist states: under capitalism, the role of the state guiding the economic development of society is supposedly strengthening, under socialism it is decreasing, since as a result of the economic reforms carried out in socialist countries, there is supposedly a departure from centralized, planned management national economy and a return to market relations. This interpretation of the economic role of the state distorts reality. The bourgeois state, unlike the socialist one, cannot play a comprehensive guiding role in economic development, since most of the means of production are privately owned. At best, the bourgeois state can carry out forecasting of economic development and recommendatory (“indicative”) planning or programming. The concept of “market socialism” is fundamentally incorrect - a direct distortion of the nature of commodity-money relations and the nature of economic reforms in socialist countries. Commodity-money relations under socialism are subject to planned management by the socialist state; economic reforms mean improving the methods of socialist planned management of the national economy.
Another option Convergence theory nominated by J. Galbraith. He does not talk about the return of socialist countries to the system of market relations, but, on the contrary, states that in any society, with perfect technology and a complex organization of production, market relations must be replaced by planned relations. At the same time, it is argued that under capitalism and socialism there allegedly exist similar systems of planning and organization of production, which will serve as the basis for the convergence of these two systems. The identification of capitalist and socialist planning is a distortion of economic reality. Galbraith does not distinguish between private economic and national economic planning, seeing in them only a quantitative difference and not noticing a fundamental qualitative difference. The concentration in the hands of the socialist state of all command positions in the national economy ensures a proportional distribution of labor and means of production, while corporate capitalist planning and state economic programming are unable to ensure such proportionality and are unable to overcome unemployment and cyclical fluctuations of capitalist production.
Convergence theory has become widespread in the West among various circles of the intelligentsia, with some of its supporters adhering to reactionary socio-political views, while others are more or less progressive. Therefore, in the struggle of Marxists against Convergence theory a differentiated approach is needed to the various supporters of this theory. Some of its representatives (Galbraith, Tinbergen) Convergence theory associated with the idea of peaceful coexistence of capitalist and socialist countries; in their opinion, only the convergence of the two systems can save humanity from thermonuclear war. However, deducing peaceful coexistence from convergence is completely incorrect and essentially opposes the Leninist idea of the peaceful coexistence of two opposing (rather than merging) social systems.
According to its class essence Convergence theory there is a sophisticated form of apology for capitalism. Although outwardly it seems to be above both capitalism and socialism, advocating for a kind of “integral” economic system, in essence it proposes a synthesis of the two systems on a capitalist basis, on the basis of private ownership of the means of production. Convergence theory, being primarily one of the modern bourgeois and reformist ideological doctrines, at the same time it also performs a certain practical function: it tries to justify for capitalist countries measures aimed at implementing “ social world“, and for socialist countries - measures that would be aimed at bringing the socialist economy closer to the capitalist one along the path of so-called “market socialism”.
|
Convergence theory |
|
Introduction. “Since 1958, Western science has developed the doctrine of “one industrial society,” which considers all industrially developed countries of capitalism and socialism as components of a single industrial public whole, and in 1960, the theory of “growth stages” arose, claiming to be a socio-philosophical explanation of the main degrees and stages of global history. A set of views on the processes of interaction, relationships and prospects of capitalism and socialism immediately emerged, which was called the theory of convergence."1 The theory of convergence was developed by Sorokin, Galbraith, Rostow (USA), Fourastier and F. Perroux (France), I . , and from the US side. At the same time, the Russian alliance borrows the concept of profitability from capitalism, and capitalist countries, including the United States, borrow the experience of state planning." "While the USSR takes prudent steps in the direction of capitalism ... many Western countries immediately borrow certain elements from the experience of socialist state planning. And so a very interesting picture emerges: communists become less communist, and capitalists less capitalist as the two systems move closer and closer to some middle point."2 Main part. In the 1960s and 70s, Galbraith became a generally recognized ideologist liberal reformist economic thought in the United States proves the concept of transformation of capitalism, the main distinguishing feature of which Galbraith describes as the dominance of technostructure. The technostructure is a collection of a huge number of individuals with relative specialized knowledge: scientists, engineers, technicians, lawyers, administrators. The technostructure has monopolized the knowledge required for adoption. decisions, and protected the decision-making process from the owners of capital; turned the government into its “executive committee”. Its main positive goal is the growth of companies, and the means is the exercise of control over the public environment in which the companies operate, which means the use of power in everything. volume: over prices, costs, suppliers, consumers, society and government. Galbraith considered the category of technostructure to be applicable to a planned socialist economy. Despite the fact that the management structure of socialist companies is even simpler than the structure of Western companies, within the Russian company there was the same need for collective decision-making based on bringing together the knowledge and experience of countless professionals. Large industrial complexes impose their demands on the organization of production to a certain extent regardless of politics and ideology. Being an adherent of the course of détente and peaceful coexistence in politics, Galbraith believed that the common nature of large companies in capitalist and socialist economies determines the tendency towards convergence of the two economic systems. The French economist F. Perroux looks at the prospects for the development of socialism and capitalism differently. Perroux notes the importance of such objective, irremovable phenomena as the process of socialization of production, the growing need for production planning, and the need for conscious regulation of the entire economic life of society. These phenomena and trends already appear under capitalism, but are embodied only in a society freed from the shackles of private ownership, under socialism. Modern capitalism allows for the partial implementation of these trends, as long as and insofar as this is compatible with the preservation of the foundations of the capitalist method of production. "The French scientist is trying to prove the closeness of the two systems by the presence of similar contradictions within them. Noting the tendency of modern productive forces to go beyond state borders, to the global division of labor, economic cooperation, he notes the tendency to create a “universal economy” that unites opposing systems, capable of satisfying needs of all people."3 The French sociologist and political scientist R. Aron (1905–1983) in his own theory of “one industrial society” identifies five features: 1. The enterprise is completely separated from the family (unlike ordinary society, where the family performs, among other things , economic function). 2. What is typical for a modern industrial society is the technological division of labor, which is determined not by the traits of the worker (which is the case in a traditional society), but by the traits of equipment and technology. 3. Industrial creation in a single industrial society presupposes the accumulation of capital, while ordinary society does without such accumulation. 4. Economic calculation (planning, credit system, etc.) acquires exceptional importance. ). 5. Modern creation is characterized by a large concentration of labor ( education is underway industrial giants). These features, according to Aron, are inherent in both capitalist and socialist production systems. But their convergence into a single world system is hampered by differences in the political system and ideology. In this regard, Aron allows us to depoliticize and deideologize modern society. A slightly different version of the convergence of the two systems is given by Jan Tinbergen. He believes that the rapprochement of East and West can occur on an objective economic basis: in particular, socialism can borrow from the West the principles of private ownership, economic incentives and the market system, while capitalism from the East can borrow the idea of social equality and social security, worker control over the conditions of production and economic planning. The French scientist and publicist M. Duverger defined his version of the convergence of the two systems. Socialist countries will never become capitalist, and the USA and Western Europe- communist, but as a result of liberalization (in the East) and socialization (in the West), evolution will lead the existing systems to one device - democratic socialism. Parsons, in his report “The System of Modern Societies,” stated: “Individual politically organized societies must be considered as parts of a broader system characterized by both diversity of types and functional interdependence. Social stratification in the USSR is similar to stratification in other modern societies. In the USSR and the USA, modern trends act towards bringing both societies into a single system."4 In his opinion, the USA and the USSR have a relatively homogeneous community - linguistically, ethnically and religious relations . Other similarities are the analogy in structures and types between government bureaucracies and large organizations in manufacturing, a growing technical and professional element in the industrial system. The theory of rapprochement, the synthesis of two opposing social systems - democracy of the Western standard and Russian (Russian) communism, was put forward by Pitirim Sorokin in 1960. An essay he entitled “Mutual rapprochement of the USA and the USSR to a mixed socio-cultural type.” “This essay was published in the years when each of the states mentioned in the title was completely confident in the truth of its social system and in the boundless depravity of its own antagonist. Sorokin dared to express his dissatisfaction with both social systems.”5 From his point of view, two parallel processes are unfolding - the decline of capitalism (which is associated with the destruction of its fundamental principles - free enterprise and private initiative) and the crisis of communism, caused by its inability to satisfy the basic vital needs of people. At the same time, Sorokin considers the very concept of communist – that is, Russian – society to be deeply erroneous. The economy of such a society and its ideology are varieties of totalitarianism; in his opinion, Russia was led to this situation by the crisis state (in which the country was before the revolution), which ended in totalitarian conversion. But the weakening of the critical situation leads to the restoration of the institutions of Freedom. Consequently, if in the future it is possible to avoid crisis conditions, then the communist regime in Russia will inevitably decline and fall - since, figuratively speaking, communism can win a war, but cannot win peace. But the essence of convergence is not only in the political and economic changes that are bound to come after the fall of communism in Russia. Its essence is that the systems of values, law, science, education, culture of these two states - the USSR and the USA (that is, these two systems) - are not only close to each other, but also seem to be moving towards one another. We are talking about the mutual movement of public thought, about the rapprochement of the mentalities of the two peoples. He looks at the idea of convergence from a long-term perspective, when, as a result of mutual rapprochement, “the dominant type of society and culture may not be capitalist or communist, but a type that we can designate as integral.” This new type of culture will be “a unified system of integral cultural values, social institutions and an integral type of personality, essentially different from the capitalist and communist models.” 6 In a word, convergence may well lead to the formation of a mixed sociocultural type. Conclusion. The theory of convergence has undergone certain development. At first, she substantiated the formation of economic similarities between the developed countries of capitalism and socialism. She saw this similarity in the development of industry, technology, and science. Subsequently, the theory of convergence began to proclaim the growing similarities in cultural and everyday life between capitalist and socialist countries, such as trends in the development of art, culture, family development, and education. The ongoing rapprochement of the states of capitalism and socialism in social and political relations was noted. The socio-economic and socio-political convergence of capitalism and socialism began to be complemented by the idea of convergence of ideologies, ideological and scientific doctrines. |
technocracy theory
Technocracy theory (Greek craft, skill and power, domination) is a sociological movement that arose in the USA based on the ideas of the bourgeois economist T. Veblen and became widespread in the 30s. 20th century (G. Scott. G. Loeb et al.). In a number of capitalist countries, societies of technocrats were established. Adherents of T. T. claim that the anarchy and instability of modern times. capitalism are the result of state control by “politicians”. They put forward the idea of healing capitalism by transferring the leadership of all economic life and control of the state to "technicians" and businessmen. Behind the demagogic criticism of the capitalist economy and politics lies the desire to justify the direct and immediate subordination of the state apparatus to industrial monopolies. The modern scientific and technological revolution has revived some ideas of technological theory. Numerous theories of “industrial” (R. Aron, W. Rostow), “post-industrial” (Bell), “technotronic” (Z. Brzezinski) society, concepts convergence (J. Galbraith). Close to technical theory, but even more reactionary, is managerialism - the doctrine of the leadership role of managers (managers). This teaching acquired an explicitly anti-communist character in the works of J. Burnham, the “managerial revolution” (“revolution of managers”), which is an apology for the open dictatorship of the Americans. monopolists. In the 70s Bell put forward the concept of meritocracy, supposedly replacing bureaucracy and technocracy in the so-called. "knowledge society".
T. Veblen - "father of technocracy"
The penetration of technology into all spheres of life, their organization
according to the technical paradigm, they inevitably pose the problem of interaction
technoculture and power. The question is to what extent the principles and
The methodology of technoculture extends to power relations in
society. Mastery of power functions by scientific and technical specialists
began, naturally, in industrial production, which is increasingly
became dependent on the holders of special knowledge. Scientific analysis
socio-political consequences this process did it first
American economist T. Veblen, recognized throughout the world as the "father
technocratism" (in fairness it should be noted that at the same time
similar ideas were developed by our compatriot A.A. Bogdanov).
In his analysis, T. Veblen. being an economist, he proceeded from logic
development of capitalist production relations. Period
he viewed monopoly capitalism as the culmination of contradictions
between between "business" and "industry". By industry Veblen understood the sphere
material production, based on machine technology, under business -
sphere of circulation (stock exchange speculation, trade, credit). Industry,
according to Veblen's views, is represented by functioning entrepreneurs,
