The transition of social systems, their elements and structures, connections and interactions from one state to another is understood. The most important factors social change speakers:

• habitat changes;
• dynamics of population size and structure;
• tensions and conflicts over resources or values;
• discoveries and inventions;
• transfer or penetration of cultural patterns of other cultures.

According to their nature and degree of influence on society, social changes are divided into evolutionary and revolutionary. Under evolutionary refers to gradual, smooth, partial changes in society, which can cover all spheres of life - economic, political, social, spiritual and cultural. Evolutionary changes often take the form social reforms, which involve carrying out various activities to transform certain aspects of public life.

Evolutionary concepts explain social changes in society endogenous or exogenous reasons. According to the first point of view, processes occurring in society are considered by analogy with biological organizations.

Exogenous the approach is presented primarily by theory diffusion. those. "leakage" of cultural patterns from one society to another, which becomes possible due to the penetration of external influences (conquest, trade, migration, colonization, imitation, etc.). Any culture in society is influenced by other cultures, including the cultures of conquered peoples. This counter the process of mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is called in sociology acculturation.

Revolutionary refers to relatively rapid (compared to social evolution), comprehensive, fundamental changes in society. Revolutionary transformations are of a spasmodic nature and represent a transition of society from one qualitative state to another.

It should be noted that the attitude of sociology and other social sciences to the social revolution is ambiguous. For example, Marxists viewed revolution as a natural and progressive phenomenon in the history of mankind, considering it “the locomotive of history,” “the highest act of politics,” “the holiday of the oppressed and exploited,” etc.

Among the non-Marxist theories it is necessary to highlight theory of social revolution. In his opinion, the damage caused to society by revolutions always turns out to be greater than the probable benefit, since revolution is a painful process that results in total social disorganization. According to Vilfredo Pareto's theory of elite circulation, a revolutionary situation is created by the degradation of elites, which have been in power for too long and do not ensure normal circulation - replacement with a new elite. Relative deprivation theory Theda lappa explains the emergence of social tension in society by the gap between the level of people’s demands and the possibilities of achieving what they want, which leads to the emergence social movements. And finally, modernization theory considers revolution as a crisis that arises when the processes of political and cultural modernization of society are carried out unevenly in different spheres of life.

IN last years sociologists are paying more and more attention cyclical social changes. Cycles are a certain set of phenomena, processes, the sequence of which represents a circulation over a period of time. The final phase of the cycle seems to repeat the initial one, only under different conditions and at a different level.

Among the cyclic processes, changes in pendulum type, wave movements And spiral. The former are considered the simplest form cyclical changes. An example is the periodic change in power between conservatives and liberals in some European countries. An example of wave processes is the cycle of technogenic innovations, which reaches its wave peak and then declines, as if fading. The most complex of cyclical social changes is the spiral type, since it involves change according to the formula: “repetition of the old at a qualitatively new level” and characterizes the social continuity of different generations.

In addition to cyclical changes occurring within one social system, sociologists and cultural scientists identify cyclical processes that span entire cultures and civilizations. One of these most integral theories of social life is cyclic theory, created by a Russian sociologist N.Ya. Danilevsky. He divided all the cultures of the world into “non-historical” ones, i.e. unable to be genuine subjects of the historical process, to create a “original civilization”, and “historical”, i.e. creating special, unique cultural and historical types.

In his classic work "Russia and Europe" Danilevsky, using historical and civilizational approaches to the analysis of social life, identified 13 cultural and historical types of society: Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Greek, Roman, Muslim, European, Slavic, etc. The basis for identifying “original civilizations” is a peculiar combination of four main elements in them: religion, culture , political and socio-economic structure. Moreover, each of these civilizations goes through four main phases in its development, which, relatively speaking, can be called origin, formation, flourishing and decline.

The German sociologist argued similarly Oswald Spengler. which is in progress "The Decline of Europe" identified eight specific cultures in the history of mankind: Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Arab, Western European, Mayan and the emerging Russian-Siberian. In his understanding, the life cycle of each culture goes through two stages: ascending (“culture”) And descending (“civilization”) branches of society development.

Later his English follower Arnold Toynbee in his book "Comprehension of History" The cyclic model of the historical process has been somewhat modernized. Unlike Spengler with his “patchwork quilt of individual cultures,” Toynbee believes that world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) unite the development of individual civilizations into a single process. He connects the dynamics of the historical process with the action of the “law of challenge and response,” according to which society develops due to the fact that it is able to adequately respond to the challenges of emerging historical situations. Toynbee is an opponent of technical determinism and sees the development of society in the progress of culture.

Cyclic theories also include sociocultural dynamics of P. Sorokin, which gives a very pessimistic forecast for the development of modern Western society.

Another example of cyclic theories is concept of “world-economy” I.Wallerstein(b. 1930), according to which, in particular:

• Third world countries will not be able to repeat the path taken by the states that are the leaders of the modern economy:
• capitalist world-economy, born around 1450, 1967-1973. entered the inevitable final phase of the economic cycle - the crisis phase.

Currently, sociologists are criticizing ideas about the unilinear nature of social processes, emphasizing that society can change in the most unexpected ways. And this happens in the case when the previous mechanisms no longer allow the social system to restore its balance, and the innovative activity of the masses does not fit within the framework of institutional restrictions, and then society is faced with the choice of a further option for its development. This branching or bifurcation associated with the chaotic state of society is called social bifurcation, meaning the unpredictability of social development.

In modern Russian sociology, the point of view is increasingly gaining ground, according to which the historical process in general and the transition of society from one state to another in particular always presupposes multivariate, alternative social development.

Types of social changes in society

Sociology highlights the social and cultural changes occurring in modern societies.

Social changes include shifts in social structure:

• the emergence of new social groups, layers and classes;
• reduction in the number, location and role of the “old layers” (for example, collective farmers);
• changes in the area social connections(the nature of relationships and interactions, power relations, leadership in connection with the emergence of a multi-party system);
• changes in telecommunications ( mobile connection, Internet);
• changes in citizen activity (for example, in connection with the recognition of private property rights and freedom of enterprise).

We observe a special group of changes in the political field:

• changing the role of the representative institution (State Duma) and the government of the Russian Federation;
• the formation of a multi-party system and the removal of a single party from the leadership of the country;
• official recognition of ideological pluralism by the Constitution.

Social change also includes cultural change. Among them:

• changes in the field of material and intangible values ​​(ideas, beliefs, skills, intellectual production);
• changes in the field of social norms - political and legal (revival of ancient traditions, customs, adoption of new legislation);
• changes in the field of communications (creation of new terms, phrases, etc.).

Social development of society

The concepts “ ” and “ ” are closely related to the problems of social change. Social development is understood as such a change in society that leads to the emergence of new social relations, institutions, norms and values. Social development has three characteristic features:

• irreversibility, meaning the constancy of the processes of accumulation of quantitative and qualitative changes;
• directionality - those lines on which this accumulation occurs;
• regularity is not accidental, but a necessary process of accumulation of such changes.

Social progress presupposes such an orientation social development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher forms, from less perfect to more perfect. In general, social progress refers to the improvement of the social structure of society and the improvement of human living conditions.

A process opposite to progress, is regression, it means return to the previous level of development of society. If progress seen as global process characterizing the movement of humanity throughout social development, then regression is a local process, affecting a particular society in a historically short period of time.

In sociology, to determine the progressiveness of a particular society, two most general criteria were usually used:

• level of labor productivity and welfare of the population;
• degree of personal freedom. But in Lately Russian sociologists are increasingly expressing their point of view on the need for a criterion that would reflect the spiritual, moral, value and motivational aspects of people’s economic and socio-political activities. As a result, today in sociology it has emerged the third criterion of social progress is the level of morality in society, which could become an integrative criterion of social progress.

To conclude this question, we note that modern theories progress draw attention to the fact that to save civilization, a human revolution is necessary in the form of a change in man’s attitude towards himself and others, the formation cultural universalism(N. Berdyaev, E. Fromm, K. Jaspers, etc.). Development prospects modern civilization will be positive only if the focus in the 21st century. It won't be cars, but people. Promising changes can be recognized as those that promote true harmony between the individual, society and nature.

In the process of Peter's reforms, the social structure of the country's population changed. During this period, a new important stage in social development took place - the consolidation of privileged classes and the unification of social groups of the population. As a result, two categories of residents of Russia were clearly defined - the taxable and non-taxable (those who paid and did not pay taxes) population and four classes: the nobility, the clergy, the urban population, and the peasants. The first two estates did not pay taxes to the state treasury.

Nobility. Government policy was mainly carried out in the interests of the nobility, which made up a small part of society.

The population of the country by the end of the reign of Peter I is determined to be approximately 15.6 million people, of which at least 7 million were tax-paying souls. (i.e. about 14 million people), and the number of secular landowners (data from 1700) was only 15,041 people. (if we count each noble family as an average of five people, then the total number of nobles in the country did not exceed 75 thousand people). Of this number (a little more than 15 thousand secular owners), the overwhelming majority (96.5%) represented the middle and petty nobility. The rich elite (with 100 or more peasant households) consisted of 535 people (3.5% of all landowners), who concentrated in their hands 45% of all peasant households belonging to secular landowners.

In the hands of the nobility by the beginning of the 18th century. there was at least 60% of the country's land fund; a third of the country's lands were owned by monasteries and churches.

During the reign of Peter I, the distribution of lands and peasants to individual representatives of the elite of the dominant part of society continued. Only for the period from 1682 to 1711. they were given 43.5 thousand peasant households and half a million acres of land from the palace fund, and in total during the period of Peter the Great's reign the nobles received about 175 thousand peasant souls. The tsar generously granted both land and peasants to his closest associates. So, for example, Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev received 2.5 thousand households, the favorite of Peter I A.D. Menshikov - over 2 thousand households, admirals F.A. Golovin and F.M. Apraksin - each at least 1 thousand households, Chancellor G.I. Golovkin - over 700 households, etc.

The nobility, which under Peter I received the Polish name “gentry” (this name disappeared under Peter’s successors), acquired greater homogeneity and corporatism due to the elimination of the internal division into boyars, okolnichy, Duma nobles, etc. The policy continued to increase the number of small and middle nobility, who owed all their wealth to the sovereign's service and therefore stood guard over the interests of absolutism.

In the era of Peter the Great, the collapse of the once united class of service people was completed. Its top, service people “by fatherland” (i.e. by origin), formed into the nobility, and the lower classes (service people “by service”) became state peasants.

All nobles still had to bear the compulsory, i.e. hereditary service. Peter only monitored the fulfillment of this duty more strictly than before. From time to time, he himself even reviewed the noble youth (“minors”) in Moscow and St. Petersburg, distributing them according to regiments and type of service. "Netchikov", i.e. those who evaded service were beaten with a whip, deprived of their estates and even “defamed”, i.e. deprived of all rights of the estate. The nobles were exempted from public service only by decrepitude and incurable illness.

Decree on unity of inheritance. In social policy in relation to the nobility, the decree on single inheritance issued in 1714 was of great importance, by which Peter I eliminated the distinction between votchina and estate. The decree ordered that family land property be transferred to only one of the sons (in the absence of a will, the estate was transferred to the eldest son); the remaining sons had no other choice but to enter one or another government service. With this decree, Peter sought to stop the process of fragmentation of land holdings and the impoverishment of noble families, on the one hand, and to create an bureaucratic stratum of the nobility as one of the main pillars of the absolute monarchy, on the other.

Table of ranks. Another document of great importance in the development of the social structure of society was the “Table of Ranks” published in 1722. This document determined the ratio of ranks (positions) of the military (land or naval) and civilian (civil) service, and the stages of career advancement of nobles. The entire serving part of the population was divided into 14 ranks (“classes”): the lowest rank (14th), from which service began, was artillery constapel (naval service), ensign or cornet (land military service), collegiate registrar (civil service ); The highest rank (1st) were the positions of admiral general, field marshal (generalissimo), and chancellor.

From now on, the former noble “ranks” (class groups: Moscow nobles, policemen, boyar children, etc.) lost all meaning and significance. With the division into new categories in relation to service, the former aristocratic hierarchy (birth) was replaced by a bureaucratic hierarchy - merit and length of service. Nobles who did not serve did not receive a “rank”.

According to the “Table”, only those who had the appropriate ranks (“classes”) were included in the bureaucracy. The lowest level of administration - office employees (copyists, clerks, etc.) - were not included in the “Table.” All officials whose positions were included in the “Table” received personal nobility. Those who reached the 8th grade (captain of the third rank, major, collegiate assessor) received hereditary (hereditary) nobility.

The publication of the “Table of Ranks” was an important step in the bureaucratization of the state apparatus and the formalization of absolutism in Russia. He supported the formation of a special layer of society - the bureaucracy, the separation of the upper and middle layers of officials. The norms of the “Table of Ranks” existed until the beginning of the 20th century, undergoing only some minor changes.

The automatic assignment of personal nobility with the receipt of a lower class rank according to the “Table” made it possible to integrate the most capable people from other strata of society into the ruling class. It is no coincidence that it was this achievement of Peter I in the field of social policy that lasted until the fall of the Russian Empire.

Giving the opportunity, albeit limited, to “become noble” to individual representatives of other classes, the “Table of Ranks” strengthened the monolithic nature of the nobility and its social and political role in the state. Among the outstanding statesmen of the first quarter of the 18th century. there are people of humble origin: Menshikov, Yaguzhinsky, Kurbatov, Ershov, etc.

At the same time, insignia for diligent or long service were introduced based on foreign models - the orders of St. Andrew the First-Called and St. Catherine. Peter I also introduced the highest award for outstanding service activities of the highest ranks of counts, princes and barons.

Clergy, like the nobility, belonged to the tax-exempt classes. The church's significant land holdings gave it a certain economic independence. Peter I consistently pursued a policy of subordinating the church to secular power. With the creation of the Synod in 1721, the clergy actually turned into bureaucrats in the spiritual service, completely dependent on the royal power.

Urban population. The Regulations of the Chief Magistrate (1721) formalized the class differentiation of the urban population. The entire population was divided into two categories: regular and irregular.

The regulars consisted of two guilds. The first guild included large merchants and industrialists, as well as artists and scientists; the second comprised small traders and artisans (divided according to their production into special categories or “guilds”).

The irregulars (or, as they were then called, “mean”) consisted of the lower strata of townspeople and working people. These people were deprived of the rights of election to the magistrate; they could only choose from their midst the elders who interceded for them before the members of the magistrate.

Clergymen, nobles and peasants who lived in cities were not part of urban society and were not subordinate to the magistrate.

Working people. A decree of 1721 allowed private owners of manufactories to buy serfs. Such peasants were called possession peasants (from the Latin posessio - I own). They were not registered with the owner of the enterprise, but with the enterprise itself. The publication of this decree was a decisive step towards the transformation of industrial establishments into feudal patrimonial manufactories.

In 1722, fugitive peasants were attached to the factories. The government allowed them not to be returned to their previous owners. They were, as it were, “assigned” to the factories. They received the name assigned peasants. True, this decree was temporary. Its action was determined “until further notice.” But 14 years later, in 1736, under Empress Anna Ivanovna, a new decree was issued, which assigned these peasants “forever” to the factories. From that time on, this group of peasants, who turned into working people, received the name “those given by decree.”

In 1723, a decree was issued on the procedure for admitting privately owned peasants to factories. Such peasants began to be called “otkhodniks with a passport.” They were required to obtain permission (“passport”) from their landowner for temporary work at an industrial enterprise. This “tied” industry even more to feudal-serf methods of exploitation.

Peasantry. The situation of the peasants under Peter noticeably worsened. This was due to an increase in financial burdens and various kinds of duties imposed on the peasant population, especially during the era of the Great Northern War (delivery of carts, workers for the construction of fortresses and ships, etc.), and even more so with the introduction of a poll tax.

A peculiar result of the government’s social policy was the division of peasants into six categories: 1) state (subordinate to the treasury and considered personally free) - 19% of the country’s total agricultural population; 2) palace (owned by the king and members of the royal family) - about 7.5%; 3) church and monastery - about 11%; 4) landowners (privately owned) - more than 50% of all peasants; 5) sessional (bought to work in factories); 6) odnodvortsy (the former class of service people who were now obliged to pay a poll tax, but retained the right to personal land use).

The peasantry, which made up more than 90% of the country's total population, was transformed by state regulations into a source of cheap work force, who did not have any rights. In 1721, for the first time, it was officially allowed to trade peasants (the only definite limitation was the government recommendation not to sell peasants alone).

The transformations also affected serfs. They merged into a single class with the peasants. In 1719-1724. the slaves were listed by name and placed on a per capita salary. Having lost the sign of easelessness, serfs became a type of serfs, having lost any right to freedom.

This was the structure of Russian society by the end of the reign of Peter I. This structure, changing and developing, actually remained for almost a century and a half - until the bourgeois transformations in the second half of the 19th century.

Russia is in the stage of transition from totalitarianism to democracy and from nationalized administrative-distribution to market economy. Accordingly, the transition period bears the criteria of social stratification. In the social stratification of Soviet society, political capital played a decisive role, determined by the place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy. The place of individuals and groups in the system of power and management predetermined not only the volume of administrative rights they had and the level of decision-making, but also the range of social connections and the scope of informal opportunities. The stability of the political system determined the stability of the composition and position of the political elite - the “nomenklatura”, as well as its isolation and isolation from the groups it controlled.

The current situation is characterized by a sharp weakening of state power. Tense struggle political parties and groups, the lack of development of their constructive programs, the loss of people's trust in most political institutions, the unprecedented spread of lawlessness and corruption determine the rapid turnover of politicians and the instability of the political system as a whole. The system of stratification of the ruling stratum according to the nomenklatura principle that emerged in Soviet times is in a state of “half-life” - its skeleton is still preserved, but the mechanism of reproduction has been destroyed. Formally, today we have a new system of senior government positions. The personnel of those occupying these positions has also been updated, some of whom came from other areas of activity. Thus, the previously closed upper layer of society opened up to people from other groups. At first glance, the former nomenklatura is gone; it has disappeared, dissolving into other strata of society. But in reality it was preserved. Moreover, more than half of the quasi-nomenklatura positions are occupied by the former political elite, implementing models of management activity characteristic of the Soviet system. Members of the former nomenklatura maintain stable business ties that contribute to the preservation of their inherent class consciousness.

Economic potential of different social groups in the USSR was measured by the measure of their participation in the ownership, distribution and use of social wealth. Based on this criterion, the following groups were distinguished: 1) bureaucracy; 2) production managers; 3) workers of logistics, wholesale and retail, service industries, etc. The mass strata of society had no rights, and their economic stratification was determined by the level of earnings and family income, which depended on many factors, starting with the nature and content of labor, the spheres and industries of its application, the departmental affiliation of enterprises, and ending with the number and composition of families. The interaction of economic, social, regional, demographic and other factors created a rather motley picture of the economic stratification of the population.

Currently, the economic potential of social groups includes three components: 1) ownership of capital that generates income; 2) involvement in the processes of distribution, movement and exchange of a social product; 3) level of personal income and consumption. A special role belongs to the first component. Various forms of non-state ownership are actively being formed (individual, group, cooperative, joint stock, corporate, etc.), and different types of capital are emerging (financial, commercial, industrial). In social terms, the owners of private capital stood out more or less clearly. Among them there are very large, and medium, and small, corresponding, respectively, to different layers. A special place is occupied by peasants who own private farms and become land owners. However, the overwhelming majority of Russians do not have any productive property.

The share of Russians who do not have own capital, as well as access to the distribution of public goods, has decreased slightly in recent years. But they still make up the largest part of society. The economic potential of these people is determined by the level of income from hired work. The main changes in their situation consist, firstly, in a much sharper property polarization than before and, secondly, in the almost complete disappearance of the dependence between labor and income. More than 60% of the population was pushed below the poverty line.

Labor and social mobility is increasing. In this regard, the role of such personal human qualities as giftedness or talent, level of socialization, quality of education, competence, ability to master new knowledge, cultural outlook, etc. is noticeably increasing. The value of professionalism increases, and hence the role of sociocultural capital.

In addition, today Russian society will demand only that part of the cultural potential that can be used “here and now.” Hence, there is a relatively high demand for qualified, enterprising and experienced specialists, with a growing lack of demand for all others.

In general, the structure of Russian society has undergone noticeable changes compared to Soviet times, but at the same time it retains many of the same features. For its significant transformation, a systemic transformation of the institutions of property and power is necessary, which will take many years. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity. The boundaries between groups and layers will begin to “blur”, and many marginal groups with an uncertain or contradictory status will emerge. In the West, the emergence of relatively homogeneous “middle class societies” is characteristic of post-industrialism. Russia has not only not outgrown the industrial stage of development, but is also experiencing a severe crisis that has thrown its economy far back. Under these conditions, social-class differences in the position of social groups acquire particular significance. They are drawn even more sharply than before, largely determining other aspects of social status.

In the last decade of the twentieth century. the ratio of social strata of Russian society was 1:24:68:7. This means that the upper and middle strata, which are the main drivers of reform, accounted for approximately a quarter of the economically active population. IN developed countries In the West, the middle class, consisting of similar socio-professional groups, represents the bulk of the population and occupies a significantly higher position. The combination of these features gives him the role of a social stabilizer of society. In Russia, the corresponding groups are less developed, have different sociocultural characteristics and have a much lower status. The middle layer, as already noted, goes through the “embryonic stage” here.

The overwhelming majority of Russians (68%) belong to a relatively poorly differentiated base stratum of society. The content of their work only basically corresponds to the industrial stage of development of society. The social significance of this layer is due to the fact that it concentrates the bulk of the labor and consumer potential of Russia, its electorate and army. Compared to the upper and middle layers, its interests are less articulated, and its behavior in business and political spheres is less active. However, in critical conditions, the position, social mood and behavior of this layer can become a determining factor in the historical development of Russia.

The social strata of Russian society have different socio-demographic potential, unequal ability to be involved in the formation of new public institutions, to participate in their development and strengthening. Hence the qualitatively different role of these layers in the transformation process. The ability for active social-innovative activity and effective adaptive behavior also significantly depends on the socio-demographic potential of the strata.

There is a great difference in the position of men and women. Thus, in the upper stratum there are four times fewer women than in the lower stratum, and the proportion of men is 3 times larger, which hardly requires comment. In the upper stratum there are almost twice as many young people as in the lower stratum, and there are 20 times fewer elderly people. The national aspect of the stratification of Russian society is expressed in the fact that in the upper strata there is a noticeably larger share of the non-Russian population than in the lower strata. Representatives of the compared strata differ significantly in the type of places they live. As is known, large cities with their rich information environment provide their residents with better opportunities for socialization, self-realization and adaptation to changing conditions than small peripheral settlements. The top layer is concentrated in major cities and capitals, while representatives of the base and lower strata more often live in small towns and villages.

The middle stratum lags somewhat behind the upper stratum in terms of the proportion of people with special education, since it includes, along with specialists, semi-entrepreneurs and skilled workers. However, the ratio of high and low self-assessments of qualifications is most favorable here. Perhaps this is reflected not only in the level, but also in the better quality of education received in prestigious metropolitan universities, the availability of post-graduate training, as well as academic degrees and titles. All this is most characteristic of the middle layer.

The lower stratum stands out from the rest both in the small proportion of people with special education and in the low self-esteem of their qualifications even within the simplest professions. Two-fifths of its representatives either find it difficult to determine the level of their qualifications or rate them as low. Only 2% continue to study (versus 8% in the upper and 5% in the middle and basic layers).

To assess the status of the studied layers, following signs: ownership of productive property (capital), employment status, employment sector by type of ownership, social-sectoral sphere of employment, place in the managerial hierarchy (job status), degree of well-being.

The top layer is formed by the owners of private enterprises and firms. Its representatives occupy an important place in the hierarchy of economic management, as they make strategic decisions and determine the main lines of business development. In terms of living standards, this stratum is significantly separated from others. The outpacing growth of his income in comparison with prices determines the concentration in his hands of an ever-increasing share of social wealth.

The composition of the middle stratum is more diverse: about a third of its representatives run their own companies or are employed individual business, many combine running their own business with professional hired work. Employment predominates in the private and corporatized sectors of the economy. The managerial potential of this layer is lower than that of the upper layer, but still quite serious: a quarter of it is made up of directors and managers of enterprises, organizations and institutions, while the share of those who consider themselves managers is even higher. A significant part of this layer is made up of specialists who perform administrative functions in relation to service workers. The level of well-being of the middle layer is 2.5-3 times lower than that of the upper layer, but to the same extent higher than that of the base layer. Most of its representatives live at a level of at least relative prosperity.

As for the base and lower layers, their socio-economic status does not differ very much. Both layers are represented by performing labor workers, mainly employed in public sector. The difference is that economic situation The base layer can be described as heavy, while the bottom layer is critical.

The majority of Russians expected from perestroika, if not instantaneous, but rather rapid growth in prosperity and improvement in living conditions. In fact, market reforms led to a sharp deterioration in their financial situation.

An integrative indicator of the place of a social stratum in the social structure is its standard of living. Statistically, at the turn of the 20th/21st centuries. his picture looked like this: 7% of the population live richly (1.5%) and at a level significantly higher than the BPM (budget subsistence level); 20% of the population have 1.5-2 subsistence minimums and on this basis consider themselves more or less well off; 73% of the population, regardless of their culture, education, qualifications, is a zone of complete poverty. The difference in income between the rich and the poor is more than 30 times, whereas it is considered devastating at a gap of 6-7 times.

Given these realities, today it is urgently necessary for the state to focus on a strong social policy. The society is extremely dynamic. Various classes, strata, and social groups constantly appear and disappear in it. The flexibility of the institutional system, its ability to adequately respond to the changed balance of power is important factor stability of society. Otherwise, phenomena and processes of an unpredictable nature are growing in society.

Detailed solution paragraph § 19 on history for 7th grade students, authors N.M. Arsentiev, A.A. Danilov, I.V. Kurukin. 2016

• Gdz workbook on History for grade 7 can be found

How did the social structure of Russian society change in the 17th century? Who made up the main category of landowners in Russia?

In the 17th century The social structure of Russian society has changed. The main category of landowners in Russia were local nobles. A significant part of the peasantry was completely enslaved. The increase in church land ownership was prohibited. The rights of white settlements in cities were eliminated.

What is a fief? Who were called feudal lords in Europe?

A fief is a piece of land in private ownership. In Europe, feudal lords were the name given to land owners.

What is posad? Who lived in the suburbs?

Posad is an urban settlement. Lived in the posads urban population: artisans, service people.

Remember how the Cossack communities were governed.

Cossack communities had self-government. Cossack circle – general meeting, at which the foreman was selected. He served as a commander and leader.

Page 49. Questions and tasks for the text of the paragraph

1. What do you see as the reasons for the change in the position of the nobility in the 17th century?

The reasons for the change in the position of the nobility in the 17th century: the rise of the nobility for honest service in the army, in the state apparatus, and at court took place. The nobility is the main support of royal power.

2. How did the position of black-sown peasants and landowner (serf) peasants differ?

The position of the black-sown peasants and the owning (serf) peasants differed in that the former retained personal freedom, owned communal lands and bore state duties. The latter were the complete property of the boyars, nobles, royal family and clergy.

3. List the main duties that peasants bore.

The main duties that peasants bore were: corvée, rent in kind and cash.

4. Who made up the population of the white settlements? What privileges did their residents enjoy?

The population of the white settlements consisted of artisans, traders, archers, merchants, nobles, boyars, and clergy.

Residents of white settlements enjoyed privileges - they did not bear duties in favor of the state.

In the 17th century there were the following categories of clergy: parish priests, bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, the church was headed by the patriarch

6. What fundamentally distinguished the first estate from the rest?

What fundamentally distinguished the first estate from the rest was that it did not pay state taxes and taxes, but owned land and serfs.

7. What economic benefits did the Cossacks give to the state?

The Cossacks provided the state with economic benefits in that they guarded the borders in the southeast and, therefore, did not need to maintain an army on the border, which was very expensive. In addition, the Cossacks themselves managed the economy, developing the border territories.

8. Is it possible to say that in the 17th century. were the boyars and nobles finally equal in rights? Give reasons for your opinion.

Yes, it can be argued that in the 17th century. Boyars and nobles were finally equalized in rights. The following facts can be cited as proof of this:

Abolition of localism in 1682

Nobles own 60% of serfs, boyars own 10%

Page 57. Working with the map

Show on the map the territories where black-growing peasants predominantly settled. Explain the reasons why there were few landowners in these areas.

Black soil peasants settled mainly in non-black soil areas. The reasons that there were few landowners in these areas were low land productivity and ineffective farming.

Page 36. We think, compare, reflect

1. Explain the origin of the word “serf”. Using additional literature and the Internet, collect material about the life of serfs in Russia in the 17th century. Based on it, prepare a message (accompanying it with an electronic presentation).

Serf - from fortress.

“In ancient Russian law, a fortress was an act, symbolic or written, that asserted the power of a person over a known thing...”

The life of serfs in Russia in the 17th century.

After the final approval of serfdom by the norms of first the Council Code of Vasily Shuisky, and then the Council Code of Alexei Mikhailovich, this phenomenon became decisive in the life of the entire country for a long two and a half centuries. And it’s hard to say that it would become her decoration. But not all the peasantry turned out to be enslaved. Which peasants were outside serfdom and which were “in the fortress” was clear even from the name itself. Personally, free peasants have been called since previous times (since the 14th century) black-sown (or black), and serfs - possessory.

The position of these two main peasant groups was different.

Black (black-growing) peasants:

They were not personally dependent on any land owner or landowner;

They retained a significant degree of personal freedom (among other things, the right to change their place of residence and business at their own discretion);

They retained the right to dispose of the land that belonged to them.

They were dependent only on the state. In relation to him, the black-growing peasants performed tax duties - they paid taxes and performed various works. It is not surprising that with the strengthening of the serfdom, the number of this group in the total mass of the peasant population steadily declined. Large and small feudal landowners considered the freedom of the people in their neighborhood a personal challenge. Using all possible mechanisms, they tried to enslave, deprive the black-growing peasants of economic and then personal freedom.

All methods for this were good. It was possible to enslave a free peasant by entangling him with debts and duties impossible to fulfill. It was possible to convert all family members into serfdom if one of them came from serfdom. Respecting Christian morality, the law demanded that the family not be torn apart. Marrying a serf or marrying a serf, a person understood that he could follow his loved one into serfdom: his children would remain serfs forever.

Over time, but already by the end of the 17th century. The pressure on personally free, tax-earning, black-mown peasants and from the state also increased. They were subject to ever-increasing per capita taxes, increasingly large quitrents, and were transferred to the category of state ones.

During the seventeenth century, the black-growing peasants still tried to resist the growing oppression. Less oppression was observed in remote corners of Russia - in the North (in Pomorie), in Siberia. Black-growing peasants fleeing oppression and oppression, and the danger of falling into serfdom, rushed there.

The second, and increasingly, group were serfs.

There were also differences among the landowner peasants. Depending on their position, they were divided into:

Boyar or patrimonial. With the establishment of absolutism in Russia and the strengthening of the nobility, their share constantly and steadily decreased. By the end of the 17th century. they made up only 10% of total number serfs.

Landowners. By the end of the 17th century. The increasingly stronger nobility became the main owner of the land and serfs. Towards the end of the 17th century. belonged to more than half (about 60%) of all peasant households.

Monastic (church). The church, which became a major feudal lord, owned within 15% of all serfs.

Palace (royal) ones. The state, the royal family, owned a total of 10% of the serfs, and this share gradually increased.

During the 17th century, other categories of the unprotected population were gradually transferred into serfdom to various landowners - peasants (who did not have their own farmstead and plot of land they cultivated, or who had lost the right to receive it) and serfs. Since the time of “Russian Truth” their position has often been defined as semi-slave. And rightly so. They were torn from the earth, playing the role of servants of their masters. By the end of the century, both of them had almost completely merged with the bulk of the serf peasantry.

It should be said that the best position was precisely among the serfs who belonged to the sovereign family. They were controlled by royal clerks. Their duties included supplying the royal court with the necessary products, firewood, and performing various duties, including quitrent (at first in kind, later in cash).

For all the other serfs, life turned out differently. The main service performed by serfs is corvée. It was this that placed perhaps the heaviest burden on the shoulders of the personally dependent peasant. That is why it is usually believed that, among many other elements of a socio-economic and moral nature, first of all, the serfdom of peasants is characterized by the concept of corvée.

At its core, corvee was the forced labor of serfs dependent on the landowner. For the use of the allotment received from the owner, they are obliged to work (with their own equipment and draft animals) for his benefit for a certain number of days. Their number was not legally limited. Everything depended on the goodwill (or lack thereof) of the landowner.

Usually corvée lasted from 3 to 5 days. But it could have been established at the whim of the landowner and all six days a week. But it was almost impossible to force people to work on Sundays and Christian holidays. The Church powerfully stood up to defend the serf with all its growing authority. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the Orthodox tradition there is such veneration of the Saints! Under the conditions of the horrific despotism of the bloodsucking landowners, they truly were defenders of the oppressed and dispossessed.

It is difficult to talk about any legally guaranteed rights of the serf peasantry in Russia in the seventeenth century. The state thought, first of all, about how to squeeze even more out of the peasant, entrusting him completely into the hands of the master.

The right of landowners in relation to serfs allowed him to sell the peasants who belonged to him as he pleased - with or without land, for withdrawal; to separate families by selling children, tearing them away from their parents; torture them with impunity, whip them for the slightest offense, or even out of tyranny... Torture of serfs was the custom of those hard-hearted times.

Therefore, the frequent escapes of serfs from overly presumptuous landowners are not surprising. Peasant uprisings and simple riots were frequent.

Socio-economic and legal status the serf's entire life was determined. How serfs lived in Russia in the seventeenth century is well known from various sources.

The focus of the peasant's entire life was the rural community. It was in her that a forced person, deprived of all rights in the eyes of the state and the feudal lord, found consolation, and often help and even protection. In conditions of extremely undeveloped life, everyday needs were limited to meeting the most minimal needs.

A simple house, or rather a five-wall hut. But the desire for purity, which was, as they say, “in the blood” of the people, gave rise to a whole direction in construction. We are talking about the construction of baths, which were so admired and even surprised by traveling foreigners. The peasant, even in his serfdom without rights, cared about cleanliness, turning the process of achieving it into a real art.

Simple and very poor food. But flavored with numerous drinks. Including those of a fiery nature, of course. Pickling and smoking, preparing mushrooms and berries - all this is also from the peasant life of that gloomy (and it's true!) era.

What serfs did in winter is a separate question. "Winter! - the poet conveys the joyful feeling of this time of year. “The peasant, triumphant, renews the path on the wood…” Winter seems to be truly the best time for a serf. It is difficult to say with any certainty how serfs lived during the long winter months. Obviously, in different ways. However, what is almost common to everyone is that there is less work for the landowner, and more free time. This is the time of rural fairs, folk festivals, fortune telling and favorite holidays. Christmas and Maslenitsa are the most important of them. In folk songs, to the accompaniment of the balalaika - a Russian folk instrument - folk peasant life is accomplished and continues. Even if this peasantry were serfs.

The importance of monasteries in economic life in Russia was great. The monasteries were distinguished by a high culture of management. For example, they cultivated the land, raised livestock, harvested hay, maintained mills, and had extensive trade. These works were mainly carried out by monastery peasants. They willingly settled near monasteries, since duties there were noticeably easier than those of the landowners. They paid the rent in money and the products of their labor: meat, butter, nuts, berries and handicrafts: carts, sleighs, clamps, reins. Handicrafts, mainly weaving and embroidery, were widely developed in women's monasteries.

Thus, monasteries played an important role in the economic life of Russia.

3. What circumstances, in your opinion, contributed to the formation of classes in Russia? Justify your opinion.

The following circumstances contributed to the formation of estates in Russia: the formalization and strengthening of tsarist power, the development, complication of social, state life, development of economic relations.

4. Using dictionaries, find out the origin of the concept of “class”. Compare the position of different classes in the 17th century. in Europe and Russia.

Estate is a social stratum, a group whose members differ in their legal status from the rest of the population.

Class division was characteristic of medieval Europe, and usually included the aristocracy, priests and community members. In a number of states, the latter were divided into burghers (bourgeois, petty bourgeois) and peasants. Belonging to classes is usually inherited.

The position of various classes in the 17th century. in Europe and Russia differed significantly. In most European countries there was no longer serfdom, peasants turned into farmers on their own land, or became poor and went to the city to get hired, offering their free labor, artisans turned into holders of manufactories, factories, factories appeared, and capitalism developed. Owners of capital - capitalists - have become the new leading social group. In Russia, the feudal order of division of estates has only just taken hold: landowners are serfs.

Everyone has heard of such concepts as industrial age and industrialization, but few can succinctly characterize them. Well, let's try to figure it out.

Industrial society: what is it like?

This era is characterized by a type of social relations based on the division of labor, and industry is able to provide people with a comfortable life. It is an intermediate option between traditional and information (post-industrial) society.

Despite the fact that historians call the modern way of life post-industrial, it has many “industrial” features. After all, we still travel by metro, burn coal in boiler rooms, and the cable telephone sometimes reminds us of the industrial Soviet past with its shrill ringing.

Prerequisites for industrial society

The entry of European society onto the path of progress is a gradual process characterized by a change from feudal relations to capitalist ones.

(the era of industrialization) is considered to be the period from the 16th to the 19th (early 20th) centuries. Over these three centuries, European society has come a long way in development, covering all spheres of human life:

• Economic.
• Political.
• Social.
• Technological.
• Spiritual.

The process of gradual innovation is called modernization.

The transition to an industrial society is characterized by:

1. Division of labor. This is what caused an increase in production, as well as the formation of two economic classes: the proletariat (wage workers) and the bourgeoisie (capitalists). The result of the division of labor was the formation of a new economic system - capitalism.
2. Colonialism - the domination of developed European countries over the economically backward states of the East. It is clear that the colonialist exploits human and Natural resources dependent country.
3. Advances in science and engineering inventions have changed people's lives.

Industrial society is characterized by the following features

• Urbanization.
• The transition to capitalism.
• The emergence of a consumer society.
• Education of the global market.
• Reducing the influence of the church on a person’s life.
• Formation of mass culture.
• The enormous influence of science on people's lives.
• The emergence of two new classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
• Decrease in the number of peasants.
• Industrialization.
• Changing the worldview of people (human individuality is the highest value).

Industrial revolution in European countries

As stated earlier, industrial society characterized by industrialization. Let us list one by one the countries of the Old World in which this process took place:

1. England is first European country on the path of progress. Already in the 16th century, the flying shuttle and the steam engine were invented. The 17th century can generally be called the century of invention: the first steam locomotive made its way from Manchester to Liverpool. In 1837, scientists Cook and Winston created the electromagnetic telegraph.

2. France “lost” a little in the industrialization of England due to strong feudal orders. However, the past revolution of 1789-1794 changed the situation: machines appeared, and weaving began to actively develop. The 18th century is notable for the development of the textile and ceramic industries. The final stage of French industrialization is the emergence of mechanical engineering. To summarize, we can say that France became the second country to choose the capitalist path of development.

3. Germany lagged significantly behind the pace of modernization of its predecessors. The German industrial type of society is characterized by the appearance of the steam engine in the mid-19th century. As a result, the pace industrial development Germany gained impressive momentum, and the country became the leader in production in Europe.

What do traditional and industrial societies have in common?

These two fundamentally different ways of life have identical features. Traditional and industrial society are characterized by:

• the presence of an economic and political sphere;
• apparatus of power;
• - observed in any type of social relations, since all people are different, regardless of the era.

Economics of an industrial society

Compared to the agrarian relations of the Middle Ages, the economy of modern times was more productive.

How is the economy of an industrial society characterized and what distinguishes it?

• Mass production.
• Development of the banking sector..
• Origin of credit.
• The emergence of a global market.
• Cyclical crises (for example, overproduction).
• The class struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie.

A prerequisite for serious economic changes became the division of labor, which contributed to the growth of productivity.

The English economist Adam Smith described this perfectly. He gave an example of the production of pins, in which one can clearly understand what the “division of labor” is.

An experienced craftsman produces only 20 pins per day. If you divide the production process into simple operations, each of which will be performed by a separate worker, labor productivity will increase many times. As a result, it turns out that a team of 10 people produces about 48 thousand pins!

Social structure

Industrial society is characterized by the following features that have changed daily life of people:

• population explosion;
• increasing life expectancy;
• baby boom (40-50s of the twentieth century);
• environmental deterioration (with the development of industry, harmful emissions increase);
• the emergence of a partner family instead of a traditional one - consisting of parents and children;
• complicated social structure;
• social inequality between people.

Mass culture

What characterizes an industrial society, besides capitalism and industrialization? it is an integral part of it.

Kept up with the emergence of sound recording technologies, cinema, radio and other means mass media- they united the tastes and preferences of most people.

Mass culture is simple and understandable to all segments of the population; its goal is to evoke a certain emotional response from a person. It is designed to satisfy fleeting requests, as well as to entertain people.

Here are examples of popular culture:

• Women's novels.
• Glossy magazines.
• Comics.
• Series.
• Detectives and science fiction.

The genres of literature indicated in the last paragraph are traditionally classified as mass culture. But some social scientists do not share this point of view. For example, “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” is a series of detective stories written in artistic language and having many meanings. But Alexandra Marinina’s books can easily be classified as mass culture - they are easy to read and have a clear plot.

What kind of society do we live in?

Western sociologists have introduced such a concept as information (post-industrial) society. Its values ​​are knowledge, the development of information technology, the safety of people and care for our big home - the wonderful green Earth.

Indeed, knowledge plays an increasingly important role in our lives, and information Technology touched almost every person.

But, despite this, industry continues to operate, cars burn gasoline, and potatoes are still being collected in the fall 100 years ago. The industrial type of society, as mentioned earlier, is characterized precisely by industry. And harvesting potatoes is Agriculture which arose in time immemorial.

Therefore, the name of today's era “post-industrial” is a beautiful abstraction. It would be more logical to call our society industrial with features of an information society.

Industrial society is characterized by many useful discoveries and human visits to space.

The amount of knowledge accumulated today is enormous; another thing is that it can either benefit humanity or cause harm. We hope that a person will have enough intelligence to apply the accumulated potential of knowledge in the right direction.