Social consciousness as determìnanta State development


Valery Žovtâns′ka,
Institute of social and political psychology of Ukraine

Social consciousness as determìnanta State development

Identifying the determinants of social development is one of the main and intriguing tasks socìogumanìtarnoï. Thanks to the priority role of Marxism in the interpretation of social phenomena in our science for a long time was dominated by the idea that these determinants are rooted in the so-called "material basis". But in the post-Soviet period, when Marxism is already slowly descended from the avansceni, this opinion, at least initially, not lost their dominant positions. This was due to the fact that the development of capitalism and the market economic factors has been paid much attention. While the psychological foundations of social development were looked on quietly as minor. The main practical task of social psychology then vbačalosâ primarily in napracûvannì mechanisms of adaptation to the new social conditions.

Seems now more than ever, getting a clear view that there is no "new social conditions outside the new public consciousness. And that changes in this awareness are crucial to the formation and establishment of new social formations. It became notable because of the changes in public opinion in the post-Soviet space are held by historical standards so quickly that not to notice them, and together with him and their social consequences, it becomes almost impossible.

In other words, it is the so-called "ideological superstructure", not "material basis" should be considered as the main factor in social development. Recall that Marks this factor considered production capacity and relationships, but for ideology depart the role of a secondary factor, which was to justify and PIN profitable celebrities class distribution [1]. This model is quite socìogenezu is consistent with the materialistic postulate about the ontological primacy of being over consciousness, but it is clearly not capable of explaining the social conflicts that we can observe in the world today.

I'm not going to say that ideology, more ideological teachings, cannot be used by the elites for power (this will be discussed separately). But the adoption is the rejection of these studies society, as well as making – rejection of it of a social system, it depends on the requests, desires, beliefs, values and norms of this society, that is, depend on the substantive characteristics of the mass consciousness. By the way, complex views and expectations regarding social structure (how it should be and how to achieve), adopted in the social group called the ideology in psychological science [2]. That is not necessarily ideological teachings offered by the elites of the society (although, in some cases, and perhaps they are, that they will be taken and divided society). I advocate the thesis that these are presented in the society the ideology, and not "material basis" is the primary determìnantoû ìstorìogenezu. Therefore, the contents of the peculiarities of public consciousness, and, above all, the ideological, we will be seen as a source of social principles, and in particular, the State of development.
Of course, to a certain extent the question of priority of consciousness or being (or ideology or material basis) is a question of the chicken and the egg, and it should always be considered dialectical. But since the "objective" factors long came to the fore in the scientific analysis of the social development, would like more attention to be paid to exactly the opposite element of a dialectic pair.
Also, going from the abstract philosophical problems to a specific social practices, you should note the following. When democratic State system the role of the public mind comes to the fore. In fact, here the power and leverage of the Board belongs to demosu and that of his social views, from its responsibility and competence depends on how to develop the society.

The guarantee of rights and freedoms, that exists in modern liberal democracies, provides a minimum of restrictions, at least the dictates of the State to the citizen. Such a model of social system will be viable only if the citizen together with freedoms will have responsibility. In other words, a minimum of external control must be kompensovanim maximum internal control – a voluntary observance of a citizen of the norms of morality and his high sense of Justice.

This means, firstly, that the citizen should be formed prosocìal′na value system, which will prevail over the possible situativnimi antisocìal′nimi interests. Under such conditions the implementation of the laws is the result not of fear of punishment, and personal beliefs. Secondly, voluntary subordination of the law means that the law is made by a citizen as something proper, not as an external forcing has been established. This, in turn, is possible only on the condition if the regulations are the result of social contract passed by the citizens and the State. That is, the citizen is subject to pravotvorennâ, and can directly or indirectly influence the acceptance or change legislative acts, and even the most public of the principles presented in the Constitution. That is, we come to that for the effective functioning of a democratic society, a citizen must be active and competent entity.

This is, of course, does not mean that in a democratic society, all its members ideal, do not violate the law and etc. Just antisocìal′nì citizens in real functioning democracies remain in the margins. But if the number starts to exceed a certain critical value, then it is society very quickly degenerates into such themselves facade democracy. First of all this is evident in the spread in society – the uncontrolled violence (reketu, banditry, etc), bribery, a different kind of economic transactions, later after a combination of the criminal world and uncontrolled society elites – in classical foreign model of socio-economic relations, which are very common in the modern world.

It is easy to see that it is this way of functioning society was inherent in time most of the countries of the post-Soviet space. As it turned out, the overthrow of totalitarian system still does not necessarily guarantee the transition to social development, such as the Western democracies. And it is easy to explain. The thing is that the population of post-Soviet countries for the most part not a few of those values, attitudes, responsibility and competence, which could provide such complex and at the same time so simple, a fulfillment of certain conditions, the way of functioning of democratic communities.

However, the corrupt model of polity is not very stable due to its obvious social and economic inefficiency. To exit from its complex Web browser, there are two ways. The first is the transition to an open society, which is possible only after the accumulation of social experience and, as a consequence, significant shifts in mass consciousness (i.e., "growing up" society). Actually, this is just one way that now tries to go to Ukraine. The second way is going beyond even the façade of democracy.

The latter option is also widely common in the modern world. The thing is that if society is not ready to control himself well, then it very quickly asked for "a strong hand", and the lack of internal control by external. Most often this is implemented in the authoritarian model of Government. But interesting is that, and this way the social system is unstable, and this is due to two reasons.

First, it will always be the execution of a population that will not be satisfied with strict methods of the Board, and the restriction of civil rights and freedoms. Usually this punishment turns the intelligentsia, which usually has the ability to manifest their position. In the future everything will depend on the capacity of this penalty, its role and authority in society, as well as how offered her views, norms and values will be taken by wide sections of the population.

The second reason is, again, not too high effectiveness of this method of Board cost will always play the free market democracies. In addition, the authoritarian model very often turns out to be zroŝenoû with korupcìjnoû. How could the top avtoritarnìj "rein" nerinkovì scheme, largely depends on the viability of such regimes. As an example, we can recall the Ukrainian realities times prezidenstva Viktor Yanukovych, which constantly hurled accusations of corruption in the system, and of the Board ended up povalennâm a bit low, but an authoritarian regime. Instead, the authoritarian reign of a. Lukashenka in Belarus, which manages to curb or at least cover the foreign component, is quite sustainable.

But, in any case, the power of the authoritarian regime in the world today are always under threat because nearby presented more competitive social model. Sometimes after the overthrow of the authoritarian reign of society again finds himself in a situation of total corruption (as, for example, was with Ukraine after the Orange Revolution), or anarchy (as is now happening in Libya). Sometimes the country quite a long walk in a circle between attempts to build democracy, ending an economic debacle, and authoritarian regime that is able to "clean up" for a while, but later also breaks down under the onslaught of discontent (in such a circle often turned countries in Africa and Latin America).

Of course, the authoritarian elites interested in preserving their power, but, as already mentioned, strategically, these modes are very vulnerable and unstable. Only their potential way to survival, due to the lack of economic resources is a resource of the ideological. The issue is just about the way of using ideology to preserve the supremacy of elites, quite by Marx. But there might not any ideology, but only antilìberal′nì – those that lay claim to the primacy of the State over the individual. A sekulârnogo society for these purposes suitable only two options – ul′tralìvì or far-right ideology. The first version used the authoritarian power of modern Russia, which seized the revanšists′kimi rituals and cultural crisis in the country for preserving and strengthening its position on the basis of the ideology of the "Russian world". However most of the authoritarian regimes of the world today enjoy more rich in content and outside more attractive by the Communist ideology (Cuba, China, North Korea, etc.).

It should be noted that, for all the outside neshožostì in terms of social implementation of ul′traprava and ul′tralìva ideology is quite similar. Both choose the external or internal enemy (racial, class, cultural, actually, is the other), which are credited with existing in the country, or the world in General, problems. Such contrasting himself to another allows you to consolidate society, and around power, and shift the focus of attention from urgent problems in another plane. It is clear that a society that is ready for the introduction of such a ìnterpretativnu scheme, must have a low level of social competence, and also not too high value individual freedom and sub'êktnìst′ to give the Government a mandate to almost unlimited brazdi Board. Authoritarianism, armed with ideology, is converted into totalitarianism is significantly more stable form of social order.

Conclusion. You can select the following aspects of public consciousness, which define the nature of the social structure of the State: social competence, orientation to civil rights and freedoms, sub'êktnìst′ (civil activity and responsibility), prosocìal′na system of values.

Literature

1. Маркс, К., Енгельс Ф. (1955). Сочинения (Т. 3). М.: Политиздат.
2. Jost, J.T, Federico, C.M, Napier, J.L. (2009). Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337.