Psychology and sociology/13.

PhD in Sociology, assistant professor A. I. P'yanov

The North-Caucasian federal university, Russia

THE SYSTEM-ACTIVE APPROACH AS METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH OF THE FAMILY

Now at studying of any difficult natural or social object the modern scientific tradition turns us to the system approach. The system approach became one of the most powerful methodological regulates, has turned in second half of XX-th century to dominating informative model. It is necessary to notice that this fact is not up to the end realized, as still insufficiently understanding of a role of informative models as fundamental informative конструктов. «The cognitive model, represents the invariant structures lying in the basis of interaction and development of sciences, at this or that stage of development of the scientific knowledge, representing itself as constructive means of the cognitive activity, combining of abstract with is evident-sign forms the representations focused on revealing steady, general and necessary, setting complete representation about levels of the organisation of scientific knowledge, a way of statement of problems, analytical units and a picture of the world for scientific community at this or that stage of development of a science» [4, p. 250].

The science history shows us consecutive origin and the statement, and then change of the various cognitive models dominating at concrete stages of its development. Proceeding from it, we can assert that the XX-th century has brought to a science formation of new system informative model. The sight at the nature and society from positions системности has led to essential transformation and change ontologic, gnoseological, axiological and active installations and orientations.

In modern methodology concept of system plays an important role of one of leading principles of integration of scientific knowledge. On its basis possibility for realisation of integration of various informative approaches to the analysis of objective formations of the validity is created. The matter is that vision of objects of reality as systems, their complete multilevel interrelation and interdependence no means always are the obvious fact. As a rule, it should be revealed in cognitive movement, to isolate and prove. Finding-out of internal mechanisms of structural organisation of objects of the validity and their functional variability allows to concretize at system level of a tendency and law of evolutionary process, character of interaction of various factors of evolution.

In social and the humanities the methodological principle of systems promotes association different theoretical конструктов, to an establishment of ways of their synthesis, judgment of their mutual addition. But «it can be effective only under condition of organic, instead of their mechanical crossing, that is such which does not destroy complete life, functioning and development of the most difficult – anthropo-socio-cultural systems» [2, p. 61].

At the beginning the system approach usually named system-structural, and it was quite often really reduced to the structural analysis of social objects – from here the concept «structuralism» precisely designating this phase of system researches. Then necessity to connect the structural analysis with the functional began to be realized.

In the system approach, studying social systems, it is possible to consider as the most widespread direction the concept of a structural functionalism developed by American sociologist Talcott Parsons where institutional interaction is considered as a subject of sociology [3]. Its concept constructed on a principle of correlation of society and social action, that methodological approach which in it is put, allows comprehensively, in a complex to represent a society, concerning allocated spheres and subsystems, such as social, personal, cultural etc.

However, the system approach in the «functional» interpretation predetermines domination «whole» over the parts, elements. Parsons especially accented integrity of a society as societal systems. Thereby it affirmed of holism which as the principle of the organisation of social systems was criticized by Karl Popper [4, pp. 25–27; p. 116, p. 138]. Holism predetermines extreme «objectivation» social life which does not leave a place to the social organisations and their main element – homo activus as to the social actor (the subject of social action), to its motives, requirements, will on which the orientation of social processes and their changes in many respects depends.

Besides, T. Parsons, considered a society as the stable system which is in an equilibrium state [5]. It has ignored formation, development and deviations of social system from a condition of homeostasis is concerning stable equilibrium. About it known Russian scientist Moses Kagan specified that «if in studied by Talcott Parsons and its followers social systems the analysis can be distracted from consideration of their development – the evolutionary approach here is facultative, at studying of activity of the person or a family and their realisation in culture – historical by the most nature – the evolutionary approach it is necessary to consider systems immanent system, a plane of knowledge necessary for it. Moreover, including evolution by the general property of life, it is necessary to understand and consider, that, first, development is the higher form of evolution, and history – the higher and rather specific form of the development. Therefore it is lawful to consider that the history is the development form anthropo-socio-cultural systems. It is obviously not enough for their knowledge and structural and functional approaches» [2, p. 62–63]. For behind frameworks of the structurally functional analysis there are processes of self-organizing of social systems, not enough place is given to developments, and also everything that with this development is connected. The designated lacks impose restriction on studying of the social phenomena and processes as the whole class of communications and the elements having dialectically inconsistent, disputed basis which is authorized in the course of change and system development at once drops out of a field of vision of the researcher.

Three key concepts (system, the organisation, integrity) underlie development of the system approach. Proceeding from the basic types of communication of real objects of the validity, their orderliness can be studied in different aspects: spatial (structural), functional and historical (time). Therefore «as integral parts of the system approach it is necessary to consider the structural, functional, genetic (historical) analysis» [6, p. 104]. The system approach should assume the account and synthesis of the knowledge received at studying of real objects of the validity. From the methodological point of view this conclusion has rather great value as it shows limitation of data of system researches only to structural and functional, opens wide methodological open space for association of various cognitive approaches. In this connection there is a requirement for all-round studying anthropo-socio-cultural systems on a basis construction of the uniting concept of the system approach in the sociology, capable to capture their dynamics and statics.

For integration of cognitive approaches, «the uniform methodological basis in which quality can act … the system approach, but not in described “traditional”, structurally functional, and in updated “neoclassical" variant» [7, p. 11]. This approach in sociology to research anthropo-socio-cultural systems should be based on following methodological principles: systems, activity, development and determinism.

The principle of systems appears as a way of realisation of the complete approach to object, promotes «to association of different theoretical ideas, in particular, to the theory of development and the self-organizing theory, an establishment of ways of their synthesis, to judgment of their mutual addition» [8, p. 75].

The synergetic concerns theories of self-organizing of systems. It has appeared in reply to objective requirement for new knowledge for 70th years of the XX-th century in the West (Hermann Haken). In our country the synergetrics was recognized at once as a new direction in development of scientific knowledge (S. Kurdyumov, E. Knyazeva, etc.). The logic of development of creative thought has made synergetrics development of the theory of systems as a subject of its research are processes of self-organising, disorganization and reorganization of the spontaneous open systems subject to co-operative effect. If the system approach is based on a principle of systems, the self-organizing theory – on a development principle. Both principles mutually supplement each other and form the unity reflected in knowledge which is expressed that self-organising theories are based on methodology and theoretical conclusions of system researches.

Here it is necessary to notice that in the plan for development of methodology of the system analysis the synergetrics has replaced the sputtered out linear thinking which basic lines are representation about chaos as exclusively destructive factor and about accident, as the minor factor of development. System including social, has been allocated by such characteristics as nonlinearity of development, instability, presence of dissipative structures, structures-streams and other that has allowed to describe difficult processes of change and development of social systems [9]. But became obvious and that Ilya Prigozhin's concept is in a greater degree applicable for conditions of open systems far from balance and special value it get when the system comes nearer to a bifurcation point in the development [10, p. 147]. The given position gets certain methodological aspect – gives the chance to investigate from new theoretical positions ability to live processes of anthropo-socio-cultural systems which are in crisis conditions.

Most a challenge at research anthropo-socio-cultural systems is system interpretation of human activity which appears at researchers as «ball of fire». The description of these «power» formations in «rest» and «movement» demands allocation of «objective» and «subject» subsystems. Rest will mean here conformity of these subsystems, and movement – their mismatch. Therefore with reference to them it is necessary to differentiate concepts «communication» (as the objective formation generated by human activity), and «relation» (as the subjective formation reflecting this activity through individual, group and public value-standard constructs) [11]. In this case, with reference to studying anthropo-socio-cultural systems, application of such methodological principle, such research approach which promotes deeper and complete examination of human activity, social dynamics is necessary and incorporates to a principle of systems in a single whole. It is an activity principle, or the active approach to consideration of social objects.

Till certain time system and active approaches were opposed as opposite and mutually exclusive each other. Only from works of known Russian scientists I. Kuznetsov and E. Yudin the understanding of that it is lawful to speak not only about structure of objects of the validity, but also processes of their development for «development – an essence dynamic system of systems (super system) of the contradictions having at present the measure of unity and struggle» [12, p. 13]. It, in turn, demands synthesis of two approaches – system and active – at research of difficult developing objects. Since then active a component becomes an important component at studying of the social systems, not lost the value and today.

From a position of the system-active approach anthropo-socio-cultural system represents dynamically developing social object in which the weight of the processes changing not only components making it, but also him as system integrity proceeds.

As process in the scientific literature understand or «consecutive change of conditions, changes in development something, or set of the consecutive actions directed on achievement of certain results» [13, p. 612].

That all processes in society are objectively created by human activity is axiomatic. Therefore at research anthropo-socio-cultural systems through the human activity defining dynamics of their development, it is necessary to reveal communications which exist between its separate stages already created potential etc. An activity principle however is rationally spent allows to allocate subsystems of society, spheres of public life which unite in the certificates of action made by social actors (individuals, social groups, the organisations, institutes) and to consider communications between them. Concerning these made actions relations between them also are under construction.

Allocation of subsystems of society is under construction by kinds of object of activity, that is that changes will be transformed more often. Thus, in a society material and spiritual subsystems where economic, political, social, cultural and ideological processes [14 p. 24]. And components of both these subsystems of society participate in each process. Besides, as at activity structure inevitably there are the purposes of the figure reflecting an ideal or optimum condition of a desirable situation for it, that, accordingly, it is possible to speak and about the valuable bases of corresponding behaviour of the person. In turn these bases can be considered as standard base of an estimation of this activity. And, at last, it is obvious that the active schemes presented in economic, political, social, spiritual spheres of ability to live of a society, are more concrete in comparison with the general scheme of activity as this general scheme is the limiting form of generalization. Therefore at studying anthropo-socio-cultural systems as difficult, dynamically developing social objects should be started with unity of two principles: system and active.

But, formation of theoretical model anthropo-socio-cultural systems at an explanation of their activity, shows that it is obviously not enough unity of these two principles. Connecting behaviour of the person with satisfaction requirements, it is impossible to explain, how these requirements arise, are formed. Therefore it is necessary to use and the dialectic principle of a determinism underlying the historical (genetic) approach. This principle explains internal sources, mechanisms of development of the systems, connected with their variability (15). This it is determination (causal conditionality) speaks causal and natural communications of development of elements anthropo-socio-cultural systems of which they consist, the program of change of complete objective formations of reality, proceeding from their biological and social nature.

Thus, the system approach which is based on principles of system, activity, development and a determinism, accumulating in itself methodology of integrated researches, represents itself as informative model of sociological research of anthropo-socio-cultural systems to which, undoubtedly, to concern a family.

Being the specific social generality acting as the cumulative subject of activity in historical development of a society, the family represents organic unity of social structure, the social organisation and culture.

As social structure the family can be presented in three aspects. First, the family is set of individuals united by a matrimony – parentship – relationship (consanguinity); secondly, as hierarchy social roles and statuses; thirdly, as set of norms and the values defining character and the maintenance of behaviour of elements of given system.

The family as the special form of the social organisation of ability to live of people develops on the basis of joint versatile activity, mutual moral responsibility and mutual aid. Purpose installation of a family is shown in the organised interaction of subjects making it, and its social essence is expressed in steady set of the inter subject relations arising in the course of joint activity, necessary for satisfaction of biological and social requirements of individuals and societal requirements of a society, keeping that its existential continuity. Realizing the functions of a unique social generality, the family reflects three basic spheres of social relations: 1) the individual, 2) group), 3) institutional.

Logic result of these reasonings is representation about a family as anthropo-socio-cultural system having three-level structure. On the first, societal level, it acts as the social institute which is carrying out a number of functions in relation to society, first of all reproduction of the population and socialization of generations. The second level – a family as small social group, that is actually a family. Here it acts as the cumulative subject of activity and the carrier of collective consciousness. The third level – the person where the family acts as the special sphere of its ability to live and urged to satisfy biological, social and spiritual needs of the person.

Proceeding from told, application of the system approach in its such maintenance in family sociology allows:

1) adequately to display in conceptual models of theoretical character the system nature of the family completely embodying its dialectically interconnected forms (social institute, the small social group, a specific socially-psychological generality of individuals) as object of sociological research;

2) to provide integration of objectivistic and subjectivistic paradigms of knowledge organically having connected macro- and micro- levels of its sociological analysis.

Advantage of system and active approaches to sociological research of a family consists that possibility of coexistence of set of theories and the concepts designed within the limits of a metatheory the system theory representing not that others as «the interdisciplinary approach» appears what, as a matter of fact, is created. This approach to sociological research of a family removes isolation of the subject and object, the individual and a family, a family and a society within dichotomizing opposition; it appears the integrated methodological basis binding the theory of social structures and the theory of social changes.

Besides, system research of a family applies for studying of nonlinear interactions, on the account of complete parameters of a family as institute and group. According to Anatoly Antonov which we entirely divide, «integrity of interaction of a subsystem of a family as small group with its ecosystem – social institute of a family means that the separate family can be understood dialectically only in connection with other families – subsystems, that is in correlation with a phenomenon of social institute of a family, instead of in itself, not as isolated something. Each subsystem of a family is connected with all others in a certain hierarchical composition of transformations and changes so that functioning of separate level leans against previous level and is determined by the subsequent» (16, p. 27–28). Therefore, by working out of programs of fundamental sociological researches of social changes of institute of a family the system approach is irreplaceable.

It is necessary to note one more aspect of application of the system analysis of a family – cognitive aspect. Recognizing set of family systems in a domesticity universum, it is necessary to recognize and sets of ways of studying of this world of a family, set of designs of a family reality. The system approach facilitates synthesis and integration of these various interpretations thanks to dialectics inherent in it – to ability «to connect unjoinable». Connection of different views together, but without uniformity (a collapse of scientific search) is achievable at maintenance of interaction of various prospects.

Thus, the system-active approach gives the chance to realisation of a principle of mutual addition of schools of thought and opinions. Here the understanding of dialectic interrelation between an ontologic reality of a family and its simultaneous designing as existing reality is important. This approach avoids extreme measures as does not treat knowledge of a social reality of a family as «purely» objective truth or as «a subjective» reality. He assumes correlation presence between structures of informative certificates and reality structures. Therefore the maintenance of various «subjective» interpretations, it is possible to consider conditionally (before occurrence of new informative model) as an objective truth. Certainly, the system-active approach within the limits of sociology of a family does not remove at once all problems, but it gives possibility for the further scientific creativity.

References

1. Karpinsky R., Liseev I., Ogurtsov A. Philosophy of Nature: co-evolutionary strategy. – Moscow, 1995. – 352 pp.

2. Kagan M. Heritage of Ludwig von Bertalanffy and a problem of application of the system approach in sphere of humanitarian knowledge // The System approach in a modern science / ed. I. Liseev and V. Sadovsky. – Мoscow: Progres- Traditsia, 2004. – P. 53 – 68.

3. Parsons Т. About structure of social action. – Мoscow: Academicheskyi proekt, 2000. – 880 pp.

4. Popper K. Poverty of historicism. – Мoscow: Progres, 1993. – 187 pp.; The Open society and its enemies // Time of lying prophets: Gegel, Marx and other oracles / ed. V. Sadovsky. – Мoscow: Feniks, 1992. – 528 pp.

5. Parsons Т. Some problems of the general theory in sociology // Modern western theoretical sociology. – Мoscow, 1994. – P. 79 – 103.

6. Mikulich T. The system-historical approach in ethnographic researches // News of National academy of Sciences of Belarus. – Minsk. – 1998. No 2. – P. 103 –108.

7. Kluchnikov S. System-active-genetic methodology of the society analysis in a control system // the Bulletin of the Samara state university. – 2006. – No. 8 (48). – P. 9 – 14.

8. Liseev I. System cognitive model and a modern science // The System approach in a modern science / ed. I. Liseev and V. Sadovsky. – Мoscow: Progres, 2004. – P. 6 – 80.

9. Prigozhin I., Stengers I. Order from chaos: New dialogue of the person with the nature / ed. V. Arshinov and Ju. Klimontovich, Ju. Sachkov. – Мoscow: Progres, 1986. – 432 pp.

10. Borodkin L. Bifurcations in processes of evolution of the nature and a society: the general and especial in I. Prigozhin's estimation (The association Newsletter «History and the computer»). – URL: http://kleio.asu.ru/aik/bullet/29/20.html.

11. Kagan M. Life and non-existence metamorphoses. Ontology in it is system-synergetic judgment. – St.-Petersburg: Logos, 2006. – 416 pp.

12. Novak I. System style of thinking. – Мoscow: Nauka, 1986. – 270 pp.

13. The encyclopaedic sociological dictionary / ed. G. Osipov. – Мoscow: Nauka, 1995. – 939 pp.

14. Marx К. German ideology: Criticism of the newest German philosophy in the name of its representatives of Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner and a German socialism in the name of its various prophets / Marx К, Engels F. Compositions. – 2nd edition. – V. 3. – Мoscow: Politicheskaya literatura, 1955. – P. 16 – 49.

15. Jakovets J. Cycles. Crises. Forecasts. – Мoscow: Nauka, 1999. – P. 21 – 34.

16. Family sociology: the textbook for high schools / ed. A. Antonov. – Мoscow: INFA-M, 2007. – 640 pp.