home

Personality, society and state problems of relationship. Public opinion: current problems of the state and society. What we learned

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Non-state autonomous non-profit educational organization higher professional education

"ST. PETERSBURG INSTITUTE

HUMANITIES EDUCATION"

(SPbIGO)

Facultyjurisprudence

Departmenttheory and history of law and state

Course work

Bydiscipline "Ttheories of state and law»

Subject:

“The problem of the relationship between the state and the individual and society»

Performed: 1st year student

full-time education

Popova Daria Dmitrievna

Checked:

Ger Oleg Evgenievich

St. Petersburg 2014

Introduction

1.Basic concepts: State, individual, society

1.1 The concept of the state, its characteristics

1.2 The concept of society, its brief description

1.3 The concept of personality, its characteristics

2. The problem of relations between the state and society

3. Three concepts of the relationship between the state and the individual in the context of human rights problems

4.Civil society and the rule of law: ways of formation

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

This topic has been relevant for a long period of time. The problem of the relationship between the state and the individual and society as a whole has existed since the times when only the first states appeared. The state is the only legitimate public institution designed to regulate social relations. Over the entire period of existence of this independent centralized social political organization There have been many changes in its structure, the state is developing and progressing together with the development of society and the individual. These phenomena are inextricably linked with each other, and it is difficult to imagine the existence of one without the other, just as it is impossible for each of the phenomena to exist outside of time and space.

The issue of the relationship between the state and the individual and society is considered by various disciplines, in particular, philosophy, political science, psychology, and therefore this topic You can look at it from different angles and draw your own conclusions.

The purpose and objectives of this work are: research of the topic, analysis of found works and studies from other sources on this issue.

Main tasks course work appeared:

1) Selection of materials;

2) Finding the problem;

3) Finding ways to solve problems in a given topic;

4) Conclusions and expression of one’s own position on the issue under study.

In this work, the following research methods are used: method of analysis, deduction, induction, synthesis.

1. Basic concepts: State, personality, society

1 . 1 The concept of the state, its characteristics. Origin

I would like to start this research work with the basics, that is, with definitions and general characteristics.

The term " state"is usually used in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, the state is identified with society, with a specific country. In a narrow sense, the state is understood as one of the institutions of the political system that has supreme power in society.

A state can be defined as a social organization that has ultimate power over all people living within the boundaries of a certain territory, and has as its main goal the solution common problems and ensuring the common good while maintaining, above all, order.

State power is sovereign, i.e. supreme, in relation to all organizations and individuals within the country, as well as independent, independent in relation to other states. The state is the official representative of the entire society, all its members, called citizens.

General characteristics of the state:

1) The presence of a certain territory - the jurisdiction of the state (the right to hold court and resolve legal issues) is determined by its territorial borders. Within these boundaries, the power of the state extends to all members of society

2) Sovereignty - the state is completely independent in internal affairs and in the conduct of foreign policy;

3) Variety of resources used - the state accumulates the main power resources to exercise its powers;

4) Striving to represent the interests of the entire society -- the state acts on behalf of the whole society, and not individuals or social groups;

5) Monopoly on legitimate violence - the state has the right to use force to enforce laws and punish their violators;

6) The right to collect taxes - the state establishes and collects various taxes and fees from the population, which are used to finance government agencies and solving various management problems;

7) The public nature of power - the state ensures the protection of public interests, not private ones. When implementing public policy Usually there are no personal relations between the authorities and citizens;

8) The presence of symbols - the state has its own signs of statehood - a flag, coat of arms, anthem, special symbols and attributes.

The state is initially a purely functional institution, which, unlike society as an end-to-end system, is created for some reason, for some purpose.

The main functions of the state can be divided into external and internal. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

· Ensuring national security;

· Upholding state and national interests in the international sphere;

· Development of mutually beneficial cooperation;

· Participation in solving global problems;

Internal:

· Political (ensuring conditions for the activities of other political institutions, order in society);

Economic (regulation economic relations and structural changes in the economy, incl. nationalization, privatization;

· Social (programs for the development of education, healthcare, social security and cultural support);

· Ideological (education of members of society, formation of civic and patriotic values through education and the media).

The state, as F. Engels wrote, is “invented” by people. People cannot sleep in a society in which this institution does not exist, and cannot wake up in a system of public administration that has come from nowhere. With the emergence of the state, society and the state begin to exist in inextricable unity.

The state, the individual and society are constantly changing and developing organisms, as a result of which the nature of their relationships also undergoes constant changes.

The state appears at a certain stage of development of society as a political organization, as an institution of power and management of society.

There are many concepts of the emergence of the state, several of which we will now consider for a deeper understanding of the essence of this organization.

· Theological theory of the origin of the state

It became widespread in the 13th century thanks to the work of Thomas Aquinas. According to this theory, in its essence the state is the result of the manifestation of both divine will and human will. State power, by the way it is acquired and used, can be ungodly and tyrannical; in this case, it is allowed by God. The advantages of this theory are that it explains the ideal of state power, which aligns its decisions with the highest religious principles, which imposes special responsibility on it and raises its authority in the eyes of society, contributes to the establishment of social order and spirituality. Theological theory is universal in nature, since it contains not only an anthropological, but also a metaphysical dimension in explaining the origin of the state.

· Paternalistic theory

From the word pater - father. In this theory, there is a direct relationship between the state and the family. For example, Confucius, interpreting the emperor as the “son of Heaven” and the executor of the will of Heaven, at the same time likened the power of the emperor to the power of the head of the family, and the state to a large family. Governance of the state, in his opinion, should be built like governance of a family - based on the norms of virtue, the care of elders for the younger, filial devotion and respect of the younger towards the elder. Also, paternalistic views were reflected in Russian political history, a traditional component of which was the belief of large sections of the population in the “Tsar-Father” and in all authorities as “their own father.” The advantages of this theory lie in the formation of respect for government power. The disadvantages are the denial of the specifics of the state and state power, their qualitative difference from the family and paternal power.

The most famous representatives of the patriarchal theory of the origin of the state include Aristotle, Filmer, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others. They substantiated the fact that people are collective beings, striving for mutual communication, leading to the emergence of a family. Subsequent development and expansion of the family as a result of the unification of people and an increase in the number of these families ultimately leads to the formation of a state.

· Organic concepts of the origin of the state

Ш The theory of Auguste Comte.

According to Comte, society (and, consequently, the state) is an organic whole, the structure, functioning and evolution of which is studied by sociology. In this case, sociology is based on the laws of biology, the operation of which in society undergoes a certain modification due to the unique interaction of individuals and the impact of previous generations on subsequent ones. The main task of sociology as a positive science, which replaced previous theological and metaphysical views, is to substantiate the ways and means of harmonizing society, establishing the organic connection between “order” and “progress”.

Sh Theory of Herbert Spencer.

Spencer interprets the state as a part of nature, which develops like an animal embryo, and in the entire history of human civilization, the natural animal principle dominates over the social (and political) principle. Like an animal organism, a social organism grows and develops by integrating its components, complications of its structure, differentiation of functions, etc. At the same time, in social life, as in nature, the fittest organism survives. In the spirit of the law of evolution, Spencer interprets the pre-state state of society, the emergence and functioning of political organization and political power in a military type society and a gradual transition to an industrial type society, state and law. Moreover, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of adherents of the organic approach, Spencer developed liberal-individualist political views and saw the goal of the social organism not in absorbing its members, but in serving them.

Ш Theory of legal positivism

This theory is based on the proclamation of law as the result of an imperious command, an order of the sovereign to the subject. The state is positioned as the sovereign. Legal regulation within the framework of this theory should be carried out in accordance with the historical patterns of functioning of a politically organized society. Legal regulation is based on legalism - law in the objective sense as a system of generally binding legal norms. Regulation can be positive and negative: positive implies ordering public relations with the help of legal norms, objectified in official sources, and negative legal regulation represents the silence of the legislator and the permission of subjects to act at their own discretion. Proponents of the theory of legal positivism - G. Kelsen, D. Austin, S. Amos, G.F. Shershenevich, S.A. Drobyshevsky

· Treaty concepts of state origins

These concepts are based on natural law ideas about the contractual origin of the state. According to Epicurus, “justice, which comes from nature, is an agreement about the useful - with the goal of not harming each other and not suffering harm.” Consequently, the state arose as a result of a social contract on the rules cohabitation, according to which people transfer part of their rights inherent to them from birth to the state as a body representing their common interests, and the state, in turn, undertakes to ensure human rights. The advantages of these concepts are that they have a deep democratic content, justifying the natural rights of the people to form state power, as well as to overthrow it. The disadvantages are that objective external factors influencing states (socio-economic, military-political) are ignored.

· Violent concepts of the origin of the state

These concepts are based on ideas about the emergence of the state as a result of violence (internal or external), for example, through the conquest of weak and defenseless tribes by stronger and more organized ones, that is, the state is not the result of internal development, but a force imposed from the outside, an apparatus of coercion. The advantages of these concepts are that elements of violence were indeed inherent in the process of the emergence of some states. The disadvantages are that in addition to military-political factors, there are also socio-economic factors in the region.

· Marxist concept of the origin of the state

According to this concept, the state is the result of changes in socio-economic relations, the mode of production, the result of the emergence of classes and the intensification of the struggle between them. It acts as a means of oppressing people, maintaining the dominance of one class over others. However, with the destruction of classes, the state also withers away. The advantages of this concept are that it is based on the socio-economic factor of society, the disadvantages are the underestimation of national, religious, psychological, military-political, and other reasons that influence the process of the origin of statehood. Theory of state and law: a textbook / Vlasova T V., Duel V.M., Zanina M.A. - Electron: text data http://www.iprbookshop.ru/5768.(04/27/14, 14:19)

1.2 The concept of society, its brief description

Moving on to the meaning of the term “ society“We should also note the close connection with such an institution as the state.

Society is a group of people created through purposeful and intelligently organized joint activities, and the members of such a group are not united by such a deep principle as in the case of genuine community. Society rests on convention, agreement, and the same orientation of interests. The individuality of an individual changes much less under the influence of his inclusion in society than depending on his inclusion in the community. Society is often understood as the sphere that lies between the individual and the state.

Development of scientific ideas about society.

The study of society is carried out by a special group of scientific disciplines, which are called social (humanitarian) sciences. Among the social sciences, the leading one is sociology (literally “social science”). Only it considers society as a single integral system. Other social sciences (ethics, political science, economics, history, religious studies, etc.) study individual aspects of social life without claiming to have holistic knowledge.

Thinkers in ancient societies typically viewed human life as part of a universal order, a “cosmos.” In relation to the “structure of the world,” the word “cosmos” was first used by Heraclitus. The universalistic ideas of the ancients about society reflected the idea of the unity of man and nature. This idea has become an integral feature eastern religions and teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism), which retain their influence in the East to this day.

In parallel with the development of naturalistic concepts, anthropological ones began to develop, emphasizing not the unity of man and nature, but the fundamental differences between them.

For a long time in social thought, society was considered from a political science point of view, i.e. identified with the state. Thus, Plato characterized, first of all, through political functions state (protecting the population from external enemies, maintaining order within the country). Following Plato, Aristotle developed state-political ideas about society, interpreted as relations of domination and subordination. However, he also highlighted purely social (not political) connections between people, considering, for example, friendship and mutual support of free, equal individuals. Aristotle emphasized the priority of individual interests and believed that “what should require relative, not absolute unity of both family and state”, that “every person is his own friend most of all and should love himself most of all” (“Ethics”). If from Plato there comes a tendency to consider society as an integral organism, then from Aristotle - as a collection of relatively independent individuals

The social thought of modern times in the interpretation of society proceeded from the concept of the “state of nature” and the social contract (T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau). Referring to “natural laws,” thinkers of modern times gave them, however, completely social character. For example, the statement about the initial “war of all against all,” which is being replaced by a social contract, absolutizes the spirit of individualism of the new time. According to the point of view of these thinkers, society is based on rational contractual principles, formal legal concepts, and mutual utility. Thus, the anthropological interpretation of society triumphed over the naturalistic one, and the individualistic one over the collectivist (organistic) one. Encyclopedia around the world http://krugosvet.ru/ (27.04.14, 16:20)

Signs of society:

1) A set of individuals gifted with will and consciousness.

2) General interest, which has a permanent and objective nature. The organization of society depends on harmonious combination common and individual interests of its members.

3) Interaction and cooperation based on common interests. There must be an interest in each other, making it possible to realize the interests of everyone.

4) Regulation of public interests through mandatory rules behavior.

5) The presence of an organized force (authority) capable of providing society internal order and external security.

Based on the most important features of society, we can give the following definition to this concept: society is a historically established and self-reproducing community of people living in a given territory, possessing autonomy and resistance to self-regulation based on biological, economic and cultural reproduction.
The concept of “society” should be distinguished from the concepts of “state” (an institution for managing social processes that arose historically later than society) and “country” (a territorial-political entity formed on the basis of society and the state)

1.3 Concept of personality. INrelationship between the individual and society

Man as a subject of social relations, a bearer of social significant qualities is a person.

As follows from the works of I.S. Kona, the concept of personality denotes the human individual as a member of society and generalizes the socially significant features integrated into it.

M. Weber sees in the role of the subject public life(personality) only individual individuals who act meaningfully. And such social totalities as “classes”, “society”, “state”, in his opinion, are entirely abstract and cannot be subject to social analysis.

In the concept of “personality,” a system of socially significant human qualities comes to the fore. In a person’s connections with society, his social essence is formed and manifested. That is, we can argue about the indisputable connection between the individual and society, on the one hand.

On the other hand, a feature of personality is its isolation. Awareness of one's isolation allows an individual to be free from arbitrary transient social institutions, the dictates of power, and not to lose self-control in conditions of social destabilization and totalitarian repression.

However, the individual and society are interdependent. Personality is formed and can develop only in society, in a team. In turn, the development of the individual turns out to be a factor influencing the development of the team and society. Development of personality and society in the process of their interaction -- general pattern, manifested in a specific form in various socio-economic formations.

The relationship between society and the individual manifests itself, first of all, along the lines of the correlation of their interests (economic, socio-political and spiritual) and through their mutual influence, the development of collectivism, and self-affirmation, individualization of the individual. Both types of relationships are mediated by the collective, or in a class society by the class.

According to the theory of K. Marx, the subjects of social development are social formations of several levels: humanity, classes, nations, state, family and individual. The movement of society is carried out as a result of the actions of all these subjects. However, they are by no means equivalent and the strength of their impact varies depending on historical conditions. IN different eras The subject that is the main driving force of a given historical period is put forward as decisive.

However, it must be borne in mind that in Marx’s concept, all subjects of social development act in accordance with the objective laws of social development. They can neither change these laws nor repeal them. Their subjective activity either helps these laws to act freely and thereby accelerates social development, or prevents them from acting and then slows down historical process. http://www.portalprava.ru “Society: concept, signs.” (04/27/14, 17:20)

Now that we know enough about each object of our study, we can move on to the main problem of our work.

2.Problemmutualrelations between state and society

In this chapter we should consider the problem of relationships and influence of the state and society on each other. There are some general laws that follow from the very nature of both unions and which determine their relationships.

Firstly, the close connection of both unions leads to the fact that the principles that dominate in one are reflected by the force of things in the other. Meanwhile, society is incomparably more stable than the state. Private life, embracing a person completely, determines all his habits, morals, concepts, and mode of action. It is much more difficult to shake all this than to change the political order, which forms the pinnacle public building, cannot be rebuilt without shaking its foundations. This stability of the civil system constitutes a general historical phenomenon. We have seen that the tribal order, destroyed in the political sphere, stubbornly persists in the civil sphere and from there affects the state. The same phenomenon is represented by the class order. It goes with different modifications from the Roman Empire, through the Middle Ages to modern times. During this period, political system passed through the most opposite forms, from complete despotism to complete disintegration of the state. In the same way, the general civil order created by the French Revolution remains unshakable among all the political upheavals through which France has passed, from Napoleonic despotism to the present republican rule. This stability of civil life results in its lasting influence on the state. We can express this relationship in the form of a general law by saying that every civil order strives to create a corresponding political order.

Secondly, the influence of society is expressed mainly in the desire of the ruling classes to gain predominant importance in the state. The interaction of individual forces inevitably leads, as we have seen, to inequality of states. The consequence of this inequality is the division of society into classes, higher and lower. The former, taking advantage of their predominant position in society, naturally strive to occupy the same position in the state, and this desire, generally speaking, meets the essential needs of the latter, for the state, as said, draws all its strength and resources from society, and the upper classes are the most prosperous and educated: they, therefore, are the main figures in the political field: they are most capable of serving state goals and giving direction to state life.

However, this natural desire takes on a different character, depending on the properties and position of the ruling classes themselves. Of essential importance here is the legal form by which civil class relations are determined. The legal order either fixes natural divisions or makes them fluid. In this regard, the different orders mentioned above lead to different consequences. In the clan order, with the inseparability of the civil and political spheres, the clan aristocracy receives natural predominance. The invasion of democratic elements represents the process of gradual disintegration of the tribal system. This is precisely the history of the ancient classical states. The same phenomenon is represented by the class order. Here the place of the clan aristocracy, based on natural relations, is taken by the class aristocracy, based on an occupation that gives a primary position in society to the classes devoting themselves to public cause. In its extreme development, this order leads to the disintegration of the state itself, which breaks up into groups of interconnected private forces. The restoration of state unity here also leads to the rise of subordinate elements, that is, to the process of equalization of classes, the result of which is a general civil system. The latter, being based on the principles of freedom and equality, does not allow the legal dominance of the upper classes, but leaves them only the natural influence resulting from the interaction of free forces. Here divisions are fluid and these principles are transferred to state life. The political order corresponding to the general civil order is an order based on political freedom. This is an inevitable historical law; where this correspondence does not exist, discord is felt in society, which has the consequence of relaxation of the political body. And since in the civil order freedom is established, equal for everyone, then in the political order there is a desire to establish equal political rights for all citizens. Hence the unstoppable development of democracy in all European states based on a general civil order. However, this development meets resistance in the very requirements of the state. The presentation of general state law shows that freedom is an essential element of the state itself; therefore, its development in the civil sphere entails its development in the political sphere. But we have also seen that in political law the beginning of freedom is limited to the beginning of ability. A citizen vested with political rights is not only a free person: he performs certain functions of the state body, and this requires ability. Meanwhile, democracy is the negation of the beginning of ability. Not only does it give everyone the same rights, but by giving supreme power to the majority, that is, the mass of the people, it thereby places it in the hands of the least educated, therefore the least capable part of society. Hence, sooner or later, the need for government principles to react against the improper predominance of certain social elements.

The guarantee for the inevitable onset of this reaction is that the state, thirdly, not only submits to the influence of society, but also makes up for the shortcomings of the latter. The state and society represent two opposing forms of community life: in one, unity reigns, in the other, diversity and plurality. Both elements are equally necessary; each of them has its own area in which its characteristic principle is predominant. But one principle is not able to replace the other; Only through their mutual replenishment can harmony in social life be achieved. Therefore, where social forces turn out to be insufficient or act in a one-sided direction, they must be replenished by the activities of the state independent of them. In the political field especially, unity of purpose and direction is required; Therefore, the influence of society in this area depends on its ability to act in this sense. This ability is obviously the less, the less unity in the society itself, or the less social forces are able to act in harmony. This is where the replenishing activity of the state is needed. Hence the general law that determines the interaction of both unions, that the less unity in society, the greater there should be unity in the state, that is, the more independent and concentrated it should be government. This law was formulated by Hippolyte Passy.

The present Social Democracy, with its widespread organization, with its hatred of upper classes, with its desire to destroy the entire existing social system, inevitably leads to dictatorship. Carrying within itself an ideal that suppresses all civil freedom, it no less threatens political freedom. Representative government can only be maintained as long as this party is weak and unable to firmly influence public administration. But her strength is obviously growing, and this must inevitably lead to the deepest upheavals. If she manages to gain a momentary advantage anywhere, she can only hold on with the help of the most terrible terror. From my side. protecting society from the destruction that threatens it will require an unlimited dictatorship. In any case, with the internal struggle of classes animated by mutual hatred, only a government independent of society can protect public order and maintain the unity necessary in the state.

Such power serves, fourthly, as the main factor in the state’s influence on the social system. The state not only compensates for the latter’s shortcomings, but it itself transforms this system in accordance with its requirements. And for this it must be armed with power independent of social forces and carrying within itself the highest idea of the state. The less the structure of society is consistent with this idea, the stronger the need for power independent of it.

The emerging state naturally relies on the strongest elements, subordinating the rest to them, and thereby trying to consolidate public communication. The same phenomenon is repeated where the state is inclined to decline and feels powerless to protect the collapsing order. In any case, it serves as a sign of the weakness of the state body. On the contrary, when this organism has become stronger, the second task emerges with particular force. The state, in its idea, is the representative of all interests and all elements of society. It should not tolerate some being sacrificed to others. As the bearer of a higher idea, it is the protector of the weak. The more independent state power is from social elements, the more powerful this calling is. Hence the phenomenon repeated in history that monarchical power enters into an alliance with the lower classes against the aristocracy.

This task also determines the role of the state in the development of successive social orders. In the name of state requirements, one civil system is transferred to another.

In the generic order, as we have seen, alien elements find no place for themselves; they are like an external appendage. But if they remain free, then they are part of the state, and therefore must enjoy protection and join political rights. This is required by justice, the highest body of which is the state; This is required by the very benefit of the state, which finds a source of strength and support in excluded elements. The stronger these elements are, the more insistent their demands become. Hence the gradual process of decomposition of the tribal order through the entry of alien elements into it. With the expansion of the state, this process takes on ever greater proportions.

But with the disintegration of the clan order, the social unity based on it is also lost. A power independent of social forces is established, which, in turn, influences society and tries to replace the connection that has disappeared in it with another. Under the influence of state requirements, fragmented interests are grouped into separate alliances. The clan order is gradually replaced by class order.

While the state is weak, it relies on the ruling elements and subordinates the rest to them. As quickly as it has become stronger and developed its own organism, the reverse process of unfastening and equalization occurs. Again, in the name of higher state requirements, the class order is transferred to the general civil order. And in this movement the main figure is a government independent of social forces. Even where the government, having forgotten its calling, continues to rely on an outdated order and a new order is established by the pressure of humiliated elements, its establishment still requires despotic power. The French Revolution provided a living example of this. The old monarchy fell along with the class order on which it relied. The third estate appeared on the scene, which, not only in numbers, but also in education and wealth, stood incomparably above the rest, and yet enjoyed much fewer rights. In the name of state ideas developed by the philosophy of the 18th century, it presented its demands and overthrew the resistant remnants of the former civil order. But all that came out of this destruction was chaos. The despotism of Napoleon was required to establish the new order.

With the establishment of a general civil system, the idea of the state, as well as the idea of society, reaches its highest development. Two unions are formed, each in the fullness of its definitions, governed by those principles that flow from their very nature, and being in constant interaction. All elements that make up society, subject to a law equal for all that protects their freedom, receive full scope for their activities and occupy the place that belongs to them according to their natural properties. Through the free interaction of various interests, their connection is established, and the state protects the required unity. state civil society

The goal of the state is to implement ideal principles, the consciousness of which requires higher development, and this belongs to the wealthy classes, who are always and everywhere bearers of higher education. In contrast to quantity, they represent quality. Without renouncing itself, the state cannot sacrifice quality to quantity. One of the most important tasks of politics is to attract the best, that is, the most educated, forces of the country to political activity. But this goal is not achieved when these forces become completely dependent on the uneducated masses.

By its very idea, the state is called upon to maintain a balance between various social elements and bring them to a higher agreement. And for this, it must arrange its own organism so that quantity in it is balanced by quality. This goal is not achieved by the principles of freedom and equality that dominate the general civil order; transferred to the political sphere, they give complete superiority to the majority, that is, to pure numbers.

The state must contain an element independent of society. This element, representing the pure unity of the state, is given by the monarchical principle, which thus has its legitimate calling not only in the historical past, but also in the ideal future. At the first stages of political development, it creates state unity and arranges a political body independent of the private interests of clans or classes; at the highest levels, when the unity has been strengthened and the organism has received full development, its highest calling is to hold the scales between them in living communication with social elements and bring them to a harmonious agreement, which constitutes the ultimate goal of human improvement. Chicherin B. N. Course of state science. Volumes I-III. - Moscow, printing house of the partnership I. N. Kushnerev and Co., 1894 “The attitude of society to the state”

There is another major problem in the state-society relationship. The point is that in the process of mutual development there is an alienation of the state from society. Having society as its maternal substrate, having arisen on its basis, the state begins to play a special role in it, gradually alienating itself from it, acquiring its own existence and development trends. From the point of view of Marxism, the “bourgeois state” represents the power of the exploitative minority. Supporters of this trend believe that the creation of a state established on socialist principles will eliminate the social foundations of alienation. Although it is especially noted that alienation cannot be completely eliminated. From this it is concluded that the problem of alienation can only be resolved with the withering away of the state itself - under the conditions of the created stateless communist governance. At this moment, society, according to Engels, “will send the entire state machine to where it will then have a real place: to the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.” Engels, F. Decree. Op. - pp. 193-194.

There are also alternative views on the problem of alienation to the Marxist one. These include anarchism with its rejection of the state as such, and various liberal theories, according to which a modern state, built on the principles of democracy, broad exercise of individual rights and freedoms and having a strong civil society, generally objectively perceives and expresses the interests of the social majority, due to which the problem of alienation of the state from society is overcome and loses its former severity.

The history of relations between the state and society can be represented as a search optimal forms mutual correspondence. In such a context, the entire history of mankind can actually be presented not only as man’s desire to improve himself and the environment social environment- human community, but also as constant attempts to find a more effective form of organizing one’s life - a more perfect form of state. Currently, in the context of the globalization of the world and the global financial crisis, there is a search for new forms of organization of the human community in the form of interstate and supranational institutions. Moreover, it is important to note that the search for new forms of organization of social life, regardless of whether we are talking about a state or suprastate form, throughout the entire history of human civilization did not occur spontaneously, but in close interaction with the process of development of their social content, that is, with taking into account the nature and level of development of society. Engels, F. Decree. Op. - pp. 194-195.

3. Three concepts of the relationship between the state and the individual in the context of human rights problems

The relationship between man and the state as the most important social institution has always been the focus of world political and legal thought from the very moment of its inception. Moreover, the content, forms and nature of these relationships to a certain extent provide the basis for assessing the state of ensuring and guaranteeing human rights and freedoms in a particular society, a particular state. Therefore, the analysis of the methodological foundations for understanding these components, the entire complex of relationships between the state and the individual that have developed to date, has exclusively great importance for more informed discussions about human rights and to avoid the templates that are so often encountered today when discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the use of these templates, which takes on the character of cloning, is now occurring too often, which cannot but be alarming. Most seminars, meetings, conferences, scientific and educational publications discuss human rights issues based on one main thesis: human rights, like himself, are the highest value that the state (team, community, society) tries to ignore or infringe upon. However, every template that is beneficial for the time being begins to become obsolete and cause ever-increasing harm.

An analysis of existing conceptual approaches to understanding the relationship between the state and an individual from the standpoint of the interpretation of understanding and recognition of freedom in relation to oneself and a partner allows, in the most general terms, to identify two main ones, which have become widespread both in the philosophical and theoretical aspect and in practical terms. We are talking about statist and liberal approaches, which proceed from directly opposite methodological premises when establishing the primacy and secondary nature of interests and expressions of will in relation to each other of the state and the individual.

However, there is another approach, attention to which, in our opinion, despite seemingly all its obviousness, does not receive its scientific and especially practical development in the conditions of Russian reality. We are talking about the concept of the optimal relationship between state and personal (individual) principles, or, in other words, the doctrine of optimum.

Statist doctrine (from state to person)

The main provisions of the modern statist doctrine, which is based on the priority of the state principle in relation to the personal (individual) principle, are associated mainly with the Marxist doctrine of the state and can be reduced to the following.

The main driving force of society is the struggle of classes. This struggle must end with the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a new social system - socialism and, ultimately, communism. This will be impossible to achieve without the destruction of the state itself, which is a weapon of violence against people. However, such destruction is impossible artificially. The state will die away gradually until classes disappear. Therefore, the new socialist (proletarian) state, emerging after the proletarian revolution, must solve this problem of gradually eliminating class differences. Based on this global task, a new type of state is considered as the most important factor in socialist transformations, to which everyone and everything in society must be subordinated. The state is primary in society, everything else is secondary, derivative. A person is an object of state influence.

Democracy is a class phenomenon. Not everyone is included in democratic processes (the bourgeoisie is excluded). Rights and freedoms relate only to the victorious class - the proletariat. There is no talk about the universality of rights and freedoms. The power of the proletariat, and thereby its rights and freedoms, can only be ensured by violence against those who do not recognize this (the “enemies of the people”). “Pure democracy,” that is, democracy for everyone, does not and can never exist, these are all bourgeois inventions” (V.I. Lenin).

Marxism sees the emancipation of the individual, who can live under communism, in overcoming individualism, in the dissolution of the individual in the state, and individual interests in class (state) interests. The driving force of society is not the interests of the individual, but class interests. Therefore, “civil society” is the enemy of communism, the enemy of the proletarian, socialist state, because in civil society the individual feels himself to be an individual, an independent force opposed to the state. Personality in Marxism is a “generic personality,” that is, not individuality, but something blurred and included in a class relationship. Hence the rejection of the concept of a “rule of law state,” which cannot but recognize the importance of an individual person, an individual person in himself.

The attitude towards private property in Marxism is sharply negative. Private property is the main evil for society, the state and the individual. It is here that the main danger lies, therefore its destruction is the main task after the victory of the proletarian revolution. Approval and protection of state property is the goal of the new state.

Such an almost purely totalitarian characterization of the primacy of the state over the individual, of course, does not evoke positive emotions, especially since, as history (and not only Russia) testifies, there are more than enough facts of this kind. At the same time, it is often asserted that the founders of Marxism (and then their many followers, the brightest of whom is V.I. Lenin), considered the individual person as a cog in the state machine, and did not see the individual’s individuality (humanity, personal beginning). Without setting in this case the goal of entering into polemics on this issue, we will only note that, firstly, an objective reading of the legacy of K. Marx and F. Engels is still, apparently, still ahead, and, secondly, not It should be forgotten that the real embodiment of any social theory, no matter how great and “humane” it may seem, always differs from its theoretical positions.

Liberal doctrine (from person to state)

The liberal doctrine of the relationship between the state and man, being very heterogeneous in its content and the nature of the ideas and provisions included in it, is far from homogeneous; in its classical version it was developed and developed in the works of Hugo Grotius, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, Benedict Spinoza and many others thinkers - representatives of the natural law school of legal understanding. The modern interpretation of Western-style liberalism, while possessing originality due to the current level of civilizational development of mankind, is still not fundamentally different from the classical approach. But still, the main thing in it, which constitutes the actual liberal core of the doctrine, is the idea of individual freedom, its autonomy in relation to the state, the opportunity to enjoy the inalienable rights to life, property, freedom of self-determination, etc. Indeed, having arisen in the bosom of natural law views, in Subsequently, the liberal doctrine was gradually adopted by representatives of legal positivism. This, in particular, is expressed in the fact that natural human rights, and thereby a certain priority of individual freedom over the state, are embodied in legal documents - from the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The main provisions of the doctrine in question are as follows.

For a person, an individual, the main thing is freedom. It is freedom that is both human habitat and the most important life value for him. In the sphere of freedom, a person chooses the vector of his life, realizes his interests and passions. If previously a person acted in relation to the state as its subject, then the recognition of freedom presupposes a break with such an attitude. It is freedom that transforms a subject into a citizen, who now has completely new principles of relationship with the state. The individual (citizen) now has equal rights with the state.

Personal freedom is organically connected with equality and inseparable from it. Freedom and equality - the necessary conditions the possession by all people of inalienable, inalienable rights.

Human rights are a system of benefits and conditions, without which the normal life of a person becomes simply impossible, his individual development, his free choice and self-determination.

The desire for personal autonomy and freedom of self-determination in the sphere of civil society led to the raising of the problem of the purpose of the state and the boundaries of its activities. The state is now declared as an instrument for ensuring the “common good”, a defender of human rights and freedoms from any encroachment from anyone, including the state itself. At the same time, the question of limiting the power of the state (the activities of the state), capable of exceeding its powers in ensuring the protection of rights and freedoms, and thereby intervening at its own discretion in this area, is being raised.

Of course, the liberal doctrine is not limited to the presented provisions. But, in any case, the quintessence of the liberal worldview is the postulate about man as the highest value. At the same time, it clearly follows that everything else, including the state, are only instruments, means of protecting and defending that very highest value. At the same time, liberals, as a rule, do not ask the question of what kind of person, what kind of personality are we talking about in a particular case. For an orthodox liberal, a person as such is valuable in itself, i.e. as an abstract, whose rights, freedoms, interests, in any case, are primary in relation to the social, collective, state. The state, from the point of view of liberal human rights activists, always strives to infringe, limit human rights and freedoms, and bring them into line with its own - state - interests. In this sense, a person always needs to be on guard in relation to the state; the state for a person is an enemy that seeks to defeat and suppress him.

But is this really so, and is this how it should be? Let's try to answer this question by turning to the approach that, in our opinion, it is advisable to call the doctrine of optimum. Modern liberalism: Rawls, Berlin, Dvorkin and others. M.: House of Intellect. books, 1998. Alekseev S.S. Rising in the right. Searches and solutions. M.: NORM, 2001; Nersesyants V.S. Philosophy of law: Textbook for universities. M.: Publishing house. group INFRA-M - NORM, 1997.

Doctrine of Optimum (man for the state and state for the person)

There are no special studies devoted to the formation of systemic components of such a doctrine. Here, as we have already noted, they usually get by with either characterizing the first two concepts, or limit themselves to pointing out the need to weaken their radical provisions. One could appeal to the concept of the rule of law, which, it would seem, has all the necessary elements to soften the extremes of statist and liberal doctrines, however, even here everything is far from being so simple, if we bear in mind the existing, sometimes sharply different, models and types legal statehood. Without going into all this extremely complex and extensive issues, we will try to outline the main parameters of our vision of the doctrine of the optimal relationship between the state and the individual.

...

Ecological problem

Today it is considered the main one. For a long time, people have used the resources given to them by nature irrationally, polluted the environment around them, and poisoned the Earth with a variety of waste - from solid to radioactive. The result was not long in coming - according to most competent researchers, ecological problems in the next hundred years will lead to irreversible consequences for the planet, and therefore for humanity.

There are already countries where this issue has reached a very high level, giving rise to the concept of an ecological crisis area. But a threat looms over the whole world: the ozone layer, which protects the planet from radiation, is being destroyed, the earth’s climate is changing - and humans are unable to control these changes.

Even the most developed country cannot solve the problem alone, so states unite to jointly solve important environmental problems. The main solution is considered to be reasonable use of natural resources and reorganization of everyday life and industrial production so that the ecosystem develops naturally.

Rice. 1. The threatening scale of the environmental problem.

Demographic problem

In the 20th century, when the world's population exceeded six billion, everyone had heard of it. However, in the 21st century the vector has shifted. In short, the essence of the problem now is this: there are fewer and fewer people. A competent policy of family planning and improving the living conditions of each individual will help solve this issue.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

Food problem

This problem is closely related to the demographic one and consists in the fact that more than half of humanity is experiencing acute food shortages. To solve it, we need to more rationally use available resources for food production. Experts see two development paths: intensive, when the biological productivity of existing fields and other lands increases, and extensive, when their number increases.

All global problems of humanity must be solved together, and this is no exception. The food problem arose due to the fact that most of people live in unsuitable areas. Joining the efforts of scientists from different countries will significantly speed up the solution process.

Energy and raw materials problem

The uncontrolled use of raw materials has led to the depletion of mineral reserves that have been accumulating for hundreds of millions of years. Very soon, fuel and other resources may disappear altogether, so scientific and technological progress is being introduced at all stages of production.

The problem of peace and disarmament

Some scientists believe that in the very near future it may happen that there will be no need to look for possible ways to solve humanity’s global problems: people are producing such an amount of offensive weapons (including nuclear weapons) that at some point they can destroy themselves. To prevent this from happening, world treaties on arms reduction and demilitarization of economies are being developed.

Human health problem

Humanity continues to suffer from deadly diseases. The progress of science is great, but diseases that cannot be cured still exist. The only solution is to continue scientific research in search of cures.

The problem of using the World Ocean

The depletion of land resources has led to increased interest in the World Ocean - all countries that have access to it use it not only as a biological resource. Both the mining and chemical sectors are actively developing. Which gives rise to two problems at once: pollution and uneven development. But how are these issues resolved? Currently, they are being studied by scientists from all over the world, who are developing principles of rational ocean environmental management.

Rice. 2. Industrial station in the ocean.

The problem of space exploration

To master space, it is important to join forces on a global scale. The latest research is the result of consolidation of work from many countries. This is precisely the basis for solving the problem.

Scientists have already developed a model of the first station for settlers on the Moon, and Elon Musk says that the day is not far off when people will go to explore Mars.

Rice. 3. Layout of the lunar base.

What have we learned?

Humanity has many global problems that can ultimately lead to its death. These problems can only be solved if efforts are consolidated; otherwise, the efforts of one or more countries will be reduced to zero. Thus, civilizational development and the solution of problems of a universal scale are possible only if the survival of man as a species becomes higher than economic and state interests.

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.7. Total ratings received: 1485.

The relationship between man and the state as the most important social institution has always been the focus of world political and legal thought from the very moment of its inception. Moreover, the content, forms and nature of these relationships to a certain extent provide the basis for assessing the state of ensuring and guaranteeing human rights and freedoms in a particular society, a particular state. Therefore, an analysis of the methodological foundations for understanding these components, the entire complex of relationships between the state and the individual that have developed to date, is of exceptionally great importance for more informed discussions about human rights and to avoid the templates that are so often encountered today when discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the use of these templates, which takes on the character of cloning, is now occurring too often, which cannot but be alarming. Most seminars, meetings, conferences, scientific and educational publications discuss human rights issues based on one main thesis: human rights, like himself, are the highest value that the state (team, community, society) tries to ignore or infringe upon. However, every template that is beneficial for the time being begins to become obsolete and cause ever-increasing harm.

Statist doctrine (from the state to the individual)

Liberal doctrine (from man to state)

The main provisions of the doctrine in question are as follows.

For a person, an individual, the main thing is freedom. It is freedom that is both a person’s habitat and the most important life value for him. In the sphere of freedom, a person chooses the vector of his life, realizes his interests and passions. If previously a person acted in relation to the state as its subject, then the recognition of freedom presupposes a break with such an attitude. It is freedom that transforms a subject into a citizen, who now has completely new principles of relationship with the state. The individual (citizen) now has equal rights with the state.

Personal freedom is organically connected with equality and inseparable from it. Freedom and equality are necessary conditions for all people to have inalienable, inalienable rights.

Human rights are a system of benefits and conditions, without which the normal functioning of a person, his individual development, his free choice and self-determination becomes simply impossible.

The doctrine of optimum (man for the state and state for man)

The essence of this doctrine is the need to achieve an optimal combination of state and individual principles of social existence in order to ensure the integrity of society and its normal civilizational development. The task of achieving the optimum is to avoid extremes of two kinds.

On the one hand, excessive individualization of human relations and ignoring the interests of a social, including, and above all state, nature are unacceptable. On the other hand, it is equally unacceptable to recognize the overwhelming and all-consuming role and significance of the state and the state in all spheres of people’s life.

Basic principles for optimizing the relationship between the state and the individual in modern conditions can, in our opinion, be reduced to the following.

1. Since the basis of legal understanding in general and human rights in particular are the ideas and principles of freedom and equality, the latter should be interpreted as attributes (unchangeable, permanently inherent characteristics) of both the individual and the state.
2. The state, being the most important social institution and created, ultimately, by the socio-political will of the people themselves, cannot but have freedom of action as a condition for ensuring the security of society as a whole and its individual member in particular. Therefore, an encroachment (in any form) or an actual attempt of such an encroachment (attempt) by an individual on the interests (freedom) of the state should be considered as an encroachment on the interests of other individuals who are also under the protection of the state. In the same way, the encroachment of the state in the person of bureaucrats, law enforcement agencies, and the armed forces on the freedom of expression of an individual, if this expression of will does not pursue the goals of violating the integrity of society, cannot be justified. At the same time, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the concepts of encroachment as arbitrary, extralegal (extra-legal) volitional influence from restriction (and even deprivation) of individual rights and freedoms by the state, if this is provided for by current international and national legislation.
3. This situation will be achieved when individual legal consciousness and public legal consciousness (we are talking, first of all, about the legal consciousness of the state, more precisely, the legal consciousness of state representatives) are imbued with all their rational-ideological and emotional-psychological components with an understanding and recognition of freedom in relation to each other. to a friend. The greatest difficulty is that, on the one hand, each individual could understand and recognize that the state also “has the right” to its own - state - freedom (freedom, of course, limited by legitimate law) to act in the interests of the whole society, and therefore, in relation to this person himself. On the other hand, the state, represented by all its state bodies, in the person of every official (civil servant), must officially recognize the freedom of each individual person as one of the most important, civilizationally significant values not only for this individual, but also for the state itself and society as a whole, and therefore consider oneself called upon (obliged) to ensure, protect and preserve this freedom. It is in this sense that a truly legal and truly democratic state is most often spoken of.
4. In the legal consciousness of an individual and the state legal consciousness, the unity and organic inseparability of freedom and equality of man and the state must necessarily be “fixed”. In their relationships, from the point of view of natural law, people and states must act as equal subjects. Another thing is that in practice such equality is extremely difficult to achieve for the sole reason that the state and the individual have different, and often simply incomparable, opportunities to ensure and protect their interests. But it is precisely in this sense that it is necessary to ensure such state consciousness that the understanding of one’s own, initially inherent in the state, does not stand in a position of opposition to the social weakness of an individual individual. The state must, as it were, come to the understanding that it is precisely the protection of such a weak person that is evidence of his true social strength, his prestige and authority. On the other hand, an individual cannot consider the state as an object in relation to which he can, “speculating” on his weakness, make various kinds of attacks, trying to humiliate (ideologically, psychologically) the state. In both cases (the state humiliates the individual, the individual humiliates the state), equality is violated, partnerships are destroyed, and thus this leads to ignoring the freedom of both parties. The consequence of all this is an imbalance between the interests of the state and the individual. And this balance, as history shows, is not violated at all in favor of the individual for the very reason that has already been mentioned: the state, by definition, has great social power. Therefore, in solving this problem, the main vector of mutual desire for agreement (and cooperation) is the vector of the state desire to ensure such agreement, such balance. Simply put, the impulse must go from strong to weak. But the weakness of an individual does not at all mean his lack of will, his inability to take any actions or actions that stimulate the state. On the contrary, activity - social and state activity of a person is simply necessary. It is this kind of activity that gives signals to the state to take any specific actions to ensure a balance of rights and freedoms. In other words, the state and the individual must, in order to avoid encroachments from both sides, strive for cooperation, joint activity and social co-creation, mutual tolerance.
5. Of exceptional importance is not only the formal consolidation of the equality and freedom of man and the state in positive law, but also the real implementation of these fundamental principles. In practice, it is very often observed that in the norms of the current legislation such a provision is indeed enshrined, but only formally. In reality, there are at least two circumstances that discredit the idea of a balance between state and individual. This is, firstly, the presence of contradictions in the legislation (either between laws of the same order, or between laws and by-laws), or the presence of gaps in it, lead to an actual violation of the optimum, and this violation, as noted above, occurs in favor of the stronger - states. Secondly, the absence of often clear legal mechanisms to ensure equality between the state and the individual when resolving any contradictions that systematically arise between them. The absence of such mechanisms leads to the emergence, growth, aggravation and painful resolution of various types of conflicts, in which the winning party is most often the state. Thus, in solving the problem of ensuring optimal relations between the state and the individual, the main word still belongs to the state, but on the condition that the person will show his social activity that stimulates the achievement of such an optimum. Academic legal journal N 3 (5) (July-September) 2001.

The term "society" is used in a broad and narrow sense. For example, in everyday vocabulary, society is often called any human group, regardless of its occupation and size. Among scientific meanings There are two terms: broad and narrow. In the broadest sense, society refers to that part of the world that is separated from nature. In this broadest understanding, the term “society” means “sociality in general,” “acting as the antithesis of nature and the natural,” that is, a systemic set of properties and characteristics inherent in phenomena both collective and individual life people, thanks to which they are integrated into a special world, different from nature and isolated from it. In this meaning, the concept of “society” is synonymous with the concepts of “sociocultural reality”, “supraorganic world”, “society”, “social form of movement of matter”, with the help of which various socio-philosophical schools convey the substantial specificity of the non-natural realities of our world.

The second meaning is significantly narrower and seems more relevant and applicable for this study. Society in this understanding is a special human collective that is self-sufficient and capable of creating all the necessary conditions for its life, including shaping people as social beings. In this context, society acts as “a joint form of human activity for the production of material and spiritual values.” It is in this sense that the term “society” is used to designate autonomous centers of sociality, real or typified communities of people.

Moving on to the meanings of the term “state”, we must note their plurality. Summarizing all possible definitions, we can identify two most popular interpretations. In the first case (broad interpretation), the state is understood as a country, that is, a real group of people that has specific coordinates in space and history, exists on the political map of the world and “is under the authority of one specific state machine.” This is precisely the meaning of this term that is meant when the number of states in Europe, Asia or Africa is called. This usage is not accurate. The historical experience of mankind testifies that there were societies without a state and there were societies that lost their own statehood. A good illustration of this is Indian society during the British colonial empire. During this period of its history, Indian society completely lost its statehood, but continued to exist as a self-reproducing social collective.

The state in the narrow sense of the term, which we will use in this article, acts as a certain social institution, like special organization, possessing unique public power and a specialized functional mechanism for managing society. Being a part of society, for many millennia the state has been called upon to “monitor the preservation of the vitality of society”, “to ensure political and administrative integrity, to coordinate various spheres of its life”, to perform general regulatory functions in relation to it, being a kind of instrument for solving public problems (although often the tasks and interests of the ruling class appear in the status of public ones).

The state is initially a purely functional institution, which, unlike society as an end-to-end system, is created for some reason, for some purpose. The state, as F. Engels wrote, is “invented” by people. People cannot sleep in a society in which this institution does not exist, and cannot wake up in a system of public administration that has come from nowhere. With the emergence of the state, society and the state begin to exist in inextricable unity.

So, from the definition of basic concepts, let us move on to the analysis of the interactions into which the state and society enter in the process of their existence.

Society is primary in relation to the state. No one disputes the fact, fully confirmed by various scientific studies and social experience, that in any part of the globe, human society first appeared and existed, taking on the most diverse pre-state forms (phratry, tribe, clan, etc.), and then on its the foundation and from its environment the state grew. From the accumulated rich ethnographic material, we know societies that do not have their own statehood and yet actually exist.

This chronological priority of society in relation to the state in theoretical terms means that society has a certain priority over the state due to the factors of its genesis.

The state is a product of the development of society and the main system governing it. The state as a certain institution is created on the basis of society, is born from it and is largely initially determined by its character. Having emerged at a certain stage in the development of human society as a result of social, economic and other laws, the state became its main political system. In his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Engels gives this the following characteristic: “... the state in no way represents a force imposed on society from the outside... The state is a product of society at a certain stage of development... this force, originating from society, but placing itself above it, alienating itself more and more from it , there is a state."

State-organized society received fundamentally new opportunities for its existence: the development of productive forces, social relations, science, and moral principles.

There is a correlation between the level of development of a state and the level of the society that gave birth to it. To justify this, it is necessary to answer the question: could a modern capitalist state arise and successfully develop, say, on the foundation of a slave society or vice versa? It is clear that the answer to this question will be negative, although in history one can find examples of discrepancies that indicate the possibility of a symbiosis of bourgeois relations with pre-capitalist structures or a capitalist society with a semi-feudal state. An example of this is the system of slavery in the southern states of the USA in the 19th century. Russian empire XIX - early XX centuries

Another, even more relevant question today: is it possible to imagine a modern form of a democratic political system in a society where the overwhelming majority of the population, from an economic point of view, does not belong to the middle class and, for the most part, is a bearer of a political mentality?

The answer to this question is very ambiguous. However, if we keep in mind the problem as a whole, the answer will be negative, since the functioning of each of the above types of society is based on completely different socio-political prerequisites, different social and economic bases, different mentalities adapted to certain state specifics.

It should also be noted that the connection between society and the state does not mean that the state mechanism is strictly determined by the social environment. A society, in terms of the degree of its development, in terms of its norms, can stand significantly higher than the state system within which the authorities place it or in which it is held. A striking example this state - the Spanish Netherlands of the mid-16th century, France during the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, etc.

The opposite situation is also possible, which also often happens in history, when power directs society into state forms for which it is not yet prepared. A good example of such a situation is the radical and rapid reforms in Russia in the 90s. XX century or modern Iraq and Afghanistan, in which the United States is trying to build a modern model of a democratic state on a social substrate that is completely unprepared for this.

Summarizing the above, we can notice the clear presence of direct and reverse connections between the state and society. Being a relatively independent institution, possessing greater material, organizational and other resources compared to an individual, the state has a strong impact on society, being in turn subject to the opposite influence from society.

The history of relations between the state and society can be represented as a search for optimal forms of mutual correspondence. In this context, the entire history of mankind can actually be presented not only as a person’s desire to improve himself and the surrounding social environment - the human community, but also as constant attempts to find a more effective form of organizing his life - a more perfect form of state. Currently, in the context of the globalization of the world and the global financial crisis, there is a search for new forms of organization of the human community in the form of interstate and supranational institutions. Moreover, it is important to note that the search for new forms of organization of social life, regardless of whether we are talking about a state or suprastate form, throughout the entire history of human civilization did not occur spontaneously, but in close interaction with the process of development of their social content, that is, with taking into account the nature and level of development of society.

When considering the nature of the relationship between state and society from the point of view of form and content, one cannot, of course, overly understate or, on the contrary, exaggerate, absolutize the forces and role of the state in relation to society, on the one hand, and society in relation to the state, on the other.

To summarize, we say that both the state and society are multifaceted and historically changing phenomena that exist in indissoluble unity, but nevertheless have relative independence in relation to each other. The concept of “state” is a political concept; it represents the core of political philosophy. The concept of “society” has a broader meaning and includes all spheres of life, including political.

Engels, F. Origin of the family, private property and the state. In connection with the research of Lewis G. Morgan. - M., 1978. - P. 190.

The relationship between the individual and the state is determined largely by the relationship between the individual and civil society. The structure of civil society includes: public associations, political parties and organizations, family, church, socio-economic institutions, etc. Civil society arises as a result of the separation of the state from social structures. Civil society emerged as a result of the liquidation class structures, denationalization of public relations. The main obstacle to the development of civil society is the dominance of the state over society. The gradual formation of civil society is associated with the establishment of national representative institutions of the parliamentary type. Formal legal equality is the basis for the formation of civil society as a horizontal system of connections and relations between citizens and their associations.

The individual acquired stable rights with the emergence of the category of human rights. Personality is a stable system socially significant properties person, characterizing the individual as a member of society. The nature of the relationship between the state and the individual is the most important indicator of the state of society as a whole and the prospects for its development. A stable connection between the individual and the state is expressed in the institution of citizenship. This connection expresses the legal affiliation of a particular person to the state, the existence of mutual rights and obligations of the individual and the state. The state cannot artificially increase or decrease the scope of rights and freedoms: overestimation makes rights a fiction, and restriction leads to the erosion of the foundations of its legal status. The relationship between the individual and the state is, first of all, mediated by the institution of citizenship. Universal rights, as a rule, are divided into human rights and civil rights, which is largely the result of a compromise between legal positivism and natural law theory. States that recognize this division proceed from the premise that inalienable rights must be recognized and enshrined in legislation. The relationship between the individual and the state reflects the rights of a citizen, which require guarantees of their implementation by the state.

The problem of individual rights and its relations in the state with its various institutions and other subjects of the political system is central to the science of the theory of state and law. The content of the political and legal state of the individual includes the following elements: legal personality, legal status of the individual, legal guarantees. Mutual responsibility of the state and the individual is the basic principle of relationships in a rule-of-law state. The position of an individual is expressed, first of all, in its legal status or in the totality of rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and legitimate interests. Any individual (citizen, foreign citizen, stateless person) exercises his subjective rights in legal relations in connection with the emergence or termination of citizenship. So, the civil status of an individual is manifested in the following forms or states: citizen, foreign citizen, stateless person, person who has received political asylum. Citizenship acts as a type of subjective right. The legal status of specific individuals is determined, first of all, by citizenship relations.

Social personality type and typology of political behavior

The social type of personality can be defined as a product of the interaction of historical, cultural and socio-economic conditions of life.

Personality types are distinguished depending on their value orientations:

· traditionalist (personality is focused on the values of duty, discipline, law-abiding, with a low level of independence, ability for self-realization);

· idealistic (the individual is critical of traditional norms, with a focus on self-development);

· frustrated (person with low self-esteem, depressed state of health);

· realistic (the individual combines the desire for self-realization with a developed sense of duty, skepticism with self-control);

· consumer (personality is focused on satisfying consumer desires)

Political behavior is a subjectively motivated process of a political actor carrying out one or another type of political activity, determined by the needs of realizing his status political position, orientations and attitudes.

The most common is the following typology of forms of political participation:

I. Conventional forms:

2. Reading about politics in newspapers

3. Discussing political topics with friends and acquaintances

5. Work to promote the image of a political party or candidate

7. Participation in rallies and meetings

8. Contacting authorities or their representatives

9. Activity as a political figure (nomination of candidacy, participation in elections, work as a representative of the leadership of a party or other organization, work as a deputy, minister, etc.)

II. Non-conventional forms.

1. Signing petitions

2. Participation in unauthorized demonstrations

3. Participation in boycotts

4. Waiver of taxes

5. Participation in the seizure of buildings, enterprises and sit-ins within their walls

6. Blocking traffic

7. Participation in spontaneous strikes

Political culture

Political culture is part of the general culture, including historical experience, memory of social and political events, political values, orientations and skills that directly influence political behavior. Political culture is one of the main concepts of comparative political science, allowing for a comparative analysis of the political systems of the world.

The functions of political culture include:

· integration of the political sphere and general culture, philosophy, religion;

· preservation and development of the foundations of political activity;

· checking the truth of the official ideology; elimination and compensation of gaps (uncertainty of norms) and discontinuities (absence or violation of the logical connection of legal norms) of law;

· manifestation, prevention and resolution of latent conflicts;

· prophetic, prognostic regarding development;

· testing and verification of political personnel;

· synthesis of ways to respond to unexpected threats, etc.

The role of political culture is to reduce political risks - unprofitable risks that worsen the conditions of activity of socio-economic subjects through government decisions.

The most famous typology of political cultures belongs to G. Almond and S. Verba:

Parish culture

Dependent culture

Participatory culture

Parish culture characterized by an indifferent attitude towards the national political system, which is expressed in the lack of reaction of citizens to the actions of political institutions, in the lack of interest in the central government and, conversely, interest political life"in places".

Dependent political culture characterized by greater interest in the activities of the authorities. Citizens have their own idea of the government, but they are submissive to it, even if its activities are negative. With this type of political culture, citizens do not hope to personally change anything in the activities of the authorities, being only “observers.”

Participatory culture characterized by active participation. Citizens consider themselves to have the right to influence the authorities; they carry out this “interference” by participating in elections, in the activities of parties, and pressure groups. With this classification, it is meant that democracy is the ideal regime that should be taken as a model, but this position is not indisputable for everyone

What else to read

Quotes about purpose Wise sayings about purpose in life Everything in this world has some purpose. And a person must have it, therefore, it will be useful to read everything...

Brief meaning of the name Yaga “The fence around her hut is made of human bones, and on the fence instead of pots hang skulls; instead of a bolt she has...

Nuclear education and training in Russia Niyau mifi - national research MoscowIn 1946, shortly after the American nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), MMIB was created...

Personality, society and state problems of relationship. Public opinion: current problems of the state and society. What we learned

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Ecological problem

Demographic problem

Food problem

Energy and raw materials problem

The problem of peace and disarmament

Human health problem

The problem of using the World Ocean

The problem of space exploration

What have we learned?

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

What else to read

THE LAST NOTES

Personality, society and state problems of relationship. Public opinion: current problems of the state and society. What we learned

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Ecological problem

Demographic problem

Food problem

Energy and raw materials problem

The problem of peace and disarmament

Human health problem

The problem of using the World Ocean

The problem of space exploration

What have we learned?

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

What else to read

THE LAST NOTES

Categories