Social conflicts in Russian society have been generated. Social conflicts in the modern world. The concept and essence of social conflicts in society
Federal Agency for Education
State educational institution
higher professional education
VLADIMIR STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Sociology.
Social conflicts in modern Russia
Performed :
Student of the PMI-106 group
Travkova Tatiana
accepted :
Shchitko Vladimir Sergeevich
Vladimir
Introduction
1. The concept of social conflict
1.1 Stages of the conflict
1.2 Causes of the conflict
1.3 Acuity of the conflict
1.4 Duration of the conflict
1.5 Consequences of social conflict
2. Contemporary social conflicts in Russia
2.1 An example of contemporary social conflict
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Each person throughout his life repeatedly encounters conflicts of various kinds. We want to achieve something, but the goal is difficult to achieve. We experience failure and are ready to blame the people around us for not being able to achieve the desired goal. And those around us - whether they are relatives or those with whom we work together, believe that we ourselves are to blame for our own failure. Either the goal was incorrectly formulated by us, or the means to achieve it were chosen unsuccessfully, or we could not correctly assess the current situation and the circumstances prevented us. Mutual misunderstanding arises, which gradually develops into discontent, an atmosphere of dissatisfaction, socio-psychological tension and conflict is created.
The clash of points of view, opinions, positions is a very frequent occurrence in industrial and social life. We can say that such conflicts exist everywhere - in the family, at work, at school. To develop the right line of conduct in various conflict situations, it is very useful to know what conflicts are and how people come to an agreement.
Knowledge of conflicts increases the culture of communication and makes a person's life not only calmer, but also more stable psychologically.
Conflicts between individuals are most often based on emotions and personal animosity, while intergroup conflict is usually faceless, although outbreaks of personal animosity are also possible.
The emerging conflict process is difficult to stop. This is explained by the fact that the conflict has a cumulative nature, i.e. every aggressive action leads to a response or retribution, and more powerful than the original.
The conflict is escalating and involves more and more people. A simple grudge can eventually lead to acts of cruelty towards one's opponents. Cruelty in social conflict is sometimes mistakenly attributed to sadism and the natural inclinations of people, but most often it is committed by ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary situations. Conflict processes can force people into roles in which they should be violent. So, soldiers (as a rule, ordinary young people) on the territory of the enemy do not spare the civilian population, or in the course of interethnic hostility, ordinary civilians can commit extremely cruel acts.
Difficulties arising in extinguishing and localizing conflicts require a thorough analysis of the entire conflict, establishing its possible causes and consequences.
1. The concept of social conflict
Conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, views of the subjects of interaction. At the same time, the conflict is the most important side of the interaction of people in society, a kind of cell of social life. This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values and norms, interests and needs.
The essential side of social conflict is that these subjects act within the framework of some wider system of connections, which is modified (strengthened or destroyed) under the influence of the conflict.
If interests are multidirectional and opposite, then their opposition will be found in a mass of very different assessments; they themselves will find a “field of collision” for themselves, while the degree of rationality of the claims put forward will be very conditional and limited. It is likely that at each of the stages of the development of the conflict, it will be concentrated at a certain point of intersection of interests.
The situation is more complicated with national-ethnic conflicts. In different regions of the former USSR, these conflicts had a different mechanism of occurrence. For the Baltics, the problem of state sovereignty was of particular importance, for the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict the territorial status issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, for Tajikistan - inter-clan relations.
Political conflict means moving to a higher level of complexity. Its emergence is associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at the redistribution of power. For this, it is necessary to single out, on the basis of the general dissatisfaction of the social or national-ethnic stratum, a special group of people - representatives of the new generation of the political elite. The embryos of this layer have been formed in recent decades in the form of insignificant, but very active and purposeful, dissident and human rights groups that openly opposed the established political regime and embarked on the path of self-sacrifice for the sake of a socially significant idea and a new system of values. Under the conditions of perestroika, past human rights activities became a kind of political capital, which made it possible to speed up the process of forming a new political elite.
Contradictions permeate all spheres of society - economic, political, social, spiritual. The aggravation of certain contradictions creates "zones of crisis". The crisis manifests itself in a sharp increase in social tension, which often develops into a conflict.
The conflict is associated with people's awareness of the contradictions of their interests (as members of certain social groups) with the interests of other subjects. Aggravated contradictions give rise to open or closed conflicts.
Most sociologists believe that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible, because conflict is an integral part of people's being, the source of changes taking place in society. Conflict makes social relations more mobile. The population quickly abandons the usual norms of behavior and activities that previously satisfied them. The stronger the social conflict, the more noticeable its influence on the course of social processes and the pace of their implementation. Conflict in the form of competition encourages creativity, innovation and ultimately promotes progressive development, making societies more resilient, dynamic and receptive to progress.
The sociology of conflict proceeds from the fact that conflict is a normal phenomenon of social life, the identification and development of conflict as a whole is a useful and necessary thing. Society, power structures and individual citizens will achieve more effective results in their actions if they follow certain rules aimed at resolving the conflict.
1.1 Stages of the conflict
The analysis of conflicts should be started from the elementary, simplest level, from the origins of conflict relations. Traditionally, it begins with a structure of needs, a set of which is specific to each individual and social group. All these needs can be divided into five main types:
1. physical needs (food, material well-being, etc.);
2. security needs;
3. social needs (communication, contacts, interaction);
4. the need to achieve prestige, knowledge, respect, a certain level of competence;
5. higher needs for self-expression, self-affirmation.
All human behavior can be simplified as a series of elementary acts, each of which begins with an imbalance due to the emergence of a need and a goal that is significant for the individual, and ends with the restoration of balance and the achievement of the goal. Any intervention (or circumstance) that creates an obstacle, a break in a person's already begun or planned action, is called a blockade.
In the event of a blockade, an individual or social group is required to reassess the situation, make a decision under conditions of uncertainty, set new goals and adopt a new plan of action.
In such a situation, each person tries to avoid the blockade, looking for workarounds, new effective actions, as well as the causes of the blockade. Meeting with an insurmountable difficulty in satisfying a need can be attributed to frustration, which is usually associated with tension, displeasure, turning into irritation and anger.
The reaction to frustration can develop in two directions - it can be either retreat or aggression.
Retreat is the avoidance of frustration by short-term or long-term refusal to satisfy a certain need. Retreats can be of two types:
1) restraint - a state in which an individual refuses to satisfy any need out of fear;
2) suppression - avoiding the realization of goals under the influence of external coercion, when frustration is driven deep and can at any moment come out in the form of aggression.
Aggression can be directed at another person or group of people if they are the cause of frustration. At the same time, aggression is social in nature and is accompanied by states of anger, hostility, and hatred. Aggressive social actions cause an aggressive response and from that moment social conflict begins.
Thus, for the emergence of social conflict it is necessary: firstly, that the cause of frustration is the behavior of other people; secondly, in order to have a response to aggressive social action.
All conflicts can be classified depending on the areas of disagreement as follows.
1. Personal conflict.
2. Interpersonal conflict.
3. Intergroup conflict.
4. Conflict of ownership.
5. Conflict with the external environment.
Any social conflict has a complex internal structure:
a) Pre-conflict situation.
No social conflict arises instantly. Emotional tension, irritation and anger usually accumulate over time, the pre-conflict stage sometimes drags on so much that the root cause of the collision is forgotten.
The pre-conflict stage is the period in which the conflicting parties evaluate their resources before deciding to act aggressively or retreat.
Initially, each of the conflicting parties is looking for ways to achieve the goals of avoiding frustration without influencing the opponent. This moment in the pre-conflict stage is called identification.
The pre-conflict stage is also characterized by the formation of each of the conflicting parties of a strategy or even several strategies.
b) Direct conflict.
This stage is characterized, first of all, by the presence of an incident, i.e. social actions aimed at changing the behavior of the enemy. This is an active, active part of the conflict.
The activities that make up an incident can vary. They can be divided into two groups, each of which is based on the specific behavior of people.
The first group includes the actions of rivals in an open conflict. (Verbal debate, economic sanctions, physical pressure, political struggle, etc.)
The second group includes covert actions of rivals in the conflict. The main mode of action in a hidden internal conflict is reflexive control. This is a way of managing when the grounds for making a decision are transferred from one of the actors to another. One of the rivals is trying to convey and introduce into the consciousness of the other such information that makes this other act in a way that is beneficial to the one who transmitted this information.
c) Conflict resolution.
An external sign of conflict resolution may be the end of the incident. It is a completion, not a temporary cessation. Elimination, termination of the incident is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving the conflict. Often, having stopped active conflict interaction, people continue to experience a frustrating state, to look for its cause. And then the conflict that was extinguished flares up again.
The resolution of social conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes. This change can take various forms. But the most effective change in the conflict situation, allowing to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the causes of the conflict.
It is also possible to resolve a social conflict by changing the requirements of one of the parties: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict.
Conflicts can take many different forms - from a simple quarrel between two people to a major military or political clash involving millions. All conflicts have four basic parameters:
Causes of the conflict;
The severity of the conflict;
duration of the conflict;
Consequences of the conflict.
1.2 Causes of the conflict
The cause of the conflict is the point around which the conflict situation unfolds. The following types of reasons can be distinguished:
1. The presence of opposite orientations. Each individual and social group has a certain set of value orientations regarding the most significant aspects of social life. They are all different and usually opposite. At the moment of striving to satisfy needs, in the presence of blocked goals that several individuals or groups are trying to achieve, opposite value orientations come into contact and can cause conflicts.
Conflicts due to opposite value orientations are extremely diverse. The most acute conflicts appear where there are differences in culture, perception of the situation, status or prestige. Conflicts caused by opposite orientations can occur in the spheres of economic, political, socio-psychological and other value orientations.
2. ideological reasons. Conflicts that arise on the basis of ideological differences are a special case of a conflict of opposite orientations. the difference between them is that the ideological cause of the conflict lies in the different attitudes towards the system of ideas that justify and legitimize the relationship of subordination, domination and fundamental worldviews among different groups of society.
3. The causes of the conflict are various forms of economic and social inequality. This type of reason is associated with significant differences in the distribution of values between individuals or groups. Inequality in the distribution of values exists everywhere, but conflict arises only at such a magnitude of inequality, which is regarded as very significant.
4. The causes of conflicts lie in the relations between the elements of the social structure. Conflicts arise as a result of the different places that structural elements occupy in a society, organization or ordered social group. The conflict for this reason can be associated, firstly, with different goals pursued by individual elements. Secondly, the conflict for this reason is associated with the desire of one or another structural element to take a higher place in the hierarchical structure.
Any of these reasons can serve as an impetus, the first stage of a conflict only if certain external conditions are present. What must happen for a conflict to arise, so that the corresponding cause is actualized. Obviously, in addition to the existence of the cause of the conflict, certain conditions must develop around it, serving as a breeding ground for the conflict.
1.3 Acuity of the conflict
When people talk about an acute social conflict, they first of all mean a conflict with a high intensity of social clashes, as a result of which a large amount of psychological and material resources are spent in a short period of time. An acute conflict is characterized mainly by open clashes that occur so often that they merge into a single whole.
The severity of the conflict to the greatest extent depends on the socio-psychological characteristics of the warring parties, as well as on the situation requiring immediate action. Absorbing energy from the outside, the conflict situation forces the participants to act immediately, putting all their energy into the collision.
1.4 Duration of the conflict
Each individual in his life inevitably encountered conflicts of varying duration. It can be a short skirmish lasting a few minutes (between two individuals), or it can be a confrontation between different groups that lasts for several generations (a conflict between religions).
Studies of conflict situations show that prolonged, protracted conflicts are undesirable under any circumstances.
1.5 Consequences of social conflict
The consequences of social conflict are highly controversial. Conflicts, on the one hand, destroy social structures, lead to significant unreasonable expenditure of resources, and on the other hand, they are the mechanism that contributes to the solution of many problems, unites groups and, ultimately, serves as one of the ways to achieve social justice. The duality in people's assessment of the consequences of the conflict has led to the fact that sociologists involved in the theory of conflicts, or, as they say, conflictology, have not come to a common point of view about whether conflicts are beneficial or harmful to society.
Thus, many believe that society and its individual components develop as a result of evolutionary changes, and as a result, they assume that social conflict can only be negative, destructive.
But there is a group of scientists, consisting of supporters of the dialectical method. They recognize the constructive, useful content of any conflict, since as a result of conflicts new qualitative certainties appear.
Let us assume that in every conflict there are both disintegrative, destructive, and integrative, creative moments.
Conflict can destroy social communities. In addition, internal conflict destroys group unity. Speaking about the positive aspects of the conflict, it should be noted that a limited, private consequence of the conflict may be an increase in group interaction. Conflict may be the only way out of a tense situation.
Thus, there are two types of consequences of conflicts:
1. disintegrated consequences that increase bitterness, lead to destruction and bloodshed, to intra-group tension, destroy normal channels of cooperation, divert the attention of group members from pressing problems;
2. integrative consequences that determine the way out of difficult situations, lead to the resolution of problems, strengthen group cohesion, lead to the conclusion of alliances with other groups, lead the group to understand the interests of its members.
2. Contemporary social conflicts in Russia
The interests of two sides clash directly in the conflict: for example, two contenders for one seat, two national-ethnic communities or states over a disputed territory, two political parties when voting on a draft law, etc.
However, a closer examination of the situation reveals that this open clash of interests is associated with a more complex system of relations. So, applicants for one place turn out to be not just equal individuals with the same rights and claims to the position. Each of the applicants is supported by a certain group of people. If the position or position for which the competition flares up is related to power, to the ability to dispose of other people, then this position is prestigious, highly valued by public opinion. Therefore, it is not excluded that an open clash of two opposing contenders may be initiated by a third party or a third party, which for the time being remains in the shadows.
Three aspects of the problems of political power in the conflicts of Russian society can be traced:
1. conflicts in the power itself, confrontation between various political forces for the possession of power;
2. the role of power in conflicts in various spheres of society, which somehow affect the foundations of the existence of power itself;
3. the role of state power as an intermediary.
The main conflicts in the sphere of power in modern conditions are as follows:
conflicts between branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial);
· conflicts within the parliament (both between the State Duma and the Federation Council, and within each of these bodies);
• conflicts between political parties and movements;
Conflicts between the links of the administrative apparatus, etc.
A potential source of a fierce struggle for power is new social groups claiming a higher position in political life, the possession of material goods and power.
Serious prerequisites for conflicts contain socio-economic relations between medium and small entrepreneurs and power structures. Reasons: corruption; the uncertainty of the functions of many civil servants; ambiguous interpretation of laws.
The importance of the nature of relations along the lines of "entrepreneurs - the bulk of the population" is growing. A factor contributing to the aggravation of the situation is the multiple difference in income between the rich and the poor.
Interethnic and interethnic conflicts occupy an important place in Russia's social conflicts. These conflicts are the most complex among social conflicts. To social contradictions, linguistic and cultural problems, historical memory is added, which deepens the conflict.
The peculiarity of interethnic conflicts in Russia is mainly due to the fact that the awakened national self-consciousness is often exacerbated by interethnic contradictions and destabilize the socio-political situation in the country. For the first time in history, the moral well-being of the Russian people, their self-awareness, are significantly impaired when every other, even a small nation, can appear before it as an enemy.
2.1 Consider an example of contemporary social conflict
According to the official press, the subject "Spiritual and Moral Culture" (DNA) will be included in the new curriculum for secondary schools in the Russian Federation. This subject is proposed to be studied alternatively at the choice of the student and his parents: the spiritual culture of any of the "traditional" religions (Orthodox, Islamic), or non-religious ethics.
The planned volume of the subject is 2 times a week for 2 hours for 11 years of study.
At the same time, of the training courses for schools, today only the “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” (OPC) are offered. On it teachers are officially trained and the textbook is approved. The ROC says that DNA is a way to introduce compulsory Orthodoxy into schools. They want to illegally force schoolchildren to uncontested study of Orthodoxy.
The position of the Moscow Patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church:
“A dialogue between the authorities and society is necessary so that the monopoly of the materialistic vision of the world that has developed in Soviet times will finally end in the Russian educational system” (from the resolution of the XI World Russian People's Council).
"It's time to debunk the chimera of the scientific worldview" (V. Chaplin, OVVTs MP RPTs).
The position of Russian scientists:
“All the achievements of modern world science are based on a materialistic vision of the world. There is simply nothing else in modern science ... The course towards innovative development can be implemented only if schools and universities equip young people with the knowledge obtained by modern science. There is no alternative to this knowledge." (Letter-10).
In the supplement "Centaur" to "Novaya Gazeta" (23-25.07.2007) 10 leading academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences: E. Aleksandrov, Zh. Alferov, G. Abelev, L. Barkov, A. Vorobiev, V. Ginzburg, S. Inge- Vechtomov, E. Kruglyakov, M. Sadovsky, A. Cherepashchuk, published a letter to President V. Putin "The Policy of the Russian Orthodox Church: Consolidation or Collapse of the Country?".
Letter-10 is directed against the aggressive policy of the church and the Orthodox lobby in the authorities: church obscurantism and clericalization of state and government structures, the army, schools, universities and scientific institutions.
“On what basis, one might ask, should theology - the totality of religious dogmas - be ranked among the scientific disciplines? Any scientific discipline operates with facts, logic, evidence, but by no means with faith ... We cannot remain indifferent when attempts are made to question scientific Knowledge, to eradicate the “materialistic vision of the world” from education, to replace the knowledge accumulated by science with faith. (Letter-10).
The informal leader of the group of natural scientists, Nobel laureate, world-famous physicist Vitaly Ginzburg, in several interviews, clearly dotted the “i”. The Orthodox Church strives to become a state ideology and replace objective scientific knowledge and secondary school education with its catechism.
“The Russian Orthodox Church is trying with all its might to push through religious faith to the detriment of real science,” (interview with Ekho Moskvy).
“The Russian Orthodox Church is striving in every possible way to have the Law of God taught in the lower grades of the school, but under the name Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture. This is faith in the Bible, but what is in the Bible? There is a well-known creationism in the Bible, that is, God took and created a person as he is. Meanwhile, as science has firmly established that man is the fruit of a long evolution. (interview with CITY-FM).
“A Petersburg schoolgirl and her father sued a biology teacher who taught the theory of evolution but did not teach the theory of divine creation. And at the same time they received the support of the patriarchate” (interview with the portal “24.ua”).
“By teaching religion in schools, these, to put it mildly, church bastards want to lure the souls of children” (interview with Vesti Obrazovanie)
Scientists popularly explained to the president: You can not simultaneously church the society and count on scientific and technological progress. There is one of two things here: Either the Moscow Patriarchate will be inside the church fence, or the Russian Federation will be in the garbage heap. Take your pick, Mr Putin. Mr Putin is thoughtful and silent. The ministers are also silent. They can be understood: it’s a pity to throw away the national idea, and you don’t want to go to the trash. Hard choise. But others more than compensate for their silence.
Vitaly Ginzburg (as the generally recognized leader of the scientific anti-clerical movement) was subjected to a flurry of accusations from political Orthodox ideologists.
"Young Guard", the youth wing of the ruling party "United Russia" July 27, 2007 gave rise to the article "Physicists" in the law "(author - Maria Sergeeva). I quote:
“In order to survive and succeed, you need competitiveness. And with this, we, frankly, have a problem. We can write concepts and invent a unique, unparalleled, high-budget, non-payback and useless installation that has nowhere to be implemented - this is what we can do. But we still cannot adapt science to the immediate needs of the state and business, learn not only to invent, but also to implement and sell our achievements. How can gentlemen academicians look the truth in the eye and admit that they themselves are to blame for the plight of science, and not at all the state, or, moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church. But no, instead of promptly solving the tasks facing the members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, our certified obscurantists decided to find a "scapegoat" in the form of the ROC, which is gaining influence. I dare to suggest that the very fact that there are people in the world who consider themselves descended from God, and not from a monkey, does not allow worthy academicians to sleep peacefully at night. Because with a strong position of the clergy, scientists will have to (it's scary to say!) engage in science, and not rant on universal topics, habitually talking about justice and goodness from television screens ... Dear Messrs. Ginzburg, Alferov and others like them! Instead of once again acting as humanitarian authorities ... better deal with the deplorable state of our science. Make sure that your inventions benefit Russia.”
And what, by the way, does the Orthodox Church itself and the social and political movements belonging to it say?
Firstly, they write a complaint against Vitaly Ginzburg to the prosecutor's office so that the Nobel laureate is roughly punished for his irreverent way of thinking. Russia, they are sure. “Orthodox country” (the idea of reading the Constitution does not occur to these people).
Secondly, they accuse Ginzburg of being a Jew and a leader of the world Masonic behind the scenes, which sets itself the goal of destroying Orthodox Russia with godless humanism.
An extensive article “Christian values or the humanism of Sodom?” is devoted to this issue. (Irina Medvedeva, Tatyana Shishova) on the Pravoslavie portal. RU.
Thirdly, it mobilizes the so-called. "creative intelligentsia" (Orthodox writers, filmmakers, moralists, etc.) to fight against the godless Nobel laureates.
So the general director of the Mosfilm film concern, director Karen Shakhnazarov, in the article “Symbols of Faith”, (Itogi magazine, July 30, 2007) writes literally “Russia is an Orthodox country. Whoever doesn't like it can find another country."
In fact, to understand that the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" (OPC) at school and the presence of the MP ROC in state structures are illegal, no theory of religion is needed. Enough of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, where it is written in black and white:
Article 14 “The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.”
Article 28 “Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion or not to profess any, freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and act in accordance with them.”
Article 29 “Everyone is guaranteed freedom of thought and speech. Propaganda or agitation that incite social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity is not allowed. Propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic superiority is prohibited.”
At the same time, in the message of Alexy II No. 5925 dated December 9, 1999, “to all diocesan bishops” it is recommended: “If you encounter difficulties in teaching the Fundamentals of Orthodox Faith, name the course“ Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture ”, this will not cause objections from teachers and directors of secular educational institutions brought up on an atheistic basis. This is nothing more than a call to violate the Constitution.
“From the quoted text it follows that under the guise of “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” they are trying to introduce to us (and again bypassing the Constitution) the “Law of God” (Letter-10).
“Religious ceremonies with the participation of high-ranking government officials, etc. are widely covered. All these are signs of the active clericalization of the country.”
(Letter-10). Another violation of the Constitution, obvious without any religious studies.
As an alternative to studying the OPK or other “traditional” religion by schoolchildren as part of the mandatory DNA subject in Russia, a public initiative has created a draft course on Naturalistic Ethics. The project can also be used in schools in Ukraine, where uncontested "Christian ethics" is illegally introduced.
The course is based on the scientific picture of the world and is focused on obtaining practically useful knowledge. The course does not contain a specific attitude to religion, except for the condemnation of religious fanaticism and obscurantism. It is addressed to schoolchildren both from those families where they adhere to atheism, secular (secular) humanism, Carianism, agnosticism or religious indifference, and from those families where they adhere to any free religion that does not contradict the foundations of science and common sense.
The course program consists of 15 topics, each of which is designed for 4 hours (2 hours of lectures, 2 hours of a seminar or educational game). Topics will be repeated annually with the addition of new material according to the age of the students. In this project, the names of topics and their summary for older students (14 - 17 years old) are given.
The detailed program will present the specific content of the topics by year, teaching methods, main questions for discussion, homework, etc.
Since the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation does not train ethics teachers, the course is designed for teaching by teachers in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) or parent volunteers who are professionally knowledgeable on the topics of the proposed program and are ready to take on this function .
Thematically, the course is structured in such a way that specialists in different fields of knowledge can share the topics of classes among themselves, without compromising the quality of schoolchildren's education.
1. What is ethics. The evolution of life and the origin of man. The evolution of ethics.
2. Scientific picture of the world, a scientific view of man and society. naturalistic ethics.
3. Ethics is for people, not people for ethics. Basic rules of naturalistic ethics.
4. Freedom and its limits. Mutual respect. Mutual assistance. Contract.
5. Private life and its inviolability. The right to be yourself.
6. Public order. social contract. discipline and management.
7. Unity and individuality in the team. Team and crowd.
8. Circle of close people. Friendship. Love. intimate life.
9. Parents and children. Family. Domestic space.
11. Intelligence and emotions. Science and art. Creativity in human life.
12. Freedom of information. Ethics of information activity.
13. Ethics and health. Relationship between physical and mental health.
14. Ethics and civilization. Responsibility for the world we live in.
15. Ethics of the future. How we want to see the world. New ethical issues.
Whatever one may say, the church is a huge public organization that has its own doctrine, which is different (in Russia, albeit potentially) from the ideology of the ruling power. Therefore, the CMO for the church today is a kind of sweet captivity. Yes, advocating for this course, the hierarchy publicly confirms its importance and necessity, yes, huge funds are allocated for the development of the defense industry, yes, games with the defense industry become a lever of strong social and political pressure on the ground. But in fact, with the introduction of this discipline, the church falls into bondage to external forces. After all, just as this course itself, speaking about the sanctity of state power, pushes the figure of Christ into the background, so its introduction is carried out by means that do not belong to the church. Secular teachers read it in schools, as ordered by order. Therefore, the authorities have the opportunity at any moment to cancel Orthodoxy in such a way that it will again become an appendage to the national cultural heritage. For example, to prohibit the election of a new patriarch. And the army of teachers across the country will support and justify such a decision.
And the fact that guys in civilian clothes have long since learned to deal with the church as they please is beyond doubt: Viktor Cherkesov, for example, back in the 80s, as a KGB investigator, imprisoned Orthodox Christians for their beliefs, and in 2006 received from the hands of the Patriarch the Order of the Holy Martyr Tryphon I degree for his services in protecting the morality and spirituality of society. And the first organized demonstrations in support of the defense industry complex, imitating civil consent, were the actions of the pro-Kremlin "Nashists" and the "Georgievtsy" close to them.
Therefore, let us be attentive to ourselves and stock up on patience. The Lord, as you know, endured and wished the same for us.
Conclusion
Deep and complex processes in modern Russian society -
social crisis, transformation of the social structure, political and spiritual changes, social conflicts - occur in a society in transition.
The current crisis of Russian society is one of the deepest and longest in our history.
Conflicts cover all spheres of life in Russian society. The most dangerous are conflicts in the political sphere, especially in the sphere of power, socio-economic and interethnic relations.
Understanding their nature, causes of occurrence and development will help to develop rules of conduct and ways to resolve the warring parties by mutual agreement.
The integrity of the Russian state, stability in society are becoming a priority in the ways of regulating conflicts.
Bibliography
1. Brushlinsky A.V. General psychology. – M.: Enlightenment, 1986.
2. Verenko I.S. Conflictology. – M.: concern Swiss, 1990.
3. Gottsdanker R. Fundamentals of psychological experiment. – Publishing House of Moscow University, 1982.
4. Dobrovich A.B. Educator about the psychology of communication. - M .: Education, 1987.
5. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict. - M .: AO Aspect press, 1994.
6. Lavrinenko V.N. Sociology. - M .: Culture and sport, UNITI, 1998.
7. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. - M.: Center, 1996.
Introduction 2
The concept of social conflict, its classification and functions 3
Mechanism of social conflict 7
Social conflicts in modern Russia 9
Conclusion 15
List of used literature 16
Introduction
The possibility of conflict exists in all spheres of society.
Conflicts are born on the basis of daily differences of opinion, disagreements
and confrontation of different opinions, motives, desires, lifestyles, hopes,
interests, personality traits. Famous philosopher and sociologist Max Weber
was convinced that social conflict is omnipresent, and every society in every
its point is riddled with discord and conflict.
The problem of social conflicts became the subject of study of sociologists only in the 19
20th century Initially, a description of conflict situations, the study of the causes and
the consequences of conflicts have been dealt with by historians and philosophers (in most cases
on the example of armed clashes).
So, the outstanding philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that "the war of all against all" -
it is the natural state of society.
Within the framework of sociology, a special scientific direction has developed, which, in
currently referred to as "the sociology of conflict".
The concept of social conflict, its classification and functions.
The concept of "conflict" is characterized by an exceptional breadth of content and
used in various meanings. In the most general way, conflict is understood as an extreme case of exacerbation of contradictions. Social psychologists also emphasize that the intractable contradiction is associated with acute emotional experiences.
Real conflict is a socio-psychological process.
Social psychologists propose to define conflict as arising in the sphere of
communication clash caused by conflicting goals, ways of behavior,
attitudes of people, in the conditions of their desire, to achieve any goals
Or, similarly, a clash of personalities due to the incompatibility of needs, motives, goals, attitudes, views, behavior in the process and as a result of the communication of these personalities.
Conflicts should be distinguished from other forms of confrontation in society, which
may be a consequence of:
1. lack of agreement between the participants in the discussion,
2. conflicts of interest,
3. collisions,
4. rivalry,
5. competition.
It is important to emphasize that the conflict is a clash of interests of different
social actors, taking place publicly. Often the conflict has a political dimension (since social conflict affects management systems) - social conflict is fraught with political conflict. The accumulation of conflicts in society is called a crisis. Political conflict is associated with the mutual deviation of responsibility and power.
Western sociologists and philosophers recognize conflicts as the most important factors in social development. The English philosopher and sociologist G. Spencer believed
conflict "an inevitable phenomenon in the history of human society and an incentive
social development".
The German philosopher and sociologist G. Simmel, calling the conflict a “dispute”, considered it
psychologically conditioned phenomenon and one of the forms of socialization.
The classic of sociology, R. Dahrendorf, pointed out in his writings the close connection between conflict and the concepts of crisis and contradictions. The crisis, according to R. Dahrendorf, is the result of pathological changes in the content and forms of life of the population, serious changes in the control mechanism in politics, economics and culture, an explosion of mass discontent among citizens, a radical break with traditional norms and values. According to R. Dahrendorf, conflict is the most important side of the interaction of people in society; it is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values and norms, interests and needs. The essential side of social conflict is that these actors operate within some wider network of connections, which is strengthened or destroyed under the influence of the conflict.
Thus, under social conflict in modern sociology they understand any kind of struggle between individuals, the purpose of which is to achieve or maintain the means of production, economic position, power or other values that enjoy social recognition, as well as the conquest, neutralization or elimination of a real or imaginary enemy.
Conflicts can be classified from various points of view, for example, from the standpoint of the causes of occurrence, the main forms of life (conflicts in the labor, religious, political, economic spheres of life), by groups of participants, by the degree of their involvement in the conflict, by duration, etc. .
Conflicts can be classified in two ways:
types of subjects (personal, group, organizational, nation as
specific macrogroup, the state as a specific institution) and
the flow of conflict within the system or outside the system.
In relation to the subject, the following types of conflicts are distinguished:
one). Intrapersonal conflict, which is expressed by the struggle of contradictions within
person accompanied by emotional tension. One of the most
common forms - role conflict, when to one person
There are conflicting demands about what should be
the result of his work.
2). Interpersonal conflict. This type of conflict is the most common.
Conflict between personalities arises where different schools collide,
manners, they can be fed by the desire to get something, unsupported
relevant opportunities. Interpersonal conflict can also
manifest itself as a clash of people with different character traits, views
and values.
3). Conflict between an individual and a group may arise if this individual
take a position different from that of the group. In the process of functioning
groups develop group norms, standard rules of behavior, which
adhere to by its members. Compliance with group norms ensures acceptance
or non-acceptance of the individual by the group.
4). Intergroup conflicts often arise due to the lack of clear coordination of functions and work schedules between groups. Intergroup conflicts often arise between informal groups.
Conflicts can be divided into:
Full-scale - an open social struggle in which the opposing sides, their interests, the object of the struggle, the strategy and tactics of behavior are clearly represented.
Incomplete conflict - involves a smaller number of participants, it has poorly structured interests and composition of the parties, it is less legalized and does not differ in open behavior (for example, a hidden or sluggish conflict of interests between the enterprise administration and workers that does not take the form of mass
strikes).
Flow conflicts are divided into:
Short-term (the subject of the conflict is exhausted in the process of contact relationships);
Long-term (protracted processes in relation to the expectations of the participants, often of a destructive nature).
By the nature of occurrence, conflicts are distinguished:
Business - have a production basis and arise in connection with the search for ways to solve complex problems, with an attitude to existing shortcomings, the choice of a manager's style, etc. They are inevitable.
Emotional - have a purely personal nature. The source of these conflicts lies either in the personal qualities of the opponents, or in their psychological incompatibility;
The subject side of the conflict depends on interests, actual motivation. So,
labor conflicts are associated with meeting the needs of specific goals in
the process of labor activity, political - with power relations,
environmental - generated by the global problems of modern behavior
participants.
Most people see conflict as an unpleasant thing, part of the curse of the family.
human. But you can treat conflicts differently - to see in them
potential progress. That is, conflicts as an integral part of social life can perform two functions: positive (constructive) and negative (destructive). Therefore, as many researchers believe, the task is not to eliminate or prevent conflict, but to find a way to make it productive.
The positive consequences of the conflict for the individual may also consist in the fact that internal tension will be eliminated through it. The positive function of conflicts is that they often serve to express dissatisfaction or protest, to inform the conflicting parties about their
interests and needs.
In certain situations where negative relationships between people
controlled, and at least one of the parties defends not only personal, but also organizational interests in general, conflicts help to unite others, mobilize the will, the mind to solve fundamentally important issues, improve the psychological climate in the team.
Mechanism of social conflict
On the way of the development of a contradiction into a conflict, a peculiar state develops, which can be called a pre-conflict situation. The latter directly precedes the conflict, develops into it. The pre-conflict state is highly unstable: an insignificant, even random event can cause irreversible processes leading directly to an open conflict. At this stage, there is a combination of different circumstances that precede conflicts and often give rise to incompatible demands. At the same time, the satisfaction of the interests of one side prevents the satisfaction of the interests of the other.
An important moment in the origin of the conflict is the presence of an object, the possession of which is associated with the satisfaction of the needs of the parties drawn into the conflict. Thus, it can become a cause of conflict. This situation is usually recognized by the conflicting parties.
In the pre-conflict stage, the subjects, before deciding on open actions, evaluate their capabilities (material values, power, information, communications, etc.), take steps to consolidate the forces of the warring parties, search for supporters. In addition, the pre-conflict stage is the period of formation by each side of its strategy of action.
The conflict that has begun in the process of its development undergoes certain changes. This is due to the fact that the relations that develop at the beginning and at the end of the conflict differ significantly: the activity of the subjects manifests itself to varying degrees, unexpected turns of events may occur, etc. Additional reasons are created for the deepening and expansion of the conflict.
The process of growing conflict continues until the first tangible results of the confrontation appear. These results are comprehended, analyzed by the subjects of the conflict.
In the conflict itself, actions can be open, direct or hidden, mediated. They can be physical, psychological, ideological, etc. They manifest the specific behavior of people. These actions may be predictable or unpredictable, but they usually widen the scope of the conflict.
So, for the existence of a conflict, three conditions are required: an objectively developing conflict situation, the subjects of conflicts (the presence of a conflict situation alone is not enough if the parties are peaceful) and the presence of a reason for the conflict, i.e., a kind of “trigger” that contributes to the development of events.
The resolution of the conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes, more precisely, if the root cause of the conflict is eliminated, when the attitude of the rivals towards each other changes and they stop seeing each other as opponents, when the requirements of the parties change and the rival makes concessions (but it is possible at the same time mutual concessions).
Conflict resolution can be complete or partial. Complete resolution means the end of the conflict, a radical restructuring of the entire image of the conflict situation. At the same time, the "image of the enemy" is transformed into the "image of a partner", the focus on the struggle is replaced by an orientation towards cooperation.
With a partial resolution of the conflict, only its external form often changes, but the internal incentives to continue the confrontation remain.
Successful conflict resolution is associated with certain conditions, namely:
timely and accurate diagnosis of its causes. In the course of this, objectively existing contradictions, interests, goals are revealed.
The task of conflict management is to prevent its growth and reduce negative consequences.
Social conflicts in modern Russia
The interests of the two parties directly collide in the conflict:
for example, two applicants for one place, two national-ethnic
communities or states over a disputed territory, two political
However, a closer examination of the situation reveals that this
open clash of interests is associated with a more complex system
relations. So, contenders for one place are not just
individuals of equal size, having the same rights and claims to
position. Each of the applicants is supported by a specific group
of people. If the position or position about which it flares up
competition, is related to power, to the ability to dispose of others
people, then this position is prestigious, appreciated enough
high in public opinion. Therefore, it is not excluded that
an open confrontation between two opposing contenders can be
initiated by a third party or a third party, which for the time being
time remains in the shadows.
Three aspects of the problems of political power in conflicts can be traced
Russian society:
Conflicts in the power itself, confrontation between different
political forces for the possession of power;
The role of power in conflicts in various spheres of society,
which somehow influence the foundations of the existence of power itself;
The role of government as an intermediary.
The main conflicts in the sphere of power in modern conditions are as follows:
Conflicts between the branches of government (legislative,
executive, judicial);
Conflicts within the parliament (as between the State Duma
and the Federation Council, as well as within each of these bodies);
Conflicts between political parties and movements;
Conflicts between the links of the administrative apparatus, etc.
A potential source of fierce power struggles are new
social groups claiming a higher position in the political
life, the possession of material goods and power.
The executive branch is increasingly pursuing policies
based on their understanding of the situation and in the interests of self-preservation.
Opinion polls show that the degree of distrust in the current authorities
high enough.
If in most industrialized countries in social conflicts
there is a contradiction between the welfare system and the labor system, then
in Russia, the division of the struggle goes not only and not so much along the lines of "workers-
entrepreneurs," how much along the line "labor collectives - the government."
Along with demands for higher wages, higher living standards, liquidation
debts, the demands of the collectives connected with
defending their right to the property of enterprises. Since the main
the subject of the redistribution of property are the bodies of state
authorities, then socio-economic actions are directed with their edge
against government policy both in the center and in individual regions.
Serious prerequisites for conflicts contain social and
economic relations between medium and small businesses and
power structures. Reasons: corruption; uncertainty of the functions of many
civil servants; ambiguous interpretation of laws.
In the social conflicts of Russia, an important place is occupied by interethnic and
interethnic conflicts. These conflicts are the most complex among
social conflicts. To social contradictions, linguistic and cultural
historical memory is added to the problems, which deepens the conflict.
Russia is a multinational country with more than 120 peoples. In
many republics within the Russian Federation, the indigenous population
constitutes a minority. Only in 5 republics its number exceeds
50% (Chuvashia, Tyva, Komi, Chechnya, North Ossetia).
The peculiarity of interethnic conflicts in Russia is due to the main
way by the fact that the awakened national self-consciousness is often exacerbated
interethnic conflicts destabilize the socio-political situation
in the country. For the first time in history, the moral well-being of the Russian people, their
self-consciousness is significantly impaired when each other,
not even a large number of people, can appear before him as
In the development of the conflict, in its transition to the stage of extreme aggravation
much depends on how exactly the most initial, initial
events leading to the development of the conflict, what importance is attached
conflict in the mass consciousness and in the minds of the leaders of the respective
public groupings. To understand the nature of the conflict and its nature
development, the “Thomas theorem” is of particular importance, which states: “If people
perceive some situation as real, then it will be real
and by its consequences. For conflict, this means that if
there is a mismatch of interests between people or groups, but this mismatch
is not perceived, not felt and not felt by them, then such a mismatch
interests do not conflict. Conversely, if between people there is
common interests, but the participants themselves feel hostility towards each other, then
relations between them will necessarily develop according to the pattern of conflict, and not
cooperation.
Feeling of hostility of intentions, reaction to imaginary or real
threat, a state of oppression give rise to preventive or protective actions
the side that feels the disadvantage and associates it with actions
some other groups or people. Thus the imaginary becomes
real.
When considering the causes of a particular conflict, it is necessary to have
in view of the fact that every conflict is somehow personified. Each of
parties to the conflict have their own leaders, leaders, leaders, ideologists,
who voice and broadcast the ideas of their group, formulate
“their” positions and represent them as the interests of their group. At
it is often difficult to figure out whether this or that leader is nominated by
the current conflict situation or he himself will create this situation, because
he - thanks to a certain type of behavior takes the position of a leader, leader,
"spokesperson" of the people, ethnic group, class, social
stratum, political party, etc. Anyway, in any conflict
The personal characteristics of leaders play an exceptional role. In each
specific situation, they may pursue a case to aggravate the conflict or
find means to resolve it.
As a rule, the leader is not alone. It is supported by a certain group, but
this support is almost always subject to some conditions.
Certain members of a "support group" are in a relationship at the same time
rivalry or competition for positions in the lead. Hence,
but also with how he will perceive in his own environment, how
his support is strong among his own supporters and
like-minded people.
World experience allows us to highlight some of the most characteristic
sources on the basis of which the causes of conflicts are formed: wealth,
power, prestige and dignity, i.e. those values and interests that have
meaning in any society and give meaning to the actions of specific individuals,
involved in conflicts. In different historical contexts, priority
corresponding values can be modified, but the content side
things from this does not change very significantly. This fully applies to
First, the idea of social differentiation allows every Russian
openly strive not only to get rid of poverty, but also
get rich. In mass consciousness and in practical life relations
wealth is not just a certain amount of money or property, but
the possibility of expanding the limits of their activities and influence.
The second, no less important source of conflict is the struggle for
power. It is no less attractive than wealth as such, at least
because damask steel and gold are constantly arguing with each other. empirical
power positions are expressed by state and non-state
positions and positions that allow you to control the allocation of resources to
the basis of the right of disposal, to determine access to the flows of meaningful information,
participate in decision making. The field of power will create a specific environment
communication, entry into which is one of the most important motives of political
activities.
In particular, these feelings are aggravated in situations where a person
gets the opportunity to dispose of the means of violence: to give
arrest orders, determine the movement of military formations, give
orders to use weapons. Conflicts in the political space have
as much of an engaging force as conflicts over wealth,
but they tend to be framed in more grandiloquent phraseology associated
with declarations on general - national, state -
interests and interests of progress in general.
Thirdly, the sources of conflict include the desire to achieve
various forms of prestige. The real embodiment of prestige is fame
decisions, demonstrating respect for the person and their potential.
Prestige in very rare cases can be won without the support of power and
wealth, therefore, is, to some extent, a secondary source
conflict. But. the fact is that both wealth and power seem to accumulate
support from public opinion. Struggle for power and wealth
may start with conflicts over prestige - reputation building, or
on the contrary, discrediting this or that person or group of people in the eyes of
public opinion. This is where the idea of the so-called
the fourth power, which is concentrated in the media.
Finally, fourthly, it is important to point out the desire to preserve
human dignity. These are values such as respect and
self-respect, competence, professionalism, representativeness,
recognition, moral qualities of the individual. If everything is reduced to
the previous three sources of conflict, it turns out to be a rather bleak
a picture of an almost indispensable affirmation of evil and vice, destruction
morality in society.
In the struggle for wealth, power and glory, a person should not forget about
the boundaries of their choice, separating the humane, humane, cultural beginning
from the inhuman and immoral. And these boundaries run inside everyone
specific individual. Whoever crosses these boundaries loses first of all
the right to self-respect, and at the same time undermines one's personal
dignity, their civil and professional honor.
One of the reasons for the aggravation of conflicts between large groups of people in
Russia is the accumulation of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs,
an increase in claims, a radical change in self-consciousness and social
well-being. As a rule, at first the process of accumulation of dissatisfaction
goes slowly and subtly until some event occurs which
plays the role of a kind of trigger that brings out this feeling
dissatisfaction.
Such dissatisfaction, which takes on an open form, stimulates
the emergence of a social movement in which leaders are put forward,
programs and slogans are being worked out, an ideology of protecting interests is being formed.
At this stage, the conflict becomes open and irreversible. He either
becomes an independent and permanent component of public life,
either ends with the victory of the initiating side, or is decided on the basis of
mutual concessions of the parties.
The usual development of the conflict assumes that each of the parties is capable of
take into account the interests of the opposing side. This approach creates the possibility
relatively peaceful deployment of the conflict through negotiation
process and making adjustments to the previous system of relations in
direction and scale acceptable to each of the parties.
At the same time, in our country it often happens that the party initiating
conflict, comes from a negative assessment of the previous state of affairs and
declares only its own interests, not taking into account
interests of the opposite side. The opposing side is forced into this
take special measures to protect their interests. As a result
both parties may suffer some damage, which is attributable to
opposing side in the conflict.
Conclusion
Summing up the study of social conflicts, it can be argued that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible. One cannot categorically call conflict a manifestation of the dysfunction of organizations, deviant behavior of individuals and groups, a phenomenon of social life, most likely conflict is a necessary form of social interaction between people.
So, we can conclude that since conflicts are inevitable in our lives, we need to learn how to manage them, based on the experience gained in a very rich and diverse literature on this issue, the assimilation of theoretical and practical knowledge obtained within the framework of this area of sociological thought, strive to that they result in the least possible cost to society and the individuals involved.
Bibliography:
"Sociology". S.S. Frolov "Logos"., M., 1996
"Sociology" A.A. Radugin., K.A. Radugin "Center"., M., 1997
"Sociology" Textbook. "Knowledge"., M., 1995
"Sociology of conflict" A.G. Zdravomyslov JSC "Aspect press"., M., 1994
Tver State Agricultural Academy
Correspondence department of the Faculty of Economics
Training period3 years
Direction social conflicts in contemporary Russia render contradictions in interethnic and interethnic ...
Social values in contemporary Russia
Abstract >> SociologyOn the psyche of a child of marital conflicts. The family can live, ... the time of wars, interethnic and religious conflicts- the most vulgar, the most banal ... their format projection on social reality contemporary Russia. The concept of essence is defined...
Social politics in contemporary Russia (2)
Coursework >> EconomicsCapable of improving social politics. Chapter 2 Features social policies in contemporary Russia§one. State policy ... to increase income differentiation, social tension, exacerbation social conflicts and eventually fall...
Conflicts in contemporary society
Abstract >> SociologyAnd the concept social conflict; - identify causes social conflicts in Russia; - explore social conflicts in contemporary Russia. Object of study - social conflict Subject of study - social conflicts in the post-Soviet...
Social conflict as a phenomenon in the structure of society is a multifaceted phenomenon, in which the most diverse in content and nature social ties and relations, both material and spiritual, are woven into a single knot: economic, political, legal, moral, which are amenable to logical analysis, rational comprehension in a logical-verbal form; but here there are also such connections and relations that in rational forms, i.e. in the logic of concepts familiar to us, are incomprehensible. Therefore, the knowledge of social conflicts requires special conceptual means; new intellectual-linguistic moves and semantic constructions are needed here.
A sociological analysis of social conflicts and ways to resolve them in the management process involves, first of all, clear definitions of the three identified points (conflicts - social management - ways to resolve social conflicts).
There are different interpretations of the conflict, different levels of understanding of this social phenomenon. In general, three approaches are most clearly manifested. A number of theorists who deal with this problem to some extent believe that conflict is definitely an undesirable phenomenon that destroys (or disrupts) the normal functioning of the social system. Others, on the contrary, argue that conflict is a natural and even necessary phenomenon in the life of society; it performs a stimulating function. For example, a supporter of such an interpretation, the German philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel, once spoke quite definitely about this: in his opinion, social and political conflict is the basis of social communication. The conflict situation, he believes, emphasizes the boundaries of the group, mobilizes its members, makes them realize their unity, and this is the great significance of the conflict.
There is also a third approach to the interpretation of the conflict, which is more balanced and more in line with reality. It consists in the fact that both negative, destructive, and positive functions are distinguished in the conflict. Positive in the sense that the conflict and its resolution are in some cases a prerequisite for the emergence of a new one, for the transition of a certain system to a new quality, to a higher level of its development or strengthening its stability.
The nature of managerial decisions made by him and specific actions in a conflict situation depends on which of the designated positions the subject of management takes, which will be discussed in more detail below.
For the disclosure of this topic, the interpretation of management in conflict conditions is of great importance. The practical managerial actions of the subject of management depend on it. Management in conflict conditions is the activity of the subject of management to maintain (or establish) the following features of the social system:
- ? firstly, its integrity, the organic unity of the elements included in this system;
- ? secondly, orderliness, which is the relative constancy of the composition of the elements and the links that unite them;
- ? thirdly, the ability of the system to preserve itself when exposed to the environment and its functions, for the sake of which this system was formed and exists.
In essence, effective management in conflict situations means maintaining or building a certain structure, an ordered set of relations according to the marked functional and institutional features. But this requires a correct understanding of the conflict itself as a specific phenomenon in the structure of society, the causes of its occurrence and genesis, as well as ways to resolve it.
Social conflict is a form of interaction between the subjects of social relations, determined by the mismatch (and sometimes incompatibility) of their vital interests and values, and in its essence is reduced to the distribution and redistribution of vital resources, which should be understood as the means and conditions for the existence and development of these subjects (material and spiritual values that can satisfy their diverse needs, property, power, territory, etc.).
Developments in conflict theory have traditionally been limited to the creation of "explaining" concepts, i.e. searching for the origins of conflict situations, identifying behavioral stereotypes fraught with a social explosion. Today, there is an emphasis on methods of prevention and resolution, in other words, conflict management. Researchers of this phenomenon are moving from finding out the causes and factors that give rise to conflict, to creating a theory and technology for resolving or resolving conflicts.
In line with traditional approaches to the study of conflicts, it was customary to start with the study of social institutions and structures in relation to which the individual acted as a malleable instrument of the social process. Modern interpretations suggest a different angle of view: social conflict is a consequence of infringement (or inadequate satisfaction) of the totality of human needs (or part of them), which constitute the real basis for the emergence and development of social conflicts. We consider conflict as a phenomenon that goes back to the substantive and functional needs of a person. Therefore, in the study of conflicts, the initial ones should not be groups (social, political, confessional, professional, status-positional, etc.) with their prescribed typical consciousness and behavior, but people who, making their own choice or making it under the pressure of the environment , just form such groups and communities. People identify with them today, and tomorrow, for some reason, change their orientation. Thus, studying a conflict situation and, all the more, claiming the right to regulate it, it is advisable to return from the passion for structures to the source - to the person, the hero and the author of conflict social dramas. At the same time, one should not deny the fact that political and economic structures are involved in fomenting the conflict, pursuing certain interests related to their power and income. These aspects of the problem are clear and sufficiently studied. But in the implementation of certain actions in the course of the conflict, in the implementation of certain plans, masses of people are involved who do not always have a direct interest in the original plans and intentions of the "arsonists", and often are not even privy to them. What drives them, what are the motives and goals of their actions against each other that go beyond humanity? The answer to this question can clarify a lot and allow you to more effectively manage conflict situations.
If the conflict, according to the definition of one of the most prominent representatives of Western conflictology, L. Kozer, is a clash of values, then what values were defended by ordinary participants in the bloody massacre in the Balkans, Chechnya, Abkhazia and other so-called hot spots of the late XX - early XXI century. What meaning did they put into their actions and actions? This problem is connected with the peculiarities of the consciousness of these individuals and groups, with their interpretation of reality, with their "construction" of social reality.
Conflicts as an external manifestation, an external clash of social forces and structures hide deep connections and relationships between people, their interests, needs, ideals, goals, values and other components of their "life worlds" (A. Schutz), the knowledge of which requires considerable effort . Such knowledge, which is essential for effective management practice in conflict conditions, should begin with an understanding of some prerequisites of a theoretical and methodological nature.
In order to make the right managerial decision in conflict situations and choose the most effective means and methods for its implementation, it is necessary to take into account the specific conditions and causes of the conflict, the stages of its deployment.
First of all, the conflict is preceded by social tension, from which a pre-conflict situation arises.
Social tension is a state of a social system (or subsystem) characterized by an imbalance in the exchange of activities between the components of this system and accompanied by negative emotional reactions (such as anxiety, fear, hostility, aggressiveness) on the part of the subjects of social relations. The state of social tension is characterized by a situation of uncertainty, which is a conflict environment. It is characterized by extreme excitement of the subjects, often turning into hysteria and giving rise to an ambiguity of perspectives, uncertainty in the meaning and direction of the subjects' actions. Hysteria often brings certainty, but it is usually associated with the formation of the image of the enemy, which will be discussed later.
In a conflict environment, provocation is very often used to ignite social conflict, which has become an integral element in conflicts of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. It is in a state of social tension that a pre-conflict situation is formed.
A pre-conflict situation is a set of specific historical circumstances that have developed in a space that is vital for a social subject and violates its security. It (the situation) gives rise to feelings of anxiety, fear, insecurity or infringement of the interests of the subject, caused by an explicit or implicit encroachment by other subjects on his established and established social status and life resources.
One of the indispensable conditions for the emergence of social conflict is a catalyst.
A conflict catalyst is a very definite element of life resources or life chances for the development of certain social subjects, over which their interests collide. All social relations are objective in nature; there are no objectless relations in society. Relations between social subjects are always mediated by material and spiritual objects, whether they are natural things or products of human activity that can satisfy material and spiritual needs. The same applies to social conflicts as a variety of such relations. In accordance with the objects that serve to satisfy certain needs of social actors and have become a catalyst for social conflicts, the latter can be classified: if social actors clash over the means of production, then this will be economic conflict; if the catalyst was state power, then egopolitical conflict; clash over legal norms and their evaluations gives legal conflict etc.
Thus, one of the main reasons for the emergence of social conflicts is the impossibility of satisfying (or suppressing) the basic needs of subjects, inequality of opportunities, i.e. life chances of different actors, unequal access to development resources. In a state of stability, in a period of sustainable development of the social system, there is a certain and relatively stable structure of interests of various social groups, individual individuals, as well as institutionalized forms of "expression" of these interests as some objectively set parameters determined by the social position of the subjects. Here, if conflicts arise, they are extinguished, sometimes resolved by legal or violent means, specially created for this purpose by institutions of power. In the unstable state of the social system, in its crisis period, there is a diffusion of interests due to the instability of the social position of the subjects. Here, it is not the expression of interests that comes to the fore, but their positing and declaration, relation, claims to life chances, access to resources. The absence or weakness of the legal system designed to regulate social relations, provide institutional, i.e. legal, forms of satisfaction of needs and interests, leads to the fact that the claims of the subjects collide, as in the "Brownian movement", which gives rise to numerous conflicts.
An important characteristic of the conflict is its intensity. The intensity of the conflict means the sharpness, bitterness of the struggle of its parties, which is determined by the degree of moral and psychological mood of the participants in the confrontation, the presence of material and moral readiness, as well as the functional ability of the parties to fight until "victory". The highest degree of acuteness will be in that conflict, the potentials, material and spiritual resources of which are equal and when none of the conflicting parties makes concessions. In such cases, there is only one way out - the conclusion of an agreement.
"Peaceful", legitimate conflict resolution involves overcoming the "enemy image" syndrome, which consists of the following points.
- 1. Distrust, everything that comes from the "enemy" is either bad or, if it seems reasonable, pursues negative, dishonest goals.
- 2. Putting the blame on the "enemy": the "enemy" is responsible for the existing tensions and is to blame for everything.
- 3. Negative expectation: everything that is done is done for the sole purpose of harming us.
- 4. Identification with evil: "enemy" embodies the opposite of what we are and what we strive for; wants to destroy what we hold dear; everything that is beneficial to him harms us and vice versa.
- 5. Deindividualization: anyone who belongs to the opposing group is automatically our "enemy".
- 6. Denial of sympathy: It is dangerous and imprudent to be guided by ethical criteria in relation to the “enemy”.
Until recently, mankind could afford such primitive reactions based on archaic, once acceptable behavior patterns. But for modern man, who has relatively extensive knowledge and is armed with high technology, such primitive reactions are simply fatal.
If we want to know the key aspects of the behavior of the subjects of conflict interaction, then we must understand the motives, beliefs, goals of their actions.
To resolve the conflict, the communicative experience is of exceptional importance, which is born in the context of interaction, when both parties agree on linguistically formalized meanings that remain constant in the process of interaction. The core of communicative experience is the meaning of every action, every fact. Here one should rely on the concept of Max Weber, who considers social action as subjectively meaningful behavior, i.e. focused on the subjectively embedded meaning and therefore motivated. At the same time, social action can be adequately understood only through its correlation with the goals and values to which the subject is oriented. The American sociologist and social psychologist William A. Thomas deduced from this proposition a methodological rule known as the principle of subjective interpretation of social facts: only the meaning invested by the actor provides adequate access to his behavior in the situation that he himself interprets.
Thus, the theory of social action is based on the proposition that action must be understood through the interpretation of the acting subject himself. The motive of action is shifted from the level of the incentive system to the level of linguistic and other communication. Language here acts as a reservoir of interpretations and creation of meanings. Take, for example, the negotiations and agreements between the federal center and Chechnya in the 1990s. XX century: in the same provisions, formulated in the same language by different parties, different meanings were invested, they were given different interpretations depending on the interests of the parties.
Mutual opposition of counterparties, participants in the conflict fully fall under the definition of social action adopted in the "understanding sociology" of Max Weber. In the actions of conflicting subjects, their semantic orientation to the expectations of a certain action of the counterparty is important, and in accordance with this, a subjective assessment is made of the chance for the success of their own actions.
“Other-oriented” is an important concept for understanding and resolving social conflict. That is why in the study of conflicts the most appropriate methods can be the "understanding sociology" of Max Weber and the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz. They allow us to understand the meaning of human actions, the motivational and semantic structures of actions and deeds of the participants in the conflict.
The subject of conflict interaction himself chooses the meaning of his situation. He builds and explains his behavior by referring to facts chosen and interpreted by them. Therefore, the resolution of the conflict requires the presence of communicative actions.
Any social subject builds his behavior, focusing on reality. Such is his "life world", i.e. the world of his daily life, the world of objects closest to him, social phenomena. It is this world that is given to him, his consciousness with the greatest obviousness and apodictic (undoubted) certainty. In the process of social interaction, individual individuals, social groups, communities proceed from their life world, life experience as the most solid and stable, and therefore the most reliable empirical basis of social orientation. (It should be noted that knowledge about this empirical basis is provided by concrete sociological research.)
It is the life world that gives the individual the basic meanings and evidence that line up in a continuous life connection. Therefore, to study the intricacies and nuances of social interaction, and especially conflict interaction, one must first of all proceed from the life world of the subjects of this interaction. It is here that the true motives, goals of certain actions and actions of the agents of the conflict lie.
All our knowledge is rooted in the life world. This is the world of everyday life, the real life of people with their concerns, needs, and the search for ways to meet these needs. As A. Schutz rightly noted, the life world, everyday life is the “supreme reality”, it appears as a horizon that forms the context of the processes of understanding, therefore, in a conflict situation, an analysis of everyday ideas about social reality is necessary, and not a study of artificially constructed scientific abstractions.
Consequently, in order to resolve a social conflict, it is extremely important to break open, destroy the barriers, the boundaries of the life worlds of conflicting subjects, and introduce them into one communicative field. Here it is necessary to appeal to culture, to common spiritual, moral and religious values, to social ideals that exist in the structure of conflicting life worlds. And in the absence of them, they must be introduced, introduced into the life worlds of conflicting subjects, so that they can perform a meaning-creating function, form a common understanding of the situation for both sides.
The above philosophical and socio-psychological grounds for interpreting the conflict are extremely important for the practice of social management as a whole. In essence, effective management in this area is the art of resolving (or rather, resolving) conflicts between social actors. Conflict resolution differs from conflict resolution in that a third party is involved in the process. Its participation is possible both with the consent of the conflicting parties, and without it. Such a third party is the subject of social management. In modern conflictological literature, the third party nam&tsya mediator(intermediary). Mediators can be formal or informal. Official mediation implies that the mediator has a normative status or the ability to influence opponents. Informal mediation is distinguished by the absence of a normative status of the mediator, but the parties to the conflict recognize his informal authority in solving such problems.
Official mediators can be:
- ? interstate organizations (for example, the UN);
- ? individual states;
- ? state legal institutions (arbitration court, prosecutor's office, etc.);
- ? government and other state commissions;
- ? representatives of law enforcement agencies (for example, a local policeman in relation to a domestic conflict);
- ? heads of enterprises, institutions, firms, etc.;
- ? public organizations (commissions for resolving labor disputes and conflicts, trade union organizations, etc.).
Unofficial mediators are:
- ? famous people who have achieved success in socially significant activities (politicians, former statesmen);
- ? representatives of religious organizations;
- ? informal leaders of social groups of different levels, etc.
Official and unofficial mediators are the subjects of social management in conflict situations.
Modern management theorists believe that the complete absence of conflicts within the organization is not only impossible, but also undesirable. Types of conflicts within the organization are as follows: intrapersonal, interpersonal, between the individual and society, intragroup, intergroup.
The main causes of such conflicts are limited resources, interdependence of tasks, differences in goals, differences in values, differences in behavior, in educational levels, and poor communication.
From this follow the ways of resolving such conflicts: structural and interpersonal. Structural ways are:
- a) explanation of the requirements for work;
- b) use of coordination and integration mechanisms;
- c) setting corporate-wide complex goals;
- d) use of the reward system.
Interpersonal methods include:
- a) evasion;
- b) smoothing;
- c) coercion;
- d) compromise;
- e) solving the problem underlying the conflict.
Many causes of social conflicts in modern
Russian society are in the sphere of interaction between the state and the emerging civil society. The state as a political body for the exercise of power requires compliance with the general norms established by the constitutional way, the maximum harmonization of social interests and giving the dominant of them the status of universal state will. It is a profound mistake to see in a constitutional state only an apparatus of violence. We should agree with jurists that statehood is not a naked monopoly of force in public life, but a certain form of its organization and application, i.e. right.
Meanwhile, it is in the real interaction between the state and the institutions of civil society and individual citizens in modern Russia that many social contradictions arise, mainly through the fault of the state. A vivid example of this is the "unsuccessfully" implemented policy of monetizing social benefits for various social categories of Russian citizens. Although, according to the Constitution, any specific legislative acts of the state, dictated by considerations of economic, social or political expediency, are lawful only insofar as they do not violate the legal and social status enshrined in it.
This link - the state and the still emerging civil society - is fundamentally important at the present stage of development of Russian society. Unfortunately, we have to admit that there is no constructive interaction here yet. It needs to be adjusted. As long as mutual alienation prevails. On the one hand, civil consciousness has not yet been formed among all segments of the population, which implies respect for state bodies and an understanding of their importance. On the other hand, there is still no respect for the rights and freedoms of members of society by state bodies and civil servants representing the state. This gives rise to various social conflicts that make it difficult to solve managerial problems at all at all levels.
Social conflicts are violent and non-violent, controlled (managed) and uncontrolled (deeply rooted). With all the arguments about the "usefulness" of conflicts (non-violent, controlled) for social progress, it should be emphasized that an extremely undesirable type of social conflict is war - an armed clash of subjects of social relations, leading to human casualties. Terrorism also belongs to the same type of conflicts.
Terrorism is a multifaceted phenomenon that is increasingly asserting itself in the structure of being of modern society. It becomes one of the tools for the practical solution of economic, political and psychological problems. This phenomenon will continue to be analyzed by various specialists - economists, sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, doctors, lawyers; in other words, an interdisciplinary approach is important, since any act of terrorism, whatever its purpose, shakes all aspects of our lives.
At its core, terrorism is motivated violence (there are also unmotivated acts of violence, but this is an area of pathology), carried out by small groups or individuals in order to achieve a specific goal, most often of a political nature, and in this case, terrorists claim to represent large masses - classes, social strata, nations, religious and ethnic formations. It can also be characterized as a modern form of achieving forced deals with the state or with private individuals, where the initiative belongs to the terrorists. Terrorist actions create extreme situations in society, in which the subject of government (whether it be a state or any state body, its leader) must correctly orientate and make an unmistakable managerial decision, be ready to use means of violence against terrorists, up to their destruction .
An example of a deeply rooted conflict is an inter-ethnic conflict, the origins of which cannot be explained only by a divergence of interests. Roughly speaking, in a dispute of interests, you can always bargain. In deeply rooted conflicts, the fundamental characteristics and needs of the subjects are affected, such as security, identity, self-consciousness and dignity, freedom, etc. This is something that is not bought or sold. Therefore, such conflicts are always protracted and intractable.
Politicized ethnicity is increasingly beginning to come to the forefront of the modern political process. Ethnicity becomes not only the main character of national politics, but also a prominent actor in the sphere of political life in general: without taking into account the numerous ethnic claims, it is no longer possible to solve either economic, political or ideological problems both within national-state formations and on a global scale. .
The processes of globalization and modernization that have taken over modern Russian society have stimulated the disclosure of the latent potential of conflict relations between unevenly developed ethno-national groups. Many ethnic groups and nationalities inhabiting Russia, under the pressure of modernization processes, are forced to move from a traditional society to an industrial one. This transition is accompanied by a breaking strict regulation of their social status, a change in relations between the center and peripheral ethnic groups, religious groups.
Such a transition means replacing the entire traditional system of relations with an open competitive choice in conditions of equality before the laws of the market. But the inequality of starting opportunities in this process in ethno-national areas gives rise to numerous conflicts between the claims of ethnic groups, as well as between individual ethnic groups and the state.
Many problems and difficulties of social management in modern Russia are due to the fact that the state is not yet able to provide constitutional rights to its subjects. It is not yet able to bring all ethnic groups to the same level of socio-economic development.
In addition, in ethnic groups there is an uneven formation of political and legal consciousness, and in the most politicized ethnic groups, really or imaginary deprived because of their peripheral position, there is dissatisfaction with the state center as a guarantor of human rights protection, resulting in a form of nationalism.
Under these conditions, in order to solve their problems, in order to win the right to dispose of the region's wealth, the local ethnocracy effectively exploits objective socio-economic difficulties, hiding behind national rhetoric and dressing up in "national clothes".
It is important for the subjects of social management (state structures, individual leaders of various levels) to understand that interethnic conflicts do not have their own grounds; their fundamental causes should be sought in other layers of social relations, namely: in the economy, politics (primarily in the struggle for power), in the field of social psychology.
Social interactions in unstable systems with intense internal fluctuations (deviations), the dominance of stochastic processes are characterized by a high degree of conflictogenicity. Any of the contradictions objectively inherent in this system can turn into a conflict. Therefore, the main condition for resolving numerous conflicts on the territory of Russia is the general stabilization of the entire system of socio-economic and political relations. But this does not mean that one should simply wait for a general stabilization without taking any measures to resolve already existing and escalating conflicts. In any case, in the event of a social conflict, the subject of management must:
- ? firstly, to localize the conflict, clearly define its boundaries, i.e. not allow the inclusion of additional factors, such as ethnic, religious, etc., that can serve as a catalyst for its further escalation;
- ? secondly, to avoid simplification of the problems that served as the basis of the conflict, their dichotomous (dual) interpretation, because no matter how one side develops its arguments, the other side will equally develop its arguments. Therefore, it is important for the participants in the conflict to go beyond the conflict situation to the level of metaprinciples in relation to it, to consider it from the point of view of general principles that unite both sides, for example, humanism, democracy, freedom, justice, etc.;
- ? thirdly, to exclude any bureaucratic delays in solving the problems that have arisen. Bureaucratization, formalization of relations between economic and political leaders and citizens, between leaders and subordinates can lead to the transformation of an ordinary labor conflict into an ethnic or religious one;
- ? fourthly, not to delay in taking measures: time in conflict resolution is one of the decisive factors, because, having missed the moment, one will have to deal not only with the conflict, but also with its consequences, which can be more dangerous than itself.
Thus, in the socio-economic and political space of modern Russia, the following main conflict fields can be distinguished:
- 1) constitutional process; problems of interaction between the state and the emerging civil society;
- 2) privatization (deprivatization); the nature and content of the social policy of the state;
- 3) the ratio of local (regional) and all-Russian interests;
- 4) the state and trends in the development of interethnic relations in the country. After August 1991, Russia entered a high-risk zone, which means the possibility of both winning and losing in each of the conflict-generating fields outlined above.
One of the features of the situation in the 90s. consisted in the destruction of value structures, which was accompanied by the rationalization of behavior at all levels of public life. The source of this irrationalization is not only the conflicts unfolding at the macro level, but also what happens in the micro environment. In the course of the reforms, three main motivational complexes of social behavior are formed, which are concentrated not so much in the political space as in the microstructures of everyday life.
The first complex is associated with the mercantilization of personal ties and relationships, including family relationships, with the change of authorities and leaders of public opinion in the environment of direct communication, the penetration of a sense of insecurity and fear into everyday life.
The second complex is associated with personal success in the course of socio-economic transformations: winning in a situation of commercial or political risk, successful investment of money and capital, use of high-quality service and actions of conspicuous consumption, inclusion in the system of international contacts. All this creates a sense of freedom and great opportunities. Such a complex characterizes the behavior of an economically active minority, manifesting itself in different ways depending on the level of culture of the respective subjects of economic activity.
The third complex is associated with the rejection of political realities and withdrawal into private life. It is associated with the construction of one's own picture of the world, not involved in politics, reforms, or any socially significant activity.
The gap between these three complexes of motivation created the prerequisites for the irrationalization of reality, the essence of which is the clash of opposite meanings attributed both to the events and facts of everyday life, and to the actions unfolding in the political arena. As a result, a situation arises in which the same symbols are perceived and evaluated in exactly the opposite way. People cease to understand each other, and the society itself is unraveling.
At the beginning of the XXI century. ideas of a total crisis of management, loss of control, strategic instability began to prevail in scientific analyzes and expert assessments. Optimistic views on controlled social development and historical evolution have been replaced by "catastrophe theory". Nevertheless, in modern science there is an active search for new, alternative approaches to the management of social processes, designed to bring society out of the crisis, to overcome strategic instability.
Social conflicts occurring between social strata, ethnic groups, generations, in production teams, youth environment, etc., as a rule, are the result of exacerbation of social contradictions and, at the same time, a form of their resolution. Conflicts are based on the interests and goals of interacting social groups and communities, significant differences between which lead to their clash.
Conflicts can brew and run latently, like hidden social tensions. This is exactly what is often observed in modern Russian reality, which is characterized by social inequality, the presence of social hardships experienced by a significant part of the low-income population, facts of discrimination on ethnic grounds, and so on.
At the stage of maturation, conflicts manifest themselves in differences in assessments of the social situation, in a clash of opinions and ideas (for example, on the issue of social justice), which are revealed with the help of empirical sociological research. The purpose of such studies is to detect conflict situations in a timely manner, to predict possible options for their development, and to develop recommendations for preventing aggressive methods of resolution.
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.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution
higher professional education
"Tver State Technical University"
(FGBOU VPO "TVGTU")
ESSAY
on this topic:" Social conflicts in modern Russia"
Completed by: 3rd year student
groups IDPO PIE 38-10
Tsvetkov Alexey Sergeevich
Mamedova Elmira Mamedovna
Introduction
The concept of social conflict
Causes of Social Conflicts in Russia
Features and forms of development of conflict situations in the Russian Federation
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Social conflicts play an important role in the lives of people, peoples and countries. This problem has become the subject of analysis by ancient historians and thinkers. Every major conflict has not gone unnoticed. Many historians singled out as the reasons for military clashes the conflict of interests of the warring parties, the desire of some to seize territory and subdue the population, and the desire of others to defend themselves, defend their right to life and independence.
The causes of conflicts attracted the attention of not only historians. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This problem has become the subject of study of sociologists. In fact, within the framework of sociology, a special direction has developed, which is now called the “sociology of conflict”.
Although few people approve of conflict processes, the majority of the population voluntarily or involuntarily participates in them. If in competitive processes the rivals simply try to get ahead of each other, then in a conflict, attempts are made to impose one's will on the opponent, change his behavior, or even eliminate him altogether. Various criminal acts, threats, resorting to the law to influence the enemy, joining forces in the fight - these are just some of the manifestations of social conflicts.
In conflicts with a less violent form, the main goal of the warring parties is to remove opponents from effective competition by limiting their resources, freedom of maneuver, and reducing their status or prestige. For example, a conflict between a leader and executives, if the latter wins, can lead to the demotion of the leader, the restriction of his rights in relation to subordinates, a decrease in prestige and, finally, to his departure from the team.
The emerging conflict process is difficult to stop. This is explained by the fact that the conflict has a cumulative nature, i.e. every aggressive action leads to a response or retribution, and, as a rule, more powerful than the initial one. The conflict is escalating and expanding. Conflict processes can force people into roles in which they should be violent. So, soldiers (as a rule, ordinary young people) on the territory of the enemy do not spare the civilian population, or in the course of interethnic hostility, ordinary civilians can commit extremely cruel acts.
Thus, the difficulties that arise in extinguishing and localizing conflicts require a thorough analysis of the entire conflict, establishing its possible causes and consequences.
Social conflicts in modern Russian society are organically linked to its transitional state and the contradictions that underlie conflicts. The roots of some of them lie in the past, but they get their main aggravation in the process of transition to market relations.
The emergence of new social groups of entrepreneurs and owners, growing inequality, become the basis for the emergence of new conflicts. A social contradiction is being formed in society between the elite, representing various groups of new owners, and a huge mass of people who have been removed from property and from power.
Social conflicts in modern Russia are particularly acute and often use violence. Based on the deepening of the crisis state of society, leading to clashes of various forces and communities, social contradictions are aggravated and social conflicts become their result.
The concept of social conflict
Before proceeding to a direct consideration of the chosen topic, we will give a definition of the concept of "conflict". Conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, views of the subjects of interaction. At the same time, the conflict is the most important side of the interaction of people in society, a kind of cell of social life. This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values and norms, interests and needs.
The essential side of social conflict is that these subjects act within the framework of some wider system of connections, which is modified (strengthened or destroyed) under the influence of the conflict.
If interests are multidirectional and opposite, then their opposition will be found in a mass of very different assessments; they themselves will find a “field of collision” for themselves, while the degree of rationality of the claims put forward will be very conditional and limited. It is likely that at each of the stages of the development of the conflict, it will be concentrated at a certain point of intersection of interests.
The situation is more complicated with national-ethnic conflicts. In different regions of the former USSR, these conflicts had a different mechanism of occurrence. For the Baltics, the problem of state sovereignty was of particular importance, for the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict the territorial status issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, for Tajikistan - inter-clan relations.
Political conflict means moving to a higher level of complexity. Its emergence is associated with consciously formulated goals aimed at the redistribution of power. For this, it is necessary to single out, on the basis of the general dissatisfaction of the social or national-ethnic stratum, a special group of people - representatives of the new generation of the political elite. The embryos of this layer have been formed in recent decades in the form of insignificant, but very active and purposeful, dissident and human rights groups that openly opposed the established political regime and embarked on the path of self-sacrifice for the sake of a socially significant idea and a new system of values. Under the conditions of perestroika, past human rights activities became a kind of political capital, which made it possible to speed up the process of forming a new political elite.
Contradictions permeate all spheres of society - economic, political, social, spiritual. The aggravation of certain contradictions creates "zones of crisis". The crisis manifests itself in a sharp increase in social tension, which often develops into a conflict.
The conflict is associated with people's awareness of the contradictions of their interests (as members of certain social groups) with the interests of other subjects. Aggravated contradictions give rise to open or closed conflicts.
Most sociologists believe that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible, because conflict is an integral part of people's being, the source of changes taking place in society. Conflict makes social relations more mobile. The population quickly abandons the usual norms of behavior and activities that previously completely satisfied them. The stronger the social conflict, the more noticeable its influence on the course of social processes and the pace of their implementation. Conflict in the form of competition encourages creativity, innovation and ultimately promotes progressive development, making societies more resilient, dynamic and receptive to progress.
The sociology of conflict proceeds from the fact that conflict is a normal phenomenon of social life, the identification and development of conflict as a whole is a useful and necessary thing. Society, power structures and individual citizens will achieve more effective results in their actions if they follow certain rules aimed at resolving the conflict.
Causes of Social Conflicts in Russia
The interests of two sides clash directly in the conflict: for example, two contenders for one seat, two national-ethnic communities or states over a disputed territory, two political parties when voting on a draft law, etc.
However, a closer examination of the situation reveals that this open clash of interests is associated with a more complex system of relations. So, applicants for one place turn out to be not just equal individuals with the same rights and claims to the position. Each of the applicants is supported by a certain group of people. If the position or position for which the competition flares up is related to power, to the ability to dispose of other people, then this position is prestigious, highly valued by public opinion. Therefore, it is not excluded that an open clash of two opposing contenders may be initiated by a third party or a third party, which for the time being remains in the shadows.
Three aspects of the problems of political power in the conflicts of Russian society can be traced:
Conflicts in the power itself, confrontation between various political forces for the possession of power;
The role of power in conflicts in various spheres of society, which somehow affect the foundations of the existence of power itself;
The role of government as an intermediary.
The main conflicts in the sphere of power in modern conditions are as follows:
Conflicts between branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial);
Conflicts within the parliament (both between the State Duma and the Federation Council, and within each of these bodies);
Conflicts between political parties and movements;
Conflicts between the links of the administrative apparatus, etc.
A potential source of a fierce struggle for power is new social groups claiming a higher position in political life, the possession of material goods and power.
Since 1993, the executive power has taken a leading position in our country, in whose hands all the fullness of real power is now concentrated. There is a situation where reforms require sufficient freedom for the executive branch, but on the other hand, an uncontrolled executive branch can choose the wrong course, which cannot be corrected.
The executive power is increasingly implementing a policy based on its understanding of the situation and in the interests of self-preservation. Sociological surveys show that the degree of distrust in the current authorities is quite high.
If in most industrialized countries social conflicts involve a contradiction between the welfare system and the labor system, then in Russia the division of the struggle goes not only and not so much along the line of "workers-entrepreneurs", but along the line "labor collectives - government". Along with the demands for higher wages, living standards, liquidation of debts, the demands of the collectives are steadily growing, connected with defending their right to the property of enterprises. Since the main subject of the redistribution of property is the state authorities, the socio-economic actions are directed against the policy of the government both in the center and in individual regions.
Serious prerequisites for conflicts contain socio-economic relations between medium and small entrepreneurs and power structures. Reasons: corruption; the uncertainty of the functions of many civil servants; ambiguous interpretation of laws.
The importance of the nature of relations along the lines of "entrepreneurs - the bulk of the population" is growing. A factor contributing to the aggravation of the situation is the multiple difference in income between the rich and the poor.
Interethnic and interethnic conflicts occupy an important place in Russia's social conflicts. These conflicts are the most complex among social conflicts. To social contradictions, linguistic and cultural problems, historical memory is added, which deepens the conflict.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the contradictions between nations not only did not decrease, but even more increased. The main reason for this can be considered the fact that new states arose as a result of a secret, apex decision of a group of political leaders, inter-ethnic contradictions intensified, conflicts broke out with renewed vigor (Karabakh, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Chechnya).
Russia is a multinational country with more than 120 peoples. In many of the republics within the Russian Federation, the indigenous population is a minority. Only in 5 republics its number exceeds 50% (Chuvashia, Tyva, Komi, Chechnya, North Ossetia).
The peculiarity of interethnic conflicts in Russia is mainly due to the fact that the awakened national self-consciousness is often exacerbated by interethnic contradictions and destabilize the socio-political situation in the country. For the first time in history, the moral well-being of the Russian people, their self-awareness, are significantly impaired when every other, even a small nation, can appear before it as an enemy.
It is likely that in the coming years there may be an increase in the aggressive-offensive mood in the Russian national consciousness. It will be fed by Russian refugees from the former republics of the USSR.
The federal organization of the state of Russia is the breeding ground for all sorts of conflicts. Each specific conflict on an interethnic basis has its own characteristics, its own causes. The conflict with Tatarstan was resolved by constitutional means. With Chechnya, this did not work out, and the political conflict turned into a military conflict with serious social consequences.
In the development of the conflict, in its transition to the stage of extreme aggravation, much depends on how exactly the very initial, initial events leading to the development of the conflict are perceived, what importance is attached to the conflict in the mass consciousness and in the consciousness of the leaders of the relevant social groups. To understand the nature of the conflict and the nature of its development, the "Thomas theorem" is of particular importance, which states: "If people perceive a certain situation as real, then it will be real in its consequences." With regard to conflict, this means that if there is a mismatch of interests between people or groups, but this mismatch is not perceived, felt or felt by them, then such a mismatch of interests does not lead to a conflict. And vice versa, if there is a community of interests between people, but the participants themselves feel hostility towards each other, then relations between them will necessarily develop according to the pattern of conflict, not cooperation.
A feeling of hostility of intentions, a reaction to an imaginary or real threat, a state of oppression give rise to preventive or protective actions of the side that feels infringed and associates it with the actions of some other groups or people. Thus the imaginary turns into reality.
The conflict can be caused by significant reasons that affect the very foundations of the existence of the respective conflicting groups, but it can also be an illusory, imaginary conflict, when people believe that their interests are incompatible and mutually exclusive, and "in fact" you can not aggravate the conflict, live in peace and harmony.
When considering the causes of a particular conflict, it must be borne in mind that every conflict is somehow personified. Each of the parties to the conflict has its own leaders, leaders, leaders, ideologists who voice and broadcast the ideas of their group, formulate “their” positions and present them as the interests of their group. At the same time, it is often difficult to figure out whether this or that leader is put forward by the current conflict situation or he himself will create this situation, since he, thanks to a certain type of behavior, takes the position of leader, leader, “spokesman for the interests” of the people, ethnic group, class, social stratum, political party, etc. In any case, in any conflict, the personal characteristics of leaders play an exceptional role. In each specific situation, they can lead the case to aggravate the conflict or find means to resolve it.
As a rule, the leader is not alone. It is supported by a certain group, but this support is almost always subject to some conditions. Certain members of the "support group" are simultaneously in a relationship of rivalry or competition for positions in the lead. Consequently, the leader is forced to take into account not only the opposite side in the conflict, but also how he will perceive in his own environment, how strong his support is among his own supporters and like-minded people.
World experience allows us to identify some of the most characteristic sources on the basis of which the causes of conflicts are formed: wealth, power, prestige and dignity, i.e. those values and interests that matter in any society and give meaning to the actions of specific individuals participating in conflicts. In different historical contexts, the priority of the corresponding values may be modified, but the content side of the matter does not change very significantly from this. This fully applies to Russia as well.
First, the idea of social differentiation allows every Russian to openly strive not only to get rid of poverty, but also to become rich. In the mass consciousness and in practical life relations, wealth is not just a certain amount of money or property, but the ability to expand the limits of one's activities and influence.
The second, no less important source of conflict is the struggle for power. It is no less attractive than wealth as such, if only because damask steel and gold are constantly arguing with each other. The empirical expression of power positions are government and non-government positions and positions that allow you to control the distribution of resources based on the right to dispose, determine access to significant information flows, and participate in decision-making. The field of power will create a specific environment of communication, entry into which is one of the most important motives for political activity.
In particular, these feelings are aggravated in those situations when a person gets the opportunity to dispose of the means of violence: to give orders for arrest, to determine the movement of military formations, to give orders for the use of weapons. Conflicts in the political space have just as much power of engagement as wealth-related conflicts, but they tend to be framed in more high-flown phraseology associated with declarations of common - national, state - interests and the interests of progress in general.
Thirdly, the sources of conflict include the desire to achieve various forms of prestige. The real embodiment of prestige is the fame and popularity of a person, his reputation and authority, the power of influence on decision-making, demonstrating respect for this person and his potential. Prestige in very rare cases can be won without the support of power and wealth, therefore it is, to some extent, a secondary source of conflict. But. the fact is that both wealth and power seem to accumulate in prestige. Neither can maintain its influence without gaining the support of public opinion. The struggle for power and wealth can begin with conflicts over prestige - creating a reputation, or vice versa, discrediting a particular person or group of people in the eyes of public opinion. This is where the idea of the so-called fourth estate, which is concentrated in the media, arises.
Finally, fourthly, it is important to point out the desire to preserve human dignity. We are talking about such values as respect and self-respect, competence, professionalism, representativeness, recognition, moral qualities of the individual. If everything is reduced only to the previous three sources of conflicts, then we get a rather bleak picture of the almost indispensable assertion of evil and vice, the destruction of the moral principle in society.
In the struggle for wealth, power and glory, a person should not forget about the boundaries of his choice, separating the humane, humane, cultural beginning from the inhuman and immoral. And these boundaries pass within each specific individual. Anyone who crosses these boundaries loses, first of all, the right to self-respect, and at the same time undermines his personal dignity, his civil and professional honor.
In this regard, in the struggle for power and wealth, for social prestige, a strategy either to elevate the individual or to humiliate human dignity occupies a special place. With the help of the strategy of the second type, a criminal environment is created, communities of scum are formed, acting in the name of the interests of the owner. Usually, the mobilization mechanisms for creating such an environment are associated with the formulas “money does not smell”, or “politics is a dirty business”. However, the moral conflict associated with the definition of ultimate values or the meaning of human existence permeates all other conflicts.
The problem of moral conflict is usually associated with the choice of means to achieve their goals in a particular conflict.
One of the reasons for the aggravation of conflicts between large groups of people in Russia is the accumulation of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs, the growth of claims, a radical change in self-consciousness and social well-being. As a rule, at first the process of accumulation of dissatisfaction goes slowly and latently, until some event occurs, which plays the role of a kind of trigger that brings out this feeling of dissatisfaction.
Such dissatisfaction, which takes on an open form, stimulates the emergence of a social movement, during which leaders are nominated, programs and slogans are worked out, and an ideology of protecting interests is formed. At this stage, the conflict becomes open and irreversible. It either turns into an independent and permanent component of social life, or ends with the victory of the initiating party, or is resolved on the basis of mutual concessions by the parties.
The reasons for the maturation of the conflict may be historical, socio-economic and cultural factors, culminating in the actions of political structures and institutions. Each of them has its own characteristics.
Socio-economic conflict arises on the basis of dissatisfaction primarily with the economic situation, which is seen either as a deterioration in comparison with the usual level of consumption and standard of living (real conflict of needs), or as a worse situation in comparison with other social groups (conflict of interest). In the second case, conflict may arise even with some improvement in living conditions, if it is perceived as insufficient or inadequate.
In the development of the political conflict at the macro level, the interweaving of the sources of these three conflicts, the establishment of links between movements of various kinds, was of particular importance. Thus, the most important element in the defeat of Gorbachev's course was the nomination by the striking miners and their leaders of the demand for the resignation of the President of the USSR, which will be presented by the conflicting parties as the main subject of the conflict.
Each of the parties perceives the conflict situation as a certain problem, in the resolution of which three main points are predominant:
firstly, the degree of significance of the wider system of relations, the advantages and losses arising from the previous state and its destabilization - all this can be designated as an assessment of the pre-conflict situation;
secondly, the degree of awareness of one's own interests and the willingness to take risks for the sake of their implementation;
thirdly, the perception by the opposing sides of each other, the ability to take into account the interests of the opponent.
The usual development of the conflict assumes that each of the parties is able to take into account the interests of the opposing side. This approach creates the possibility of a relatively peaceful development of the conflict through the negotiation process and making adjustments to the previous system of relations in the direction and scale acceptable to each of the parties.
At the same time, in our country it often happens that the party initiating the conflict proceeds from a negative assessment of the previous state of affairs and declares only its own interests, without taking into account the interests of the opposite side. The opposing side is forced in this case to take special measures to protect its interests. As a result, both sides may suffer some damage, which is attributed to the opposing side in the conflict.
Such a situation is fraught with the use of violence: already at the initial stage of the conflict, each of the parties begins to demonstrate force or the threat of its use. In this case, the conflict deepens, since the impact of force necessarily meets with opposition associated with the mobilization of resources to resist the force.
At the same time, the greater the desire to use force is observed in the conflict, the more difficult its resolution, i.e. access to new parameters of social relations. Violence creates secondary and tertiary factors of deepening the conflict situation, which sometimes displace the original cause of the conflict from the minds of the parties.
Each of the parties develops at this phase its own interpretation of the conflict, the indispensable elements of which are the idea of the legitimacy and validity of their own interests and the actions taken in their defense and the accusation of the opposite side, i.e. creating an image of the enemy. Consequently, at this stage, an ideological design of the conflict is created, which for each of its participants acts as a certain amount of criteria. The entire social world is, as it were, divided into friends and foes. Forces that are neutral, conciliatory, are perceived in this case as allies of the opposite or hostile side.
As a result, a new phase of the conflict arises - a deadlock. In practice, this leads to paralysis of actions, ineffectiveness of the decisions made, since each of the parties perceives proposals and actions aimed at overcoming the crisis as a unilateral gain for the opposite side.
The emerging situation tends to self-destruct. A way out of it can only be found by means of a radical revision of the existing situation. As a rule, such a revision is associated with a change of leaders, first of one and then of the other conflicting side. New opportunities are opening up for the negotiation process, which should be based on a new awareness of one's own interests, based on the experience of deploying a conflict situation and understanding the common losses incurred by the parties at the stage of aggravation of the conflict, its ideologization and impasse.
Ethnic tension and conflict in Russia will be influenced by two fundamental factors. First of all, the social structuring in our society has not been completed: there is practically no clear understanding of group interests. At the same time, in our country there is a discrepancy between liberal democratic ideologies and real economic and socio-political relations. In this situation, a kind of vacuum is created in the knowledge of the certainty of interests. This vacuum can be filled by solving two ideological problems.
One of them is statehood. Now the vast majority of Russians are pinning their hopes on it. And the second is ethnic. It is adopted by political parties and associations that do not attach importance to the structuring of social interests that is weakly expressed in reality. When the main vector of post-totalitarian socio-economic development passes along two determinants: statehood and ethnicity, it is possible to predict the deepening of all types of conflicts.
Features and forms of development of conflict situations in the Russian Federation
Conflicts cover all spheres of life in Russian society - socio-economic, political, the sphere of interethnic relations, etc. They are generated by real contradictions in the course of deepening the crisis state of society. Often there are artificially created and deliberately provoked clashes, especially characteristic of interethnic and interregional relations. Their result is bloodshed and even wars, in which, against their will, entire nations are drawn.
Social conflicts receive a peculiar manifestation in modern Russian reality. Russia is experiencing a systemic crisis, the causes of which are diverse and difficult to unambiguously assess. Changes in social relations are accompanied by an unprecedented expansion of the sphere of manifestation of conflicts. They involve not only large social groups, but also entire territories, both nationally homogeneous and inhabited by various ethnic communities.
Conflicts based on objectively arising contradictions, if they are resolved, contribute to social progress. At the same time, social contradictions that serve as a source of conflict collisions can be divided into two main types. On the one hand, these are contradictions generated by the socio-economic situation of the members of our society. In the course of deepening these contradictions, there is a clash of various social groups, nations, and other ethnic groups. These contradictions are manifested primarily in exorbitant contrasts of wealth and poverty, the prosperity of the few and the impoverishment of the majority. On the other hand, these are political contradictions, caused, first of all, by the rejection of the policy of the authorities. Today, this is reflected in the opposition of many social forces to the government's course aimed at changing the socio-political system.
The most significant conflicts unfolding in the space of Russia and the CIS are three: political, social and national-ethnic. A separate consideration of these three forms of conflict allows us to state that they unfold over values that are of a different nature.
Political conflict is a conflict over power, dominance, influence, authority. Social conflict - in the narrow sense of the word - a conflict over the means of subsistence: the level of wages, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for various benefits, over real access to these benefits and other resources.
The subject of clashes and conflicts in the third area are the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups. Often these conflicts are associated with status and territorial claims. The sovereignty of the people or ethnic group is in this case the dominant idea in the conflict.
All of the above forms are interpenetrating conflicts, each of them is a breeding ground for the other. For example, the mining strikes mentioned earlier show exactly how a social conflict turned into a political one. Observers and researchers of miners' strikes note that in many cases the situation was artificially aggravated due to political interests.
To an even greater extent, socio-political problems intertwined in national-ethnic conflicts. Undoubtedly, the dynamics of ethnic conflicts was largely determined by how strong the claims to power of the new elites, who grew up within the framework of the old structures and were cut off both from participation in power and from the cultural self-determination of the respective national communities. The local ethnocracy, supported by the center, did not allow representatives of the new elite to take part in the decision-making process, due to which they were forced to clothe their claims to power in the form of national-ethnic or nationalist interests.
The development of conflict issues at the level of special sociological theories allows us to come to a conclusion regarding the dominance of political conflict in all currently unfolding conflict situations. The practical consequence that follows from this is the need to rationalize politics, to increase the political culture of the new political elite.
One can agree with the opinion that conflict has become an everyday reality in modern Russia. The country has become a field of social conflicts.
Labor conflicts are often a reaction to distortions in the economic and social policy of the government, to its inability to understand the consequences of decisions made. The main content of conflicts in the socio-economic sphere is associated with the redistribution of property and the formation of market relations, which inevitably lead to the polarization of social groups.
A large number of conflicts in the economic sphere is also due to the fact that the country still lacks a clear legislative framework for resolving labor disputes. Attempts were made to adopt a law on the resolution of labor conflicts, to determine the mechanism for this resolution. It is based on the principle of conciliation procedures through the relevant commissions and labor arbitrations. A time period was envisaged for consideration of disputes, the obligatory execution of the adopted decisions. But this law was never passed. Conciliation commissions and their arbitrations do not fulfill their functions, and administrative bodies in a number of cases do not fulfill the agreements reached. This does not contribute to the resolution of labor conflicts and sets the task of creating a more thoughtful legislative system for their settlement.
Conflicts in the socio-political sphere are conflicts over the redistribution of power, dominance, influence, and authority. They can be both hidden and open. The main conflicts in the sphere of power can be called the following.
Conflicts between the main branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) in the country and in individual republics and regions. At the highest level, this conflict initially took place along the line of confrontation, on the one hand, between the president and the government, and on the other hand, the Supreme Council and councils of people's deputies at all levels. This conflict resulted, as is known, in the events of October 1993. The elections of the Federal Assembly and the referendum on the adoption of the first Constitution of Russia were the form of its partial resolution.
Intra-parliamentary conflicts between and within the State Duma and the Federation Council.
Conflicts between political parties with different ideological and political orientations.
Conflicts between different parts of the administrative apparatus.
Political conflicts - quite a normal phenomenon in the life of any society. The parties, movements and their leaders that exist in society have their own ideas about how to overcome the crisis and renew society. This is reflected in their programs. But they cannot realize them as long as they are outside the sphere of power. Needs, interests, goals, claims of large groups and movements can be realized primarily through the use of levers of power. Therefore, the authorities, the political institutions of Russia have become the arena of a sharp political struggle.
The contradictions between the legislative and executive powers turn into a conflict only with a certain confluence of objective and subjective factors. At the same time, the struggle is often of an "apical", elitist character. Conflicts in the upper echelons of the executive and legislative powers are resolved by force, pressure, pressure, threats, and accusations. So far, the socio-economic and political situation in Russia favors a conflict scenario. It is important to understand the current circumstances and strive to mitigate the conditions for the course of conflicts, to prevent them from escalating into violent actions of one side or the other.
Contradictions in interethnic and interethnic relations have a noticeable impact on social conflicts in modern Russia. . They are based on the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups. An analysis of interethnic conflicts within the Russian Federation allows us to group them into three main types:
First, these are constitutional conflicts. Three republics adopted constitutions that contradict the past and present constitutions of the Russian Federation: Sakha (Yakutia), Tyva, Tatarstan. But Bashkortostan held a referendum and, judging by the upcoming constitution, there will also be contradictions here. The first contradiction lies in the fact that the constitutions speak of the supremacy of the laws of the republic over the federal ones, the second is connected with control over the use of natural resources, the third - with direct access to the international arena.
A number of republics are pursuing a policy that is close to economic nationalism. They do not want to leave the Russian Federation, but they want to have the right to enter the international arena. Another circumstance is related to the fact that the Federal Treaty, as is known, was not fully included in the constitution. But it was written by the federal government and the subjects of the Federation. The struggle will unfold around specific clauses of the treaty that are not included in the Constitution.
In some subjects of Russia, the question of secession from Russia and full state independence is being raised. Here the most striking example is the Chechen crisis. Similar trends took place in Tatarstan before the conclusion of an agreement on the delimitation of powers between the federal and republican authorities, despite the absence of any external borders for Tatarstan.
Until the adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993, almost all regions struggled to improve their status: autonomous regions sought to turn into republics, the republics declared their sovereignty and independence.
The claim to higher status becomes a political reality. A conflict of this type may not be directly related to the national interests of any ethnic entities. The national aspect of such conflicts is revealed only in relation to the problem of the integrity of Russia and the recognition or non-recognition of the authority of the Russian state. An example of such conflicts is the proclamation of the Ural Republic, which was recognized as incompetent by the Decree of the President that followed this action.
Second, there are territorial conflicts. There are now 180 disputed zones in Russia. Local military operations are already underway around some of them. It is quite possible for them to reach the interstate level. Territorial claims play a dominant role here. They concern neighboring peoples and ethnic groups and can become very acute. An example of this type of conflict is the Ossetian-Ingush and Dagestan-Chechen conflicts.
Third, intergroup conflicts. Social instability, political contradictions within the republics and between the republics and the Center stimulate such conflicts. Tension also exists in relations between Chechens and Cossacks, Ingush and Ossetians, Kabardians and Balkars, and in youth groups in Yakutia and Tuva.
Two strategic approaches to solving both ethnic and national problems and the social conflicts connected with them are quite possible. One approach is demonstrated by the presidential team in the form of the territorial division of Russia into seven districts. The essence of this approach is to bring the republics closer to the regions of Russia and somehow extinguish nationalism. Still, it is impossible to count on a calm solution of the issue with such an approach.
At the same time, Russian law is poorly adapted to their resolution due to the underdevelopment of procedures for resolving legal disputes and, in general, procedural norms and institutions.
The formation of a general procedural branch of "conflict law" with a wider scope and content will cover the principles and norms of restoring broken links within the legal system. And here it is appropriate to pay attention to the need for intensive development and use of conciliation procedures. These can be both stable procedures recognized by the Constitution and the law (for example, provided for in Articles 78, 85, 105 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), and procedures created for a specific conflict situation. Parity representation and coordination of decisions makes them an effective way to resolve legal conflicts.
social conflict interethnic contradictions
Conclusion
Social conflicts are increasingly becoming the norm of social relations. In Russia, there is a process of formation of some kind of intermediate type of economy, where the bourgeois type of relations based on private property is combined with relations of state ownership and state monopoly on certain means of production. A society is being created with a new correlation of classes and social groups, where differences in income, status, culture, etc. will increase. Therefore, conflicts in our lives are inevitable. We need to learn how to manage them, strive to resolve them at the lowest cost to society.
Bibliography
1. Sociology. S.S. Frolov "Logos"., M., 1996
2. Sociology. A.A. Radugin., K.A. Radugin "Center"., M., 1997
3. Sociology: textbook. "Knowledge"., M., 1995
4.Sociology of conflict. A.G. Zdravomyslov JSC "Aspect press"., M., 1994
5. Conflictology I.S. Verenko., M., 1990
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
The concept of social conflict. Social conflicts in modern Russia are particularly acute and often use violence. The reasons for their occurrence, features and forms of development. Features of national-ethnic and political conflicts.
term paper, added 01/13/2011
The concept of social conflict, its levels of development and place in social interaction. Causes of modern social conflicts in Russia. Technology and management practice is a sphere. The role of political power in conflict resolution.
test, added 04/08/2016
The concept, stages of flow, causes and severity of social conflict. Classification of conflicts depending on the areas of disagreement. Characterization of disintegrated and integrative consequences. Problems of political power in the conflicts of Russian society.
abstract, added 04/26/2009
The main aspects of social conflicts. Classification of conflicts. Characteristics of conflicts. Causes of conflicts. Consequences of social conflict. Conflict resolution. Social conflicts in modern society.
abstract, added 09/30/2006
The nature of social conflict. Interaction and interests as key concepts. Classification of conflicts. Specificity of political conflict, ways and methods of settlement of political conflicts. Socio-political conflicts on the territory of Russia.
control work, added 01/09/2009
Conflicts associated with the aggravation of interethnic relations. Separatism is the highest stage of manifestation of disintegration processes, its types. Factors in the development of interethnic conflicts. Ways and ways out of interethnic conflict situations.
presentation, added 09/25/2013
The idea of the inevitability of conflicts, the possibility of their prevention and elimination in the first place by negotiations. Social conflicts in Russia in the 16th – 17th centuries. Historically a system of knowledge about social conflicts. The complexity and versatility of the phenomenon of conflict.
abstract, added 08/15/2007
The essence and causes of the emergence of the main forms of social interaction between people: cooperation, competition, conflict. The concept and structure of social exchange, its principles according to J. Homans. Analysis of the relationship between remuneration and costs.
presentation, added 05/07/2013
The main provisions and content of the sociological theory of M. Weber. The concept of a social type of personality and typology options that are common at the present stage. Causes and essence of social conflicts in modern Russia, their analysis and assessment of relevance.
test, added 12/02/2011
Charity in Russia as a social phenomenon. The specifics of labor assistance. The state of social care in modern Russia. social deviations. Stages of development, formation of social charity in Russia. Activities of institutions of social charity.
TEST
by discipline : "The system of public administration"
on the topic : "Social conflicts and emergencies: the legal order and practice of their settlement".
Executor:
Oboymova Yu. I.
4th year student
Specialty G and MU
Record book number 06mgb01692
Supervisor:
Remezova L.S.
Voronezh 2010.
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...…3
1.Characteristics of the social conflict…………………………….…..........4
1.1.Social conflicts in modern society....……………….……..6
2.Social emergencies: causes, types………...………........7
2.1.Management of public emergencies……….…8
3.Conclusion………………………………………………………………....…..11
Literature…………………....……………………………........…………....….12
Introduction
The social heterogeneity of society, differences in income levels, power, prestige, often lead to conflicts. Conflicts are an integral part of social life. Conflicts are born on the basis of daily differences in views, disagreements and confrontation of different opinions, desires, interests, hopes, personal characteristics, lifestyles, which can develop into emergency situations. All this causes close attention to the study of conflicts and emergencies.
Social conflicts in modern Russia are particularly acute and often use violence. Based on the deepening of the crisis state of society, leading to clashes of various forces and communities, social contradictions are exacerbated and their result is social conflicts.
To develop the right line of conduct in various conflict situations, you need to know what conflict is and how people come to an agreement. Knowledge of conflicts increases the culture of communication and makes a person's life not only calmer, but also more stable psychologically.
Characteristics of social conflict.
Before proceeding to a direct consideration of the chosen topic, we will give a definition of the concept of "conflict". Conflict is a clash of opposing goals, positions, opinions, views, opponents as subjects of interaction. The conflict is always associated with people's subjective awareness of the contradictory nature of their interests as members of certain social groups.
Conflict is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Every society, every social group, social community is subject to conflicts to one degree or another. Conflicts are classified according to their structure and research areas.
Social conflict is a special type of interaction of social forces, in which the action of one side, faced with the opposition of the other, makes it impossible to realize its goals and interests. Its indicators may be unresolved political problems, high crime rates, lack of consumer goods, and so on. The most widespread are conflicts related to the violation of the social and economic rights of citizens, the protection of which is guaranteed by the state.
Reasons for the conflict.
The cause of the conflict is the point around which the conflict situation unfolds. The following types of reasons can be distinguished:
1. The presence of opposite orientations. Each individual and social group has a certain set of value orientations regarding the most significant aspects of social life. Such conflicts can occur in the spheres of economic, political, socio-psychological and other value orientations.
2. Ideological reasons. The ideological cause of the conflict lies in the different attitude to the system of ideas,
3. Causes of the conflict, consisting in various forms of economic and social inequality. Inequality in the distribution of values exists everywhere, but conflict arises only at such a magnitude of inequality, which is regarded as very significant.
4. The reason for social differentiation. Conflicts arise as a result of the different places that structural elements occupy in a society, organization or ordered social group.
Conflict resolution.
The resolution of social conflict is possible only when the conflict situation changes. This change can take many forms. But the most effective change in the conflict situation, which allows to extinguish the conflict, is considered to be the elimination of the cause of the conflict. With a rational conflict, the elimination of the cause inevitably leads to its resolution, but for an emotional conflict, the most important moment in changing the conflict situation should be considered a change in the attitudes of rivals relative to each other.
It is also possible to resolve a social conflict by changing the requirements of one of the parties: the opponent makes concessions and changes the goals of his behavior in the conflict.
Modern conflictology has formulated the conditions under which a successful resolution of social conflicts is possible. One of the important conditions is the timely and accurate diagnosis of its causes. And this involves the identification of objectively existing contradictions, interests, goals. Another, no less important condition is the mutual interest in overcoming contradictions on the basis of the renewal of mutual recognition of the interests of each of the parties. To do this, the parties to the conflict must strive to free themselves from hostility and mistrust towards each other. The third, indispensable, condition is a joint search for ways to overcome the conflict. Here it is possible to use a whole arsenal of means and methods: direct dialogue between the parties, negotiations through an intermediary, negotiations with the participation of a third party, etc.
Social conflicts in modern society.
In modern conditions, in essence, each sphere of public life gives rise to its own specific types of social conflicts.
political conflict - it is a conflict over the distribution of power, dominance, influence, authority. This conflict can be covert or open. One of the brightest forms of its manifestation in modern Russia is the conflict between the executive and legislative authorities in the country, which lasted throughout the entire time after the collapse of the USSR.
occupy a prominent place in modern life national-ethnic conflicts- conflicts based on the struggle for the rights and interests of ethnic and national groups. Most often, these are conflicts related to status or territorial claims. The problem of cultural self-determination of certain national communities also plays a significant role.
play an important role in modern life in Russia. socio-economic conflicts, that is, conflicts over the means of subsistence, the level of wages, the use of professional and intellectual potential, the level of prices for various benefits, over real access to these benefits and other resources.
One of the main sources of conflict is social and labor relations. A collective labor dispute (conflict) is unresolved disagreements between employees and employers regarding working conditions, the execution of collective agreements, agreements on social and labor issues.
The procedure for resolving collective labor disputes is regulated by a special Federal Law (November 23, 1995 No. 175-FZ). It provides for the right to put forward the claims of employees, their consideration, the use of conciliation procedures, the participation of intermediaries, the use of labor arbitration, the execution of an agreement based on the results of resolving a collective labor dispute. A non-judicial procedure for considering the claims of the labor collective or trade union rejected by the administration is mandatory. The participation of a state body that contributes to the resolution of a collective labor dispute is envisaged. If necessary, the terms provided for the conduct of conciliation procedures may be extended by agreement of the parties to the collective labor dispute.
A strike as a way to resolve a collective labor dispute is used if conciliation procedures have not led to the resolution of a collective labor dispute or the employer evades conciliation procedures and does not comply with the agreement reached.