Actual Problems of Sociology

Lavliskyy.R.A; Dralina.N.M (Donetsk State University of Economics and Trade named. M. Tugan-Baranovsky)

There is a continuing need in a good sociological research (reports, presentations) in each country in the world. Now recognize this need, even those who like Budoni, tend to emphasize the role of an independent expert. But if we need accurate information, we also need in a good theory. Here you can list a number of reasons:
First, without a theory, we can never gain knowledge and improve our understanding of human behavior. In our studies, we have to start with the most insignificant facts.
Secondly, without a theory we do not set criteria for selecting information. Should be prioritized, basis. Will be it implicit or explicit theory? Of course, it would be better to make the theory explicit. I have argued for the fact that even the positivist conception of sociology does not preclude the need to be selective (selects).
Third, without a theory we will not be able to formulate questions that go beyond the conventional (average, ordinary, common) concepts, we will be unable to formulate questions independently. Take this example. Suppose that at a certain time in a particular country there is a widespread view that the gap between rich and poor is widening. It may be true, perhaps - no. In order to decide: is it true or not, we need reliable information. But the information is not based on opinions, but in reality: income, property, etc. Can certainly be that accurate information unrepresentative, but that's another matter. But only if the information we need? Of course not. We also need to define wealth and poverty. A person can be a lot of money. If there is nothing that could be bought, it is very difficult to say that he is rich. A person may be very little money, but they are not necessary, since he already has everything, and he lives comfortably. In this case, the poverty we are not talking.
But by comparing different societies, we can come to the conclusion that "purely financial" definition sometimes just churning "confused" and therefore would be better to think about the terminology of possibilities: people can have greater or lesser capabilities. Different assumptions can lead to different conclusions. For example, we can come to the conclusion that a certain type of society in some people there is no need for big money to get what they want, because power already provides that money can not buy. Conversely, we must admit that at certain moments in history, some people need more money because they lost power, and money becomes a substitute for power.
Classics of sociology have studied these issues. For example, in terms of a multidimensional model of social stratification, Weber wrote about the economic sources of power and prestige. Given these, we can explore new challenges. Is there any risk of confusion with the theory of ideology? Yes. And the history of sociology shows this quite clearly. But the task of the researcher (this is theoretical!) Reduce to a minimum.
Throughout the XIX century. among sociologists, there was a tendency to look for a primary explanatory factor, whether it's economic structure, pricing, religion, race, demographic processes, etc. And in keeping with the main factor, which they placed in the first place, the scientists received "label" materialist or idealist, and approve or criticized on the basis of such a "shortcut". This way of thinking is now seen as outdated. It is now abundantly clear that the public (social) sciences we are dealing with complex structures of causality and with a variety of explanatory factors. And we also recognize the idea that the processes of social change is not always caused by the same cause.
Until the late 50's. there is still a strong tendency to exaggerate the power of social structure over the individual. We know, of course, that our theories are true only in terms of statistical terms and has always been an exemption on an individual level. But we found it difficult to give a complete view of boundaries of personal freedom in the theoretical design.
Was the only remaining category of deviant behavior. And again, deviant behavior is often explained in terms of membership in the subculture, or private (as defined) group. In this regard, in recent decades there has been some progress. We have ceased to operate on the abstract terms of factors - social status, "" educational attainment "," religious grounds ", which completely determine the behavior of the individual. Now we use the terms "strategy makers. And the basic idea here is that social processes can be considered as the interaction of different ways of decision making with the choice at each stage. Typical works of this orientation are the works of M. Crozier and E. Friedberg.
The concept of strategy making distinguishes what we can understand and explain human behavior only on condition that initially put the methodological question: what is the rational connection (relationship) between ends and means? Whatever the purpose of action, we should be able to reconstruct the reasons underlying the action. This is still a subject of dispute between sociologists in Western Europe and the United States.
There are advocates of the so-called rational choice theory, which argued that the rationality of the individual - it is always a utilitarian rationality, economic rationality. The lesson of the last two decades is that our theory will have greater explanatory power if we allow a variety of rationalities. Behavior can be called rational if the logic behind it. This logic may be purely economic, but also for the implementation of the action may well be other reasons: religious beliefs, moral duty, a sense of dignity, the desire for social recognition.
Such a theory is very practical. If we accept the idea of variety is rational, then we can come to a conclusion about a certain type of decision that can make a choice in favor of a certain (not just economic) type.
In the first half of this century, and yet even in the 50's. XX century. Many social scientists in Western Europe and the United States thought that the best thing for sociology as a science - it is separate from the stories. This was the highest point of sociological functionalism. As a result, had to abandon the study of the origin of customs, habits, setting and we had instead confined to the question: what is their function within such a structure, as a society, or within a structure, as a group - if you take them (society or group) for the system. This has resulted in its own way interesting analytical methods to explain some of the reasons for not using, and their consequences: the social function of alcohol abuse - is the social function of informal relationships in complex structures (education, organizations).
It also led to the analytical methods of functional "alternates" (substitutes subinstitutov): why people evade the law? Because the law makes it impossible for them to live a normal life! Thus, the illegal activity is a substitute for legal possibilities that simply do not exist. All this is very interesting, but a built-defect "sociological functional antihistoricism" concluded that the way it was possible to justify any kind of activity.
Currently, the main conclusion of the last decades concluded that the historical idea of society as an organic system must be preserved. The system concept is the best way to explain the idea of interdependence, which is the essence of sociological thinking. In this also lies and the great advantage that we provide in line (coordinate) system view of society with a historical approach. A comparison with the past is not less fruitful than a comparison with the present.