Ôèëîñîôñêèå íàóêè/2.Ñîöèàëüíàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ

Boychenko M.

PhD in Philosophy,Professor of Kyiv Taras Shevchenko university

FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION

In social cognition there are plenty of variants of understanding of nature of systemic approach. Majority from them has an un-philosophical origin, however pretends exactly on philosophical meaningfulness of results of application of biological, physical, cybernetic, economic and others like that systemic designs. However, these designs were got as a result of work with a specific object which obviously differs from the subject of social philosophy. That is why unreservedly to apply these un-philosophical variants of understanding of nature of systemic approach – means in addition to adopt those versions of understanding of the subject of systemic approach in social cognition, which they are based on. Essence of social cognition is the same lost, because in fact philosophy studies society as special form of life – unique and original, while the special sciences examine it from those points of view, when society is or only the special case of more wide reality which is far not always characterized consciousness and even is living, or vice versa examined too narrowly, through what plenitude of human and public life are reduced to its separate functions.

Consequently, biology centered, physics centered, cybernetics centered, economy centered and others approaches like that in methodology of socially philosophical cognition are not such already and formal ore innocent after the consequences, as his intruding in social philosophy leads on the way of non-obvious biologist reductionism, mechanicism, technocracy, economization and others like that understanding of social reality. Sociobiology, synergetic social theories, theories of maintenance of the present state, theory of waves of social development and others like that appears to be concrete embodiments of such «ism». Each of them adds new knowledge of certain important sides of functioning of society and his constituents, however, to our opinion, can not apply on clearing up of essence of social reality which is created by people as participants of communicative associations. That is why at the best these theories clear up, that we are inclined to consider the framework conditions of evolution of the human societies.

That, for example, it is possible to talk about certain biological, physical and others like that conditions as external framework conditions of society evolution in the variety of its life-forms, or cybernetic, economic and others like that as, accordingly, internal framework conditions of society evolution for all of other life-forms of society. The question is that these framework conditions are, sure, necessary, as fully appropriate are, each in the area, special disciplines which study them. However much of these conditions determine, that in tradition of philosophy after Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz got the name of necessary causes [7] – that such causes without which existence of the certain phenomena is impossible, however their appearance becomes indeed obligatory and sometimes even inevitable only after appearance of sufficient reasons. Up to our point of view, none of such framework conditions in particular, as well as their aggregate does not form such sufficient reasons for necessity of public life. Moreover, even cognition of such aggregate of necessary causes does not guarantee the cognition of sufficient reasons, and only guarantees cognition of that can not make such sufficient reasons in any way. And it is already quite a bit. We will make an attempt to explain this opinion.

Certainly, it is possible to examine society from the biological point of view – namely as the special form of sociality, developed by the species of Homo Sapiens. However, creation of social associations is peculiar practically to all types of living creations, anyway, the higher degree of complication of internal organization an organism has, the more so it depends in its genesis, functioning and recreation on certain social relations. As proved by sociobiology, there are certain conformities of functioning of social units which are common for all of them. So, biological expedience of social inequality, incarnate in the division of functions (beginning from sexual and completing the special social roles), and to the other hand – methods of social integration in the state of social inequality – dominating and submission, competitiveness and others like that. Certainly, human associations are not free of these conformities, but do these conformities determine the conduct of people partly, as a condition which it follows also among others, or they have priority in determination of conduct of people?

An answer to this question just seems self-evident. The sciences criticized a long ago such theories as the versions of social Darwinism, created by Ludwig Gumplovicz [2] and other similar authors, in particular, the authors of racial theory of nazism, which seemed to overcome now, however for today it is easily possible to meet the reflections of vulgar sociobiology ideas in relation to nature of human society. Not all of such reflections are careful and scientifically correct, as the Nicholaas Tinbergen’s, Nobel laureate [13]. It is possible to meet sufficient conservative, if not to say reactionary looks in the works of his colleague on a Nobel bonus, former nazi Konrad Lorenz [8]. Such works have a certain value in the special branches of research, such as social psychology, however quite often their results spread not appropriate on explaining essence of human society.

However, the partisans of sociobiology are not so known due to application of approach of the systems in social cognition, as Ludvig von Bertalanffy, who is considered the father of modern general theory of the systems [1]. Some researchers of social reality try superfluously to follow logic of approach of the systems, offered Bertalanffy, and as a result of their attempts we can see the confused and not conclusive from the philosophical point of view picture of social reality. So, in collective monograph, devoted to the 100-th anniversary of Bertalanffy [14], in his article Vadim N. Sadovsky notices that without regard to a that impulse, which was given by Bertalanffy’s theory of the open systems, western philosophers (such, as Carl Gustav Hempel) and representatives of social sciences (such, as Russell L. Ackoff) does not perceive the idea of isomorphism of laws of different sciences, which Bertalanffy’s project of construction of general theory of the systems is based on. And other articles of the same monograph present the standard of principle variety of understanding of approach of the systems even without a hint on possible «isomorphism». Significant, that the representatives of natural sciences and near to them «technocrats» support the idea of general theory of the systems, foremost. For today exactly the ideas of Herman Haken [4] and Ilya Prigogine [10] give an example of claim on paradigm of physical picture of the world for all sciences. The same influence had at one time Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which transformed the world view of not only of that time researchers but also all contemporaries and next generations. Indeed, as heavily to disagree with Albert Einstein’s general ideas, so scarcely there will be a person who will be able to deny the utility of ideas of synergetics such as non-equilibrium and non-linearity of the dynamic systems evolution – and not only for physics but also for many other natural sciences, and also, in the case of analysis of mass processes, for some social sciences as well.

We assume that and sociobiology, and synergetics as representatives of application of systemic approach in the version of natural sciences determine those parameters of functioning of society, which are reproduced mainly in the automatic mode, without will and consciousness of people. It is those parameters, which should include any social institutes and which no values or norms can contradict to. Karl Popper means those parameters, when distinguishes natural laws and social norms – namely, in first case, parameters which express the effect of natural laws in society [12]. However, as notices Popper, and here we fully agree with him, social norms never can be subordinate these natural laws in its content. Social norms base on the decisions of people, that is why they obviously have its source in the reason of these decisions. In our view, such source is values of communicative association – and everybody is the member of several such associations. For cognition of these norms and values one should to apply quite another systemic approach, than for cognition of external framework conditions of evolution of society.

It means, in particular, that these external framework conditions should be justified additionally from value positions of functioning of human society. Such justification could be foremost provided with the values of concrete communicative associations. Such value justification is provided, as a rule, unconsciously, by the translation of cultural tradition. While functional justification of social limitations is realized far faster – because such limitations «embodied» in social institutes and organizations: what such limitations are socially more meaningful – the more credible is their embodiment in more formal organizations.

A quite another situation consists with the exposure of internal framework conditions of evolution of society. They always obviously send us to the certain values, but each time – other. Question at issue is, that these value versions of application of systemic approach correspond in concrete case the special social system, functioning of which they conceptualize according to each time the special semantic codes for each social system. So, the economic versions of application of systemic approach are predefined the cycles of self-reproduction of the economic system and internal system nature of organization of economic communication. Exposure of the actual political systems – from a global policy to the policy of local self-government – also explains forming of the special for political science systemic approach with those requirements to the subject of research: system integration, functioning in the mode of survival. Similarly science as a system has the own version of systemic approach, which explains the features of functioning of scientific knowledge as autonomic symbolic and normative system (from the autonomy of universities at Emmanuel Kant [5] to the paradigms of Thomas Kuhn [6]).

What sense does it cost to talk about the internal framework conditions of social evolution, which set the systemic approaches proper to social systems? Obviously, that each of them can not appear as general systemic approach in social cognition, because then it will be no need in others of them. But each of these systemic approaches is predefined other the same as the social systems are mutually conditioned. That is why general systemic approach in social cognition must be predefined the presence of actual successful co-operation of social systems between itself and this general systemic approach should be a general theory of social systems in social cognition.

Unity of social systems has its basis not in higher system, for example some system of the systems, as Niklas Luhmann metaphorically tried to demonstrate this problem in the last work [9], but in actual unity of communicative associations, which arises up in a method, inaccessible for rational cognition. At opacity of unity of social systems for the human mind Luhmann hints as well.

Our difference from position of Luhmann (and, all in all, the positions of Jurgen Habermas [3]) consists in, that we see unity of social systems not simply in actual communication (that, each in one's own way, acknowledge Luhmann and Habermas as well), but in such actual communication which is carried out between people not as individuals, but as the members of communicative associations. Indeed, decision to communicate they never accept neither autonomously (as it, seems, asserts Habermas) nor on behalf of social systems (to what Luman tries to incline), but on behalf of concrete associations. Indeed, in his/her consciousness a person can sainted trust that operates autonomously (for example, as a citizen of the world or even universe), or trust that acts on behalf of matter of science (as a «shear» scientist), whether matters of policy (as a « shear» politician), whether matters of economy (as a « shear» manager), or in interests only rights («shear» legalist), or morals (simply «decent man»), or arts (a representative of «art for the sake of art). However, in actual fact person is carried out to such decision by the values of that association which educated (straight or in the mode of «zetetic») him/her, also by values of those associations, to which he/she was attached consciously in adult life, or even by value of those associations to which he/she wants to be attached, or as a last resort by values of that association which he/she wants to begin with the own act of discovery (as in Kant’s theory of moral and in general for many obvious or non-obvious supporters of Reformed Faith from the sphere of philosophy – Nietzsche , for example [11]).

We should take as the internal framework conditions of social evolution also all variety of the symbolic world, and accordingly to take into account in determination of general system approach in social cognition also theories which explore the sphere of symbolic – from aesthetics and up to linguistics and semiotics. It complicates the process of determination of such approach considerably, but only on the face of it: this process appears difficult, only if to begin it not from the central point of such cognition, which is determined its basic subject, but from the certain framework conditions, or in general, from the certain constituents of these framework conditions.

It is easier to find out this central point, if one makes attempt divide the necessary causes and sufficient reasons of social evolution. If to the necessary causes obviously it costs to reckon analyzed above framework conditions (as external, so internal), sufficient reasons are determined by that, what exactly moves individuals as members of communicative associations to social communication. In fact the most complex social systems and institutes will not exist if there will not be motivation to their support for their participants. For the systems and institutes this motivation, all in all, is indifferent and insensitive, because they are impartial, for what people apply to concrete over-individual social constructions. Certainly, it is desirable, that such motivation was a resistant and consistent. That is why institutes offer certain values, which justify those requirements and limitations which they are based on. However, quite not necessarily, that exactly these values predetermined participating in these institutes – especially in postmodern societies, where stylization and simulation substitute for actual motivation successfully. However at any societies firmness of motivation can be well-to-do exactly due to over-individual control. Such control is perceived a person as unique personality usually painfully and can not be justified by the abstract functional necessities of society, but by feeling of the personal respect, trust and others like that to the representatives of these institutes and systems. That these representatives caused such respect and trust, they must be included in one communicative association with those, for whom they must cause such respect and trust.

Thus, determination of method which concrete communicative associations mounted in the complex and dynamic structure of organizational, institutional and systemic connections in society, and consequently – those method in which each time concretely there is social life – appears to be in social cognition the central question of systemic approach.

References:

1.Bertalanffy L. von, An outline of general system theory, «British Journal for the Philosophy of Science», 1950, v. I, ¹ 2.

2.Gumplowicz L., Der rassenkampf. Sociologische untersuchungen. – Innsbruck, Wagner'sche univ.-buchhandlung, 1883.

3.Habermas J. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. – Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981. – Bd.1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung.

4.Haken H., Synergetics, An Introduction. Nonequilibrium Phase-Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. – Springer, 1977.

5.Kant E., Der Streit der Fakultäten. – Königsberg, 1798.

6.Kuhn T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. – Chicago, 1962/

7.Leibniz G.W., La Monadologie. – Paris LGF, edition établie par E. Boutroux, 1991.

8.Lorenz K., Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Agression. – Wien, 1963.

9.Luhmann N., Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1997.

10.Nicolis G. and Ilya Prigogine, Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems. – Wiley, 1977.

11.Nietzsche F., Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. // Nietzsche F. Werke in vier Baenden. – Salzburg ,Caesar Verlag , 1983. – Bd.3.

12.Popper K. R., The Open Society and Its Enemies. – London, Routledge, 1945.

13.Tinbergen, N., The Study of Instinct. – Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

14.Ñèñòåìíûé ïîäõîä â ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêå (ê 100-ëåòèþ Ëþäâèãà ôîí Áåðòàëàíôè): ñáîðíèê ñòàòåé / [ðåäàêòîðû: È. Ê Ëèñååâ, Â. Í Ñàäîâñêèé]. – Ì. : Ïðîãðåññ-Òðàäèöèÿ, 2004.