The Main Spheres of Social Life: The Social Sphere of Society

Social Strata

Social strata represent a type of societal division based on one or several inherent social distinctions, such as ethnic, demographic, economic, social, political, legal, religious, and more. Most contemporary scholars consider the formation and existence of social strata to be a multifaceted process, influenced on one hand by the division of labor and the social differentiation of various groups, and on the other by the prevailing system of values and cultural standards within society, which delineates the significance of various activities and legitimizes the social inequalities arising from the uneven distribution of rewards and incentives.

Social strata are shaped by various criteria, among which the most common are socio-class, socially ordered, socio-territorial, socio-professional, and socio-demographic, all of which contribute to the formation of distinct types of social structures.

Within the socio-class structure, classes, social layers, and estates are identified. The socio-class structure of society is fundamentally a collection of social classes, their interconnections and relationships, which form the basis for all other elements. The creation of a theory of classes and class struggle is one of the most significant achievements of Marxism. According to Karl Marx, the emergence of classes is a natural historical outcome of the development of primitive society. When the productivity of labor was so low that individuals could not create surplus products, the exploitation of others’ labor and inequality were impossible. The development of surplus products and the establishment of private family ownership created conditions for property and social inequality, leading to the formation of classes. Relations between classes are invariably built upon the principle of struggle.

The socio-class structure most accurately reflects the nature of economic relations within society and the specifics of its economic structure. From this perspective, V. Lenin offers a definition of classes that remains one of the most effective. Classes are large groups of people distinguished by their positions in a historically conditioned system of social production, their relationships to the means of production—which are largely enshrined in law—and their roles in the social organization of labor, thus determining the manner in which they acquire and the extent of the portion of societal wealth they possess. When examining the socio-class structure of society, three main aspects are typically highlighted: the nature of ownership, relationships to power (roles in the social organization of labor), and income (size and method of acquisition). The economically and politically dominant classes and layers characterize a particular type of socio-economic development of society. Furthermore, the economic relations among individuals not only determine the type of social structure but also the dynamics and direction of social progress within a specific society. While the founders of the theory of classes are typically regarded as representatives of the Marxist perspective, this theory retains its relevance even today. Some Western scholars, such as T. Geiger, F. Giddings, and M. Ginsberg, advocate for further development of the theory of classes. However, the socio-class orientation also has its shortcomings, which at the theoretical-methodological level manifest as a tendency to exaggerate the economic factor in understanding social processes; at the scientific-theoretical and practical levels, this leads to difficulties in establishing stable criteria for defining class “contours” and the class self-identification of social subjects, thereby diminishing socio-cultural and national-mental factors.

In contrast to the socio-class model, the stratification model (from the Latin stratum, meaning “layer,” and facere, meaning “to make”) provides a different, more complex understanding of societal structure than the model based on the distribution of labor. Thus, stratification, unlike class, is a more general concept. While classes are typically understood as social layers distinguished by economic or political indicators, strata can vary according to other socially significant criteria. Hence, a stratum refers to a layer of people who share similar indicators according to any criterion of social inequality. Stratification, the distribution of individuals among strata, characterizes the heterogeneity of society. Strata represent hierarchically arranged social layers. Each of these layers comprises individuals who, based on a specific social criterion, occupy a certain level—such as having approximately the same level of income and power. The most significant foundations of social stratification are often:

1. Wealth or income;
2. Degree of power;
3. Occupation and its social prestige;
4. Level of education;
5. "Lifestyle"—living conditions, behavioral types, social contacts, interests, etc.

Throughout their lives, individuals may move from one stratum to another. This movement, termed social mobility by P. Sorokin, is used to characterize the “closed” and “open” nature of social groups and systems. In closed groups and systems, social mobility is minimal or entirely absent. The caste system provides a vivid example of this phenomenon.

In contemporary conditions, the components of social structure are typically identified as follows: managerial bureaucracy and rank-and-file officials (i.e., social subjects of administrative governance and local self-government); managers; skilled and unskilled workers in state enterprises (civil sectors and military-industrial complexes); agricultural workers (employees of collective farms, farmers, etc.); groups of engineering and technical workers and ordinary employees, scientific-technical and humanitarian intelligentsia, students and pupils, individuals engaged in individual labor activities (both legal and illegal), cooperators, entrepreneurs; and the declassed layers—not only professional criminals but also individuals without a permanent residence, groups of lumpenized population, and so forth.

The disintegration or transformation of social structure and its institutions, particularly evident during transitional historical periods, manifests in the marginalization of society—creating transitional social entities devoid of clearly defined social-group characteristics. Marginalization is associated with the destabilization and fragmentation of normative-valuable systems within society, leading to uncertainty among social subjects regarding their normative-valuable orientations. This state generates “splitting,” a duality of personality, a loss of social and ethno-national self-identification, and the emergence of double moralities.

A significant role in the social structure of contemporary society is held by the social layer commonly referred to as the middle class. Its position in the balance of social and political forces determines the stability of the social system. In developed societies, the middle class is primarily composed of highly productive, well-informed, initiative-driven, and enterprising workers, who consistently represent an innovative type of personality. This is why such a personality type becomes the subject of technical modernization and political democratization. Representatives of this innovative social type are found among the most qualified segments of workers, peasantry, and intelligentsia.

Socially ordered structures of society determine the degree of its internal organization. Within this structure, it is appropriate to distinguish the following types of social groups: the crowd, the public, and social organizations.

The phenomenon of the crowd became a subject of scientific inquiry at the end of the 19th century, when the role of the masses in social processes grew due to objective circumstances, notably the development of industry, urbanization, and the rise of media influence. One of the pioneers of crowd theory was the French scholar G. Le Bon. He argued that in modern conditions, the elite gradually withdraws from participation in the historical process, making way for the power of the crowd, which manifests as a blind and destructive force. The collective psychology of individuals forming the crowd markedly differs from their individual psychology, driven primarily by unconscious emotions. In a crowd, individuals lose their sense of responsibility and become subject to irrational feelings, which are not captured by the constructs of logic, dogmatism, intolerance, and populism.

1. Le Bon proposes his own classification of the crowd. The starting point for this classification is the simple assemblage. An assemblage consists of individuals of diverse races unified by the will of a single leader. An example of such an assemblage would be the various barbarian groups that inundated the Roman Empire over many centuries.

From an assemblage may subsequently emerge an organized or animated crowd, which can be further divided into:

1. A heterogeneous crowd: a) Anonymized (street crowds, etc.); b) Non-anonymized (juries, parliamentary assemblies, etc.);
2. A homogeneous crowd: a) Sects (political, religious, etc.); b) Castes (military, clergy, workers, etc.); c) Classes (bourgeoisie, peasantry, etc.).

The heterogeneous crowd is composed of individuals who vary greatly in their professions and intellectual development. According to G. Le Bon, the most powerful factor determining the actions and characteristics of the crowd is race. "A crowd composed of individuals of the same race (for example, the English or the Chinese) differs significantly from a crowd made up of individuals from different races (for example, Russians, French, Spaniards)." Thus, the Latin crowd will invariably turn to state intervention to realize its demands. This crowd consistently exhibits a tendency toward centralization and caesarism. The English or American crowd, on the other hand, does not acknowledge the state and will always revert to private initiative. The French mob consistently advocates for equality, whereas the English one champions freedom. Such distinctions lead to the conclusion that democracies take on as many diverse forms as there are nations.

The homogeneous crowd is represented by sects, castes, and classes. Sects comprise individuals from various professions and backgrounds, yet they are united by a common belief. Castes consist of individuals sharing the same profession, thus originating from roughly similar environments and possessing comparable upbringings. Lastly, classes unite individuals through shared interests, skills, and lifestyles.

1. Le Bon notes that the crowd is driven by an idea, which may be ephemeral; in such cases, it manifests as a reverence for a particular individual or doctrine (religious beliefs, social, and democratic ideas). For ideas to become predominant within the crowd, they must assume the most categorical and simple form, taking on the guise of images. Such idea-images do not connect with one another through any logical relationship of analogy or sequence.

Ideas accessible to the crowd, rendered in their simplest form, often require profound transformations to gain popularity. "The mere fact of an idea penetrating the crowd and being expressed in actions is sufficient to strip it of all that contributed to its elevation and greatness, no matter how true or significant it may have been at its inception." However, even when an idea undergoes transformations that make it accessible to the crowd, it only acts effectively if it penetrates the realm of the unconscious and becomes a feeling, which requires considerable time. G. Le Bon observes that the philosophical ideas leading to the French Revolution took a whole century to solidify. Yet, it is well known how formidable their power became once they were established.

The reasoning of the crowd is grounded in associations, yet these are bound together only by deceptive analogies and sequences. "They exhibit a connection akin to the ideas of an Eskimo, who knows from experience that ice is transparent and melts in the mouth, hence concludes that glass, being a transparent substance, should also melt in the mouth; or to those of a primitive who believes that by consuming the heart of a valiant enemy, he will thereby acquire his courage; or to those of a worker exploited by his employer, who infers that all employers must be exploiters." The association of heterogeneous elements, having only a distant connection to one another, along with the generalization of particular cases, encapsulates the hallmark features of crowd reasoning. This incapacity for accurate reasoning hinders the crowd's ability to critically engage with anything, thus failing to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Le Bon perceives the mass (the crowd) as a destructive force, devoid of the capacity for rational action. Yet, the future belongs to the age of the crowd.

The issues related to the analysis of crowd psychology have proven fruitful and have been extended in the research of social psychologists and sociologists, among whom French sociologist Gabriel Tarde deserves mention.

According to Tarde, social processes are inter-individual processes. Society is the product of interactions among individual consciousnesses. Thus, sociology must study social collective psychology. In his works, he refers to such a science as "intersubjective" and "intermental" psychology, distinguishing it from individual psychology. Therefore, the subject of this science should be inter-individual relations.

In his interpretation of the crowd, Tarde was close to G. Le Bon, yet he did not interpret it as broadly as the latter. He disagreed with Le Bon regarding the role of the crowd in modern society, emphasizing that the contemporary era is one not of the crowd, but of the public, or more precisely, of various publics. His views on the crowd and the public were most coherently articulated in his work "Opinion and the Crowd." Unlike the crowd, which is united by spatial proximity and emotional communion, the public represents a purely spiritual and intellectual community, dispersed in space. The public is the environment in which public opinion is formed. Tarde assigned significant importance to communication media and mass communication, particularly newspapers, in the formation of the public.

Although Tarde was not inclined to establish a completed theoretical construct, he made substantial contributions to the study of crowds, publics, and other socio-psychological phenomena.

In summarizing the psychological paradigm in sociology, it is evident that it marked a significant advancement compared to the methodology of the naturalistic paradigm. Proponents of psychological sociology viewed the complexities of social life as products of conscious intent—"directed evolution," meaning a conscious management of social processes. The higher—specifically, human—phase of evolution was interpreted not as an action of "blind forces of nature," as naturalists suggested, but as a manifestation of an ideal goal. Furthermore, humanity's future is associated with transcending the ideal process of goal-setting, transitioning to a collective consciousness, of which the state is the bearer, ensuring the conscious cooperation of individuals.

Thus, the crowd is a transient congregation of individuals brought together by a common interest. When such interest dissipates, the crowd disperses. Within the crowd, there are no unified norms or behavioral habits, previous experiences, or group structures. The crowd is easily susceptible to psychological contagion, suggestion, and imitation.

The public, on the other hand, is a social group whose members are physically scattered yet spiritually bound by a unity of views. According to G. Tarde, the public is a product of our time. The flourishing of the public corresponds with the advancement of mass media. These media shape public opinion, dividing society into large groups that respond similarly to various phenomena, events, and so forth.

Organizations must be distinguished from both the crowd and the public. Their main characteristics are:

1. Orderliness, coherence, and coordination of the members' actions.
2. The existence of informational connections that ensure unity and coherence of actions.
3. The presence of a common objective guiding the members' activities.

Hence, an organization is a group of individuals who act together and systematically towards a shared goal. The internal division of labor is of great importance for enhancing the efficacy of the organization. Organizations exist in various forms. Among the most prevalent are charismatic groups, voluntary associations, total institutions, and administrative (bureaucratic) organizations.

Charismatic groups emerge around a leader endowed with a distinctive authority—charisma (derived from the Greek, meaning divine gift or grace). Initially, the relationships between the leader and other members of the group are disordered, contingent upon their proximity to the leader. However, over time, such a group develops rules of conduct and traditions, transforming into an organized entity with a clear hierarchy. This process is known as the "routinization of charisma" (M. Weber). A church serves as a quintessential example of such a group.

The defining characteristics of voluntary associations include: 1) their formation to satisfy or protect the shared interests of their members; 2) the voluntary nature of membership; 3) their ties to governmental entities (such as labor unions, mutual aid societies, and scientific associations).

In contrast, total institutions are established to safeguard the interests of the state, religion, or nationality (such as prisons, hospitals, educational establishments, and monasteries).

Administrative organizations (sometimes referred to as "bureaucracies") operate under strict rules that govern a clear division of responsibilities among employees. Each individual occupies a specific position and must perform designated functions. Here, mechanisms of interaction among employees are essential, directing their efforts toward objectives beneficial to the organization. This is achieved through a clearly structured hierarchical framework and an appropriate management system. The hierarchical structure resembles a pyramid, based on the distribution of individuals according to their positions, functioning as a system of subordinative relationships. Hierarchy embodies a system of power, understood as the capacity to determine the actions of others. The governance of organizational activities can be spontaneous, traditionally normative, value-based, or autonomous.

In spontaneous governance, there is no directing body within the organization. The goals and behavioral programs of its members are regulated through their interactions (as seen in market-based economic organizations, the Internet).

Traditionally normative governance is exercised through customs and traditions passed down to members of the organization from previous generations. Such organizations tend to be stable over extended periods and are conservative in nature (like a community).

Value-based governance regulates the activities of each member according to their value orientations, with actions arising from the unity of these orientations (as in jazz improvisation).

Authoritative governance implies the existence of a distinct administrative body—the apparatus of governance—an authority that sets the goals and programs for the organization as a whole. This form of governance is executed by individuals occupying the higher echelons of the hierarchy—leaders, directors, and presidents.

Methods of governance are characterized by a purposeful influence on individuals or groups to regulate their activities. Several types of governance methods exist:

1. Direct (commands, assignments);
2. Through motives and needs (incentives);
3. Through a system of values (education, upbringing, etc.);
4. Through the surrounding environment (changes in working conditions, status within administrative and informal organizations, etc.).

The typical structure of the management apparatus comprises three levels: lower, middle, and upper management. However, in large corporations, there may be at least five levels: lower tier, junior tier, middle tier, senior tier, and upper tier. In military forces and state sector management, the number of management levels can significantly increase, reaching 40 to 50 or more.

The socio-territorial structure of society reflects its division based on territorial characteristics, shaped by specific historical, economic, religious, spiritual, cultural, and linguistic factors that converge in a given area, impacting the socio-cultural peculiarities of its population's existence.

Understanding the fundamental concepts that characterize the socio-territorial structure of society is impossible without clarifying the essence of the term "people."

The term "people" is multifaceted. In a broad (demographic) sense, it encompasses the entirety of the population within a specific state or country. In another sense—ethno-social—it refers to various forms of ethnic and ethno-social communities (tribes, nationalities, nations, etc.). Furthermore, it denotes a social collective that, at different historical stages, includes groups and strata capable of addressing societal development challenges. Most generally, one can assert that the people constitute a confluence of social communities, strata, and groups engaged in collective activities within the system of societal labor distribution, forming a unified whole due to their shared historical destiny, essential traits of a similar way of life and morality, and a sense of belonging to a singular historical community. The people are carriers of rich collective experiences and socio-cultural values (language, historical memory, cultural values and norms), as well as distinctive (traditional) forms of life activity, skills, and abilities.

In the socio-territorial structure of society, socio-regional communities are identified as elements. The regional community is a term used to describe a specific social entity within a broader social whole, residing continuously in a designated region and distinguished from representatives of other regions by historically formed characteristics of its socio-cultural existence.

Moreover, important elements of this structure include cities and villages.

A city is a historically specific social-spatial form of societal existence that emerged as a result of the societal division of labor—namely, the separation of crafts from agricultural production—and is characterized by a mode of existence that is not directly tied to agricultural labor.

A village, conversely, is a historically specific social-spatial form of societal existence that arose from the societal division of labor, characterized by a mode of existence grounded in direct agricultural work.

There are notable distinctions between urban and rural populations, dictated by the nature of their existential functioning. Urban social life is marked by greater dynamism and intensity in all processes, while rural life exhibits stability and conservatism. The internal social structuring of the local population displays greater heterogeneity, which continues to complicate as cities develop, their populations grow, and local infrastructures expand; conversely, rural populations are socially more homogeneous. The socio-cultural life of cities is also considerably more intricate than that of villages.

The socio-professional structure of society is built upon the consideration of occupational prestige, qualification levels, educational attainment, and income levels. The delineation of such criteria impacts the specificity of social stratification. For instance, classes may be distributed according to socio-economic status: the upper class of managers and administrators; technical specialists making up the middle class, followed by the commercial class, small bourgeoisie, technicians, and workers engaged in managerial functions, as well as skilled and unskilled laborers. This enables a more profound and detailed examination of the nuances of social inequality as an objective condition of human existence.

Simultaneously, to maintain a holistic view of the stratification structure, population distribution is often categorized into three primary levels—upper, middle, and lower—which correspond to the fundamental bases of stratification. The significance of each level is determined by the prevailing values and norms within society, as well as its social institutions.

The socio-demographic structure of society is built upon the consideration of demographic indicators of various social entities. Key elements of the socio-demographic structure, apart from family units, also include population groups distinguished by age (children, youth, middle-aged individuals, the elderly), participation in the societal production system (working population, non-working population, retirees), and gender characteristics (men, women), among others.