Society

Unity and Diversity of The Socio-Historical Process

The question of unity and diversity within the socio-historical process stands as a central concern in social philosophy and the philosophy of history. Its resolution lies within such issues as the dialectic of the general and the particular in historical progression, and the relationship between the specific-historical and the universal-human. One of the earliest researchers to attempt a well-founded and comprehensive understanding of the unity and diversity in historical processes was the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico of the 17th-18th centuries. His concept served as a precursor to future theories of cyclical development in cultures and civilizations. Unlike the classical Enlightenment approach, Vico examines the dynamics of a socially-idealistic essence of naturalism. According to naturalistic ideas, the geographical environment exerts its immediate influence solely at the moment of forming a particular spiritual composition of a people, whereas the real driving force of historical development in all its diversity is recognized as the "spirit of the people," shaped under the influence of the natural environment. From this perspective, Vico links social progress to the degree of development of the national essence in culture, viewing folk customs and moral guidelines as genuine expressions of humanity's "social nature." However, Vico's conception lacks the principle of historicism in understanding the evolution of human society; therefore, he believes that all social organisms and cultures in world history, lacking historical perspective and doomed to inevitable death, are equally valid.

Throughout the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries, philosophy regarding the patterns of societal development predominantly oriented itself towards two methodological frameworks. Firstly, naturalism, in the form of geographical determinism (Montesquieu, K. Ritter, Bockh, G. Herder, L.I. Mechnikov, among others), or in the form of idealistic naturalism (K.A. Helvetius, J.J. Rousseau). Secondly, objective idealism (I. Kant, G. Hegel).

Naturalism is a direction in social philosophy grounded in the methods and conclusions of the natural sciences. The laws discovered and articulated within these sciences are typically transposed onto society, regarded as universal for understanding and explaining all social processes.

The methodological basis of geographical determinism is materialist monism. Particularly in its early stages, geographical determinism posits the geographical environment as the primary factor in the evolution of any specific society, as well as in the socio-historical development of society as a whole, relegating psychological and cultural elements to a secondary role. However, it acknowledges that at higher stages of civilization's development, rational factors gradually gain prominence.

Idealistic naturalism begins with the thesis of nature's primacy and the "natural state" of humanity, where all individuals were equal and free, existing in conditions suited to their nature. By focusing on humanity's capacity for improvement, it substantiates the extraordinary role of rational factors influencing the developmental process of the individual and the entire system of social relations (the theory of the social contract), including institutions of private property, power, state, and so forth. This culminates in a dualistic doctrine of the eternal existence of the corporeal and spiritual within nature.

Objective idealist concepts of understanding history are based on the absolutization of the role of an objectively existing spiritual factor in the development of humanity and specific societies. Within various conceptual frameworks, this factor may be the Logos, God, Absolute Idea, Absolute Reason, Absolute Will, etc.

From the second half of the 19th century onward, social philosophy has frequently employed the formation and civilizational approaches in examining the historical development of humanity.

The formation approach was established within Marxist philosophy, where its founders, K. Marx and F. Engels, first articulated the fundamental principles of formation analysis of society and developed an accompanying system of categories (socio-economic formation, base, superstructure, mode of production, productive forces, relations of production, etc.). This formation approach belongs to the so-called classical, linear methodology, whose general principles are also characteristic of G. Hegel's philosophy of history. Just as with Hegel, it is based on a monistic, universalist understanding of history. However, while Hegel interprets universal history as a singularly linear process of Absolute Spirit's development, the formation approach views it as a natural-historical process marked by the sequential transformation of socio-economic formations.

The term "formation" was borrowed by Marx from geology, likely from three sources: a) Marx's own studies in geology; b) Hegel's "Philosophy of Nature"; and c) Dureau de la Malle's "Political Economy of the Romans," where a concept akin to "formation" is used. In the context of analyzing humanity's history, the notion of "formation" encompasses two dimensions of human society—society as a process and as a state, the structure of relations among individuals. The term "socio-economic formation," in essence, aligns with the Marxist dialectical-materialist concept, whereby the material factor is considered paramount in the development of all aspects of social life. Here, society is viewed as an integrated system of relations, in which productive relations play a determining role.

In the works of Marx and Engels, the definition of "socio-economic formation" is absent. They treat the socio-political formation as a working concept that facilitates addressing specific cognitive or practical questions in analyzing social processes. However, in Marxist literature, "socio-economic formation" is typically understood as a specific-historical type of society grounded in a certain mode of production and serving as a stage in the progressive development of world history.

All history is regarded as a successive transformation of socio-economic formations. Indeed, their classification presents certain challenges, arising from the objective impossibility of fitting the diverse historical and national forms of social organization into unified schemas. Soviet sociological literature distinguished five socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, and communist. However, the founders of Marxism do not provide a precise classification of socio-economic formations. Often, the term "socio-economic formation" is applied by K. Marx to bourgeois society, yet he never employs it in reference to primitive society, for which he uses the term "social formation." K. Marx refers to slave-owning, feudal, and communist societies as socio-economic formations, but always in comparison with bourgeois society, in juxtaposition to it. Moreover, Marx also introduces the concept of the "Asiatic mode of production," which captures the particularities of socio-economic relations in certain Asian countries.

Currently, the "five-member" approach to classifying formations evokes predominantly critical commentary in scholarly circles, given its oversimplified perspective on humanity's linear history, which implies a degree of uniformity in social systems, as well as elements of a one-sided and fatalistic view of history. Nonetheless, the formation approach possesses certain positive aspects, as it regards society as a complex system and draws attention to the interaction and correlation within this system between material and spiritual factors. This, in turn, endows this approach with vitality, maintaining its claim to exist as one of the theoretical models of linear socio-historical development.

Another approach to understanding the development of human society is the so-called non-linear, non-classical civilizational approach. To grasp this perspective, it is essential to refer to the concept of civilization. Etymologically, the term "civilization" traces its roots back to Latin, connected with such notions as "civiles" (civil), "civis" (citizen), and "civitas" (civil society). In its reinterpreted form, the concept of civilization entered scientific discourse in Western European countries (France, England) from the mid-18th century, during the vigorous advancement of capitalism and its establishment of benchmarks in the spiritual realm. As a criterion for progress, the idea of social good, based on the primacy of reason, is affirmed, allowing individuals to negotiate with one another to ensure the protection of their interests (life, security, freedom, property). The social contract, according to J.J. Rousseau, conferred immense advantages to humanity, as it guaranteed all the benefits of civilization, notably the development of industry, education, science, and more. However, civilization also entrenched economic inequality and political violence, leading to "barbarism"—the satisfaction of bodily needs, but not those of the spirit. Rousseau argued that only culture, through art and science, could meet the needs of the spirit. Thus, the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" were clearly delineated for the first time.

Civilization was envisioned as a certain and necessary stage in the evolution of culture, yet one that harbored profound contradictions and ultimately turned into its opposite. Civilization embodied the technological aspect of culture, focusing not on qualitative but on quantitative parameters of existence, aiming for limitless growth with shifting goals. The essence of civilization lies in the continual transformation of technology to meet the incessantly rising needs and potentials of humanity, with legislative support for this process.

This understanding of civilization is largely based on the achievements of scientific and technological progress in Western countries and the ideology of liberal democracy. However, as early as the beginning of the 20th century, many thinkers sensed a tragic disjunction between civilization and culture. M.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, and P. Sorokin candidly articulated a crisis of culture, characterized as a state where life generates new forms of activity, yet people are unable to adapt to them or are artificially conserved by outdated schemes.

In general, civilizations are viewed as specific historical forms of social organism activity, which initially unfold as cultural-historical types and, upon reaching maturity, become civilizations. The durations of civilizations do not align and differ both in developmental phases and temporal dimensions. During any given historical period, multiple civilizations may coexist in varying states of maturity, influence, and roles within the historical process. However, typically, one civilization is distinguished as defining the essence of the historical epoch. Indeed, the classification of such civilizations significantly varies among different thinkers. For instance, M. Danilevsky identifies ten cultural-historical types or civilizations, arranged chronologically: 1) Egyptian; 2) Chinese; 3) Assyrian-Babylonian-Phoenician, Chaldean, or ancient Semitic; 4) Indian; 5) Iranian; 6) European; 7) Greek; 8) Roman; 9) Neo-Semitic or Arabian; and 10) German-Roman or European. In contrast, O. Spengler recognizes eight: 1) Chinese; 2) Babylonian; 3) Egyptian; 4) Classical (also referred to as Apollonian or Greco-Roman); 5) Arab (magical); 6) Western (Faustian); 7) Mayan culture; and 8) Russian. A. Toynbee counts over thirty civilizations throughout history, of which only six have persisted to the present: 1) Western; 2) Byzantine-Orthodox; 3) Russian-Orthodox; 4) Arab; 5) Indian; and 6) Far Eastern (Chinese, Japanese-Korean).

Engagement with the concept of civilization touches upon methodological issues concerning the foundational principles of philosophical analysis of society within the broader historical process. From the perspective of contemporary interpretations of the civilizational approach, the historical process emerges not as a monolithic sequence but as a polycentric phenomenon of the development and transformation of civilizations as cultural-historical forms. In this context, each civilization is perceived as a nonlinear entity of monadic nature.

Such an approach is shaped by the recognition that any living organism is not a singular entity but presents itself as a multiplicity of autonomous beings, identical in essence yet diverse in manifestation. Thus, civilization is regarded as a unique monad of history. This monadic nature of civilizations enables a pluralistic understanding of the civilizational approach, allowing us to avoid one-sidedness and "centrism," whether Eurocentric, Euro-Asian, Southern, or Northern. The modern civilizational approach is primarily concerned with examining civilizations as equivalent, albeit distinctive, expressions of humanity's historical existence. Emphasizing the uniqueness and irreplaceability of historically significant individuals enables a view of humanity's collective history as a tapestry of richness, diversity, and uniqueness in the organization of communities.

Consequently, the theory of developmental stages of society is historically limited. It was relevant to the era marked by the banner of scientific and technological progress (18th-19th centuries), reflecting the objective trends of that period. The civilizational approach, asserting itself in contemporary philosophy, meets the needs for a more refined understanding of modern society. At its core lies the fact that humanity's history has transformed into a global, universal narrative. Previously, it was the history of distinct peoples, tribes, nations, regions, and cultures. The creation of a planetary civilization is a complex and often contentious process. It is no coincidence that there is increasing discourse about the civilizational crisis of modernity. Sociology and philosophy have commonly divided history into periods of traditional (agrarian), technogenic (industrial) civilization and a new, still-forming phase, which bears the characteristics that lead some to label it post-industrial (informational). The agrarian civilizational revolution that occurred 6,000 to 8,000 years ago marked the transition from a consumer lifestyle to a productive one; the industrial revolution is associated with the emergence of machine production (16th-17th centuries); and the informational revolution, now entering the most developed countries, marks the dawn of a new civilization.

The term "civilization" is multifaceted and lacks a singular, precise definition. At times, civilization is equated with the notion of "culture" (when discussing Chinese civilization, Sumerian, Latin American, etc.). Often, "civilization" denotes a higher level of societal development that succeeds its original state (barbarism) and correlates with an advanced level of technique and technology. Nevertheless, the term "civilization" is utilized to characterize the entirety of material and spiritual human activity. In the context of the civilizational approach we are exploring, civilization is understood as a specific historical formation, a branch of historical development, a conglomeration of cultures and societies united by common traits.

How, then, do the types of civilizations differ from types of socio-economic formations? Unlike the typology of formations, which is based on economic structures and specific production relations, the concept of "civilization" draws attention not only to the economic dimension but also to the entirety of societal life forms—material-economic, political, cultural, and moral. The foundation of civilization comprises not only its economic basis but, to a greater extent, a collective of cultural paradigms, value orientations, goals, motives, and ideals that shape certain psychological predispositions in people. Types of civilizations represent more global, stable formations than types of socio-economic formations. Within a single type of civilization, formative differences are possible. The development of civilization is a more potent, significant, and enduring process than the changes in formations. It is crucial to underscore that each type of civilization possesses its defining developmental factors and its unique mechanism of determination.

Traditional civilization encompasses the periods of antiquity and the Middle Ages—comprising Ancient India and China, Ancient Egypt, and the states of the Muslim East, among others. This type of social organization persists to this day; many countries in the developing world exhibit characteristics of traditional societies. Traditional civilization is characterized by specific traits: an agrarian economic orientation; extensive and cyclical modes of social development; a high level of dependence on natural living conditions, particularly geographical location; conservatism in social relations and lifestyle; a focus on reproduction and preservation of the established order and existing social life structures; a negative attitude toward any innovations; a prioritization of traditions, established norms, customs, and authority; a high level of dependence on social groups and strict social control; and a marked limitation of individual freedom.

Technogenic civilization arose from the remnants of medieval society. The extensive mode of social development gives way to an intensive one. Growth, renewal, and progress become the paramount principles of human and societal life. The cyclical mode of development transforms into a linear progression. Economic development, driven by technology and science, becomes the leading determinant of societal advancement. A new value system emerges, founded on science, technology, and technique. The idea of transforming the world and subjugating nature becomes central to the culture of technogenic civilization. Novelty, originality, and anything new become prized. The individual's position within technogenic civilization fundamentally changes: the value of freedom is affirmed, the principle of equality among people, irrespective of social origin, is established, and individual autonomy gains significance. Here, the values of democracy, personal sovereignty, and the inviolability of individual rights and freedoms take on paramount importance. The primary orientation of individual activity becomes the achievement of success through personal effort in realizing one's goals.

Technogenic civilization is not only dynamic and mobile but also notably aggressive. It suppresses and subjugates traditional societies and their cultures. This is not incidental, as the values of power, strength, struggle, and domination over natural and social circumstances hold significant sway among the leading values of this civilization. It is on this foundation that the cult of utility and the drive for possession of goods (objects, human abilities, and information as commodities) are established.

The evolution of Western societies in the 19th and 20th centuries has revealed a fundamental contradiction within technogenic civilization. On one hand, its ultimate goal—an increase in material wealth based on the continuous renewal of technical-economic systems—reduces humanity to mere functionaries of the economic sphere. The proportion of organized rather than spontaneous connections within society has increased; spiritual production has transformed into a complex industry of consciousness. The individual becomes an object of manipulation by mass culture and media. Conversely, this same technogenic civilization also focuses on individual freedom, mobilizes human activity, and stimulates the development of both needs and capacities, thereby fostering the humanization of a society founded on capitalist economics. In this way, technogenic civilization engenders both an economic foundation and a new type of human being capable of modifying and humanizing that foundation—evident in the development of economic and political liberalism, recognition of the principle of social justice, establishment of social protection mechanisms, curbing bourgeois power, and democratic freedoms. The superstructure (in defiance of formation theory) demonstrates an increasing capacity to gain independence from the economic base.

Moreover, such a civilization will rest on a system of cultural values distinct from those of technogenic civilization: one based on the ethics of non-violence, a rejection of the cult of power and domination, a tolerant attitude toward diverse cultural traditions, and fundamentally different principles governing humanity's relationship with nature. The growing integrity and unity of humankind will accompany an increase in the variability and diversity of cultural development.

Lastly, the new society will be built upon the evolution of a novel type of social connections among people. The society of fragmented, atomized individuals will transition to a society of free social communities, where individuals establish connections based on the principles of free choice, guided by their tastes and needs.

In summary, the technological foundation of the future civilization will comprise fundamentally new processes and entities termed "synergetic," signifying their capacity for self-development (such as computer systems, biotechnological complexes, etc.).

From the perspective of a civilizational approach—one that is inherently nonlinear—historical progress does not merely advance along a straight line. Instead, it involves a series of revolutions, crises, and regressive shifts that lead to qualitative changes. The path of civilization can be understood through the lens of differentiation and integration, which generate various forms of civilizational development. Each subsequent stage of civilization transcends and integrates the accomplishments of preceding stages while simultaneously leading to a more profound and complex integration of human existence.

In conclusion, the civilizational approach represents a contemporary, advanced lens for examining the multifaceted processes of cultural and historical development. This approach seeks to illuminate the rich tapestry of civilizations, their evolution, and their interactions, offering profound insights into humanity's collective journey.