Main Spheres of Social Life: The Material-Economic Sphere

Theoretical Problems of Social Structure

The entire history of the evolution of social and philosophical views on society—from antiquity to the present—represents a series of attempts to provide the most precise definition of the phenomenon of social structure. This is no coincidence, for structural studies of society, situated within a historical context, are devoid of strict limitations and encompass an inexhaustible heuristic potential.

Such research inevitably intertwines historical and logical, descriptive-empirical and abstract-logical approaches, as well as ontological, axiological, and epistemological aspects. At one time, the abstract-theoretical approach predominated in the structural definition of society (as seen in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau). This was later succeeded by a highly influential naturalism, which conceptualized society as a continuation and expansion of natural connections among individuals (as articulated by Ludwig Feuerbach). Subsequently, this was replaced by a stringent class-economic determinism (notably advocated by Karl Marx).

Prominent thinkers such as Aristotle (who viewed society as a community of individuals united by social interests), Auguste Comte (who regarded society as the result of the functioning laws of complex systems), and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (who saw civil society as grounded in a web of economic relations) formulated their visions of social structure.

Later, the theories of social action posited by Max Weber and Talcott Parsons gained considerable popularity. In their perspective, it is not abstract individuals that serve as the center of societal formation but rather the social action itself, composed of a subject, a specific situation, and the current orientation of that subject.

Weber's approach attempts to explain:

1. The means by which individuals, possessing distinct inherited traits, engage in purposive actions—whether in relation to external objects or their internal worlds—to fulfill their aspirations, shaped by these traits, and the extent to which and reasons why they succeed or fail in this endeavor.
2. The discernible consequences such aspirations, conditioned by inheritance, have for the purposefully related behavior of others.

Parsons viewed the problem in a nearly identical light. He argued that the primary connection to the social system occurs through personality; the principal avenue of engagement being status of membership. Society can only be self-sufficient to the extent that it can rely on its members’ actions to provide adequate contributions to its societal functioning. In the relationship between the individual and society, their absolute integration is no more necessary than in other forms of exchange that assume mutual sufficiency.

Alongside Parsons's view, contemporary interpretations of social action, according to Göran Therborn, emerge as a collection of situations and a range of probable actions, each possessing at least two alternatives. Thus, modern sociology, in contrast to past philosophies, endlessly broadens and generates new interpretations of society and the fundamental components of its structure. It critically assesses previous concepts regarding the understanding of social structure, noting that, firstly, in a formal sense, virtually every known theory of society has claimed ultimate truth, thus remaining inadequately linked to preceding or even contemporary concepts; and secondly, in substantive terms, a significant majority of these theories exhibit a certain unidimensionality. Consequently, the structural unit of society is often represented either by the individual, the community, or social action, thereby easily reducible to a single order. This perspective overlooks the fact that not all structural components of society are of the same order. Here coexist equally significant individual, communal, and action-oriented factors, static and dynamic elements, resultant and procedural aspects, as well as quantitative, qualitative, and temporal components.

Several approaches exist for defining the structure of society and its primary components, among which one can identify institutional, communal, procedural, functional, systemic, interpersonal, and aspectual approaches.

According to the aspectual approach, society, as a complex whole, is divided into several spheres or systems. Typically, four primary spheres are distinguished: 1) the material-economic; 2) the social; 3) the political; and 4) the spiritual. Each of these spheres possesses its own characteristics and specific internal structure. It is important to note that all spheres of social life do not actually exist as absolutely independent entities. In truth, they are abstractions through which one can isolate and examine particular fields of activity within a realistically inseparable holistic social subject, facilitating a deeper investigation into the diverse and interrelated manifestations of social life. It is impossible to conceive of the existence and development of society without any of these spheres, underscoring their indispensable presence and significant role in the social process. At the same time, the choice of a leading, determining sphere (factors, aspects, causes) becomes a methodological foundation for analyzing society and social phenomena, whether it leans toward a monocasual (single-cause) or polycausal (multiple-cause) analysis. Thus, the material-economic determinant underpins the formation, materialist approach, while the spiritual determinant nourishes various idealistic perspectives on the nature and essence of society, and the socio-cultural determinant somewhat "levels" the roles of material-economic and spiritual factors in social processes.