Methodological Foundations of Social Philosophy

On the Concept of the “Social”

As analysis reveals, the term "social" can rightfully be regarded as one of the most significant concepts. At the same time, it is important to note that this is a polysemous term, employed in various meanings. In particular, R.O. Dodonov and V.I. Dodonova distinguish the following meanings:
— First, "social" refers to a complex systemic level of organization among structural elements, possessing a universal character.
— Second, alongside "social" in this broad sense, there exists the notion of "social form of the movement of matter." In this sense, "social" acts as a synonym for the concepts of "human" and "societal."
— Third, within the social form of the movement of matter, there is a distinct social sphere of life that possesses its own specificity and differs from the economic, political, and spiritual spheres. In addition to the social, the terms "civil," and "civil society" also belong to this conceptual level.
— Lastly, there is a much narrower meaning of "social," which is related to the satisfaction of various human needs. In this context, phrases like "social policy," "social work," and "social security" are used. In the West, the concept of "humanitarian" is also employed (e.g., "humanitarian needs," "humanitarian aid").

At the same time, as authoritative researchers acknowledge, "humanity has yet to find a more or less acceptable and substantiated answer to the question of what the 'social' is." Perhaps for this reason, the authors of many reference works avoid addressing the content of this term, even when the inclusion of derivatives from it would seem to necessitate such action.
Take, for instance, a publication like the "Universal Dictionary-Encyclopedia," which presents terms such as "socialization," "social stratum," "social group," "social maladjustment," "social polarization," "social stratification," "social structure," and "social status," yet fails to mention the foundational concept of "social" itself. It is similarly absent from most philosophical dictionaries, including both Ukrainian and Russian encyclopedic editions.

Regarding foreign reference works, it should be noted that this term is not as overlooked by them as by our domestic publications and is interpreted within much broader parameters.
For example, the authors of one American sociological dictionary, David Jerry and Julia Jerry, present three meanings in which the term "social" is employed: "1) the quality of certain insects and specific species of animals, including primates, that live together in organized colonies or groups; 2) the quality that pertains to human society and/or human interactions in organizations and groups; 3) concern and responsibility for various connections and the well-being of individuals (e.g., social worker)."

As we can see, there is an inclination to discuss the concept that interests us while limiting oneself to the external manifestations of the phenomenon it denotes, neglecting its essence and similarly disregarding earlier attempts by Western researchers to penetrate that essence.
Bearing this in mind, we must mention P.A. Sorokin, who dedicated considerable attention to the study of the nature of the social phenomenon. In analyzing the work of his colleagues, he pointed out that all definitions of the social they proposed share a common element, namely that a social phenomenon—the object of sociology—primarily represents the interaction of certain centers or interactions characterized by specific features. He himself concluded that the most important characteristic that distinguishes a social phenomenon, as such, its essential feature, is mental interaction.

"…A social phenomenon," asserted P.A. Sorokin, "is a social connection that has a psychic nature and is realized in the consciousness of individuals, simultaneously extending beyond its content and duration. This is what many call the 'social soul'; it is what others refer to as civilization and culture; it is what third parties define with the term 'world of values' in contrast to the world of things that constitute the object of the sciences of nature. Any interaction, regardless of between whom it occurs, once endowed with a psychic character… will be a social phenomenon."

P.A. Sorokin recognized the danger that the existing ambiguity surrounding the term "psychic interaction" posed to his definition. Thus, he promptly adds, "Psychic interaction can only occur where units or organisms endowed with a developed nervous system interact. Therefore, the forms of interaction between humans and, likewise, animals unrelated to psychic forms do not fall within the realm of social phenomena."

Undoubtedly, this has significant implications for uncovering the essence of the phenomenon denoted by the term that interests us. However, it seems that P.A. Sorokin did not manage to reveal it fully.
Indeed, since the psyche is not exclusive to humans but is also present in animals, considering psychic interaction as an essential characteristic of any social phenomenon is unlikely to be legitimate or justified. The definition proposed by G.V. Osipov comes closest to an adequate reflection of the essence of the social phenomenon: "The social is the sum of the social relations of a given society, integrated into the process of joint activity (interaction) of individuals or groups of individuals in specific conditions of time and place. Any system of social relations (economic, political, etc.) pertains to the relationships between people, to one another and to society. Therefore, each of these systems always possesses its clearly expressed aspect. The social is the result of the joint activity of various individuals, manifested in their communication and interaction."

In alignment with the esteemed author's aspiration to ground the essence of the social in an activity-based approach, I would like to express the view that a philosophical analysis of the concept of "social," in juxtaposition with its antithesis, namely the concept of "natural," could prove quite fruitful.

As is well known, any natural phenomenon, including humanity as a biological entity, possesses a natural origin, created by nature itself and determined by natural connections—independent of human involvement as a social phenomenon. The separation of humans from the animal kingdom (anthropogenesis) was as monumental a leap as the emergence of life from the lifeless, which unfolded for an extended period in an inseparable connection with the formation of society (sociogenesis). The epochs of anthropogenesis and sociogenesis (estimated by scientists to span 3 to 3.5 million years, a thousandfold greater than written history) are inextricably linked aspects of a singular whole—anthroposociogenesis.

From this, it follows that all phenomena that occurred on Earth in the period preceding anthroposociogenesis were purely natural in character. It is challenging to ascertain precisely when specific phenomena began to acquire social qualities; however, there are ample grounds to assert that the emergence of these qualities was intimately tied to the advent of humanity and the formation of primitive forms of human community and society. This is precisely what philologists associate with the etymological significance of the term "social."

Having detached from nature and the animal world, humanity did not forfeit its biological characteristics; however, these traits underwent colossal transformations. This leads us to conclude that "humans and animals are entirely distinct beings, as different from one another as heaven is from earth: this is evident in the structure of limbs or internal organs, in the constitution of the body or its proportional dimensions between humans and animals. Yet the most significant distinction lies in their mode of life. Animal life unfolds naturally, existing as mere existence. Human life is realized socially, in a manner that embodies active engagement."

It is precisely this differentiation and separation of humans from nature, this self-contradiction, that has engendered the formation of humanity as an actively engaged subject, who, regarding nature as an object, is simultaneously compelled to acknowledge that this object imposes certain limitations on their activity, which cannot, therefore, be executed arbitrarily as they wish. This condition, in turn, cultivates the need for the subject to discern its essential connections, which determine the development of the object—the laws governing nature's evolution—so as to harmonize their own actions with these laws, as their goals are shaped in accordance with the logic of the surrounding material world's development, objectively conditioned by the subject's needs and capabilities, primarily the level of development of production tools and productive forces. Thus, humanity emerges as the principal active force in the interplay between subject and object, representing the initial manifestation of the social and its creator.

The social, as we conceive it, should be regarded as a philosophical category that denotes the vast array of forms of human existence, the various associations of people, the relationships between them, and their activities as a means of mastering the world and objective reality through the utilization of the material and spiritual production results of previous generations, modified by successors in light of their ever-evolving needs.

Without claiming exhaustive completeness and infallibility, the proposed definition simultaneously indicates, firstly, the existence of humanity as a subject, which has engendered connections that were previously absent in nature—subject-object connections with the world of nature, and subject-object-subject connections with one another, resembling social relationships. This, we contend, constitutes the primary distinguishing feature of the essential characterization of the social and its materiality.

Moreover, the proposed definition draws attention to the diversity of forms in which the subject manifests as the driving force behind changes and the evolution of the social and its materiality—from the individual to various associations of people (kin, tribe, ethnicity, nation, classes, other, smaller social groups, specific societies, and humanity as a whole)—which likewise cannot arise from natural connections.

Furthermore, the definition elucidates the essence of human activity as a specific form of movement inherent to social materiality, comprising the mastery of the world and the subjective reality surrounding humanity. This mastery occurs not only through the tangible and practical transformation of the world via tools of labor but also through mental and spiritual engagement, utilizing the developing forms of social consciousness—scientific, religious, political, legal, moral, aesthetic, and philosophical.

The proposed definition also underscores the objective foundations of each generation's activity, which exist independently of their will and consciousness—the results of the material and spiritual production of their predecessors, the culture they have created, and what constitutes the so-called social heritage, which also cannot be produced by nature or determined by natural connections. As each new generation enters the life of any social organism, it cannot fulfill its needs otherwise than by relying on the social heritage bequeathed to it by its predecessors. Yet it cannot leave this heritage unchanged, as new needs that continually emerge demand its evolution. The satisfaction of these needs necessitates the development of material and spiritual production, of material and spiritual culture—namely, the social heritage.

In proposing a working definition of the social, we are fully aware of its provisional nature and its openness to further refinement and enhancement, aiming for greater adequacy in one of the most crucial socio-philosophical concepts represented by this phenomenon.