The Genesis of Social-Philosophical Thought

Activity

In the world, there exists nothing beyond matter in motion. This assertion applies fully to the social dimension of matter, an intrinsic attribute of which is the social form of movement—activity.

Like other forms of movement, activity possesses certain universal characteristics. It is objective, for it does not depend on the will or consciousness of either individual persons or humanity as a whole. As with movement in general, activity manifests as an internally connected unity of being and non-being, identity and difference, stability and flux, that which vanishes and that which emerges.

At the same time, as a social form of material movement, activity is distinguished by its specificity. This manifests, firstly, in the presence of subjectively acting and knowing individuals and social groups endowed with consciousness and will, serving as the bearers of activity, which encompasses all processes occurring in society and social changes in general.

"The principal flaw of all previous materialism—including that of Feuerbach," K. Marx emphasized in the "Theses on Feuerbach," "is that the object, reality, sensuousness is taken only in the form of an object, or in the form of contemplation, rather than as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively. From this, it follows that the active aspect, in contrast to materialism, was developed by idealism, but only abstractly, since idealism, of course, does not recognize actual sensuous activity as such." The specificity of activity as a social form of material movement also manifests, secondly, in that it is conditioned by certain goals pursued by individual persons or social groups, thus having a directed nature.

Thirdly, the specificity of activity as a social form of material movement is evident in that it, as a manifestation of a higher level of material organization, is genetically connected to lower forms of material movement without being reduced to them, largely determining their development.

Reflecting the essential side of social reality, "activity" is a maximally general concept in social philosophy, belonging to its categories. Activity, as A. N. Leontiev notes, is not a mere reaction or a collection of reactions; it is a system with structure, internal transitions, transformations, and its own development. The fundamental elements of its structure are material and spiritual activity. The concepts that denote these social phenomena serve as species in relation to the generic concept of "activity."

Human activity is diverse, manifesting not only in the most general forms—material and spiritual production—but also in more specific varieties, which, as A. N. Leontiev points out, "can be distinguished by any characteristic: by their form, by the ways they exist, by their national intensity, by their temporal and spatial characteristics, by their physiological mechanisms, and so on."

In activity that pertains to subject-object relations, as M. S. Kagan rightly believes, it is appropriate to distinguish the following types:

1. Transformative activity, which primarily includes the human transformation of nature and labor activity. This type encompasses the transformation of society as well as the transformation of the human being itself.
2. Cognitive activity. In the course of this activity, the subject's activity directed towards the object does not change the latter but is reflected by it and returns to the subject in the form of knowledge about that object. The objects of cognitive activity can include nature, society, humanity, or the knowing subject itself.
3. Value-oriented activity. "The value of an object," M. S. Kagan notes, "as opposed to its objective significance, which is determined 'from the outside,' is established in the act of cognition through the immediate response of the subject, individual or collective, according to how this object enters the life experience of that subject, what relation it evokes, and how it is emotionally appropriated. If the being of the object is recognized by a person as truth, then its value is experienced and understood as good, beauty, or magnitude."
4. Communicative activity or communication. This can refer to intra-family communication, the communicative processes established among members of specific collectives, sectors, parties, other social organizations, nations, societies, interstate communication, and the activities of mass communication media, among others.

The activity of humans, comprising the totality of their relations to nature and to one another, is complex and multifaceted. This content always manifests in specific forms within any society and within any of its structural subdivisions. Some of these forms have a brief history, emerging and quickly disappearing. Others endure for a considerable time, acquiring the character of relatively stable, repetitive practices recognized within particular communities (nations, classes, other social groups, labor collectives, families, etc.) as valid and necessary, thus transforming into customs, traditions, and laws, in the legal sense of the latter term—as normative legal acts, obligatory rules governing specific forms of human behavior.

Both customs, traditions, and laws share a common substantial basis, which is activity. However, acknowledging this, one should not overlook the distinctions existing among them.

Customs are formed under the influence of social feelings, ideas, moods, emotions, and superstitions that constitute the realm of social psychology. In primitive society, during the early stages of human history, they served as the primary regulator of the behavior of communal members: one must act in a certain way because ancestors did so, because elders do so, because it was customary. The explanation or justification of the very fact was of no substantial importance. Customs rigidly fixed the stability of established social forms and were passed down from generation to generation almost unchanged. Here we encounter the underdevelopment of forms of activity, which was conditioned by the limitations and underdevelopment of the needs of primitive humans, whose barely perceptible changes weakly stimulated the search for and establishment of new forms of activity.

With the division of labor, this process begins to accelerate. Now, more and more frequently, questions arise: why do things happen in one way rather than another? How can things be done better? Customs increasingly yield to those forms and methods of activity that are repetitive, stable, with purposes, causes of emergence, and necessities for utilization receiving explanations and justifications based on the knowledge possessed by society at a particular stage of its development—thus, traditions.

Customs do not disappear entirely. They continue to exist, manifesting, in particular, in various forms of respectful attitudes toward elders, leniency toward the weak, reverence for guests, the division of household duties between men and women in families, and so on. Nevertheless, the sphere of customs today is rather limited. They are actively displaced by traditions, which differ from customs by such an important characteristic as logical, ideational justification, and the necessity of forms, methods, and techniques of activity underlying them.

If one endeavors to determine the measure of the existence of traditions, their being, it is evident that the presence of the aforementioned justification should be regarded as its lower boundary. The upper boundary, however, will be constituted by the sanctioning of a mode of activity as law through the adoption of a corresponding normative act, which affirms the obligation to adhere to it.

This circumstance gives rise to a significant and essential property of traditions—they serve as the foundation of legislative activity. This becomes particularly relevant at the current stage of development of Ukrainian society, which is undergoing transformation, as the task of forming a truly democratic and lawful state is being addressed. Such an endeavor undoubtedly merits comprehensive and holistic investigation, drawing upon the insights of philosophers, economists, historians, psychologists, jurists, and representatives from other fields of social science.

The diversity of human activity necessitates a corresponding variety of types of traditions. They could be classified according to various characteristics, highlighting those pertinent to material and ideological, spiritual activities, such as traditions of transformative, cognitive, value-oriented, and communicative endeavors.

There also exists an urgent need to distinguish traditions based on their alignment with or, conversely, their divergence from the progressive movement of the social community. It should be borne in mind that alongside conservative, obsolete, and reactionary traditions that hinder societal advancement, there exist progressive traditions that not only do not serve as impediments to social development but, on the contrary, emerge as necessary conditions for it, manifesting themselves in innovation.

The concept of "innovation" expresses the unity of the coexistence of the old and the emergence of the new, in their inseparable connection and interdependence. This unity is of a general nature; however, not every manifestation of it can be classified as innovation. No matter how strange and enchanting the forms this unity may assume in nature, it cannot be classified as innovation since it is the result of blind, unconscious forces at play. Innovation, in contrast, presents itself as a conscious activity of individuals pursuing specific goals. It possesses a social character, is determined by objective reasons—among which the development of material production is paramount—and is characterized by its objectivity and specificity. At the same time, it is endowed with certain features arising from its classification as a specific type of activity—transformative.

The first characteristic of innovation is the production of the new, which arises in social life as a consequence of the unique activity of a subject—such activity that takes into account its determination by the objective laws of the developmental system upon which it exerts influence. Only by relying on knowledge of these laws can one expect the emergence of something genuinely novel.

The second characteristic of innovation lies in its intolerance of outdated, conservative traditions that have become impediments to development. It organically incorporates into its structure a rejection of such traditions and the struggle for their eradication. Without this, the establishment and triumph of the new would be impossible. However, it would also be a mistake to assume that innovation is inherently intolerant of traditions in general or incompatible with them. Such a metaphysical approach would be profoundly erroneous, and with it, one could hardly grasp the inner meaning of innovation as a social phenomenon, let alone reach its essence.

What is being conveyed? Emerging in the process of creativity in various forms, the new cannot triumph suddenly or all at once. Certain conditions are necessary for its establishment, consolidation, and development. Time is required, but more importantly, the efforts of individuals are essential—their activities directed towards ensuring that new forms are repeated and established, that they, in other words, transform into traditions. Care for this constitutes the third characteristic of innovation.

Thus, innovation presents itself as a particular type of activity aimed at eliminating old, obsolete traditions and creating, supporting, and developing advanced, progressive traditions that foster the emergence of a new qualitative state within a specific social community. This is contingent upon the needs of its further development based on the aligned interests and goals of certain groups of people (classes, other social groups) or individual persons engaged in this activity.

Innovation, much like tradition, manifests at all levels of human activity. In accordance with the primary types of material activity and practice, it is appropriate to distinguish labor innovation, social innovation, and scientific-experimental innovation. When speaking of innovation in the realm of spiritual activity, one may address the manifestations of innovation in the development of forms of social consciousness, identifying innovation in the evolution of scientific, religious, political, legal, moral, aesthetic, and cognitive awareness.

Tradition and innovation are immutable attributes of activity. In them, the existence of two opposites—stability and changeability of social matter—finds expression, which simultaneously exclude and impose upon each other, condition one another, and complement each other, thereby residing in dialectical unity.

The comprehension of the forms, types, and categories of activity is impossible without knowledge of social space and social time, which are the fundamental forms of the existence of social matter.