home
Psychology of stress
Analytical fairy tale therapy: levels of analysis of fairy tales.

Analytical fairy tale therapy: levels of analysis of fairy tales.

10.03.2019

"Actual" analysis

This level of analysis can be called “actual” based on the word “actual” - “real”, “real”, “relevant in given time" The field we are considering is limited immediate situation, in which the author of the fairy tale is located. At the same time, of course, it is worth understanding that a person is simultaneously in many situations that coexist at different levels. Well, for example, at the same time he can be a newcomer to the group, but at the same time the oldest in the same group in age, a fugitive (that is, a “traitor”) for his family, which he left at home, and at the same time a zealot for order in terms of the atmosphere at the seminar etc., etc. But in a specific fairy tale, as a rule, it is precisely the actual situation that appears in in a certain sense“the most relevant”, that is, most often the most emotionally charged.

At the most superficial level (but not the easiest and simplest, as practice shows), such an analysis is a comparison of the plot of a fairy tale and the events that directly occur with its author.

Let's look for example of a fairy tale narrated by a young woman at the very beginning of the seminar.

Mobile communications

Once upon a time there was a mobile phone. It was so new and cute, with many functions. True, it was not connected to any communication system, so it was used mainly to check the time or play. He was quite bored living like this. But finally the telephone was connected to the communication system. They began to talk a lot over it, and life became more fun for him. And then it turned out that there was another communication system - well, another company, different tariffs, and the telephone switched to another connection. And then it turned out that there was an even more profitable and wonderful communication system, and the phone changed providers again. And that's how he changed different systems until I got completely lost in them. It seemed to him that this system was better, then that one. He got bored with it. That is, it was not the phone itself that got bored, but its owner. Or maybe he didn’t get bored, but simply ran out of money, and the phone number was left without a connection again. It lay there, not connected anywhere, and again it was used only to check the time and play Tetris.

But finally the owner decided to connect his phone again to some kind of mobile connection. He thought for a long time and decided to choose the same communication system and the tariff that were the very first. And he arranged this tariff for a long time. I signed such a long-term plan.

(Lena Litvinyuk, Odessa)

So, in what situation is the author of the fairy tale at the time of the story? She came to the seminar with her long-time lover, with whom she had not lived together for a long time. This seminar, in fact, was one of their very first joint activities after a break of several years. There are two more men present in the group at the same time, with whom she had love relationships at different times.

This fairy tale, of course, still has a lot of interesting and important things to understand, but now I want to dwell only on the correspondence between the fairy tale and the “external” life plot. This plot clearly includes: the desirability of men for the female author (without them she is “like dumb”); her ability to “sort through” fans (her “mobility”); competition between men; clear choice and preference for first love, “return to square one”; the desire to continue this recovering relationship for a long time.

This is all quite understandable, although it is not at all easy to raise relevant topics in practice, since this obviously requires a certain sincerity and openness. In the case in question, the above analysis took place not on the first day of the group’s work (when the tale was told), but on the third day (when most of themes touched upon in the fairy tale have already managed to “play out” in reality and have become available for observation).

"Status" analysis

At this level, we focus our attention on the “status” of the hero of the fairy tale and its author, that is, on his group role, place in the hierarchy. As a rule, a fairy tale necessarily contains such information, especially a fairy tale composed in an unformed, “raw” group, where the issue of status is unclear and therefore alarming. In each group there are certain “places” that are almost the same for any group, regardless of whether it is a school teachers’ council, a group of tourists or a seminar on fairy tale therapy. These “status” places are concentrated, firstly, around the “top”, where the “leader”, “first wife” or “first adviser”, “assistant psychotherapist” and so on sit. There is, as a rule, an edge of “opposition”, that is, characters competing with the elite for power, among whom there may be “the smartest”, “parricide” and others. There is, of course, a “gray” majority, law-abiding, passive, among whom characters and roles appear dimly - for the time being. There are “margins”, “fugitives”, “outsiders” - those who claim their right to be outside society while being inside.

In a fairy tale, a person’s claims to occupy a very specific group status are usually well demonstrated. Let's go through specific examples.

Suslik Vasya

Once upon a time there lived in the desert, in a large hole, a gopher named Vasya. In the mornings he did gymnastics, ate only vegetarian food, and in the evenings he sang songs. He lived happily like this, but one day the young people came to the desert and began to catch animals for the zoo. And Vasya the gopher, not expecting anything bad, suddenly fell into a noose, and then into a bag, and then into a living corner of the youth department. It wasn't that he was very scared, but at first he felt very strange. Then he realized that no one was going to do anything bad to him, they even fed him quite decently. The youngsters loved Vasya, they took him out of the cage all the time and stroked him. For some time he lived like this, and then he missed his native desert. Then Vasya examined the room in which he was sitting, looking for all sorts of holes and loopholes - what led where, and then began to gather a crowd to escape. Not all the animals in the living area knew about freedom, but Vasya told them all how nice it was there, how the sun rose and the grass turned green, and a bunch of animals agreed with him that it was time to escape. One fine night, animals led by a gopher fled from the living area, from the zoo, then from the city. Of course, none of them particularly knew where to go, and Vasya, to be honest, didn’t really know. But animal instinct led him to the desert. Not all the animals survived this journey, and some did not like the desert terribly, and they decided to return to the Yunnat corner. Well, they were released in peace. And Vasya and his friends - those who stayed with him - lived a wonderful, cheerful life in the desert.

(Vitaly Ivakhov, Zaporozhye)

This is the tale of an obvious “group leader”, a person who expects leadership in the group. Such a person, depending on his relationship with the official leader, can become a psychological leader, or maybe a leader of the “opposition.” In fact, there is much more of an opposition here, since there is a clear theme of escaping from the “powers that be,” “oppressors” (who, by the way, are good guys, which hints at the potentially peaceful nature of the relationship with the leader). The hero is initially self-sufficient (he lived alone in the desert), as befits a leader, but prefers to have his own group of supporters, which he intends to “lead” away from the main group (that is, the group of “supporters of the leader”). He is very confident in his leadership positions; he will not be embarrassed either by his own inadequacy (when the gopher himself does not know the path along which he leads the animals), or by someone else’s reluctance to obey (he easily lets go of those who want to return to the zoo).

He palpably “saunters” over the adequacy of the official leader, hinting at least at his youth (“Younnats”, young naturalists).

By the way! The name Vasya, that is, Vasily, comes from the Greek “basileus” - ruler, king.

And the name of the gopher somehow in a strange way similar to “wort”, the main business of which is “fermentation”. If this is a “ferment of minds,” then this is again the opposition. Doesn’t anyone see an allusion here to wanderings, “wandering” in the desert (and there is also an image of the desert in the fairy tale), the exodus from slavery under the leadership of Moses? The author of the fairy tale about the cute gopher himself, by the way, is a Jew; and the figure of Moses, the first prophet and lawmaker, the greatest leader of Israel, is all the more significant for him.

Feather grass

Feather grass grew in the endless steppe. Grass grew around, another feather grass grew, the wind blew, and the feather grass was happy with its life. He tried to help his neighbors, to protect them from strong wind either from rain or from too much sun. And sometimes he dreamed of becoming a tulip, such as he sometimes saw on the horizon. The tulips were large and beautiful.

An excellent sketch of the position of the “gray mass”, the silent majority. There are many of us, we are almost indistinguishable from each other, and we are guided by tulips, which are visible as distant spots of color (it looks like Philip Kirkorov, in my fantasy). Inside ourselves, we help each other. It would be worth noting here that the author did practically nothing with her fairy tale during further analysis, she remained silent and nodded: “Yes, yes,” when others said something. The affair quickly ended as the group's attention shifted to something else. No one was going to become a “Tulip”.

Magic acorn

There was an acorn in the corner of the room. He lay very calmly for a very long time, and then suddenly one day there was a thunderstorm and lightning struck, and then the acorn began to swell and sprout. An old man and an old woman lived in this house, and they did not know what to do with this acorn, where to plant it. There were already a lot of oak trees around their house. Then the old man suddenly heard a voice from above, which told the old man not to do anything, just wait, and to bury the acorn in the garden next to the apple tree. The old man did so, and then went to bed. The next morning the old man gets up and goes out the door - and there, apparently and invisibly, there are all sorts of gifts, magic items, rejuvenating apples.

If we analyze this fairy tale from the point of view of status (although, as always, it is full of other interesting meanings), then its author (a woman) strives to take a position “in the crowd,” although closer to the leader (indicated in the fairy tale, apparently, old man). That is, I would see here an indication of a certain kind of chosenness (unlike other surrounding oak trees), but one that is acquired by itself, without struggle (and in general, status position in the group among people, like among monkeys, without struggle not achieved). In the status sense, the author of the fairy tale demonstrates humility and passivity, the main features of the “middle class”, as well as, of course, naivety (which also primarily distinguishes the “crowd”, “people”, “majority”). Such a simple guy from the people, but closer to the “feeding trough”.

Valentina Tereshkova stirred my brain. Or Yuri Gagarin himself.

Actually, the longer I think about this fairy tale now, the more I see that the author claims to be quite special. Normally, neither acorns are lying around in huts, nor are oak trees planted near apple trees. In short, she somehow can do what others cannot. Claiming to be the “first wife”? If yes, then it is very weakly expressed. I believe that in a harem she would have gotten a fairly average place.

But in any case, there is no talk of any “opposition” or “marginality” here. The author positions himself very positively, he does not cause any harm, but only good miracles.

Snow tunnel

Once upon a time there lived such a creature in a house where there were many people. The creature really loved to play, and somehow it began to play, and in the meantime all the people dispersed. It looked around - there was no one around. Back and forth around the house, but the house is empty. After some time, he felt uncomfortable in the house, and there was no food there. It decided to find people. I tried to leave the house, but everything was covered in a blizzard.

And so it began to dig its way through the snow, right there, under the snowdrifts. What is the snout? With your paws! Snouted, dug, and sometimes found something to eat.

(Yulia Krivenkova, Chelyabinsk)

This is an example of a fairy tale written by a potential “outcast,” that is, an outcast, a loner. It is important to understand (first of all for the author of the fairy tale) that the hero obviously continues to be not a loner, but a member of society (that’s why he is attracted to people in the fairy tale), just in a rather specific (and internally contradictory) role.

The “loner” status differs from others in that it does not seem to make claims for group values (high status in the hierarchy, attention, time, strokes, and so on). He also seems to make no claims to the attention of the opposite sex (in the fairy tale this is expressed by the hero’s middle gender, another sign of marginality in our sexist society). In addition, a loner often does not distinguish between the statuses of the other members of the group and does not observe the appropriate symbols (distance, bows, coquetry, dress code, etc.).

When I obsessively repeat “as if” in these descriptions, I point out that the “loner” is often a hypocrite, that is, he uses the “game of marginality” to achieve completely social goals, which he tries to achieve “out of turn” and “ for free". For example, in this case it may be increased attention due to pity for the “freezing” person. This is not always the case, but it happens often.

I want to point out that status - or at least the claim to a certain status - is well reflected in a person's location in a group. If this is, for example, a psychotherapeutic group that sits in a circle to work, then with a high probability the “first wives” and “advisers” of the “leader” will be next to the psychotherapist, and the “opposition” will actually be in opposition, that is, opposite. “Marginalized people” are often located behind people’s backs, in corners or in completely exotic places. (How do you, for example, hang upside down on a wall bars? It happened.)

Behavioral style analysis

The main character of a fairy tale is characterized by a certain style of behavior, which, generally speaking, is almost certainly inherent in the author and is relevant for him in the situation of creating a fairy tale. Emelya's style is to be lazy and hope for chance, Cinderella's style is to be obedient during the day and secretly naughty at night, the stepmother's style is to order and get angry, and so on. This style of behavior is worth paying attention to, if only because with a very high probability the author is unconsciously telling what his style of behavior will be in interaction with you. Almost every fairy tale recorded here corresponds to a certain behavior of the hero, which at the same time quite accurately describes the behavior of the author in the external, “real” environment (for example, at a seminar where the fairy tale was written).

How, for example, will the “magic acorn” behave? Firstly, it will mostly just “lie” - be passive. Secondly, obey only to the “higher powers” (in the fairy tale - lightning, an old man, a voice from above), that is, communicate only with the “top” and not pay much attention to the rest. Third, promise something magical and amazing (“spread vibes of hope”). And fourthly, at some point he just will disappear- note that the oak tree that would grow from an acorn does not appear further in the fairy tale, and the narrator said that it was so, there was no oak tree there, there were just gifts lying around the yard. And so it happened, the narrator did not come to the next lesson of the seminar.

"Mobile phone" will be tempt(And appearance, and communication), choose often, but not for long, and ultimately stay faithful some old proven values.

Vasya the gopher will be hide, search moves, revolt, organize socially significant events, from which not everyone will emerge unharmed, but he will.

The creature from the "Snow Tunnel" will work by yourself with myself, without noticing others, and itself will be invisible.

Here's another nice example.

Raspberry pie

A raspberry pie was going around the world. He went wherever he wanted. He sees a jelly river ahead. He began to swim across it, and on the other bank sat Three Fat Men. Pie became worried that he might be eaten, and floated downstream and around the place where the Fat Men were sitting. I got out to the shore and went on my own. I approached the forest, and there was Baba Yaga. The pie again realized that it could be eaten, and decided to change. He turned into a flying carpet and flew over the forest.

(Viktor Grechanovsky, Kyiv)

The style of behavior here is avoidance of dangers (and it is worth noting that the author does not assume anything else in the outside world), those who can eat (a deeper analysis would be worth conducting about the “fear of absorption”). And the remarkable detail is how the author sees (positions) himself. Raspberry pie is not just something tasty, it is something doubly sweet: both a pie and a raspberry one. That is, a very tasty morsel, desired by many. It is very difficult to maintain such a state without “giving in” to others, and it is quite logical that the pie decided to turn into something else. And a very remarkable detail is that it has turned into a thing, again desired by many. The author himself said that at first he decided to turn into a self-assembled tablecloth, and then he thought: “Oh well, they’ll eat on me again” - and chose a flying carpet. But the carpet is also a classic fairy-tale “magical helper,” that is, the thing is again very useful and desirable for others.

So, the style of behavior here is two-stage: hero attracts, and then runs away. The author himself very quickly (and, in my opinion, correctly) understood what this style of behavior was on an everyday level. Of course, the famous Dynamo game is to seduce and not give.

Basic myth

In analyzing a fairy tale, it can be very useful to reduce it to a certain “basic” myth, to an archetype. There is no single list of “basic myths,” but in any case, they include the main plots of ancient mythologies and “big” religions. Such a prototype can be established in most cases, and this gives us knowledge of the origins and consequences of a fairy-tale situation, as well as significant associations from mythology.

Alien

There was a war on a distant planet. There was a very advanced civilization there, and the war was fought in space, on spaceships. And then one interstellar pilot was shot down and fell to planet Earth. His ship burned down, and he barely escaped. When he was cured, he decided to live on this planet. It was located away from the interstellar routes, and he had never heard of it. He took on the form of a man and began to live on Earth. He contacted his planet via radio, but there they only wanted to punish him for the crashed ship. And the alien began to live on Earth, and gradually became completely human. Having lived one life, he was reborn into another person and lived on Earth further. He knew a lot that ordinary people could not, and therefore he could easily, for example, be an excellent doctor or teacher.

Then an invitation came to him from his home planet to return, but the alien thought and thought and no longer wanted to return. He liked living on Earth. He wanted to do something very necessary for people, so that he could leave it behind if he had to return. In the end, he decided to work to stop wars on Earth.

The hero of this fairy tale, firstly, is an unusual person, whose abilities are an order of magnitude higher than the abilities of the people around him. But this is not a god among people (there are many similar stories, for example, in Greek mythology), he comes from a world that exists, in essence, according to the same laws as the human world on Earth (for example, there are wars there). He is both human and not quite human; His main difference from people is that he remembers his “unearthly” origin and “maintains contact” with “that world.” In addition, he remembers previous lives, that is, he moves from body to body consciously. And - his important quality - he treats the earthly world very friendly, serves it sincerely and strives to realize on Earth what he himself suffered from in another world - to stop wars.

This is all very similar to the Boddhisattva, the Buddhist savior. The basic myth about the Boddhisattva is this: this is a person who has realized his true nature and thereby gained the opportunity to leave this world; but before the last step, he takes an oath that he will help all living beings to be saved, and until this happens, he will not accept his own salvation. The myth is clearly dualistic: it presupposes the existence of “that world” (where salvation is) and “this world” (where suffering is). This myth defines completely selfless love as its basic value, as well as “salvation” and “consciousness” (by which salvation is achieved). Almost all of this is “acted out” in a fairy tale about an alien.

With this interpretation (which can be called archetypal analysis ) a “random”, “quick” fairy tale becomes deeply rooted in human culture, and its hero - human personality- realizes his involvement in the main plots of humanity (or the universe). Since the cultural context of such stories is usually well known to us, the specific tale itself receives a number of significant hypotheses for analysis.

Remember the fairy tale about the gopher Vasya, the basic myth of which I called the myth of the great Jewish prophet and leader Moses. It can be said that this is the same "savior" myth as the Boddhisattva myth, but there is a very significant cultural difference that is significant for the specific authors of these tales. Moses is a hero of mythology with a rigid distinction between "us" and "outsiders", while the Boddhisattva (at least in his idea) treats "all living beings" with love. For Moses, war is a normal part of the world; he raises his sword without hesitation; The Bodhisattva strives to establish peace and most often refuses the sword (like the alien in the fairy tale). Law and order are very important to Moses; for the Bodhisattva, rituals are secondary compared to awareness own nature. And so on. We can say that the heroes of both of these myths are “saviors,” but they save from different things and to different places.

“Then Winnie the Pooh quickly climbed down from the tree and escaped with another pot of honey...” Also a savior, but more of a Taoist sense (read “The Tao of Winnie the Pooh” by Benjamin Hoff).

The basic myth is not always easy to “find,” but thinking in this direction is certainly useful. We may be fairly confident that a basic myth exists, but, for example, we may lack certain information to distinguish one from another; then it is quite easy to obtain by asking the author of the fairy tale the necessary questions.

Of course, such an analysis requires a fairly good knowledge of mythology. And it seems to me that it doesn’t matter which one. For example, I know the mythology of the ancient Greeks better and know the Scandinavian or Indian mythology quite poorly. But when I hear stories from these mythologies, I usually quickly and easily find Greek parallels that are sufficient to understand. I remember Hillman once writing about the “barbaric luxury” of Jung’s knowledge in the sense of world mythologies; reading Campbell or Eliade in this sense is also a pleasure. And yet, despite all the advantages of erudition, you can forget all the names of all the gods and spirits, but remember and instinctively sense the basic scheme of the archetypal plot - and be an excellent analyst.

Situation analysis analysis

The analysis must ALWAYS include the situation of telling a fairy tale, the group’s unconscious reaction to it, the process of discussing it, and also very often the replay of the same plot. Silence, fussiness, ignoring, quarrels, and so on - all this almost certainly has a direct relationship to the “message” of the fairy tale and very often is simply a replay of the same plot that is described by the fairy tale. For many people, this parallelism between “fairy tale” and “reality,” when it can be clearly demonstrated, is something like a “trick”; To me, the situation seems much stranger when there are no similarities or intersections between the fairy tale and the plot around it.

Sun

Once upon a time there was a sun, bright and beautiful. It shone on the whole earth and was very happy about it, and everyone rejoiced at it. But one day the wind caught up with the clouds, and the Sun could not reach the ground with its rays. It became worried because it seemed to him that the whole earth and all people were now feeling bad without him. It asked the wind to disperse the clouds. And the wind explained to the Sun that the earth needs not only the sun’s rays, but also rain, which waters the plants, and night, when the Sun is not visible on the earth, but lovers then love to look at the stars. It was a little difficult for the sun to understand, but then it agreed and calmed down.

And here is the situation of the birth of a fairy tale: in a large audience, at the end of a short seminar, several fairy tales have already been spoken and analyzed, and we were all about to do another exercise, when suddenly a rather large and a pretty young girl blurts out this fairy tale in one breath. The remaining tales had previously been discussed with interest by many people; after that there was mostly silence, and gradually people began to hear “Well?” - almost all of them were from women, although the audience was full of men, and they had clearly been more active before. The girl continued to sit in the center and discuss this fairy tale with me (looking almost all the time only at me). From different sides, mocking and skeptical comments began to come from women, of which I remember one, probably the main one: “It’s time for the sun to set.” I told her about the same thing, and the girl, understanding this (as far as I could judge), finished the analysis and left for the place herself.

Here the situation “around the fairy tale” very vividly reflects the fairy tale itself: there is a “sun” that suddenly rose right in the center of the “universe”; there are “people”, some small and invisible to the sun, but important to him as a whole; there are “clouds” of mutual misunderstanding; there is an explanation by the “wind” (and by the way, I am often represented this way in fairy tales) that there is no need for the sun to “shine” all the time, it’s fine for him to take a break from the central role. “Sunny” maintains her role - a very narcissistic one, of course - in that she herself went to work, she herself predetermined the results of this work, and she herself completed it.

Task formulation. Create a status portrait of one or more members of your family. To trace changes in the status portrait throughout the life cycle of an individual.

Option 1 Status portrait of each family member

See table. 4.2 and fig. 4.11.

Table 4.2

align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> Statuses	Father	Mother	Sister	I
Floor	Man	Woman	Woman	Woman
Age	Maturity	Maturity	Maturity	Maturity
Race	Caucasian
Nationality	Russian	Russian	–	–
Health	healthy	Healthy	Healthy	Healthy
Marriage-family-kinship	Married Father, Grandfather-in-law	Married Mother, Grandma Tesha	Married Daughter, Sister Mother	Single Daughter, Sister Aunt
Economic	Property owner; Average income; Low paid worker	Unsecured; Unemployed	Unsecured; Housewife	Low paid worker
Professional	Vocational education, Locksmith	Secondary technical education	Secondary technical education, Student	Secondary technical education, Student
Political	–	–	–	–
Religion	Atheist	Atheist	Atheist	Atheist
Territorial	city dweller	City girl	City girl	City girl

Option 2 Status portrait of my family member and its dynamics

Man. Adult. Forty-five years old. Russian. Has the status of a citizen of the Russian Federation. Completely healthy, that is, has the status of a healthy person. Professional status: doctor.

Does not belong to any political group. Religious status: atheist.

A resident of the city of Moscow – the status of a city dweller. Throughout his life, his status constantly grew. In childhood, being a son, grandson, brother (social statuses), he also had the status of a school student.

In his youth, while remaining in the status of a son and brother, he lost the status of a grandson, since his grandfather died, but acquired the status of a student. Then his social status changed - he became a graduate student.

Thus, his statuses - social, economic, professional - changed throughout his life: from childhood to mature age(Fig. 4.12).

The person in question is a resident of the city of Moscow, that is, by his status, a city dweller. Born healthy. And throughout his life he has the status of a healthy person.

When he went to school, he acquired the status of a student. Having joined the ranks of the Komsomol, he became a class Komsomol organizer, and, naturally, his status changed - the social status of a Komsomol leader.

Then he was elected secretary of the school Komsomol organization. His status changed again.

Having entered a university, while remaining in the status of a city resident, he receives a new status - a student. Proving himself to be an active and diligent student, he graduates from the institute with honors and enters graduate school at the institute. Accordingly, the status changes again - the status of a graduate student.

After graduating from graduate school, he defends his dissertation and becomes a candidate of medical sciences. His status thus changed again. Along with the increase in professional status, the economic status also increased - he began to receive higher wages.

Getting started independent work, appointed head of the hospital department. This entails a new change in economic status.

After defending his doctoral dissertation, he is awarded the academic degree of Doctor of Medical Sciences.

He currently works successfully in a private clinic in the USA. His geographic status changed as he became a US citizen.

Option 3 Status portrait of family members

Female gender.
Age: adult (46 years old).
Health: healthy.
Race: Caucasian.
Russian nationality.
Marriage and family statuses: wife, mother, daughter, sister, niece, aunt, sister-in-law.
Professional status: cashier.
Political status: voter, non-partisan.

Dad

Gender: male.
Age: adult (46 years old).
Health: healthy.
Race: Caucasian.
National status: Russian.
Marriage and family statuses: husband, father, son, brother, nephew, uncle, brother-in-law.
Economic status: employee.
Professional status: navigator engineer.
Political status: non-partisan, voter.
Religious status: Christian (Orthodox).
Territorial status: city dweller.

Grandmother

Female gender.
Age: old age (80 years).
Health: healthy.
Race: Caucasian.
National status: Russian.
Marriage and family kinship: widow, mother, grandmother, mother-in-law, mother-in-law, sister, aunt.
Professional status: fireman.
Economic status: pensioner, owner.
Political status: non-partisan, voter.
Religious status: Christian (Orthodox).
Territorial status: city dweller.

My parents have reached the stage of maturity (they are 46 years old). The dynamics curves of individual portraits are directed upward (Fig. 4.13, 4.14). This can be commented on by the fact that hundreds are in development, that is, they are growing. For example, we can note the development and growth of professional status (promotion, increase in position, acquisition of new rights, responsibilities, etc.)

My grandmother has reached the stage of old age (she is 80 years old). The curve of the dynamics of her individual portrait, having reached maturity, then begins to decline (Fig. 4.15). So, for example, having reached a certain age, a person leaves work and becomes a pensioner, which means his professional status will no longer grow, but rather will decline.

Note: the graphs of the dynamics of individual portraits are not made accurately. A curve cannot only rise and not have declines. For example, my mother, having the professional status of a salesperson, became a housewife in 1993, and in 1995 acquired the professional status of a cashier. Consequently, the curve will first decline and then rise again. Grandmother, for example, having privatized an apartment in 1995, acquires the economic status of the owner, etc. When a grandmother gets married, she acquires the marital status of a wife; then, having lost her husband, she becomes a widow, etc.

Task 3 Content of social status

Task formulation. Describe the rights and responsibilities of the randomly selected status.

Option 1 Driver

Rights: can drive cars of any categories, can take exams for a new category, change jobs, enter into a contract with an employer, quit, go on vacation.

Responsibilities: must know the rules traffic, comply with them, keep the car in perfect condition, repair equipment on time, conduct technical inspections, undergo medical examinations, observe safety precautions, follow the instructions of superiors.

Rights: can receive education in any educational institution, move from one faculty to another, move from one educational institution to another, study in several faculties at once, participate in discussions on improving educational processes.

Responsibilities: must comply with the rules of behavior in educational institutions, comply with education legislation, and take care of the property of the educational institution.

Option 2 Father

Rights: to raise a child in accordance with one’s moral principles (plus teach him the rules of behavior that he himself was taught); make decisions for the child when he is unable to do so (due to his infancy); spend as much time with the child as desired (but taking into account the interests of the child and mother); punish a child when he is guilty; receive reciprocal support from the child.

Responsibilities: teach the child to live in society; monitor the child’s health; bear financial responsibility for the child until he turns 18 years old; provide the child with certain material and moral support (that is, take care of the child); behave with the child in accordance with the provisions of current legislation.

Option 3 Adoptive father

Rights: has the right to give an adopted son (daughter) his last name, patronymic, title, leave an inheritance, assign maintenance, convert, give education, upbringing, demand respect and respect, help in old age, and fulfillment of family responsibilities.

Responsibilities: he is obliged to support and raise an adopted child on an equal basis with his own; if he turns out to be the eldest, he must leave an inheritance to him (majorate), give him a name, religion, and make no distinction between him and his own children.

A prisoner

Rights: has all rights free man, not stipulated by the conditions of imprisonment - the right to vote, freedom of religion, the right to human existence, to education, to rest, to contact with relatives and the outside world (except in exceptional cases), to treatment, assistance from a lawyer, to pardon.

Responsibilities: the prisoner is obliged to serve his sentence, fully obey the orders of the administration, the regime and regulations of the prison, work, maintain order and hygiene, and be punished for newly committed crimes (misdemeanors, violation of the regime).

Tourist

Rights: has the right to use all services provided by the country of visit, retain all the rights of a resident of his country, has the right to marry in this country (if he is not in a marriage relationship in the country of residence), to leave the country in the event of war, disasters and natural disasters .

Responsibilities: obliged to comply with all laws, norms of behavior and moral principles of the host country, not to enter into religious, ethnic and other confrontations, to leave the country at the request of its or its government.

A comment. In all three tasks, a variety of solutions were selected - some are better, others are worse. The disadvantages and advantages of each answer option are visible only when comparing them with each other. The teacher, having received the written work of students, as a rule, is in no hurry to immediately assign grades. He looks through them and identifies the best ones, which set the criterion for comparison. The best jobs, sometimes just two or three, sometimes more than ten, determine the level of excellent work. Excellent work should not only be the most complete, but also the most correct. Its graphic performance must be at the appropriate level. After determining the highest score, other low-quality works receive corresponding points on a five-point scale. I split the five-point scale and set it, for example, 2, 3 or 4.6, etc. Framing the assessment allows you to identify the nuances that distinguish one student's work from another. Since each student completes up to 10 written works per semester, the average grade is quite accurate and aggregated.

Try to conduct an examination of the works published above yourself and give your own assessments. At the same time, do not forget that the teacher can always argue his position. He can record this, if necessary, in writing, for example, on title page work, or express it orally. Prepare your arguments too.

Task 4 Status analysis of a fairy tale

Task formulation. Make a sociological analysis of the fairy tale X. K. Andersen “Flint”, that is, answer the questions:

The work was carried out by M. Yu. Duyanova, a 2nd year student (1998) at the Institute of Sociology of GUGN.

– How is the social structure of fairy-tale society depicted?

– Is it possible to find examples of social mobility?

List all the statuses that are given in this fairy tale. Try to classify them according to characteristics familiar to you.

What type - open or closed - is the society depicted in the fairy tale “Flint”?

Fairy tale society belongs to closed type. It has a class character and is divided into a higher class (king, queen, princess, maid of honor, officers, royal council) and a lower class (servants, soldiers, witch...).

Statuses encountered in the fairy tale:

Soldier – achieved social status.
Witch – this status can be both achieved and ascribed, so let’s call it mixed.
Servant is an achieved status.
Friend is an achieved status.
Maid of honor is an achieved status.
King is an ascribed status.
Queen is an ascribed status.
Princess is an ascribed status.
Officers - achieved status.
Shoemaker boy is an achieved status.

There are examples of vertical social mobility in the fairy tale: a) a soldier becomes a king - this is intragenerational upward mobility; b) the princess becomes a queen - intragenerational and ascending.

Task 5 Comparison of statuses

Task formulation. Compare the following statuses: servant, employee, servant, servant, servant, servant, in service.

Before comparing these statuses, it seems to me that it is necessary to give clear definitions of these concepts. I used two good ones dictionaries.

Servant. Domestic worker for personal services, to carry out the instructions of the master, master; footman. A servant in the house, in person; involved in domestic service. Employee. A person employed in various fields of mental work. A person who is in some kind of service.

Servant. A servant of a monastery or bishop. Monastic or bishop's servant, acolyte; servants were given from the volosts, where this duty was assigned to the family of short-lived or scoundrels in exchange for recruitment and other duties; Balti people also become servants, either by obedience or by hire. A short man was not taken into the army due to his short stature. A scoundrel is someone who is not capable of serving as a soldier. Serving. In Muscovite Rus': related to the performance of state and military duties. Serving, or subject to service, obliged.

Servant. Soldier, military man. Military personnel, lower rank, serving or retired. Servant. In pre-revolutionary life: a domestic worker.

Servants in the house, servants, people for household work and services. In service. Service: to be in service - in the service, mainly for personal services, as a servant, servant.

Judging by the names, these statuses existed in the pre-revolutionary Russia. Therefore, I cannot consider these statuses from the point of view of the four main dimensions of stratification: income, power, education and prestige, and attribute them to one class or another, since at that time in Russia there was a completely different type of stratification - estates. It is also difficult to determine exactly which classes the representatives of these statuses belonged to. Servants and servants in service most likely belonged to the bourgeois class. The servant most likely came from the peasant class, just like the servant. But according to the Table of Ranks, an employee could be a tradesman (postal and telegraph employees) and even a nobleman (for example, Pushkin was a chamber cadet). We can only say that the status of an employee has a higher rank than all other statuses, because employees are engaged primarily in mental work. People occupying all other statuses were primarily engaged in physical labor. We can also say that all these statuses are social and belong to the category of professional statuses; only servant, in my opinion, belongs to the category of religious statuses. It can also be said that the statuses of servant and servant are completely incompatible with the status of servant, since people who were unfit for military service were taken into service. “Servant,” “servant,” and “servant” are essentially different names for the same position that an individual can occupy in society.

Task 6 Status incompatibility

Stratification incompatibility is a contradiction between positions on four scales of stratification (income, power, education, prestige) of the same holder of a status set, for example, a professor or a policeman. To visually depict type 1 status incompatibility, namely stratification, it is advisable to draw the corresponding stratification profiles, that is, a graphical representation of individual statuses on four stratification scales. More detailed description this concept given in Topic 7 “Social Stratification”.

Spheral incompatibility is a contradiction between statuses or types of activity belonging to four spheres of society: economic, social, political, spiritual. To consider statuses from the point of view of spheral incompatibility, one should use the status portrait (status set) of a person, as already mentioned at the beginning of this section (Topic 4), and essentially both new formulations are an organic continuation of the theoretical provisions that we have considered.

Option 1

Task formulation. Check the following combinations for status compatibility:

Pensioner, businessman.
Minister, fisherman, collector.
Photographer, NHL player.
Film buff, drug addict.
Collective farmer, city dweller, pensioner.
Teacher, businessman, intern.
Policeman, pensioner.
Tourist, prisoner.
Disabled person, athlete.
Orthodox, drug addict.

1. Pensioner, Businessman

Let us consider the stratification compatibility of these two statuses. To do this, let us draw a diagram of their stratification profiles (Fig. 4.16).

The diagram shows that the two statuses are incompatible (stratification profiles are at different levels) and, therefore, these statuses cannot belong to the same individual. Individuals who have these statuses belong to different classes: “pensioner” to the lowest, and “businessman” to the highest.

Let's consider “spheral” status compatibility. To do this, let us depict a status portrait of a person (4.17).

Analysis of “sphere” compatibility shows that the “Pensioner” status belongs to the socio-demographic group: the main criterion for an individual to belong to the Pensioner status is age (Fig. 4.18).

The status “Businessman” belongs to the group of social statuses: the main criterion for belonging to this status is profession (Fig. 4.19).

2. Minister, Fisherman, Collector

Let us consider the stratification compatibility of these three statuses. At the same time, let us consider two cases when the status of “Fisherman” is understood as a profession and a hobby. The “Collector” status is only a hobby, since the “Collector” profession does not exist. Let us depict diagrams of stratification profiles (Fig. 4.20, 4.21).

There is no stratification profile for the status “Fisherman” in the meaning of hobby due to the uncertainty of the characteristics of the profiles (for example, the hobby “fisherman” can be had by individuals with high and low incomes, with higher education and without it at all, etc.). Therefore, just like in the previous case, the statuses are incompatible.

Let's consider “sphere” status compatibility for two cases (“Fisherman” in the meaning of “profession” and “hobby”). To do this, let's turn to the status portrait of a person.

Analysis of “sphere” compatibility shows that the status “Minister” belongs to a social group: the main criterion for an individual to belong to the status “Minister” is appointment to one of the highest government posts.

The status “Fisherman” belongs to the group of social statuses (the main criterion for belonging to this status is profession).

The status “Collector” belongs to the group of social statuses: the main criterion for belonging to this status is determined by whether the type of his activity belongs to the Spiritual sphere (Fig. 4.22).

For the statuses “Minister” and “Collector” there is “spheral” compatibility, since political activity does not contradict the possibility of having any hobby (in our case, the minister may be a collector). The status of “Fisherman” has spheral incompatibility with the status of “Minister” (the civil service does not imply the possibility of combining it with other spheres professional activity).

In connection with the above, we can conclude that the three statuses under consideration are incompatible.

In the second case (“Hobby Fisherman”), the status “Fisherman” belongs to the group of social statuses (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the spiritual sphere), therefore, unlike the first case, it has spheral compatibility with the status of Minister, since the political activity does not contradict the possibility of having any hobby. Consequently, the three statuses under consideration are compatible.

3. Photographer, NHL Player

Let us consider the stratification compatibility of these two statuses. Moreover, in two cases, the status “Photographer” is understood as a profession and a hobby. The diagram of stratification profiles for the first case will be as follows (Fig. 4.23).

Let's consider “sphere” status compatibility for two cases (“Photographer” in the meaning of “profession” and “hobby”). To do this, let's turn to the status portrait of a person.

Analysis of “sphere” compatibility shows that the statuses “NHL Player” and “Photographer” belong to a social group: the main criterion for an individual’s membership in these statuses is their profession (Fig. 4.24).

The statuses “NHL Player” and “Photographer” do not have “sphere” compatibility, due to the impossibility of combining these two professions.

In the second case (“Hobby Photographer”), the status Photographer belongs to the group of social statuses: the main criterion for belonging to this status is the spiritual sphere, therefore, unlike the first case, it has spheral compatibility with the status “NHL Player”, since any professional activity does not contradict the possibility of having any hobby.

4. Movie buff, drug addict

It is impossible to construct stratification profiles for these statuses due to the uncertainty of the profile characteristics (the statuses “Movie buff” and “Drug addict” cannot belong to individuals of different classes).

"Sphere" compatibility. “Cinema buff” is a social status (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the spiritual sphere). “Drug addict” is a socio-demographic status (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the individual’s health status). The statuses “Ki noman” and “Narkom”n have “spheral” compatibility, due to the fact that the spiritual preferences of an individual do not depend on his state of health.

5. Collective farmer, City dweller, Pensioner

Let us consider the stratification compatibility of these three statuses. At the same time, a stratification profile can be built only for two statuses: “Collective farmer” and “Pensioner”, and any individual can have the status “City dweller”, regardless of his income, power, education and prestige (Fig. 4.25).

From this diagram it is clear that the stratification profiles lie at different levels, therefore we can conclude that these statuses are incompatible.

"Sphere" compatibility. “Collective farmer” is a social status: the main criterion for belonging to this status is profession; “City dweller” is a social status: the main criterion for belonging to this status is the place of residence; “Pensioner” is a socio-demographic status: the main criterion for belonging to this status is age (Fig. 4.26, Fig. 4.27).

Based on the above, it follows that these three statuses are incompatible, that is, they cannot belong to the same individual.

6. Teacher, Businessman, Intern

Let us consider the stratification compatibility of these three statuses. At the same time, a stratification profile can be built only for two statuses: “Teacher” and “Businessman”, and any individual can have the status “Trainee”, regardless of his income, power, education and prestige (Fig. 4.28).

The diagram shows that the stratification profiles of the statuses given to us do not lie at different levels, therefore, these statuses are incompatible.

"Sphere" compatibility. “Businessman” and “Teacher” belong to the group of social statuses, since both are professions. Accordingly, here we can confidently talk about the incompatibility of these two statuses, due to the fact that these two professions are incompatible. The “Trainee” status can be combined with both the “Teacher” and “Businessman” status, since the “Trainee” status means that an individual works or studies to gain experience and skills in a certain field of activity (for example, a teacher can attend advanced training courses qualifications).

Thus, from the above we can conclude that these three statuses are incompatible; they cannot simultaneously belong to one person.

7. Policeman, Pensioner

Let us consider the stratification compatibility of these statuses. To do this, let's draw a diagram of stratification profiles (Fig. 4.29).

The diagram shows that the stratification profiles lie at different levels, therefore these two statuses are incompatible.

"Sphere" compatibility. Following the logic, we will determine which group these statuses belong to: “Policeman” is a social status, “Pensioner” is a socio-demographic status. And as mentioned above, a pensioner is a non-working person, the source of his income is the pension provided to him by the state, a policeman is a working person.

8. Tourist, Prisoner

In this case, we will consider only “spheral” compatibility. To do this, we determine which groups these statuses belong to. “Tourist” and “Prisoner” are social statuses, namely episodic ones. An individual has these statuses only for as long as the term of the tourist voucher or the term of imprisonment lasts. So, let’s compare these two status characteristics. A prisoner is a person deprived of his will, he is limited to his place of stay (prison), he does not have the right to leave until a court decision or the end of the term given to him, accordingly, he cannot have the status of a tourist for the reasons listed above. These statuses are incompatible.

9. Disabled person, Athlete.

Here we will also consider only the “sphere” compatibility of the two statuses. Let us determine which status groups they belong to: “Disabled” – socio-demographic, it is determined by the state of health of the individual. “Sportsman” is a social status, it is determined by the individual’s profession. Let's consider two cases:

These two statuses are incompatible, since an athlete can only be an individual who has good health, while a disabled person is deprived of it.

These statuses are compatible if we talk about a disabled athlete participating in competitions among people like himself.

10. Orthodox, Drug Addict.

As in previous cases, we cannot build stratification profiles for the statuses given to us; accordingly, we turn to another type of compatibility, namely “spheral”. The status “Orthodox” is social, as it relates to the spiritual sphere of society; it is a person professing Orthodoxy. “Drug addict” is a socio-demographic status (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the state of health). Although things like drugs are unacceptable in Orthodoxy, this does not contradict the fact that any person, including a drug addict, can be a believer, and therefore Orthodox. Thus, these two statuses are compatible.

Option 2

Check the following combinations for status compatibility:

Surgeon, Catholic.
Safecracker, miner.
Fashion designer, car enthusiast.
Schoolboy, killer.
Intellectual, revolutionary.
Gardener, policeman.
Paralytic, steelworker.
Lover, soldier.
Cash collector, motorcyclist.
Businessman, Armenian.
Volunteer, slave
Played up, father.
Walking, housewife.

Status compatibility check scheme

Checking each status separately for stratification incompatibility (the criterion is the stratification profile according to 4 stratification scales for a given status, that is, if it deviates greatly from the straight line, then such a status is stratification incompatible).

“Sphere” incompatibility (incompatibility of statuses in areas of activity or status categories). The mechanism for determining such incompatibility. The status portrait of a person is examined, the belonging of the statuses under study to the left (social statuses), right (socio-demographic) parts of the scheme, as well as to episodic and personal statuses is established. Depending on this, one of the following stages is selected:

Search for incompatibilities between the left and right parts (“within” the right statuses of incompatibilities there are practically no incompatibilities).
Search for status incompatibilities between left statuses.
Establishing compatibility of episodic statuses with each other or with left/right statuses.
Establishing compatibility of personal statuses with each other or with left/right statuses.

11. Surgeon, Catholic

It is almost impossible to determine stratification incompatibility for the “Catholic” status, since people with such a status (status in the spiritual sphere) can occupy almost any position in the stratification by income, power, education and prestige. This applies primarily to modern societies with freedom of religion, where Catholicism is the common religion. It is practically impossible to determine the stratification profile of Catholics in our country, mainly because there are such a clear minority.

The status of a “Surgeon” in our country can hardly be called stratificationally compatible (The difficulty lies in determining which surgeon we are talking about. In this case (for Russia) we will talk about a surgeon working in a state clinic or hospital.): income, power, prestige is at the level of the lower class, education is at the level of the middle class. However, if we take into account that a large number of professionals left state institutions, and people came with less than a high education, often not even fully competent in their profession, then the same status may be stratificationally compatible. In the West, this status is compatible, since it implies income, education, prestige at the level of the upper middle or upper classes, power is also quite high, since the behavior of a large number of people depends on its decision.

Both of these statuses relate to social ones (one – to professional ones, the other – to statuses in the spiritual sphere). In general, in modern society these statuses can be called “spherally” compatible. The very fact that there is no “religion” column in the passport suggests that a Catholic can engage in any profession, including being a surgeon.

Although previously a Catholic could not only occupy high positions in the state (remember, for example, the Russians’ refusal to recognize the Pole Vladislav as Tsar in 1610 due to the fact that he was a Catholic and did not convert to Orthodoxy), but also in general any significant profession (and the status of a doctor and surgeon belonged to at least the upper middle class). I don’t think that in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries a Catholic surgeon would have found patients.

We must also take into account the fact that accepting Catholicism does not prohibit a person from being a surgeon. After all, some religions prohibit people from engaging in certain professions. For example, members of a sect such as Jehovah's Witnesses cannot carry weapons, which means they cannot be soldiers, lyceum members, etc. Based on the basic commandment “thou shalt not kill,” for example, Catholics or Orthodox Christians cannot be murderers or mercenaries and so on. It turns out that if the profession of a surgeon is associated with the risk of killing a person, then a Catholic cannot belong to this profession. Most likely, this is not the case, since in this case the surgeon’s goal is not to kill a person, but to save him.

12. Bearcatcher, Miner

“Bughunter” is a stratificationally incompatible status, since it presupposes a high (Further, when I say that a particular status has a high (average, low) income (power, education, prestige), I will mean that on the income scale this status is at the level of the upper class.) income, low prestige, low power (if by this we mean the number of like-minded subordinates - the “average” security guard works alone, as a rule), low education (although there may be security guards with a higher education, but most likely they will be “high-class” robbers; it will be difficult to classify them as “standard” bear cubs).

“Shakhtar” is currently a stratification-compatible status: low income, power, education, prestige. However, in Soviet time This was not the case, especially during the years of industrialization. Then this status was stratificationally incompatible: high income (during the years of industrialization, a miner’s income was on average 3–6 times higher than the income of the average worker; in 1931, a miner’s daily bread norm was 30% more than a worker’s norm in an industrially unimportant enterprise; the monthly meat norm – 5 times, butter and eggs actually received only they, high prestige (the highest among miners and metal workers), but low power and low education. So then this status was stratificationally incompatible.

We can say that both of these statuses are social and belong to the same category - professional statuses. Most likely, these two statuses are “spherally” incompatible. Previously, a miner would not have become a safecracker, since the honor of being a miner is high, and there was no point in it, as has already been said. Now, as before, the miner’s profession is one of the hardest, so using such a profession as a “cover” would be extremely unwise. Although, due to dire need, a miner can become a safecracker (this status can become episodic), but if a person becomes a “permanent” safecracker, he will most likely give up this profession. Thus, the bugbear and the miner as a whole are “spherno” incompatible, although such compatibility is more likely today than in Soviet times.

13. Fashion designer, car enthusiast

“Fashion designer” in general is a stratification-compatible status (high income, education - a modern fashion designer is a highly educated person, prestige, and power is slightly lower, but quite high if measured by the number of people who are influenced by the result of the work of this person). The stratification profile of the “Car Enthusiast” is almost impossible to determine, since such status can belong to a representative of any class (except for the lowest, such status implies a person’s income above the subsistence level, although the owner of the old “For Porozhets” is a car enthusiast).

Both of these statuses relate to social ones (“Fashion designer” is a professional one, “Car enthusiast” is difficult to classify into one of the categories, perhaps this is the status of the spiritual sphere or some “leisure” sphere). In most cases, they are “spherally” compatible, since a fashion designer can choose to work with a car at his leisure. Of course, this does not mean that a millionaire fashion designer will delve into a car engine, but he can collect cars and then he will also be a kind of car enthusiast.

14. Schoolboy, Killer

Determining the stratification profile of a schoolchild and his stratification compatibility is quite difficult. How to calculate his income? By parents' income? If so, then a high school student has an average income (wealthier parents will send their child to better, not “average” schools), low power (if only the power of authority in front of students junior classes), low education and low or average prestige (The same difficulties arise with prestige as with income. Is it even possible to determine it? On the one hand, the prestige of a schoolchild in comparison with his peer who does not study, but wanders, will be above. And on the other hand, is the question correct: “Who has higher prestige: a schoolboy, a janitor, a banker, a student?” Here we are mixing professional statuses with educational statuses. If “Schoolboy” is an “educational” status, then it is in general. falls out of the general stratification (as a set of stratification by income, power, education and prestige).).

The “killer” is not a stratification-compatible status, since he has a high income and average power (on the one hand, as a rule, he does not have subordinates, on the other hand, he can impose his will on his victim with the help of weapons, demanding unquestioning submission) , low or average education, low prestige (Here it is also important to consider who we mean by a murderer. Someone who killed once (then “Killer” is an episodic status), especially not for the purpose of material enrichment; we cannot relate to status “Killer” as the main status. Here we will consider the killer as the main status, that is, the status most characteristic of a given person with whom he identifies himself.)

“Spherno” these two statuses turn out to be incompatible (both being social), if only because a killer is, as a rule, a person more mature than a schoolboy (especially a hired killer). But according to theory, an adult killer should be in prison, and a minor should be in a colony. If in such a colony there is something similar to a school, that is, the child receives an education, then these statuses are “spherally” compatible.

15. Intellectual, Revolutionary

Analyzing these two statuses, we need to stipulate in relation to what period of time we will be talking. Let's take the time when these two statuses are most clearly represented: the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Who is an intellectual? Let us assume that an intellectual is not only the most educated person, primarily engaged in complex creative work, the development and dissemination of culture (“intellectual”), but, first of all, one who has devoted his life to public service. The intelligentsia includes the Decembrists, Westerners, Slavophiles, Narodniks, and, possibly, Marxists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Stratification compatibility. “Intellectual” is, in my opinion, a more or less compatible status: high income, high education (his educational level in any case was several orders of magnitude higher than that of a peasant or worker), relatively great power (the fact that intellectuals they tried to teach the authorities, but the authorities did not always obey them, with the exception of the “intellectuals in power”, which indicates rather the opposite. At the same time, the intelligentsia is considered as a third force or link in the system of power-people, which indicates its relatively high power. , more precisely about its influence on life in the country, and in February 1917 they received real power). Its prestige is quite difficult to assess, but I dare to suggest that it is not below average.

It's more difficult with the Revolutionary. Presumably, the status of “Revolutionary” can belong to practically people of different classes (a revolutionary can be both a worker and a director of a plant, while the first belongs rather to the lower class, and the director to the higher class, the stratification profile of one can be direct , and the other with a broken line).

"Sphere" compatibility. In general, these two statuses (both social) are compatible. In general, the entire intelligentsia of the second half of the 19th century can be divided into conservatives, revolutionaries and liberals. P. Kropotkin, M. Bakunin, P. Lavrov - both intellectuals and revolutionaries, f. M. Dostoevsky is an intellectual, but not a revolutionary. N.A. Berdyaev is first a Marxist revolutionary, then closer to the liberal movement, although, according to him, he is against identifying himself with any movement or direction. Then he, N. O. Lossky and some other intellectuals declared in the collection “Vekhi” that they were not intellectuals. To put it simply, the reason for this is that at that time intellectuals in the mass consciousness were equated with revolutionaries, destroyers of society (which once again proves the compatibility of statuses), but they did not want to be like that. The relationship between the statuses of a revolutionary and an intellectual are presented in Fig. 4.30.

16. Gardener, Policeman

Stratification compatibility. With a gardener it is practically the same as with a car enthusiast, that is, we do not define a stratification profile for this status, except in the case when “Gardener” is a professional status. Then the status of “Gardener” will imply low or average income, low power, low education and low prestige - a stratification-compatible status.

“Policeman” is not a compatible status in our country. His stratification profile can be determined quite accurately: the policeman has a high income (upper-middle class, lower-upper class), great power (upper-middle or lower-upper class), low education (upper-lower or lower middle class ) and average prestige (medium-medium). As you can see, the scatter is quite large, which indicates internal incompatibility in status.

"Sphere" compatibility. Just as in the case of a fashion designer and a car enthusiast, these two statuses are completely compatible. Although, of course, it is quite difficult for us to imagine a policeman in uniform in the garden beds or a policeman caring for dahlias or roses, since we most often associate him with something rough, incapable of careful handling and long, painstaking work (maybe I'm wrong). In this case, these two statuses can be called only partially compatible.

17. Paralytic, Steelmaker

Stratification compatibility.

A paralytic has a rather direct stratification profile (the straight line runs through the upper (lower-lower) class), although this is not a rule, but rather our stereotype. A paralytic may have a very high education, although, I repeat, the very concept of “paralytic” is not associated with educated person, high income (large lifetime pension, income from shares, etc.), great power (if paralysis has not affected the person’s mind, then he can occupy a high position, for example, be a director, but then he will be perceived more as “Director”, and the secondary one will be “Paralytic”; prestige will also be determined in a person not as a paralytic, but as a director).

“Steelworker” in our time is an internally compatible status - the stratification profile is a straight line passing through the upper (lower-lower class). However, in Soviet times (especially in the 20s), his stratification profile looked different and practically coincided with the profile of a miner, since a steelmaker also belonged to a number of honorable and “industrially important” professions.

"Sphere" compatibility. It is obvious that such two social statuses are incompatible. How can a Steelworker be a paralytic if the profession of a steelworker requires hard physical labor and strain on all the organs of his body? However, even here there may be a kind of compatibility: suppose a person worked all his life as a steelmaker, retired, had a stroke, and became paralytic. But nevertheless, in conversation he often proudly says: “I am a steel var!” or “We, the steelworkers.” That is, in fact, without being a steelmaker, he would have to say that he was a steelmaker, but he himself identifies himself more likely with the Steelmaker (for him this is the main status) and not with the Paralytic. Even neighbors are more likely to say that “our neighbor is a steelworker” than “our neighbor is a paralytic.” Thus, from this position it can be shown that these statuses can be compatible.

18. Lover, Soldier

Stratification compatibility. It is impossible to determine the stratification profile (and, accordingly, stratification compatibility) of the “Lover” status, since it can be any person occupying any position in society, belonging to any class and any stratum. It’s easier to check your “Military” status. Let’s assume that he lives in our country and has a low rank (for simplicity, let’s just take “private soldier”). He will have low income, low power (they are commanded, but not he), low education (although it will be quite high if a person came to serve as a soldier after college) and low prestige, that is, in general, such a status will be internal compatible (the stratification profile runs along lower-lower or upper-lower class), with the exception of the case when the private is a graduate of a higher educational institution. Like many statuses, the stratification profile of a military man in our country has changed over time. Thus, in the 30s, in the pre-war and post-war times, a serviceman had a relatively high income (meals on cards at the level of the special and First lists, which equated him to the most skilled workers), high prestige (being a soldier is not only prestigious, but this is still an opportunity for the peasant to leave the village for the city), secondary education (higher than that of most peasants and many workers), low power. Therefore, at that time the stratification profile was more crooked and took place on stratification scales “higher” than now.

"Sphere" compatibility. It seems to me that these two statuses are “spherno” compatible. After all, the status “Lover” does not imply the presence of an “object” of one’s love in close proximity (this is confirmed by the fact that one can love some actor, singer, etc.). On the contrary, very often a Serviceman is associated with a Lover: the “standard” situation is that a guy in love is drafted into the army, but throughout his entire service he loves a girl who is waiting for him (or not waiting).

19. Cash collector, Motorcyclist

Stratification compatibility. The status of “Collector” (collector is a cashier engaged in receiving and issuing money and valuables mainly outside the institution) supposedly has an average income, power at the lower-middle class level, average education and average prestige, so this status can be called stratified compatible. With the “Motorcyclist” it is practically the same as with the Motorist, that is, the stratification profile of this status is impossible to determine.

"Sphere" compatibility. In my opinion, these two statuses are quite compatible, if we understand by “Motorcyclist” a person whose hobby is related to a motorcycle (a kind of “leisure” status). “Collector” (professional status) is a person who usually rides in a special armored car, and a motorcyclist rides an open, unprotected motorcycle, that is, the collector cannot perform his work on a motorcycle, and only from this position can we talk about status incompatibility .

20. Businessman, Armenian

Stratification compatibility. Armenian is a socio-demographic status (nationality). It is almost impossible to draw a stratification profile, because, for example, in their homeland, Armenians can occupy all positions of social stratification (this is the same as determining the status “Russian” in Russia), but in our country, it seems to me, this status can only be level of the lower or middle class (but there may also be cases of an Armenian being in the upper class), but we cannot say anything definite about the profile itself.

“Kommersant” is a social status, if we understand this word objectively, as “a person engaged in private trade” (and, as a rule, in the market) occupies a position in lower-middle or upper-lower class and is generally compatible (although if we consider that many of those who entered the market in the 90s - former teachers, scientists, then in this case this status will be incompatible. In Soviet times, this concept was value-laden, and meant the same thing as “speculator”, which determined the incompatibility of this status: relatively high income, low power, secondary education, low prestige (this was precisely caused by the negative action of the authorities towards this group of people).

"Sphere" compatibility. In the mass consciousness, these two statuses seem very compatible, since “Armenian” in this case refers to “persons of Caucasian nationality”, which all our modern markets are full of, that is, when you say “Armenian”, the first thing that comes in my head, this is a trader at the market. So it is impossible to talk about status incompatibility in this case.

21. Volunteer, Slave

Stratification compatibility. Determine such compatibility of the “Volunteer” status (It is necessary to stipulate who we will understand by the word “volunteer”. Let it be a person who voluntarily renounces his personal interests or benefits (from freedom, from earning money, from a peaceful life, from working for himself ) in favor of another (either an individual or some community). Most often, a volunteer is one who voluntarily exposes his life to danger for the benefit of society or community (a volunteer in a war, a volunteer to eliminate a disaster, etc.) impossible. , since this status does not imply membership in any class. The status of “Slave” implies: income, power, prestige at the level of the lower-lowest class. Education, as a rule, is lower (if this person was born a slave), but can be much higher, for example, in the case when enslaved people become slaves after the conquest: among them there may be highly educated ones. But this is a special case: in general, the stratification profile of a slave is a straight line passing through the lower-lowest class.

"Sphere" compatibility. I believe that these statuses are practically incompatible. There are two possible options here. Either a person already belongs to the status of “Slave”, he theoretically voluntarily agrees to any work, then he will be a volunteer. But it seems to me that if such cases have occurred in history, they are isolated. After all, a slave, as a rule, is not given the right to make decisions independently; the owner decides everything for him, and a volunteer is precisely the one who does something of his own free will. If, for example, a peasant under serfdom in Russia is equated to a crab, then when conscripted into the army, one person at a time was taken from the yard (recruitment sets under Peter I), and here we cannot talk about voluntariness. If the peasants (in addition to the established norm) themselves volunteered to go there, then they could be called volunteers. However, I am not confident in the widespread existence of such a practice, although if the partisan movement is also included in it, then in such a narrow case we can talk about the compatibility of the statuses “Slave” and “Volunteer”.

The second option is that a person voluntarily becomes a slave, that is, these two statuses turn out to be compatible. This option seems simply absurd. But let's look at this case: a man voluntarily marries, and subsequently becomes a slave to his wife, fulfilling all her wishes and orders. And the neighbors say: “He is his wife’s slave.” Here we, of course, understand the statuses “Slave” and “Volunteer” somewhat differently, but we can still talk about some compatibility of these statuses. Let's consider another case. From the theory of the “Social Contract” of T. Hobbes it follows that people living in a state of “war of all against all”, over time, voluntarily enter into an agreement among themselves to obey the ruling power that the majority chooses. “When such a government is elected, citizens lose all rights, except for those that the government deems appropriate to grant them” (See: B. Russell. History of Western Philosophy. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk University Publishing House, 1999. P. 513 .) . That is, in the extreme case (for this we need to “weaken” the concept of “Slave” and, more importantly, accept the theory of T. Hobbes), people actually become both “Volunteers” and “Slaves” of the state, that is in this case these statuses are compatible. Thus, in fact, these two statuses turn out to be incompatible, but we can find isolated cases of their compatibility.

22. Playing around, Father

23. Walking, Housewife

Due to the similarity of these “pairs” of statuses, I consider it possible to consider them not separately, but together with the aim of more easily comparing them.

Stratification compatibility. “Going for a walk”, “Walking” are most likely two episodic statuses, somewhat similar, for example, to a pedestrian. In accordance with this, just as with a pedestrian, it is impossible to draw a stratification profile and determine stratification compatibility. Father is a socio-demographic status (family-marriage-related), the stratification compatibility of which also cannot be determined (this status does not imply any position on the four stratification scales). The stratification profile to housewife (social status), in contrast to the previous three statuses, we can at least roughly determine. Low own income (if you do not take into account the breadwinner’s income in her income), low power (as a rule, only over children), low education (in our country, the education of a housewife cannot be determined, since the spread is quite large - highly educated women often become housewives ), low prestige. So, in general, this status is stratification compatible.

"Sphere" compatibility. The status “Humored” and the status “Father” are theoretically compatible. However, from the point of view moral standards, the ideal father is not a “player.” In our country, a “playing father” is a completely normal phenomenon, which indicates the compatibility of these statuses (of course, in this case I am not assessing whether this is good or bad, I am simply stating a fact). There is hardly a father in our country who has never been a “player” (after all, “player” is an episodic status).

From the point of view of norms and customs, the statuses “Housewife” and “Walker” are not compatible. And unlike the previous pair, in practice these two statuses are much less often combined, but, nevertheless, it cannot be said that such cases do not exist.

Thus, if we proceed from formal norms, then neither one nor the other pair of statuses is compatible. If from the standpoint of real life, then both one and the other combination of statuses is possible, but in terms of the mass of such cases, the combination of the statuses “Royal” and “Father” is in first place. Society's assessment of such combinations is different: a “playing father” is, although not good (does not correspond to the norms), but acceptable, but a “playing housewife” is already bad. We see that essentially the same phenomena are assessed differently by society, which may be due to certain traditions and customs.

Peasants were usually classified as the lower class. In the novel “Peter the Great” by A. N. Tolstoy, peasant life is vividly described. Peasant family lived in a hut. The small window barely let in any light. “Warm, dry smoke swirled under the black ceiling, went out of the little window above the door, and the hut was heated in black.” We can see the interior of the hut from the following episode: “Sanka jumped off the stove, hit the sagging door with her back... Suddenly everyone got thirsty - they jumped into the dark entryway following a cloud of steam and smoke from the sour hut. The tub of water is frozen, the wooden ladle is frozen.”

As a rule, the whole family huddled in one room. In the hut there was a red corner with images; everyone who entered had to cross himself at it. A stove, a long wooden table, a wooden bench - all the furniture. The whole family sat down at the table.

The eldest, the husband, started the meal. Don't get in front of him - you'll get hit in the forehead with a spoon. Everyone ate from the same pot, in which the food was prepared.

“The children were jumping from foot to foot - everyone was barefoot, Sanka had a scarf tied around her head, Gavrilka and Artamoshka were wearing only their shirts up to their navel.” “On the baht - a high cap pulled down over angry eyebrows. Mittens stuck out behind the bosom of a homespun caftan, belted low with bast, bast shoes squealed angrily in the dung snow...” Apparently, the family consists of five people. All the children are poorly dressed; apparently they have no winter clothes at all. In any case, the children wore their clothes one after another. Brovkin's yard was still prosperous - a horse, a cow, four chickens. They said “strong” about Ivashka Brovkin.

A.N. Tolstoy showed the common speech of peasants. The mother shouts at the children: “Door, catechumens!” Words such as “just now”, “father”, “fiercely”, “chilled”, etc. are used. People were uneducated and illiterate.

The life of a peasant is difficult. In the spring, plow, plant, in the fall, harvest. The master-owner demands quitrent and corvée. And the peasant must plow his field, prepare firewood for the winter, and manage the farm. “Well, okay... Give me this, give me that... Pay this, pay that... But, it’s a breakthrough, it’s a kind of state! -Will you feed it? We don’t run away from her work, we tolerate it.” The peasants saw how the landowners and nobles lived and, naturally, were dissatisfied with the fact that they worked tirelessly and had nothing, while the master did nothing and had everything. Ivashka Brovkin even had to sell his son into eternal bondage.

In the evening, gatherings were held, the girls sewed their dowries and talked. The boys and girls looked at each other. In the summer there were round dances. But one way or another, the parents arranged the fate of the children. They often turned to a matchmaker for help. Parents tried to get their daughters married at a better price and to marry their son to a hardworking, obedient, beautiful girl.

In the city we see the following picture. Dostoevsky showed it to us in his novel Crime and Punishment.

“The cinder illuminated the poorest room, ten steps long, the whole of it could be seen from the entryway... A holey sheet was stretched across the back corner. Behind it there was probably a bed. In the room itself there were only two chairs and a very tattered oilcloth sofa, in front of which stood an old pine kitchen table, unpainted and not covered with anything.” The room was a walk-through room. This is how the Marmeladov family lived. He had five children. “The eldest girl... in a water... shirt torn everywhere and in an old draped damask burnusik thrown over her bare shoulders...” Marmeladov lost his place. He himself was an educated man, like his wife. But after losing his job, his life changed dramatically. As Marmeladov himself says: “Now we live in coal... but I don’t know how we live and how we pay.” Only a bottle saves him from troubles and misfortunes. His daughter Sonechka has been forced to sell herself since childhood. Sonya’s description is as follows: “... her outfit was a penny, but decorated in a street style, according to the tastes and rules that had developed in her special world, with a brightly and shamefully outstanding purpose.” There are constant quarrels and swearing in the family.

So, we see that between the upper class and the lower there is a huge gap, both in behavior, lifestyle, and in customs, morals, and speech. The middle class united, on the one hand, poor officials and workers, and on the other hand, rich, successful people, such as Luzhin. In terms of capital, he could well belong to high society, but he did not have the most important thing for this - a noble family, nobility. Both the lower and upper classes have their own specific subculture, while the middle class contains signs of both.

Option 3

Analysis of the fairy tale “Cipollino” by G. Rodari

The fairy tale at all times and among all peoples has expressed the dream of the triumph of justice and hope for a better future for all people on earth. Italian writer Gianni Rodari wrote a story about the onion boy Cipollino. This tale clearly shows the stratification of society, where there are palaces and shacks, rich and poor, oppressors and oppressed.

The writer very accurately defined the place of his heroes in the society he describes (Fig. 7.9). In a fabulous fruit, berry and vegetable country, everything that grows right on the ground is the people. For example, Cipollino, as well as leek, pumpkin, strawberry, blueberry. But the gentleman Tomato has already risen above the earth and the people and is oppressing them. Lawyer Pea, who clings to everything with his mustache just to climb higher, turns out to be not only a crook, but also a traitor. Countess Cherries, Baron Orange, Duke Mandarin - all these fruits grow on trees, they have risen high, completely cut off from their native soil, what do they care about the troubles and suffering of those who live below, on earth. Life in this country was not easy for the people, because Prince Lemon was the ruler there. How can it be sweet with Lemon?

I believe that theoretically there are more noble and less noble varieties and types of flora. For different people they may or may not be such. The ignoble species are those we meet in Everyday life, and noble ones are those that are a wonder to us, or that do not grow in our latitudes. For example, for residents central regions Non-noble species are considered to be fruits, vegetables, and berries that grow in dachas and forests: raspberries, cucumbers, cabbage, currants, etc. And noble species are supplied to us from tropical latitudes. These are all kinds of fruits, such as avocado, passion fruit, pineapples, kiwi, etc. But for the inhabitants of those places they are no longer considered noble.

A comment. The tasks of this final Workshop are aimed at revealing the full creative potential students and consolidate their knowledge in the course “Sociology. General Course” using the example of the most complex sociological problem – social stratification.

All the works published here were completed “excellently” and indicate, firstly, that the same task can be approached in different ways and this diversity will have a positive impact on the assessment. Secondly, sociological analysis, carried out creatively using specific life examples or specific works fiction is valued by the teacher higher than general abstract reasoning copied or borrowed from textbooks.

So, the course “Sociology” has been completed. General course." Most of the basic categories of this science are considered, including methods of empirical research. The following are examples of student work completed while solving specific tasks, can serve as an excellent support for theoretical knowledge, and will also tell you how to approach independent work on the assigned task.

Dictionaries and reference books

1. Abercrombie N., Hill S., S. Turner S. Sociological Dictionary / Transl. from English Kazan: Kazan Publishing House. University, 1997.

2. Avksentyev A.V., Avksentyev V.A. Brief ethnosociological dictionary-reference book / Stavrop. state ped. univ. Stavropol, 1994.

3. Large explanatory sociological dictionary (Collins). T. 1–2 / Transl. from English M.: Veche, ACT, 1999.

4. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: a reference guide. M.: Moscow. Lyceum, 1996.

5. Folk knowledge. Folklore. Folk art. A set of ethnographic concepts and terms. Vol. 4. M., 1991.

6. On the situation of families in the Russian Federation. M.: Family Research Institute, 1998.

7. Religions of the peoples of modern Russia: Dictionary / Rep. ed. M.P. Mchedlov et al. M.: Republic, 1999.

8. Russian sociological encyclopedia / Ed. edited by G. V. Osipova. M.: NORM; INFRA-M, 1998.

9. Russia in numbers: Brief statistical collection/Goskomstat of Russia. M., 1999.

10. Dictionary of Sociology / Comp. E. B. Melnikova, M. McBride. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhegorod. state University named after N. I. Lobachevsky, 1995.

11. Modern American sociology. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1994.

12. Modern Western historical sociology. M., 1989.

13. Modern Western sociology: Dictionary / Comp. Yu.N. Davydov et al. M.: Politizdat, 1990.

14. Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia: Stat. Sat. M.: Goskomstat of Russia, 1999.

15. Sociology: Reader/Comp. A. A. Gorelov. M.: Chronograph, 1998.

16. Sociology on the threshold of the 21st century: main directions of research / Ed.-comp. S. I. Grigoriev (Russia), J. Coenen-Hutter

17. (Switzerland). 3rd ed., additional, revised. M.: RUSAKI, 1999. Comparative study of civilizations: Reader / Comp. B.S. Erasov. M.: Aspect Press, 1999. Educational sociological dictionary / General. ed. S. A. Kravchenko. 3rd ed., additional, revised. M.: Exam, 1999.

18. Encyclopedic sociological dictionary / General. ed. G. V. Osipova. M.: ISPI RAS, 1995. Yatsenko N. E. Explanatory dictionary of social science terms. St. Petersburg: Lan, 1999. A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research / Ed. by Jensen K.V., Jankowslo N.W. – L.; N. Y: Routledge 1999.

19. Companion encyclopedia of anthropology: humanity, culture and social life / Ed. by T. Ingold. London: Routledge, 1994.

20. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology / Ed. by G. Marshall. Oxf o rd: Oxford University Press, 1994.

21. Jary D. Collins dictionary of sociology / D. Jary & J. Jary; associate editors, P. Nicholls and A. Sillitoe. 2nd ed. Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1995.

22. Johnson A. G. The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: A user's guide to sociological language. - Maiden (Mass.); Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

23. International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. London–New York. 1968. Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. 3-d ed. /Ed. by N. Abercrombie. London: Penquin, 1994.

24. Social science encyclopedia / Ed. by A. Kuper and J. Kuper. 2 Rev. ed. London: Routledge, 1996.

25. Vogt W. P. Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A non-technical guide for the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993.

Textbooks, teaching aids and monographs

1. Asp E.K. Introduction to Sociology / Transl. from Finnish St. Petersburg: Aletain, 1998.

2. Aronson E. Social animal. Introduction to social psychology / Trans. from English M. A. Kovalchuk, ed. V. S. Maguna. M.: Aspect-Press, 1998.

3. Belik A. A. Culturology: Anthropological theories of cultures: Textbook. allowance. M.: RSUH, 1999.

4. Berger P. L. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective / Transl. from English M.: Aspect Press, 1996.

5. Bondaletov V.D. Social linguistics. M., 1987.

6. Volkov Yu. G., Mostovaya I. V. Sociology in questions and answers: Textbook. allowance. M.: Gardarika, 1999.

7. Gasparyan Yu. A. Family on the threshold of the 21st century: Sociological problems / Ed. K. N. Khabibudina. St. Petersburg: Petropolis, 1999.

8. Giddings F. G. Foundations of Sociology. Kyiv-Kharkov, 1898.

9. Giddens E. Sociology: a textbook of the 90s (reviewed edition). Chelyabinsk, 1995.

10. Golubeva G. A., Dmitriev A. V. Sociology: Textbook. allowance. M.: Sobranie, 1999.

11. Ionin L. G. Sociology of culture: the path to the new millennium: For universities. 3rd ed., revised, additional. M.: Logos, 2000.

12. History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA: Textbook. for universities / Rep. ed. G.V. Osipov. M.: NORMA, INFRA-M, 1999.

13. Komarov M.S. Introduction to sociology: Textbook for universities. M.: Nauka, 1994.

14. Komozin A.N., Kravchenko A.I. Popular sociology. M.: Prof-izdat, 1991.

15. Conflicts in modern Russia: Problems of analysis and regulation / Ed. E. I. Stepanova. M.: Editorial URSS, 1999.

16. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Dictionary. Educational aid for students universities M.: Publishing center "Academy". 1997.

17. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Reader. For students universities M.: Publishing center "Academy". 1997.

18. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology: Textbook. for universities. M.: Logos; Ekaterinburg: Business book, 2000.

19. Kuznetsova T.V. Russia in the global cultural and historical context: the paradigm of nationality. M.: Moscow. societies, scientific fund. Ed. scientific center and educational programs, 1999.

20. Cultural studies. XX century Anthology. M., 1995.

21. Lebedeva N. M. Introduction to ethnic and cross-cultural psychology. M.: Klyuch-S. 1999.

22. Lyakhovich E. S., Revushkin A. S. Universities in the history and culture of pre-revolutionary Russia. Tomsk: Tomsk University Publishing House, 1998.

23. Youth movements and subcultures of St. Petersburg: Sociol. and anthropopol. Analysis / Ed. V. V. Kostyusheva. St. Petersburg: Norma, 1999.

24. Monson P. Boat on the alleys of the park: Introduction to sociology: Transl. with Swedish M.: The whole world, 1994.

25. Morphology of culture. Structure and dynamics / G. A. Avanesova, V. G. Babakova, E. V. Bykova and others. Textbook for universities. M.: Nauka, 1994.

26. General sociology: Systems Course: Textbook. allowance / Ed. G.V. Dylnova. 2nd ed., revised, additional. Saratov: SyuI MIA of Russia, 1999.

27. Okoneshnikova A.P. Interethnic perception and understanding of each other by people. Perm: Zvezda, 1999.

28. Fundamentals of sociology: Textbook. allowance. Part 1 / Ed. A. A. Udodenko. Barnaul: AltGTU Publishing House, 1996.

29. Fundamentals of sociological knowledge. Textbook allowance. Parts I – III / State Committee for Higher Education of the Russian Federation. Altai State univ. Barnaul, 1995.

30. Parygin B.D. Social Psychology. Problems of methodology, history and theory. St. Petersburg: IGUP, 1999.

31. Popova I. M. Sociology. Introduction to the specialty. Textbook for higher education students schools, institutions. Kyiv: Tandem, 1997.

32. Problems of social interactions in a transitive society: Sat. scientific tr. Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, 1999.

33. Russian mentality: methods and problems of study / Rep. ed. A. A. Gorsky, E. Yu. Zubkova. M.: Institute of growth. History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999.

34. Russia at the turn of the century: Selected lectures from the university. St. Petersburg: Publishing house SPbGUP, 1999.

35. Russian intelligentsia: History and fate / Rep. ed. D. S. Likhachev. M.: Nauka, 1999.

36. Sinkevich 3.V. Sociology and psychology of national relations: Textbook. allowance. St. Petersburg: Publishing house Mikhailov V. A., 1999.

37. Smelser N. Sociology / Transl. from English; Scientific ed. V.A. Yadov. M.: Phoenix, 1998.

38. Social statistics: Textbook/ Ed. member-corr. RAS I.I. Eliseeva. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 1997.

39. Sociology: Textbook. for universities / Ed. V.N. Lavrinenko. 2nd ed., revised, additional. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2000.

40. Sociology: Fundamentals of general theory. Textbook manual for universities / Rep. ed. G. V. Osipov. M.: Aspect-Press, 1998.

41. Sociology. Textbook for universities / G.V. Osipov, A.V. Kabyshcha, M.R. Tulchinsky and others. M.: Nauka, 1995.

42. Sociology of modern times. (Lecture courses on sociology for higher education, head of the Russian Federation) / Edited by K.O. Magomedova. M., 1996.

43. Tadevosyan E.V. Sociology: Textbook. allowance. 2nd ed., rev. add. M.: Znanie, 1999.

44. Terin V.P. Mass Communication: Sociocultural aspects political influence. Study of Western experience / Moscow. State Institute (University) Int. relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999.

45. Middle class in modern Russian society / Ed. ed. M. K. Gorshkova, N. E. Tikhonova, A. Yu. Chepurenko. M.: RNI-SiNP, ROSSPEN, 1999.

46. Tokarev S. A. Early forms of religion. M., 1990.

47. Toshchenko Zh.T. Sociology: General. well. For universities. 2nd ed., additional, revised. M.: Prometheus, Yurayt, 1998. Kharcheva V. Fundamentals of Sociology: For the Environment. specialist. schools, institutions. M.: Logos, Higher. school, 1999.

48. Shevkulenko D.A. Interethnic relations in Russia: Second half. XVIII – beginning XX century Samara: Samar. University 1999.

49. Shchepansky Ya. Elementary concepts of sociology. Per. from Polish / Ed. R.V. Rybkina. M.: Progress, 1969.

50. Abrahamson M. Sociology. An introduction to concepts, methods, and data. N. Y, 1969.

51. Albrow M. Sociology: The basics. – L.; N.Y.: Routledge 1999.

52. Bassis M. Sociology: An Introduction; 5th rev. ed. London: McGraw, 1994.

53. Bryjak G. Sociology: Cultural Diversity in a Changing \\brld. 2nd rev. ed. London: Allyn & B, 1994.

54. Calhoun C. Sociology. 6-threv. ed. London: McGraw, 1994.

55. Chinoy T. Socity. An introduction to Sociology. N. Y, 1967.

56. Cooper P. Sociology. An introduction course. L., 1988.

57. Doob C. B. Sociology: an introduction. 4th ed. London: Harcourt Press, 1994.

58. Geertz C. The interpretation of culture. N. Y: Basic Books, 1973.

59. Giddens A. Sociology. – 3rd ed. – Cambridge: Polity press, 1998. Green Arnold W. Sociology. An Analysis of Life in Modern Society. N. Y: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968.

60. Henslin J. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. 2nd rev. ed. London: Allyn & B, 1995.

61. Hess V., Markson E., Stein P. Sociology. 4th edition. N. Y: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1991.

62. Howe R. Student guide to research in social science. Cambridge, 1993.

63. Kottak C. Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity. N. Y:

64. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1994.

65. Lowry R. P., Rankin R. P. Sociology. Social Science and Social Concern. N. Y, 1972.

66. Lundberg G., Schrag C., Largen O. Sociology. N. Y, 1968

67. Moore S. Sociology alive! 2 Rev. ed. London: Stanley Thornes, 1996. Newman D. Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. New York: Pine Forge Press, 1995.

68. O"Donnell G. Mastering Sociology. 3-d rev. ed. London: Macmillan, 1994.

69. O"Donnell G. Sociology today. Cambridge. 1993.

70. Ritzer G. Sociological Beginnings for Beginners: On the Origins of Key Ideas in Sociology. London: McGraw, 1994.

71. Schaefer R. T. Sociology: 5 Rev. ed. London: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

72. Thompson W., Hickey J. Society in focus: an introduction to sociology. N. Y, 1993.

Classics of sociology

1. Bell D. Rebellion against modernity // Sociol. Research, 1989. No. 5. pp. 107-114.

2. Bell D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society: Experience social forecasting/ Per. from English M.: Academia, 1999.

3. Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. / Per. from English E. D. Rutkevich - M.: Medium, 1995.

4. Berdyaev N. The fate of Russia: Works. M.: EKSMO-Press, Kharkov: Folio, 1998.

5. Berdyaev N. Spiritual foundations of the Russian revolution: Experiences of 1917–1918. St. Petersburg: Christian Publishing House, humanities. Institute, 1999.

6. Berdyaev N.A. About man, his freedom and spirituality: Fif. works / Ed.-comp. L. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaya. M.: Moscow. psychological-social. Institute, Flint, 1999.

7. Bulgakov S.N. Works on sociology and theology: in 2 volumes / Ed. prepared V. V. Sapov. M.: Nauka, MIKE “Science”, 1999. T. 1. From Marxism to idealism. T. 2. Articles and works of different years. 1902–1942.

8. Bourdieu P. Beginnings. Choses dites: Trans. from fr. / Per. Shmatko N. A. M.: Socio-Logos, 1994.

9. Bourdieu P. Market of symbolic products // Questions of Sociology, 1993. No. 1-2. pp. 49-62.

10. Bourdieu P. Social space and the genesis of “classes” // Questions of Sociology, 1992. Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 17–36.

11. Bourdieu P. Social space and symbolic power // THESIS: Theory and history of economic and social institutions and system. Almanac. 1993. T. I. Vol. 2. pp. 137–150.

12. Weber M. Selected works: Trans. with him. / Comp., total. ed. and after. Yu. N. Davydova; Preface P. P. Gaidenko. M.: Progress, 1990.

13. Weber M. Favorites. Image of Society / Transl. with him. M.: Lawyer, 1994.

14. Weber A. Favorites: Crisis European culture/ Per. with him. SPb.: University. Book, 1999.

15. Weber M. Science as a calling and profession // Self-awareness of European culture of the 20th century. M., 1991.

16. Weber M. Basic concepts of stratification // Sociol. Issled., 1994. No. 5. P. 147-156.

17. Veblen T. Theory of the leisure class. M., 1984

18. Worms R. Social organism. St. Petersburg, 1897.

19. Giddens E. Nine theses on the future of sociology. // THESIS: Theory and history of economic and social institutions and system. Almanac. 1993. T. I. Vol. 1. pp. 57–82.

20. Giddens E. Introduction to sociology // Modern foreign sociology (70–80s). M., 1993. 3–20.

21. Giddens E. Gender, patriarchy and the development of capitalism // Sociol. is-trace 1992. No. 7.

22. Giddens E. Sociology//Sociol. Issled., 1994. No. 2. pp. 129–138.

23. Giddens E. Stratification and class structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 9-10.

24. Giddens E. Elements of the theory of structuration // Modern social theory: Textbook. Novosibirsk: Publishing house Novosibirsk. Univ., 1995. pp. 40–80.

25. Gumplowicz L. Fundamentals of Sociology. St. Petersburg, 1899.

26. Durkheim E. On the division of social labor. Method of sociology / Transl. from fr. and afterword by A. B. Hoffman. M.: Nauka, 1990.

27. Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose / Transl. from French, compiled A. B. Hoffman. M.: Kanon, 1995.

28. Durkheim E. Value and real judgments // Sociol. Research, 1991. No. 2. pp. 106-114.

29. Simmel G. Favorites: T. 1–2. / Per. M.: Lawyer, 1996. T. 1. Philosophy of culture. T 2. Contemplation of life.

30. Simmel G. Excursion on the problem: How society is possible // Questions of Sociology. M., 1993. No. 3. P. 16–26.

31. Simmel G. Man as an enemy // Sociol. zhurnal., 1994. No. 2. pp. 114–119.

32. Sombart V. Jews and economic life. St. Petersburg, 1912.

33. Sombart V. Modern capitalism. T. 1-2. M., 1903-1905.

34. Kareev N. I. Fundamentals of Russian sociology / Prepared. text by I.A. Golosenko. St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbach Publishing House, 1996.

35. Quetelet A. Social physics. T. I, II. Kyiv: Kyiv Commercial Institute, 1911–1913.

36. Kistyakovsky B. A. Society and the individual // Sociol. Research, 1996. No. 2. pp. 103-115.

37. Kovalevsky M. M. Sociology. T. 1–2. SPb.: Type. MM. Stasyulevich, 1910. T. 1-2.

38. Kondratiev N. D. Main problems of economic statics and dynamics. – M.: Nauka, 1991.

39. Comte O. Introductory lectures // Sociology of Comte. St. Petersburg, 1889.

40. Comte O. The spirit of positive philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1910.

41. Comte O. Course of positive philosophy // Series: founders of positivism. St. Petersburg, 1913. Issue. 2, 4 and 5.

42. Lebon G. Psychology of peoples and masses. St. Petersburg: Layout, 1995.

43. Luhmann N. Paradigm change in system theory // Modern foreign sociology (70–80s). M., 1993. pp. 196–210.

44. Luhmann N. The concept of society // Problems of theoretical sociology. St. Petersburg: LLP TK "Petropolis", 1994. pp. 25–32.

45. Luhmann N. Why is a “systemic” theory necessary? // Problems of theoretical sociology. – St. Petersburg: TK Petropolis LLP, 1994. P. 43-54.

46. Luhmann N. Sociological reflections (interview) // Problems of theoretical sociology. St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 234–248.

47. Luhmann N. What is communication; Glossary // Sociol. zhurn., 1995. No. 3. pp. 114-127.

48. Merton R.K. Social theory and social structure // Sociol. research 1992. No. 2. P. 118-124.

49. Merton R.K. Social structure and anomie // Sociol. research 1992. No. 3. P. 104-114; No. 4. pp. 91-96.

50. Merton R. Explicit and latent functions // American Sociol. thought. Texts. M., 1994. pp. 379–447.

51. Mills R. The Power Elite. M., 1959.

52. Mills R. Intellectual mastery // Sociol. research 1994. No. 1. P. 107-113.

53. Mills C.R. Sociological imagination / Transl. from English M.: Publishing house. House "Strategy", 1998.

54. Mikhailovsky N.K. Heroes and the Crowd: Selected. tr. in sociology. In 2 volumes / Answer. ed. V. V. Kozlovsky. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1998. T. 1–2.

55. Moss M. Society. Exchange. Personality: Proceedings on social anthropology / Transl. from French – M.: Publishing house. "Eastern Literature" company, 1996.

56. Auguste Comte. To the 200th anniversary of his birth / Ed. A.O. Boronoeva and I.A. Golosenko. St. Petersburg: TK Petropolis LLP, 1998.

57. Parsons T. General theoretical problems of sociology. // Sociology today. Problems and prospects. M., 1965. pp. 25–67.

58. Parsons T. General overview // American sociology: Perspectives. Problems. Methods. M., 1972. pp. 360–378.

59. Parsons T. The concept of society: components and relationships // THESIS: Theory and history of economic and social institutions and system. Almanac. 1993. T. I. Vol. 2. pp. 94–122.

60. Parsons T. Frame of reference and general theory of action systems: culture, personality and the place of social systems // American Sociol. thought. Texts. – M., 1994. P. 448–463.

61. Parsons T. Functional theory of change//American Sociol. thought. Texts. M., 1994. pp. 464–480.

62. Parsons T. System of modern societies / Transl. from English L. A. Sedova and A. D. Kovaleva. Ed. M. S. Kovaleva. M.: Aspkt Press, 1997.

63. Parsons T. Current state and prospects of systematic theory in sociology // Modern Western theoretical sociology: Talcott Parsons. M., 1994. pp. 15–52.

64. Plato. State. Laws. Politician / Trans.; Preface E.I. Tem-nova. M.: Mysl, 1998.

65. Popper K. Logic of social sciences // Questions of philosophy. 1992. No. 10. P. 65-75.

66. Popper K. The Poverty of Historicism: Transl. from English M.: Publishing house. group "Progress" - VIA, 1993.

67. Popper K. Open Society and his enemies. In 2 vols. T. I: Plato's Charms., Trans. from English; edited by V. N. Sadovsky. M.: Phoenix, Int. Cultural Initiative Foundation, 1992.

68. Popper K. Open Society and Its Enemies. In 2 vols. T. 2: The time of false prophets: Hegel, Marx and other oracles. Per. from English; edited by V. N. Sadovsky. – M.: Phoenix, Int. Cultural Initiative Foundation, 1992. –528 p.

69. Modern theoretical sociology: Anthony Gidzens: Ref. Sat. / RAS. INION. Lab. sociol. M.: INION, 1995.

70. Sorokin P.A. The most important theories of progress in modern sociology // Bulletin of knowledge. 1911. No. 9.

71. Sorokin P. Main trends of our time / Transl. from English, comp., preface. T. S. Vasilyeva. M.: Nauka, 1997.

72. Sorokin P.A. Hunger as a factor. Pg. 1922.

73. Sorokin P.A. Long road: autobiography. M., 1992.

74. Sorokin P.A. On the issue of evolution and progress // Bulletin of psychology, criminal anthropology and hypnotism. 1911. Book. 3.

75. Sorokin P.A. Public textbook of sociology. Yaroslavl, 1920.

76. Sorokin P.A. The main features of the Russian nation in the twentieth century // About Russia and Russian philosophical culture. Philosophers of the Russian post-October diaspora. M.: Nauka, 1990. p. 463–489.

77. Sorokin P. Crime and punishment, feat and reward: A sociological study on the main forms of social behavior and morality: To the 110th anniversary of his birth / Ed. prepared V. V. Sapov. St. Petersburg: Publishing house RKhGI, 1999.

78. Sorokin P.A. System of sociology. In 2 vols. T. I. Social analytics: The study of the structure of the simplest (generic) social phenomenon. – M.: Nauka, 1993.

79. Sorokin P.A. System of sociology. In 2 vols. T. I. Social analytics: The study of the structure of complex social aggregates. – M.: Nauka, 1993.

80. Sorokin P. The state of Russian sociology for 1918–1922. // New Russian book. 1922. No. 10.

81. Sorokin P.A. Sociological theories of modern times. M., 1992.

82. Sorokin P. Man and society in conditions of disaster. // Questions of sociology. 1993 No. 3, p. 56–59.

83. Sorokin P.A. Human. Civilization. Society. / Per. from English M.: Politizdat, 1992.

84. Sorokin P. Ethnographic sketches: Collection of ethnographic articles by P. A. Sorokin / Preface, commentary. D. A. Nesanelisa, V. A. Semenova. Syktyvkar: Komi book. Publishing house, 1999.

85. Spencer G. Personality and State. St. Petersburg, 1908.

86. Spencer G. Foundations of Sociology. St. Petersburg, 1898. T. 1–2.

87. Spencer G. Social statics. An exposition of the social laws that determine the happiness of mankind. St. Petersburg, 1906.

88. Spencer G. Works in seven volumes. St. Petersburg, 1898–1900.

89. Toynbee A.J. Comprehension of history: Transl. from English/Comp. Ogurtsov A. P. M.: Progress, 1991.

90. Toffler A. Futuroshock / Trans. St. Petersburg: Lan, 1997.

91. Touraine A. The Return of the Acting Man. Essay on Sociology. M.: Scientific world, 1998.

92. Frank S. L. On the tasks of generalizing social science // Sociol. Issled., 1990. No. 9. pp. 30–48.

93. Frank S.L. Methodology outline social sciences// Issues of methodology. 1991. No. 2. P. 88–106.

94. Frank S. The essence of sociology // Russian thought. 1908. No. 2.

95. Sheler M. Forms of knowledge and society: the essence and concept of the sociology of culture//Sociological Journal. 1996. No. 1–2. pp. 122–160.

96. Schmoller G. Class struggle and class domination. M., 1906.

97. Spengler O. Decline of Europe / Transl., intro. Art., comment. V. G. Drach with the participation of T. V. Veselaya, V. E. Kotlyarova. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 1998.

Home > Book

Task formulation. Make a sociological analysis of the fairy tale X. K. Andersen “Flint”, that is, answer the questions: The work was completed by a 2nd year student (1998) of the Institute of Sociology of the State University of National Science and Technology M. Yu. Duyanova. – How is the social structure of fairy-tale society depicted? – Is it possible to find examples of social mobility? List all the statuses that are given in this fairy tale. Try to classify them according to characteristics familiar to you. What type - open or closed - is the society depicted in the fairy tale “Flint”? The fairy-tale society is a closed type. It has a class character and is divided into a higher class (king, queen, princess, maid of honor, officers, royal council) and a lower class (servants, soldiers, witch...). Statuses encountered in the fairy tale:

Soldier – achieved social status. Witch – this status can be both achieved and ascribed, so let’s call it mixed. Servant is an achieved status. Friend is an achieved status. Maid of honor is an achieved status. King is an ascribed status. Queen is an ascribed status. Princess is an ascribed status. Officers - achieved status. Shoemaker boy is an achieved status.

The fairy tale contains examples of vertical social mobility: a) a soldier becomes a king - this is intragenerational upward mobility; b) the princess becomes a queen - intragenerational and ascending.

Task 5 Comparison of statuses

Task formulation. Compare the following statuses: servant, employee, servant, servant, servant, servant, in service. Before comparing these statuses, it seems to me that it is necessary to give clear definitions of these concepts. I used two good ones dictionaries. Servant. Domestic worker for personal services, to carry out the instructions of the master, master; footman. A servant in the house, in person; involved in domestic service. Employee. A person employed in various fields of mental work. A person who is in some kind of service. Servant. A servant of a monastery or bishop. Monastic or bishop's servant, acolyte; servants were given from the volosts, where this duty was assigned to the family of short-lived or scoundrels in exchange for recruitment and other duties; Balti people also become servants, either by obedience or by hire. A short man was not taken into the army due to his short stature. A scoundrel is someone who is not capable of serving as a soldier. Serving. In Muscovite Rus': related to the performance of state and military duties. Serving, or subject to service, obliged. Servant. Soldier, military man. Military personnel, lower rank, serving or retired. Servant. In pre-revolutionary life: a domestic worker. Servants in the house, servants, people for household work and services. In service. Service: to be in service - in the service, mainly for personal services, as a servant, servant. Judging by the names, these statuses existed in the pre-revolutionary Russia. Therefore, I cannot consider these statuses from the point of view of the four main dimensions of stratification: income, power, education and prestige, and attribute them to one class or another, since at that time in Russia there was a completely different type of stratification - estates. It is also difficult to determine exactly which classes the representatives of these statuses belonged to. Servants and servants in service most likely belonged to the bourgeois class. The servant most likely came from the peasant class, just like the servant. But according to the Table of Ranks, an employee could be a tradesman (postal and telegraph employees) and even a nobleman (for example, Pushkin was a chamber cadet). We can only say that the status of an employee has a higher rank than all other statuses, because employees are engaged primarily in mental work. People occupying all other statuses were engaged primarily in manual labor. We can also say that all these statuses are social and belong to the category of professional statuses; only servant, in my opinion, belongs to the category of religious statuses. It can also be said that the statuses of servant and servant are completely incompatible with the status of servant, since people who were unfit for military service were taken into service. “Servant,” “servant,” and “servant” are essentially different names for the same position that an individual can occupy in society.

Task 6 Status incompatibility

Task formulation. Check the status combinations below for status compatibility. In addition to the usual formulation of status incompatibility, which you became familiar with in this topic, use new formulations. Stratification incompatibility is a contradiction between positions on four scales of stratification (income, power, education, prestige) of the same holder of a status set, for example, a professor or a policeman. To visually depict type 1 status incompatibility, namely stratification, it is advisable to draw the corresponding stratification profiles, that is, a graphical representation of individual statuses on four stratification scales. A more detailed description of this concept is given in Topic 7 “Social Stratification”. Spheral incompatibility is a contradiction between statuses or types of activity belonging to four spheres of society: economic, social, political, spiritual. To consider statuses from the point of view of spheral incompatibility, one should use the status portrait (status set) of a person, as already mentioned at the beginning of this section (Topic 4), and essentially both new formulations are an organic continuation of the theoretical provisions that we have considered. Option 1 Task formulation. Check the following combinations for status compatibility:

Pensioner, businessman. Minister, fisherman, collector. Photographer, NHL player. Film buff, drug addict. Collective farmer, city dweller, pensioner. Teacher, businessman, intern. Policeman, pensioner. Tourist, prisoner. Disabled person, athlete. Orthodox, drug addict.

1. Pensioner, Businessman Let's consider the stratification compatibility of these two statuses. To do this, let us draw a diagram of their stratification profiles (Fig. 4.16). The diagram shows that the two statuses are incompatible (stratification profiles are at different levels) and, therefore, these statuses cannot belong to the same individual. Individuals who have these statuses belong to different classes: “pensioner” to the lowest, and “businessman” to the highest. Let's consider “spheral” status compatibility. To do this, let us depict a status portrait of a person (4.17).

The status “Businessman” belongs to the group of social statuses: the main criterion for belonging to this status is profession (Fig. 4.19).

The socio-demographic status according to the “age” characteristic for a Pensioner assumes that the individual must have an age above the age at which the law provides the opportunity to retire. Social status according to the characteristic “profession” for a Businessman certainly presupposes his employment in some professional field of activity (before retirement). Therefore, we can conclude that for a Pensioner and a Businessman there is no “sphere” status incompatibility (a Businessman cannot be a Pensioner). 2. Minister, Fisherman, Collector Let's consider the stratification compatibility of these three statuses. At the same time, let us consider two cases when the status of “Fisherman” is understood as a profession and a hobby. The “Collector” status is only a hobby, since the “Collector” profession does not exist. Let us depict diagrams of stratification profiles (Fig. 4.20, 4.21).

From the first diagram (Fig. 4.20) it follows that the three statuses are incompatible (stratification profiles are at different levels) and therefore cannot belong to the same individual. Individuals with these statuses belong to different classes: lower, middle, higher. There is no stratification profile for the status “Fisherman” in the meaning of hobby due to the uncertainty of the characteristics of the profiles (for example, the hobby “fisherman” can be had by individuals with high and low incomes, with higher education and without it at all, etc.). Therefore, just like in the previous case, the statuses are incompatible. Let's consider “sphere” status compatibility for two cases (“Fisherman” in the meaning of “profession” and “hobby”). To do this, let's turn to the status portrait of a person. Analysis of “sphere” compatibility shows that the status “Minister” belongs to a social group: the main criterion for an individual to belong to the status “Minister” is appointment to one of the highest government posts. The status “Fisherman” belongs to the group of social statuses (the main criterion for belonging to this status is profession). The status “Collector” belongs to the group of social statuses: the main criterion for belonging to this status is determined by whether the type of his activity belongs to the Spiritual sphere (Fig. 4.22).

For the statuses “Minister” and “Collector” there is “spheral” compatibility, since political activity does not contradict the possibility of having any hobby (in our case, a minister can be a collector). The status of “Fisherman” has spheral incompatibility with the status of “Minister” (the civil service does not imply the possibility of combining it with other areas of professional activity). In connection with the above, we can conclude that the three statuses under consideration are incompatible. In the second case (“Hobby Fisherman”), the status “Fisherman” belongs to the group of social statuses (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the spiritual sphere), therefore, unlike the first case, it has spheral compatibility with the status of Minister, since the political activity does not contradict the possibility of having any hobby. Consequently, the three statuses under consideration are compatible. 3. Photographer, NHL player Let's consider the stratification compatibility of these two statuses. Moreover, in two cases, the status “Photographer” is understood as a profession and a hobby. The diagram of stratification profiles for the first case will be as follows (Fig. 4.23).

The diagram shows that the NHL Player has a very low degree of stratification compatibility (with a low level of education and little power, this status has very high income and prestige). Therefore, these statuses cannot be compared. Let's consider “sphere” status compatibility for two cases (“Photographer” in the meaning of “profession” and “hobby”). To do this, let's turn to the status portrait of a person. Analysis of “sphere” compatibility shows that the statuses “NHL Player” and “Photographer” belong to a social group: the main criterion for an individual’s membership in these statuses is their profession (Fig. 4.24).

The statuses “NHL Player” and “Photographer” do not have “sphere” compatibility, due to the impossibility of combining these two professions. In the second case (“Hobby Photographer”), the status Photographer belongs to the group of social statuses: the main criterion for belonging to this status is the spiritual sphere, therefore, unlike the first case, it has spheral compatibility with the status “NHL Player”, since any professional activity does not contradict the possibility of having any hobby. 4. Movie buff, Drug addict For these statuses, it is impossible to construct stratification profiles due to the uncertainty of the profile characteristics (the statuses “Cinema buff” and “Drug addict” cannot belong to individuals of different classes). "Sphere" compatibility. “Cinema buff” is a social status (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the spiritual sphere). “Drug addict” is a socio-demographic status (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the individual’s health status). The statuses “Ki noman” and “Narkom”n have “spheral” compatibility, due to the fact that the spiritual preferences of an individual do not depend on his state of health. 5. Collective farmer, city dweller, pensioner Let's consider the stratification compatibility of these three statuses. At the same time, a stratification profile can be built only for two statuses: “Collective farmer” and “Pensioner”, and any individual can have the status “City dweller”, regardless of his income, power, education and prestige (Fig. 4.25).

From this diagram it is clear that the stratification profiles lie at different levels, therefore we can conclude that these statuses are incompatible. "Sphere" compatibility. “Collective farmer” is a social status: the main criterion for belonging to this status is profession; “City dweller” is a social status: the main criterion for belonging to this status is the place of residence; “Pensioner” is a socio-demographic status: the main criterion for belonging to this status is age (Fig. 4.26, Fig. 4.27).

For the statuses Pensioner and City Resident there is “sphere” compatibility; individuals have this status regardless of their place of residence. The socio-demographic status according to the “age” characteristic for a Pensioner implies that the individual must have an age above the age at which the law provides the opportunity to retire. Social status according to the characteristic “profession” for a collective farmer certainly presupposes his employment in a certain professional field of activity (until retirement). Therefore, we can conclude that for the Pensioner and the Collective Farmer there is a “sphere” status incompatibility. Based on the above, it follows that these three statuses are incompatible, that is, they cannot belong to the same individual. 6. Teacher, Businessman, Trainee Let's consider the stratification compatibility of these three statuses. At the same time, a stratification profile can be built only for two statuses: “Teacher” and “Businessman”, and any individual can have the status “Trainee”, regardless of his income, power, education and prestige (Fig. 4.28).

The diagram shows that the stratification profiles of the statuses given to us do not lie at different levels, therefore, these statuses are incompatible. "Sphere" compatibility. “Businessman” and “Teacher” belong to the group of social statuses, since both are professions. Accordingly, here we can confidently talk about the incompatibility of these two statuses, due to the fact that these two professions are incompatible. The “Trainee” status can be combined with both the “Teacher” and “Businessman” status, since the “Trainee” status means that an individual works or studies to gain experience and skills in a certain field of activity (for example, a teacher can attend advanced training courses qualifications). Thus, from the above we can conclude that these three statuses are incompatible; they cannot simultaneously belong to one person. 7. Policeman, Pensioner Let's consider the stratification compatibility of these statuses. To do this, let's draw a diagram of stratification profiles (Fig. 4.29).

The diagram shows that the stratification profiles lie at different levels, therefore these two statuses are incompatible. "Sphere" compatibility. Following the logic, we will determine which group these statuses belong to: “Policeman” is a social status, “Pensioner” is a socio-demographic status. And as mentioned above, a pensioner is a non-working person, the source of his income is the pension provided to him by the state, a policeman is a working person. 8. Tourist, Prisoner In this case, we will consider only “spheral” compatibility. To do this, we determine which groups these statuses belong to. “Tourist” and “Prisoner” are social statuses, namely episodic ones. An individual has these statuses only for as long as the term of the tourist voucher or the term of imprisonment lasts. So, let’s compare these two status characteristics. A prisoner is a person deprived of his will, he is limited to his place of stay (prison), he does not have the right to leave until a court decision or the end of the term given to him, accordingly, he cannot have the status of a tourist for the reasons listed above. These statuses are incompatible. 9. Disabled person, Athlete. Here we will also consider only the “sphere” compatibility of the two statuses. Let us determine which status groups they belong to: “Disabled” – socio-demographic, it is determined by the state of health of the individual. “Sportsman” is a social status, it is determined by the individual’s profession. Let's consider two cases: These two statuses are incompatible, since an athlete can only be an individual who has good health, while a disabled person does not have it. These statuses are compatible if we talk about a disabled athlete participating in competitions among people like himself. 10. Orthodox, Drug Addict. As in previous cases, we cannot build stratification profiles for the statuses given to us; accordingly, we turn to another type of compatibility, namely “spheral”. The status “Orthodox” is social, as it relates to the spiritual sphere of society; it is a person professing Orthodoxy. “Drug addict” is a socio-demographic status (the main criterion for belonging to this status is the state of health). Although things like drugs are unacceptable in Orthodoxy, this does not contradict the fact that any person, including a drug addict, can be a believer, and therefore Orthodox. Thus, these two statuses are compatible. Option 2 Check the following combinations for status compatibility:

Surgeon, Catholic. Safecracker, miner. Fashion designer, car enthusiast. Schoolboy, killer. Intellectual, revolutionary. Gardener, policeman. Paralytic, steelworker. Lover, soldier. Cash collector, motorcyclist. Businessman, Armenian. Volunteer, slave Played up, father. Walking, housewife.

Scheme of checking for status compatibility Checking each status separately for stratification incompatibility (the criterion is the stratification profile according to 4 stratification scales for a given status, that is, if it deviates greatly from the straight line, then such a status is stratification incompatible). “Sphere” incompatibility (incompatibility of statuses in areas of activity or status categories). The mechanism for determining such incompatibility. The status portrait of a person is examined, the belonging of the statuses under study to the left (social statuses), right (socio-demographic) parts of the scheme, as well as to episodic and personal statuses is established. Depending on this, one of the following stages is selected:

Search for incompatibilities between the left and right parts (“within” the right statuses of incompatibilities there are practically no incompatibilities). Search for status incompatibilities between left statuses. Establishing compatibility of episodic statuses with each other or with left/right statuses. Establishing compatibility of personal statuses with each other or with left/right statuses.

11. Surgeon, Catholic It is almost impossible to determine stratification incompatibility for the status “Catholic”, since people with such status (status in the spiritual sphere) can occupy almost any position in the stratification by income, power, education and prestige. This applies especially to modern societies with freedom of religion, where Catholicism is a common religion. It is practically impossible to determine the stratification profile of Catholics in our country, mainly because there are such a clear minority. The status of a “Surgeon” in our country can hardly be called stratificationally compatible (The difficulty lies in determining which surgeon we are talking about. In this case (for Russia) we will talk about a surgeon working in a state clinic or hospital.): income, power, prestige is at the level of the lower class, education is at the level of the middle class. However, if we take into account that a large number of professionals left state institutions, and people came with less than a high education, often not even fully competent in their profession, then the same status may be stratificationally compatible. In the West, this status is compatible, since it implies income, education, prestige at the level of the upper middle or upper classes, power is also quite high, since the behavior of a large number of people depends on its decision.

A. I. Kravchenko Recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a teaching aid for students of higher educational institutions (1)
Book
The book gives big picture development of society, reveals the key sociological concepts, logically linked to unified system. A description of the subject and methods of sociology, information about the social structure, social groups and behavior, etc.
Lupinskaya Recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a textbook
Textbook
Radutnaya N.V., head Department of Criminal Procedure Law and Criminology of the Russian Legal Academy of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Professor.
General course Edition 2, supplemented and revised Recommended by the Ministry of General and Vocational Education as a textbook for students of higher educational institutions Moscow “Prometheus” 2001
Literature
The advantage of the textbook by Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Doctor of Philosophy Zh.T. Toshchenko is a clear theoretical and methodological position when considering problems of economic, social, political and spiritual
Noskova O. G. N84 Occupational Psychology: Textbook for higher education institutions and institutions / Ed. E. A. Klimova
Document
N84 Labor psychology: Proc. aid for students higher schools, institutions / Ed. E. A. Klimova. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2004. - 384 p. ISBN 5-7695-1717-4
S. S. Frolov sociology of organizations is approved by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a textbook (1)
Textbook
Particular attention is paid to the most important, from a sociological point of view, problems of the functioning and development of power, the effect of formal and informal communications, social problems, etc.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE

DNIPROPETROVSK NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

them. OLESYA GONCHAR

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER MATHEMATICS

discipline: "Sociology"

on the topic: “Socialization processes in fairy tales”

Completed by: student gr. PZ-07-1

Kampen F.S.

Checked by: Legeza S.V.

Dnepropetrovsk

We will consider the processes of socialization using the example of the main character of Leprince de Beaumont's fairy tale Beauty and the Beast (retelling by G. Sergeeva).

Brief summary of the tale

This tale tells about a family of a once rich merchant who had three beautiful daughters. Once, when a merchant went overseas on trade business, in response to the requests of his daughters, he wanted to bring them gifts. He bought the eldest a sable cape and a new dress, the middle one a pearl necklace, and the youngest, whom everyone called Gorgeous ordered scarlet rose. The merchant found the last gift in one wonderful palace. After he plucked it from the yard, strewn with beautiful roses, the owner appeared, who turned out to be the Beast. The Beast told the merchant that the payment for his action would be the exchange of the merchant's life for the life of one of his daughters together with the Beast.

The youngest daughter agreed to live with the Beast in order to save her father's life. Thus, the youngest daughter Beauty became the mistress of the castle, which she shared with the monster. Soon Beauty became attached to the Beast and after some events happened, she agreed to marry the Beast. After this, the Beast turned into a handsome prince, because, as it turned out, the prince had previously been bewitched and only the girl who fell in love with him was able to disenchant him. After that, they had a fun wedding and lived happily ever after.

Stages of the Socialization Process

Socialization – the process of integration of the individual into society. Usually the socialization process is accompanied by socialization agents.

Primary socialization (social adaptation) – the period from infancy to early childhood. Associated with the acquisition of general cultural knowledge with the development of initial ideas about the world and the nature of human relationships. This period lasts from birth to early childhood.

Secondary socialization – usually this is a period of socialization after a person leaves the framework of primary contacts.

Resocialization – assimilation of a “new” value system to replace the “old” one.

Desocialization – partial or complete loss of learned norms and principles of social interaction (stay in prison, disability, etc. isolation from society).

Socialization using the example of Beauty.

Primary socialization

This tale does not describe the process of primary socialization itself. But we can clearly see the results of this process. The beauty is called a daughter and she behaves accordingly. Based on this, I think it can be argued that Beauty has ideas about the nature of people’s relationships. This can also be understood from the words of the fairy tale: “... The beauty had not yet thought about suitors, she wanted to live longer with her father in her home.”

The agents of socialization at this stage of socialization were the girl’s family. I think that the role of the father (nothing is said about the mother in the retelling; she probably died at the birth of her youngest daughter) in the process of primary socialization is quite high. It seems to me that it would be logical to assume that the father, through his behavior and words, helped Beauty form an idea of the nature of relationships in the family. Probably, Beauty's sisters also helped her form an idea of the nature of interpersonal relationships within the circle of primary contacts. The fairy tale also mentions the presence of servants. Therefore, I think their role in the socialization of the child is also present, especially since one could assume that it was mainly the servants who raised the little daughter of a busy merchant.

Secondary socialization

After the once rich merchant went bankrupt, Beauty “worked tirelessly” (unlike the white-handed sisters). Her labors were related to the performance of daily duties. I attribute the above to some kind of professional socialization. Because As a result of changed circumstances, she had to acquire some special skills and knowledge. Undoubtedly, the girl’s range of social contacts expanded due to interaction with suppliers of products for the family and the range of social roles increased, as a result of which she became not just a sister and daughter, but also, in a sense, the mistress of the house.

I think we can call servants agents at this stage of socialization. The merchant had to pay for the servants earlier, but they undoubtedly played a role in transferring skills and certain special knowledge to the little mistress. In addition, it can be assumed that suppliers of products (both food and various household supplies) not only served as product transmitters, but also, in a sense, consultants.

I also think that secondary socialization can be classified as latest events fairy tales - a wedding, because as a result of this event

Desocialization

It seems to me that Beauty, being isolated after she ended up in the Beast’s castle, from her usual social circle, if she did not lose the previously learned norms and principles of social interaction, then at least could not implement and develop them. I would compare Beauty's stay in the Beast's castle to imprisonment.

Resocialization

Beauty had to deal with resocialization throughout her life (just like any other individual). The calculation of the servants mentioned in the fairy tale undoubtedly led to a change in her attitudes, goals, norms and values. Undoubtedly, Beauty's aesthetic values have changed. Due to the busyness of the young housewife, the focus on communication faded into the background.

Beauty also encountered resocialization while staying in the castle. Every day, seeing the Beast, her emotional assessment of the object changes. The once terrible monster, at the sight of which she lost her voice, becomes her friend, with whom she is now friends.

And the most shining example resocialization occurs at the end of the fairy tale, after the girl, isolated by the monster from society, sees not only her former family but also many guests as guests at the wedding, which suggests that now she is no longer a beauty imprisoned in a castle, but a public figure , and this brings with it big changes.

Conclusion

Throughout her life, Beauty goes through various stages of socialization. Her culture and idea of the world are changing, her understanding of the nature of relationships with people is expanding (what is the beginning of married life worth in this context), her social environment is changing, and, of course, the social role of Beauty is changing. I think that Beauty can serve as an excellent example for studying the stages of socialization based on her life.

Analytical fairy tale therapy: levels of analysis of fairy tales.

"Actual" analysis

"Status" analysis

Behavioral style analysis

Basic myth

Situation analysis analysis

Task 3 Content of social status

Task 4 Status analysis of a fairy tale

Task 5 Comparison of statuses

Task 6 Status incompatibility

A. I. Kravchenko Recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a teaching aid for students of higher educational institutions (1)

Lupinskaya Recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a textbook

General course Edition 2, supplemented and revised Recommended by the Ministry of General and Vocational Education as a textbook for students of higher educational institutions Moscow “Prometheus” 2001

Noskova O. G. N84 Occupational Psychology: Textbook for higher education institutions and institutions / Ed. E. A. Klimova

S. S. Frolov sociology of organizations is approved by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as a textbook (1)