Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky(1842-1904) held largely similar views. He argued that a sociologist cannot impartially build his science - the science of society, since the object of this science is a feeling person, a real person. The sociologist-observer cannot but put himself in the position of the observed. For Mikhailovsky, the criterion for the good of a real person has become cornerstone entire system of sociological beliefs. Personality and society, according to Mikhailovsky, complement each other: any suppression of the individual harms society, and the suppression of the public harms the individual.
Being a supporter of subjective teleologism, Mikhailovsky believed that the division of labor develops some human abilities at the expense of others, everyone has only a small particle of skills and knowledge. Specialization leads to the impoverishment of the individual, the impoverishment of human life. A "specialized" person does not exist as a whole person, he lives in a fragmented world. Development along the "organic" path, with its division of labor, transforms real person in the toe. According to Mikhailovsky, society should take the path of "supraorganic" development, where the breadth and integrity of the individual are ensured not by the division of labor, but by "cooperation of simple cooperation."
Mikhailovsky believed that one should use not only an objective, but also a subjective method of research, the categories of moral and fair. Objectivism is the position of pure reason, subjectivism is the moral court of free will, and one does not exclude, but complements the other. Mikhailovsky's formula of progress includes a subjective-ethical moment, since only that which brings the personality closer to its comprehensive development and integrity is considered fair and reasonable.
Pluralistic sociology M. Kovalevsky.
A significant contribution to the development of Russian sociological thought was made by Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky (1851-1916). He was widely recognized by the scientific world in Russia and abroad, was elected vice president and then chairman of the International Institute of Sociology.
The theoretical prerequisites for the socialist views of M. Kovalevsky date back to the sociology of O. Comte. “What is sociology?” M. Kovalevsky began the presentation of his two-volume work Sociology with this question. And he answered: "Its founder, Comte, considered sociology to be the science of the order and progress of human societies." However, order in society is not always the case. And progress in the sense of progressive development does not always take place. And Kovalevsky gives his definition of sociology as the science of the organization and evolution of human society. The organization of society and its evolution are the two main branches of sociology, which, starting from Comte, are characterized as social statics and social dynamics.
Kovalevsky approached sociology as a science, not as a concept of human ideals. Therefore, in contrast to the Narodniks Lavrov and Mikhailovsky and some other theorists, he separates truth-true from truth-justice, and proceeds that for sociology the main thing is truth-truth. He deeply accepted Comte's doctrine of society as an integral social organism and the economic nature of its development. Without the doctrine of the regularity of social phenomena, he wrote, the emergence of the science of society itself would have been unthinkable.
Ideas about the logical nature of the development of society, without which, according to Kovalevsky, sociology as a science would not have taken place, are organically connected with ideas about the progress historical process and social continuity, during which human knowledge, experience, culture are transferred and developed from one historical era to another. He cites the words of Leibniz that the present bears the burden of the past and is fraught with the future.
The ideas of the natural and progressive nature of the historical process, as well as social continuity, are important aspects of the evolutionist concept of Kovalevsky, according to which society more or less smoothly evolutionarily passes from one state to another.
Kovalevsky points to the role of many factors of social development: economic, demographic, political, psychological, moral, religious, etc. However, none of these factors is given permanent decisive importance. In different situations, they are assigned different roles, and any of them can come to the fore. This is the ideological and methodological meaning of the sociological pluralism of M. Kovalevsky.
An important role in the sociology of Kovalevsky is played by historical comparative method. Comparing the development of the peoples of different countries and epochs, one can discover some general laws of their historical evolution. In this regard, Kovalevsky wrote that "at the same stages of development in every human society, development occurs according to the same internal law." The historical-comparative method makes it possible to reveal both these laws and specific features in the development of different peoples and their cultures.
The compared phenomena were taken by Kovalevsky in dynamics, in their historical evolution, which made it possible to study both the general laws of the historical process and the specific features of the development of certain societies. On this basis, the possibility of sociological forecasting and historical foresight increased, which increased the practical knowledge of sociology. This was extremely important for Kovalevsky.
In his sociological views, he shared many of the provisions of the biological school in sociology, and above all “ organic theory society”, coming from Comte and especially Spencer. Kovalevsky argued, for example, that such an important social factor as communication begins even in the environment of animals. Even taking into account the great difference between biological and social communication, he drew attention to their "many common features" and wrote that in certain respects the animal and human world fit into general process evolution.
Kovalevsky put the psychological school in sociology very highly. On the whole, he shared Tarde's theory of imitation and found examples confirming it. So, he wrote that “the Russian leaders of the time of Anna Ioannovna tried to imitate the aristocratic orders of Sweden and thereby strengthen the foundations of their bureaucratic domination. There are many such imitators today. At the same time, Kovalevsky considered it necessary and useful to borrow the experience of other peoples, in which the social culture and identity of the people would not be lost. Such borrowing presupposes elements of independence and creativity.
Like Tarde, Kovalevsky considered imitation as an organic manifestation of the personal and social psychology of people and therefore as the most important factor in their social life. He believed that "the foundations of sociology cannot lie outside of psychology" (meaning primarily collective, social psychology). It was about studying the “Psychology of Peoples”. This is necessary for a deeper understanding of the spiritual state of peoples, the versatile manifestation of their cultures.
A positive attitude towards many sociological trends and schools, the desire to understand them and discover the connections between them, as well as the willingness to apply their teachings in the analysis of certain social phenomena, is another manifestation of M. Kovalevsky's sociological pluralism. Each direction in sociology in its own way shows the significance of certain factors in the development of society, whether it be a biological, demographic, economic, political, or psychological factor.
In his main sociological works "Modern Sociologies" and "Sociology" M. Kovalevsky speaks of the multiplicity of factors of social development. As socially significant factors, he figures biological, cosmic, political, and many others. He points to the need to detect the simultaneous and parallel impact of these factors on the development of social phenomena. This is one of the main methodological requirements of his sociological concept.
From the position of such pluralism, i.e. the need to take into account the influence of many factors on the development of society, he criticized the homogeneity of the doctrines of Spencer, Durkheim, Tarde and other sociologists. Moreover, he believed that, methodologically, it makes no sense to talk about more or less important factors. Each of them can act as the main, accompanying or secondary, depending on the situation and the angle of consideration of a particular social phenomenon.
Based on the main principles of sociological pluralism, M. Kovalevsky developed theory of social progress which is sometimes called the core of his sociology. He wrote that the basic law of sociology is the law of progress. The task of sociology is to "reveal those changes in the social and political order in which this progress resulted and the reasons by which it is due."
Justifying the natural and generally progressive progressive nature of the development of human society, Kovalevsky did not deny either many factors of stagnation or society marking time, or understandable, regressive movements that also happen in history. But all the same, the “law of progress” wins, the universal sociological law, which manifests itself “in the expansion of the sphere of human solidarity”. In this he saw the main content of social progress.
In his theory of social progress, Kovalevsky proceeded from the fact that all peoples go through the same stages of development, but not simultaneously. This circumstance makes it necessary to use the historical-comparative method. With the help of this method, one can get an idea of the past of peoples, having become acquainted with the modern social life of backward countries, as well as the future of the latter, taking into account the achievements of modern advanced countries.
According to Kovalevsky, “all peoples participate in world progress”, which should lead to their unification into a single “world solidarity society”. Justifying the evolutionary nature of social progress, he rejected the Marxist theory of class struggle and social revolution, believed that in the normal course of social life, a clash of class and other social interests is prevented by an agreement, a compromise, in which the guiding principle is always the idea of solidarity of all members of society.
Kovalevsky's sociological pluralism served as a theoretical justification for his platform of moderate liberalism, the main focus of which was to transform the economic and political system of Russian society along the lines of Western bourgeois democracies.
Sociological views of populists P. Lavrov and N. Mikhailovsky.
The sociology of populism had a noticeable influence on the formation and development of social thought in Russia. Its most prominent representatives were N. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904). He adhered to the so-called subjective method in sociology, which received a comprehensive development in their numerous works.
He stated bluntly that "an objective point of view, obligatory for the natural scientist, is completely unsuitable for sociology", that this method is powerless in sociology. And he is powerless because he is not feasible. He inevitably evaluates them, and not only from cognitive, but also from other, primarily from moral positions, accepts them or rejects them. Therefore, N. Mikhailovsky pretends, "in sociology, the use of the subjective method is inevitable." This method spawned subjective sociology. According to N. Berdyaev, N. Mikhailovsky is “the most talented supporter of the subjective method” and “its main creator”
Mikhailovsky was of the opinion about the existence of truth - truth and truth - justice. Therefore, he himself spoke about it as follows: “Fearlessly look into the eyes of reality and its reflection - truth-truth, objective truth, and at the same time, preserve the truth-justice, subjective truth - such is the task of my whole life." He develops the doctrine of double truth, organically combining objective and subjective truth. From the standpoint of this dual truth, he examines the problems of social life and various sciences, including sociology, ethics, aesthetics, politics, etc.
At the same time, he constantly emphasized that the subjective method in sociology does not mean an arbitrary interpretation of the phenomena of social life. These phenomena must be comprehended scientifically, and for this it is necessary to rely on the objective truth of science. However, an objective analysis social phenomena inevitably supplemented by their subjective assessments by the sociologist based on moral and other positions. It simply cannot be otherwise. In addition, the very phenomena of social life - political, economic, moral and others - carry in themselves, wrote Mikhailovsky, a large charge of subjectivity, coming from the consciousness, feelings and will of the subjects that bring these phenomena to life and act as creators of history.
You can point to two main aspects subjective method in sociology. On the one hand, this method is aimed at the most complete account of the diverse thoughts and feelings of people, that “ critical thought in humanity”, about which P. Lavrov spoke. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the subjective position of the sociologist himself, who studies certain social phenomena. On the other hand, the subjective method is aimed at finding optimal “forms of solidarity between people”, i.e. such a social structure in which each individual, all classes and estates will be able to satisfy their diverse needs, freely act and develop. This important aspect of the subjective method of populism often remained in the background, or was generally hushed up in the literature, because of which this method itself was interpreted very one-sidedly. Based on the requirements of scientific objectivity, we must point out both sides of the subjective method in sociology in order to more fully and correctly judge its content, theoretical and practical orientation.
Mikhailovsky paid much attention to solving the problem of interaction between the individual and society. In the foreground, of course, he has a personality with its own special individuality and originality. Critically thinking personalities with their more or less bright personalities are the main actors in society, determine the development of its culture and the transition to the highest forms of social organization. "The sociological theory of the struggle for individuality runs like a red thread through all his works."
Concentrating efforts on protecting individuality, Mikhailovsky, as it were, omits, does not analyze the problem of the influence of the social environment on the formation of a person's social needs and interests, and thus on his behavior. He draws the attention of a person to the law of antagonism formulated by him between a rapidly developing and becoming more complex society and the transformation of the individual into the bearer of his private function. As a result of the development of the social division of labor, not only the peasants, but also the workers are transformed into unilaterally developed people, "a toe off the foot of the social organism."
Mikhailovsky believes that this antagonism can be overcome by providing the individual with greater freedom and independence in relation to society. He substantiates the principle of the supremacy of the individual over society. Criticizing this somewhat straightforward approach, G.V. Plekhanov proposed, perhaps, a more flexible solution to the problem of interaction between the individual and society in terms of creating conditions for a harmonious combination of their interests.
Based on his worldview attitudes, Mikhailovsky analyzes the issue of the interaction of "heroes and the crowd." He decides this question more in the socio-psychological plan. He calls a hero a person who captivates by his example for a good or bad deed. The crowd is a mass of people capable of being carried away by an example, again highly noble or low, or morally indifferent. The imitation of the masses of their hero is, according to Mikhailovsky, an almost hypnotic phenomenon. Independence in the perception of current events is lost, and suggestibility grows in one's own judgments. The crowd easily obeys its leaders, blindly trusts them, loses the ability to be critical of their words and deeds. It seems that these judgments of Mikhailovsky, expressed a hundred years ago, have not lost their relevance at the present time.
largely retains its theoretical and practical significance. social progress theory Mikhailovsky, his criticism of the positivist G. Spencer, who essentially ignored the peculiarities of the development of society in comparison with nature. Mikhailovsky, on the other hand, believed that the development of society was based not on biological, but on social processes, including the division of labor, the struggle of the new way of social life with the old, progressive and reactionary ideas and social ideals. He pointed to the progress of society and the progress of the individual. Neither of these kinds of progress should come at the expense of the other. It is important that society in its development creates the necessary conditions for the comprehensive development of each individual. This would be fair and moral, which is fixed in the “formula of progress” by N. Mikhailovsky.
Short biography. Born in the city of Meshchovsk, Kaluga province, in the family of an official, a native of a noble family. Graduated from the St. Petersburg Institute of Mining Engineers. During the years of study, he took part in student revolutionary unrest. From 1868 he was a leading contributor and then co-editor of the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski. In the 70s, Mikhailovsky became close to the people of the People's Will. Since the early 1990s, he has been co-editor of the magazine " Russian wealth", the ideological spokesman of legal populism, participated in the Narodnaya Volya printed organ "Narodnaya Volya".
The philosophical and sociological views of Mikhailovsky were strongly influenced by the ideas of Herzen, Lavrov, and Proudhon.
At the center of his philosophical and sociological constructions is a person - a holistic, harmonious and free personality. In the field of literary criticism, Mikhailovsky continued the tradition of the 60s of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, according to which literature should serve society and pass judgment on social phenomena. As a publicist and thinker, Mikhailovsky was very popular, his ideas had a huge impact on the revolutionary movement in Russia.
Main compositions:
Letters about truth and falsehood;
The struggle for individuality;
Notes of a layman;
What is progress?
Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev (1858 - 1931)
Short biography. Born into a poor, but well-born noble family. In 1873 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, where his teachers were S.M. Solovyov and V.E. Guerrier.
In 1879 he defended his master's thesis "The Peasant Question in France in the last quarter of the 18th century, and in 1881 he published it, gaining wide popularity in the agrarian history of France.
In 1883, Kareev defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic "Main Issues in the Philosophy of History", which brought him recognition as a prominent specialist in the field of historiosophy.
In 1874-89. was a professor at Warsaw University.
From 1879 to 1899 taught at Moscow University, from which he was fired due to student unrest. Adhered to a liberal orientation.
During the revolution of 1905-1907. joined the ranks of the Cadet Party and at one time was the chairman of the St. Petersburg organization of the Cadet Party, considering his membership in the party as "professorial participation in politics"; from the Cadets party was a member of the First State Duma.
Since 1910 - corresponding member. Russian Academy Sciences.
After 1917 he continued active scientific and pedagogical activity.
Main compositions:
Basic questions of the philosophy of history;
Criticism of historiosophical ideas and experience of the scientific theory of historical progress;
To my critics. Defense of the book "Main Issues of the Philosophy of History";
The essence of the historical process and the role of the individual in history;
Introduction to the study of sociology; Historical-philosophical and sociological studies;
Historiology. Theory of the historical process.
Views on historical knowledge and historical development. The “subjective school”, or the ethical-sociological school as it was called by its adherents, existed in the last third of the 19th - early 1800s. XX centuries Leading representatives of the school P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.I. Kareev. About his belonging to this school in different time stated S.N. Yuzhakov, V.M. Chernov and others. Their ideas in the national scientific literature were perceived either as a theoretical justification for the ideology of populism, or they refer to the sociological and socio-psychological layers of the ideas of the subjective school. The school's contribution to understanding the theory and methodology of history has not been sufficiently studied.
Researchers of the Russian subjective school note that it was born in the depths of positivism. Therefore, Lavrov is considered the spokesman for a special form of positivism that arose in the second half of the 19th century, which he called "anthropologism". He expressed disagreement with all varieties of metaphysics (both materialistic and idealistic). At the same time, he defended the paramount importance of human consciousness as the most important object scientific research and the guiding principle of moral and social activity.
The difference between the ideas of the subjective school and classical positivism:
1. Representatives of the subjective school developed in detail the doctrine of the "subjective method" (or "subjective element" in the knowledge of history). The subjective method in historical research, in their opinion, is used for:
The choice of a "historical perspective", i.e., research problems;
The development of a constructive idea (prejudiced opinion) in the study, and the so-called "laws of history" are nothing more than theoretical models created by researchers to organize knowledge;
Reconstructions of "hidden facts" not mentioned in the sources;
Recreation of the inner world of the people of the past on the basis of "sympathetic experience";
An ethical assessment of the activities of people of the past, based on the distinction between "healthy" and "pathological" phenomena in historical life;
In introducing into the historical work elements of artistry necessary to create a vivid, figurative representation of a bygone era.
Thus, the historian acted as an active, creative principle. Starting research, he brings into his work not only a certain amount of knowledge and professional excellence, but also their moral ideas, imagination, creative intuition, artistic talent. Kareev warned that the elimination of these subjective elements from scientific research, "the depersonalization of the researcher" would primarily damage science itself, "for the very impersonality is nothing but a very large one-sidedness, limitation." At the same time, adherents of the school wrote about the inadmissibility of influencing scientific research of personal affect, national, party, confessional and other predilections. Subjectivism for Kareev thus means take a public standpoint; when the researcher feels himself to be a person, and not a member of some party, nation or state, then he is “liberated” as a cognizing subject from “random definitions” that constrain scientific knowledge. The scientist must leave behind the threshold of research his ideals as a person certain profession, nationality, religion, but must constantly feel his belonging to humanity. This is the boundary beyond which it is impossible, and indeed unnecessary, to free oneself from the subjective moment in historical cognition. A person can throw off the burden of belonging to this or that union, a community of individuals, free himself from the pressure of the social role that he plays in society, but he cannot free himself from belonging to the human race. Defending such subjectivism, Kareev spoke out, on the one hand, against the "empirical objectivism" of historians, and on the other hand, against the transfer of the objectivism of natural scientists to history.
2. The rejection of rigid determinism in understanding historical reality and the perception of the historical process as “anthropo-teleological, guided by goals chosen and set consciously by people. Lavrov emphasized that if in nature the actions of people are limited by objective laws, then in history they are free in their behavior. In Historical Letters, Lavrov formulates a position on the action in the history of human free will, here he always pursues his goals in accordance with the developed ideal. The history of mankind begins with the emergence of a critical attitude to the past, with the setting of ideal goals and the struggle for their implementation. In other words, consciousness is the creative force of history, it is not obliged to follow the "natural course of things." His ability to criticize history pushes the limits of necessity.
Theorists of the subjective school did not exclude the effect of certain historical patterns. In their writings, they critically illuminated the organic theory of the development of Spencer's society. According to this theory, any human union can be identified with an organism. Mikhailovsky develops Spencer's ideas and formulates the law of "struggle for individuality". In living nature, it is universal in nature and, by virtue of the law of development, every individual strives for more and more complication, but complication can occur only at the expense of lower individualities. In the history of mankind, with each new turn, the division of labor increases. Thus, the entire evolution of mankind from the moment of the initial division of labor went in the direction of the disappearance of human individuality and its dissolution in the higher individuality - society, in the direction of progress and degradation of man. Primitive was "whole and indivisible". Despite the "vagueness and scarcity" of the content of his spiritual life, inner harmony reigned. Modern man- a narrow specialist, "a toe" has lost internal integrity and harmony. Recognizing the organic theory as true with scientific point view, Mikhailovsky denied it from an ethical standpoint called for fighting for the preservation of human individuality.
In a series of articles on "heroes and the crowd," Mikhailovsky noted the effect of the unconscious tendency of living beings to imitate. He studied cases of imitation in human society, when “psychic infection occurs regardless of the will of the person. At the same time, the consciousness of a person turns into “a eaten egg, which has no content of its own, but is filled with what accidentally pours into it from the side.” He saw the cure for imitation in the diversity of a person's personal life and interests. Consciousness and will stand in the way of biological laws. The "hero" in his concept is just a person pushed out of the crowd at the head of the movement, or one who has caught the mood and desires of the crowd, but does not have his own convictions. The “hero” is just as much a victim of the pathological structure of society with sharply divided labor and monotony of impressions as the representatives of the crowd. The interaction of "heroes and the crowd" is a special case of the struggle for individuality.
The action of historical patterns, according to subjectivists, is corrected, softened or even annihilated by the goals that people consciously set for themselves. In this regard, the causal dependence in the history of human society is of a completely different nature, and the course of history cannot be carried out regardless of human goals and desires.
3. The recognition of people's consciousness as a factor in historical dynamics showed the inconsistency of positivist claims to predict the course of historical development. Psychological and anthropocultural factors turned history into an arena of confrontation of many possibilities. Therefore, one of the tasks of the historian was the task of identifying missed opportunities.
The action of the personal factor in history changed the idea of the nature of social progress and its criteria. Lavrov wrote that a critically thinking person is always weighed down by the consciousness that her freedom and the very ability to engage in creativity and think critically is paid for by the hard and unfree work of the vast majority of this society. The desire to pay this debt creates the moral sphere of a person as a free person, which says: “I will relieve myself of responsibility for the bloody price of my development if I use this very development to reduce evil in the present and future.” A free man cannot put up with the natural course of things. He sets before society the goals of free development, the demand for conditions worthy of a person, and achieves their implementation even at the cost of own life. With the setting of conscious goals by a critically thinking person and the organization of the efforts of the masses to achieve them, history begins as the movement of mankind along the path of progress. From this moment on, man passes from the realm of natural necessity into the realm of the possibility of freedom. For the scientist himself, the given course of reasoning was a logical disclosure of the moral imperative, which Lavrov defines as follows:
"Personal development in physical, mental and moral attitude; incarnation in public forms truth and justice - this is a short formula, embracing, it seems to me, everything that can be considered progress.
In order to explain his formula of progress, Lavrov put forward three areas of its manifestation: 1) progress as a process that develops in humanity the consciousness of truth and justice with the help of the work of critical thought of individuals in relation to the culture of their time; 2) progress as the physical, intellectual, moral development of individuals, carried out in social forms of truth and justice; 3) progress as a conscious development of solidarity based on the critical attitude of individuals to themselves and to the reality around them. The latter is the highest form of progress..
Another formula of progress was developed by N. K. Mikhailovsky. He saw the criteria for progress in everything that contributes to the creation of a higher type of personality. A worker working in a subsistence economy is a higher type of personality than an industrial worker. Traditionally understood progress leads to the complication of society and to the degradation of the individual. So under capitalism high level production is achieved by an increasingly complex differentiation of specialties, and, consequently, due to the complete degradation of the individual. Mikhailovsky was convinced that the worker working on the land, the ordinary Russian peasant, surpasses in the type of his personality not only the worker, but also the educated specialist, since the peasant already has that “system of Truth”, which the intellectual must work out with painful efforts. Mikhailovsky's "formula of progress" is called the "formula of regression" by a number of researchers.
4. The subjective school set the task of studying spiritual world past eras, because to understand history is to understand the goals that guided people. In fact, they developed new areas of historical research, such as historical anthropology, the history of mentalities, which were developed and recognized in the historiography of the twentieth century and remain relevant today.
N.K. Mikhailovsky assigned a significant place in cognition to the method of "sympathetic experience", when the researcher puts himself mentally in the position of the researched.
N.I. Kareev and V.M. Chernov proposed a program for the reconstruction of the "unconscious philosophy of society" - "common worldviews, dominant ideas, generally accepted and protective norms" of this society. These ideas and norms are not always clearly formulated in the minds of contemporaries, but define the "spirit of the times", manifesting themselves in religious beliefs, science, art, political and legal institutions, and the economic system. "Unconscious philosophy" is always based on certain ideas about the meaning of life.
P.L. Lavrov proposed to carry out the reconstruction of "historical types" - models for behavior, role models adopted in a particular era. Several patterns of behavior coexist in the same epoch. Change of large historical eras, according to Lavrov, is always accompanied by a breaking of common standards of behavior. And the need for new role models.
5. Theorists of the subjective school studied the specifics of historical knowledge, developing ideas in many respects similar to neo-Kantian ones.
MIKHAILOVSKY, NIKOLAY KONSTANTINOVICH (1842-1904), Russian literary critic, sociologist. He was born on November 15, 1842 in the city of Meshchovsk, Kaluga province, into a noble family. He studied at the St. Petersburg Institute of Mining Engineers. In the 1870s, he was one of the leaders of the Otechestvennye Zapiski magazine, and from the beginning of the 1890s, he was co-editor of Russian Wealth. Both journals expressed the ideas of liberal Russian populism, of which Mikhailovsky was the leading ideologue. Him philosophical views were predominantly positivist in nature: a critical attitude to any type of abstract (metaphysical) philosophizing, recognition of the priority of facts in the process of cognition (“truth” of facts - “truth objective”). In the field of sociology, Mikhailovsky followed the fundamental principles of Lavrov's "subjective method". From his point of view, the meaning of historical development lies in the formation and improvement of the personal principle. Personal development is the highest and only criterion of social progress, which sociology cannot but take into account in its experience of interpreting social life. The Russian peasant community, according to Mikhailovsky, can become a historical alternative to the capitalist way of life, since it contains the prerequisites for a much more complete and comprehensive development personality. The process of such development has always been complex and dramatic. The confrontation between the individual and society, the individual and the state is the most important component of the historical process at all its stages. An essential aspect of this confrontation is fixed by the concept of "heroes" and "crowd" formulated by Mikhailovsky. The spontaneity and even the absurdity of the mass consciousness, the consciousness of the "crowd", oriented towards some examples of standard, "heroic" behavior and blindly worshiping their "heroes", Mikhailovsky believed, carries a serious social threat to the personal principle in history.
social philosophy
Mikhailovsky, along with P. L. Lavrov, belongs to the development of the idea of free choice"ideal", which philosophically substantiated the possibility of changing social development in the direction chosen by the progressive intelligentsia. This idea was most fully expressed in the so-called subjective method of sociology, which, as the highest measure of social progress and the starting point of historical research, considered the individual ("What is progress?", "The analogy method in social science", "Darwin's theory and social science”, “What is happiness?”, “The struggle for individuality”). He developed the theory of "heroes and the crowd", which explained the mechanism of collective action by a person's tendency to imitate ("Heroes and the crowd", "Scientific letters (on the question of heroes and the crowd)", "Pathological magic", "More about the crowd"). He believes that the psychological impact of the individual depends on the perception of the masses, and in principle any person, and not necessarily outstanding personality, being accidentally ahead of the crowd, can play important role in certain events. In the 1880s, he criticized the theory of "small deeds" and Tolstoyism. In the early 1890s, he opposed Russian Marxists (see also "legal Marxism"), accusing them of defending capitalism and refusing the heritage of the sixties and seventies. B. Gorev in the article “N. K. Mikhailovsky and the Revolution”, written on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the death of an outstanding sociologist and publicist, comes to the conclusion that “a supporter of conservative petty-bourgeois socialism, he (N.K. Mikhailovsky), even when he recognized the need for political struggle, recognized only one of its forms: terrorist influence on the government in order to force liberal reforms. At the beginning of the 20th century, in the circles of the democratic, especially populist, intelligentsia, the figure of Mikhailovsky was surrounded by a cult, he was put on a par with the biggest figures liberation movement, such as A. I. Herzen or N. G. Chernyshevsky. However, after 1917, Mikhailovsky's fame faded: he was an opponent of Marxism and a supporter of the theory of heroes and crowds criticized by Marxists; in exile, his legacy was also rarely addressed.
The idea of progress in the history of social thought
Like many sociologists of the 19th century, Mikhailovsky was an evolutionist and tried to find answers to the questions: what is progress, what are its criteria, what general direction movement of progress. At various times, he gave several definitions of progress, not caring about correlating them with each other. It is worth noting that, despite the scattered wording, all of them are united by the fact that Mikhailovsky considered progress through the "prism of the fate of the individual." He considers the influence of society on the individual within the framework of his "progress formula".
Let us consider what Mikhailovsky put into the concept of "individuality". It is worth noting that this concept in his concept is definitely quite broad. “Objectively, the world is an infinitely complex system of individuals in the most diverse relationships. All one is, at the same time, and much, every whole consists of parts, and therefore several stages of individuality can be distinguished, i.e. degrees of independence. Thus, individuality is nothing but a single whole, acting as an independent unit. Group, society, state are different social individuals. A person is also an individual as a certain combination of all the features inherent in the human body.
social ideal
He also proved that the social ideal cannot be considered in the concept natural selection and adaptive behavior that a completely different approach is needed, which would take into account the operation of historical laws. In his work, Mikhailovsky reveals the importance of moral duty. In his opinion, the main difference between the animal world and the human world is that morality, spiritual values, and morality are present in society. Thus, he could not allow individual members of society to survive and even improve at the expense of other people.
Mikhailovsky argued that each person should develop mentally and morally only at the expense of their abilities and strengths, but did not reject voluntary help from other personalities. This theory, proclaiming the value of each individual, organically fit into Mikhailovsky's anthropologism. According to researchers, the “theory of the struggle for individuality” occupies a central place in the concept of personality by N.K. Mikhailovsky. This theory is aimed at identifying the essence of the progress of the individual and social progress, as well as their relationship. Mikhailovsky comes to the conclusion that the result of the struggle for existence is the emergence of practical types, while the struggle for individuality leads to the formation of ideal personality types. If we talk about the degrees and types of development, then the struggle for existence will lead to high degree development, while the struggle for individuality - to a high type of development.
Division of labor
Mikhailovsky, in turn, singled out several types of division of labor: organic, social, technical. First, the physiological division of labor - the division between organs individual person. Social division - the division of labor between people, groups, classes. The third type, technical, is the disintegration of some kind of production into separate components. Mikhailovsky pointed out that the physiological and social division of labor are mutually exclusive. Due to the complication of the social division of labor, the physiological division is weakened. The thinker says that those who spend more time doing physical labor(for example, peasants, workers) or mentally (politicians) "lose signs of integrity." Thus, there are serious changes in human physiology. In the social division of labor, Mikhailovsky sees "a factor of society that sets the direction of the individual, determines the nature of his existence." Society in the process of its development becomes more complex, humanity increases the amount of knowledge about the world, a single person acquires his own specialization.
Thus, a person narrows his horizons, specializing in one narrow direction. She turns into a narrow specialist who loses the idea of life in its entirety, but only focuses on a very small part of it, which includes private life and work. Mikhailovsky says that it is easy to subordinate such personalities to one will, to put them in a dependent position from other people. Mikhailovsky opposes extreme specialization, believing that it contributes to the impoverishment and, to some extent, degradation of the individual. He calls for individual independence. In his opinion, this can be achieved by mastering the personality of other sciences, various crafts, that is, expanding one's horizons.
N.K. Mikhailovsky believed that the division of labor is the basis of the social differentiation of society. Emerging social groups can be characterized by a number of features, namely, the presence of functions, the division of rights and duties, the mismatch of private goals, the heterogeneity of mores and customs. Mikhailovsky singled out two types of ways by which social groups are formed: simple cooperation (collaboration) and complex. Let's consider these types in more detail.
The first type is historically earlier and includes primitive community and the initial era of barbarism. It can be characterized as follows: the activities of people are relatively undifferentiated, hence the similar social functions and interests, one can also note the developed solidarity, mutual assistance, unity of purpose. This type of cooperation is a form of natural division of labor, which contributes to the formation common purpose and growing understanding. Public and individual consciousness are inseparable. In a socially homogeneous environment, individualization of a person takes place, here a full-fledged physical development, the individual is not suppressed by collectivity, which allows her to become an active beginning of social life. Mikhailovsky prefers the simple form of cooperation, because it is closest to his ideas about the social ideal.
Let's turn to
types of cooperations
the second type of cooperation - complex cooperation. It is in this form of cooperation that Mikhailovsky sees the root of social evil. In his opinion, it is based on the economic division of labor, which leads to the stratification of society into different social groups, relative to their level of income. These various groups are engaged in an unceasing struggle for power, which permeates the entire history of mankind. Within the framework of this cooperation, individuals become more homogeneous, as a rule, perform any one function. Individuality is suppressed, "repressed", the former integrity is split and divided into parts. Gradually, there is a blurring of the common goal, which is divided into smaller and narrower subtasks, hostility and misunderstanding between people is growing. AT public consciousness, which arose on the basis of group differentiation, such concepts as prejudices, fashion are strengthened, idols arise, competition is born.
In order to protect the public whole, a huge number of legal, religious, political norms and bonds are being created. In such a society there is no place for solidarity. The result is a society "with unequal, unfree, specialized members arranged in a certain hierarchical order." Mikhailovsky repeatedly emphasized that the forms of cooperation influence the individual and social psyche of a person, shape his views and will. In his work Heroes and the Crowd, Mikhailovsky calls for the struggle to preserve individuality, preserve personal freedom and independence. This, in his opinion, will avoid the transformation of the people as a set of individuals into a crowd, which is subordinated and led by a person with not always moral convictions. And with regard to human history, the struggle for individuality acts as a social struggle, which is the basis for social interaction and leads to a change in the forms of cooperation.
N.K. Mikhailovsky in his reasoning was guided by moral and ethical principles, which allowed him to single out simple cooperation as the most successful form of uniting society. Mikhailovsky formulated the defining foundations of modern community life - the need to provide the individual with greater freedom, independence, the desire for mutual respect and cooperation. At the same time, the actions and motivations of the personality itself should also be based on moral forms and foundations. Perhaps many of the above principles seem ideal today, but it is on the actions of living people that their real embodiment and the future as a whole depend.
findings
Mikhailovsky made a huge contribution to the development of the subjective method, and, in general, emerging sociology in our country. At the center of his sociological reflections is a person - a creatively active person who is able to carry out changes in society. His idea of the need for all-round development of personality and continuous improvement can be seen as defining principles for the development of modern man. Some researchers believe that Mikhailovsky created a special kind of criticism, which is difficult to attribute to any type. He was worried about everything that happens in Russian society, both in the field of scientific thought and in simple everyday terms. Mikhailovsky wrote many critical articles relating not only to the works of Russian thinkers, but also to foreign ones. We can say that his concept of social progress is built precisely on a critical understanding of the works of Darwin, Spencer and Durkheim. In The Struggle for Individuality, he expresses his critical remarks on the theory of the struggle for existence. He categorically disagrees with the followers of Darwin, who transfer the laws in force in the animal kingdom to human society. Ch. Darwin says that in the process of evolution, weak and unadapted individuals die, thereby improving populations. Mikhailovsky argued that human society must fight for each individual, personality. He singled out the presence of morality and morality as one of the main distinguishing features the human world from the animal. And therefore he considered unacceptable the improvement, especially the survival, of one person at the expense of another. Mikhailovsky's criticism of G. Spencer's works, which is aimed at the fact that organic theory does not distinguish between the development of society and nature, retains its theoretical and practical significance in many respects. According to Mikhailovsky, the development of society is based not on biological, but on social processes, namely: the division of labor, the struggle of the new way of life with the old, advanced ideas and social ideals. Note that the theory of division of labor takes important place in the works of Mikhailovsky. But even here criticism was not without criticism, it was directed at the theory of Durkheim, who, according to Mikhailovsky, considered the division of labor only in a general aspect. In "What is Progress?" he points out several of what he believes to be erroneous judgments by Spencer. In Spencer's theory there is no distinction between individual and social progress. Mikhailovsky, on the other hand, shared the progress of society and the progress of the individual and emphasized that neither of these types should be carried out at the expense of the other. He emphasized the importance of creating the necessary conditions for each individual to develop comprehensively. Researchers and critics recognize the inconsistency of Mikhailovsky's work. main reason this is the difficulty in systematizing his numerous works. Many of his ideas seem utopian. But at the center of all Mikhailovsky's works was a person, and the main categories were the concepts: mutual assistance, social solidarity, altruism. He considered the happiness of the individual to be the goal of social progress. In our opinion, this is main value his works.
List of works Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky
I. Complete collection. sochin., in 6 vols., ed. 1st, St. Petersburg, 1879-1883 (3rd ed., 10 vols., St. Petersburg, 1909-1913, ed. E. E. Kolosov; The most important articles by Mikhailovsky in this edition: vol. I. What is progress, Darwin's theory and social science, vol. II. Heroes and the crowd, vol. V. Cruel talent, Chapter I. Uspensky, Shchedrin, Hero of Timelessness (about Lermontov), vol. VII. Memoirs; Literature and life, St. Petersburg, 1892; Literary memories and Modern Troubles, 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1900-1901 (2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1905); Responses, 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1904; Recent compositions, 2 vols., Petersburg, 1905.
III. A list of Mikhailovsky’s works and literature about him were compiled by D. P. Silchevsky and attached to the anniversary collection dedicated to Mikhailovsky, “On a glorious post”, St. Petersburg, 1901 (2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906). More detailed instructions in vol. X “Complete collection. sochin. Mikhailovsky, St. Petersburg, 1913; Vengerov S. A., Sources of the dictionary of Russian writers, vol. IV, P., 1917; Vladislavlev I.V., Russian writers, ed. 4th. Guise, M. - L., 1924.
List of sources
Kareev N.I. In memory of N.K. Mikhailovsky as a sociologist // Russian wealth. 1904. Issue. 3.
History of sociology (XIX - the first half of the XX century) / ed. ed. IN AND. Dobrenkov. M., 2004. Book. one.
Kukushkina E.I. The development of sociology in Russia (from the moment of its inception to the end of the 20th century). M .: "Higher School", 2004. S. 424.
Antonova O.G. Domestic sociology about social progress/ Ed. prof. HELL. Krakhmaleva. - Saratov: Sarat Publishing House. un-ta, 2001, p. 61
An outstanding publicist, sociologist and critic. Genus. November 15, 1842 in Meshchovsk, Kaluga province. , in a poor noble family. He studied at the Mining Corps, where he reached special classes. Already at the age of 18, he entered the literary field in the critical department of Krempin's "Dawn" (see); collaborated in "Knizhny Vestn.", "Glasny Court", "Week", "Nevsky Collection", " Modern review", translated Proudhon's "French Democracy" (St. Petersburg, 1867). Memoirs of this time of debuts, when he led the life of a literary bohemian, M. devoted a significant part of his book "Literature and Life" and in a fictional form the essays "Alternately". he recalls with special warmth about Nozhin, who died early, almost completely unknown, but very gifted scientist and writer, to whom he spiritually owes a lot. notes ", and with the death of Nekrasov (1877) - one of the three editors of the journal (with Saltykov and Eliseev). The most important sociological and critical articles his: "What is Progress", "Darwin's Theory and Social Science", "Suzdalians and Suzdal Criticism", "Voltaire the Man and Voltaire the Thinker", "Organ, Indivisible, Whole", "What is Happiness", "Struggle for Individuality" , "Freemen and Ascetics", "Heroes and the Crowd", "Hand and Shuyts of Count L. Tolstoy", "Cruel Talent", etc. In addition, he monthly led the department of "Literary and Journal Notes", sometimes under the titles: " Profan's notes", "Letters about truth and falsehood", "Letters to learned people", "Letters to ignoramuses". After closing in 1885 "Otech. zap." M. for several years was an employee and member of the editorial board of Sever. Vestn. (under A. M. Evreinova), wrote in "Russian Thought" (a polemic with L. Z. Slonimsky, a number of articles under the title "Literature and Life"), and from the beginning of the 1890s. is at the head of "Russian rich.", where he conducts monthly literary notes under the general title "Literature and Life". M.'s works are collected in volume 6. (St. Petersburg, 1879-87; vols. I-III came out in the 2nd edition, St. Petersburg, 1887-88). Three books of "Critical Experiments" were published separately - "Leo Tolstoy" (St. Petersburg, 1887), "Shchedrin" (M., 1890), "Ivan the Terrible in Russian Literature. Hero of Timelessness" (St. Petersburg) - and "Literature and Life "(St. Petersburg, 1892). To op. Shelgunov and Gleb Uspensky are accompanied by introductory articles by M. An article by M. "Belinsky and Proudhon" (from "Profan's Notes") is attached to the cheap edition of F. F. Pavlenkov's works by Belinsky (St. Petersburg, 1896). The literary activity of M. expresses that creative period recent history Russian advanced thought, which was replaced by the combat period of "storm and onslaught", the overthrow of the old foundations of the social worldview. In this sense, M. was a direct reaction against the extremes and false steps of Pisarev, whose place he took as "the first critic" and "ruler of thoughts" younger generation 60s Chronologically Pisarev's successor, he was essentially the successor of Chernyshevsky, and in his sociological works - the author of Historical Letters. Main merit him in that he understood the danger that lay in Pisarev's propaganda of utilitarian egoism, individualism and "thinking realism", which in their logical development led to the ignorance of public interests. As in their theoretical works in sociology, even more so in his literary critical articles M. again brought to the fore the ideal of service to society and self-sacrifice for the good of the common, and with his teaching on the role of the individual encouraged to start this service immediately. M. is a journalist par excellence; he strives not so much for harmony and logical perfection as for a beneficial effect on the reader. That is why the purely scientific arguments against the "subjective method" do not shake the significance that M.'s sociological studies once had as a journalistic phenomenon. M.'s protest against Spencer's organic theory and his desire to show that in historical life the ideal, the element of the desirable, is of great importance, created in readers a mood hostile to historical fatalism and quietism. The generation of the 1970s, deeply imbued with the ideas of altruism, grew up on M.'s articles and considered him among their main intellectual leaders. - The importance that M. acquired after the very first sociological articles in Otechestvennye Zapiski prompted the editors to transfer to him the role of "first critic"; since the beginning of the 70s. he becomes predominantly a literary observer, only occasionally giving sketches of an exclusively scientific content. Possessing outstanding erudition in the philosophical and social sciences, and at the same time great literary insight, although not aesthetic properties, M. created a special kind, which is difficult to bring under the established types of Russian criticism. This is a response to everything that worried Russian society both in the field of scientific thought and in the field of practical life and current literary phenomena. M. himself, with the confidence of a person to whom no one would attach such an epithet, most readily calls himself a "layman"; the most important part of it literary notes- "Notes of the Profan" (vol. III). With this self-determination, he wanted to separate himself from guild learning, which does not care about life and which strives only for formal truth. The "profane", on the contrary, is only interested in life, approaches every phenomenon with the question: what does it provide for understanding the meaning of human life, does it contribute to the achievement of human happiness? M.'s mockery of guild learning gave rise to accusing him of ridiculing science in general; but in fact, none of the Russian writers of modern times contributed to the popularization of scientific thinking to such an extent as M. He fully implemented the plan of Valerian Maikov (q.v.), who saw in criticism "the only means to lure the public into the network of scientific interest." Brilliant literary talent M., the causticity of style and the very manner of writing - mixing the seriousness and depth of evidence with various "polemical beauties" - all this brings extraordinary animation to the most abstract and "boring" plots; the average public, thanks to M., got acquainted with all the scientific and philosophical topics of the day of the last 25-30 years. Most of all, M. has always paid attention to the development of a worldview. Struggle against the cold complacency of narrow positivism and its desire to free itself from "damned questions"; the fight against Pisarevism, including a protest against Pisarev's views on art (M. called Pisarev's attitude to Pushkin vandalism, as senseless as the destruction of the Vendome Column by the Communards); clarification of the foundations of social altruism and the moral obligations arising from them; elucidation of the dangerous aspects of excessive admiration for the people and one-sided populism; struggle with the ideas of Tolstoy about non-resistance to evil, since they favor social indifference; in last years hot and systematic struggle against the exaggerations of "economic materialism" - these are the main milestones of the tireless, from month to month, magazine activity M. Separate literary phenomena gave M. the opportunity to express many original thoughts and create a few insightful characteristics. The "repentant nobleman", whose type was clarified by M., has long been winged word, like another remark by M., that in the 60s. "a raznochinets came" to literature and life. The definition of "repentant nobleman" captures the very essence of the liberation movement of the 1940s and 1960s, which devoted itself to the cause of the people's welfare with that passionate desire to make amends for its historical guilt before the enslaved people, which Western European democracy, created by the class struggle, does not have. Leo Tolstoy (the articles "Shuitz and the right hand of Count L. Tolstoy" were written in 1875) M. understood very early, having at his disposal only his pedagogical articles, former subject horror for many publicists of the "liberal" camp. M. was the first to reveal those aspects of the spiritual personality of the great artist-thinker, which became obvious to everyone only in the 80s and 90s, after a series of works that completely stunned Tolstoy's former friends with their imaginary surprise. The same critical revelation for the majority was the article by M. "Cruel Talent", which explains one side of Dostoevsky's talent. Great torment Dostoevsky combines in himself with an equally great enlightenment; he is at the same time Ahriman and Ormuzd. M. unilaterally put forward only Ahriman - but these Ahrimanian features he clarified with amazing relief, bringing them together into one vivid image. "Cruel talent" due to the unexpectedness and at the same time irresistible persuasiveness of the conclusions can be compared in our critical literature only with " dark kingdom" Dobrolyubov, where critical analysis also turned into a purely creative synthesis. Compare about M .: P. L. Lavrov in "Notes of the Fatherland" (1870, No. 2); in "Dawn" 1871, No. 2; S. N. Yuzhakov in "Knowledge" 1873, No. 10; Tsitovich, response to "Letters to learned people" (Odessa, 1878); P. Miloslavsky in "Orthodox Interlocutor" (1879) and otd. (" Science and learned people in Russian society", Kazan, 1879); M. Filippov in "Russian wealth" (1887, No. 2); V.K. in "Russian wealth" (1889, No. 3 and 4); L. Z . Slonimsky in the "Bulletin of Europe" (1889, No. 3 and 5), N. Rashkovsky, "N. K. Mikhailovsky before the court of criticism" (Odessa, 1889); N. I. Kareev, "Basic questions of the philosophy of history"; Ya. Kolubovsky, "Additional. to Iberweg-Heinze (S. Yuzhakov in "Russian wealth", 1895, No. 12); A. Volynsky, in the "Northern Bulletin" of the 90s. and dep. "Russian Critics" (St. Petersburg, 189 6).
S. Vengerov.
M. as a sociologist adjoins the Russian direction of positivism, characterized by the so-called (not quite correctly) subjective method. His first major work was devoted to the problem of progress ("What is progress?"), resolving which, he proved the need to evaluate development, guided by a certain ideal, while objectivistic sociologists look at progress only as an indifferent evolution. After all, M.'s ideal is a developed personality. In a number of works, M. subjected to very thorough criticism sociological theory(Spencer), identifying society with an organism and reducing human individuality to the level of a simple cell of a social organism ("Organ, indivisible, society", etc.). The problem of the human personality in society in general is a very important subject of M.'s sociological research, and all his sympathy is on the side of individual development ("The Struggle for Individuality"). At the same time, M. is very interested in the question of the relationship between individual and mass ("Heroes and the crowd", "Pathological magic"), which leads him to very important conclusions in the field of collective psychology. A special category of sociological views of M. are those criticisms that were caused by the application of Darwinism to sociology ("Sociology and Darwinism", etc.). AT recent times in several journal notes M. led a debate with the so-called economic materialism, rightly criticizing this sociological theory as one-sided. All sociological views of M. are distinguished by integrity, versatility and consistency, due to which they can be put into a very definite system, although the author never bothered about their systematic presentation and even left some of the work begun unfinished. A follower of Comte, Darwin, Spencer, Marx, M. reflected in his sociology the most important ideas in this field of the second half of XIX century, being able at the same time to remain completely independent. In general, in sociological literature (and not only Russian) works M. belongs to a very prominent place.
