What has changed in the structure of society. Changes in the social structure of Russian society in the transition period. Remember how Cossack communities were governed

Social (stratification) structure refers to the stratification and hierarchical organization of various layers of society, as well as the set of institutions and relations between them. The term “stratification” originates from the Latin word stratum - layer, layer. Strata are large groups of people that differ in their position in the social structure of society.

Scientists agree that the basis of the stratification structure of society is the natural and social inequality of people. However, on the question of what exactly serves as a criterion for inequality, their opinions differ. Studying the process of stratification in society, K. Marx called such a criterion the fact of a person’s possession of property and the level of his income. M. Weber added to them social prestige and the subject’s affiliation with political parties and power. P. Sorokin considered the cause of stratification to be the uneven distribution of rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties in society. He also argued that social space has many other criteria for differentiation: it can be carried out by citizenship, occupation, nationality, religious affiliation, etc. Finally, supporters of the theory of structural functionalism proposed to take into account as a criterion the social functions that are performed by certain other social strata in society.

In modern society, three stratification levels can be distinguished: highest, middle and lowest. In economically developed countries, the average level is predominant, giving society a certain stability. Within each level there is also a hierarchically ordered set of different social strata. These usually include the following strata blocks:

1) professional administrators;

2) technical specialists;

3) entrepreneurs;

4) intellectuals engaged in various types of mental work;

5) skilled workers;

6) unskilled workers, etc. A person who occupies some place in this

structure, has the ability to move from one level to another, increasing or decreasing one’s social status, or from one group located at any level to another, located at the same level. This transition is called social mobility. In the first case we talk about vertical mobility, in the second - about horizontal mobility. A high rate of vertical social mobility, other things being equal, is considered an important evidence of a democratic society.

The qualitative changes taking place today in the economy of modern Russian society have entailed serious changes in its social structure. The currently emerging social hierarchy is characterized by inconsistency, instability and a tendency to significant changes. The highest stratum (or elite) today can include representatives of the emerging bourgeoisie, the state apparatus, as well as intellectuals involved in the financial business (they make up about 3-5% of the population). The creation of the so-called middle class in Russia is just beginning today (it is assumed that it will mainly include representatives of the entrepreneurial class, as well as workers engaged in highly skilled labor and knowledge workers). At the moment, according to sociological research, the number of people belonging to this stratification level ranges from 10 to 15%. Finally, the lowest stratum in modern Russia is workers of various professions, engaged in medium and low-skilled work, as well as clerical workers (approximately 80% of the population). It should be noted that the process of social mobility between these levels in Russia is limited. This may become one of the prerequisites for future conflicts in society.

The main trends observed in the change in the social structure of modern Russian society:

1) social polarization, i.e. stratification into rich and poor, deepening social and property differentiation;

2) the erosion of the intelligentsia, which manifests itself either in the mass departure of individuals from the sphere of mental work, or in their change of place of residence (the so-called “brain drain”);

3) the process of blurring the boundaries between specialists with higher education and highly qualified workers.

The transformations of social institutions in the Republic of Uzbekistan that have taken place in recent years have seriously affected its social structure. Relations between property and power have changed and continue to change, the mechanism of social stratification is being rebuilt, and there is an intensive change of elites. New social groups appear on the stage of public life, certain layers change their social status. There is a process of polarization of society. The scale and turnover of financial resources are becoming more and more complex.

Taking into account all of the above, the system of group interests, modes of behavior, and social interactions is changing. These, at first glance, disparate phenomena are different aspects of the process of social transformation of society. Therefore, it is important to study them not only separately, but also taking into account their connections with each other.

The fundamental scientific task is to describe society as an integral social system, transforming, first of all, under the influence of internal driving forces.

There are various sociological theories on the social structure of society. These include most of the leading sociological concepts that explain the behavior of an individual or group in terms of their place in the social structure. Accordingly, another important feature of these concepts is the recognition of the determining role of social structure in relation to its constituent elements.

Modern concepts in this direction are also characterized by an understanding of structure not as a frozen configuration, but as a dynamically developing whole. The source of change, in this case, is the interaction of its constituent elements.

Concepts of social structure have many variations, of which two main models stand out:

distribution

The distribution model represents the social structure in the form of systems of interconnected social positions that have various measurable characteristics (age, profession, education, income, etc.). At the same time, differences and variations in the behavior of individuals and groups are explained by the social position they occupy, that is, their place in society. The focus of these researchers is on issues of social mobility and integrative aspects (problems) of social differentiation.

The network model explains the behavior of an individual and a group by the various configurations of social networks in which they are embedded. The main elements of the social network system are the so-called “nodes” and “blocks” of connections, differing in intensity and density.

However, at the present stage, one of the key concepts of social structure is the concept of social stratification. The foundations of the modern approach to the study of social stratification were laid by Max Weber, who considered the social structure of society as a multidimensional system in which, along with property relations and classes, status and power play an important role. In the most general sense, social status is the position of an individual occupied in society in accordance with age, gender, origin, profession, and marital status. There are innate (nationality, social origin, etc.) and attainable (education, qualifications, etc.) statuses. At the same time, it is important to distinguish social status from personal status, that is, the position that a person occupies in a particular primary group depending on how he is assessed as a social being.

The most important characteristics of a social system are, firstly, the social structure, i.e. the composition, position and relationships of the groups that determine its development and, secondly, the stratification of society, or the location of these groups on the hierarchical scale of social statuses. The main criteria for the status of social groups, and accordingly the social stratification of society, are considered to be:

1) political potential, expressed in the scope of power and management functions;

2) economic potential, manifested in the scale of property, income received and standard of living;

3) sociocultural potential, reflecting the level of education, qualifications and professionalism of workers, features of the lifestyle and quality of life;

4) social prestige, which is a concentrated reflection of the above characteristics.

All these criteria are to a certain extent connected, but at the same time they form relatively independent axes of stratification space. Uzbekistan is in the stage of transition from post-totalitarianism to political pluralism and democracy and from a state-owned administrative and distribution economy to a socially oriented market economy. Accordingly, the criteria of social stratification are transitional in nature, the processes of change of which are quite complex, since the breakdown of old social relations precedes the formation of new ones. To understand the shifts taking place in this area, it is useful to compare the main features of the stratification of the current and “pre-perestroika” society of the Republic of Uzbekistan, from which the transformation process began. In the stratification of Soviet society, political capital played a decisive role, determined by the place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy. The place of individuals and groups in the system of power and management determined not only the volume of administrative rights they had and the level of decision-making, but also the range of social connections and the scale of informal opportunities. The stability of the political system determined the stability of the composition and position of the political elite - the "nomenklatura", as well as its isolation and alienation from the groups it controlled. The current situation is characterized by democratization and a sharp weakening of state power. The mechanism for reproducing the stratification of the ruling layer according to the nomenklatura principle that developed in Soviet times has been destroyed. The system of government bodies has been reformed, significantly restructured - some of them have been liquidated, others have only been organized, and others have fundamentally changed their functions. As a result of radical transformations, the country has a qualitatively new system of senior government positions. The personnel of those occupying these positions has also been updated, the vast majority of whom came from other areas of activity. Thus, the previously closed upper layer of society opened up to people from other social groups. The role of public groups in economic management, in the privatization of public property, and in the management of material and financial resources has come to the forefront. Redistribution of accumulated wealth is one of the leading areas of management activity, where the role of political power has increased.

As for economic stratification within the framework of social stratification, modern ideas about the factors, criteria and patterns of stratification of society in the Republic of Uzbekistan make it possible to identify layers and groups that presumably differ in both social status and place in the social transformation process. According to the hypothesis we have adopted, society consists of four social strata: upper, middle, basic and lower. The upper layer is understood, first of all, as the real ruling layer, acting as the main subject of reforms. It includes elite and subelite groups that occupy the most important positions in the public administration system, in economic and security structures. The groups of elites and sub-elites that form this layer often have different interests and pursue different goals. But all of them are united by the fact of being in power and the ability to exert direct influence on the transformation process, especially on those aspects of it that are initiated by reforms “from above.”

The second layer is called the middle layer, firstly, taking into account its position on the social scale and, secondly, because it is the embryo of the emerging middle layer. True, the majority of its representatives do not yet have the capital that ensures personal independence, or the level of professionalism that meets the requirements of a post-industrial society, or high social prestige. Moreover, this layer is still too small to serve as a guarantor of social stability. However, a full-fledged middle stratum in Uzbekistan can only be formed on the basis of current small entrepreneurs, managers of medium and small enterprises, the middle level of the bureaucracy, senior officers and other, the most qualified and capable specialists and workers.

The role played by the middle layer in the transformation process is determined by its high professional and qualification potential for the conditions of Uzbekistan, the ability to adapt to changing conditions, active and interested participation in the transformation of outdated public institutions, a relatively favorable financial situation, and a general interest in continuing reforms.

At present, this layer, despite its low power, is gradually turning into a social support and the main driving force of reforms, implemented primarily through its efforts. If the top layer embodies the goal-setting and will of society, then the middle layer serves as the bearer of the energy principle and mass daily social-transformative activities. The basic social layer is very massive, it covers almost 2/3 of society. Its representatives have average professional qualifications and relatively limited labor potential. His main efforts in modern conditions are directed not at transforming reality in accordance with his own interests, but at adapting to those changes that occur on the initiative of others, often at finding ways to survive. Nevertheless, the forms and methods of adaptive behavior of the base layer have a great influence on the course of transformation processes. In some cases, it can slow them down, in others - accelerate them, in others - change the social orientation of institutional shifts, compared to what was projected by the “top”.

This stratum includes the bulk of the intelligentsia (specialists), semi-intelligentsia (assistants to specialists), technical personnel, workers in mass trade and service professions, as well as most of the dekhkans (peasants).

Although the social status, mentality, interests and behavior of these groups are different, their role in the transformation process is quite similar. This is, first of all, adaptation to changing conditions in order to survive,, if possible, maintain the achieved status, support loved ones, and put children on their feet.

The structure and functions of the lower layer, which closes the main, socialized part of society, seems to be the least clear. As part of the modern transformation process, this layer acts more like a victim than an active participant in innovation. The distinctive features of its representatives are low activity potential and inability to adapt to the harsh socio-economic conditions of the transition period. Basically, this layer consists either of elderly, poorly educated, not very healthy and strong people, who also have not earned sufficient pensions, or of those who do not have a profession, and often a permanent occupation, the unemployed. This part of society members needs social protection, assistance and support.

Empirically, this layer can be identified on the basis of such characteristics as very low personal and family income, little education, employment in unskilled labor or lack of permanent work. The dynamics of the number and composition of the lower layer can serve as an important indicator of the social results of reforms.

Social strata of society have different activity-adaptation potential, i.e. unequal ability to be involved in the formation of new social institutions, to participate in their development and strengthening, to use them in their own interests, to actively adapt to a changing reality and, as a result, improve or at least maintain their status. Hence the qualitatively different role of these layers in the transformation process.

The ability for active social-innovative activities and effective adaptive behavior significantly depends on the socio-demographic potential of the strata.

Representatives of different social strata differ significantly from each other in the type of places they live. As is known, large cities with their rich information environment provide their residents with better opportunities for socialization, self-realization and adaptation to changing conditions than small peripheral settlements. The city of Tashkent especially stands out in this regard. The middle stratum lags somewhat behind the upper stratum in terms of the proportion of people with special education, since it includes, along with specialists, entrepreneurs and skilled workers. However, the ratio of high and low self-assessments of qualifications is most favorable here. Perhaps this is reflected not only in the level, but also in the better quality of education received in prestigious metropolitan universities, the availability of postgraduate training, as well as academic degrees and titles. All this is most characteristic of the middle layer. In the base stratum, people with special education make up about 1/2, but the majority of them have secondary education. There are 2 times fewer specialists with higher education here than on average, and 2.5 times fewer than in the upper layer.

The analysis shows that social strata of society have very different socio-demographic prerequisites for adapting to new conditions and participating in social innovation activities.

Property inequality, important in itself, becomes an expression of many other social inequalities: gender, age, urban, settlement, industry, professional, managerial, etc. In turn, the level of income significantly influences such aspects of social status as the type of consumption and lifestyle, the opportunity to start a business, establish useful social connections, advance in career, provide children with a quality education, etc. Because of this, income differentiation forms the basis of social stratification, at least in modern Uzbekistan.

Once in the lower social strata, previously well-to-do people retain high aspirations, while the poor who become rich have relatively moderate demands on income. In order to determine which of these assumptions is closer to the truth, let’s try to assess the degree to which the economic claims of the strata in question are satisfied.

For this purpose, two indicators are used: a) the ratio of the actual income of families to ideas about its sufficient level and b) the ratio of the actual cash income of workers to the level of minimum necessary, in their opinion, earnings. Higher income expectations compared to their actual level are a natural, widespread and positive phenomenon. As a rule, such claims motivate people to be more active in their work, to improve their skills, to participate in business, etc. The only question is the extent: if the difference between actual earnings and the income that ensures, in a person’s opinion, a “normal life”, passes a certain limit, the incentive to intensify constructive activity is replaced by indifference, alienation from work, an increase in protest, and is also accompanied by a violation of legal norms and criminal ways to satisfy their requests.

In modern conditions, the task of the science “Social Economics” is to objectively assess the economic and social results of the transformation process in Uzbekistan, the degree of its compliance with the interests of mass social groups and layers, the ways and possibilities of their adaptation to the market. Thus, scientific research in this direction could contribute to the development of a strategy for bringing the country into the ranks of the most socially prosperous countries in the world.

Economic potential of social groups

The basis of the social economy, its driving force is the interaction of economic, social, demographic, regional and other factors. It is this interaction that has always created and is creating a rather motley picture of the economic stratification of the population.

In the conditions of market reform, the economic potential of public groups includes three components:

1) ownership of income-generating capital,

2) involvement in the processes of distribution, movement and exchange of social product and

3) level of personal income and consumption.

At the same time, in the conditions of emerging market relations, a special role belongs to the first component. This is explained by the fact that various forms of non-state ownership are actively being formed (individual, group, cooperative, shared, mixed, corporate, etc.). Different types of capital arise (financial, commercial, industrial, intellectual).

In social terms, the owners of private capital stood out more or less clearly. Among them there are large, medium, and small ones, corresponding, respectively, to different strata of society. A special place is occupied by farmers who own personal farms and gradually become actual owners of land (with the exception of its sale). The second of the named components of economic potential, which previously dominated, is now losing ground to the first. This is due to the fact that the economic status of the average owner is higher than that of a qualified manager. In addition, as the processes of denationalization and privatization deepen, material and financial resources acquire interested owners, which reduces the possibility of their being stolen. Unfortunately, measuring the degree of involvement of different economic, professional and official groups in distribution mechanisms is not easy. Most likely, the same groups are distinguished on this basis as before: heads of state and mixed enterprises, including joint-stock companies, senior officials and trade specialists; logistics employees; as well as business professionals such as merchants, brokers, dealers, etc. The share of citizens who have neither their own capital nor access to the distribution of government benefits has decreased in recent years, and they still constitute the largest part of society. The economic potential of these people is determined by the level of income from hired work. The main changes in their situation consist, firstly, in a much sharper property polarization than before and, secondly, in the almost complete disappearance of the dependence between labor and income.

The key criterion for social stratification is professional stratification, which is determined by the level of complexity of work. Another, no less important, criterion is the income received and material well-being, that is, economic stratification.

For the purpose of a more simplified analysis of social stratification during the transition period in the Republic of Uzbekistan, we will consider three main groups of professional stratification:

1) the first stratum includes workers engaged primarily in simple types of labor with monotonously repeating actions and types of work (for example, assembly line workers, salespeople, auxiliary workers, etc.);

2) the second stratum - workers with predominantly complex intellectual work based on known methods and techniques (engineers, teachers, doctors, managers, etc.);

3) the third stratum - workers with an innovative, creative nature of work based on non-traditional approaches (scientists, politicians, some production organizers, etc.).

In the conditions of market relations and the emerging social economy, the presence of ample opportunities and accessibility to move from one stratum to another stimulates a person’s active participation in social production and the growth of his professional and educational level.

Multi-structure and multi-sectoral economy

Social economics, in its deepest essence, presupposes pluralism, diversity and democracy in social forms and manifestations of public life.

At the initial stage of the transition period, the formation of a mixed economy, the liberalization of property relations and forms of income received, state regulation of wages, the absence of a national labor market, the widespread development of self-employment, the presence of local unemployment, frequent delays in wages for work already performed, led to profound changes in income sector. At the same time, part of the population found itself below the poverty line, while others became rich. Objectively, the prerequisites and conditions for differences in income and living standards of the population are emerging.

The processes of intensive disintegration of old and the formation of new social institutions, characteristic of the present time, enhance labor and social mobility. In this regard, the role of such personal human qualities as giftedness or talent, level of socialization, competence, ability to master new knowledge, cultural outlook, etc. is noticeably increasing. The value of professionalism increases, and hence the role of sociocultural capital.

But this is only a trend, since upward social mobility is equally promoted by qualities that are weakly related to cultural potential - youth, energy, will, ambition, organizational skills, willingness to take risks, physical strength, aggressiveness, moral promiscuity, etc. In addition, today society, as a rule, needs only that part of the cultural potential that can be used “here and now.” Hence, there is a relatively high demand for qualified and experienced engineers, doctors and managers, while there is a growing lack of demand for scientists, cultural and artistic workers, and various kinds of humanists. In our opinion, in Uzbekistan there are two relatively separate systems for public assessment of the sociocultural potential of workers. The first operates in the non-state sector, which has a need for qualified specialists and is ready to pay highly for their work.

The second, traditionally preserved in the public sector, still bears the imprint of egalitarianism and a nihilistic attitude towards mental work. As a result, there is a stratification of the intelligentsia into strata that differ significantly in their position. The upper stratum is represented by highly paid, qualified specialists in management, economics and law, people employed in the banking sector, joint ventures, and the private sector of the economy; secondary - specialists in scientific and technical fields, oil and gas, geological and other export industries; the lower one consists of social and humanitarian specialists left to their own devices, employed in public sector sectors.

In general, the structure of society has undergone noticeable changes compared to Soviet times, but at the same time, it retains many of the same features.

For its significant transformation, a systemic transformation of the institutions of property and power is necessary, which will take many years. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity. The boundaries between groups and layers will begin to “blur”, and many marginal groups with an uncertain or contradictory status will emerge. At first glance, this trend resembles the erosion of social class structure observed in the most developed Western societies, but, most likely, this similarity is formal. The fact is that the emergence of relatively homogeneous “middle class societies” is characteristic of post-industrialism.

In Uzbekistan, in a transitional economy, social and class differences in the position of social groups acquire particular significance. They are drawn even more sharply than before, largely determining other aspects of social status.

Research in recent years has laid the foundation for an objective study of the social structure of society, but domestic science does not yet have reliable knowledge of this structure. A number of works are devoted to the analysis of individual aspects of social structure, but most of them are either limited to a theoretical analysis of the problem, or are devoted to the study of individual, albeit very important, social groups, without connection with the broader whole. The scientific literature quite widely presents social portraits of groups and strata that occupy important places in the social hierarchy.

Particularly, emerging and intensively developing socially active groups belonging to

to the so-called “middle layer” (primarily entrepreneurs).

The dynamic aspect of sociostructural studies is often limited to the analysis of shifts in the size and composition of social groups. The connections and interactions of social groups, reflecting the systemic nature of the social structure and the underlying mechanisms of the functioning and development of society, have been studied even less well. Most sociostructural studies concern the "anatomy" rather than the "physiology" of society. Therefore, their subject turns out to be devoid of inner life and mechanisms of self-development.

Russia is in the stage of transition from totalitarianism to democracy and from a state-administered administrative-distributive to a market economy. Accordingly, the transition period bears the criteria of social stratification. In the social stratification of Soviet society, political capital played a decisive role, determined by the place of social groups in the party-state hierarchy. The place of individuals and groups in the system of power and management predetermined not only the volume of administrative rights they had and the level of decision-making, but also the range of social connections and the scope of informal opportunities. The stability of the political system determined the stability of the composition and position of the political elite - the “nomenklatura”, as well as its isolation and isolation from the groups it controlled.

The current situation is characterized by a sharp weakening of state power. The intense struggle of political parties and groups, the lack of development of their constructive programs, the loss of people's trust in most political institutions, the unprecedented spread of lawlessness and corruption determine the rapid turnover of politicians and the instability of the political system as a whole. The system of stratification of the ruling stratum according to the nomenklatura principle that emerged in Soviet times is in a state of “half-life” - its skeleton is still preserved, but the mechanism of reproduction has been destroyed. Formally, today we have a new system of senior government positions. The personnel of those occupying these positions has also been updated, some of whom came from other areas of activity. Thus, the previously closed upper layer of society opened up to people from other groups. At first glance, the former nomenklatura is gone; it has disappeared, dissolving into other strata of society. But in reality it was preserved. Moreover, more than half of the quasi-nomenklatura positions are occupied by the former political elite, implementing models of management activity characteristic of the Soviet system. Members of the former nomenklatura maintain stable business ties that contribute to the preservation of their inherent class consciousness.

The economic potential of different social groups in the USSR was measured by the measure of their participation in the ownership, distribution and use of social wealth. Based on this criterion, the following groups were distinguished: 1) bureaucracy; 2) production managers; 3) workers in logistics, wholesale and retail trade, service industries, etc. The mass strata of society had no rights, and their economic stratification was determined by the level of earnings and family income, which depended on many factors, starting with the nature and content of labor, the spheres and industries of its application, the departmental affiliation of enterprises, and ending with the number and composition of families. The interaction of economic, social, regional, demographic and other factors created a rather motley picture of the economic stratification of the population.

Currently, the economic potential of social groups includes three components: 1) ownership of capital that generates income; 2) involvement in the processes of distribution, movement and exchange of a social product; 3) level of personal income and consumption. A special role belongs to the first component. Various forms of non-state ownership are actively being formed (individual, group, cooperative, joint stock, corporate, etc.), and different types of capital are emerging (financial, commercial, industrial). In social terms, the owners of private capital stood out more or less clearly. Among them there are very large, and medium, and small, corresponding, respectively, to different layers. A special place is occupied by peasants who own private farms and become land owners. However, the overwhelming majority of Russians do not have any productive property.

The share of Russians who do not have their own capital, as well as access to the distribution of government benefits, has decreased slightly in recent years. But they still make up the largest part of society. The economic potential of these people is determined by the level of income from hired work. The main changes in their situation consist, firstly, in a much sharper property polarization than before and, secondly, in the almost complete disappearance of the dependence between labor and income. More than 60% of the population was pushed below the poverty line.

Labor and social mobility is increasing. In this regard, the role of such personal human qualities as giftedness or talent, level of socialization, quality of education, competence, ability to master new knowledge, cultural outlook, etc. is noticeably increasing. The value of professionalism increases, and hence the role of sociocultural capital.

In addition, today Russian society will demand only that part of the cultural potential that can be used “here and now.” Hence, there is a relatively high demand for qualified, enterprising and experienced specialists, with a growing lack of demand for all others.

In general, the structure of Russian society has undergone noticeable changes compared to Soviet times, but at the same time it retains many of the same features. For its significant transformation, a systemic transformation of the institutions of property and power is necessary, which will take many years. Meanwhile, the stratification of society will continue to lose rigidity and unambiguity. The boundaries between groups and layers will begin to “blur”, and many marginal groups with an uncertain or contradictory status will emerge. In the West, the emergence of relatively homogeneous “middle class societies” is characteristic of post-industrialism. Russia has not only not outgrown the industrial stage of development, but is also experiencing a severe crisis that has thrown its economy far back. Under these conditions, social-class differences in the position of social groups acquire particular significance. They are drawn even more sharply than before, largely determining other aspects of social status.

In the last decade of the twentieth century. the ratio of social strata of Russian society was 1:24:68:7. This means that the upper and middle strata, which are the main drivers of reform, accounted for approximately a quarter of the economically active population. In developed Western countries, the middle class, consisting of similar socio-professional groups, represents the bulk of the population and occupies a significantly higher position. The combination of these features gives him the role of a social stabilizer of society. In Russia, the corresponding groups are less developed, have different sociocultural characteristics and have a much lower status. The middle layer, as already noted, goes through the “embryonic stage” here.

The overwhelming majority of Russians (68%) belong to a relatively poorly differentiated base stratum of society. The content of their work only basically corresponds to the industrial stage of development of society. The social significance of this layer is due to the fact that it concentrates the bulk of the labor and consumer potential of Russia, its electorate and army. Compared to the upper and middle layers, its interests are less articulated, and its behavior in the business and political spheres is less active. However, in critical conditions, the position, social mood and behavior of this layer can become a determining factor in the historical development of Russia.

The social strata of Russian society have different socio-demographic potential, unequal ability to be involved in the formation of new public institutions, to participate in their development and strengthening. Hence the qualitatively different role of these layers in the transformation process. The ability for active social-innovative activity and effective adaptive behavior also significantly depends on the socio-demographic potential of the strata.

There is a great difference in the position of men and women. Thus, in the upper stratum there are four times fewer women than in the lower stratum, and the proportion of men is 3 times larger, which hardly requires comment. In the upper stratum there are almost twice as many young people as in the lower stratum, and there are 20 times fewer elderly people. The national aspect of the stratification of Russian society is expressed in the fact that in the upper strata there is a noticeably larger share of the non-Russian population than in the lower strata. Representatives of the compared strata differ significantly in the type of places they live. As is known, large cities with their rich information environment provide their residents with better opportunities for socialization, self-realization and adaptation to changing conditions than small peripheral settlements. The upper layer is concentrated in large cities and capitals, while representatives of the base and lower layers often live in small towns and villages.

The middle stratum lags somewhat behind the upper stratum in terms of the proportion of people with special education, since it includes, along with specialists, semi-entrepreneurs and skilled workers. However, the ratio of high and low self-assessments of qualifications is most favorable here. Perhaps this is reflected not only in the level, but also in the better quality of education received in prestigious metropolitan universities, the availability of post-graduate training, as well as academic degrees and titles. All this is most characteristic of the middle layer.

The lower stratum stands out from the rest both in the small proportion of people with special education and in the low self-esteem of their qualifications even within the simplest professions. Two-fifths of its representatives either find it difficult to determine the level of their qualifications or rate them as low. Only 2% continue to study (versus 8% in the upper and 5% in the middle and basic layers).

To assess the status of the strata under study, the following characteristics are used: ownership of productive property (capital), employment status, employment sector by form of ownership, socio-sectoral sphere of employment, place in the managerial hierarchy (job status), degree of well-being.

The top layer is formed by the owners of private enterprises and firms. Its representatives occupy an important place in the hierarchy of economic management, as they make strategic decisions and determine the main lines of business development. In terms of living standards, this stratum is significantly separated from others. The outpacing growth of his income in comparison with prices determines the concentration in his hands of an ever-increasing share of social wealth.

The composition of the middle stratum is more diverse: about a third of its representatives run their own companies or are engaged in individual business, many combine running their own business with professional hired work. Employment predominates in the private and corporatized sectors of the economy. The managerial potential of this layer is lower than that of the upper layer, but still quite serious: a quarter of it is made up of directors and managers of enterprises, organizations and institutions, while the share of those who consider themselves managers is even higher. A significant part of this layer is made up of specialists who perform administrative functions in relation to service workers. The level of well-being of the middle layer is 2.5-3 times lower than that of the upper layer, but to the same extent higher than that of the base layer. Most of its representatives live at a level of at least relative prosperity.

As for the base and lower layers, their socio-economic status does not differ very much. Both layers are represented by performing labor workers, mainly employed in the public sector. The difference is that the economic situation of the base layer can be described as difficult, while that of the lower layer is critical.

The majority of Russians expected from perestroika, if not instantaneous, but rather rapid growth in prosperity and improvement in living conditions. In fact, market reforms led to a sharp deterioration in their financial situation.

An integrative indicator of the place of a social stratum in the social structure is its standard of living. Statistically, at the turn of the 20th/21st centuries. his picture looked like this: 7% of the population live richly (1.5%) and at a level significantly higher than the BPM (budget subsistence level); 20% of the population have 1.5-2 subsistence minimums and on this basis consider themselves more or less well off; 73% of the population, regardless of their culture, education, qualifications, is a zone of complete poverty. The difference in income between the rich and the poor is more than 30 times, whereas it is considered devastating at a gap of 6-7 times.

Given these realities, today it is urgently necessary for the state to focus on a strong social policy. The society is extremely dynamic. Various classes, strata, and social groups constantly appear and disappear in it. The flexibility of the institutional system, its ability to adequately respond to the changed balance of power is an important factor in the stability of society. Otherwise, phenomena and processes of an unpredictable nature are growing in society.

The specificity of Russian reality lies in the fact that in the conditions of a transitional state of society, more and more groups are appearing at the intersections of different social classes.

Russian society is also distinguished by the fact that ideological and political factors play a large role in its formation. It is no secret that radical democrats pursued a policy of rapid redistribution of property and the creation of new social groups that provided them with political support.

It is widely known that the new post-perestroika era has brought fundamental changes to the social structure of Russian society. The peaceful revolution that took place essentially revived the system of previous capitalist relations destroyed in its time by October and led to the coexistence of private property with state property, which was commonly called socialist. The result of this is the influence of the changes that have taken place not only on the class, but also on the socio-professional, socio-functional structure of society.

The political aspect of the new formations of the social structure is obvious. The political essence of the structure of society in the past was the main subject of social falsification in the interests of power. For a long time, party and state ideologists successfully masked the real position of the working class with myths about its leading role. In modern Russia, the social structure is rather unconsciously politicized by the cult of the “middle class,” which prevents the awareness of the real class polarization of our society and hides the aggravation of contradictions between labor and capital.

What is the essence of qualitative changes in the social structure of our society? In the past, under a totalitarian system, the hierarchy of social groups sharing the rights to use property was clearly (unambiguously) expressed while centralizing the function of “disposing” of property and alienating the function of “owning” it. Now in modern society the structure is class differentiated by the proportions of different types of property, including private, and the functions of not only disposal, but also ownership. social society stratification Russian

Under the new conditions, the former status of social groups has changed. The upper elite and subelite layers, in addition to the traditional management groups, include large owners - new capitalists. A middle layer has emerged - relatively financially secure and well-established representatives of various social and professional groups, mainly entrepreneurs, managers and some qualified specialists.

Basic, basic, as defined by T.I. Zaslavskaya, the social stratum is the largest in Russia (60-65%). It covers all socio-professional groups of the population with limited property income and socio-political influence - from the mass intelligentsia (teachers, medical workers, technicians, engineers, etc.) to numerous categories of people who work manually. At the base of this cone in the “bottom layer” are predominantly representatives of unskilled labor with the lowest incomes and then at the very “bottom” - lumpen desocial groups.

Such a “layer cut” does not exclude the accepted classical systems of social groupings - class, socio-professional and socio-functional. They are so deep that at one time they affected not only the entire complex of socio-cultural characteristics of groups, but even some anthropological and physiological traits. “Layers” talk about the possibility of a certain blurring of traditional social boundaries, but do not “cancel” them. For example, workers remain workers. The recognition of “layers” does not violate, but only complements the accepted understanding of the traditional structure of society, emphasizing a certain diffusion of its boundaries, both class and socio-professional, as well as socio-functional, associated with the distribution of power.

The class structure is based on the differentiation of property relations, the separation of its owners, managers, employers (direct or indirect) from the hired labor - physical or mental, skilled or unskilled. The social-functional structure, in contrast to the class structure, distinguishes groups not by socio-economic status, but by managerial status - power-control or subordination-execution. Most often, the capitalist class combines ownership with the functions of power and control, although such a direct combination is not necessary. The administrative functions of managers may not be combined with the functions of “ownership”, but only performed in the interests of the ruling elite groups of true owners.

An analysis of the social new formations of modern Russian society reveals the most unusual relations for us in the past, associated with the revival of the classical class structure, determined by the confrontation between labor and capital, with which the distribution of power and partly prestige inevitably corresponds.

Of course, the nature of labor and capital in modern post-industrial societies has changed significantly compared to the era of Karl Marx. Along with the continuing traditional labor of the worker, complex, highly skilled, largely creative labor is expanding, requiring knowledge, initiative and intelligence, which affects the social nature of hired labor. Capital, being in global competition, must take this into account and share the surplus product (surplus value) created by such labor with those who have mastered it. The more creative and large-scale this essentially intellectual work is, the stronger the position of its owners in market relations and, accordingly, the more limited the possibilities for the uncontrolled arbitrariness of capital.

The trend towards the formation of a “middle class” does not eliminate the re-creation in our society of the traditional class structure with the intertwining of state and capitalist property and the further, the more obvious the confrontation between labor and capital, and at the same time a deep social-functional differentiation of power and labor.

If in 1990 no more than 7% of those employed in the economy were employed in the private sector, then in 1997 half of the workers and specialists were already concentrated here, and in subsequent years this growth continued. In 2000, 24.4 million people were employed in the public sector and 27.9 million in the private sector.

A very peculiar social “revolution” took place. Typically, a revolution claims to make “those who were nothing become everything.” In this case, the official nomenclature - the most fortunate of those who were almost “everyone”, have already become them completely and limitlessly. It is no coincidence that the party-state apparatus, as R.V. believes. Ryvkin, “initiated perestroika” when opportunities for this opened up already in the 80s. Those who in the recent past were at party-economic or social-command heights rose even higher, and most importantly acquired a new quality - they became capitalist owners, thereby receiving the legal opportunity to consolidate their dominant positions in society and provide for themselves and their relatives, heirs “up to the seventh generation” with suddenly acquired property, including the means of production. According to V.I. Ilyin, as a result of these changes, “the marketization of the apparatus” took place and favorable soil was created for its “merging with the shadow economy.”

State-owned enterprises in the new system, with the exception of some relatively profitable industries abroad, mainly in raw materials (primarily oil production), for the most part found themselves in a deplorable state. Regardless of inflation, the state began to finance them poorly; wages were not compensated and were often paid with great delays. In the private sector, pay, although often lagging behind previous pre-perestroika norms, was still significantly higher than in the public sector, and was paid much more accurately.

Naturally, relatively more men and young people concentrated in the private sector, as it was more profitable, while highly qualified specialists, especially older ones, lost their former advantage. The main thing for them now remained the flawed state source of income. Such economic development was clearly painful for the country as a whole, if only because private property was primarily established in profitable consumer industries at the expense of many production industries. It is no coincidence that gross industrial production declined sharply in the 1990s. Agriculture has also suffered greatly, now free from organization, and most importantly from the supply of equipment, fertilizers and largely deprived of orders, forced to compete with Western importers.

As a result, there was a noticeable impoverishment of large sections of the population.

In Russia as a whole, “the social and cultural polarization of the “upper” and “lower” has increased many times over: the “poverty zone” has expanded from 18% to 40-50% since the late 80s. People working in the cultural sector especially suffered from low wages , education, science, which remained only on state support. Many industries that could not withstand unusual market relations found themselves in a bad position. The advantages of the consumer sector in the economy had a dramatic impact on the industrial and social-professional structure of the population. The population employed in trade and the service sector increased, where the public sector was reduced to a minimum and remained mainly in industry, partly in transport, and essentially monopolized the cultural sphere, where, accordingly, miserable wages prevailed.

The changes affected the socio-professional structure of the population. The number of workers employed in manufacturing sectors has noticeably decreased, which has affected the generational structure. In the new generation, the proportion of managers, who were often associated with capital, and the group of service personnel, recorded in the categories of low-skilled mental labor, increased. Fundamental changes in the social structure are, naturally, organically connected with the property status and income of social groups of the transformed society.

The socio-economic reasons are partly understandable. According to official data, at least 1/3 of the population in the Russian Federation lives below the subsistence level. This is most often the low-skilled and elderly population. In the country, 1/4 of the population are pensioners, the vast majority of whom are in dire need. But they cannot be the cause and subject of a social explosion.

More problematic are social, largely socio-political reasons. In the past, for active groups of the population, they were to a certain extent removed by the mass consciousness of the open possibilities of social mobility at all social levels, the availability of high social positions in society, the “nationality of the elite”, truly formed not from caste privileged groups, but from the broadest strata of the population.

With the development of private property, the mechanism of social movements changes significantly. The “collapsed” economy has less and less demand for labor. Therefore, for the first time in the entire “post-October” history, it was in the last post-perestroika years that mass social mobility began to narrow.

Age differences have begun to have a noticeable impact on employment and careers. But even in youth groups, the intensity of mobility has decreased somewhat.

From a social point of view, it is important to note the fundamental differences today in social mobility in the public and private sectors of the national economy. Undoubted advantages were discovered in the private sector, since they relied on more capable young and active groups. Entrepreneurs are particularly mobile.

The working class is no longer synonymous with people engaged in manual labor. Rather, it is those who in the base layer - workers, peasants and the mass intelligentsia - belong to the army of wage labor. Such a transformation of classes is inevitable when the industrial basis of production changes and the integrated type of worker-engineering labor, which has much socially in common with the occupations of the mass intelligentsia, expands. All wage labor, including the mass intelligentsia, is a source of undivided surplus value. They objectively oppose the class of capitalist employers and the state “trustees” that have grown together with it.

Social structure is a stable connection of elements in a social system. The main elements of the social structure of society are individuals occupying certain positions (status) and performing certain social functions (roles), the unification of these individuals based on their status characteristics into groups, socio-territorial, ethnic and other communities, etc. Social structure expresses the objective division of society into communities, roles, layers, groups, etc., indicating the different positions of people in relation to each other according to numerous criteria. Each of the elements of the social structure, in turn, is a complex social system with its own subsystems and connections.

Social structure of Russian society over the past 15 years has changed significantly, as the statistical collections of the State Statistics Committee of Russia from 1994 to 2009 clearly show us.

Problems of social structure constantly attract the attention of Russian sociologists. Most studies are united in methodological terms; we will conduct our own analysis based on data from statistical collections and journal articles.

First of all, it is necessary to analyze the numerical composition of the Russian population that makes up our society. From 1994 to 2009, a decrease in population was observed:

1994 – 148,366 thousand people.

2002 – 143954 thousand people.

2008 - 132,000 thousand people.

According to statistics, in Russia as a whole the urban population has been predominant for many years. If the urban population decreases, then the number of rural residents also decreases by approximately the same number of people.

The gender distribution of Russian society is as follows: 47% - men, 53% - women.

These figures have not changed over the past 15 years: 6% higher than females.

The economically active population of Russia is more than 65% of the population. According to statistical collections, the level of economic activity of the population aged 15-72 years changed in the following direction:

The average annual number of people employed in the Russian economy by industry is as follows:

It can be seen that our society - the population of Russia - is most engaged in industry; at the beginning of the 21st century, the number of people employed in trade, healthcare, and financial services is increasing.

If we consider the number of people employed in the Russian economy by type of ownership, we can distinguish several groups (2001 indicators):

1) state and municipal – 24.2%

2) private – 30.8%

3) property of public and religious organizations – 0.5%

4) mixed Russian – 7.5%

5) foreign, joint Russian and foreign – 1.7%

Despite the increased attention of the Russian government to the problem of divorce and the adoption of a number of measures, such as: strengthening the position of demographically oriented programming in the country, the adoption of the presidential program to stimulate the birth rate, the law on maternity capital and others, divorce statistics still remain disappointing. In 2007, according to the State Statistics Committee, for every 100 marriages there were 54 divorces. In 1992, 60% of divorces were registered, in 2000 - 69%.

Over the past two years number of officially registered marriages increased noticeably. But the number of divorces continues to grow rapidly.

For comparison, we can provide approximate data on divorces in other countries.

Percentage of divorces relative to registered marriages is:

In Ukraine 55%,

In Belarus 62%,

In England 42.6%,

In France 38.3%,

In the USA 45.8%,

In Canada 48%,

In Japan 27%,

In India, only 11 out of 1000 marriages end in divorce, that is, 1.1%.

According to the results of sociological surveys conducted in 2007, it turned out that women are more often the initiators of divorce. Among the reasons that prompted dissolve the marriage the following were named: dissimilarity of characters and different views - 33.4%. Drunkenness, alcoholism or the use of psychotropic substances were identified as the main reasons for divorce by 13.5% of women; treason - 8%; presence of another family - 7%; irresponsibility towards the family, unpreparedness for family life - 6.5%.

There are 87 billionaires in Russia with a total capital of $471.4 billion. Russian billionaires pay the lowest taxes in the world (13%), which are unmatched by their colleagues in France and Sweden (57%), Denmark (61%) or Italy (66%). 1.5% of the Russian population owns 50% of the national wealth.

In Russia, only officially registered: - disabled people - more than 12,000,000 - alcoholics - over 4,580,000 - drug addicts - more than 2,370,000 - mentally ill - 978,000 - tuberculosis patients - about 890,000 - hypertensive patients - over 22,400,000 people, - HIV infected - at least 960,000 people.

This is the structure of Russian society. Over the past 15 years, there have been some big changes and some small ones. There are different approaches to studying and considering social processes and changes. The chosen path - the study of statistical collections - most accurately and clearly showed the social structure of Russian society. It is difficult to talk about changes in indicators after 15 years and its reasons, because The psychology of people is changing and the population is only decreasing over the years. Political processes play a major role in the social environment both within Russian society and in external government changes.