Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin (born January 21, 1889, Turia, Russia - died February 10, 1968, Winchester, Massachusetts, USA), a Russian-American sociologist who founded the Department of Sociology at Harvard University in 1930. One of the main topics of his research is the problems of sociocultural dynamics. They relate to issues of cultural change and the causes that cause them.
In the history of theory, it is of particular importance to distinguish between two types of sociocultural systems: “sensory” (empirical, dependent on the natural sciences and encouraging them) and “ideational” (mystical, anti-intellectual, dependent on power and faith).
Main ideas
Sorokin's “Sociocultural Dynamics” (the first three volumes were published in 1937) begins with an analysis of cultural integration. Is human culture an organized whole? Or is it an accumulation of values, objects and attributes, connected only by proximity in time and space? Sorokin suggested four relationships between cultural elements. Firstly, mechanical or spatial adjacency, in which they are connected only by proximity. Secondly, the integration of elements as a result of a common association with some external factor. Third, unity as a result of causal functional integration. As well as the highest and last form of cultural connection, logically significant integration.
Sorokin noted that culture consists of millions of people, objects and events with an infinite number of possible connections. Logically meaningful integration organizes these elements into an understandable system and defines the principle that gives the system a logical sequence and meaning. In this form, culture is united around a central idea that gives it unity.
Integration
This idea has its justification in Sorokin. Causal and logically significant integration is based on different principles. In a cause-and-effect analysis, complex objects are reduced to simpler ones until ultimate simplicity or basic unit is reached. The study of the relationship between the basic units in the "Sociocultural dynamics" leads to the disclosure of the nature of their relationship in a more complex structure. Causal functional integration is a continuum.
On the one hand, the elements are so closely related that when one of them is eliminated, the system ceases to exist or undergoes deep modification. On the other hand, a change in one element does not have a noticeable effect on others, because not all cultural traits are causally related. In the logically significant method, reduction to the base units is impossible, because no simple social atoms were found.
Instead, everyone seeks a central meaning that permeates cultural phenomena and combines them into a unity. Causal analysis often describes homogeneities without telling us why they exist. But a person receives a different understanding from the perception of logical unity. A properly trained mind automatically and apodictically (“beyond doubt”) captures the unity of Euclidean geometry, Bach's concert, Shakespeare's sonnet or Parthenon architecture.
At the same time, he clearly sees the relationship and understands why they are what they are. On the contrary, objects can be insidious without any logical connection between them. For example, consumption of chocolate ice cream may increase as juvenile delinquency increases. Although these facts are interrelated, they have no logical connection and do not give an idea of the dynamics of juvenile delinquency.
The ratio of method and principles
Logically significant relationships vary in intensity. Some link cultural elements into sublime unity. Others simply combine them into low degrees of unity. The integration of basic cultural values is the most important form of logical synthesis. Finding a principle that supports this unity allows the scientist to understand the essence, meaning and integrity of culture. Sorokin notes that:
The essence of the logically significant method is ... finding a central principle ("reason") that permeates all the components of [culture], gives meaning and significance to each of them, and thus turns the cosmos into the chaos of non-integrated fragments.
Structure analysis
If the value of the method lies in finding such a principle, one should ask how it can be detected. How to find out what a discovery really is? How can one resolve the various claims of researchers that they have found an organizational principle? The answer to the first question is simple. This principle is discovered by observation, statistical study, logical analysis, intuition and deep thought.
All this is the first stage of a scientific discovery. In turn, validity is determined by the logical purity of the principle. Is he free from contradictions and consistent with the rules of correct thinking? Will she stand the facts that she intends to explain? If so, you can believe in his claim to the truth. The validity of competing claims to truth is defined in the same way: logical purity and explanatory power.
Sorokin in "Sociocultural Dynamics" suggested looking for principles that could embrace the ultimate reality of various types of cultural systems. The most important principle is the one on which culture itself depends in its perception of ultimate reality. What source of information has the highest legitimacy of culture for judging what is real? Sorokin argued that some cultures accept the basis of truth or absolute reality as supersensible and agree that the truths discovered by our senses are illusory.
Others are opposite: ultimate reality is revealed by our feelings, and other forms of perception mislead and confuse us. Different ideas about ultimate reality form the institutions of culture and form its essential character, meaning and personality.
Interaction
Along with considering cultural systems as logical entities, Sorokin suggested that they possess degrees of autonomy and self-regulation. In addition, the most important determinants of the nature and direction of changes in the system are inside the system. Consequently, cultural systems contain inherent mechanisms of self-regulation and self-direction. The history of culture is determined by its internal properties, that is, "its life path is laid in its foundations at the birth of the system."
Therefore, in order to understand the sociocultural dynamics and changes, one cannot rely on theories that emphasize external factors or those who believe that the changes are due to one element of the social system, such as the economy, population or religion. Instead, change is the result of the system expressing its internal propensities for development and maturation. Thus, emphasis should be placed on internal unity and logically significant organization.
Typology
Sorokin classified forms of integrated culture. There are two main types: ideational and sensual, and the third is idealistic, which is formed from their mixture. Sorokin describes them as follows.
Each has its own mentality; own system of truth and knowledge; own philosophy and worldview; own type of religion and standards of "holiness"; own system of good and evil; own forms of art and literature; own morals, laws, code of conduct; their prevailing forms of social relations; own economic and political organization; and, finally, its own type of human personality with a peculiar mentality and behavior. In ideal cultures, reality is perceived as an intangible, eternal being. The needs and goals of people are spiritual and are realized through the desire for supersensible truths.
There are two subclasses of the ideal mentality: ascetic idealism and active idealism. The ascetic form seeks spiritual goals through the denial of material appetites and estrangement from the world. In its extreme expression, the individual completely loses himself in search of unity with the deity or the highest value. Active idealism seeks to reform the sociocultural world in line with growing spirituality and to the goals determined by its main value. Its carriers strive to bring others closer to God and their vision of ultimate reality.
In sensory cultures, a mentality prevails that perceives reality as that which is determined by our feelings. Supersensibility does not exist, and agnosticism forms an attitude towards the world beyond the limits of feelings. Human needs are realized by changing and using the outside world. This culture is the opposite of the ideal in values and institutions.
There are three forms. The first is active, in which needs are met by transforming the physical and sociocultural worlds. The great conquerors and traders of history are examples of this mentality in action. The second is a passive mentality that needs the parasitic exploitation of the physical and cultural world. The world exists simply to satisfy needs; therefore eat, drink and have fun. This mentality has no strong values and follows any instrumental path to satisfaction.
Many cultures fall between these extremes, and Sorokin considers them poorly integrated. An exception is idealistic culture. This is a synthesis in which reality is multifaceted, and needs are both spiritual and material, with the former dominating. A non-integrated form of this type is a pseudo-idealistic culture, in which reality is mostly sensual and needs primarily physical. Unfortunately, the needs are not satisfied, and hardships are regularly transferred. A group of primitive people is an example of this type.
The sociologist also identified models of sociocultural dynamics, which are divided into three groups:
- cyclic (divided into wave and circular);
- evolutionary (single-line and multi-line models);
- synergistic.
Specifications
The theory of sociocultural dynamics of Sorokin describes in detail the ideal features of each type. He presented their social and practical, aesthetic and moral values, the system of truth and knowledge, social power and ideology, as well as their influence on the development of the social self. However, he noted that pure types do not exist. In some cultures, one form predominates, but at the same time it coexists with the characteristics of other types. Sorokin wanted to find real cases of forms of integrated culture.
Concentrating on Greco-Roman and Western civilizations, Sorokin also studied the Middle East, India, China and Japan. He described in detail the trends and fluctuations in their art, scientific discoveries, wars, revolutions, systems of truth and other social phenomena. Avoiding the cyclical theory of change, Sorokin noted that cultural institutions go through ideal, sensual and idealistic periods, often separated by times of crisis during the transition from one to another.
In his concept of sociocultural dynamics, he explained these changes as the result of the action of immanent determinism and the principle of limits. By immanent determinism, he meant that social systems, like biological ones, change in accordance with their internal capabilities. That is, a functioning dynamic organization of the system sets the boundaries and possibilities for change.
Systems, however, have limitations. For example, when they become more and more sensitive, moving in the direction of a cynical sensation, they reach the limits or limits of their potential for expansion. Dialectically, the movement to the extreme of sensitivity creates ideal counter-trends, which intensify as the system polarizes. These counter-trends cause disorder and disorganization and lead the system to a more idealistic form.
As dialectical changes are reflected in culture, violence, revolutions and wars intensify when culture tries to adapt to a new configuration or structure. Therefore, the study of change should be focused on internal organization (immanent determinism) and understanding that the system can go so far in any particular direction (the principle of limits) before it begins to transform.
Justification
Sociocultural dynamics is filled with data from testing the Sorokin hypothesis in various contexts and periods. Patterns of changes in art, philosophy, science and ethics have been carefully studied in search of principles to explain their transformation. In each case, Pitirim Sorokin found support for his theory. For example, his analysis of the Greco-Roman and Western philosophical systems showed that until 500 BC. e. these systems were pretty much perfect. By the fourth century BC they were idealists, and from 300 to 100 BC. e. they moved to the period of sensual domination.
From the first century BC to 400, there was a period of transition and crisis, followed by a revival of ideological philosophy from the fifth to the twelfth century. This was followed by an idealistic period and another transition, which brings us to the dominance of sensory philosophy, from the sixteenth century to the present day. The analysis was carried out in a similar way for other social phenomena.
Models of war, revolution, crime, violence and legal systems were also analyzed by a sociologist. However, they are mainly regarded as transitional phenomena. Sorokin resisted the temptation to link wars and revolutions with sensory and ideational cultures. Instead, his analysis shows that revolutions occur as a result of a loss of compatibility between core values. The better the culture is integrated, the greater the likelihood of peace.
As the value of integration decreases, unrest, violence and crime increase. In the same way, war demonstrates the rupture of crystallized social relations between nations. In his analysis of 967 conflicts, Sorokin showed that wars intensify in transition. These changes often make the value systems of the affected societies incompatible. War is the result of the disintegration of these intercultural relationships.