What is a status group? Three-component theory of stratification

A set of individuals having the same status is called a status group. The tradition of sociological interpretation of statist groups was started by M. Weber. Along with the economic system, that is, the way of distributing material wealth, he also highlighted the social structure - the way of distributing honor and glory (respect and recognition). Status groups are formed by individuals who are in a similar status situation and are assessed positively or negatively based on authority and prestige.

The stability of prestige assessments is ensured by the lifestyle that individuals of a certain status group adhere to. Status determines where and in what house to live, the circle of friends and acquaintances ("your circle") - those with whom it is decent to be friends, who should be invited to visit, goods to buy and in which stores, what to choose in your free time, how to relax and have fun and much more. So, the existing position must correspond to a lifestyle or consumption style, a certain taste and skills to comply with the rules and rituals that govern everyday life. In other words, status groups are groups of a certain “lifestyle” that is purposefully cultivated.

Developing a consumption style and appropriate behavior requires many years of training, is almost impossible to correct, and is often inherited. What and how a person should do, how to react to certain situations - all this constitutes a kind of code of honor and morality, and is sometimes enshrined in etiquette, a set of rules that regulate the interaction of individuals and their collective behavior.

According to M. Weber, the main features of status groups are most characteristic of the conditions of feudal society. their position in society, benefits and privileges are legally enshrined, based on tradition and monopolistic, unchallenged ownership of goods, opportunities, and resources. In medieval China, the basis of status was not material wealth, but the qualifications of government officials, which were improved by long-term humanitarian education, training in the literary style of business papers and calligraphy. This was also the case for the Russian nobility with its privileges to freely dispose of land, to punish and pardon serfs who were completely subject to them, as well as the obligation to perform public service duties. Moreover, a seedy nobleman remained a nobleman; poverty, which suddenly fell to his lot, did not limit his privileges. Not the circumstances of life, but only the will of the monarch could deprive a status that was indifferent to economic factors.

An important social function of states was the protection of existing privileges, their final consolidation. The goal was to prevent differences in manners and tastes from being leveled out, to disappear, to not succumb to the tendency towards unification, that is, to maintain social distance. Only the desire for such a goal initiates the process of transforming states into more or less closed social formations of a pasty type with restrictions or even a ban on contacts and marriages with representatives of other castes, with an increase in the number of ritual actions and ceremonies, the development of cults, and the like. The marriage of a nobleman with a peasant woman, and of a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the daughter of a Cossack colonel was an exception and served as the basis for the plots of folk love lyrics and later literary works.

It would be a mistake to say that the time of status groups is a thing of the past. Indeed, in the Middle Ages, each craft guild had differences in clothing, rights and privileges. At the end of the 18th century. in Russia and Ukraine, the nobility (nobility) was separated from the mob (Cossacks, peasants) by life customs, education, manners and language, directing everyday communication to the European - German or French - order. Now the face of society is determined by the economic system. It is clear that classes, professional groups and categories have practically no signs of states in the understanding of the possession of legally enforceable rights and life opportunities. More insistently than ever, modern sociologists talk about the advent of “mass society”, “mass culture”, emphasizing the increase in monotony in the life of society and individuals. However, it does not follow from this that modern communities and groups have lost absolutely all the characteristics of “lifestyle” groups.

The culture and lifestyle of the “masses” today are confidently contrasted with the culture and lifestyle of the “elite”. Following Vilfredo Federico Pareto, the elite includes, firstly, a small number of individuals who have achieved great success in their professional activities, obtaining outstanding results. These are, as a rule, geniuses and simply talented people who show extraordinary abilities in various fields of activity: economics, art, science, sports. Secondly, the elite is a fairly narrow circle of people who have state and political power in society. Prestigious leisure and prestigious consumption, imitations of high fashion become possible because an industry has developed to satisfy the tastes and aspirations of the elite, and those who belong to it have the opportunity and means to cultivate the lifestyle that they like.

It is not only the elite who bear the characteristics of status groups. In modern societies, these signs are sometimes characteristic of groups that preserve traditional lifestyles and customs and prefer established and accessible occupations. This is the situation in which people from developing countries find themselves today in economically prosperous countries: Turks in Germany, Mexicans in the USA. Ethnic minorities are generally more closed and quite consistently reproduce the traditional lifestyle - either naturally or forcedly, under the influence of external circumstances.

In addition, economic and political stability against the backdrop of too slow economic growth, as happened in the 70-80s in the USSR, contributes to the establishment of social order or, in other words, to an increase in the importance of the distribution of authority, honor and glory. Honor and glory for economic, construction and other successes were usually addressed to the ruling party and its leaders. It was then that the system of state awarding orders and medals flourished, which contributed to the formation of status groups, and some of them began to “close”, justifying by all available means and consolidating the rights to own resources and opportunities. In the former USSR, this process was served by a system of hidden distribution of scarce material goods, “special” enterprises that produced products and provided services for the layers vested with power, control over foreign travel (restrictions on travel), as well as intra-group marriages.

And vice versa, any technological, economic, political and social transformations disrupt and weaken the status order, bringing to the fore, as M. Weber noted, the class situation. The 90s in Ukraine are the decade of the formation of a new economic system, that is, the distribution of wealth, prestige and lifestyle. It turned out that new economic groups of the population, whose material existence is based on non-state forms of ownership, achieving financial and material well-being, simultaneously assert themselves as status groups. The commodification of housing, for example, opened up new possibilities for the territorial dispersion of different “classes” and population groups.

In large cities with a developed service structure and a chain of stores, it is always more prestigious to live in the center, while mass construction took place on the outskirts. In the 90s, the process of redistribution of housing (exchanging an apartment for financial opportunities) between groups of the population that had different economic opportunities became intensive: some from the peripheral areas moved to the center, others in the opposite direction, and others preferred their own home on the outskirts of the city. Consumption standards were consistent with financial capabilities due to the availability of imported goods, a network of expensive stores, travel agencies and the like. After all, the industry of Ukraine and the service sector were not able to provide a variety of lifestyles, since they did not have such an orientation either earlier or by the mid-90s. However, the relative freedom of foreign travel and the penetration of foreign-made goods into the Ukrainian market contributed to the cultivation of the chosen lifestyle. So, the prerequisites have emerged (more to say in advance) for the formation of status characteristics by new economic groups.

Half a century after K. Marx, M. Weber tried to create his own doctrine of stratification. Economic class, status group and political party are the three basic units of social stratification according to M. Weber (Fig. 11.7).

Status has nothing to do with economics. It is measured or defined by social honor, popularity, prestige, lifestyle, public respect. Status forms the actual social stratification.

The consignment shaped by access and control of power. Political parties are formed around the struggle for power and the division of power in society. These are units of political stratification of society.

Rice. 11.7.

Class is formed due to the possession of certain market advantages - significant capital, real estate, inheritance, professional qualifications, earnings and fees, rent, etc. Since economic resources are the class-forming factors, Weber’s classes refer to economic stratification.

Classes form economic order – distribution of wealth; statuses are created status order – distribution of prestige, privileges and honor; power is at the core political order – monopoly distribution of scarce resources of society.

Power is considered by M. Weber as the ability and opportunity to impose one’s will or one’s way of acting on other people beyond their desire, i.e. despite their resistance; wealth - as the totality of all material assets belonging to a person, including his income, land and other types of property; prestige - as recognition and respect for the merits of the subject, a high assessment of his actions, which are a role model.

Status and power depend on economic position, but can be achieved independently of it, for example through membership in a leading political party or religion. Some occupations are high on the economic scale, low on the status scale, and vice versa. Weber accurately predicted the rise of a new middle class - bureaucrats, managers, teachers, social workers, etc., who do not own the means of production, but who do not consider themselves part of the working class.

Weber identified three main features that characterize a class.

1. Life chances– favorable or unfavorable conditions that help or hinder the receipt) of certain economic benefits (work, property, capital, profit, etc.).
2. Economic interests– desire, desire or interest in obtaining certain economic benefits.
3. Market– the ratio of factors that do not depend on the desires of the individual and relate to the institutional structure of society, allowing the realization of his intention to acquire economic benefits.

Depending on the type of market in which individuals participate, their economic interests and class situation, Weber built a typology of classes that includes the following:

owner class– those who own mines, factories, forests, land, livestock, capital, slaves, technical patents, means of communication, franchises and intellectual property;
commercial classes– merchants, bankers, financiers, professionals, industrial and agricultural entrepreneurs;
acquisitive classes– owners of rare talents, knowledge, professional skills that are in demand in the labor market, receiving high fees for the monopoly ownership of these rare resources (artists, scientists, writers, producers, entertainers, sports stars and coaches, rare specialists, etc.);
main classes- workers, non-property intelligentsia and specialists (technicians, civil servants, doctors, teachers, etc.), petty bourgeoisie.

For Marx, classes always existed when exploitation and private property existed, i.e. in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, in modern times and in modern times. For Weber, classes arose only in modern times, when capitalism, which existed in undeveloped forms in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern times, reached its heyday. Thus, Weber associated the concept class only with capitalist society.

The discrepancy between the two teachings lies in the fact that Marx took ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor as the main criterion, and Weber took ownership of the means of production and the labor market. Property, and accordingly exploitation, existed in all eras, even in the late Paleolithic, and the market as a universal and dominant institution of society - only in the modern era. Schematically, the difference between the two approaches can be expressed as follows (Fig. 11.8).

Rice. 11.8.

As we see, for Marx, classes always existed when the state existed, and capitalism only in modern times. For Weber, on the contrary, capitalism has always existed, but classes only exist in modern times. From this we can conclude that, despite significant similarities, there are serious differences in the understanding of capitalism and classes between the two thinkers.

For Marx and Weber, the basic category for the interpretation of class was the presence or absence of property. In this they are similar. But for Marx, the second necessary criterion of class is the exploitation of labor, and for Weber it is the market. Weber agrees with Marx that the economic advantage of capital allows it to exploit labor. But unlike Marx, he believed that the conflict between owners and non-owners is inherent in any society.

Weber's class is inextricably linked to the exchange of goods and services through money. Where they are not, there are no classes. Market exchange acts as a regulator of relations only under capitalism, therefore, classes exist only under capitalism. Traditional society is an arena of action for status groups (classes), and modern society is for classes.

Sociological workshop

Power, wealth, prestige. Give examples of those who have:

1) all three factors;
2) only power and wealth, but not prestige;
3) only wealth and prestige, but not power;
4) none of the three;
5) only prestige, but not power and wealth;
6) only by power, but not by wealth and prestige.

Class– many people in the same class situation. For example, everyone belonging to the petty bourgeoisie equally owns modest property, which does not allow them to live on interest on it and requires the use of their own labor.

Thus, social class is formed by only two factors - private property and the sale of labor. The absence of at least one of them makes class division impossible. In ancient society there was ownership of the means of production, but there was no labor market, therefore, there were no classes in the strict sense of the word. Workers and entrepreneurs are classes. Slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and peasants are status groups, classes.

An important concept unknown to Marx is the class situation in Weber. It serves as a synonym for the market situation. In turn, both concepts are closely related to the third - life chances.

Life chances represent the likelihood of receiving greater or lesser benefits (a highly paid and prestigious job, your own home, nutritious food and prestigious clothing, a comfortable living environment) thanks to the efforts that are valued in the labor market and for which there is demand. For some these chances are high, for others they are low. Individuals are included in the same class if they have approximately the same life chances. Of course, they differ greatly between those who own property and those who do not. However, property is not the only factor that determines a person’s economic status. Intellectual baggage, a body of knowledge and skills, thanks to which the chances of getting a high salary in the labor market improve, are no less important.

If class stratification is based on the distribution of income and ownership of the means of production, then the emerging within it there is professional stratification is based on the division of labor and the concept of professional employment.

Weber applies the term “professional employment” to the method of specialization, specification and combination of functions performed in the labor process, on which the method and amount of income received ultimately depends. Specification of functions is characteristic of medieval craftsmen, and specialization is characteristic of modern business organizations. The choice of profession can be based on traditions (family professions), goal-rational considerations (for example, the amount of earnings), as well as charismatic and affective criteria.

Between the big bourgeoisie and entrepreneurs, on the one hand, and the working class, on the other, are numerous middle classes. Weber includes peasants, artisans, officials, liberal professions, as well as workers occupying an exclusively monopolistic position.

So, one pole of Weber’s class scale is occupied by the upper class, which he calls the “positively privileged class,” i.e. owners. The second pole is the lower class, or “negatively privileged class,” i.e. non-owners. The upper class includes those who live on interest from property and have a good education, and the lower class includes those who have neither property that generates an annual income nor a good education that allows them to hope for high earnings. Logically speaking, the middle classes should include those who combine both characteristics and occupy contradictory positions. In other words, the middle class should include: a) those who own small property and a low level of education (petty bourgeoisie - shopkeepers and retailers, small entrepreneurs); b) those who do not have any property, but have high qualifications and the opportunity to receive high salaries (intelligentsia and specialists). It is the second stratum that should grow most intensively.

The second most important place in the stratification model is occupied by status groups. Like classes, they act as a form of division and distribution of power. For Weber, status is formed on the basis of various sources. In a traditional society, titles and ranks were granted by the first person in the state and secured by law and (or) tradition. In modern society, status is formed on the basis of professional occupations.

Status groups include classes, castes, racial, ethnic and religious groups. Unlike classes, which are statistical sets, status groups are united and have an internal culture and rules of behavior. By origin, they are of two types: 1) arise within one class; 2) arise between classes.

If the classes were different from each other life chances then status groups – lifestyle. Lifestyle appears in Weber as a concept that specifies status honors, i.e. privileges granted, usurped or achieved, and the esteem in which the group is held in public opinion. Lifestyle is expressed in a special subculture and behavior patterns of people.

If classes, according to Weber, are inherent only in capitalism, then status groups are characteristic of all historical eras (Fig. 11.9).

Rice. 11.9.

Weber believed that in moments of stabilization of society, status groups and status stratification are strengthened. On the contrary, during periods of economic crisis the role of class stratification increases.

Weber's development of the concepts of "status" and "status group" was a major scientific innovation directed against the one-sidedness of a purely class approach, especially against the Marxist thesis about the inevitable polarization of society.

Weber's third dimension of stratification is political measurement related to in batches and the fight for power. The sphere of politics is always connected with the struggle for power - this is an elementary truth. It is once again proven by Weber, who believed that the first two dimensions - status and economic - are ultimately subordinated to the third, political dimension. In his work “Basic Concepts of Stratification,” Weber writes: “We can now say: “classes,” “status groups,” and “parties” are phenomena related to the distribution of power within a community.”

Classes are nominal groups, i.e. statistical aggregates of people who, collectively, as a class whole, are incapable of organized action. Only part of the class, rallied around a party, is ready for it. Unlike a class, a status group is a real community, which itself can act as a subject of social action, although it can also have its own party. Thus, the struggle between classes or groups of people, if we talk about the desire for power and think of them as possible subjects, in the role of which parties act.

So, Weber based the hierarchy and the stratification based on it on three factors - property, power and prestige. Differences in property give rise to economic classes, differences in access to power give rise to political parties, and differences in prestige give rise to status groups.

Weber M.

Cm.: Weber M. Economy and Society. N. Y.: Bedminster Press, 1968. P. 938.
Weber M. Basic concepts of stratification // Kravchenko A. I. Sociology of Max Weber: labor and economics. P. 163.

Status dimension gives an idea of the subordination of individuals’ positions in the system of relations in a small group. Differences in status can have a significant impact on both external attitudes and a person’s self-attitude. Moreover, they largely determine the possibilities of self-realization. In particular, a certain connection has been identified between the magnitude of an individual’s status and the degree of compliance of his behavior with the norms of the group. With reservations, we can talk about the following features: 1) a high-status group member is more conforming than a low-status group member; 2) high status in the group is ensured by complete agreement with group norms; 3) in certain situations, the greatest adherence to group norms is demonstrated by those occupying the second most prestigious position in the group; 4) a high-status subject may be allowed to deviate from group norms in an attempt to contribute to the achievement of a group goal (the phenomenon of “idiosyncratic credit”). In such a variety of alternatives, the undoubted complexity of the group process (as well as the complexity of its empirical study), which does not allow, according to the systemic understanding of the group, a linear interpretation of the relationships that arise between certain of its phenomena and requires giving their analysis a probabilistic character. In addition, we note that sometimes the behavior of high-status group members correlates not so much directly with the norms accepted in it, but with the expectations of their low-status partners, which are certainly influenced by group norms. In this case, two types of situations are distinguished, in one of which the emphasis is on the productivity of the group, and in the other on its cohesion. Another aspect of the status-structural dimension is the phenomenon of “status generalization”, the essence of which is that the status characteristics of individuals associated with membership of other social groups and initially external to the situation of interpersonal interaction in a given group, being brought into this situation, begin to pay significant attention to the features of the unfolding interaction, in particular, to the “internal” status of its participants themselves. The status hierarchy in the group is not fixed : It can vary over time and from situation to situation. The status hierarchy can also be institutional in nature. The position taken also determines the status, as exemplified by the popular truism: I’m the boss - you’re a fool, you’re the boss - I’m a fool. According to expectancy theory, status is determined by two sources: 1. Specific characteristics of status - characteristics determined by the correspondence of abilities to group tasks (for example, athleticism on a sports team). 2. Diffuse status characteristics - characteristics that are not directly related to group tasks, but are positively assessed in society (for example, being a child, an older person). Diffuse status characteristics associated with expectations of usefulness are generalized to a wide class of situations, even very far from group tasks. The status dimension is very closely intersected by the sociometric dimension, which characterizes the subordination of individuals’ positions in the system of intra-group interpersonal preferences, and is represented as in the classic version of the sociometric structure of the group, and in its autosociometric modification. Essentially, the sociometric dimension is largely in the informal status structure of the group. Status- this is the relative position (position) of an individual or group in a social system, determined by a number of characteristics specific to a given system. Despite all the democracy of modern organization and the popularity of “meetings without ties,” status differences play a vital role in organizational behavior and have a significant impact on group processes. It is no coincidence that many members of the organization, sometimes without realizing it, are extremely seriously concerned about acquiring status symbols. We live in a class society, and, despite all the democratic declarations, we are still too far from real equality. Throughout its history, human society has been divided into rich and poor, noble and commoners, the powerful and the powerless. And each, even a small group, formed and is forming its own roles, rules and rituals in order to distinguish its members. Status is an important factor in understanding behavior, since it is a significant motivating force and leads to changes in behavior in cases where an individual discovers a discrepancy between the status that he strives for and deserves, and the position that he actually occupies . Status- is prestige, position or position within a group. He may be formally approved by the group through titles, ranks and privileges. More often there is status in the informal sense. Status can be acquired through characteristics such as education, age, gender, qualifications or experience. In principle, any characteristic can become status if group members perceive it as a value. Even being informal, these status characteristics do not become less important in the life of the group. Thus, whether we like it or not, we place the people around us into status categories, and among group members there is a fairly clear idea of who is above, who is in the middle, and who is an outsider. A classic study of the restaurant industry by W. White clearly demonstrated the importance of status in the workplace. In a field study, White tested the hypothesis that people work more cooperatively when higher-status personnel motivate lower-status employees to act. He found that in cases where there is no such correspondence, a conflict between formal and informal status inevitably arises. Sources of status. Status is given to an individual by a group, and in this sense is a group value. Any social or individual characteristic can act as a status characteristic: external attractiveness or ugliness (for example, scars on the face), youth and old age, tallness or miniature, etc. Among sumo wrestlers, for example, enormous weight is valued. He has undeniable status value in this professional group. At the same time, among professional jockeys, such a value, on the contrary, is miniature. Speaking English with a Russian accent has different status values in London and Tashkent. What an individual owns, what he knows or can do, may or may not have status value. Everything depends on the system of group coordinates on the basis of which the assessment is made. Based on all of the above, we can conclude that: 1. Organizations and groups provide individuals with status attributes in different ways. 2. A prestigious profession, position in the organizational hierarchy, salary, organizational benefits, etc. can have status significance. 3. The sophisticated system of status symbols adopted in some organizations is curious. 4. The choice of status symbols is also influenced by scientific and technological progress. 5. Even workload can have status content.

Bibliography:

1. Yanchuk V.A. Introduction to modern social psychology: textbook. manual for universities. - Mn.: ASAR, 2005. 2. Godefroy J. What is psychology: In 2 volumes. T.2: Trans. from French _ M.: Mir, 1992. 3. Brief psychological dictionary / Comp. L.A. Karpenko; Under general ed. A.V. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky. - M.: Politizdat, 1985.

4. American sociological thought. - M., 1994. 5. Lebon G. Psychology of peoples and masses. - St. Petersburg, 1996. 6. Mitrokhin S. Treatise on the Crowd // XX Century and the World. - 1990. No. 11. 7. Moscovici S. Century of crowds. - M., 1996. 8. Criminal crowd. - M., 1998. 9. Psychology of domination and subordination: Reader. - Minsk, 1998. 10. Psychology of the masses: Reader. - Samara, 1998. 11. Psychology of crowds. - M., 1998. 12. Rutkevich A.M. Man and crowd // Dialogue. - 1990. - No. 12. 13. Freud 3. “I” and “It”. - Tbilisi, 1991.

Those categories of people (for example, slaves), whose fate is not determined by the opportunities (or chances) to purchase goods on the market for personal use or to serve themselves, are classified by the sociologist as “status groups.”
Weber defines them this way: “In contrast to classes, status groups are normal communities. True, for the most part they are amorphous. In contrast to the purely economically determined “class situation,” we understand by “status situation” any typical component of people’s life destiny, which is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social assessment of honor. Such honor can denote any quality valued by most people, and, of course, it is closely related to the class situation: class differences are related to status differences in a variety of ways. Property as such is not always recognized as a status characteristic, but over time it has manifested itself as such, and with surprising regularity.”
Weber expresses status honor in the following way: it is a specific lifestyle that is expected from those who express a desire to belong to a given circle of people. The expectations associated with this style represent restrictions on “social” communication (that is, communication that does not serve economic or any other “functional” business goals). “Status” develops insofar as it is not an individually and socially irrelevant imitation of another lifestyle, but is a closed joint action based on agreement. According to M. Weber, status groups develop a special way of life: a special style of consumption, communication, a special nature of marriages.
By the term “social status,” Weber designated real claims to positive or negative privileges in relation to social prestige, if this status is based on one or more of the following criteria: a) lifestyle, b) formal education, consisting of practical or theoretical training, and the adoption of an appropriate way of life, c) the prestige of birth or profession.
From the definition it is clear that both the haves and the have-nots can be part of the same status group.
The philosopher believed that the development of status is an important issue of stratification based on usurpation. Usurpation is the natural source of almost all status honors. “However, the path from this purely conventional situation to legal privileges, positive or negative, is easily paved as soon as a certain stratification of the social order becomes a real fact, as soon as stability is achieved through the orderly distribution of economic power<...>».
In addition, stratification by status is combined with the monopolization of ideal and material goods or opportunities. In addition to the specific status honor, which is always based on distance and exclusivity, we find all varieties of material monopoly.
Of course, material monopoly provides the most effective motive for imparting exclusivity to a status group, although it is not always a sufficient condition in itself.
Status “honors” mean that status groups act as specific bearers of all kinds of “conventions”.
Thus, Max Weber, unlike Karl Marx, defines the division into classes not only by the presence or absence of control over the means of production, but also by economic differences not directly related to property. And also, he highlights another important aspect of stratification, the name of which is status.

Theory of social stratification and social mobility. (Sorokin)

Sorokin is one of the founders of the theories of social stratification, social space and social mobility. In his theory of stratification, Sorokin explained that any society is divided into various strata, which differ in income levels, types of activities, political views, cultural orientations, etc. Sorokin considered the main forms of social stratification (or stratification of society) to be economic, political and professional. Social stratification is a natural and normal state of society. It is objectively determined by the existing social division of labor, property inequality, different political orientations, etc.

By changing his profession or type of activity, his economic status or political views, a person moves from one social stratum to another. This process is called social mobility. Sorokin divided social mobility into horizontal and vertical. Horizontal mobility means the transition of a person from one social group to another, which is generally at the same level of social stratification. Vertical mobility is the transition of people from one social layer to another in a hierarchical order.

Sorokin came to the conclusion that social mobility is a positive phenomenon and is characteristic of democratic, dynamic societies. The exception is the situation when the entire society is in a state of dynamic movement, sharp mobility. This means a crisis, instability and undesirable mobility for society; however, the other extreme is the opposite situation - no mobility, stagnation, which is characteristic of totalitarian societies.

Sorokin also introduced the concept of “social space” and put into it a different meaning than it had before - the totality of all members of society as a whole. In this society where people are not equal, they occupy different places in the ideas and opinions of others. Some of them are high, others are lower in social space.

Social structure of modern Russian society

T.I. Zaslavskaya is a modern Russian economist and sociologist.

Russian society consists of four social strata:
top, middle, base and bottom, as well as... “social bottom”. The upper layer is understood, first of all, as the real ruling layer... It includes elite... groups that occupy the most important positions in the system of government, in economic and security structures. They are united by the fact of being in power and the ability to directly influence the reform processes.
The second layer is called the middle... While this layer is too small... These are small entrepreneurs... management of medium and small enterprises, the middle level of the bureaucracy, senior officers, the most qualified... specialists and workers.
The basic social layer is very massive. It covers more than two-thirds of Russian society. Its representatives have average professionally qualified potential and relatively limited labor potential.
The base stratum includes part of the intelligentsia (specialists), semi-intelligentsia (assistants to specialists), technical personnel, workers in mass trade and service professions, as well as most of the peasantry. Although the social status... interests and behavior of these groups are different, their role in the transition process is quite similar. This is, first of all, adaptation to changing conditions in order to survive and, if possible, maintain the achieved status.
The structure and functions of the lower layer seem to be the least clear. 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 of either elderly, poorly educated, not very healthy and strong people who have not earned sufficient pensions, or those who do not have professions, and often no permanent occupation, the unemployed, refugees and forced migrants from areas of interethnic conflicts. This layer can be determined on the basis of such characteristics as very low personal and family income, low level of education, employment in unskilled labor or lack of permanent work.
...Representatives of the social bottom are criminals and semi-criminal elements - thieves, bandits, drug dealers, brothel keepers, small and large swindlers, hired killers, as well as degenerate people - alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, tramps, homeless people, etc.

Sociology in questions and answers / Ed. prof. V. A. Chulanova. –
Rostov-on-Don, 2000. – pp. 167–168.

Questions and tasks for the text:
1. Based on what criteria, in your opinion, is this structure of modern Russian society formed? Give reasons for your answer.
2. Is it possible in modern Russia to change one’s belonging to one or another social group? Give an example to support your answer.

Self-concept A person's idea of himself and how other people know him are never completely the same. Everyone draws from their own

experiences some content that is significant from its point of view and creates from it a specific personification - an image of a person, a model of his (or his) personality, as he imagines it. Everyone knows that a person idealizes (“invents”) the object of his love and creates a contrasting image of the enemy. By the same principle, a personification of oneself is created... An organized cognitive (cognitive - Ed.) structure, extracted from one’s own experiences of one’s own “I”, is called self-concept. Once it has arisen, it very selectively accepts new experiences or new information into a given conceptual category. Therefore, it is credited with a tendency towards self-reinforcement. Manfred Kuhn made a major contribution to the development of this concept. He considers the self-concept as the basis for the organization of personality and its integration in the processes of social interaction. Kuhn identifies five functions of this education in the regulation of behavior: a) determining one’s own identity; b) own interests, likes and dislikes; c) your goals and progress towards success; d) a system of correlation, in the center of which is the individual himself, surrounded by significant objects; e) self-esteem. “Central to the individual’s self-concept,” writes M. Kuhn, “is his identity, i.e., his generalized (generalized - Ed.) position in society, resulting from his status in the groups of which he is a member, which is predetermined these statuses, and the social categories that the membership group causes him to ascribe to himself (gender, age, class, race, etc.).” Questions and tasks: 1) How do you understand the proposition that the idea of yourself and the idea of other people about you do not coincide? Give examples of such a discrepancy that you know from the literature. 2) What elements are included in the self-concept? How do you understand their essence? 3) What important conclusion for self-knowledge can be drawn from the fact that people tend to idealize the object of love? 4) Can a self-concept be formed in a person deprived of social contacts? Give reasons for your answer.

PLEASE HELP URGENTLY! Based on your own experience, give examples of the influence on the personality of a close-knit group, where good attitude is highly valued

its members and there is a group opinion.

We offer you a fragment of text about the course of one of the famous experiments of Solomon Asch, who about half a century ago studied the subordination of a person to a group