The army as a social institution, a social movement. Is the army a social institution? Why? Attitudes of young people towards military service

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Vagin Sergey Nikolaevich. Social Institute of the Army in the system of institutional interactions of modern Russian society: dissertation... Candidate of Sociological Sciences: 22.00.04 / Vagin Sergey Nikolaevich; [Place of protection: South-Russia state tech. University (Novocherkassk Polytechnic Institute)]. - Novocherkassk, 2009. - 166 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 09-22/223

Introduction

CHAPTER I THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BASIS FOR STUDYING THE ARMY AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION 15

1.1. Social institution of the army: concept, institutional features, functions 16

1.2. The army as a social organization: essence, structure and functions 32

1.3. The socializing role of the army in modern conditions.. 46

CONCLUSIONS FOR CHAPTER 1 69

CHAPTER II THE PLACE AND ROLE OF THE ARMY IN THE SYSTEM OF INSTITUTIONAL INTERACTIONS 70

2.1. The army and its role in the conditions of transformation of the political system of Russian society 70

2.2. Dynamics of the relationship between the army and religion in Lent Soviet period: specifics and stages 86

2.3. Dialectics of the relationship between the army and civil society in modern Russia 106

CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER 135

CONCLUSION 136

LITERATURE 139

APPENDIX 1 158

APPENDIX 2 165

Introduction to the work

Relevance of the research topic. The geopolitical situation at the beginning of the 21st century is characterized by a significant reduction in the threat of a full-scale war, which is reflected in the doctrinal guidelines and strategic concepts of most states of the world. However, recognizing the war as a national disaster and a threat to the existence of civilization, for many countries military force remains a traditional means of achieving political goals. In this regard, there is an objective need for Russia to have sufficient military potential to defend the country, the most important component of which is the army. Events related to the Ossetian-Georgian conflict once again convincingly demonstrated the need for a strong, combat-ready army to protect the country's geopolitical interests in the changing international field of strategic interests of leading political players.

However, the army is intended not only to perform an external function - the defense of the state. As one of the most important social institutions, it performs an equally important internal function - stabilization and harmonization of social life, which in the conditions of transformation of the socio-economic life of Russian society acquires special significance. It is not without reason that some Western researchers call the problems of the transition period in the development of states problems of uncertain content.

In connection with the latter circumstance, the nature and content of institutional interactions in society itself is changing, which, in turn, cannot but affect the specifics and implementation of the functions of the army as a social institution.

See: Bane V. Elements of uncertainty in the transition period // Political studies. - 1994. - No. 1. - P. 17-18.

firstly, a significant change in the functions and role of the army in the modern geopolitical international situation;

secondly, a qualitatively new character and features of the functioning of the army in Russian society;

thirdly, increasing the importance of mutual influence of social institutions in the conditions of democratization of Russian society;

fourthly, the qualitative novelty of military-civil relations, a change in the nature of interaction between the army and civilian structures, a new role of public opinion in the military policy of the state, which requires scientific understanding and practical development.

To be able to build an effective social policy regarding the army, it is necessary to clearly understand its role and place in the system of institutional relationships.

The degree of scientific development of the problem. The topic of the dissertation is interdisciplinary in nature and involves the use of sources from both the fields of military sociology and military psychology, as well as political science. Therefore, depending on the aspect of the research conducted, all sources can be divided into several groups.

First a group of sources consists of scientific works, the authors of which analyze the place and role of the army in the system of modern society.

Note that in Russian sociology, works devoted to the analysis of the army as a social institution were practically absent until recently. Military sociology in the pre-perestroika period was a fairly closed science to society and, for the most part, was engaged only in empirical research.

However, in the late 90s, due to changes in the political system and greater openness to society about military issues, interest in the social aspects of the functioning of one of the main social

institutions has increased significantly. This was reflected in the publications of A. Arbatov, A.A. Kokoshina, V.M. Rodachina, V.V. Serebryakova, Yu.I. Deryugina and

Undoubtedly, the dissertation research of V.K. Lapshin “The Formation of the Institute of Military Service in Russia: Sociological Analysis” is of significant value in this sense, 3 in which the author made a successful, in our opinion, attempt to consider the formation of the institution of military service in the context of implementation military reform.

It is impossible not to mention the work of V.I. Kholodov “The Army as a Social Institution of Society”, which, despite its small volume, provides an example of a conceptual approach to considering the institutional aspects of the functioning of this institution.

Second a group of researchers are studying general theoretical aspects of the army. The authors of these works (L.M. Belyaev, V.P. Ksenofontova, A.A. Mitskevich, I.B. Narchenko, etc.) 5 solve the most common problems associated with the activities of the army, identifying their significance in society and the state, roles in institutional interaction in modern Russian society. The works of those authors who develop

2 See: Arbatov A. What kind of army do we need // Russia in global politics. -2003. - No. 1;
Kokoshin A. A. Army and politics. - M.: International relations, 1995; Rodachin V.
M. Army and political power // Military Thought. -2005. - No. 5; Serebryakov V.V., Deryu
Gin Yu.I. Russian Army: state and prospects for overcoming the crisis (analytical
report). - M.: RIC, 2007.

3 Lapshin V.K. The formation of the institution of military service in Russia: sociological analysis
Liz: Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. social n. - Novocherkassk, 2003.

4 Kholodov V.I. The army as a social institution. - Novocherkassk: UOC “Nabla”, 2008.

5 See: Belyaev A.M. The genesis of the method of military sociology at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. - M.,
2002; Narchenko I. B. Military policy of Russia in the transition period: Author's abstract. diss. Dr. Phys.
los. Sci. - M., 2004; Ksenofontov V.N. Military sociology in Russia: problems and
board // Socis. -1995. - No. 6; Mitskevich A.A. Problems of implementing political
Teresov of military personnel in the conditions of the formation of Russian statehood: Author's abstract.
dis. Ph.D. Philosopher Sci. - M. 5 2006.

specific aspects of the topic this study. These are the works of M.I. Kanevsky, V.F. Kondratov, Yu.V. Mamontov and others 6

Third group sources is devoted to the study of the army as a political institution and is represented by fundamental research by K.A. Vorobyova, I.A. Klimova, Yu V. Mamontova, A.A. Timorina et al. 2 Of course, the relevance of some provisions of these works is currently reduced, but their methodological significance is beyond doubt. In modern humanitarian thought, this problem is developed in the works of P.M. Shabardin and N.V. Narykov, in the dissertations of V.P. Emelyanina, V.I. Ivanova, I.V. Mukhina et al. 7

Fourth group of sources dedicated to the problems of military reform. A significant number of works by political scientists and military sociologists have been published in this direction. In the studies of V.D. Katalnikova, S.M. Komarova, O.M. Mikhailenok, V.M. Chugunova, V.V. Chebana considers the stabilizing role of the army, implemented in actions to ensure security in the fight against antisocial and antistate phenomena 8.

Fifth a group of researchers analyzes the problem of the relationship between the army and civil society, which is reflected in the works of O.A. Belkova, A.A. Kokopshna, V.K. Novik^ D.G. Peredni, V.M. Rodachina, V.V. Serebryanikova, A.N. Shakhova and others.

6 See: Kanevsky M.I. Philosophical and methodological analysis of the scientific foundations of military policy. -
M.. 2000; Kondratov V.F. Ideology, politics, war. - M., 2003; Mamontov Yu.V. Army:
integrity, system, organization. - M., 2004.

7 See: Shabardin P. M. Army and politics in the modern era: Dis. doc. Philosopher Sci.

M.: VUD996; Narykov N.V. Political regime and the army: Dis. doc. Philosopher
nauk.-M.: VU, 1995.

8 See: V.D. Katalnikov. About the problems of the Russian Armed Forces. - Rostov n/a: CJSC "Ser"
vis-svyaz", 2007; Komarov SM. The risk of political instability: the role and place of security forces
structures in the normalization of the socio-political situation //Army and Society. -
1999. - No. 1; Mikhailenok O.M. Armed Forces as a factor of state stability
vital life //Social and humanitarian knowledge. - 2002. - No. 5; Chugunov V.M. Military
Security of Russia as a qualitative state of the state //Army and Society. - 2000.

- No. 1: Cheban V.V. Geopolitical situation and military policy of Russia. Reflections
publicist about the present and future military policy of Russia. - M., 2001.

In modern sociological thought, studies of the problem of civilian control over the army are presented in the works of V.M. Anisimova, O.A. Bel-kova, A.V. Gerasimova, D.V. Klepikova, A.A. Mizer, P.M. Shaburkina, A.N. Shakhova et al. 9 Thus, exploring public opinion about the social problems of the Russian army, N.F. Naumova and V.S. Sycheva come to the conclusion that deep military reforms, including the transition to a contract, are possible only under the condition of general socio-political stabilization of society. 10

Nevertheless, recognizing the depth and thoroughness of the analysis of this problem in modern domestic studies, we note, however, that these works do not provide a holistic picture of the role and place of the army in the system of institutional interactions in modern Russian society, which allows us to state the topic of our research.

Purpose of the dissertation research consists in a sociological analysis of the place and role of the army in the system of institutional interactions.

The implementation of this goal is carried out by gradually solving the following research tasks:

to study the social institution of the army as a stable set of formal and informal rules, principles, norms, guidelines regulating the military sphere of human activity;

characterize the social institution of the army as a social organization, identify its essential structure and social functions;

9 See: Anisimov V. M. Civil control over military structures // Polis. - 1995.
-No. 4; Belkov O. A. Civil control - a condition and means of optimizing military
activities Russian state// Civil control over the military sphere of the Russian Federation -
essence and formation of the implementation mechanism. - M., 1998; Gerasimov A. V. Grazhdansky
control over the army. - M, 1998; Klepikov D.V. Civilian control of the armed forces
by the forces of the state: the social aspect // Sociology and Society. Theses of the First All
Russian sociological congress "Society and sociology: new realities and new
ideas." - St. Petersburg, 2000; Mizer A. A. The problem of civil control over the activities of public organizations
gans of military control and ways to solve it // Humanitarian aspects of the construction of the Military Air Forces
armed forces. - M.: VU, 1997; Shaburkin P. M. Civil control over weapons
new forces. //Independent Military Review. -1997- No. 23; Shakhov A. N. Grazhdansky
control of the Armed Forces, formation of the system. -MD997.

10 Naumova N.F. ,Sycheva B.S. Public opinion about the social problems of the army Ros
these. // Sociological research. -1993. - No. 12.

consider the socializing function of the army institution, its influence on the normative and value model of behavior of military personnel;

identify the place and role of the army in the Russian political system;

explore the dynamics of interaction between the army and religion, its stages and specifics;

analyze the dialectic of interaction between social institutions of the army and civil society in the conditions of social transformation of Russian society

Object of study The social institution of the army acts as a stable complex of formal and informal rules, principles, norms, and guidelines governing the military sphere of human activity.

Subject of research are the role and place of the army in the system of institutional interactions of modern Russian society, associated with changes in its functions during the period of social transformation.

Theoretical and methodological basis dissertation work are the fundamental provisions of general sociology, institutional theory, as well as the theory of structural functionalism of T. Parsons, R. Merton. The author used the works of leading Russian sociologists (Yu.I. Deryugin, L.V. Peven, V.V. Serebryannikov, etc.) who study the army and the processes of institutional interaction in modern Russian society.

The goals and objectives set in the work determined the choice of the following research methods: systemic-functional, historical-theoretical, comparative, scientific generalization and the principle of historicism.

Empirical basis of the dissertation work. The research was conducted based on a combination of theoretical and empirical sociological methods and techniques. The dissertation uses content analysis of periodicals, included observations of the author; data from state statistics, research from the Center for Military Sociological and Legal Research of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, results of secondary analysis of sociological research

studies conducted by various sociological services (FOM, VTsIOM, NIICSI, ISPI RAS of the Russian Federation, RNIS, etc.), centers of sociological research in St. Petersburg, Moscow, as well as data from the author’s own sociological research conducted among student youth in the city of Shakhty Rostov region in 2008 using a questionnaire survey of students on the basis of two higher educational institutions: Shakhty Institute (branch) SRSTU (NPI), South Russian state university economics and service (YURGUES), as well as a group of male students in senior classes of secondary educational institutions (MPU No. 3, MPU No. 2). The total number of respondents was 320 people (of which 72% were students, 28% were school students). The selection of respondents into the sample population was carried out using a quota method. The study was conducted by the author from December 20, 2007 to January 21, 2008.

Hypothesis The study is that the attitude of modern Russian students to military service reveals a negative trend towards a reduction in the number of people with positive motivation for military service, which is due to the deterioration of the physical fitness of young people, unsatisfactory social and living conditions for military service, the presence in the army hazing and anti-army rhetoric in the media.

Scientific novelty The research is determined by the totality of the results obtained, revealing the nature, content and features of the interaction of the social institution of the army, as a special type of social activity, with other social institutions.

1. The concept of the army as the main, permanent social institution, representing a specially organized armed group of society with specific conditions of existence, is specified; its main characteristics are presented, consisting of increased power of interpersonal relations, sociocultural

tour orientation towards loyalty to the state, possession of combat power and high organization.

2. The structure and social functions of the army as a social organization are revealed, implemented in the identification, adaptation, socialization, integration and communication of military personnel.

The structural features of army socialization are analyzed, consisting in the specifically interrelated impact of a complex of socialization agents, the social security of military personnel, and their special psychological and emotional intensity everyday life and a certain isolation from the external environment, the main criteria for the effective socialization of military personnel in modern conditions are substantiated, and the stages of socialization of career military personnel are formulated.

Based on an analysis of the nature of the system of state power, which manifests itself in the degree of its militarization, the peculiarities of the place and role of the army as a political subject in the conditions of social anomie of Russian society are determined, and the need for power dominance of the state over the army is substantiated.

The stages are formulated and the specifics of the development of interaction between the army and religion are revealed, consisting in joint efforts to use religious potential for the purpose of educating military personnel, ensuring the authority of the authorities in the form of spiritual legitimization, and the growing disappointment of the military department in the fruitfulness of such cooperation.

6. The dialectics of the relationship between the army and civilians is analyzed
society, ways to increase the efficiency of their interactions are formulated
changes in the conditions of transformation of Russian society, the dependence has been established
the significance of the moral and psychological readiness of conscripts for service in the army
mia on the state of their physical fitness, the degree of satisfaction with
social and living conditions of military service and moral
psychological climate of intra-army relations.

Provisions for defense:

1. The social institution of the army is formed to solve a set of military problems associated with repelling the threat of external aggression, and is a basic, permanent social institution that represents a specially organized armed group of society, has specific conditions of existence, the severity of sanctions applied for violation of the rules, and the presence of a bureaucratic system management, and performing the function of protecting the state from external aggression. In the system of institutional interactions, the institution of the army ensures institutional stability and the existence of legitimate social practices. In addition to the basic characteristics of a social institution (coerciveness, historicity and moral authority), the army also has specific ones - combat power, organization, socio-cultural orientation towards loyalty to the state and increased authority in interpersonal relationships. As a traditional social practice, the army imparts stability to the social organism and integrates society on the basis of national interests. The integration capabilities of the army are especially in demand during the period of transformation of Russian society, which initiates a weakening of the action of the main social institutions that ensure the sustainability of society.

2 The army is a formal target hierarchical organization that has the qualities of corporatism and management. The behavior of members of this organization is characterized by rationality, due to the standardization of behavior, which, in turn, is based on subordination and clearly defined rights and responsibilities. As a military professional community, the army has specific regulation social relations(social significance, formalization, rigidity, totality, etc.), hierarchy, stability of personnel, corporatism and a certain closedness of the military-professional environment, and also regulates military-social relations to ensure defense

country's abilities. The specifics of the functioning of the army institution in the conditions of transformation of society are determined by the organization and hierarchy of its structure, minimizing possible changes; diversification of functions related to the development of military-social relations; building a professional army, requiring a high level of education and professional competence from servicemen.

The peculiarity of army socialization lies in the specifically interrelated impact of a complex of socialization agents, the social security of military personnel, the special psychological and emotional intensity of their daily life and a certain isolation from the external environment. The main criteria for effective socialization of military personnel are: the adequacy of ideas about the choice of a military profession, the degree of awareness and stability of professional goals, the correlation of professional and civilian values; the ability to freely navigate the sociocultural space of values; mastering a complex of social roles; social activity. On modern stage The socializing role of the army, in connection with its transition to a partially contractual basis, is gradually decreasing, although the importance of this function for the integration of society is quite great. However, taking into account the traditionally high respect for the army and the belief shared by almost the entire society that “a strong state is impossible without a strong army,” it can be argued that the army will retain its channel of influence on the process of socialization on its societal scale.

State power and the army are in an objective and necessary relationship, carried out on the basis of the obligation to establish power dominance over the army. The nature of the state power system influences its status, the nature of connections and participation in socio-political processes, which is manifested in the degree of militarization of power. The objective criterion of the latter is the dominance of civilian or military principles in the implementation of state policy. The influence of the army on the system of state power is expressed in the form of “feedback”, including

expecting military personnel to respond to government decisions on the problems of the army, the degree of readiness of military personnel to implement the powerful state will.

Changes in the socio-political ideology of the Russian state during the perestroika period radically changed the nature and dynamics of military-church relations. The departition and depoliticization of the army initiated joint efforts by the military leadership and the Church to use religious potential in order to educate military personnel and ensure the authority of the authorities in the form of spiritual legitimization. However, despite all the similarity in the ideological attitudes of the military and the Orthodox clergy, the presence of unresolved problems in military-church relations (corporate interests of the military-religious bureaucracy and the tendency to clericalize the “power” institutions of the state, contrary to the constitutional principles of a secular state; the problem of interfaith contradictions; the problem legal regulation military-religious relations, etc.), significantly complicate their relationship. Nevertheless, within the framework of state policy, it is possible to predict the continuation of the development of military-religious relations in the field of military-patriotic and moral education of military personnel.

Army and civil society how the components of a single integral society mutually influence each other. The relationship between the army and civil society in modern Russian society is problematized by the contradictory position of the army, which, influencing society with its modernization potential, on the one hand, should help strengthen the state, and on the other, contribute to the sustainability of social development. The specificity of the relationship between the army and civil society lies in the destructiveness of the interpenetration of essential features for each of them, therefore optimal interaction between them is possible only on the basis of social trust on the main issues of military policy. Analysis shows that the lack of such trust

leads to a negative trend towards a reduction in the number of people with positive motivation for military service, which is due to the deterioration of their physical fitness, unsatisfactory social and living conditions for military service, the presence of hazing in the army and anti-army rhetoric in the media.

Theoretical and practical significance The work is that the results and conclusions of the study expand scientific understanding of the place and role of the social institution of the army in the system of institutional interactions and can be used to solve theoretical and practical problems of socio-economic and political reform of Russian society, in the formation of state military policy. The dissertation is of interest when preparing and delivering lectures for undergraduate and graduate students of sociological specialties, in particular, when developing courses on “General Sociology” and “Military Sociology”.

Approbation of work. The dissertation was discussed and recommended for defense at a meeting of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of SHI (f) SRSTU (NPI). The main provisions of the dissertation are presented in the author’s speeches at scientific and practical conferences, methodological seminars, as well as in six open publications (1 publication in the publications of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia) with a total volume of 7.2 pp.

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, six paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliography of used literature from 243 sources.

Social institution of the army: concept, institutional features, functions

Considering the fact that the army is, first of all, a socio-political institution, we need to clearly define the boundaries of our sociological research. In this regard, the choice of interpretation of the concept of “social institution” plays a significant role, allowing one to analyze the institutional aspects of the army’s existence.

In modern sociological theory, quite a lot of attempts have been made to define the category of “social institution”, many of which do not coincide with each other, differing in their understanding of both the nature and functions of institutions (T. Parsons, T. Veblen, J. Homans, S. Lipset, R. Merton, etc.).

Apparently, it is methodologically futile to try to insist on any one of all concepts, since sociology is a “multi-paradigm science” (J. Ritzer).14 We adhere to approaches and logic that lie in a fairly broad mainstream of structural-functional constructions. The concept of a social institution taken as a basis will follow from this.

From the point of view of the structural-functional approach, a social institution appears as “a stable complex of formal and informal rules, principles, norms, guidelines that regulate various spheres of human activity and organize them into a system of roles and statuses that form social integrity.”15 We will accept this definition as worker in our Army Institute study.

The very use of the term “army” is associated with certain difficulties, since it is used both in scientific and journalistic literature in a variety of meanings. Very often the term “army” is not associated with war and military activities at all and is used, for example, to refer large quantity people united by their social status (“army of the unemployed”, “army of railway workers”, etc.) In the military aspect, the concept of “army” is also polysemantic, which allows us to identify three most characteristic positions:

1. The army as an operational formation consisting of a certain number of corps and divisions.

2. The army as a combination of ground forces only (in the phrase “army, air force, navy”).

3. The army as the totality of all types and branches of the military.16

Naturally, so broad interpretation This concept creates certain difficulties in clarifying its essential and functional characteristics. However, none of the above definitions reflects the specifics of the army as a social institution. And this is understandable, given the previously made remark about the insufficient development of this problem.

The process of institutionalization of any social institution, from the point of view of sociology,17 can be conditionally represented as three interconnected stages: the life cycle of the institution, the functioning of a mature institution and its evolution.

Let us formulate the conditions and stages of institutionalization of the army.

The emergence of the army is due to the objective needs of society for specific military-professional activities.

The economic conditions for the emergence of the army as a social institution arise during the industrial stage of economic development in the 19th century.

The socio-political conditions for the emergence of the army are determined by the emergence of the national state, the general democratization of society, the fall of class barriers, the formation of national identity and the ability of the army to stimulate upward social mobility of representatives of low-status segments of the population.18

The problem of the emergence, formation and development of the army institution was reflected quite fully in the works of F. Engels. However, in this case, it was not a social institution that was analyzed, but the armed forces, which, although they are directly related to the army, nevertheless carry a different meaning. In particular, in the concept of “Armed Forces” legal characteristics prevail over social ones, which complicates the sociological analysis of the army institution.

Let us briefly consider the process of institutionalization of the Russian army.

In the formation of the institution of the Russian army, the most significant stages in its history are inextricably linked with the history of the country and played a decisive role in the formation and strengthening of the state. First of all, these are victories on the Kulikovo field in 1380, near Poltava in 1709, at Borodino in 812. and in Great Patriotic War 1941 -1945

Research by Russian historians indicates that the military organization Kievan Rus there was “universal arming of the people.” The basis was a small (700 - 800 people) princely squad. However, as noted by the famous Russian historian S.G. Pugachev, “in the event of upcoming extensive military operations, the people’s militia, made up of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in emergency cases, rural residents - “smerdy” - were also called up for military service.”

The army as a social organization: essence, structure and functions

The importance of studying the army as a social organization is due to its influence on the implementation of tasks related to ensuring the country’s defense.39

The institution of the army can be represented as a social organization that includes “a set of individuals, roles and other elements systematically interconnected to achieve results that are unattainable for an individual,”40 and based on the principles of hierarchy of power, coordination and division of labor (M . Newport, R. Treva-tha, D. Biddle, R. Evenden).

The army is a formal target hierarchical organization with the qualities of corporatism and management. The behavior of members of this organization is characterized by rationality, due to the standardization of behavior, which, in turn, is based on subordination and clearly defined rights and responsibilities. According to S.N. Peregudov, it includes such characteristics as: vertical integration; control from a common center; cohesion of the organization, when each unit or link functions not on its own, but as part of the whole.41

A military organization, having common features with all other organizations, is distinguished, first of all, by its specificity in the regulation of social relations (social significance, formalization, rigidity, totality, etc.), hierarchy, stability of personnel, corporatism and a certain closedness of the military-professional environment .

The main goal of the social organization of the army is to satisfy the public need for security, to “ensure the integrity and inviolability of its territory.”42

The place of the army in the social structure of society is determined by its ability to be a stabilizer of social order in a risk society. It is an institution of “symbolic order” and excludes sudden institutional changes.

The army is an extremely complex organizational structure in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. The corporate interests of various groups (categories) of military personnel can be very different from each other, however, the extremely rigid organizational structure of the army, combined with professional isolation and partial restriction of rights and freedoms, makes it quite manageable in the hands of the command staff.

From the point of view of its structure, the social organization of the army is a set of interconnected and ordered relative to each other social groups of military personnel with different social status, hierarchized among themselves in a certain way depending on the social positions occupied by their members in various spheres of life related to military-professional activities.

The elements of the structure of a military organization are: actors of army service, social functions (system-forming factor), normative practice and results of functioning. Let's look at this in more detail.

Actors of a military organization include military personnel and civilian personnel as representatives of a certain social community. Their actions are subordinated to the implementation of the functions of a given social institution in the process of fulfilling their social roles. The social organization of the army is characterized by cohesion and integration of military personnel.

A special role in the army is played by its elite - the officer corps, which most clearly serves to preserve the spirit of army traditions and corporatism. During Soviet times, the profession of an officer was considered prestigious and well paid. The first, most sensitive blow to the image of the army was dealt in 1991, when the USSR army broke up into 15 parts. The economic crisis and the need to follow previously concluded agreements caused a reduction in the army. At the same time, a fairly well-thought-out concept was visible in the actions of the authorities: lack of financial support, mechanical reduction of military units, sending officers “to civilian life” without pensions and apartments, etc. As a result, the military department was forced to admit that there is a catastrophic shortage of junior officers in our army (only 30% of junior officers are staffed). Only 46% of respondents junior officers expressed a desire to continue military service in modern conditions.43

From the point of view of the substantive side of the army's activities, its structure represents a certain set of standards of conduct for military personnel implementing the functions of the army. These standards of behavior are embodied in social roles characteristic of the army system (private, warrant officer, officer, etc.).

The army and its role in the conditions of transformation of the political system of Russian society

The processes taking place in society constantly change the needs of individuals, groups, layers, classes, society, and consequently change the nature of the relationship of social institutions with the social environment.

The functioning of the army institution presupposes its interaction with other social institutions of society. The most important, from our point of view, are aspects of the relationship between the army and the political system. Let's look at this in more detail.

The army is the most stable and politically inert institution of the state, which is an element of the political superstructure of society, the most important instrument of political power, and its construction and activity is the implementation of clearly defined and formalized political guidelines, political decisions and actions. It is important to understand that the army always distances itself from current political decisions, but its influence. associated with the state’s strategy in foreign policy issues related to the country’s security.

In political discourse, the army is positioned as one of the main subjects of power politics and acts as the force that guarantees the stability of the established political regime. At the same time, the army is an object of policy implemented by the activities of state and socio-political structures.

As the most mobile, organized, disciplined and armed institution of the state, the army is always at the center of political processes and acts as a political instrument.

In the political sphere, the army occupies a certain political neutrality, since it contains an attitude of loyalty to fundamental state institutions and prohibits party discourse in the implementation of the goals and objectives of military policy.

The controversial issue of the degree of presence of politics in the army has generated two opposing opinions in the research community:

1. The armed forces must be consistently withdrawn from the sphere of political struggle.

2. Maximum government intervention in all army affairs is required, including the appointment of special presidential representatives in all army structures.

Each of these ideas has its supporters and opponents. For example, an adherent of the first idea was E. Roosevelt, who in one of his works spoke about the prohibition of politics in the army: “Military personnel entering the field of politics or diplomacy must first resign and break all ties with the armed forces.”

The second idea is supported by S. Malyukov, who studies the issue of the relationship between the army and politics: “Understanding the slogan “Army is out of politics” as the absolute exclusion of the army from the political sphere, its removal from politics is at odds with the real role played by the armed forces in conflicts on the territory of the former USSR and in interstate politics with neighboring countries.”

Being, in fact, a specific means of the state (a powerful political institution), the army, in our opinion, cannot exist outside of politics. It is the political decision that determines the required number of armed forces in peace or war. In addition, being one of the main institutions of the state, which, in turn, is an element of the political system, the army is obliged to implement all political decisions made at the state level.

In connection with the above, let us ask the question: is the army a political institution? Most authors who consider the relationship between the army and the political system define the army as a political institution, but some researchers do not agree with this, considering the army only a tool for realizing the political interests of certain forces through armed violence.96 Considering the certain value of the arguments of opponents of positioning the army as a political Institute, however, we share the position of its supporters.

Let's argue our point of view.

The use of the army to protect citizens from external and internal enemies allows us to consider it as an object of control by the political forces in power, an instrument for realizing their interests.

However, the overtly political nature of such tasks as the disarmament of illegal armed groups seeking to violently seize power, and the suppression of mass unrest among citizens already gives grounds for thinking about the political essence of the army itself.

In the event that the army leaves subordination to the authorities and goes over to the side of the opposition, the army largely determines the further development of events. This is exactly how the monarchy in Iran (Islamic revolution in 1979), the Marcos regime in the Philippines (1986) and the Ceausescu regime in Romania (1989) were eliminated. In this case, the army is already a subject that directly determines the further direction of development of the political process.

-- [ Page 2 ] --

4. State power and the army are in an objective and necessary relationship, carried out on the basis of the obligation to establish power dominance over the army. The nature of the state power system influences its status, the nature of connections and participation in socio-political processes, which is manifested in the degree of militarization of power. The objective criterion of the latter is the dominance of civilian or military principles in the implementation of state policy. The influence of the army on the system of state power is expressed in the form of “feedback”, including the response of military personnel to government decisions on army problems, the degree of readiness of military personnel to carry out the authoritative state will.

5. Changes in the socio-political ideology of the Russian state during the perestroika period radically changed the nature and dynamics of military-church relations. The departition and depoliticization of the army initiated joint efforts by the military leadership and the Church to use religious potential in order to educate military personnel and ensure the authority of the authorities in the form of spiritual legitimization. However, despite the similarity of the ideological attitudes of the military and the Orthodox clergy, the presence of unresolved problems in military-church relations (corporate interests of the military-religious bureaucracy and the tendency to clericalize the “power” institutions of the state, contrary to the constitutional principles of a secular state; the problem of interfaith contradictions; the problem of legal regulation of the military -religious relations, etc.), significantly complicate their relationship. However, within the framework of state policy, it is possible to predict the continued development of military-religious relations in the field of military-patriotic and moral education of military personnel.

6. The army and civil society, as components of a single integral society, mutually influence each other. The relationship between the army and civil society in modern Russian society is problematized by the contradictory position of the army, which, influencing society with its modernization potential, on the one hand, should help strengthen the state, and on the other, contribute to the sustainability of social development. The specificity of the relationship between the army and civil society lies in the destructiveness of the interpenetration of essential features for each of them, therefore optimal interaction between them is possible only on the basis of social trust on the main issues of military policy. The analysis shows that the lack of such trust leads to a negative trend towards a reduction in the number of people with positive motivation for military service, which is due to the deterioration of their physical fitness, unsatisfactory social and living conditions for military service, the presence of hazing in the army and anti-army rhetoric in the media.

Approbation of work. The dissertation was discussed and recommended for defense at a meeting of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of SHI (f) SRSTU (NPI). The main provisions of the dissertation are presented in the author’s speeches at scientific and practical conferences, methodological seminars, as well as in six open publications (1 publication in publications on the list of Higher Attestation Commissions of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia) with a total volume of 7.2 pp.

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, six paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliography of used literature from 243 sources.

MAIN CONTENT OF THE WORK

In introduction the relevance of the dissertation research topic is substantiated, the degree of its scientific development in domestic and foreign literature is analyzed, the purpose and objectives, the object and subject of the research are determined, the theoretical and methodological basis of the research is indicated, the scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the presented work is revealed. The main scientific provisions submitted for defense are formulated.

IN first chapter "THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BASIS FOR STUDYING THE ARMY AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION" Theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding the army as a social institution existing in the scientific literature are examined, the army as a social organization is analyzed, and the features of military socialization are substantiated.

IN first paragraph “The social institution of the army: concept, institutional features, functions” The author justifies the use of a structural-functional approach in his work in relation to the analysis of the social institution of the army, considers its purpose and institutional features.

The emergence of the army is due to the objective needs of society for specific military-professional activities. The economic conditions for the emergence of the army as a social institution arise during the industrial stage of economic development in the 19th century.

The socio-political conditions for the emergence of the army are determined by the emergence of a national state, the general democratization of society, the fall of class barriers, the formation of national identity and the ability of the army to support the social mobility of representatives of low-status segments of the population.

As a social institution, the army fulfills, first of all, the need to protect the state from external aggression. From the point of view of its external form (as an external and objective reality), the army has such basic social characteristics as coercive force, moral authority and the quality of historicity (P. and B. Berger).

The social institution of the army is formed to solve a routine set of military problems related to repelling the threat of external aggression, and represents a stable and specifically organized armed part of society, designed to protect the state from external aggression. In the system of institutional interactions, the institution of the army ensures institutional stability and the existence of legitimate social practices.

In addition to the basic characteristics of a social institution (coerciveness, historicity and moral authority), the army also has specific ones - combat power, organization, socio-cultural orientation towards loyalty to the state and increased authority in interpersonal relationships. As a traditional social practice, the army imparts stability to the social organism and integrates society on the basis of national interests. The integration capabilities of the army are especially in demand during the period of transformation of Russian society, which initiates a weakening of the action of the main social institutions that ensure the sustainability of society.

The social institution of the army is multifunctional. Its specificity is determined, on the one hand, by the totality of the social functions prescribed to it, and on the other, by the main (main) social function. The specific nature of the functions and tasks performed by the army determines its nature, the presence of such features as armament and strictly centralized organizational unity. The latter is the basis for involving the army in performing unusual functions in extreme situations, when the capabilities of other institutions have been exhausted.

The peculiarities of the functioning of the army institution in the conditions of transformation of society are determined by the organization and hierarchy of its structure, the process of creating a professional army and the diversification of functions.

Second paragraph "The Army as a Social Organization: Essence, Structure and Functions" is devoted to the analysis of the essence, structure and functions of the army as a social organization.

If we consider the army as a way of joint activity of military personnel, then it represents a form of coordinated, orderly social interaction aimed at achieving the defense capability of the country. It is a formal target hierarchical organization that has the qualities of corporatism and management. The behavior of members of this organization is characterized by rationality, due to the standardization of behavior, which, in turn, is based on subordination and clearly defined rights and responsibilities.

Its main goal is to satisfy the public need for security, and its place in the social structure of society is determined by its ability to be a stabilizer of social order in a risk society.

The elements of the structure of a military organization are: actors of army service, social functions (system-forming factor), normative practice and results of functioning.

From the point of view of the substantive side of the army's activities, its structure is a set of standardized patterns of behavior of military personnel that ensure the implementation of the functions of the army. These standards of behavior are embodied in social roles characteristic of the army system (private, warrant officer, officer, etc.).

The social group social status of a serviceman, determined by the characteristics of his professional activity, has a certain specificity, expressed in a pronounced political overtones, i.e. inextricable connection with government policy; the use of armed violence in the performance of functions established by law, as well as the threat of its use.

As a social organization, the army, having a stable internal structure and distribution of social roles, is a model of strength for other social organizations. Introduction to military service contains a focus on its effectiveness as state institute promoting the consolidation of society on the basis of national interests.

The immutability of corporate values contributes to the stability of the military organization and the reproduction of the social status of military personnel. However, we must not forget that the value system of military personnel is associated with the typological characteristics of the personality of a military man. It is important that in modern conditions of the penetration of the liberal idea of individualism into the system of social values, the army forms a special type of personality, designated as a “soldier,” the specifics of which depend on the characteristics of military labor.

The effectiveness of the functioning of the social organization of the army depends on the effectiveness of the state, since it is a political institution and performs regulatory, social orientation, identification, communicative, integrative functions, as well as adaptation and socialization functions in society.

In conclusion, the author defines the army as a military-professional community, which has specificity in the regulation of social relations (social significance, formalization, rigidity, totality, etc.), hierarchy, stability of personnel, corporatism and a certain closedness of the military-professional environment, and also regulates the military -social relations to ensure the country's defense capability

IN third paragraph chapters “The socializing function of the army in modern conditions” The author analyzes the functions of the army as an institution of socialization.

The army belongs to the secondary group of socialization, where its mechanism is based on the principle of “traditional solidarity”.

The structural features of socialization in the army as a social institution include the specifically interrelated impact of a complex of agents; the special psycho-emotional intensity of their daily life as military personnel and a certain isolation from the external environment; social security of military personnel.

The main criteria for effective socialization of military personnel are: the adequacy of ideas about the choice of a military profession, the degree of awareness and stability of professional goals, the correlation of professional and civilian values; the ability to freely navigate the sociocultural space of values; mastering a complex of social roles; social activity.

The author examines two aspects of the socializing role of the army in society: personal, associated with the influence of the army on the individual during his stay in military service, and societal, determined by the influence of the army as a public institution on society as a whole.

In relation to society, the army acts as a model government organization, revealing the limiting variant of controllability. Where the socializing role of the army is very high, we can talk about the militarization of society, in extreme cases - about a military dictatorship.

The function of socialization of individuals is implemented by the army in the process of young people undergoing military service, instilling in them the skills of collectivism, discipline, self-control and other social qualities.

The military-social environment is one of the features of the socialization of military personnel, and includes: the value content of military service; the rigid nature of social norms governing the interaction of military personnel; developed sign-symbolic system of activity regulation; the specific value-normative nature of the content of the social selection of individuals for military service; social control of military service, ensuring strict adherence to social values and norms; the integrative nature of the army institution, the military-social organization; the social status of the serviceman and the roles corresponding to it; the specifics of military activity, requiring specific knowledge, skills and abilities from a serviceman; the total nature of the socializing impact of service.

Social norms that establish types (patterns) of socially significant behavior act as a means of socializing a military personnel.

The socializing function of the army realizes itself not only in a professional military environment, but also in the process of obtaining higher civilian education, stimulating students' search for forms of social interaction and influencing their status characteristics.

The discrepancy between the motivation of military professional activity and the purpose of the army in the state and society in modern conditions stimulates the strengthening of political socialization and the weakness of civil socialization. The predominance of material and political motives in the system of motives for the political socialization of Russian military personnel is the main reason for the commercialization and politicization of military relations.

At the present stage, the socializing role of the army, in connection with its transition to a partially contractual basis, is gradually decreasing, although the importance of this function for the integration of society is quite great. However, taking into account the traditionally high respect for the army and the belief shared by almost the entire society that “a strong state is impossible without a strong army,” it can be argued that the army will retain its channel of influence on the process of socialization on its societal scale.

In second chapter “PLACE AND ROLE OF THE ARMY IN THE SYSTEM OF INSTITUTIONAL INTERACTIONS” An analysis of the institutional interactions of the army with the institutions of politics, religion and civil society was carried out.

First paragraph chapters “The army and its role in the conditions of transformation of the political system of Russian society” is devoted to the analysis of the peculiarities of the place and role of the army as a political subject in the conditions of social anomie of Russian society.

The author analyzes the features of the relationship between state power and the army in democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian systems. . Under a democratic system of state power, the army performs the functions of ensuring the internal and external security of the state and society and is under strict control not only of state administrative structures, but also of civil society. There is a certain pattern. in the relationship between the functions of ensuring the country’s external security and internal security nation or regime: the more democratic the regime, the weaker the internal function of the army in the state and vice versa.

In conditions of democratic government, the army acts as a stabilizing factor and is focused on preventing the escalation of crisis situations. However, it is necessary to note some contradiction between the processes of democratization of society and the system of army unity of command, which presupposes hierarchy and unquestioning execution of orders. Of course, the basic principles of the functioning of the army contradict the principles of a democratic society, which does not allow the army to include the latter in its organizational structure.

In contrast to the democratic, totalitarian and authoritarian systems of government are characterized by the complete subordination of the army to the dominant party or military government (in a totalitarian regime), a small authoritarian group, a monarch, dictator, or president (in an authoritarian regime).

SOCIAL SCIENCES AND MODERNITY

A.G. LEVINSON

The army as an institution of socialization

IN recent years in Russia, polls and other measures of public opinion demonstrate a remarkable effect of simultaneous trust and distrust in the military. Observers note the prevalence of negative attitudes towards service in the armed forces, negative assessments of the situation of personnel, etc. Along with this, there is a positive assessment of the institution of the army as a symbol, its importance for the state, etc. Thus, 78% of people aged 18 and older we surveyed would not want their close relative to serve in the army now; only 20% expressed such a desire. The most frequently cited reasons for reluctance are “conflict, like the Chechen one” and “hazing, violence in the army” (Levada Center, survey of 1,600 people, January 2004). At the same time, among the 15 main public institutions, the army ranks third in terms of trust, behind only the president and the church (Levada Center, survey of 2,197 people, March 2004).

Such inconsistency is characteristic of many other aspects related to the existence of the army as an institution in modern Russian society. There are well-known calculations that have been repeatedly made showing how, with the planned reduction in the size of the armed forces, the actual number of armed people and those combined into security forces is growing. The trend of widespread military penetration into political and economic structures is also contradictory. One can see in this the militarization of the relevant structures, but one can also see the loosening of the army as a corporation. The country's ongoing structural restructuring of the economy is designed to reduce the role of the military-industrial complex compared to the one it played in the Soviet era, and society's long-term hopes are connected with this. But in the short term, economic revival is achieved largely through the injection of oil revenues into the defense complex.

Finally, returning to public opinion, it must be said that hidden belligerence, the tendency to see the world in terms of confrontation, military danger, is again occupying its usual place in the mass consciousness. The norms of representing reality are returning to their home place during the Soviet period, along with the fact that Russia’s ability to participate in military conflicts and win is rated lower and lower by society. This special kind of militarism, or “civil militarism,” in the words of M. Zapper, who analyzed this phenomenon, poses a danger primarily for the society in which it spreads [Zapper, 1999, p. 11].

Such militarism is manifested, more broadly speaking, in the fact that the army in Russian society plays a disproportionately significant social role1, without providing for

1 On the social functions of the army, see [Levinson, 2004].

Alexey Georgievich Levinson - Doctor of Art History, Head of the Department of Sociocultural Research at the Yuri Levada Analytical Center (Levada-Center).

dictated neither by the Constitution nor the statutes. One of the social roles of the army is that it plays the role of an institution of socialization in society. In general, this is characteristic of any society, but in Russia this role of the army is especially great.

We will distinguish two types of this socialization. One relates to the impact of the army on an individual (usually a young man) during his time in military service (personal scale), the other refers to the impact of the army as a social institution on society as a whole (societal scale). In the army, as a social organization, one can see a formal and informal structure. Both play their socializing role.

Societies can be distinguished by how significant the socializing role of the army is. It can be very high in terms of the impact on the individual and can be very significant in terms of the impact on society. In the latter case, they talk about the militarization of society, and when the military seizes power, they talk about a military dictatorship. The socializing role of the army in relation to the individual is usually seen in teaching discipline, instilling unpretentiousness, perseverance, as well as in instilling special loyalty to the state and patriotism. In relation to society, the army plays the role of a standard of state organization, the ultimate version of controllability, a model of power as such. We can talk about its function of discipline in relation to society.

The influence of the army on its own society is not limited to these “direct” forms. From history we know examples when the army as an institution played the role of a civilizing or modernizing principle in society. The military as a corporation, having seized power, paradoxically introduced not army, but civil democratic orders, built a secular state, etc. Another version of the paradox is that a decaying army also corrupts society. What is Russia's place among these options?

Army-school

The role of the army in the education of the individual was and remains extremely high. At the same time, so to speak, the army point of view is that the formal army organization with its discipline is the best possible way of educating a young man, turning him into a “real man”, a full-fledged member of society. At the official level, this point of view has never been opposed to another, which already indicates the success of the army’s claims as an institution to play a disciplinary role in relation to society as a whole.

Mass perceptions of how things really are in the army, however, tell a different story. The main factor influencing an individual is considered to be the informal structures that exist in army collectives - hazing and fraternity. They are known to be built on gross physical violence, violations of statutes and laws. These relationships have acquired such strength that in the eyes of a significant part of society, in fact, they represent the reality of the army, the one that has the main socializing effect on the individual. The public fear over rampant hazing, born a generation ago, has not gone away. It, in turn, gave rise to an amazing phenomenon of mass non-conformism: failure to comply with the law on universal military service (a criminal offense under current laws) is recognized as correct by almost half of the country’s adult population. Submitting to this public reaction, state power introduced many deferments and legal reasons for young men not to undergo active military service. As a result, now a minority of young men of military age pass through the army.

The army, as a possible option for socialization, is placed in this sense between two other socializing institutions, namely, the university and the “zone.” For some young people, the army is an undesirable alternative to a university, for others it is a desirable alternative to prison.

Hazing frightens the majority of “evaders,” as well as (or primarily) their mothers, with the massive use of physical violence against a newcomer entering these structures. There are numerous cases of death or injury from beatings. Frequent cases of escape from military units, including group ones, caused by hazing, have become public. The “Russian amok” scenario has become a typical scenario, when a first-year student, driven to despair by his “grandfathers,” takes up arms and carries out lynching, killing several of them.

The public is frightened, I repeat, by the violence perpetrated against first-year students and the excesses described above. She should have been no less frightened by the “successful” passage of the two-stage socialization process. If the first stage consists of the “grandfathers” torturing, humiliating and oppressing the “young”, then at the second stage he himself, becoming an “old-timer”, commits the same violence and humiliation towards the next generation of “young”. The law of army informal socialization is that it is impossible to avoid being a rapist and torturer in the second year in the same way as it is impossible to avoid violence and torture in the first.

Thus, in its standard and mass version, hazing (here acting as a synonym for the army as an educational institution) produces individuals who have experience not only as objects, but also as subjects of almost unlimited violence against an innocent person. Such people have knowledge of technology and practical experience of beatings and torture, and it is very important that they began to learn this experience as victims, but were released from this “school of violence” into society in the roles of executioners.

This experience, acquired in the informal structures of the army, in contrast to the military training and discipline provided by formal army relations, is not needed for conducting combat operations, for confronting the enemy army. But it turns out to be functional when the army acts against civilians, performs punitive or police functions. In this case, people who have experience of violence, often group violence, against the unarmed and weaker, are needed. Accordingly, we need an institute that produces them on a regular basis.

As a socializing institution, the Russian army does not simply produce men with certain skills and morals that legitimize their use. As an institution, as a corporation, it claims to thus produce a type of person and, what is very important for our topic, a modal type. The army seeks to maintain its control over society by insisting that one can only become a "real" man through active service in the armed forces. Research experience says: even now there are widespread stories among the older generation about how before “not a single girl would give it to a guy who didn’t serve.” Thus, male usefulness is connected with military service. And military service silently presupposes passing through the described two-stage mechanism of informal socialization. Thus, the gender/national anthropological norm is assigned to a very specific human type. Taking into account the fact that the subject is specially taught to unquestioningly obey the strong and without hesitation to subjugate the weak, this type should be called authoritarian.

DORMIDONTOVA ANZHELIKA, PIMNEVA VALENTINA - 2012

The article analyzes the theoretical and methodological traditions of studying the institution of military education at several levels of scientific knowledge: from general sociological theories, which are a synthesis of the methodology of the systems approach and theories of war, constructing the practices of military training and education, to special theories of military education, fixing the connection between all levels of military education.

Key words: social institution, sociological approach, military education, social structure, society.

The implementation of a sociological approach to the study of the institution of military education in Russia was carried out mainly through a theoretical analysis of the nature and consequences of the impact of war on the formation of the social structure of society and its military component, where special role occupied the institute for training professional military personnel.

The first to address the problems of institutionalizing military education were representatives of Russian military science, who tried to independently take the path of “positive knowledge.” In search of answers to the works of Western military theorists and strategists G. von Bülow, A. Zhemeny, K. von Clausewitz, H. von Moltke, Russian researchers outlined a sociological perspective for studying the institution of military education in connection with political, economic, demographic and spiritual phenomena. Attempts to identify problem areas of military training and education in Russia since the second half of the 19th century were made within the framework of military statistics and military psychology.

The studies of L. Zolotarev, A. Maksheev, D. Maslovsky, D. Milyutin, A. Myshlaevsky, K. Oberuchev, P. Rezhepo, P. Yazykov became widely known at that time. The authors analyzed changes in the social composition of the officer corps, its condition and prospects for career growth. During the period under review, P. Izmestyev, A. Koropchevsky, V. Pepelishchev, A. Rezanov, N. Ugakh-Ogorovich, G. Shumkov were actively involved in psychological research into the army and military education. It was Russian scientists who first raised the question of the need to create a new branch of scientific knowledge, which “would specifically engage in the study social phenomena from a military point of view" - military sociology. Applied military-statistical and socio-psychological theories contributed to the emergence of a sociological approach to the analysis of social phenomena in the conditions of the institute of military education, which was reflected in questionnaire surveys of graduates in order to identify shortcomings in the special training and practical skills of the Russian army.

The survey results served as the basis for making decisions on changing the quality of military education. Of particular interest are concepts that explain the social nature of war and put forward special requirements for the training of professional military personnel. Many well-known domestic scientists paid attention to this issue: M. Dragomirov, N. Golovin, N. Korf, G. Leer, N. Mikhnevich, Y. Novikov, P. Rezhepo, A. Rezanov, A. Snesarev, P. Sorokin and etc. For example, N. Golovin proposed a set of social indicators and indicators, formed methodological methods for studying military education and outlined guidelines in the training of professional military personnel, where maintaining “morale” occupied a special place.

Norms, values, moral and ethical codes began to be designated as the “core” of the social institution of military education. P. Sorokin sees the main reason for wars and armed conflicts in the weakening of the process of assimilation by society or its individual parts of the system of basic values and corresponding norms (moral, political, economic, aesthetic and religious), in the violation of their compatibility. During periods of cultural transition, a clash of different cultural systems occurs. As the main conditions for peace, P. Sorokin points to the revision and revaluation of cultural norms and values by all states and peoples; the establishment of the highest international authority with the right of binding and coercive decisions in all international conflicts. Therefore, the evolution of the formation of the institute of military education in Russia cannot be considered in isolation from the general context of the development of military art in the world. The war strategy was analyzed, assessed, generalized and reflected in the creation of military schools. It is Russian scientists who have priority in raising the issue of institutionalizing military education.

With the advent of sociology as a science, the founders of the systems approach, O. Comte and G. Spencer, began to classify the state with its military organization, the family, the church as the most important elements of the social structure, and they viewed society through the prism of special forms of social organization - social institutions. K. Marx noted that social institutions are not only products of historical development, but also social forms of human existence. From the standpoint of structural functionalism, E. Durkheim defines sociology as the science of institutions, their genesis and functioning, and calls social institutions “factories for the reproduction of social relations,” the foundation of which is social norms and values. He identifies corporations as special institutions that unite people primarily on professional grounds. The institute of military education, which is held together by the moral and ethical codes of social interactions of professional military personnel, can be classified as such a corporation.

In the works of Russian and foreign researchers there are different interpretations and classifications of the category “social institution”. In domestic sociology, it is presented as the main structural element of the social structure, which coordinates and integrates many individual actions of people, streamlines social relations in certain spheres of public life.

Institutions are distinguished by their duration of existence; on education mechanisms; by occurrence as a result of random selection and conversion (agreement). The plurality of definitions of a social institution is reflected in various classifications: formal and informal; basic and additional; authoritarian and democratic, etc. However, all these approaches have different levels of generalization and relationship to various areas public life. Such different points of view do not specify the research area and do not allow us to identify the main methodological principles for using the category “social institution”.

Therefore, from the whole variety of definitions, G. Osipov’s interpretation is accepted as the basic one, which he gives in its three meanings. On the one hand, an institution is a specialized group that performs certain social functions to satisfy the needs or regulate the social behavior of people. In another case, a social institution is limited to the organizational forms in which certain social functions are carried out. Thirdly, a social institution is interpreted as a set of organizations and means for performing certain functions in the interests of society. In the system of social institutions, a special place is occupied by the military institution, which underlies the distinction between two main types of “social constitution”, namely the military and industrial types of society. Social institutions construct the relationship between civil society and the army, building the entire spectrum of social interactions, influencing the institution of military education, structuring it and determining the strategy for its transformation.

Institutional practices, interfacing with each other, destroy, rebuild, and create new educational structures for the training of professional military personnel. Ultimately, these practices designate the status positions of military social groups and determine the guidelines for the basic (modal) personality of a military man. The Institute of Military Education accumulates certain social values and norms (readiness for battle, subordination to superiors in rank, unconditional execution of orders, etc.). Like any other institution of society, it embodies a set of various social roles and status positions.

The target function of the social institution of military education is the preparation of professional military men, focused on the armed defense of the fatherland from military aggression, training of professional military men, their education, socialization and familiarization with the basic values and practices of military service. Russia's transition to market economic mechanisms and, as a consequence, socio-economic transformations of the social structure of society, led to the fact that the institution of military education had to be recreated under the influence of a complex set of various external and internal factors: political, economic, social, military-technical, legal, national-ethnic and military-geographical. The external environment of Russia has changed, the threat of military conflicts approaching our borders, including from neighboring territories, has increased. Despite the presence of historical traditions, patriotic values and beliefs, the institutions of the army and military education began to focus on economic principles.

For many, professional military service began to be seen primarily as a source of social preferences in the form of high income, free housing and social benefits. Western sociologists were among the first to draw attention to the changing nature of military service and military education, which began to transform from a social institution with the concepts of duty and honor to an occupation with market mechanisms of functioning. In publications of the second decade of the 21st century, increasing emphasis is placed on the issues of forming ethical principles of modern warfare, on issues of consolidating future patriotic values in the personality structure. In recent years, the focus of attention of domestic researchers has shifted towards the need to reform the institution of military education and change educational paradigms that have a sociocultural orientation. The changing military-political and socio-economic conditions put forward a number of new requirements for the Institute of Military Education, where the determining principle was the prospects for multi-level training of military personnel, based on the continuity of centuries-old traditions. According to military researchers, the modern model of the institute of military education in Russia should train military personnel, at least with a perspective of 10-15 years in the future.

It is this approach that will allow command and military technical personnel to correctly assess the impact of possible unexpected scientific and technical breakthroughs on the forms and methods of armed struggle in situational, remote, transcontinental, aerospace and other types of wars of the “seventh” generation. Organically interconnected with the first principle and the other - the fundamental nature of training professional military personnel. Since the nature of armed struggle has become more complex, military strategy, operational art and tactics, command and control systems, weapons and military equipment, training and education of personnel. Therefore, the Institute of Military Education is called upon to perform important cognitive functions, systematize, deepen and develop military knowledge, and provide it with scientific validity. This should begin with the development of a new doctrine of military education. Using the conceptual provisions of the modern systems approach

allows us to holistically, unambiguously and specifically describe the social institution of military education. An example of such a concept is the parametric theory of systems by A. Uemov, which offers formalized definitions, theoretically and empirically based methods and measurement procedures, patterns and facts obtained in the course of empirical research. Based on the rhetoric of another representative of the systems approach, A. Davydov, the social institution of military education can be presented as a hierarchical, heterogeneous, distributive social subsystem created by people to satisfy a common need, which functions on the basis of principles and laws with the help of sociological algorithms.” Let's consider these provisions in more detail. Purposefulness - satisfaction of one or more fundamental needs, focus on solving certain problems (the need to obtain a quality education, preparation for military service).

Hierarchy - structuring by hierarchical levels: educators - pupils; superiors - subordinates; teachers are students. Heterogeneity - the social subsystem consists of local subsystems, such as culture (ethical principles, values, norms, traditions, patterns of behavior, social roles), vocational training (system of training the future, professional socialization), law (system of legal norms, laws, statutes, regulations and legal regulations). The distribution of the subsystem lies in the fact that the social institution of military education is part of a more general social subsystem - the institution of education. Productivity, interaction - the effectiveness of meeting the need for quality education: objective results of the activity of the social subsystem with the help subjective assessments satisfaction, benefit.

In addition, these properties involve determining the influence of the military education subsystem on other social subsystems, their coordination and subordination (civil society, army, education). Resilience is the ability to function over time and under the influence of a changing external environment. Stages of the life cycle of a subsystem - origin (emergence of need), formation, maturity, cessation of existence. The presence of system-wide principles, laws and patterns - principles and laws of similarity, feedback, an increase in the number of subsystems and differences between them, an increase in the number of local subsystems over time. Development according to one’s own “scenario”, consistent with the “scenario” of an integral system of military education. Sociological algorithms are massive and repeated methods for solving problems facing the subsystem (for solving problems of professional socialization of students in accordance with the professionogram of officer positions).

If we recognize that a social institution is formed in society to implement certain socially significant functions (satisfying socially significant needs), and a certain social organization is created in it, then all organizations can be divided according to this institutional basis. Using the methodology of a systems approach allows us to determine the specifics of the functioning of the institute of military education, based on its role and place in the social structure of society: - close connection with the institute of military service and the institution of the state; - a certain degree of closedness, hierarchy and corporatism; - socialization practices of familiarization with the values of military service (traditions, rituals, moral and ethical codes, regulations and prohibitions); - status position that forms a stable complex of formal and informal attitudes to life (military honor, dignity, camaraderie, military brotherhood); - social significance and the need to possess professional skills, knowledge and abilities;

Formation among students that meets the interests of the state. The Institute of Military Education has a clearly defined and legally established formal structure, a detailed and documented system of rights and obligations, and a system of cultural norms and regulations. Military sociologist V. Bondarenko defines the range of social relations in which institutional practices of military training are carried out: - military service (related to the performance of combat training tasks); - social and organizational, which, first of all, are associated with all forms patriotic education, fulfilling their public duties, civic duty; - everyday relationships (constants in the sphere of everyday life and leisure); - cultural and spiritual (related to the satisfaction of cultural and spiritual needs and interests); - social and managerial relations in which regulation, control and regulation of joint activities are carried out. Emphasizing the importance of joint activities in the conditions of the institute of military education, Bondarenko designates the functions of military collectives: - military service (reflect the content of the activities of a military collective as a structural element of a military organization and are manifested in various forms of social organized activity of personnel); - socially integrative, ensuring sociocultural integration of team members with the whole society; - social and communicative, aimed at ensuring diverse forms of intra-collective communication, interaction of personnel and group cohesion; - educational, ensuring the regulation and improvement of social relations, cooperation to solve various problems; - managerial, ensuring the organization, regulation and improvement of social relations both at the level of the individual and at the level of the team as a whole. The main functions of the army and the institute of military education are enshrined in the Military Doctrine Russian Federation. Currently - the implementation of state policy, protecting it from external enemies, defending national interests, etc. Increasing the prestige of military service, comprehensive preparation of citizens of the Russian Federation for it; Improving the quality of personnel training and military education, as well as building up military-scientific potential are priority areas of military policy. In a broad sense, a military organization is defined as “an organization created by one or another social entity to achieve its political (and other, refracted through politics) goals through the use of military violence.

The latter becomes its immediate goal and presupposes specific means - weapons, organizational structure and trained personnel." Therefore, the focus of training professional military personnel at all levels of military education is directly dependent on state policy, which fixes the ways and means of using military force.

In this regard, it is no coincidence that Russian military scientists I. Vorobyov and V. Kiselev raise the problem associated with the need to expand the scope of research in the field of the origin, formation, development and current state of the domestic military school, relying on long-term guidelines for military development developed by military science, first of all, sociology. Thus, the functioning of the institute of military education is closely connected with state policy, since during the training process an ideology that meets the interests of the state is formed in the personality structure of the future military professional.

The Institute of Military Education reproduces the most stable patterns of behavior, habits, and traditions that are passed on and transmitted from generation to generation by all members of society. Its role and place in the social structure of society, implemented educational strategies and practices, are built on the basis of modern geopolitics, types of wars and armed conflicts, economic and social transformations of Russian society and the mentality of the people under the influence of external and internal factors that have a significant impact on the state of national security states.

1. Obraztsov I.V. Military sociology in Russia: history, current state and prospects // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. - 1998. - Volume 1, No. 3. - P. 91-107.

2. Golovin N.N. On the sociological study of war // Informant. - Belgrade, 1937. - No. 4. - P. 7-12.

3. Sorokin P.A. Causes of war and conditions of peace // New Journal. - 1944. - No. 7. - P. 238-251.

4. Marx K. Towards a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law // Marx K. Works; ed. 2nd. T. 9. - M., 1957. - 696 p.

5. Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose / trans. from French, comp., afterword. and note. A.B. Hoffman. - M., 1995. - 352 p.

6. Abramov A.P. Sociocultural transformation of personality in the context of reforming the system of secondary specialized military educational institutions: monograph. - Kursk: South-West. state univ., 2013. - 340 p.

7. Abramov A.P., Alekseenko A.I. Spirituality and morality in the historical and cultural tradition of the Russian army // Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice. - Tambov: Certificate, 2011. - No. 5 (11): in 4 parts. Part II. - C. 10-12.

8. Vorobyov I.N., Kiselev V.L. Domestic military school: history and modernity // Military Thought. - 2010. - No. 3. - P. 43-49.

9. Uemov A.I. Systematic approach and general theory systems - M.: Mysl, 1978. - 272 p.

10. Davydov A.A. Systemic sociology; ed. 2nd. - M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. - 324 p.

11. Bondarenko V.F. Sociology of military management. - M.: VU, 2009. - 192 p.

12. Klepikov D.V. Sources of military reform: problems of organizational approach // Sociology. - 2004. - No. 2. - P. 114-121. 13. Vorobyov I.N., Kiselev V.L. Domestic military school: history and modernity // Military Thought. - 2010. - No. 3. - P. 43-49.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Army concept

Types of armed forces

Functions and characteristics of the army

References

Army concept

army social institution

The army as a social institution is a system of social connections and relationships that exist in the country's armed forces. In general, the army is understood as the totality of the land, naval, air force and other paramilitary forces of the state.

The army includes such direct participants as the rank and file of the armed forces, officers and high command. In addition, such related groups of subjects of social relations are identified as conscripts, their parents, students (who have an extremely negative attitude towards the army as an institution of arbitrariness, and not power and force), and retired military personnel.

The army is not a separate institution, it serves as an instrument of the state, hence its internal hierarchy, formalism and corruption. Ensuring control over the processes occurring in the army is also entrusted to the state; society does not (in Russia) have the opportunity to monitor the legitimacy of power relations in this group.

Social relations in the army are characterized by inequality in terms of status, since these statuses are prescribed by the hierarchy of military ranks. However, the army is also distinguished by an increase in the number of deviations, since conscription into the army creates a break from the usual reality surrounding a person, often changing his value systems upside down. Such deviations as unauthorized leaving of service, escapes, desertion, hazing, etc. indicate a crisis in the Russian army caused by social and political reasons. This includes the poor financial situation of military personnel, the lack of a unifying ideology, the absence of a real enemy, and the corruption of the command.

The relationship between the army and society is built both directly and indirectly - through a whole complex of public institutions (media, parties, public organizations, etc.). The mixed army recruitment system (officers and conscripts) is also an obstacle to the development of a unified state policy in relation to the army.

Types of armed forces

It should be emphasized that depending on economic opportunities and traditions in the world, various types armed forces. The main ones can be identified:

a) professional (variation - hired);

b) army on the basis of conscription (a type of military service);

c) police (there are no personnel formations);

d) universal arming of the people.

Functions and characteristics of the army

Scientists, as a rule, distinguish internal and external functions of this social institution:

a) external - maintaining the inviolability of borders, ensuring the sovereignty of the state, favorable conditions for the implementation of an internal set of tasks, solving problems of universal significance, assistance to victims of aggression, allies;

b) internal - ensuring power to the dominant social group, stopping and preventing internal social conflicts that threaten the collapse of the state, i.e. preserving its territorial integrity, instilling in citizens the readiness to defend their homeland, developing skills of moral behavior in the future labor activity, moral and psychological preparation of young people for life’s difficulties.

From the above, it is legitimate to highlight the following characteristics of the army as a social institution:

a) this is a state institution. Like the state as a whole, the army protects the interests of the ruling elite, a certain social group. Used in resolving various types of (internal and international) conflicts when peaceful means of establishing order have been exhausted;

b) armed forces - legal organization, the functioning of which complies with the legislation of the country and international law;

c) the army differs from other social institutions in that it has combat power. This fact in itself often guarantees the inviolability of the legal order and allows the state not to resort to violence;

e) being an organic part of the state, the army sometimes performs odious functions, i.e. is used not in the national, but in the local interests of individual political figures or groups.

References

Vagin S.N. The army as a social institution: problems and prospects // Humanitarian and socio-economic sciences. - 2008

Egorov L.G. Problems of military sociology//Sociological research. 1995.

Posted on Allbest.ru

The army as a social institution, a social movement. Is the army a social institution? Why? Attitudes of young people towards military service

Social institution of the army: concept, institutional features, functions

The army as a social organization: essence, structure and functions

The army and its role in the conditions of transformation of the political system of Russian society

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Similar documents