Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin (born January 21, 1889, Turya, Russia - died February 10, 1968, Winchester, Massachusetts, USA) was a Russian-American sociologist who founded the Department of Sociology at Harvard University in 1930. One of the main topics of his research is the problems of socio-cultural dynamics. They are related to issues of cultural change and the reasons behind it.
In the history of theory, of particular importance is his distinction between two types of sociocultural systems: “sensory” (empirical, dependent on natural sciences and encouraging them) and “ideational” (mystical, anti-intellectual, dependent on power and faith).
Key Ideas
Sorokin's Sociocultural Dynamics (the first three volumes appeared in 1937) begins with an analysis of cultural integration. Is human culture an organized whole? Or is it an accumulation of values, objects andsigns connected only by proximity in time and space? Sorokin suggested four relationships between the elements of culture. First, mechanical or spatial contiguity, in which they are connected only by proximity. Secondly, the integration of elements as a result of a common association with some external factor. Third, unity as a result of causal functional integration. And also the highest and final form of cultural connection, logically meaningful integration.
Sorokin noticed that culture consists of millions of people, objects and events with an infinite number of possible connections. Logically meaningful integration arranges these elements into an understandable system and defines the principle that gives the system logical coherence and meaning. In this form, the culture is united around a central idea that gives it unity.
Integration
This idea has its justification for Sorokin. Causal and logically meaningful integration are based on different principles. In causal analysis, complex objects are reduced to simpler ones until the ultimate simplicity or basic unit is reached. The study of the relationship between the basic units in "Sociocultural Dynamics" leads to the disclosure of the nature of their relationship in a more complex structure. Causal functional integration is a continuum.
On the one hand, the elements are so closely related that when one of them is eliminated, the system ceases to exist or undergoes profound modification. On the other side,changing one element has no measurable effect on others because not all cultural traits are causally related. In the logically significant method, reduction to basic units is impossible because no simple social atoms have been found.
Instead, one seeks the central meaning that permeates cultural phenomena and unifies them into a unity. Causal analysis often describes similarities without telling us why they exist. But a person receives a different understanding from the perception of logical unity. A properly trained mind automatically and apodictically ("beyond a doubt") captures the unity of Euclid's geometry, Bach's concerto, Shakespeare's sonnet, or Parthenon architecture.
He sees the relationship clearly and understands why it is the way it is. On the contrary, objects can be insidious without any logical connection between them. For example, consumption of chocolate ice cream may increase as juvenile delinquency increases. Although these facts are related, they have no logical connection and do not give an idea of the dynamics of juvenile delinquency.
Relation between method and principles
Logically meaningful relationships vary in intensity. Some link the cultural elements into a sublime unity. Others simply combine them into low degrees of unity. The integration of core cultural values is the most important form of logically meaningful synthesis. Finding a principle that maintains this unity allows the scientist to understand the essence, meaning andcultural integrity. Sorokin notes that:
The essence of the logically meaningful method is… finding a central principle (“reason”) that permeates all components [of a culture], gives meaning and meaning to each of them, and thus turns the cosmos into a chaos of unintegrated fragments.
Structure analysis
If the value of a method lies in finding such a principle, one should ask how it can be found. How do you know if a discovery is real? How can one resolve the different claims of researchers that they have found an organizing principle? The answer to the first question is simple. This principle is discovered through observation, statistical study, logical analysis, intuition and deep thought.
All this is the first stage of scientific discovery. In turn, validity is determined by the logical purity of the principle. Is it free from contradictions and consistent with the rules of right thinking? Will she stand the facts she sets out to explain? If so, one can believe in his claim to the truth. The validity of competing truth claims is defined in the same way: logical purity and explanatory power.
Sorokin in "Sociocultural Dynamics" suggested looking for principles that could capture the ultimate reality of various types of cultural systems. The most important principle is the one on which culture itself depends in its perception of ultimate reality. What source of information has the highest cultural validity for judging what is real? Sorokin argued that some cultures acceptbasis of truth or absolute reality as supersensible and agree that the truths found by our senses are illusory.
Others are opposite: ultimate reality is revealed by our senses, while other forms of perception mislead and confuse us. Different conceptions of ultimate reality form the institutions of culture and shape its essential character, meaning and personality.
Interaction
As well as considering cultural systems as logical units, Sorokin suggested that they have degrees of autonomy and self-regulation. In addition, the most important determinants of the nature and direction of change in a system are within the system. Consequently, cultural systems contain immanent mechanisms of self-regulation and self-direction. The history of culture is determined by its internal properties, that is, "its life path is laid in its foundations at the birth of the system."
Therefore, in order to understand sociocultural dynamics and change, one cannot rely on theories that emphasize external factors or on those who believe that change is due to one element of the social system, such as the economy, population, or religion. Instead, change is the result of the system expressing its internal tendencies to develop and mature. Thus, the emphasis should be on internal unity and logically meaningful organization.
Typology
Sorokin classified the forms of integrated culture. There are two main types:ideational and sensual, and the third - idealistic, which is formed from their mixture. Sorokin describes them as follows.
Everyone has their own mentality; its own system of truth and knowledge; own philosophy and worldview; their type of religion and standards of "holiness"; its own system of good and evil; their forms of art and literature; their customs, laws, code of conduct; their prevailing forms of social relations; own economic and political organization; and, finally, their own type of human personality with a peculiar mentality and behavior. In ideal cultures, reality is perceived as an intangible, eternal being. The needs and goals of people are spiritual and are realized through the pursuit of supersensible truths.
There are two subclasses of the ideal mentality: ascetic idealism and active idealism. The ascetic form seeks spiritual goals through the denial of material appetites and detachment from the world. At its extreme, the individual completely loses himself in search of unity with a deity or supreme value. Active idealism seeks to reform the socio-cultural world in line with growing spirituality and towards goals determined by its main value. Its bearers seek to bring others closer to God and their vision of ultimate reality.
Sensual cultures are dominated by a mentality that perceives reality as something that is determined by our feelings. Supersense does not exist, and agnosticism forms an attitude towards the world beyond the senses. Human needs are realized by changing anduse of the outside world. This culture is the opposite of the ideal in values and institutions.
There are three forms of it. The first is active, in which needs are satisfied by transforming the physical and socio-cultural worlds. The great conquerors and merchants of history are examples of this mentality in action. The second is a passive mentality that needs parasitic exploitation of the physical and cultural world. The world exists simply to meet needs; so eat, drink and be merry. This mentality has no strong values and follows any instrumental path to satisfaction.
Many cultures fall between these extremes, and Sorokin sees them as poorly integrated. The exception is the idealistic culture. It is a synthesis in which reality is multifaceted and needs are both spiritual and material, with the former dominating. The non-integrated form of this type is the pseudo-idealistic culture, in which reality is primarily sensual and needs predominantly physical. Unfortunately, the needs are not met, and deprivations are regularly transferred. A group of primitive people is an example of this type.
The sociologist also identified models of sociocultural dynamics, which are divided into three groups:
- cyclic (subdivided into wave and circular);
- evolutionary (single-line and multi-line models);
- synergetic.
Features
Sorokin's theory of sociocultural dynamics describes in detail the idealfeatures of each type. He presented their social and practical, aesthetic and moral values, system of truth and knowledge, social power and ideology, and influence on the development of the social self. However, he noted that there are no pure types. In some cultures, one form predominates, but at the same time it coexists with the characteristics of other types. Sorokin wanted to find real cases of forms of integrated culture.
Concentrating on Greco-Roman and Western civilizations, Sorokin also studied the Middle East, India, China and Japan. He described in detail the trends and fluctuations in their art, scientific discoveries, wars, revolutions, systems of truth, and other social phenomena. Avoiding a cyclical theory of change, Sorokin observed that cultural institutions go through ideal, sensual, and idealistic periods, often separated by times of crisis as they move from one to the other.
In his concept of socio-cultural dynamics, he explained these changes as the result of immanent determinism and the principle of limits. By immanent determinism, he meant that social systems, like biological ones, change in accordance with their internal capabilities. That is, the functioning dynamic organization of the system sets boundaries and possibilities for change.
Systems, however, have limitations. For example, as they become more and more sensitive, moving in the direction of feeling cynical, they reach the limit or limits of their potential for expansion. dialectically,moving towards a sensitivity extreme creates ideal countertrends that intensify as the system polarizes. These countertrends cause discord and disorganization and bring the system into a more idealistic shape.
As dialectical changes are reflected in a culture, violence, revolutions and wars intensify as the culture tries to adjust to a new configuration or structure. Therefore, the study of change must focus on internal organization (immanent determinism) and the understanding that a system can only go so far in any particular direction (principle of limits) before it begins to transform.
Rationale
Sociocultural dynamics is filled with Sorokin's hypothesis testing data in various contexts and periods. Patterns of change in art, philosophy, science, and ethics have been scrutinized in search of principles that explain their transformation. In each case, Pitirim Sorokin found support for his theory. For example, his analysis of the Greco-Roman and Western philosophical systems showed that before 500 BC. e. these systems were largely ideal. By the fourth century B. C. they were idealists, and from 300 to 100 B. C. e. they were moving towards a period of sensuous dominance.
From the first century BC to 400 there was a period of transition and crisis, followed by a revival of ideological philosophy from the fifth to the twelfth century. This was followed by an idealistic period and another transition, which brings us to the dominance of the philosophy of the sensible, from the sixteenth centuryand up to our days. The analysis was carried out in a similar way for other social phenomena.
Models of war, revolution, crime, violence and legal systems were also analyzed by the sociologist. They are, however, mostly seen as phenomena of transitional periods. Sorokin resisted the temptation to associate wars and revolutions with sensual and ideational cultures. Instead, his analysis shows that revolutions occur as a result of a lack of compatibility between core values. The more integrated the culture, the greater the likelihood of peace.
As the value of integration decreases, unrest, violence and crime increase. In the same way, war demonstrates the breaking of crystallized social relations between peoples. In his analysis of 967 conflicts, Sorokin showed that wars intensify during the transition period. These changes often make the value systems of affected societies incompatible. The war is the result of the disintegration of these intercultural relations.
