psychics of a certain person are being constructed as well.
So, we have all grounds to consider, as a subject, only that component of the socium which actively influences other objects. For example, subjects of the policy are big social groups with their specific interests which determine a sense of political actions. On a certain stage of their development, they create political structures called to efficiently act for the benefit of their groups.
The immediate organizers of political actions are the individuals which determine the direction, course, and content of political processes. Therefore, the important role is played by still one subject, namely the political leader as a man which decisively affects the members of a certain social group. The leader is a subject which realizes the organizational and integrating influence. The rich
historical experience testifies to that the leader’s activity promotes the revelation of the creative potential of a small or big social group, but sometimes, on the contrary, hampers it.
By the Weber’s typology, the following basic types of leadership are distinguished: traditional type founded on the faith in the sainthood of a certain subject of power; rational, legal, or bureaucratic one which is based on the faith in legality of the present order and its expediency; and charismatic leadership which is supported by the faith into extraordinary abilities, i.e. it is formed on the
base of the cult of a person.
By style, one distinguishes the authoritarian leadership, which involves the individual guiding influence on the basis of the mechanism of a threat to realize force sanctions, and the democratic leadership which allows the members of a group to participate in arriving at aims and in the management of its activity.
By speaking about the typology of subjects, we have in mind “ideal type” according to M. Weber, i.e., the establishment of meaningful ties typical of some community or the sequence of events.
The role of a subject in history is most completely elucidated in the existentialistic philosophical trend, whose different directions are joined by the belief that existence precedes essence. For example, J.-P. Sartre stated that subjectivism means, on the one hand, that an individual subject chooses himself by himself, and on the second hand, that a man cannot come beyond the scope of human subjectivity. By choosing myself, I create the general by understanding the project of any other man, whatever epoch he belongs. This absoluteness of a choice does not liquidate the relativity of each epoch. Historic circumstances change.
A man may be born as a slave in the heathen society, a feudal seignior, or a proletarian. But it remains invariable for a man that he/she needs to be in the world, to work there, to be among others, and to be mortal in the world. Scopes are not objective and not subjective, rather they have objective and subjective sides.
A representative of the French school of sociology H. Marcuse, by emphasizing the drawbacks of an industrial society, conflicts of an individual and the society, and contradictions between freedom and existence, stated that reality becomes technological reality and a subject is interlinked with an object
so closely that the notion of object includes obligatorily the notion of subject into itself. The very subject is the constitutive part of a scientifically determinated object. A subject of scientific methods and a subject of business life is the expression of the same subjectivity, namely a man.
The above-presented thoughts characterize, in general, adequately the initial stage of formation of a post-industrial civilization which is experienced by the humanity at the beginning of the XXIth century. At the same time, it is necessary to study the profound foundations of the typology of a socio-historical subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment