The crisis of modern society is expressed in a crisis of identity as an individual social individual (man) and individual communities. The relationship between global, „world „society of individual communities is mediated by the so-called . Mega - trends: scientific and technical progress, economic integration , information and communication revolution , the movement for human rights and the practice of globalization, exposes contradictions identity of traditional and modern society , and identity of human existence in general . Where is the social process role and place of politics and religion - working on new content identity of a man and society , or maintaining the status quo ? This does not have the ambition to offer a developed sociological elaboration forward hypotheses , but to indicate the lineup a few questions in this regard relevant research . Therefore, all suggestions in terms of thematic and methodological contents welcome . The first question relates to the very notion of identity. French sociologist women . Gurvitch, in his famous work "Contemporary Sociology call " in the section titled " Fake Problems sociology of the nineteenth century, " points out that one of these fake problems and relationship between the individual and society , as well as highlighting the main argument is the notion that " individuals immanent society , and society is inherent individual " : the notes that this view of Marx in his early work , but does not enter into any development that Marx's viewpoint assuming that it is common knowledge . For a more complete determination of the identity of man and of human society , which in our modern times , as will be shown becomes sine qua non for any serious discussion on any issue of social existence, I think , in this context it is necessary to expose the basic elements that Marx's point of view . The first form of the community ( the so-called . Initial socio - economic formation of human society ) are not the result of work , but there are by natural or divine basis. We will try to examine this subject through Plato`s lenses, giving it Plato`s approach in his ``Meno``. There is no essential difference between the identity of society ( community ) and individual identity ( social individual ) : " Individual and hometown of human`s life are different , however - and necessary - means of existence of individual life more specific or more general way of life birth , or birth life more special or general The individual life . " However , " no matter how much that man a particular individual , and its uniqueness just makes the individual and actual individual social being , he is just as much a totality the subjective existence of society and experienced for myself real enjoyment of social existence , as well as totality of human manifestations of life . " Marks is identical positions in other works of this period : " The social history of the people is always just a history of their individual development , whether they realize it or not ." Thus, the essence of human identity and its community , ie, the human community is in his or their ( human ) nature - his individual sociability and social individual and social individuality of the human community : social production , operation , or production of material goods necessary for life and the production of social life , which is not separate from one another , and what will the division of labor to be done. What will cause the and determine the identity of the man and of society and lead to situation that the company is fixed as " an abstraction over the individual " and vice versa - to superorder’s individual over society , that is a conflict of the individual and society , which will mark the entire historical life of human existence .
Thus , the problem of individual identity of the individual ( man ) and the identity of the society ( community ) is not smart problem of our modern times , but the overall problem of existence of human reality . Our modernity is this question just asked the most eagle - issue as a matter of survival of the individual and social life of the individual and the individual communities , as well as human society in general . Almost identical to the determination of the identity of social existence can be found in contemporary theoretical thinking about society . Charles Taylor in his essay "Politics of recognition ," points out that the essential content of identity are " fundamental defining characteristics of human beings " is not , according to this author , the problem in the understanding of social identity of existence , but in the social relations of identity of these social existence . At the current time , this author highlights the problem of recognition of identity as a fundamental problem . In contemporary society , or in contemporary politics , as the author expresses the idea of recognizing the identity of social actors occurs in two forms : 1st - as needs and 2nd - such request . The need is particularly related to the nationalist movement , and at the request of " minorities " or " subordinated groups " in some forms of feminism and the politics of " multiculturalism " . The basic thesis is that " our identity is partly shaped by recognition, or the absence of recognition , often erroneous recognition from others " , which has a different effect or very serious consequences for both entities and convenient for others , in fact - unfavorable for the whole society in which live . The second question - from where this demand and need , and recognizing the necessity of the existence of social identity ? Because of the crisis , which has become a general , universal and warning to all people and their form of existence , which express and affirm their identity . If it comes to identity , then it comes very existence . According to this author , there are two specific reasons that are in the foreground actuality of identity and recognition of identity : 1st - " disintegration of the social hierarchy , which were the basis of recognition ( egg honor - by the end of the eighteenth century ) dignity - the dignity of human beings and the dignity of the citizen - in contemporary social relations ). The second new understanding of individual identity , and individualized identity as an ideal of authenticity ."
These social processes , as well as deep social processes causing the appearance level of society wide range of problems such as equality diversity and equality in diversity ( especially in multi-ethnic , multi-national and multi ) , a policy of diversity , tolerance of differences , etc. The diversity of identity ( individual and collective ) is the objective and subjective sociological fact . Whether in this context , recognition of diversity and the recognition of the diversity policy does not constitute recognition of social inequality ? It may be because of the social inequality historical categories , i.e. primarily the product of social relations . But that does not mean recognition policy does not make sense . Identities are dynamic , not static social existence . Recognition of diversity , and recognition is an active and rich social relationship - dialogue among identities ( social enterprises ) and therefore provides an opportunity for the development of identity in terms of societal wealth , in terms of emancipation , liberation in terms of discrimination , assimilation and humiliation . This is what Ch . Taylor calls the " politics of equal dignity " , or what is the theme of the day - today human rights policy . In fact , the recognition and protection of human rights ( individual and collective ) , that human rights and human community becomes the assumption of "equal dignity " . Recognition of the rights of these rights is just a high level of protection of those rights . Of course not only verbally , but really . Relationship recognition ( because recognition is a social relationship par excellence ) did not lose its identity , but its historical and empirical validation . Unfortunately alienation ( individual and collective ) in this regard are , and at all levels and to all parties . And this is one indicator of the general crisis of modern society . The third question - the relationship between social identity of the individual ( man ) and the identity of the company ( the community to which he belongs or where he lives. This issue deserves , and this , perhaps the deepest and most versatile research . Historical movement in this relationship acquires different forms and varied content : the almost complete identification of individual identity and society ( or community in which he lives ) , in which case it is not possible to speak in the sociological sense of relationship to relationship separation , opposition , that is , the relationship of identity supremacy of one over the other , ie, to establish a hierarchy in which one becomes a negation of identity ( not just border ) second . then substantially change the identity of the parent - the loss of the basic content of sociability ( humanity ) , which he now missing , was he aware of it or not, raises the question of who suffers more here - individual or society ( community ) ? Plato wrote: „the man is still at a loss ". Historical experience shows casualties on both sides , i.e., that the loss of both identities . hierarchy among social identities rooted in numerous and various natural and social factors ( which are the product of natural and social division of labor ) : biological , cultural , economic, political , religious , ideological , geographical , old ( the oldest - Archaic ) and new , general and specific , real and unreal .
All work in all cases , but not all at the same time and with equal intensity , but with the same result - reproduction of the hierarchy , as the dominant attitude of the society . It is necessary to investigate all individual situations , as well as general trends . I think the two moments of deeper meaning to these relations , especially relations of conflict and antagonism : 1st- decomposition of the totality of the individual identity as an individual ( man ) , and community ( individual companies , and then society in general ) , decomposition , which is the result of partiality , segmentation and atomization of social relations of production, and 2nd - structure , dismantling and restructuring of the individual and society , which is creating and setting up a hierarchy of structures and structural elements that make up the social being of these identities . 3rd -the disintegration began with the constitution as the dominant policy in the sphere of social relations , although it is represented as a practice of integrity ( ie a union of individual and general interest - in the ancient polis , and then , as the union of private and public interests - in the modern state ) . The division into free men and Robo , the " Helena and Barbara " current overall history of human society of those times to the present. Civil society is the political emancipation declared an end point - the tip of the social emancipation of ) the separation of church and state and equality before the law . Religion ( Christian ) is , after centuries of struggle with this policy met with civil liberties . Or not ? This question must be deeply considered , in particular the fact different aspects of world religions towards civil society and the state. I do not know much about this issue , and I cannot say anything more here . Privacy is a single individual civil society has made " collective individual" ( class , state, national and party ) , and she is the whole society into a political society , and the man in the " political man " . ( S. M. Lipset ) 4 Structuration , dismantling and restructuring of social identity, establishing a hierarchy among the integral parts of identity . The rich man's social being and social communities breaks laws structuring the unilateral , impoverished subjectivity , without internal coherence , depending on the external natural and social forces , with uncertainty to preserve the integrity and personality . Drama structuring and hierarchy is not merely an objective fact , i.e. without the responsibility of the subject company ( social relations ) . The process is complex . Relations between structural elements in the inner being of social identity and pour directly on the relationship between social identity , and then the whole human society .
Identity Crisis individual social individual in our world reached its peak not only in facts , " One-Dimensional Man " ( H. Marcuse ) , the absence of " a man without borders ", and the facts " social zoology " ( xenophobia , genocide). But in fact totalitarianism, hegemony, nationalism and chauvinism , which threaten the freedom of free communities , not just freedom ( liberation ) dependent, and of course - the meaning of life and of man and human society . Therefore, only the identities of the human personality and the human community as a free and mutual respect , recognition , in cooperation and dialogue reflected a hope , a concrete utopia. No more thankless task than attempt to rationally discern and distinguish between - in other words , to raise the level of scientific or philosophical - the general concepts that have arisen in human history from the immediate practical needs and filled with connotations of social, cultural and historical character , as vague as it is saturated enclosing the core nonetheless clear meaning . This notion of moving and not frozen , they are fluid and changeable . They then used as synonyms , then opposed to each other . Everyone uses them with greater ease than less knows what they stand for. But when you try to define these concepts and separated from each other , a lot of challenges and difficulties. Trying to find the truth , he runs the risk systematize and give analytical concepts learned from the controversial experience and everyday life.
The preceding analysis allows us to realize how serious in modern history have been mixing the nation and state , the myth of the nation-state and the so-called principle of nationalities , suggesting that each national group should be organized into a separate state . This is mixture of distorted image as a nation and state. It took the Democrats in the beginning of XIX century. and turned into a real frenzy in antidemocratic reaction of the century. Consider what the outcome when such mixing is going too far.
Nation, torn from its essential order and , consequently, having lost in an unnatural development of own natural boundaries became earthly deity whose absolute selfishness was inviolable , and its political power she used to subvert any stable order among nations. When the state identified with the nation or even a race and when , so animal instincts penetrated his flesh and blood - the will to power of the state has increased , it is possible to imagine the force of law to impose the so-called image and spirit of the nation , while spending in cultural life , ideological , autocratic popish totalitarianism . Simultaneously totalitarian state degraded , losing sense of fairness and objectivity of the law and straying from the right path to that characteristic of the feudal and tribal community. [ This was ] because the general objective and the bonds of the law , and the specific relationship between the individual and the body politic were replaced by personal ties based on blood , private obligations of one person to another person or the clan , party leader.
I just pointed out the distinction between the two sociological realities - the national community and political society . It should be added that , as I previously noted , the existence of a society naturally causes the emergence of new communities within or around a given social group . So when a political society was formed , especially when it has a century of experience genuine consolidation of civil accord , it naturally causes inside the national community of a higher order , or self- nurturing such already existing community or directly forming a new national community , which combines various nationality. Thus, contrary to the so -called principle of nationalities , the nation is dependent on the existence of political society , political society and not dependent on the existence of the nation.
I just said that people are not sovereign in the true sense of the word. After all, the concept of sovereignty refers to the actual power and independence, which in turn, are supreme in relation to the whole, controlled by the sovereign. Obviously, the power and independence of the people are not separate from the supreme people. About people, as well as the political society, we should say that he is not sovereign, but he has a natural right to full autonomy or self-government.
People enjoy this right when it receives written or unwritten constitution of political society, or when part of it is combined in a small political group in order to develop the right or make a decision, or when he shall elect their representatives. The people are always right. Thanks to him, the people controlled by the state and its government officials. The people makes its " transition " to those appointed to take care of the common good , who has the right to make laws and control , so that giving these particular people power ( on time and with certain powers , the people in the same way restricts itself departure own right to self-government, but in no way determines the end of owning this right and does not prejudice the enjoyment of this quantitatively ) . Like in Plato`s ``Meno``, Socrates' distinction between "true belief" and "knowledge" forms the basis of the philosophical definition of knowledge as "justified true belief". Government officials, or the government, that is, people endowed with executive power , are ( in the strictest sense of the word "management" ) governing body in the state, because the people have made their political representatives of the whole society as such. This is fully consistent with our finding that the expression " popular sovereignty " is not the most accurate definition of a democratic system . Moreover, the very notion of the people I would say that the modern idea of the nation has a long history and there is extraordinary diversity of values , merged into one . But if we consider only the political sense of the word, it will suffice to say that the nation is a set of human beings, who , united under the shadow of just laws , in mutual friendship and the common good of human existence , form a political society . The notion of political society represents a single unit consisting of people. Denotes the concept of the people naturally united members constituting a political society . Thus, what I said about the political society and the nation or the political society and the state , also refers to the people and nation, or to the people and the state. Moreover, because the people there are people who not only form a political society , but each of these people has an immortal soul and timeless purpose , the concept of the people is the highest and noblest of the basic concepts , we subjected to analysis. People have very substance , live and free substance of political society . People above the state, not the people - for the state , but the state - for the people.
Finally, I would like to note that the people have a special need in the state because the state is a special body called upon to take care of the whole, and therefore it is obliged to defend and protect people 's rights and to raise its standard of living, in spite of selfishness and proprietary interests of privileged groups and classes. In medieval France, the people and the king supported each other ( though not entirely unique) in their struggle against the rule of big feudal lords and nobles. In modern times, the same can be said about the people and the state in their struggle for social justice. However, as we have seen, this is a normal process. If it is distorted by the totalitarian state absolutism, elevating themselves to the level of the supreme principle of good and evil leads to disaster and the enslavement of the people. This is subject to the normal process of deterioration and danger if people give themselves over to the state that is , whatever it was good or not free from the idea of his so-called sovereignty, from the actual shortcomings of the political society. In order to strengthen and make successful movement for social welfare, supported by the state , and to return the state to its true nature, it is necessary that many of the functions now performed by the state, were distributed among the various autonomous bodies pluralistically structured political. It is also necessary that the people had the desire and means to establish their control over the state.
References
Baudrillard, J., Turner, C., & Ritzer, G. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures. London: Sage Publications.
Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity (2nd ed.). Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
Plato, Jowett, B., & NetLibrary, Inc (1990). Meno. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg.
