Karl Mannheim biography. Karl Mannheim on the social function of the educational institution. See what "Mannheim, Karl" is in other dictionaries

(1947-01-09 ) (53 years old)

Biography

Mannheim's ideas had a great influence on the sociological thought of the West. Although he did not have successors who unconditionally accepted his sociological methodology, Mannheim's specific historical and sociological studies are recognized as classic (Historical Sociology). It can be said that here Mannheim is to a certain extent the forerunner of the “sociological turn” in the philosophy of science, although he does not extend his conclusions to the sphere of natural science.

Essays

“Ideology and Utopia” (Ideologie und Utopie. Bonn, 1929.)
Sociological theory of culture in its cognition. ()
On the specifics of cultural-sociological knowledge. ().
Diagnosis of our time: Wartime essays of a sociologist. - L., 1943.
Freedom, power and democratic planning. - L., 1950.
Wissenssociologie. Auswahl aus dem Werk. - B. und Newied, 1964.
Structural analysis of epistemology: Specialist. information in general academics prog. “Man, science, society: complex. research": Towards the XIX World. Philosopher congr. / Abbr. lane and preface E. Ya. Dodina; Ross. acad. Sciences, INION, All-Union. interdepartmental Center for Human Sciences under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - M.: INION, 1992.
The problem of the intelligentsia. Research on its role in the past and present. - M., 1993
Diagnosis of our time - M.: Lawyer, 1994.
Favorites: Sociology of culture. - M.-SPb.: University Book, 2000.

Categories:

Personalities in alphabetical order
Scientists by alphabet
Born on March 27
Born in 1893
Died on January 9
Died in 1947
Born in Budapest
Philosophers of Hungary
Philosophers of Germany
Philosophers of the 20th century
Sociologists of Germany
UK Sociologists
Social philosophy
Sociology of culture
Phenomenologists
Marxists
Deaths in London
Social philosophers

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Mannheim, Karl” is in other dictionaries:

- (Mannheim) (1893 1947) German philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge, since 1933 in Great Britain. Based on the Marxist doctrine of ideology, he considered it illusory views that justify the status quo and... ... Political science. Dictionary.

MANNHEIM Karl- (1893 1947) German philosopher and sociologist, student of M. Weber, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge, author of numerous works on problems of education, upbringing and culture. In 1933 he emigrated to Great Britain. In the center of scientific interests... ... Political science dictionary-reference book

MANNHEIM KARL- (Mannheim, Karl) (1887 1947) - Hungarian sociologist who was forced to emigrate to England in 1933. His most important contributions were made to the sociology of knowledge and to current political problems, including education and planning. IN main job –… … Large explanatory sociological dictionary

Mannheim, Karl Karl Mannheim (German Karl Mannheim; March 27, 1893, Budapest January 9, 1947, London) German and English philosopher and sociologist of Hungarian origin, one of the creators of the sociology of knowledge. Biography Studied at... ... Wikipedia

- (Carl) Foreign language analogues: English. Carl, Charles Related articles: starting with "Carl" all articles with "Carl" ... Wikipedia

Mannheim (German Mannheim, pronounced Manheim), also known as Mannheim, Manheim, Mannheim, Manheim, Mannheim, Mannheim, Mannheim is a German proper name. Consists of the roots Mann (man) and Heim (home, home, shelter). Several people have this name... ... Wikipedia

- (German Karl Mannheim; March 27, 1893, Budapest January 9, 1947, London) German and English philosopher and sociologist of Hungarian origin, one of the creators of the sociology of knowledge. Biography Studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, ... ... Wikipedia

Karl Mannheim (German Karl Mannheim; March 27, 1893, Budapest January 9, 1947, London) German and English philosopher and sociologist of Hungarian origin, one of the creators of the sociology of knowledge. Biography Studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, ... ... Wikipedia

Mannheim(Mannheim) Karl (03/27/1893, Budapest - 01/09/1947, London) - German sociologist who formed the original concept of the sociology of knowledge. One of the leading lines in the development of theories of youth is associated with the name of Mannheim.

Educated at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Paris, Mannheim accepted the ideas of at least three main trends in social thought for his time, which were Marxism, neo-Kantianism and phenomenology. His scientific views were formed under the influence of such and at the same time different thinkers as K. Marx and G. Rickert, D. Lukacs and E. Husserl, M. Weber and M. Scheller. Participated in the establishment of the Hungarian Soviet republic, after the fall of which in 1919 he emigrated to Germany, where he taught at the universities of Heidelberg and Frankfurt. After Hitler came to power in 1933, he emigrated to Great Britain, where he continued teaching sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, from 1942 he worked as a professor of pedagogy at the Institute of Education at the University of London, and in last years- at UNESCO.

Particularly famous was Mannheim’s book “Ideology and Utopia” (Mannheim, 1929), in which he gave an interpretation of ideologies as an apologetic justification by the ruling class of their power and utopias as spiritual formations generated by the opposition forces of society (oppressed classes and other social groups seeking to establish their own power). With the coming to power of the opposition, utopias naturally turn into ideologies. This concept had a great influence on the sociological and political science of the West and at the same time was subject to active criticism from Marxists.

In modern sociology of youth, particular importance is attached to Mannheim’s article “The Problem of Generations” (Mannheim, 1928; Mannheim, 2000), in which he showed that a generation is an integrity that is characterized by a certain “position”, a specific “interconnection” and a certain “unity” (Generationslagerung, Generationszusammengang, Generationseinheit). Each generation, therefore, has its own spatio-temporal dimension, and consideration of a generation can give a valid result if it takes into account its “historical-cultural space.”

This position is developed in Mannheim’s book “The Diagnosis of Our Time” (Mannheim, 1943). One of the chapters of this book, which has become an important theoretical reference point for a huge number of researchers on youth topics, is entirely devoted to the problem of youth in modern society. Mannheim reports that this chapter was written in April 1941 as an opening address to a conference on new education at Oxford. In May of the same year it was given as a lecture at the Masaryk Association in Oxford and in July at a conference of youth leaders in Oxford, which was organized by the Ministry of Education (Manheim, 1994: 413). The author substantiates the sociological approach to youth, the novelty of which, according to Mannheim, is as follows: “Firstly, sociology no longer considers education and training as purely transtemporal and timeless methods, but gives great importance the specific character of the society in which young people are brought up and to whose life they will have to contribute... the picture will be sufficiently complete only when the general approach is combined with an analysis of the historical situation and the specific conditions in which young people will have to operate. Secondly, the novelty of the approach lies in the fact that youth and society are considered in interaction. This means that the answer to the question of what and how to teach young people depends to a large extent on the nature of the contribution that society expects from young people. Within a society, we cannot formulate the needs of young people in the abstract, we must do so taking into account the needs and requirements of a given society” (Manheim, 1994: 441–442).

Mannheim shows the variability of the importance of youth in society depending on its character and social structure. Youth is one of the hidden resources that exist in every society and on the mobilization of which its viability depends (ibid.: 443).

Mannheim draws important conclusions:

1. Dynamic societies rely on connections with youth. The special function of youth is that it is “a revitalizing mediator, a kind of reserve that comes to the fore when such revitalization becomes necessary to adapt to rapidly changing or qualitatively new circumstances” (ibid.: 444).

2. The function of the animating mediator of social life, which youth performs, has as its important element (“in addition to the spirit of adventurism, which youth possesses to a greater extent”) incomplete inclusion in the status quo of society.

3. “Youth is neither progressive nor conservative by nature, it is potential, ready for any undertaking” (ibid.: 445).

The conceptual strength of the provisions put forward by Mannheim was determined by his careful observation of the processes in the youth movement in Germany, then Great Britain. For sociologists of non-Marxist orientation, Mannheim performed essentially the same role as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Gramsci for Marxist sociologists: he became the source of a number of new concepts of youth. At the same time, between the positions of Marx, on the one hand, and Mannheim, on the other, in understanding youth issues, differences can be found in a rather narrow zone of some initial philosophical principles. In the main, Mannheim follows Marx: he recognizes the dependence public consciousness from social existence and social conditioning of cognition. But in his concept, questions of the relationship between generations and the functionality of youth in the social system are more broadly posed; the position on the qualities of youth as a social resource and the possibilities for its implementation has acquired a conceptual character (Kovaleva, Lukov, 1999: 83; Lukov, 2012: 246).

Op..: Mannheim, K. (1928) Das Problem der Generationen // Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie. No. 7. S. 158–187; Mannheim, K. (1929) Ideologie und Utopie. Bonn: Friedrich Cohen. XV, 250 S.; Mannheim, K. (1943) Diagnosis of our time: wartime essays of a sociologist. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & co., ltd. xi, 179 p.; Manheim, K. (1994) Diagnosis of our time: trans. with him. and English / ch. ed. and comp. series by S. Ya. Levit. M.: Lawyer. 700 s.; Mannheim, K. (2000) The problem of generations // Mannheim, K. Essays on the sociology of knowledge: The problem of generations. Competitiveness. Economic ambitions: trans. from English / INION RAS. M., 2000. 164 p. pp. 8–63.

Lit.: Kettler, D., Mejia, F. (2003) Karl Mannheim // German Sociology / resp. ed. R. P. Shpakova. St. Petersburg : Nauka, 2003. 562 p. pp. 275–288; , A.I., Lukov, V.A. (1999) Sociology of youth: Theoretical issues. M.: Society. 351 pp.; Lukov, V. A. (2012) Theories of youth: Interdisciplinary analysis. M.: Kanon+ ROOI “Rehabilitation”. 528 pp.

Mannheim, Karl) (1887-1947) - Hungarian sociologist who was forced to emigrate to England in 1933. His most important contributions were made to the sociology of knowledge and to current political problems, including education and planning. In his main work, “Ideology and Utopia” (1929), he systematizes the differences between ideology and utopia, classifying them as types of belief systems, the first of which performs the function of justifying and preserving the system, and the second focuses on its replacement. His approach to the sociology of knowledge was as follows: the main forms of knowledge different ways driven by needs social groups, and, contrary to Marx, not just class interests. He suggested one way in which knowledge could avoid relativism was for intellectuals to adopt a "free-floating" or non-aligned attitude. See also Intelligentsia.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MANNHEIM KARL

1893-1947) - German sociologist and philosopher. He studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Paris. In 1919 he emigrated from Hungary to Germany. Since 1925 - privatdozent of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg. Since 1929 - professor of sociology and national economics at the University of Frankfurt am Main. In 1933 he emigrated to Great Britain, professor at the London economic school. From 1941 - at the Institute of Education at the University of London, where in 1945 he became a professor of pedagogy. Shortly before his death, he headed one of the UNESCO departments. Initiator and editor of the "International Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction". Main works: "Historicism" (1924); "The Problem of the Sociology of Knowledge" (1925); "Ideology and Utopia. Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge" (1929); "Man and Society in the Age of Transformation" (1935); "Diagnosis of Our Time" (1943); "Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning" (1950); "System of Sociology" (1959); "Essay on Sociology and Culture" (1956), etc.

Focusing on the creation of a synthetic concept of knowledge, M. was an expert in contemporary philosophical and sociological ideas, many of which he organically used in his work (primarily this applies to neo-Kantianism, phenomenology and Marxism). There is a direct influence on M. from Lukács, E. Lask, G. Rickert, E. Husserl, M. Weber, and Scheler. M. was sharply opposed to the naturalistic attitude and methodological principles of positivism, and almost all epistemological concepts and orientations of socio-political thought (liberalism, conservatism, socialism, fascism, communism) were subjected to critical analysis by him. He was specially involved in the analysis of religious (Christian in general, Anabaptist in particular) consciousness. In general, M.’s work is quite integral in nature, but is marked by a (significant) change in emphasis that occurred during the emigrant period of his life. From the problems of the sociology of knowledge itself, his attention moves to the diagnosis of the European sociocultural situation. In addition, during this period M. was actively involved in problems of culture and education.

The concept of M. can be defined as a cultural methodology with an extremely wide range of possible applications. Cultural-historical eras are distinguished, according to M., among other things, by the presence of life dominants that determine their general style and the dominant “thinking styles” (“mental positions”) in them. In this regard, the modern era, according to M., is an era of crisis. In relation to it, we can talk about the disappearance of a single intellectual world with fixed and dominant values and norms. Moreover, behind rationally organized thinking, its underlying basis was revealed - the “collective unconscious”. The inconsistency of one of the main abstractions of European culture has been revealed - the presence of an ahistorical subject of knowledge, thinking “from the point of view of eternity,” i.e. an external impartial and objective observer who makes the final true assessments. The world, according to M., is a world of different private interests, different types and styles of thinking that require their expression in belief systems and claim to be the “only true” ones. Knowledge turns out to be contextual and social, and ultimately culturally determined. The history of thought in M. is the history of the collision of class, group and other worldviews, striving to formulate themselves rationally. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish different cognitive systems according to the mechanisms of their social conditioning. If natural science and mathematics can still be recognized as objective knowledge, then socio-humanitarian knowledge, according to M., cannot be adequately analyzed without taking into account its social determination. In the general cultural framework, the conditionality of any knowledge is revealed: its parameters depend on the position occupied in the sociocultural space, the given vision (“perspective”). Analysis of possible “perspectives” and their relationships with each other is the task of the sociology of knowledge. However scientific knowledge, according to M., is not the only spiritual formation produced in society. It is necessary to distinguish special systems of views, which are designated by the terms “ideology” and “utopia” (essentially a negative version of the same ideology). The initial criterion for their identification is the non-recognition of certain systems of views as impartial, assessment of them as biased and contrasting them with another system of ideas. They are not “diagnoses” of the situation, but, according to M., “launch” certain systems of activity. Ideology expresses such a state of consciousness when the ruling groups in their thinking can be so strongly tied through interests to a certain situation that they are simply unable to see those facts that could undermine their dominance." Utopia records that "certain oppressed groups are so strongly interested in the destruction and transformation of the given conditions of society that, against their will, they see only those elements in the situation that tend to deny it." Any ideology is an apology, it is focused on maintaining the existing status quo. This is precisely what it believes M.'s thought is opposed by a utopia, oriented toward the future, to occupy a dominant position in society by the group whose interests are represented in it (utopia). The arrival of such a group in power turns utopia into an ideology. M. distinguishes between two types of ideologies. Particular ideologies reflect the interests individual human communities with their specific interests.They represent conscious or unconscious falsifications of reality, based on the selection of the necessary information fragments. Adequate understanding of them requires knowledge of the psychological mechanisms of collective actions and ideas. Total ideologies are predetermined by the established social system, the naturally developing arrangement of social forces and are supported by the general framework of culture. They synthesize and present a holistic vision of prospects and are provided with an appropriate conceptual apparatus, ways of thinking (analytical or mythological), models (schemes) of thinking, requirements for the degree of specification of the vision (universalism or empiricism), ontological justification ( possible ways existence and structuring). In this respect, they are the subject of the sociology of knowledge. Ultimate Challenge the latter - through critical work to detect various ideological distortions of knowledge - to realize a positive task. The essence of the latter is to retain the diversity of equal and legitimate perspectives (their “relativity”) and to carry out cognitive synthesis. The only social group capable of realizing it (and then only potentially) is the intelligentsia (“socially free-floating intellectuals”), which is not tightly woven into the network of social interests and is provided with resources (information) for solving such a task. The synthesis also presupposes the presence of real mechanisms in society that make it possible to find a balance of interests. However, the crisis of the system of traditional Western democratic values in the absence of a general cultural dominant destroyed, according to M., this emerging balance. Resist complete value disintegration (anarchy) and at the same time not go to the other extreme - ensuring the integration of values through total regulation (dictatorship) - in modern society it is possible, according to M., only on the basis of the introduction of social technologies aimed at maintaining a “sufficient level” of reflection (critical consciousness) and presupposing the purposefulness of organizational efforts to realize this goal.

University of Frankfurt (1930). In 1933 he emigrated to Great Britain; Associate Professor (1933) and Professor (1945) of the University of London (Higher School of Economic Sciences).

M. tried to create a consistent concept that explains the nature of social knowledge and the specifics of reflecting social reality; borrowed from K. Marx theses about the dependence of social consciousness on social existence, ideology on economic relations, but interpreted them in a vulgar idealistic way. He believed that the views of various social groups were dictated only by their economic interests and other selfish considerations. Rejecting any objective criterion of truth in the knowledge of social phenomena, M. came to the position of historical relativism. Calling his point of view “relationalism,” M. depicted the history of societies and thoughts as a clash of class-subjective worldviews, each of which is a “partial ideology,” that is, a deliberately distorted reflection of social reality, and all together is a “total (general) ideology " According to M., any ideology is an apology for the existing system, the views of a class interested in maintaining the status quo, which is opposed by an equally biased and biased utopia, or the views of oppositional disadvantaged sections of the population. If the latter come to power, utopia, according to M., automatically turns into ideology, and so on. Ultimately, M.’s concept replaces genuine class consciousness with the particular interests of professional strata, generations, etc., among which he singles out the creative intelligentsia as supposedly standing outside of classes and the only one capable of impartial knowledge of society, and only potentially. It was with the intelligentsia that M. pinned his hopes on preserving bourgeois democracy in the conditions of the so-called "mass society", subject to social demagoguery and the danger of establishing a totalitarian, fascist dictatorship. Considering social stratification and the existence of the so-called “democratic elite” inevitable, M. Special attention in this regard, he paid attention to the problems of preparing the individual (upbringing and education) to fulfill his assigned social role and integration in the bourgeois-democratic system of governing society. The old economic liberalism, according to M., had exhausted its capabilities, and therefore he called for expanded intervention of the bourgeois state in the economy and other areas social activities. M.'s views had a serious influence on bourgeois sociology, in particular, they served as a justification for the concept of “de-ideologization” of the social sciences.

Works: Ideologic und Utopie, L., 1929; Diagnosis of our time: wartime essays of a sociologist, L., 1943; Essays on sociology and social psychology, L., 1953; Essays on the sociology of knowledge, N. Y., 1952; Freedom, power and democratic planning, N.Y., 1950; Essays of the sociology of culture, L., 1956; Systematic sociology, L., 1959; Man and society in an age of reconstruction, N.Y., 1967.

Lit.: Schaff A., “Sociology of knowledge” of Mannheim and the problem of objective truth, “Questions of Philosophy”, 1956, No. 4; Grigoryan R. G., Criticism of the “sociology of knowledge” by Karl Mannheim, in the collection: Problems of knowledge of social phenomena, M., 1968; Moskvichev L.N., Theory of “de-ideologization”: illusions and reality, M., 1971; MiIIs S. W., Power, politics and people. The collected essays, N.Y., 1963; Merton R. K., Social theory and social structure, N. Y., 1968; Friedrichs R. W., A sociology of sociology, N. Y., 1970.

E. A. Arab-ogly.

Big Soviet encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

See what “Manheim Karl” is in other dictionaries:

- (Mannheim, Karl) (1893–1947) German sociologist who made significant contributions to the sociology of knowledge, starting with his well-known book Ideology and Utopia (1929). Like Marx, Mannheim wanted to relate systems of belief and mentality... Political science. Dictionary.

- (Mannheim) (1893 1947), German sociologist, since 1933 in Great Britain. In the spirit of K. Marx’s teaching about ideology as a “false consciousness” that serves to justify the status quo, he contrasted it with utopia as the illusory consciousness of opposition layers (“Ideology and ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Manheim, Carl- MANNHEIM (Mannheim) Karl (1893 1947), German sociologist. Since 1933 in Great Britain. Rethinking the Marxist doctrine of ideology, he considered it the illusory views of a certain class occupying a dominant position, justifying the status quo... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Manheim, Carl- (Mannheim), (1893 1947), German sociologist. Born March 27, 1893 in Budapest. In 1930 33 professor of sociology at the University of Frankfurt. After the Nazis came to power, he left Germany and moved to Great Britain; associate professor (1933) and professor... ... Encyclopedia of the Third Reich

- (Mannheim) Karl (1893 1947) German. philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge, known for his work on the theory of ideology and the dynamics of culture. Genus. in Hungary. He studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Paris. For development... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- (1893 1947) German sociologist, since 1933 in Great Britain. Based on the Marxist doctrine of ideology, he considered it to be illusory views that justify the status quo and oppose utopia, the false consciousness of the opposition layers. Claimed that... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (Mannheim) Karl (1893 1947), German sociologist. Since 1933 in Great Britain. Rethinking the Marxist doctrine of ideology, he considered it the illusory views of a certain class occupying a dominant position, justifying the status quo and... ... Modern encyclopedia

- (Mannheim) Karl (1893 1947) German sociologist and philosopher. He studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Paris. In 1919 he emigrated from Hungary to Germany. Since 1925, private assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg. Since 1929 professor... ... The latest philosophical dictionary

Books

Favorites. Diagnosis of our time, Mannheim K.. Karl Mannheim is an outstanding German philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of the sociology of knowledge. The book contains extensive historical and cultural material. Many ideas are predictive in nature...

Mannheim was one of the pioneers of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) and the sociology of knowledge. Following Marx, Mannheim argued that human thinking and understanding develop not only on the basis of theoretical consciousness, but are also formed on the basis of the historical and social situation and the forces operating in it. This interconnectedness of social thinking with being is also manifested in class consciousness and class ties. We are connected to many starting points that influence our behavior.

Mannheim paid much attention to the consideration of the provisions of relativism. Relativism is a philosophical doctrine according to which truth or values are relative, i.e. There are no absolute truths or values. According to theoretical relativism, certain positions or provisions are not true in themselves, they are true or not true only for a certain individual at a certain moment, i.e., a person’s consciousness and thinking depend on social conditions at each this moment. At the same time, Manheim emphasized that there is no single truth.

Mannheim considered the most important priority of sociology to be its ability to find out how changes in social situations lead to changes in spiritual relationships. The changing social background and fate of social classes are a source of new ideas, views, and concepts.

Mannheim was born in Budapest. He studied philosophy and sociology in Budapest, Freiburg, Berlin, Paris and Heidelberg. He was a student of Weber. In 1926 he was an assistant professor in Heidelberg, then professor of sociology in Frankfurt. In 1933 he emigrated to England, where he was also an assistant professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and then, from 1942, professor of education at the University of London. Manheim died in London in 1947.

To the above list of classics of sociology, one could add many more names that are associated with the development of this field of science. Let us consider here, however, only briefly the spread of sociology in the United States at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Industrialization, urbanization, immigration and internal migration had very important consequences in the United States: they gave rise to many social problems that urgently required solutions. Here, as in industrialized Europe, sociologists faced numerous challenges.

Sociology first paved the way to the United States through the writings and teachings of Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913). He was a botanist and geologist who later became interested in sociology and published, among other things, Dynamic Sociology (1883). He also founded the American Sociological Association. In his teaching, Ward relied partly on Spencer's theory of mechanistic social evolution, emphasizing, however, the possibility of active influence towards social change. For him, sociology meant first of all social science, which studies the mechanisms of change.

Of the early US sociologists, perhaps the best known is William Graham Suirmer (1840-1910). His most significant work, Folkways, examines the importance of social control as a guiding force in individual behavior. For him, sociology is primarily the “science of customs.” He shared Spencer's evolutionary views and was simultaneously opposed to Ward's ideas about the social planning of society.

The third representative of early US sociology, Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), played a significant role in the development of sociology as a science, creating his “typology of groups”. He distinguished between primary and secondary groups. Primary groups are usually small, such as family, neighborhood or children's groups. In these associations, the basic feelings of group loyalty, the need and ability to take into account the people around them are learned. They develop personal interaction, cooperation, friendships, feelings of duty, responsibility, loyalty, and identification. That is, primary groups are communities in which forms and norms of human interaction and the ability to coexist with other people are learned. In primary groups, their moral and ethical atmosphere is of exceptional importance. Secondary groups (for example, spectators of a play, listeners of a lecture) are larger than primary ones and, being formal, provide fewer opportunities for personal communication or interaction.

Sociology originated in Europe, but perhaps it developed and is developing most rapidly in the United States. The methods used by American sociology, especially in empirical research, have become widespread. American sociological theories have long provided important guidance for European sociology. The growth in the number of members in the country's association of sociologists (American Sociological Association) gives a good idea of the pace of development of sociology in modern America. Fifty years ago the number of members was less than a thousand, but now this association has tens of thousands of members. It is noteworthy that in the United States every year more than two hundred people receive a doctorate in sociology.

As already noted, sociology has its roots in philosophy. Well-known American sociologists Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess (1969) emphasize, for their part, the connection of sociology with history and the philosophy of history. The separation and development of sociology from the philosophy of history into a separate science that studies society, in their opinion, went through the following stages:

The era of Comte and Spencer, when sociology was practically the philosophy of history. For this period it was the science of progress and development.

The “Age of Schools,” when sociological thinking, represented by various schools, sought to define its concepts and subjects of study.

The beginning of the 20th century is a period of concrete research and decisions.

This chronology was compiled in 1921, so you can add to it, for example, the period of modern sociology. It began in the USA already before the Second World War, and in Europe only after the war.