CC BY
21
Chmykhun Svetlana, National Aerospace University "KhAI", Kharkiv, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected]
COERCION MECHANISMS IN TRADITIONAL SOCIETIES WITHIN THE LEGAL NORMATIVITY SYSTEM
Abstract
Objectiv. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the coercion mechanism phenomenon as a critical social influence channel. Social coercion in this context refers to the social necessity, which provides stability in social attitudes structures by the status of the social actors.
Methodological background. The methodological background of the research is formed by the principles of social philosophy and philosophical anthropology. Such methods of philosophic and legal analysis as dialectical approach to the phenomenon and aristotelian method were used.
Conclusions. The environment of traditional formation is structured as a hierarchy. Coercion forces of the traditional society in the philosophic anthropological concept depend directly on the vertical and horizontal coercion types, i.e. on class and personal identification at the vertical level, and on relationships, for instance, at the communication level.
Keywords: coercion mechanism, social influence, self-organization, social relationships.
One of the most important channels of social influ- changes of this king are pointed at by saying that in the
ence in the society is social coercion. Coercion performs the functions of social management, integration, regulation, social interests protection and social security provision in the society. Sustainable social ranking structured by the status of social actors provides functioning if the society as the "social interaction space", "power interaction field" (P. Bourdieu). Societal life is regulated by the system of normative precepts, which have the coercive nature with reference to individuals and social groups. Social coercion in this context is the social necessity also providing social control.
Today, when reflecting on the control system structure and mechanisms, and trying to develop theories in this context, we are usually sufficed by observations of our contemporaries. At the same time, there are numerous and relatively accessible observation data, which indicate that the behavior control standards and samples may vary at different progress stages. Here a question arises: how simultaneous changes are made to behavior regulation via external and internal coercion mechanisms in the long-term society transformation process, and what influences this. In everyday communication,
society people have become more "civilized" than they used to be.
The aim of the article is the analysis of coercion mechanisms taking place in the traditional society in order to establish and maintain the normative order. The subject of the research covers the means of the traditional society self-organization and self-protection aimed at liquidation, neutralization or minimization of the norm infringing - deviant behavior in the legal nor-mativity system.
The problem of order and social control was discussed by all the representatives of social cognition beginning with Au. Komte, H. Spencer, K. Marx and D. E. Durkheim to P. Sorokin, T. Parsons, R. K. Merton, N. Luhmann etc.
When analyzing coercion mechanisms, some researchers admit that social coercion is the forced behaviour stipulated by the social conditions (situational coercion) (J. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B. S. Turner). Other scientists think that coercion is "exertion of pressure" (T. Lawson). P.-M. Foucault thinks that in every society the body is "gripped in the vice of power, imposing
coercion on it". In the analysis of coercion mechanisms within the framework of the traditional society, philosophic meditations on "the essence of legal coercion as resilience to evil" are particularly interesting in our opinion (P. Suslov). I. Ilin turns to the analysis of the notion "forcing" as "Imposing the will on the inner or external human constitution" relative to them when comparing the notions of "coercion" and "violence". In the modern literature separate kinds of social coercion, primarily governmental coercion, are studied. This is stipulated by the fact that many researchers regard the state as "the monopolist of coercion" (N. Korkunov), and the state itself is often perceived as "the coercion mechanism" (V. Nersesyants). Nevertheless, the philosophic literature lacks works in which social coercion is regarded as an integral social phenomenon. Serious changes in the modern world demand reinterpretation of the phenomenon of coercion from the viewpoint of the modern socio-philosophic intelligence. There arises an urgent necessity in the creation of an integral socio-philosophic concept explaining coercion in the social processes. This explains the topicality of the given work - participation in developing the complex concept of the genesis of social coercion kinds and forms.
English thinker H. Spenser stated that the whole social control is based on "the fear of the living and the dead". Fear of the living is supported by the government while the fear of the dead is supported by the church. These two institutes of emerged and gradually developed in the primitive society. Social control of the human behaviour is exercised by the "ceremonial institutions", which are older than the church and the state, but are more effective.
The traditional type of social relationships, which are typically determined as solidarist and communal, is characterized by the wide range of features and properties studied by different sciences. Research into the system of public control is part of the academic disciplines such as anthropology, political sciences, philosophy and sociology. Despite the great number of publications, the issue of influence of the control system on the relationships emerging within the traditional formation, has not been solved yet. This is connected with the fact that the traditional system was not homogeneous with regard to the existing social ties, divided into the merchant and craftsman's' as well as the knight and the peasant's sys-
tem. Moreover, the study into the control system characteristic of the given type of public formation, constantly brings us in contact with the paradoxical plexus of the polar opposites - the sublimed and the low, the spiritual and the solely corporal, the dull and the comic, the life and the death.
The control coercion mechanism in the traditional society can be represented in subordination to the system: coercion in the form of principal control answered the question of what new things appeared in the given development period of the humankind, then the issue of what kind of coercion and, finally, what coercion instrument was applied to exercising public control.
It is necessary to define the basic criteria, which characterize the traditional society. The system of such society is grounded on the legal regulatory and socio-political, moral and religious, material and cultural as well as socio-psychological control. This approach is characterized by the fact if we refer to the notion of control as a system of social coercion mechanisms regulating individual and group behaviour, which fosters compliance with the rules ofthe given society or social group, social control is aimed at providing social management goals attainment and is exercised in the following main directions: firstly, formation of utmost limits (conditions), which influence the object's behaviour and within which the object's behaviour is considered desirable and acceptable; secondly, provision of the object's behavioural activity aimed at the set goal attainment externally supported by specific methods and instruments; thirdly, definition and halting deviations from the norms of the socially permissible behaviour.
In order to address the main issue we will need a clear picture of how the traditional social relationships system gradually changed beginning with the early medieval times.
Weak differentiation of various spheres of social life in the middle of the century is well-known. The philosophy, the morale, the law and the legislation process were not fully separated, they intertwined creating a system, parts of which may not usually be harmonized, interacted actively and had a more or less theologic connotation penetrated by religious beliefs. All the forms of human activity in the feudal society were subordinated to the rules, departing from which was forbidden and condemned. Traditionalism of the public practice in the Middle Ages and its dependence on the religion formed
general normativity of the individual's social behaviour. In virtue of this normativity, the law attained the meaning of the universal and all-encompassing regulator of the social relationships.
Control over the individual's behaviour was stringently combined with an extensive system of prohibitions and encouragements. The individual does not face the choice, they follow the examples sanctioned by the religion, the law and the morale. The law and the morale coincide or are close because legal norms have more than one external compulsoriness and are based not only on the punishment system, but are also the imperatives, which have moral and religious value.
As the law was referred to as the old custom, these were references to the old times that added to its standing. Innovation was not perceived in this way, and all the legislative activity took place predominantly in the form of the older law restoration, finding and refining ancestors' customs. The law of the given epoque was oriented at the past. High value of the old custom is characteristic of all the spheres of the medieval life. Medieval traditionalism is not mere conservatism and the rule oftradition. Orientation at the old was seen as particular courage and the old custom ruled over moral virtue. The new provoked distrust and innovative activity was perceived as blasphemy and immorality. "The stones set by your father do not move out of their position...", Vincentius Lerinensis, the Vth century monk, taught. "Because if innovations should be avoided, the old custom should be supported; if the new is filthy, the old doctrine is sacred". [1]
The category of instructions which most directly reflect the legislative activity, primarily includes the Truths of Western European Peoples and Tribes of the Early Middle Ages. The Truths don't establish the legislative initiative of the governors (however, its traces can be found in the legal code section, but this is the reason why these traces can normally be distinguished and studied separately from the rest of the Truths), but primarily and mostly the people's custom. Its peculiarity was extreme traditionalism and irremovability; the norms were treated as unchangeable and, at times, sacrosanct customs, which had more authority on condition of being older. Being old provided for their strength. It is yet clear that customs genuinely did not remain unchanged and they were transformed with time passing but their change mechanism was peculiar.
Customary law records accumulate the social expertise of the given period. The traditional form of the public law reflected social activity which took on the nature of constantly replicated behavioral patterns obligatory for all members of the society. Innovations are not difficult to be distinguished in the Truths and a number of objective phenomena can be outlined, which found adequate and undistorted reflection in the Truths. Another crucial feature of common law records is that they ground norms, which are obligatory for everyone, at the same time being class society memorials. We are accustomed to approaching the Truths with a certain number of questions: family structure, property, personal and proprietary interests of the representatives of various social categories of the population, changes in their position; these and similar questions are connected with the general issue of the genesis of feudalism. Historians and lawyers study ancient German law, legal proceedings characteristic for it, general judicial principles and certain legal institutes ("old legal customs") on the basis if the Truths. This approach along with its limitations and juridism, is lawful in its own way, it helps to acknowledge the history of law.
Statutory and legal control is generally connected with certain procedures encompassed by it: with actions, gestures, formulae etc. The procedure is equally important with the norm itself. In this context, we can claim extreme formalism or traditional law rituality. Infringements to the established ritual, avoidance of the firmly established procedural pattern micrify the efficacy of legal norms.
During the times of feudalism with the rule of traditions characteristic of it, actual social relationships tended to gain the strength of the immutable law and the halo of antiquity. Non-standardized behaviour, inclination for innovation and reforms are not typical for this society. It was a virtue to steer the steady course of the set patterns, consistently repeat the generally accepted order. The individual had to be confined in unambiguous limits, know exactly how to act in every given case.
It is obvious that coercion of individuals in the middle of the century originated from hierarchical dependence. It is only possible to get the right understanding of the social structure of medieval Europe if account is taken of the "vertical" ties of ruling and subordination as well as "horizontal" corporate ties with characteristic
socio-political control and education. The traditional type of social relations is characterized by numerous features such as undistinguished individuality, personal dependence of the individual in their family, cast or class. The given feature is the assigned (ascriptive) social status and limited social mobility. The abovementioned features imply strict social control mostly through the mechanisms of interpersonal interaction. As the law does not exist without the state, the state is the institutional coercion mechanism, the newly-formed test facility over human activity. Being the enforcement mechanism, it has a penitentiary system and therein the legitimate power for force application is concentrated.
The feudal system is characterized by the system of social dependences, obligations, duties, privileges etc. established in the hierarchy of social statuses. The individual in the traditional society depends on personal identification. Affiliation to a certain collective (community, cast, status, class etc.) distinguishes the individual's place not only on production, but in the society as well which is fixed by traditions, legal norms, morale and often supported by the religion. Within the framework of such a system, feudal exploitation of bonded peasants and other social groups having a lower rank in the class corporate structure was performed.
The principle ofthe hierarchy becomes a critical value paradigm of the individual consciousness. This paradigm provokes a keen sense of social distance between the representatives of different classes, groups or casts, it is protected and supported by numerous prohibitions, customs, privileges, traditions, religious dogmas, ceremonies, state and legal prohibitions and other regulations as well as violence and slaughters. If the feudal society is primarily characterized by a big percentage of slaves over freemen, i.e. the society, which does not even have laws common for all people let alone common behavioral norms and values, it becomes clear that personal dependence is in the heart of studying the phenomenon of coercion in the given historic period. The vassal was personally liable to
their senior, but they obtained their title from the group depending on their socio-legal category, corporation, and the master must consider this status.
The relationship of the individual and to the corporation was contradictory: while setting certain rather strict limits to the human person development and channeling it into the regulatory direction, the class group fostered reinforcement of self-importance, corporation members' solidarity and consciousness of their equality. This was relative equality only within the group itself. However, it was an integral step towards later development of consciousness of legal equality for all citizens.
Conclusions. On the basis of the research into the phenomenon of coercion in the philosophic and anthropological context of the Middle ages, a conclusion was drawn that the traditional social environment structure was based on the hierarchy and the political life was grounded on interpretations of power with the religious nature. When grounding their values, people in the traditional society appeal to the tradition but not to the practical reasoning.
Traditional societies differ in the series of features, namely: dependence of social life organization on religious and mythological ideas; cyclical development; collectivist nature of the society and the absence of individuality; primary orientation at metaphysical and not instrumental values; authoritarian nature of power; absence of deferred demand, i.e. the ability to produce not for the purpose of vital problems solution, but for the future. Moral values and the mode ofbehavioral regulation in the medieval formation created the fundamental form of the system of control over the individual behaviour of people in the traditional society.
The coercion mechanism in the traditional society within the philosophic and anthropological concept has a direct correlation with the vertical and horizontal types of coercion, i.e. class and personal identification at the vertical level and relationships, for instance, at the level of communication, relations and education.
References:
1. Лукашенко А. I. Християнський дуалiзм i його вплив на формування специфши полп-ично! сфери повсякден-ного життя сустльства (I-XI СТ.)[Електроний ресурс] URL: http://vmv.kymu.edu.Ua/v/p06/lukashen.pdf
2. Гуревич А. Я. Категории средневековой культуры.- М.: «Искусство», - 1984. - 350 с.
3. Суслонов П. Е. Философские аспекты проблемы правового принуждения [Електроний ресурс] URL: http://adhdportal.com/book_3592.html
4. Тимофеев М. С. Идеи И. А. Ильина о сильном государстве // История государства и права.- 2013.- № 22.-С. 28-31.
5. Кабальський Р. О. Роль i мшце примусу у правовш нормативноси // Форум права.- 2007.- № 1.- С. 94-98. [Електронний ресурс].- Режим доступу: URL: http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/ejournals/FP/2007-1/07kroupn.pdf
