CC BY
0
HaynHaa CTarba
DOI: 10.15593/2224-9354/2023.4.7 UDC 316.362+173.023.32
I.A. Glukhikh
PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPTS "FAMILY" AND "SUBSTITUTE FAMILY"
The article is devoted to the study of the ideas in sociology and philosophy about the family as an independent social structure, a social institution, a small social group, and a substitute family as a form of family structure. The purpose of the study is to analyze the changes in ideas about the family and the substitute family in different historical periods. The article is based on the collection, processing and generalization of theoretical ideas about the family. The article provides views on the family presented by the most authoritative domestic and foreign philosophers and sociologists. The conducted research allows us to draw an unambiguous conclusion that most researchers consider the family to be a dynamically developing structure rather than a static one. The family develops together with the development of the human society, being its basic, integral part. Being a unit of society, the family reflects all the changes that it has undergone. Thanks to this, the family has passed a centuries-old path of development from a primitive family - clan groups to modern "units of society". In addition, a number of researchers agree that it is the family that acts as a mechanism for the primary socialization of individuals, that the full-fledged development outside the family is impossible. Such a wide spread and rich history has led to the fact that with the help of families, the state is trying to solve the most urgent social problems of society. A striking example of this approach might be the emergence of a new form of family - a substitute family. Being a relatively new concept, the substitute family did not have an opportunity to be comprehended by philosophers, but it has managed to arouse great interest among domestic sociologists. The article presents the main ideas of Russian sociologists about the substitute family, its role in society and the goals of its creation.
Keywords: family, substitute family, social institution, social group, family sociology, family philosophy, parenting.
The social institution of the family accompanied humanity at all stages of its development. The first attempts at theoretical understanding of the family were made in the times of Ancient Greece. During that period, the process of family institutionalization as an independent social structure was taking place. A characteristic feature of the family in the ancient period is its subordinate role in relation to the state, as well as strict adherence to the established traditions. The greatest contribution to the understanding of the family at the time was made by such philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
Thus, Socrates was the first philosopher to identify the important role of subordination and a strict family hierarchy to create a "virtuous" family. For the well-being and stability of the development of the whole society, the family must fully and completely obey the state interests.[1, p. 158] His disciple, Plato, formulates the first theory of the family, called "patriarchal". According to the given theory, the
© Glukhikh I.A., 2023
Ivan A. Glukhikh - Postgraduate Student, School of Sociology, Perm State National Research University, Perm, e-mail: gluhihIVAN@mail.ru.
family is a central unit of the state, and the basis for its stable development is the subordination of the family and the introduction of a rigid system of its regulation at the state level. In Plato's opinion, every marriage should primarily benefit the state as the organization of a higher order. Aristotle's approach to the family can also be defined as patriarchal. Similar to Plato, Aristotle considered the family to be a key element of the state, however, unlike Plato, he emphasized the fundamental nature of the ties between the state, family and society. According to Aristotle, the creation of a family is nothing more than the realization of a person's natural needs. He outlined the importance of the family not only for the state, but also for the formation of interpersonal relations. Aristotle develops the ideas about the family as the primary unit of society and for the first time considers the family as an independent economic category.[2, p. 167] Thus, as early as the ancient times, a tendency was formed toward the emergence of various, often opposing views, on the family.
The first works on the philosophical understanding of the family discussed above laid the foundation for the works of many philosophers of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Having an inseparable connection with the society, the family has at all times undergone significant changes following the changes in society itself. Events such as the collapse of the slave-owning system, the crisis of feudalism, the formation of absolute monarchies, the development of commodity-money relations, the reduction of the role of the church in the life of society, as well as the development of science and the formation of independent scientific disciplines led to a gradual evolution of ideas about the family.
At the beginning of the XVII century, one of the main characteristic features of the Renaissance was being preserved - the humanistic orientation of science, culture and art. In this regard, since the XVII century, when considering the institution of the family, its natural and humanistic characteristic has become increasingly important. A number of scientific philosophers started to consider the family as being based on the theory of natural law. The family was seen as a natural and inalienable right of every person, and thinkers were particularly interested in questions of morality, the role of love in the creation of a family, raising children under the existing customs and traditions.
Thus, English philosopher Francis Bacon studied an educational function of the family, paying special attention to the role of the family in the life of society as a whole and each person in particular, on condition that during their upbringing and development the relations in the family were based on virtues. Another English philosopher, David Hume researched in detail the forms of marriage that existed at the time.
The famous German idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant defined the family as a moral and legal institution in which a man plays a leading role due to his "natural superiority". In the course of his study of the issue, Immanuel Kant came to the conclusion that the main role of every family is the upbringing of new people. It is rearing, according to I. Kant, that is the moral duty of every parent. Marriage, in turn, is
a legally formalized sexual relationship between spouses. Another representative of German idealism, Johann Fichte, also observed the humanistic orientation in the study of the family characteristic of that period. Similar to I. Kant, he notes the leading role of husbands in the family, at the same time he was a supporter of equality between men and women in society in general and the family in particular.[3, pp. 67-68].
Another German idealist, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, criticized the ideas formulated by Kant and Fichte. In his opinion, the family is a "natural moral community." The main ideas of G.V.F. Hegel about the family are set out in his fundamental work "Philosophy of Law". G.V.F. Hegel recognizes the fundamental role of the family as a "unit of society", since it is the family where love between people is concentrated, whereas there is no love in the state [4, p. 237]. According to G.V.F. Hegel, the family is an embodiment of the moral spirit, and the welfare of the family should be the main priority for the state. In addition, G.V.F. Hegel revealed the versatile nature of the family within which the family, as a social institution, is in constant interaction with other areas of society, permanently affecting the institution of the family and thereby changing it. Hegel also pointed out the significance of the moral foundations of the family. The family, from the point of view of G.V.F. Hegel, is a moral substance, the direct essence of the spirit, acting as its manifestation in a direct, natural, undeveloped form as the first stage of morality [3, p. 68].
Positivist philosophers and the founders of sociology, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, noted a universal nature of the family as a social phenomenon. In their opinion, the family is a model for building the rest of society, its moral guideline [3, p. 69]. It was G. Spencer who, for the first time, conducted a sociological analysis and summarized the historical and ethnographic information concerning family institutions available at the time.[5, p. 185]
The positivists' approach to the definition of the family is consistent with the position of Marxist sociology. In the joint work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "The German Ideology", the family is defined as "the relationship between husband and wife, parents and children" [3, p. 69]. Marxism establishes a clear relationship between the existence of the family in each specific historical period and the mode of production.
Developing a materialistic view on the family, Friedrich Engels noted the inseparable connection between the production of the means of production and the reproduction of life. According to F. Engels, the social order of each specific historical epoch and in each specific country is determined by two types of production: the stage of development of labor on the one hand, and the stage of development of the family on the other [3, p. 69].
Property, in the opinion of F. Engels, is nothing more than an economic prerequisite for the formation of a family, contributing to its strengthening and unification. The key factors in the formation of a family, in turn, are the production and
reproduction of life. F. Engels pointed out that the study of the family can make it possible to better comprehend the challenges of the whole society and the state, since, being an integral part of these, the family reflects all their problems [3, p. 69].
Due to the genuine interest among researchers, the family institution has been widely studied in almost all the countries that possess the necessary scientific basis for the research of the issue. Russia was no exception. In Russia, a number of representatives of philosophical thought were also engaged in the study of the family. Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev believed that the only purpose of the formation of a family is procreation. He saw the essence of the family in the realization of social and ancestral interests. N.A. Berdyaev criticized the religious foundations of the family, calling their moral norms hypocritical [6, p. 82].
Vasily Vasilievich Rozanov in his definition of the family pointed out that the family is a social institution and the moral foundation of society. In his view, the role of the family is to create a person's primary life experience, contributing to the formation of a personality and its development, as well as affecting further education. It is in the family that the foundations of all the best human endeavors arise [3, p. 72]. V.V. Rozanov was the first to justify the need for the centralized, government care of the family, pointing out the direct dependence of the society's morality on the welfare of the family institution. Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin develops Rozanov's ideas about the interdependence of the state and society. In his opinion, any moral or spiritual crisis, experienced by society, has a powerful impact on the family. Marriage itself, according to I.A. Ilyin, is formed as a necessity based on love, faith and compendium, playing a significant role in the formation of love for the motherland and the state [7, p. 201].
The work on comprehending and analyzing the family continued even after the separation of sociology into an independent scientific discipline. With the onset of sociology, scientists started working on the concept of family. At the same time, many different approaches to the definition of family can be identified, caused by different ideas about the composition and dimension of the family as a social group.
The first attempts to formulate the ideas about the family in sociology were made by the founders of this science. The ideas about the family of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer have been considered earlier. However, later many other sociologists also considered the family as a social institution. Thus, Emile Durkheim believed that the family was an integral community, which impact extends to both our economic activities and to religious, political, scientific ones as well, etc. In E. Durkheim's view, the family is the medium in which family morality and law are developed. It was the family, in his opinion, that ensured the continuity of the economic life in society through the institution of collective property, or through the institution of inheritance [8, pp. 20-34].
Another classic of the world sociology, Max Weber, believed that the family is a closed social relationship of a community type, with its most important character-
istic being the sense of mutual belonging of its members. M. Weber noted that for the family to exist, it is not enough to possess physiological, sexual in particular, connections and relationships.A full-fledged family, needs economic relations that play a constitutive role in it. A family is impossible without a home community. M. Weber paid special attention to the absence of a static family. In his opinion, the family takes various forms in different historical periods, this concept can be used only by establishing its meaning in each specific historical period [9, p. 386].
Lewis Henry Morgan made a great contribution to the study and understanding of the deep meaning of the family. It was he who was able to consider the entire historical sequence of the development of the family and identify its five successive forms. L.G. Morgan believed that the family is an active element, never being stationary, developing from the lowest form to the highest one as society moves from the lowest to the highest stages, eventually moving from one form to another of a higher order [10, p. 250].
An interest in the study of the family in sociology was preserved in the XX century. Thus, the American sociologist Robert King Merton considered the family as an institution for the transfer of life experience to new generations. R.K. Merton defined the family itself as the central "belt" for the transmission of cultural standards to the next generation. However, as R.K. Merton pointed out, there is no transfer of abstract cultural standards, but only that part of the culture which is accessible to the social stratum or groups where the parents found themselves. On the basis of this idea, R.K. Merton concludes that the family is nothing more than a mechanism for raising a child within the framework of those cultural goals and mores characteristic of this narrow circle of groups [11, p. 278].
The opposite position is held by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons. Studying the connection of the American Institute of the family with the economy, he arrived at the conclusion that the consequence of the revolution in education, among other things, was that the socialization associated with the success in non-family roles, was carried out in educational institutions which are separated from the family. According to T. Parson's observations, the institutions of the education system rather than the family, serve as the main supplier of labor resources to the economy. At the same time, T. Parsons does not deny the fact that until now it was the family and the household that played the dominant role both in the formation of the individual's personality and their physiological development [12, p. 145].
Considering the changes with families in the UK that occurred in the XX century, the English sociologist Anthony Giddens believed that the family was a group of people connected by direct kinship where adult members assume obligations to take care of the children. The key element in the definition of the family by E. Giddens is the mandatory kinship relationship between family members. In turn, kinship relations, according to E. Giddens, can be either congenital (consanguinity between family members) or acquired ones (marriage). In addition, E. Giddens pays great
attention in his work to the main trends in the development of the family, characteristic of the UK of that period. Such trends include an increase in the number of divorces, an increase in the number of remarriages, single-parent families, as well as an increase in the commonness of cohabitation as a form of joint household. It should be noted that the trends of the family development in the UK of the last century, outlined by E. Giddens, remain relevant for the Russian families in the XXI century [13, pp. 155-157].
Russian sociologists also made a great contribution to the study of the family despite significant difficulties, a political and ideological impact on their work during the Russian Empire and in times of the Soviet Union. The outstanding Russian sociologist and historian Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky actively studied the problem of the genus, patriarchal and matriarchal families. It is M.M. Kovalevsky who systematizes the history of the family in a patriarchal society.
Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin is another outstanding Russian sociologist who built his career after the emigration, and made a significant contribution to the study of the family institute. P.A. Sorokin noted that the family is not the simplest or generic social phenomenon: quantitatively, the family is not the smallest social unit, but qualitatively the family structure is very complex. According to P.A. Sorokin, the family has a large number of specific characteristics that cannot be found in other social groups. Based on this, P.A. Sorokin came to the conclusion that the family cannot be the simplest form of the generic model of social structures [14, p. 191].
Another representative of the modern Russian sociology, Yuri Alexandrovich Levada, drew attention to the "multi-layered" nature of the modern family. In his opinion, the family, being essentially a very old entity, has a relatively small volume and functionality in the current period. Yu.A. Levada revealed the tendency formed in Russia to reduce the family reflected in a decrease in the number of its members. The consequence of the family reduction, according to Yu.A. Levada, is that a nuclear family became the most widespread type of family in modern society, the family consisting of parents and a small number of children [15, pp. 122-123].
Sociologist Anatoly Ivanovich Antonov points to a multifaceted structure of the family. In his opinion, the family combines the properties of a social organization, a social structure, a social institution and a small social group. He defined the family as a community of people based on unified family-wide activities, connected by the bonds of matrimony-parenthood-kinship, thereby carrying out the reproduction function of the population and the continuity of family generations, as well as the socialization of children and the maintenance of family members. The key element of the family, in this case, is the trinity of matrimony-parenthood-kinship. This definition of the family is of particular interest being the most detailed and multifaceted. A.I. Antonov was able to reflect both the role of the family in economic processes, the cultural and moral results of family education, and the contribution of the family to the development of the individual's personality [16, pp. 64-65].
Another Russian sociologist, Igor Semenovich Kon, studying family issues, paid special attention to the family as the primary unit of the child's socialization. At the same time, I.S. Kon considers the idea of foreign sociologists about the "death" of the family to be false, but recognizes the inevitability of changes occurring with the family. In his work, the author pays special attention to the role of parental affection, care and feelings that affect the development of the child, enriching him as a person. Developing the theme of love, feelings and care, I.S. Kon believed that the need for care in children and adults is interdependent, that is, if a child has a need to be taken care of, then an adult has a need to take care of another person. However, I.S. Kon considered the family not only as a medium in which the child interacts with older people, that is parents, but also as an environment in which the child learns to build relationships with other children of different ages, represented by brothers and sisters [17, pp. 125-127].
The characteristic of the family given by A.I. Antonov is one of the most versatile, whereas the description of the family presented by I.S. Kon is interesting in the first place, since it is necessary and fundamental primarily for the uncovering and understanding of a substitute family as an independent tendency of the social family institution.
The novelty of the term "substitute family" should be noted when considering the concept in the philosophical and sociological scientific literature. Although various forms of care for orphans have existed in most countries since the earliest times, the collective term "substitute family" appeared recently, and includes all the currently used forms of family arrangements for orphans and children left without parental care In the countries of Northern and Central Europe, as well as in the USA, similar collective terms (for example, "Foster care") were introduced in the 70s - 80s of the twentieth century, while in Russia the term "substitute family" was introduced into science and practices at the beginning of the XXI century, although not enshrined in law yet.
The introduction of the concept of "substitute family" into use by practitioners and researchers was due to the work of V.N. Oslon, in which she defined the substitute family as a special type of the family system, a result of the integration of the basic family and the foster child into a new systemic whole with its own laws of formation and development [18, p. 111].
T.Z. Kozlova believed that the main goal of each substitute family is to ensure a successful socialization of the child and the formation of their secondary attachment to foster parents as a replacement for the original attachment [19, p. 5].
According to researcher I.I. Osipova, a substitute family should be understood as any form of life organization or a form of family upbringing (rehabilitation) of children in need of government protection, where educators and substitute parents are not biological parents of the child [20, p. 83].
Sociologist T.A. Gurko, when considering the substitute family, paid special attention to the nature of this type of family as uniting all the forms of children's placement being practiced [21, p. 9].
In her definition of the substitute family, N.A. Khrustaleva makes a clear distinction between a substitute family and a professional substitute family. A substitute family, in her opinion, is any type of ordinary family used to compensate and replace a biological family for a child left without parental care. At the same time, a professional substitute family is defined as a substitute family in which guardianship authorities conclude an agreement with parents, whereby they are obliged not only to undergo a special psychological, pedagogical and sociological examination, but also to learn about modern pedagogical methods and techniques of working with foster children, as well as to be open to comprehensive pedagogical and medical, psychological and social examination [22, p. 227].
It should be noted that in all the above definitions there is a common detail where the focus of attention is primarily on the organizational activities of the substitute family, and also on the integrative role of this concept as a theoretical construct. At the same time, we should note their high level of formalization, the priority role of legal regulation in them. In addition, these approaches have a clearly pronounced applied nature.
However, not all researchers focus on the organizational and legal aspects of the substitute family. Thus, G.I. Gaisina in her research pays special attention to the conditions surrounding a child in a substitute family and their impact on the development of his/her personality. According to G.I. Gaysina, a substitute family is any type of an ordinary family that takes the child left without parental care, and has the living conditions close to the natural ones, which allows for the provision of the most favorable conditions for the child's individual development socialization [23, p. 24].
L.A. Saenko, when giving the definition of the substitute family, does not focus on the general organizational aspects of the family, but on the results of its activities for a particular individual. L.A. Saenko calls the substitute family a favorable environment for the development of an orphan child, where they join the basic universal values, moral and cultural norms of socially approved behavior. In this definition, the emphasis is primarily on the influence of family upbringing conditions, on the process of socialization of a minor [24, p. 119].
To conclude, the study of the family at all stages of the society's development attracted great attention of scientists and thinkers. Such an interest in this topic can be justified by its fundamental role in society. It should be noted that all the above definitions of the family can be divided into two main categories: those that consider the family as a social institution and those that describe the family as a small social group. A collective nature of living and managing everyday life by the family members allows to define the family as a social institution - an informal group with numerous, often poorly structured functions.[25, p. 48] At the same time, interpersonal relationships built in the family, their impact on the formation, cultural and moral guidelines of the individual enable us to characterize the family as a small social group.
Considering the changes in the ideas of the family among philosophers of different eras and periods, the evolutionary nature of these changes should be specified. Besides, it is worth mentioning that the changes in ideas about the family are caused by the emergence and recognition of new areas of philosophy. However, practically all the views of philosophers and sociologists on the family, have common grounds related primarily to its most important role in the development of the whole society.
References
1. Nikolaeva L.S., Ustinova T.E., Iatskaia E.N. Sem'ia kak ob"ekt issledovaniia v filosofii Sokrata i Platona [The family as an object of research in the philosophy of Socrates and Plato]. Aktual'nye problemy sotsial'noi istorii, filosofii i sotsial'noi raboty. Proc. 19th All-Russ. Readings. Novocherkassk: OOO Lik, 2018, p. 158.
2. Udal'tsov M.Iu. Problemy semeinogo edinstva i vzaimosviazi sem'i i gosu-darstva v filosofii Aristotelia [Problems of family unity and the relationship between family and state in Aristotle's philosophy]. Omskie sotsial''no-gumanitarnye chteniia-2011. Proc. IV Interreg. sci. conf. (Omsk, March 15-16, 2011). Omsk, Omsk State Technical University, 2011, pp. 167-170.
3. Ravochkin N.N. Osmyslenie fenomena sem'i v istorii sotsial'noi filosofii [Comprehension of the family phenomenon in the history of social philosophy]. Kontsept, 2018, no. 1, pp. 64-71.
4. Diagileva M.V. Sem'ia kak osnova prava v filosofii Gegelia [Family as the basis of law in Hegel's philosophy]. Population social dynamics and sustainable development. Proc. II All-Russ. Sci. conf. (October 10, 2019). Ed. A.I. Antonov. Moscow, MAKS Press, 2019. - S. 237-240.
5. Davydovskie chteniia: istoricheskie gorizonty teoreticheskoi sotsiologii [Davydov Readings: The historical horizons of theoretical sociology]. Proc. of symposium (Oct. 13-14, 2011). Ed. by I F. Devyatko, N.K. Orlova. Moscow, RAS Institute of Sociology, 276 p.
6. Reiter K.A. Sem'ia i lichnost' v russkoi filosofii [Family and personality in Russian Philosophy]. Kontseptual. Vol. 2. Moscow, Moscow Financial and Industrial University "Synergy", pp. 79-86.
7. Gurdzhiian M.V. Russkaia filosofiia o prirode sem'i i braka [Russian philosophy about the nature of marriage and family]. Teoriia i praktika obshchestven-nogo razvitiia, 2015, no. 22, pp. 200-202.
8. Durkheim P. De la division du travail social, Paris, PUF, 2007, p. 360.
9. Weber Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. 5. revidierte Aufl. Besorgt von Johannes Winckelmann. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972 (Russ. ed.: Veber M. Khoziaistvo i obshchestvo. Moscow, HSE, 2016. Vol. 1, 445 p.).
10. Morgan Lewis H. Ancient society or researches in the lines of human progress from savagery, through barbarism to civilization (Russ. ed.: Morgan L.G. Drev-
nee obshchestvo, ili issledovanie linii chelovecheskogo progressa ot dikosti cherez varvarstvo k tsivilizatsii. Leningrad, The Research association of the Institute of the peoples of North under the Central executive commite of USSR., 1934, 368 p.).
11. Merton R.K. Social theory and social structure (Russ. ed.: Merton R. Sot-sial'naia teoriia i sotsial'naia struktura. Moscow, AST; Khranitel', 2006, 873 p.).
12. Parsons T. The system of modern societies (Russ. ed.: Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv. Moscow, Aspekt Press, 1998, 270 p.).
13. Giddens E. Sociology (Russ. ed.: Giddens E. Sotsiologiia. Moscow, Editorial URSS, 1999, 703 p.).
14. Sorokin P.A. Man. Civilization. Society (Russ. ed.: Sorokin P.A. Chelovek. Tsivilizatsiia. Obshchestvo. Moscow, Politizdat, 1992, 543 p.).
15. Levada Iu.A. Sochineniia (Essays). Moscow, Izdatel' Karpov E.V., 2011, 415 p.
16. Antonov A.I., Medkov V.M. Sotsiologiia sem'I [Sociology of the family]. Moscow, MSU, International University of Business and Management, 1996, 304 p.
17. Kon I.S. Sotsiologiia lichnosti [Sociology of the personality]. Moscow, Iz-datel'stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1967, 383 p.
18. Khrustal'kova N.A. Pedagogicheskaia kompetentnost' u roditelei v profes-sional'no-zameshchaiushchei sem'e: soderzhanie, struktura, kriterii i urovni sformi-rovannosti [Pedagogical competence of parents in a professional substitute family: Content, structure, criteria and the levels of achievement]. Izvestiia VUZov. Po-volzhskii region. Gumanitarnye nauki, 2008, no. 3, pp. 108-115.
19. Kozlova T.Z. Opekunskaia sem'ia [Host family]. Moscow, Aspekt-Press, 2009, 200 p.
20. Pozdniakova Iu.V. Poniatie "Zameshchaiushchaia sem'ia" v Rossii: sushchnost' i soderzhanie [The concept of "Substitute family" in Russia: Essence and content]. Vestnik URAO, 2011, no. 5, pp. 83-84.
21. Gurko T.A. Sistema zameshchaiushchei opeki nad det'mi, lishennymi ro-ditel'skogo popecheniia vremenno i navsegda: problemy reformirovaniia [The system of substitute custody of children deprived of parental care temporarily and constantly: Problems of reformation]. Professional'nye zameshchaiushchie sem'i v sovremennoi Rossii: opyt, problemy, napravleniia sovershenstvovaniia. Patronat-naia sem'ia kak forma semeinogo ustroistva detei. Proc. All-Russ. seminar (Ufa, December 18-19, 2014). Ed. F.B. Burkhanova. Ufa, BSU, 2015, pp. 9-19.
22. Khrustal'kova N.A. Sovremennye podkhody k organizatsii pedagogicheskoi raboty s professional'no-zameshchaiushchei sem'ei [Modern approaches to the organization of pedagogical work with a professional substitute family]. Vestnik Tiumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2006, no. 3, pp. 223-228.
23. Gaisina G.I. Semeinoe ustroistvo detei-sirot i detei, ostavshikhsia bez popecheniia roditelei: rossiiskii i zarubezhnyi opyt [Family arrangement of orphans and children left without parental care: Russian and foreign experience]. Ufa, Bashkir State Pedagogical University, 2016, 152 p.
24. Saenko L.A., Solomatina G.N. Model' formirovaniia gotovnosti k pozitivnomu vzaimodeistviiu sub"ektov vospitatel'nogo prostranstva v zameshchaiushchei sem'e [Model of formation of readiness for positive interaction of educational space actors in a substitute family]. Vestnik Maikopskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnologicheskogo univer-siteta, 2019, no. 1, pp. 114-123.
25. Makhnach A.V. Kharakteristiki sostava zameshchaiushchei sem'i i ee zhiznesposobnost' [Characteristics of structure of a foster family and its viability]. Vest-nik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo univer-siteta. Seriia: Pedagogika. Psikhologiia. Sotsiokinetika, 2019, no. 2, pp. 46-51.
Список литературы
1. Николаева Л.С., Устинова Т.Е., Яцкая Е.Н. Семья как объект исследования в философии Сократа и Платона // Актуальные проблемы социальной истории, философии и социальной работы: материалы девятнадцатых всерос. науч. чтений; тез. докл. и сообщ. / под ред. П.А. Mихеева. - Новочеркасск: Лик, 2018. - С. 158.
2. Удальцов M^. Проблемы семейного единства и взаимосвязи семьи и государства в философии Аристотеля // Омские социально-гуманитарные чтения - 2011: материалы IV Mежрегион. науч.-практ. конф. / Омск. гос. техн. ун-т. - Омск, 2011. - С. 167-170.
3. Равочкин Н. Н. Осмысление феномена семьи в истории социальной философии // Научно-методический электронный журнал «Концепт». - 2018. -№ 1 (январь). - С. 64-71. - URL: http://e-koncept.ru/2018/183004.htm.
4. Дягилева M.B. Семья как основа права в философии Гегеля // Социальная динамика населения и устойчивое развитие: материалы конф. - M.: MАКС Пресс, 2019. - С. 237-240.
5. Давыдовские чтения: исторические горизонты теоретической социологии: c6. науч. докл. симп. / под ред. И.Ф. Девятко, Н.К. Орловой; Ин-т социологии РАН. - M., 2011. - 276 с.
6. Рейтер К.А. Семья и личность в русской философии // Концептуал: сб. науч. тр. кафедры философии и истории. - Вып. 2. - M.: Изд-во Mоск. финанс.-промышл. ун-та «Синергия», 2016. - С. 79-86.
7. Гурджиян M.B. Русская философия о природе семьи и брака // Теория и практика общественного развития. - 2015. - № 22. - С. 200-202.
8. Durkheim P. De la division du travail social. - Paris, PUF, 2007. - P. 360.
9. Вебер M. Хозяйство и общество / пер.с нем. под ред. Л.Г. Ионина. - M.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2016. - Т.1. Социология. - 445 с.
10. Mорган Л.Г. Древнее общество, или исследование линий человеческого прогресса от дикости через варварство к цивилизации / пер. с англ. под ред. M^. Кос-вена. - Л.: Изд-во Ин-та народов Севера ЦИК СССР, 1935. - 368 с.
11. Мертон Р. Социальная теория и социальная структура. - М.: ACT; ACT М.: Хранитель, 2006. - 873 с.
12. Парсонс Т. Система современных обществ / пер. с англ. Л.А. Седова и А.Д. Ковалева; под ред. М.С. Ковалевой. - М.: Аспект Пресс, 1998. - 270 с.
13. Гидденс Э. Социология: пер. с англ. - М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 1999. -703 с.
14. Сорокин П.А. Человек. Цивилизация. Общество: пер. с англ. / под ред. А. Ю. Согомонова. - М.: Политиздат, 1992. - 543 с.
15. Левада Ю.А. Сочинения / сост. Т.В. Левада. - М.: Издатель Карпов Е.В., 2011. - 415 с.
16. Антонов А.И., Медков В.М. Социология семьи. - М.: Изд-во МГУ; Изд-во Междунар. ун-та бизнеса и упр. («Братья Карич»), 1996. - 304 с.
17. Кон И.С. Социология личности. - М.: Политиздат, 1967. - 383 с.
18. Хрусталькова Н.А. Педагогическая компетентность у родителей в профессионально-замещающей семье: содержание, структура, критерии и уровни сформированности // Изв. вузов. Поволжский регион. Гуманитарные науки. - 2008. - № 3. - С. 108-115.
19. Козлова Т.З. Опекунская семья. - М.: Аспект-Пресс, 2009. - 200 с.
20. Позднякова Ю.В. Понятие «Замещающая семья» в России: сущность и содержание // Вестник УРАО. - 2011. - № 5. - С. 83-84.
21. Гурко Т. А. Система замещающей опеки над детьми, лишенными родительского попечения временно и навсегда: проблемы реформирования // Профессиональные замещающие семьи в современной России: опыт, проблемы, направления совершенствования. Патронатная семья как форма семейного устройства детей: материалы Всерос. науч.-практ. сем. / под ред. Ф.Б. Бурха-новой. - Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2015. - С. 9-19.
22. Хрусталькова Н.А. Современные подходы к организации педагогической работы с профессионально-замещающей семьей // Вестник Тюменского государственного университета. - 2006. - № 3. - С. 223-228.
23. Гайсина Г.И. Семейное устройство детей-сирот и детей, оставшихся без попечения родителей: российский и зарубежный опыт / Башкир. гос. пед. ун-т им. М. Акмуллы. - Уфа, 2016. - 152 с.
24. Саенко Л.А., Соломатина Г.Н. Модель формирования готовности к позитивному взаимодействию субъектов воспитательного пространства в замещающей семье // Вестник Майкопского государственного технологического университета. - 2019. - № 1. - С. 114-123.
25. Махнач А.В. Характеристики состава замещающей семьи и ее жизнеспособность // Вестник Костромского государственного университета. Педагогика. Психология. Социокинетика. - 2019. - № 2. - С. 46-51.
Оригинальность 78 %
Received 29.06.2023 Approved 17.07.2023 Accepted for publication 01.12.2023
И.А. Глухих
ФИЛОСОФСКИЙ И СОЦИОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ ПОНЯТИЙ «СЕМЬЯ» И «ЗАМЕЩАЮЩАЯ СЕМЬЯ»
Статья посвящена исследованию представлений в социологии и философии о семье как самостоятельной социальной структуре, социальном институте, малой социальной группе и о замещающей семье как форме семейного устройства. Цель исследования - проанализировать изменения представлений о семье и замещающей семье в различные исторические периоды. Исследование основано на сборе, обработке и обобщении теоретических представлений о семье. В статье представлены взгляды на семью наиболее авторитетных отечественных и зарубежных философов и социологов. Проведенное исследование позволяет сделать однозначный вывод, что большинство исследователей считают семью не статичной, динамично развивающейся структурой. Семья развивается вместе с развитием самого человеческого общества, являясь его базисной, неотъемлемой частью. Являясь единицей социума, семья отражает все изменения, происходившие с ним. Благодаря этому, семья прошла многовековой путь развития от первобытных семейно-клановых групп до современных «ячеек общества». Кроме того, многие исследователи сходятся во мнении, что именно семья выступает механизмом первичной социализации индивидов, что полноценное развитие вне семьи невозможно. Такое широкое распространение и богатая история привели к тому, что с помощью семей государство предпринимает попытки решать наиболее острые социальные проблемы общества. Ярким примером данного подхода может являться появление новой формы семьи - замещающей семьи. Являясь относительно новым понятием, замещающая семья не успела получить осмысления философами, однако уже успела вызвать большой интерес у отечественных социологов. В статье собраны основные представления отечественных социологов о замещающей семье, ее роли в обществе и целях создания.
Ключевые слова: семья, замещающая семья, социальный институт, социальная группа, социология семьи, философия семьи, воспитание детей.
Глухих Иван Андреевич - аспирант кафедры социологии ФГАОУ ВО «Пермский государственный национальный исследовательский университет», Пермь, e-mail: gluhihIVAN@mail.ru.
Поступила 29.06.22023 Одобрена 17.07.2023 Принята к публикации 01.12.2023
Финансирование. Исследование не имело спонсорской поддержки.
Конфликт интересов. Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Вклад автора 100 %.
Просьба ссылаться на эту статью в русскоязычных источниках следующим образом:
Глухих, И.А. Философский и социологический анализ понятия семьи и замещающей семьи / И.А. Глухих // Вестник ПНИПУ. Социально-экономические науки. - 2023. - № 4. - С. 99-111.
Please cite this article in English as:
Glukhikh I.A. Philosophical and sociological analysis of the concepts "family" and "substitute family". PNRPU Sociology and Economics Bulletin, 2023, no. 4, pp. 99-111 (In Russ.).
