CC BY
60
О.Д. Белоброва
СОЦИАЛЬНАЯ ФРАГМЕНТАЦИЯ КАК СУЩНОСТНЫЙ ФЕНОМЕН ДИФФЕРЕНЦИАЦИИ
Аннотация
В статье рассматривается феномен социальной фрагментации как формы дифференциации современного трансформирующегося общества. Представлен обзор определений фрагментации в социальной философии и в других областях знаний. Проведен сравнительный анализ понятий социальная фрагментация, сегментарная дифференциация, сегрегация и поляризация. Обозначено разграничение между понятиями социальная и политическая фрагментация. Выявлено, что появление новых групп в структуре общества является характерным признаком трансформирующегося общества. Групповая самоидентификация в периоды экономического расцвета заметно отличается от идентификации в кризисе. Периоды расцвета способствуют большей открытости социальных групп, а в периоды спадов наблюдается обратная тенденция, обостряются процессы фрагментации, углубляется разрыв связей элементов системы общества. В отличие от других авторов, выдвигается предположение, что фрагментация общества не является причиной внутрисоци-альных конфликтов, а, напротив, есть способ ухода определенных групп от конфликта, посредством частичного обрыва либо максимального ограничения межгрупповых связей.
Ключевые слова:
Фрагментация, социальная фрагментация, социальная сегментация, поляризация, сегрегация, социальная дифференциация, трансформирующееся общество.
O. Belobrova
SOCIAL FRAGMENTATION AS THE ESSENTIAL PHENOMENON OF DIFFERENTIATION
Abstract
The article deals with the phenomenon of social fragmentation as a form of differentiation of modern transformed society. It makes an overview of different definitions of fragmentation in social philosophy and in the other fields of knowledge. It conducted a comparative concepts analysis of the phenomenon of social fragmentation, segmental differentiation, segregation and polarization. It indicated the distinction between the concepts of social and political fragmentation. It revealed that the emergence of new groups in the society structure is a characteristic feature of a transformed society. Collective identity in times of economic prosperity is markedly different from the identification in a crisis times. Heyday phases promote greater openness of social groups, and during recessions it is observed the opposite trend, exacerbated the fragmentation, deepening decoupling elements of the society system. Unlike other authors, it suggests that the fragmentation of society is not the cause in-social conflict, but on the contrary, there is a way to care of certain groups from the conflict, through the partial termination or limitation of inter-group relations.
Key words:
fragmentation, social fragmentation, social segmentation, polarization, segregation, differentiation, transforming society.
The appearing of new groups in the structure of society and change of the status and role of the traditional ones have become a differential charac-
teristic of the transforming society. On the one hand, the appearing of new social groups gives positive result due to enriching traditional groups' cultural life and solving a great number of economic problems. But, on the other hand, excessive differentiation starts to perform destructive function, as certain social groups tend to become isolated in their environment for various reasons, which results in society's fragmentation. Besides, excessive differentiation may lead to social polarization of society, which is sure to cause antagonism-related conflicts.
Within the post-Soviet area, social transformation have been discussed in the context of the Soviet collapse and emergence of new independent states that abandoned the doctrine of building "the developed socialist society", while in the Western Europe the concept of "transformation" is directly relating to the process of globalization that in all cases involves transformation of social institutions, relations and society itself into the new global social system.
It has been said that within the period of economic recovery, individual's self-identification with a group degrades; its distinct limits become blurred. People start to affiliate themselves with different reference groups they never belonged to earlier and be in doubt about their affiliation to other groups. For instance, "I am not a citizen of the state, but a citizen of the world" or "I am a European". However, the periods of economic or political crises are characterised by increased individual's self-identification with his/her reference group, heightened intra-group solidarity, and signs of groups' closeness.
Within Parsons' "paradigm of evolutionary change", the society is expanding in the process of its development, in particular due to the appearing of new social groups. The very concepts "development of the society" and "evolutionary development" involve economic prosperity or, in other words, positive dynamics of changes.
Therefore, proceeding from two above-mentioned postulates (the one about the blurring of the lines of group identification and individual's self-identification during the period of economic prosperity and another one about increasing number of social groups during the same period), it is possible to draw a preliminary conclusion concerning the fact that the state of economic prosperity of the society facilitates openness of its social groups. Consequently, being in the state of economic recession, crisis, etc., the processes of social groups' identification and individuals' self-identification will demon-
strate the opposite pattern. The latter may be associated with the union of different groups, heightened solidarity inside the groups, consolidation of the groups' status according to a certain dominant feature, for example, shared values. This process can be lively illustrated by the situation of political and economic crisis following revolutionary regime change in the society.
The study of differentiation processes that result in such phenomena as social fragmentation, segmentation and polarization is essential, as these phenomena affect social stability of the society. It has been said that these processes cause various conflicts. For this very reason, these days the states face the task of purposeful regulation of the differentiation process for the purpose of meeting interests and needs of different groups in the society. The other task of public policy should be the action taken by management entities intended to reducing the level of polarization in the society. The practice of social state institutions requires studying the laws and trends of latent social processes and having clear understanding of their characteristics.
Fragmentation is defined as a process of dividing something into the number of isolated fragments. These isolated fragments are not supposed to be helpless afterwards, though it is generally accepted that fragmentation becomes a destructive process for existing integrity of the system. However, in system theory, the transition from one form of the stability to another is defined as a catastrophe, in fact, it does not indicate the adverse character of the process, despite its destructive meaning.
In our opinion, the concept of "social segmentation" should be considered as closest to social fragmentation in terms of its characteristics. According the definition from Definition dictionary on social science (2013), social segmentation is "... the process of dividing society, a formal institution or a social group into relatively isolated subgroups. Social segmentation is caused by uttermost differentiation of functions and (or) strict stratification of the society, segregation, which leads to the formation of barriers in communication".
In his work "Differentiation", Niklas Luhmann did not use the term "fragmentation", but "segmental differentiation" instead. He referred this concept to the description of forms of archaic society differentiation. The main feature of segmental differentiation is considered by N. Luhmann as "equality of individual social systems that differ in their origin, territory, or when both criteria are combined" [2, p. 27]. The main point of "the equality of individual systems" is that these systems do not require any relations or
interrelations with each other, they are absolutely independent and self-sufficient. In N. Luhmann's opinion, change of social differentiation form is necessary for social development and evolution, as the framework of the existing form, as a rule, restricts the possibilities of development at a certain stage. Besides, N. Luhmann noted that change of social differentiation form does not happen immediately or suddenly, but requires preliminary latent preparation and the arising of new "orders" in the existing differentiation forms. Also, he considered intermittent transition from segmental society to functionally differentiated one to be impossible. It brings up the question, whether the contrary is possible. We mean, is it possible to move over from complicated functional differentiation form to the segmental one and to find out certain markers indicating latent preparation for such kind of transition? In fact, N. Luhmann himself leaves open such a possibility, though defines it as "regressive development" and even introduces some examples (we mean his example of Central American and South American advanced cultures' returning to tribal lifestyle after Spanish conquest) [2, p. 29]. In his opinion, the idea of "intensification of differentiation" is inappropriate and disputable, however, it is worth noting that under specific circumstances changing differentiation leads to "sophistication" of its form, i.e. more intense differentiation is associated with "undifferntiation", the process characterized by abandonment of the role of other irrelevant elements. In this regard, it seems reasonable to use the term "optimization" in the process of expanding differentiation, which makes it possible to reduce excessive complicatedness of the system.
Thus, N. Luhmann considers segmental differentiation as follows, "Segmental differentiation results from society's division into two fundamentally equal individual systems that form outside world for each other" [2, p. 33]. What did he mean by this definition? Probably, the fact that interrelation between these two individual systems is quite possible, but not essential for each system's functioning. In other words, individual systems can function independently and do not need each other.
The concept of fragmentation is primarily used in IT and related to it industry as well as in biology in the context of cell division process. Apart from its above-mentioned definition, it is defined as disconnection, division, split, etc.
In recent academic papers, the term "fragmentation" is used in several unrelated connotations. For example, in his lecture delivered on 8th April, 2015 in the Museum of Vienna (the so-called "lectures of Jan Patocka"),
Zygmunt Bauman used the term "time fragmentation", which is interpreted as perception of time divided into episodes [6]. In the paper "Theory of "social fragments" - the general social-science theory" by A. Davydov, definition of the term "social fragments" is based on computer simulations, where mathematical paradigms extrapolated to social science are used. Though the author accepted popular opinion on the fact that fragmentarity of social reality is one of the main features of postmodernism in public life, he focused on the theory of social fragments, understanding postmodernism as a component or "special case" of his general theory [1, p. 131]. In the author's interpretation, social fragments are objects of empirical social science that, as a rule, are under study and consideration in exploratory activities. As long as A. Davydov limited himself to clearly defined framework of a particular period, place, certain properties and relations, phenomena of the object under study, in his opinion, any social research is fragmentary by definition. Therefore, the author considers the social fragment as an abstract model for research and scientific description, not as a part of the system with disjointed ties.
It should be noted that the concept of "fragmentation" is interpreted by other researchers in the same way. For example, P. Polomoshnov in his thesis "Integralism as a means of overcoming fragmentation of contemporary social knowledge" and K. Momdzhyan in the paper "About the crisis of fragmentation in contemporary social theory" consider fragmentation as a methodological problem of theoretical social science, but not as a social phenomenon [3].
Consideration of social fragmentation processes, which is of interest for us, is represented in the work by A. Safronov entitled "Ethnic fragmentation of nations in the era of globalization". He described the process of social fragmentation as the opposite one to the processes of society's convergence and unification in the era of globalization. He also noted that despite the expectations of the followers of economic determinism, current globalization processes result in increased fragmentation or "divergence" [4]. In addition, the author thought that it is ethnic fragmentation that causes ethnic and religious strives and even can be a transformation of their traditional forms (interstate and inter-ethnic military conflicts are meant). In our opinion, this point of view does not negate these conflict forms these days, but emphasizes that internal intrasocial "fragmentations of civic nations into ethnic and religious communities" take centre stage (at least, become worthy of note and analysis) [4]. The author thought that due to the expanding of globaliza-
tion (he calls that "deepening"), ethnic affiliation does not become leveled or assimilated. We cannot agree with this statement, as the processes of assimilation and integration, surely, were going on in the past and are continuing in contemporary communities. Another issue is what are the proportions and dynamics of correlation between integration and fragmentation taking place in contemporary multicultural and multinational communities. It can be unambiguously stated that economic crises are characterized by intensification of fragmentation processes; the ties between the elements of the society become more and more disjointed. We do not believe that fragmentation of the society can be a significant reason for conflicts. On the contrary, fragmentation can be the way of avoiding conflicts between groups due to partial or complete restriction of intergroup contacts in an effort to maintain one's ethnic, cultural or religious identify and prevent from aggressive action. The same author proposed an ingenious definition for "ethnocultural fragmentation of civic nations", which is quite interesting for further analysis and consideration, but not in the current paper.
At that point, it is reasonable to consider approaches represented in socio-philosophical sources, in which the concept of social fragmentation is employed for describing negative phenomena and emphasizes the process of dividing society into isolated fragments that have lost connections between each other. For example, M. Shulga in his paper "Symptoms of society's fragmentation" wrote that fragmentation processes have negative impact on society's existence and lead to failure in the functioning of the whole system [6]. He distinguished between system elements and fragments: system elements are characterized by strong natural internal interrelations and interdependences within the system as a whole, while fragments are isolated. Also, the author compared the concepts of fragmentation and segmented society in N. Luhmann's definition, which he used to describe tribal, primitive forms of social life. M. Shulga believed that fragmentation processes lead to simplification of the system and its transition to qualitatively lower ways of internal interrelations. However, it should be noted that simplification of the system and transition to simplified interaction between system's aggregates does not mean either regression or degradation. It is quite possible to consider such a process as a means of self-preservation, in case overcomplicated structure is going to collapse due to a number of permanent crises. Surely, this idea is offered as a hypothesis. M. Shulga characterized social fragments, as distinct from
social system elements, as the ones that lack natural ties with the system and consistently tend to be independent. The mechanism of society's fragmentation is triggered, in the author's opinion, due to shifting the balance between the processes of fragmentation and differentiation towards the latter. Also, he defined fragmented society as the one that is divided into qualitatively different social fragments, and the ties between them vary from weakened or occasional to even confrontation [6, p. 453]. In the author's opinion, the processes of society's fragmentation are caused by failure in social institutions' functioning, in particular, by degradation of state institutions. One more significant reason is establishing different value systems in the society.
At this point, we find it necessary to distinguish between the concepts "social fragmentation" and "political fragmentation". In contemporary social sciences, political fragmentation, as opposite to social fragmentation, has recently obtained generally accepted definition; it is now under investigation of a number of Western exploratory groups. Political fragmentation is inseparably associated with the terms "failed states" and "fragile states" - the concepts relating to underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, where political establishment is unable to provide minimum level of state institutions' functioning [8]. In other words, political fragmentation is first of all associated with the crisis of public administration and has nothing to do with ethnic or religious processes.
Social polarization is mostly defined in the context of economics and is used to describe centrifugal processes in the society caused by increased gap between the rich and the poor. The issues of segregation and social polarization are actively discussed in urban science that studies town living. Segregation as the policy of involuntary (sometimes naturally occurring) displacement of certain groups of people to relatively closed territories is typical for modern cities and metropolitan cities and can be one of characteristic features (not always mandatory) of social fragmentation. In his work "Social justice and the city", D. Harvey drew a conclusion about interlacement of economic characters with class-specific and ethnic ones in the process of socio-spatial segregation [5, p. 390]. Peter Marcuse, the American theoretician and urban specialist, insisted on the fact that social segregation and polarization in cities has been existing since the Industrial Revolution and cannot be a characteristic feature of any contemporary processes. Initially, it was associated with the system of labor division and areal dependence of
workers on the place of manufacturing and, certainly, with the centres of ethnic resettlement of emigrant groups in the cities of the United States. P. Marcuse even used metaphor "cities of quarters" or "separate cities" to denote today's Western cities, in doing so emphasizing fragmentation of the society caused by the areal fragmentation [9].
It can be concluded that the very processes of fragmentation, segmentation or polarization of the society have peacefully co-existed within the social system from the earliest times. The fact of their existence has never lead to any social catastrophes or disasters, collapse of social principles or dissipation of states that were caused, as a rule, by other factors, including external ones. By contrast, one can suggest a hypothesis that the process of fragmentation and segmentation of the society may facilitate certain improvement of atmosphere in it during crises and social confrontations providing individuals or groups of people with means of overcoming obvious conflicts.
References
1. Davydov A.A. Teoriya «sotsial'nykh fragmentov» obshchaya sotsi-ologicheskaya teoriya. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2004. №8.
2. Luman N. Differentsiatsiya. M., 2006.
3. Polomoshnov P.A. Fragmentatsiya kak proyavlenie krizisa sovremennogo sotsial'nogo poznaniya. Vestnik Donskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta. 2013. №1(7).
4. Safonov A.L. Etnicheskaya fragmentatsiya natsii v epokhu globalizatsii: sot-sial'no-filosofskie aspekty. Filosofskaya mysl'. 2015. №6.
5. Trubina E. Gorod v teorii: opyty osmysleniya prostranstva M.: Novoe l it-eraturnoe obozrenie, 2011.
6. Shul'ga M. Simptomi fragmentatsn suspil'stva (zamist' pislyamovi), Ukrain-s'ke suspil'stvo 1992-2007. Dinamika sotsial'nikh zmin. K. Institut sotsiologi'' NAN Ukrai'ni, 2007.
7. «Diasporal'nyi terrorizm»: reportazh Veroniki Pekhe, Memorial'naya lektsiya Zigmunda Baumana v Venskom muzee 8 aprelya 2015 goda. URL: http://gefter.ru/archive/17706 (data obrashcheniya 20.09.2016).
8. Collapsed States. The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. ed. by I. W. Zartman. L.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995.
9. Marcuse P. «Dual City»: a Muddy Metaphor for a Quartered City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 1989. Vol. 13. №4.
Литература
1. Давыдов А.А. Теория «социальных фрагментов» общая социологическая теория // Социологические исследования. 2004. №8.
2. Луман Н. Дифференциация. М., 2006.
3. Поломошнов П.А. Фрагментация как проявление кризиса современного социального познания // Вестник Донского государственного аграрного университета. 2013. №1(7).
4. Сафонов А.Л. Этническая фрагментация наций в эпоху глобализации: социально-философские аспекты // Философская мысль. 2015. №6.
5. Трубина Е. Город в теории: опыты осмысления пространства М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2011.
6. Шульга М. Симптоми фрагментаци сусптьства (заметь тслямови), УкраТнське сусптьство 1992-2007. Динамка со^альних змн. К. 1нститут соцюлогп НАН УкраТни, 2007.
7. «Диаспоральный терроризм»: репортаж Вероники Пехе, Мемориальная лекция Зигмунда Баумана в Венском музее 8 апреля 2015 года. URL: http://gefter.ru/archive/17706 (дата обращения 20.09.2016).
8. Collapsed States. The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority / ed. by I. W. Zartman. L.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995.
9. Marcuse P. «Dual City»: a Muddy Metaphor for a Quartered City // International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 1989. Vol. 13. №4.
