Rakstu krājums "Filosofiskā antropoloģija III"

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15530

Browse

Browsing Rakstu krājums "Filosofiskā antropoloģija III" by Subject "Cilvēka daba"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Cilvēks socioloģijas skatījumā
    (Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte, 2024) Bite, Dina
    Dina Bite focuses on sociological aspect of looking at people. Accordingly, in her article “The Human Being from a Sociological Perspective”, she gives an insight into the most important sociological paradigms, emphasising their relation to interpretation of human nature. The presentation of the topic uses classical division of sociological theories into macro and micro levels in chronological order, with the aim of highlighting their different perspectives on human nature. Dina Bite first discusses the definition of man in sociology, considering that the main focus of sociology is the interaction between man and the surrounding society, which implies an endless debate on the question “who came first – society or man?” In the study of man, the term homo sociologicus is used to explain man’s place in the social structure or cultural, economic and political context that determines their consciousness and way of life. The term homo sociologicus was first used by the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf to emphasise the influence of morals and values on an individual’s choices. The individual, although subject to set expectations, norms and sanctions, can nevertheless vary their performance in role fulfilment. The author emphasises that early sociological paradigms focused on a macro-level approach to the analysis of society, identifying the needs of society as a whole and the most important social structures in society, while later theoretical approaches emphasised the influence of the individual in shaping social reality and sought to find a compromise between a strong macro and micro-level approach. Man, in the social theoretical sense, is a complex product of various internal impulses and external environmental factors. Human nature is characterised by biological and psychological traits, as well as by economic, political and cultural regimes of a given society. The task of sociologists would therefore be to look for commonalities and differences in combinations of the above-mentioned characteristics. Theories of collectivism are synonymous with macro, structuralist and objectivist theories (e.g., structural functionalism). In contrast to the macro approach, the so-called individualist theories are emphasised. In their interpretation, social reality is the result of actions and interactions of individuals and groups. In this case, autonomy and value of an individual is relatively high, since it is up to individuals to determine what meanings will be assigned to certain objects and what consequences this will have. Theories of individualism include the so-called subjectivist, micro, elementalist theories (e.g,. symbolic interactionism, phenomenology). Dina Bite points out that sociology does not consider an individual in isolation from the surrounding social environment, so the most important difference between the theoretical perspectives that explain interaction between an individual and the environment is the extent to which the individual is able to influence the environment. In a sociological perspective, issues of power, conflict and inequality are always present for the full expression or realisation of human nature. Macro-level theories emphasise dependence of the expression of human nature on historically established forms of social organisation, which vary from time to time and from society to society. They see an individual as a socially and culturally organised being, willingly or unwillingly subject to the influence of society – in the range between instinctive and social human behaviour, macro-level theories represent social, economic, political, and cultural determinism. Microsociological theories, on the other hand, offer analysis of society in terms of individual experience and action. Even from an individual level, social structures are comparatively active in influencing beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. Sociological theories describe human nature not only as a duality but as the result of interaction of multiple factors. Contribution of sociological perspective to the study of human nature is related to analysis of interaction and relationship between an individual and society. The author stresses that the challenge and opportunity of contemporary sociology is to develop an integrated and interdisciplinary view of the various aspects of human nature, taking into account diversity and variability of social life.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Mūsdienu cilvēks Ēriha Fromma skatījumā: destruktivitāte
    (Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte, 2024) Sīle, Vija
    Vija Sīle explores “The Concept of Modern Human Beings in the View of Erich Fromm: Destructiveness”, thus reflecting only on the one side of human duality (Mairita Satika in her follow-up article in this collection looks at another aspect, namely love). By studying man from the individual, psychological and social perspectives, Erich Fromm in fact explores duality of human nature, revealing the manifold manifestations of its contradictory nature. Fromm asks the question, seemingly rhetorically: do people have a “human nature”, does such a phenomenon even exist? His answer to this self-imposed question is essentialist, because it is based on the conviction that the ideas of humanism are rooted in the belief that all human beings have a human nature. Fromm’s research also focuses on the question of what the driving forces of human beings are. Man’s duality is expressed in his biosocial nature – the way he relates to both nature and society. Fromm focuses on the relationship between the innate and the acquired, seeking to answer the question of how social character is formed and what is inherent in the human personality. Social character is what, in order for society to function normally, must develop in its members the desire to do what is necessary for a wider society. Character is thus a specifically human phenomenon, which Fromm examines from two angles: as individual character and as social character. Character is a relatively fixed form of conducting human energy in the processes of assimilation and socialisation. For man, it can be seen as a substitute for instinct, since they can organise their life according to their character, thus balancing their internal and external situation, value system, preferences, etc. According to Fromm, the character consists of two aspects: the dynamic concept of character and the non-productive personality type. In describing the non-productive personality type in detail, Fromm identifies four characteristics: receptive, exploitative, hoarding, and marketing, which are typical of people in the 18th and 19th centuries, with the exception of the marketing type, which only applies to the present day. Since character is formed through a process of socialisation, it is natural to ask what the role of social conditions in the formation of character is. Not only in the past but also in the present, man becomes cruel and destructive because they lack conditions necessary for their development. Fromm discusses three phenomena which, in his view, are the worst and most dangerous forms of human tendency: necrophilia, malignant narcissism and incestuous symbiosis. Together, they form the “syndrome of decay”, which urges man to destroy for destruction’s sake and to hate for hatred’s sake. It is from the duality of human nature that Fromm’s view of man as a being who must create himself – develop their innate gifts (potential) within the limits of what society can provide – emerges. But it is up to an individual to determine to what extent these possibilities are used. If the individual is unable to fulfil themselves completely, or cannot do so because of certain circumstances (alienation), they become destructive.