The second stage (50-70s) is associated with the structural and functional direction of theoretical sociology (T. Parsons, R. Merton, N. Smelser, K. Davis, D. Moore, and others), which is trying to correlate the economy with other subsystems of social life. Unlike the first stage, when the economy was seen as a whole, it is now divided into a number of private “subsystems”, such as business, market, administration; private processes, such as competition, inflation, the analysis of which is carried out taking into account the social context.
The main result of this stage is the institutionalization of the sociology of economic life as one of the directions of sociological science. If at the first stage the study of the links between economic and social phenomena was conducted within the framework of a wide range of problems covered by the concepts of “economy” and “society”, now within this very motley problem a direction is being formed that highlights a special area of phenomena, which it declares a special subject of its attention. to say that if at the first stage economic sociology existed as if “in itself”, in an undetected form, then at the second stage it begins to exist “for itself” as a recognized field of scientific research.
The emergence of economic sociology was prepared by a number of theoretical and pragmatic prerequisites, the main of which are: a wide range of ideas and concepts developed within the framework of economic science; a system of sociological categories developed within the framework of general sociology; a sufficiently developed by the mid-50s specific (private) sociology.
The first premise—a wide range of ideas and concepts developed within the framework of economic science—comes from K. Marx, M. Weber, and T. Veblen. Within the framework of this current of theoretical thought, the main attention is paid to the study of the economy of capitalist society, taking into account the social structures – the concentration of power; conflicts of social interests, conflicts of social groups, relations of domination and coercion, the role of socio-economic policy of the state.
The founder of economic sociology in its Western version, the American sociologist N. J. Smelser (b. 1930) notes that “the questions posed with such persuasiveness by K. Marx and
M. Weber, still play a decisive role in scientific research on the mutual influence of economic and political factors. These are issues such as the conditions for the effectiveness of power in organizations; the conditions under which the various economic groups concerned enter into struggles with each other; the degree of dominance of the economic system over the political one. And then. “The problems raised by Marx and Weber,” says N. Smelser, “are at the very center of modern research on the relationship between culture and economic activity. This is particularly true of whether cultural symbols should be considered to be determined by economic roles; whether these symbols have an independent influence on economic activity or there is interaction” (Smelser N. Sociology of Economic Life. M., 1965. pp. 55 – 56).
The second premise, a system of sociological categories developed within the framework of general sociology, concerns theoretical sociology. The main task of social cognition was seen in the discovery and formulation of universal, independent of place and time patterns of human behavior in social organization. For the supporters of structural functionalism T. Parsons and R. Merton, this task was concretized in the formulation of universal functional laws or requirements designed to explain the structural mechanisms for maintaining the stability and stability of any social system. The concepts of system, structure, function, social process, social mechanism were developed; systematic approach in general. This categorical apparatus allowed economists-sociologists to catch many social connections in the economy, which had not been studied by anyone before them.
In the context of structural and functional analysis, structure was understood as a set of relatively stable standardized relations and elements. The peculiarity of the structures of social action was that the actors performed certain social roles relative to each other, through which the needs of individuals correlated with the possibilities of their satisfaction by means of a functioning system. The essence of structural and functional analysis in the interpretation of the American sociologist-theorist T. Parsons (1902-1979) consisted in three interrelated postulates. First, the function of a separate social phenomenon is its contribution to social life, which is the functioning of the social system. Second, all standardized social or cultural forms have positive functions, i.e., they are functional. Thirdly, there are certain irreplaceable functions, without which society (group, individual) will cease to exist.
The contribution of another American sociologist R. Merton (b. in 1910) to the development of structural and functional analysis was that he formulated his own paradigm, focusing on expanding and deepening the possibilities of the functional approach to explaining social phenomena. R. Merton paid special attention to the division of functions into explicit and latent, in order to distinguish between subjective categories of motivation and objective categories of function. The distinction between explicit and latent functions can be considered the fourth postulate of structural and functional analysis.
In the early 70s, when the crisis events of the previous decade called into question the idea of the equilibrium state of society, structural and functional analysis began to lose its intellectual credit. However, in the 80s, the newly achieved state of relative stability and the strengthening of the stabilization orientation in sociology stimulated a new appeal to the functional approach, the basis of which is the traditions of classical structural and functional analysis.
The need for a sociological understanding of global economic processes was dictated by an acute sense of the narrowness of “pure economism”, its insufficiency for the rational solution of the most complex processes of our time, as well as the management of the human factor of production. N.J. Smelser writes, “Prices and production are influenced by dozens of variables—economic, political, legal, religious. If the researcher were faced with the task of presenting economic life in its entirety, many of these diverse variables would have to be introduced into economic models. How does an economist cope with the empirical complexity of the world? The usual way is that, although non-economic variables affect the conditions of supply and demand, the assumption that they are immutable should be assumed for the purposes of analysis. By making such simplifications, economists are able to find elegant theoretical solutions to economic problems” (Smelser N. Sociology of Economic Life. p. 15).
The third prerequisite is sufficiently developed areas of specific sociology. They enriched economic sociology with new concepts developed in the course of studying organizations, production collectives, professions, employment, stratification, management and other private problems.
The mutual influence of the economic and non-economic spheres is studied with the help of “sociological variables” as tools that make it possible to see in the connections between these spheres the sociological content – norms, values, motivation, etc. Firstly, the way in which various types of economic activity are structured into roles and communities are studied; what values serve to legitimize them; the roles and sanctions through which they are regulated; how these variables interact with each other. Secondly, the sociological “frame of reference” is applied to the analysis of the interrelations of the economic and non-economic spheres, social life. The focus here is on how sociological variables manifest themselves in these kinds of structures in situations of integration and disintegration.
The greatest contribution to the development of this direction was made by the famous American sociologist N. J. Smith. Smelser, who, as noted, is considered the founder of the science of economic sociology in its Western version. As defined by N. J. Simpson, it is not a good idea. Smelser, “Economic sociology is an application of the general frame of reference of sociological variable and explanatory models of sociology to the study of a complex of various activities relating to the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of limited material resources” (Smelser N. Sociology of Economic Life. p. 69).
To explain the specifics of the object of this science, N. J. Smelser uses two classifications. First, he divides social life into two spheres – economic and non-economic (to the latter he refers politics, culture, ethnic communities and kinship, stratification); secondly, it introduces the concept of “sociological variables”, dividing them into two groups: operating in the sphere of economics and in non-economic spheres. On this basis, he gives an idea of the range of objects subject to economic and sociological study (Smelser N. Sociology of Economic Life. p. 71.). It turns out that the use of a sociological “frame of reference” allows N. Smelser to study with the help of sociological variables both the objective role functions of communities and groups in the economic and non-economic spheres, and the subjective sphere of motivation for their behavior in these areas.
In general, despite some conglomeration of economic sociology in its Western version, economic sociology, undoubtedly, has accumulated vast experience, developed a variety of research tools and had a constructive impact on the development of economic and sociological research in domestic sociology.