Task of internal state activity in the socialisation process

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Task of internal state activity in the socialisation process

Olga G. Koban

Завдання внутрішньої державної діяльності в процесі соціалізації. Ольга Геннадіївна Кобан

Кафедра теорії права та держави Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка. Київ, Україна

Анотація. У статті розглядається категорія соціалізації внутрішньої діяльності держави. Показано важливість застосування соціологічного підходу до оптимізації взаємодії державних інституцій, суспільства і особистості. У дослідженні запропоновані вимоги до ролі держави в процесі правової соціалізації. Показано необхідність активної участі держави в правовій соціалізації на нових засадах для усунення наслідків специфічної соціалізації в тоталітарній державі, коли вона пригнічує діяльність інших агентів соціалізації. Поряд з цим показано нові перспективи, які отримує держава в демократичному суспільстві від соціалізації. Наразі для українського суспільства є характерним наявність протиріччя між курсом на побудову правової держави і громадянського суспільства з однієї сторони, і правовою реальністю - з іншої, особливістю якої є те, що право до сих пір ще не стало основою відносин у нашому суспільстві; органи державної влади та їх посадові особи дуже часто ігнорують норми права, популярним є, так зване, «телефонне право». Нерідко приймаються нормативно-правові акти, які суперечать один одному, спостерігається тенденція переваги підзаконних нормативних актів над законами, що посилює серед населення правовий нігілізм, який є перешкодою розбудови правової держави. Потребують вирішення на державному рівні питання подальшого розвитку правосвідомості населення, подолання правового нігілізму, задоволення потреб громадян у одержані знань про право, формування у них поваги до нього. Держава повинна створити умови для соціалізації та самореалізації суспільства, дійсно визначаючи тим самим стимули реальної участі людей в громадському житті, розширювати соціальну базу суспільних перетворень, культурного і економічного відтворення. Досягається це завдяки цілеспрямованій та .злагодженій роботи всіх державних органів, коли суспільство відчуватиме їх діяльність, позитивні зміни і той факт, що соціальні цінності стають сталими, гарантованими та звичними, а державне управління полишають свавілля та суб'єктивізм.

Ключові слова: соціалізація, держава, демократія, громадянське суспільство.

Department of Theory of Law and State Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Kyiv, Ukraine

Abstract. The article deals with the category of socialisation in domestic activity of the state. It shows the importance of sociological approach to optimising the cooperation of public institutions, society and an individual. The research proposed the requirements for a role of the state in legal socialisation. The article shows the necessity for active participation of state in socialisation. It also describes specific character of socialisation in the totalitarian state where it lies in striving to weaken the impact of the other agents of socialisation. The article notes new perspectives obtained by the state in the democratic society in order to affect the socialisation. The research also formulates the basic concepts and principles of interaction between the society, individual and state which guarantees the rule of law in the modern legal system which is a prerequisite for the formation of a law-governed state and civil society.

Key words: law, socialisation, government, democracy, civil society.

Introduction

socialization legal state

Radical changes in the economic, social and political spheres, the democratisation of all spheres of public life and the complexity of the social tasks that the society is now putting forward before the state. The reduction of “person-state” distance became possible due to the creation of objective prerequisites for the broad selfrealisation of the individual in policy and law as well as the approval of the legal basis for the interaction of state power with civil society. Through this there occurs the formation of a socially active individual with a high level of legal consciousness and legal culture and the recognition of law as the main regulator of social relations. The transition from a narrow normative understanding of law as a right of power to a liberal understanding of law as a measure of freedom determined humanistic value content of law in which universal values prevail i.e. law is the means with the help of which they are implemented. The law is not limited to the role of the normative regulator, but actively affects the social sphere, encouraging social groups, state and society as a whole to certain forms of behaviour and interaction with one other, in the result of which they have certain connections with society. Thus, the law ensures the inclusion of individuals and groups in a single system of social organisation. This led to extensive research of not only the main function of law, namely, the regulation of social relations, but also such a specific function as legal socialisation. The expansion of research fields continues, concepts, types and functions of socialisation of the individual are specified including the legal one, the study of its mechanism and institutions deepens. These studies are based on the definition of socialisation of an individual as a complex two-way process of constant and uninterrupted interaction of an individual with his social environment. There occurs not only the formation of an individual under the impact of society through its institutions, but also the reverse process of formation of society and state under the impact of the social activity of individuals. An individual, acting in the social environment, changes and improves the state and society, at the same time changing himself and forming new features and properties.

Consequently, legal socialisation is a two-way process of interaction between an individual and society in which both parties are active. An individual, as an object of legal socialisation, is characterised by legal activeness who can himself choose the main directions of this process, acting both as an object and a subject of legal socialisation. Therefore, in the process of legal socialisation, not only society does contribute to the formation of an individual, but also an individual, entering the system of social and legal relations, has an active impact on society. This point of view is also shared by such jurists as V. M. Kudriavtsev and V. P. Kazymyrchuk noting that socialisation (including legal socialisation) includes, on the one hand, direct impact of social conditions and various social institutions on a person with the aim of involving him in the system of concepts, evaluations, ideas, social norms and other cultural values adopted in the society, on the other hand, the social activity of the person in the process of socialisation and the formation of personality. A person, acting in the social environment, changes and improves it, at the same time, he changes his own essence as well as forms new features and properties in himself. So, a person in the process of socialisation, in particular, legal socialisation acts as an object and subject that affect the outside world [1].

Recognition of socialisation as a two-way process which contains, on the one hand, the assimilation of social experience by an individual by entering into the environment, the system of social relations, and on the other hand, the process of independent reproduction by an individual of the system of social relations through his own activity and active involvment in the social environment, leads to the increased attention of scientists and expands the scope of research due to a significant number of problematic issues related to this process. Despite the fact that socialisation is a process of multilateral interaction, from the standpoint of law, it is studied mainly through the prism of its influence on the formation of personality. The reverse impact of socialisation on the society and the state, in particular, the transformations the state is subjected to, which in one way or another is “socialised” in its activity is not sufficiently studied. Therefore, the problem of the state as an object of socialisation, which is under the impact of an individual's social activity, is of considerable scientific and practical interest.

The importance of this problem is indicated by the necessity of the modern Ukrainianian society in the implementation of different forms and means of socialisation. The necessity for theoretical justification of the aims and forms of activity of state authorities in this direction, determines the importance of such a characteristics of modern society as the level of socialisation achieved by the state in its relations with the other subjects. Under this condition, there is the destruction of traditional forms of socialisation based on the regulation of the state of human life path, expansion of options for life strategy, growth of personal responsibility for a successful or unsuccessful decision, appearance of new social intermediaries, not inherent for self-determination and socialisation of the past generations, diversity of ownership forms, new sources of information, etc.

In connection with the novelty, the problem of subjectivity of the state in the process of socialisation is determined, first, by the inconsistency of the old forms of state policy to the needs of the society as a whole, and the expectations of an individual. Second, this type of state activity is characterised by an unsystematic and jerky character caused by insufficient formation and unclear understanding by the state authorities of their role in the process of socialisation. This can be partially explained by the lack of relevant theoretical developments.

In connection with the changed paradigm of the state policy directed, figuratively speaking, on the address of the state “face to the people'', responding to the general and special needs of every citizen, socialisation is of great importance as a kind of space and a determinant of the state activity.

Literature review

The democratisation of the social system and power, first of all, finds its expression in a fundamentally different evaluation of the role of a person and his socialisation. Socialisation in terms of democracy creates the conditions for motivating a person to “enter” the power. Along with this, socialisation is responsible for the “quality” of power subjects. As fairly noted by B. de Jouvenel, to continue its existence, the government should “get socialised”. Power socialisation is expressed in its orientation to the values and needs of people as well as in the ability to consolidate itself in customs, moral values and norms.

The analysis of the modern scientific sources shows that the problem of transition to the socialised, human-centered principle of organising and implementation of power, when power is as close as possible to the needs of the individual, becomes high- priority in the current period of reform and renewal of еру Ukrainian society in terms of democracy. It is within the framework of civil society that socialization is organized, combining and taking into account the interests of various social forces, which involves clashes, contradictions and conflicts between them.

Among the important determinants of socialisation in different types of societies one should note, first, its dependence on the level of socio-historical development, social division of labour, socio-economic structure of society, the degree of understanding of personality (individuality) by the state as an independent value. Second, one should note the level of interdependence between an individual and society that can be empirically defined as an individual's immersion in society.

Contrary to this interpretation of socialisation, in the 60-ies and 70-ies of the XXth century, both in foreign and in Russian philosophy and sociology there appered the theories that consider an individual not passive, but an active participant of socialisation, recognising him at the same time as both an object and a subject of socialisation.

As noted by B. D. Paryhin socialisation is not reduced to the fact that a person acts as a passive object of the external impact. Socialisation is not possible without the active participation of a person himself in the process of assimilation of social experience and culture, when a person is not an object, but rather a subject of social relations [2].

In the early XXth century, interest in socialisation was aroused from the side of scientists in connection with the study of the problem of the correlation of a person to culture. And the term “socialisation” was interpreted as the process of individual's assimilation during his life of social norms and cultural values of the society he belongs to [3].

Socialisation was studied in the research works of such scientists as М. Veber, V. Zombart, K. Marks, P. Sorokin, G. Spencer and all.

Materials and methods

The system of methodology of legal research that forms the structure of interaction between society and state and shows the place of an individual in this system of interaction is mainly theoretical. The idealistic system of research ensures the purity of the analysis without taking into account the national particularities of the force of law and real problems of the legal system deform the subject under study through the hyperbolisation of one of its key elements.

The formalisation of the main elements of legal research is due to the functionality of state authorities. The determination of state authorities that can be attributed to the formation of the structure of the socialisation mechanism depends on the formalised requirements for state authorities. Through the formalisation of the apparatus of state authorities, it is possible to draw conclusions what state authorities can and will participate in interaction with society in the aspects of socialisation activity of such au- thories.

In the process of our research we use methods of analysis because in the system of research of various components of the concept of “socialibiation” it is possible to determine the characteristics of the formation of individual aspects. It also affects the formation of an integrated approach to the determination of the conceptual apparatus of the research. Then it is possible to determine from what position the conceptual apparatus is considered for the aims of the article.

An important component of this research is the use of a system-structural method to determine socialisation in the system of formation of the directions of the state's internal activity. The use of a systematic approach to the formation of the place and system relations the concept of socialisation in the state's internal activity.

Separately, the hermeneutical method is used in the system of such a research since the main structure of the material is based on the formation of the main components of the concept that, depending on the elements of the research, presumes different ways of understanding the system of interaction of dependent elements.

In the result, the generalisation allows to formulate the main categories of conclusions and set the main tendencies of further scientific research on this topic. The generalisation also allows to achieve the main concept of the proposed thesaurus and formation of a single approach to the basic terminology and systems of interaction of its structural elements. Also, the methodology makes it possible to formulate the position of a single approach to the components of the authorities and ways of implementing these authorities through the paradigm of perception of socialisation of the state's activity.

Results and discussion

The preservation of the state's role in terms of growing problems of the XXIst century and the nessesity to comply with the foundations of natural self-regulation of the civil society cause the necessity to determine the boundaries of the state intervention, the use of positive opportunities of impact and neutralisation of negative factors. The necessity for theoretical and methodological realising the state as a key subject of socialisation caused by the existence of a constantly recurring public demand for another model of public policy in matters of the internal activity. Without any doubt, in response to this public request, one of the defining qualities of the new paradigm of the state's internal activity and its interaction with the society should be socialisation.

The term “socialisation” derived from political economy, its original meaning was “socialisation” of land, means of production and the like. Nevertheless, the understanding of the problem of socialisation began long before the spread of this term. Socialisation is the process of integration of an individual into the society and inclusion in various types of social communities (group, social institution or social organisation) by mastering the elements of culture, social norms and values on the basis of which socially significant traits of an individual are formed. As noted by I. S. Kon the term “socialisation” is ambiguous and its interpretation by different authors does not coincide [4].

Considering socialisation as an individual's adaptation to the existing order, the formation of externally approved behaviour focused on specific life situations and the formation of a well-defined system of social roles [5]. A similar definition is given in the philosophical dictionary edited by Shynkaruk who notes that socialisation of an individual occurs through the society's impact on an individual when he assimulates some social values due to being in the certain social environment as well as on the psyche of an individual with the help of different social institutions (family, school and labour collective) with the aim of forming his certain traits [6].

Also, the versatility and diversity of socialisation are evidenced by the following circumstances:

- first, it is the presence in the process and mechanism of socialisation of both organised and spontaneous agents and channels of socialisation;

- second, it is the individualised nature of socialisation which is reproduced in social forms of implementation;

- third, it is a multi-level and multifaceted the structure of the socialisation mechanism in view of the diversity of objective and subjective factors;

- fourth, it is the complexity of evaluation of the socialisation effectiveness caused by the difficulties of identifying social norms and social normativity.

All of the above together necessitates a discussion of socialisation, taking into account the different levels of abstraction, as socialisation processes occurr at both micro- and macrolevel.

Among the important determinants of socialisation in different types of societies one should note, first, its dependence on the level of socio-historical development, social labour division, socio-economic structure of the society to a certain extent and the state's understanding of personality (individuality) as an independent value. Second, one should note the level of interdependence between an individual and society that can be empirically defined as an individual's immersion in society.

Contrary to such an interpretation of socialisation in the 60s and 70s of the XXth century, both in foreign and domestic philosophy and sociology there appear the theories that consider an individual as an active participant of socialisation, recognizing him both an object and a subject of socialisation. As noted by B. D. Paryhin socialisation is not reduced to the fact that a person acts as a passive object of external impact. Socialisation is not possible without the active participation of a person himself in the process of assimilation of social experience and culture, when a person is not an object, but rather a subject of social relations [2].

In the early XXth century, interest in socialisation was aroused from the side of scientists in connection with the study of the problem of the correlation of a person to culture. And the term “socialisation” was interpreted as the process of individual's assimilation during his life of social norms and cultural values of the society he belongs to [3].

In the same way the state at all times assimilates the social norms and values of the society it belongs to. If in the Soviet period the key task of the state's internal activity was to build communism, now one of these tasks is socialisation.

The legal socialisation of an individual should be understood as the process of formation of a person with the appropriate level of legal consciousness that it manifests itself in its involvement in the system of legal values of the society, its assimilation of the system and social and legal activities of an individual aimed at adjusting the social values.

The mechanism of legal socialisation is also associated with the activities of legal and social institutions as well as special means of legal impact and control. At all stages of legal socialisation the society with the help of its institutions and agents has a direct impact on an individual. As a result, there occurs a transfer of relevant experience and knowledge, skills, systematic values and norms from generation to generation. Very often the concepts of “agent” and “institute” of socialisation are equaled. However, separate singling out the agents and institutions of legal socialisation are determined by the level of their connection with the object of legal socialisation.

In particular, the institution can be defined as a socio-political association, a social group, a member of which is an individual or a state authority, institution, non-governmental organisations that have an impact on it as subjects of legal socialisation. Under this condition, the subject through which the transfer of legal values is directly carried out will act as an agent of legal socialisation whereas the individual the actions of institutions and agents are directed to is the object of legal socialisation.

So, institutions of legal socialisation of an individual introduces a certain system of legal values through their agents that also provide a direct connection of the society with the object of legal socialisation.

According to S. M. Koretsky, the main institutions of legal socialisation are family, school, electronic mass media and communications and immediate environment (people with whom we work, study and spend leisure time) [7].

Thus, the institutions of legal socialisation is the state represented by state authorities, higher educational establishments, labour collectives, various associations of citizens, schools, preschool establishments, family, etc., and its agents, that is, direct participants of the legal socialisation process of an individual are parents, relatives, friends, teachers, officials, employees, etc. It is through the activities of institutions and agents of legal socialisation that external factors have an impact on an individual.

In the context of the state, its role in the socialisation process and their mutually conditioned impact on each other, it comes to the correlation of self-organisation and self-government with external governance which regulates and sets certain norms. The state has rather a significant impact on the content and conditions of socialisation. It establishes an order which is primary regarding the form of its presentation and implementation, but at the same time the state is derived from the society.

Having turned to the society based on market economy, the Ukrainian state was faced with the necessity to replace the former Soviet model of socialisation and state policy (with the active role of party and state power and clear programming of a set of features that the state wants to see in every person) with a new model of socialisation the specificity of which is individual responsibility, subsidiarity, self-realisation and adaptation to changes which happen.

But it should be remembered that one of the main factors which determines the process of socialisation is the nature of the relations between an individual and society or society and the state. The determination of the main tasks of socialisation depends on the place and role of an individual in the system of social and legal relations. The existence of contradictions between subjectively planned, although the most humane goals, and objectively existing social relations will certainly lead to negative consequences of the socialisation process. However, it should be noted that the question of the necessity for socialisation and state activities in this area for has remained for a long time controversial both among politicians and among scientists. There is a collision of mutually exclusive approaches: “for” socialisation and “against” it.

The first of these approaches which is supported by supporters of the humanistic trend in sociology is based on the attempt to prove the danger and harmfulness of socialisation in general. It comes to “the drama of an individual” whose needs, according to Herbert Marcuse, the American sociologist and political scientist, “are being planed” although the determining factor should be “education of individual autonomy” [8]. An alternative approach, expressed by the representatives of structural functionalism, is to recognise the importance of socialisation as a means of maintaining social balance in the society, next to social control as a way to maintain the order among people.

Talcott Parsons, one of the representatives of this theory, in his analysis of socialisation proceeded from the fact that the nature of an individual is the demonstration of the specificity of social objects with which the connection is maintained during the life of this or that person when the determining role is played by cultural values and norms which are institutionalised in the social systems [9].

The integration of individuals into the social system is due to the interiorisation of generally accepted norms, when in the process of communication common values are combined with the other significant values. Thus, to his opinion, the social system and its constituent elements are reproduced, and socialisation is a way of maintaining the social balance in the society, along with social control which ensures the order in the society.

In addition to the above approaches to socialisation, it is appropriate to single out another third approach developed by Jurgen Habermas, a German scientist. It comes to so-called “critical theory of socialisation” which states that these processes cover only a part of an individual which reflects the social essence of an individual and his social character through which passes a normal life in the society. The other part of it, it seems, allows to “keep a kind of distance” in relation to the dominant system of roles, norms and values in the society.

This approach is implemented by the assertions that supposedly common for today in theory and practice understanding of socialisation prevents the personal formation of subjective self-identification and self-determination of a person as a socialised individual although the orienting point should be “the development of the ability to build and implement one's own life project” [10].

Thus, according to A. I. Kovaliova, “there is a possibility of a critical attitude” to the elements of the social environment which prevents a person from self-assertion. But one way or another, the state, as one of the main institutions of legal socialisation of an individual, should ensure the harmonious interaction of all other institutions and agents. The activity of the state authorities regarding the implementation of the society's needs remains a subjective factor that fills the modern stage of socialisation with specifics.

One should note that the strategic orientation of the state in this matter is the inclusion of socialisation itself in the society for qualitative ensuring an individual's needs.

On the other hand, the policy itself (with certain warnings) should be an important task for analysts and government officials responsible for developing the policy and consideration of the socialisation's needs. This confirms the functional role of socialisation in solving a wide range of socio-economic and socio-political problems. It is important when it comes to the current stage of development of the state social policy.

Thanks to a wide approach to socialisation, it is possible to focus on the interconnectedness of the processes that make up the essence of socialisation. Thus, an active role of the interconnections of the state with different social groups and different spheres of the society becomes clear.

Large-scale interpretation of socialisation allows on the one hand, to focus on the characteristics of this phenomenon which is a combination of purpose-oriented efforts made by the state, family, educational establishments, etc; on the other hand, it allows us to evaluate the socialising processes in the result of constant impact on the daily life of anindividual.

Socialisation is a complex social formation which in terms of scale and fundamental nature can be compared with social existence and substance. Socialisation should be a goal and the most important means of the state to solve socio-economic and political problems.

Considering socialisation as a component of the state's internal policy, there is a reason to believe that this concept covers a wide range of phenomena and processes. Taking into account the specifics and role of socialisation in various spheres of the society, we draw attention to the fact that socialisation is not just a process, but a certain coordinate system with a set of vectors.

Despite the fact that the state is a part of the society, due to sociological analysis it is possible to go beyond the state self-sufficiency to analyse the whole set of connections between the state and the society.

The state confers on and regulates social changes and social development, acting as the largest “factory for the production of social relations” in the society (as Herbert Spencer, one of the classics of world sociology, understood it).

However, for solving these problems one should take the state, first of all, as a social phenomenon determined by many factors. Understanding of different approaches to the essence of the state contributes to the specification of its ideas about it, namely: as “the authority that gives rights and imposes duties” [12], “concentration of power with certain boundaries” [13]. It comes to the state as a social institution and its capabilities.

Herbert Spencer he called social institutions “factories for the production of social relations”, and Emil Durkheim recognized sociology as the science of social institutions, their genesis and functioning, considering the state (political society) as the result of the interconnections of a large number of secondary social groups subordinated to the single center of power.

The state in the sociological sense is determined by the community of individuals and social groups that operate within the national-territorial boundaries [14;15].

The specificity of the sociological perception of statehood to a certain extent is determined by the socio-institutional components since the state is the most important institution of the society and consists of institutions.

Here one can note the role of the state (as an institution) and state authorities which lies in saving vital, universal values for all citizens, that is, sovereignty of the country, external and internal security, law and order, protection of nature, human rights and freedoms and peace and prosperity in the society.

Conclusion

socialization legal state

So, let us determine the role of the state as a subject of socialisation. First, it is a conceptual framework imbued by the ideas of the state authorities about their citizens, recognition or on the contrary, non-recognition them as subjects of the state policy. Second, this is an act, activity and creative beginning of the state policy. Third, it is a managerial and ideological position. On the one hand, the content and conceptual foundation of the state policy in the sphere of socialisation is the responsibility of an individual for his destiny and for that of the state, and on the other hand, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure the conditions for self-determination of an individual through its socialisation. The essence of the state participation in the process of socialisation is less the declaration of the importance of the population as a strategic resource, plans (or even results) than as the relevant state position.

Despite the special importance of administrative and state-legal mechanisms and the fact that the state is the largest institutional entity, the political system of society is not limited to it. The state is a part of the society and its instrument that allows to talk about the state duty to create the conditions for the normal functioning of public institutions.

On this theoretical and methodological basis it becomes possible to fix the content and specificity of the state activity as a way of awareness and solution of a wide range of tasks of socio-political, economic and spiritual spheres of life by the state authorities. It comes to the constituent elements of the system of public administration (based on the separation of authorities between the legislative and executive powers) which includes the mechanism of management of the state social policy.

The executive power authorities, local self-government authorities, public associations and citizens who take part in solving the problems of the state domestic policy interact with this mechanism.

The state regulation of socialisation is a more subtle instrument than the management and organising the work with the help of well-tested and well-known administrative methods. By and large, it comes to the indirect, indirect management of complex processes of stimulating the activity in the social direction of various political and legal entities.

What should be the character of the state impact on very subtle and sensitive socialisation processes to avoid governmentalisation of the sphere of socialisation, and together with this, lest it should be dangerous (value-based and organisational) vacuum in the direction of the state activity so that the state mechanism in this area should be effectively used?

The most justified is the increasing role of sociology in the institutional analysis of the socialisation of public policy. Since sociological knowledge makes the object of its attention sections of social reality that can not be studied with the help of induction, deduction, analogy and other socio-philosophical methods, in this case, the primary steps in understanding the socialisation of the society should be done with the help of mass questionnaires by methods of qualitative sociology.

The state should make the efforts to overcome conceptual uncertainty in order to make the right choice in favour of one or another socialisation model of social policy implementation (paternalistic or subsidiary or object-subject or activity-role) which is based on the modern vision of the national goals, priorities and humanistic ideals.

The significant changes in economic, political, legal and other spheres of public life have led to the relevant changes in the system of legal values, ideas and views. The transition to the market economy and building a legal state and civil society require additional legal socialisation of an individual in the result of which new social values should become the values of a certain individual.

According to O. L. Lvova, the existence of differences between the social and individual values of a person is the greatest basis that even the most fair and legal law can remain only a magnificent proclamation if its value of content and purpose do not coincide with the inner conviction of an individual and do not come to life in his mind. Due to this reason, great attention of the government agencies that create and apply the law, and scientists who study state-legal phenomena should be paid to the “link” of old, obsolete and invalid stereotypes that have still existed since the Soviet era, when man existed for the state. If this does not happen, all Ukraine's efforts to achieve the European standards will be in vain. One should change the style of thinking and views, to reavaluate the priorities in one's own mind before trying to understand and adopt new, effective and really valuable standards according to which the whole civilized world lives.

Now for the Ukrainian society it is proper a contradiction between the course of building a legal state and civil society and legal reality on the one hand, and on the other hand, the particularity of which is that the law has not yet become the basis of relations in our society; public authorities and their officials often ignore the rule of law, popular is so-called “telephone justice”. They often adopt normative legal acts which contradict one other, one can notice the tendency of advantage of regulations over legislation that increases among the population the legal nihilism which is the obstacle of building a legal state.

At all levels of the state and society there is no awareness of where our society actually moves and on what principles this movement is based. Therefore, the issues of further development of legal awareness of the population, overcoming legal nihilism, meeting the needs of citizens in obtaining the knowledge of law and the formation of their respect for it should be solved at the state level. The state should create the conditions for socialisation and self-realisation of the society, thus really determining the incentives for real participation of people in public life as well as expand the social base of social transformation, cultural and economic reproduction. This is achieved thanks to the purpose-oriented and coordinated work of all state authorities when the society will feel their activities, positive changes and the fact that social values become constant, guaranteed and usual and the arbitrariness and subjectivism leave public administration.

References

1. Kudryavtsev, V N., & Kazimirchuk, V. P. (1995). Modern sociology of law. Moscow: Yurist.

2. Parygin, B. D. (1971). Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. Moscow: Mysl.

3. Davydov, Yu.N., Kovalyova, M. S., & Filippov, A. F. (1990). Contemporary Western Sociology: Dictionary. Moscow: Politidatelstvo.

4. Kon, I. S. (1988). Child and Society: Historical and Ethnographic Perspective. Moscow: Nauka.

5. Bell, D. (1999). The upcoming post-industrial society. Experience in social forecasting. Moscow: Akademiya.

6. Shchegortsov, V. A. (1981). Sociology of legal consciousness. Moscow: Mysl.

7. Koretsky, S. M. (2003). Criminological characteristic of deviant behavior of minors (Candidate thesis, National Academy of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine).

8. Marcuse, G. (1994). One-dimensional man. The study of the ideology of a developed industrial society. Moscow: REFL-book.

9. Parsons, T. (2000). On the structure of social action. Moscow: Nauka.

10. Habermas, Y. (1992). Democracy. Mind. Morality. Moscow: Nauka.

11. Zubok, Yu.A., & Chuprov, V. I. (2008). Sociology of Youth. Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Academia.

12. Claassen, L. V. (2002). New relations of power, citizens and politics. In L. V. Claassen (Ed.). Practical Guide to Protecting Interests and Civic Activism “Neighbors on the Planet”. San Francisco - Washington: Asia Foundation.

13. Selevko, A. G. (1999). The Great Intelligent Sociological Dictionary. Moscow: Veche-Act.

14. Lvova, O. L. (2007). The right to live and active (on the value orientation of the right). The Journal of the Kyiv University of Law, 1, 11-17

15. Paraschevin, M. (2004). Social Solidarity in Ukrainian Society: Trends in Change. In V. Vorony, M. Shulga (Eds.), Ukrainian Society 1994-2004. Monitoring social change (pp. 448-458). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

Размещено на Allbest.ru