Theoretical interpretation of the state of modernity

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article shows that the state as an organization of public government institutions of modernity and its theoretical interpretation is fundamentally different from the organization demodernism of the state and its theoretical interpretation. This difference was manifested, primarily, in the explanation of the role, participation and the importance of the individual in the process of state formation and as a result in the change of approach to the functional purpose of the state. The state of modernity - member, explained by concluding the contract of individuals in order to protect their rights existing independently of recognition by the state until the moment of its creation. The contractual theory of the state - the ideological basis of the state of modernity. Contractual interpretation of the process of state-building, which replaced the primitive theories and competing with them, first, “raskoldoval”, i.e. streamlines the state, secondly, explains the state through the rights of the individual, through the law, making the state legal. In the legal state of modernity changes the status of the individual: there is a transition from innate duties of subordination to the head of the family, the family and the state to innate (natural) rights. The state of the modern epoch is characterized by the change of a functional purpose, which is viewed through the category of property. The purpose and function of legal state - the protection of property rights,i.e. the rights of individuals to life, liberty and property. Positioning the property as the highest socio-cultural values leads to social and cultural needs of individuals in institutional protection through political institutions.

About the authors

E V Gabrelyan

Institute of state and law, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: gabrel@mail.ru

References

  1. Алмонд Г.А., Верба С. Гражданская культура. Подход к изучению политической культуры (I) // Полития. 2010. № 2. С. 122-144.
  2. Вебер М. Избр. произведения. М.: Прогресс, 1990. 808 с.
  3. Вебер М. Типы господства // Социология / сост. В. Зомбарт. 2-е изд. М.: УРСС, 2003. С. 134-138.
  4. Гумплович Л. Общее учение о государстве. СПб.: Тип. «Общественная польза», 1910. 516 с.
  5. Егоров С.А. Конституционализм в США: политико-правовые аспекты. М.: Наука, 1993. 198 с.
  6. Инглхарт Р., Вельцель К. Модернизация, культурные изменения и демократия: последовательность человеческого развития. М.: Новое изд-во, 2011. 464 с.
  7. Иоас Х., Кнебль В. Социальная теория: 20 вводных лекций. СПб.: Алетея, 2011. 840 с.
  8. Калхун К. Теории модернизации и глобализации: кто и зачем их придумывал? URL: http://www.inop.ru/ reading/page68/ (дата посещения: 27.02.2012).
  9. Капустин Б.Г. Современность как предмет политической теории. М.: РОССПЭН, 1998. 308 c.
  10. Кимлика У. Современная политическая философия: введение. М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2010. 592 c.
  11. Локк Д. Два трактата о правлении // Локк Д. Соч.: в 3 т. Т. 3. М.: Мысль, 1988. С. 147-405.
  12. Нозик Р. Анархия, государство и утопия. М.: ИРИ- СЭН, 2008. 424 c.
  13. Норд Т., Уоллис Д., Вайнгаст Б. Насилие и социальные порядки. Концептуальные рамки для интерпретации письменной истории человечества. М.: Ин-т Гайдара, 2011. 480 с.
  14. Перло М. Конституционное право Франции. М.: Иностр. лит., 1957. 297 c.
  15. Ротбард М. К новой свободе: Либертарианский манифест. М.: Новое изд-во, 2009. 395 c.
  16. Фукуяма Ф. Америка на распутье. М.: АСТ: Хранитель, 2007. 282 c.
  17. Хабермас Ю. Политические работы. М.: Праксис, 2005. 368 c.
  18. Хабермас Ю. Философский дискурс о модерне. М.: Весь мир, 2003. 416 c.
  19. Хантингтон С. Политический порядок в меняющихся обществах. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2004. 480 c.
  20. Штомпка П. Социология социальных изменений. М.: Аспект-Пресс, 1996. 416 c.
  21. Штраус Л. Естественное право и история. М.: Водолей Publishers, 2007. 312 c.
  22. Almond G. A Development Approach to Political Systems // World Politics. 1965. Vol. 17. P. 183-214.
  23. Almоnd G, Verba S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy ii Five Nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. 562 p.
  24. Apter D.E. Some Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Modernization. Englewood Cliff Prentice Hall, 1968. 380 p.
  25. Apter D.E. The Politics of Modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. 481 p.
  26. Hagen E. On the Theory of Social Change. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1962. 557 p.
  27. Lerner D. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe: Free Press. 1958. 466 p.
  28. Levy M.J. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. 855 p.
  29. Lipset S.M. Political man. The Social Bases of Polities. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1959. 586 p.
  30. Pye L. Aspects of Political Development. Boston: Little Brown, 1966. 204 p.
  31. Pye L. Political culture and political development (coeditor and co-author) // Studies in Political Development. 1965. Vol. 5. P. 3-26.
  32. Pye L. The non-Western political process // Journal of Politics. 1958. Vol. 20. P. 468-486.
  33. Smelser N.J. Social Change in the Industrial Revolution. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959. 440 p.

Copyright (c) 2016 Gabrelyan E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies