Weber vs Tennis

Ferdinand Tönnies was the first sociologist to divide communities of people into “formal” and “informal”. He believed that informal communities emerged from formal ones as a result of people engaging in commerce . Most likely, Tennis confused cause with effect here: relatively speaking, first the monarch appears - and then the profile of the monarch appears on the coins. I have already written about the possible reasons for the emergence of formal human relations : conquest is primary in relation to commerce. Brute force is older than compromise... When it comes to relationships between strangers . Here, perhaps, lies the main difference between an informal “community” and a formal “society” (Tennis terms): “society” connects people who are strangers to each other, while members of the “community” perceive each other as their own . It is impossible to define oneself , just as it is impossible to define oneself or philosophical Being. Nevertheless, each of us constantly separates our own from the alien, the close from the alien.

You don’t need to invent special rules for communication and interaction: a similar style of behavior is what unites your friends . Aliens, uniting in a “society”, are forced to develop formal rules: a swan, a crayfish and a pike may well agree, but to do this they will have to behave unnaturally, according to some artificial behavior scenario. It is clear why Tennys said that a formal “society” arises around an external goal (as opposed to a “community” that exists “by itself”): it is difficult to imagine a natural situation in which a swan, a crayfish and a pike suddenly decide for some reason engage in joint activities. Someone must force them to make such a ridiculous decision. "External purpose" is thus a euphemism for violent power.

We return again to the state, which consists of formal rules and a repressive apparatus that ensures the implementation of these rules. The term "state machine" can be taken literally. The state is a machine, the parts of which are people. The structure of an ideal state machine (“completely rational domination”) was described by Max Weber in his book “Economy and Society.” The main principle of this device is the maximum separation of formal relations from informal ones. An official should not serve in the place where he was born and raised, so that the “human, too human” desire to follow the traditions of his native land does not interfere with the “professional, too professional” desire to follow the rules and laws. Promotion is determined by competency (and competency is determined by a system of tests). No democracy. And no corruption. This, according to Weber, is how, ideally, any formal association, “institution” is structured. Not only a government "institution", but also a commercial one and a religious one (the church).

Like any ideal, Weber's model is an extreme. Moreover, in Russian conditions this model is completely utopian. If a Protestant (more precisely, a person brought up in the conditions of Protestant culture) works - according to the same Weber - simply because “it’s a shame to be lazy”, works for the sake of working (Luther’s “worldly calling”), then the Russian person has a completely different ideological incentive to work. We work best “for an uncle” - in the literal sense of the word: for a relative, friend, good acquaintance... If in America an “office romance” is a big nuisance, here it is the norm. To work effectively, a Russian (Russian, "Soviet") person must be in an informal environment.

A funny paradox: a country with ancient - and quite harsh - state traditions is inhabited by "spontaneous anarchists." Hence the ineradicable “clanism” of our state power. Hence the significant segregation of our informal “get-togethers” in the absence of aggressive xenophobia: they do not like “outsiders”, but they do not seek to destroy them at any cost. The desire to destroy a stranger stems from a lack of confidence in oneself, in one’s identity. We may aggressively advocate for a stronger empire because we are not entirely sure that the empire still exists. But traveling on crowded public transport does not plunge us into Sartrean shock (“hell is others”). Others (strangers) may not be attractive to us, but they are not scary either: each of us is confident in the existence of his friends, his relatives, his small homeland, his habits - in the existence of himself.

The concept of "Civil Society" sounds banal to the Russian ear. In Russia, “Civil Society”, that is, a society of “get-togethers”, does not need to be built: in our country it exists traditionally .

Kirill Yakimets