Demographic determinism

“History is made by people” - this thesis contains the possibility of formulating a separate theoretical problem that is significant for understanding any era of human history. We are talking about the influence on the course of events, very different in scale and consequences, population fluctuations and its dynamics. The problem of demographic determinism is one of the relatively recent ones in the practice of concrete historical research and the field of methodology.

The term “demography” appeared approximately in the middle of the 19th century. In 1877 ᴦ. in the popular French encyclopedia P. Larousse (1817-1875) the article “Demography” was first published. An article under this title appeared in reference publications in Russia in 1893. . The term “demography” was established in the scientific literature of various countries around the middle of the 20th century. From this same time, the formation of a special discipline began - demography, or historical demography. In connection with its appearance in the curriculum of domestic universities in 1967. a textbook “Course of Demography” was published. The formation of demography in research and in the field of education was associated with the definition of its subject and objectives, which involved identifying the role of the demographic factor in the development of history. This process began long before the appearance of the corresponding discipline and its terminology.

One of the first thinkers to pose this problem was the representative of the French Enlightenment K.A. Helvetius. The ideas he expressed were of conceptual significance. According to the ideas of K.A. Helvetia, population growth lies at the basis of all changes in the development of society. The thinker made a direct connection between this growth and material relations and believed that the accumulation of wealth by a small group of people, as well as the poverty of the majority, is due precisely to the growth in numbers. The accumulation of wealth leads to the development of cities, to which many flock, because for the poor there is “more help,” for vice there is more impunity, and for voluptuousness there are more means to satisfy it. The spread of need leads to the formation of increasingly harsh legislation and to the emergence of despotism. Population growth also leads to a change in the form of government: “Citizens of a state, having become very numerous in order to gather in the same place, appointed representatives.”

This entails a split in the interests of representatives and those who represent them. The concentration of property in the hands of fewer and fewer people undermines the stability of power. “All empires came to destruction, and their fall must be dated from the time when peoples, having multiplied, began to rule through their representatives; when these representatives, taking advantage of the difference in interests between the persons they represented, could become independent from them, wrote K. A. Helvetius. An excessively large population, in his opinion, is the ultimate cause of deterioration of morals in all countries.

The theory of K. A. Helvetius is the concept of demographic determinism, relating to history as a whole, as a result of which, obviously, the thinker was not at all concerned with either the temporal or territorial features of development. This, however, did not prevent him from noticing some very significant features of the social side of social changes. The main conclusion of K.A. Helvetius: both the accumulation of wealth, and its influence on the structure of power, and the state of morals go back to the factor of population growth as its root cause.

The ideas of K.A. Helvetius turned out to be infectious; they were subsequently used by representatives of various directions of philosophical and historical thought. In this regard, the population theory of the English economist T.R. stands out. Malthus(1766-1834). Its essence is this. People have a constant desire to reproduce, an instinct. This is the law of population growth, which is one of the laws of nature. T.R. Malthus draws a direct and immediate connection between population growth and the growth of means of subsistence: the population doubles every 25 years, unless there are any restraining factors (geometric progression), while means of subsistence cannot increase faster than in arithmetic progression. The essence of his further reasoning comes down to the search and justification of means to curb population growth. One thing is certain: there is a connection between population dynamics and the production of subsistence, but growth in numbers does not automatically mean either the accumulation of wealth (K.A. Helvetius) or the growth of poverty (T.R. Malthus). It all depends on the specific historical situation.

In the materialistic understanding of history, which began to take shape in the first half of the twentieth century, the human factor was initially classified as fundamental.

“History is nothing more than a successive change of individual generations...,” wrote K. Marx. Material production, the development of needs and the “reproduction of human life” were considered in this theory as the most important aspects of the development of history throughout its entire length. More specifically, taking into account the difference in the importance of the demographic factor at different stages of development of history, this was expressed in a mature version of the theory: “The social orders under which people of a certain historical era and a certain country live are determined by both types of production: the stage of development , on the one hand, labor, on the other, family. The less developed labor... and, consequently, the wealth of society, the stronger the dependence of the social system on clan ties is manifested. We are talking not only about the changing importance of the demographic factor based on the level of development of production, but also about taking into account the consequences of population size and its dynamics for the development of production: “Increasing population increases the productive power of labor, making possible a greater division of labor, greater combination labor, etc. An increase in population is the natural force of labor...', wrote K. Marx. But this does not exhaust the essence of the interpretation of the problem by representatives of Marxism. A question arises, the formulation of which we do not find in K. A. Helvetius, although he gives an answer to it: “Population, its reproduction, numbers and population dynamics are a natural prerequisite and condition for social development, such as, for example, the geographical environment, or is it a result of the development of society, and at the same time one of its prerequisites?'' The answer of K.A. Helvetius is unequivocal: a natural and original prerequisite.

K. Marx has a different situation: “...the existence of people is the result of that previous process through which organic life passed. Only at a certain stage of this process does a person become a person. But since man already exists, he, as a constant prerequisite of human history, is also its constant product and result, and man is a prerequisite only as his own product and result (emphasis added by the author - N.S.). In relation to real historical research, this means that, relying on the demographic factor to explain something, it should also be considered as a product of certain previous conditions and circumstances of the development of society; only in this case is it a cause, a prerequisite for something else.

It should be noted that the term “demography” was not used in the materialist theory of that time.

In the 20th century The most significant attempt to analyze the problem of the demographic factor was made by historians of the Annales school, who expressed the idea of ​​​​the fundamental importance of population size and its dynamics. “...How imperfect is our knowledge about the population of the world of yesterday, but both for the short-term cycle and for the long-term, both at the level of local realities and on the huge scale of global realities - everything is connected with quantity, with fluctuations in the number of people,” wrote F. Braudel. However, representatives of the Annales school did not consider the demographic structure of society as its fundamental basis. The concept of “global history” by F. Braudel is based on the recognition of the action and interaction in history of a set of factors and various levels of its development. In his opinion, mental and demographic structures are only separate components of the mentioned interaction. F. Braudel considered the most studied of them to be economic, social, political and cultural systems. Each of them in turn is divided into subsystems; systems (factors) interact and transform into each other, due to which any of them can become decisive in any situation. Moreover, the demographic factor in this structure of ideas interacts with others.

In the subsequent development of the Annales school, the attitude towards it changed, which is especially clearly manifested in the concept of “serial history” by one of the leading representatives of the third generation of the school, P. Shonu(1923 - 2002). The concept of “serial history” was largely influenced by the views of F. Braudel, although its essence differs significantly from the source of influence. The development of a “serial approach” to history presupposes an orientation towards the study of repetition in history with the application of quantitative methods to its analysis, as opposed to “event” history. P. Chaunu focuses on economic history, however, the general meaning of the concept lies in the interaction of a number of human sciences - demography, anthropology and ethnology. Historical demography, according to the historian, is at the center of everything: economics, production, biology, as well as life, death, love. Demography indirectly prepares the meeting of history with all the sciences about man.

Such an obvious exaggeration of the role of demography in the mentioned interdisciplinary synthesis by P. Schon does not mean the absence of elements of a rational approach to the study of population dynamics, etc., however, this is another problem.

However, the development of historical knowledge led to the emergence of a relatively independent field of knowledge - demography, or, if we are talking about the past, historical demography. The vast majority of research is devoted to finding out what demography is, what are the conditions for the formation of population, what are its dynamics and what are the reasons for this kind of dynamics, what is the relationship between historical science and demography, etc. This is quite understandable and justified, first of all, because the demographic factor is not a natural, natural beginning in the development of historical phenomena and processes. Consequently, it cannot be considered the fundamental principle of human activity, or its starting point, which does not depend on this activity itself and is only the cause. Demographic determinism in this sense is outdated and is not one of the modern scientifically based options for solving the problem, although elements of these ideas have not been eliminated to this day and are found among famous historians. The demographic factor is a prerequisite and condition for the further development of society only as a product and result of social development. It is not an external, but an internal component of all social processes and structures.
Posted on ref.rf
To this should be added the particular urgency of the demographic problem in modern Russia, which is experiencing a demographic crisis. Demographers paint a rather bleak picture for the future. According to statistics, in 1987 ᴦ. Russian maternity hospitals screamed for 2.5 million newborns; in 1999 ᴦ. - 1 million 200 thousand. In 2010, according to forecasts, only 600 thousand children will be born in Russia. First of all, it is extremely important to explain such fertility dynamics.

The demographic factor, population dynamics, cannot be reduced to any one reason, say, material relations. Demographic explosion on the planet in the second half of the 20th century. (2.5 billion in the middle of the 20th century and more than 6 billion at the beginning of the 21st century) scientists explain by improving the quality of life and reducing mortality. At the same time, there are facts that do not fit into this explanation scheme. Academician N.N. Moiseev (1917-1998) pointed out the paradoxes of demography: outbreaks of birth rates in India were observed during the years of the most severe natural disasters, famines and epidemics - and at the same time, an increase in average life expectancy was associated with a decrease in the birth rate.

Finnish scientists traced changes in fertility in the Scandinavian countries in the 20th century: the peaks in fertility occurred during both world wars. Demographers who believe that birth rates peak at the end of the war, when soldiers return home, turned out to be wrong: Sweden did not fight, and a rise in birth rates at the end of both wars was observed in this country. However, the problems associated with the formation of the demographic factor keep many secrets. The influence of this factor on the development of this society is even less studied.

We examined various types of determinism, the most pressing and intensively analyzed problems in the development of philosophical and historical thought. Other ideas about the action of cause-and-effect relationships in history and their varieties have also appeared. The founder of psychoanalysis Z. Freud(1856-1939) wrote about the depths of the unconscious, in which, in his opinion, the secrets of the motives of human behavior were kept. However, he spoke quite definitely about one of these motives - sexual instinct. The development of society, according to S. Freud, is the process of curbing the sexual instinct and using it to solve various kinds of social problems. Rapid development of technology in the 20th century. and, as one of the consequences of this, the emergence of environmental problems gave rise to technical and environmental types of determinism. Their essence is in recognizing the decisive role in the history of the development of technology and technology, as well as in classifying the capabilities of the habitat as a factor of similar significance.

These are the basic ideas about the factors in the development of history, and the emergence of new factors is the result of the development not only of philosophical and historical thought, but also of history itself. At the same time, it is quite obvious that history has always been characterized by the action of numerous factors, a set of cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies. Another thing is clear: what makes up the fabric of history is the result of the interaction of factors, and this interaction, manifested in events and processes, is diverse, as is the measure of the significance of each of them in any specific situation. There is no such factor in history that would be the only and final basis for its development. Representatives of philosophical and historical thought, apparently, took little account of this factor; supporters of one or another type of determinism were looking for the root cause, the main factor that lies at the basis of everything that exists and explains everything.

The importance of other factors in relation to it was recognized, but they were considered as secondary, secondary. The search for the root cause positively characterizes thinking, as evidence of the desire to reach the deepest essence of events and processes, hidden from superficial observation, but the mentioned search is meaningless from the point of view of the desired final result. History is a product of the interaction of factors in which cause and effect change places: the effect has a reverse effect on the cause and in turn becomes the cause of something new. Consequently, not monocausality, but a multifactorial approach to history is the only rational way to study it. However, the problem does not end there.

In connection with the denial of monocausality, the question arises about the relationship between factors, and in accordance with this, one should distinguish between the areas of specific historical analysis associated with the explanation of real events, and theoretical thinking. When studying any event, the set of causes (factors) that gave rise to it will always be special, associated specifically with this situation. Will these reasons be of equal importance? Not at all, the difference on this basis is obvious in any case and does not require special proof. For example, the same factor - the geographical environment - had different meanings in the agriculture of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, medieval Scandinavia, etc.

As for the problem of the relationship of factors as a methodological problem (in relation to history as a whole), there are two approaches to solving it. According to the first approach, the factors are equivalent. Such views were held by the representative of positivism, the author of the theory of factors G. Spencer. By highlighting a set of factors in history, the scientist defended their equivalence. At the same time, he believed that the factors are equivalent in principle, but in relation to a specific situation, individual factors (or one) come first in importance, while the rest do not have this property; the situation changes and with it comes a new arrangement of factors. This is nothing more than a concession to real historicism. But even in this form, G. Spencer’s ideas are an argument in favor of the thesis about the unequal importance of factors when looking at history as a whole. At the same time, it is extremely important to rely on the analysis and understanding of very specific historical events and processes. The difference between one and the other lies only in the level of generalization and abstraction, which involves abstraction from the specific diversity of phenomena in the social environment.

The inexhaustible variety of the latter is a product of the interconnection and mutual influence of a set of factors that differ in each case in their significance and role. The theory is not history turned inside out; therefore, if the mentioned inequalities manifest themselves in each event, then this also applies to history as a whole. At the same time, concrete historical research in all its areas, among many factors, shows the special significance of economic structures and economic motivation of human activity in all times and eras of this activity, and we are talking not only about politics, law, social structure of society, etc. .d., but also about spiritual phenomena in general.

The fundamental significance of material relations in history is essentially that they are an important condition of human existence, therefore, to varying degrees, the basis of all spheres of human activity. What belongs to the deep, essentially significant prerequisites and conditions of this activity should not be secondary or insignificant in its knowledge. The development of history and the change of the world do not eliminate the importance of the material factor, namely, the method of producing material goods in people’s lives, and explains the continuing significance of economic determinism in various versions, which is important for understanding history today.

“Marx is right, doesn’t the one who owns the means of production, land, ships, machine tools, raw materials, finished products also have a dominant position? It remains, however, obvious that these two coordinates alone, society and economy, are not enough. The state... played its own, often significant role in those structures that, using a certain typology, can be grouped into various socio-economies of the world: some with slavery, others with serfs and lords, others with business people and pre-capitalists. This means returning to the language of Marx, remaining on his side, even if we abandon his exact expressions or the overly strict order in which every society should smoothly move from one of its structures to another. The problem remains a problem of classification, a problem of an elaborate hierarchy of societies. And no one can escape this extreme importance, moreover, starting from the level of material life,” wrote F. Braudel.

Why? They leave. Disagreement with the truth does not in itself mean its refutation. In this case, something else is important to us: what does this confidence mean to “no one”?

The meaning of F. Braudel's position is quite obvious: it contains traces of the influence of the ideas of K. Marx, but it cannot be called completely Marxist. In general this is Braudel's position, not Marx's. Another example of this confidence is the opinion of C. Kapchen: “... no one will deny that a gradual change in the mode of production significantly affects political and social institutions.” At the same time, this is also denied. But let us continue the thoughts of Ch. Kaphen: “The logic of the historical process, historical evolution is inexorable: the method of production determines history, since it gives rise to a fundamental mechanism for satisfying basic human needs and desires. The way in which people satisfy their needs gives rise to corresponding forms of management and social identities. It is important to emphasize that C. Kapchen does not count himself among the supporters of K. Marx. Consequently, the thesis about the fundamental significance of economic structures in history has ceased to be only Marxist. It is an integral part of a variety of theoretical ideas about history. Today, this thesis represents the truth from the point of view of different methodological positions, which also helps to understand its place and significance among other types of determinism operating in history.

Demographic determinism - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Demographic determinism" 2017, 2018.

Popular in the 19th and 20th centuries. Demographic determinism also continued to exist. The demographic factor was addressed, for example, by L. Gumplowicz. He saw in the fertility of people the reason for predatory raids, wars, the conquest of some peoples by others, and thereby the emergence of social classes and the state. With the flourishing of society and the increase in the well-being of its members, “concern begins to achieve the future well-being of the offspring by limiting the natural reproduction of the people.” Population growth stops, then declines. All this gives rise to economic weakness and political decline, which makes society an easy prey for those peoples who, due to natural fertility, are growing.

Demographic determinism was developed in the works of French sociologists Adolphe Costa (1842 - 1901) “Principles of Objective Sociology” (1899) and “The Experience of Nations and Proposals Based on It” (1900) and Henri Secretan (1853 - 1916) “Population and Morals”. A. Cost argued that the growth in population size and density completely determines all changes occurring in the sphere of politics, economics, law, religion, and technical knowledge. He went so far in his passion that it caused objections from other, more factual, advocates of demographic determinism.

E. Durkheim paid tribute to this direction. In his work “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893), he saw the main reason for the transition of society from mechanical to organic solidarity, primarily in the growth of population density, and thereby the density of society and the increase in its volume. “We do not say,” writes E. Durkheim, “that the growth and compaction of societies allow for an ever greater division of labor, but we assert that they determine its necessity. It is not the instrument by which the division of labor is effected; this is the determining reason for it.”

In Russia, the ideas of demographic determinism were defended by Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834-1907) in his works “Treasured Thoughts” (Parts 1-3. St. Petersburg, 1903-1905; M., 1995; chapters 2 and 9 published: Mendeleev D.N. Towards the knowledge of Russia. M., 2000) and “Towards the knowledge of Russia” (St. Petersburg, 1906; M., 2002). “...Humanity taken as a whole,” he wrote, “...is imbued with an instinctive desire for the preservation and development of human offspring...” It was this “love for offspring” that “led to the division of labor and to those inequalities that are unknown in wild animals or the initial patriarchal life (although the beginnings of this are already visible in it) and leads to the division of residents according to their economic status into different classes. .." DI. Mendeleev was an opponent of Marxism. But, as we have already seen, some Russian scientists who considered themselves Marxists (A.A. Bogdanov) were also inclined towards demographic determinism.

This concept still has many supporters today. It exists now both independently and as a moment of direction called environmental determinism (environmentalism).

The ideas of demographic determinism were developed in the work “Slash-and-burn agriculture among the Kiukuru and its significance for cultural development in the Amazon” (1961) by the famous American ethnographer Robert Carneiro. Population growth in conditions where the area of ​​land suitable for cultivation is limited, leads to a transition to more intensive methods of farming, to rivalry between tribes and wars. Wars result in the subjugation of some tribes by others and the emergence of tributary status. Subsequently, the subordinate tribes are incorporated into the society of the conquerors. Chiefdoms emerge.

There is a process of increasing political units. Both tribes and chiefdoms form unions or confederations. Victorious chiefdoms increase in size and eventually large conquering states arise. Within these new societies, nobility arises. Captives are turned into slaves. “The incorporation of slaves into the conquering state completes the stratification of society into four main classes: leaders (or kings), nobility, commoners (ordinary community members - Y.S.) and slaves.”

The titles of the works of the Danish economist Esther Boserup, “Conditions of Agricultural Growth,” speak for themselves. The economics of agrarian change under population pressure" (1965) and the American ethnologist Mark Nathan Cohen "The Food Crisis in Prehistory. Overpopulation and the emergence of agriculture" (1977).

Sociologist and demographer O.D. Duncan, in Social Organization and the Ecosystem (1964), introduces the concept of ecological expansion. It starts with population growth. This requires an increase in the amount of energy and materials extracted by society from the external environment, which in turn involves the development of new forms of organization of human collective efforts in this area. The end result is the transition of society from one stage of evolutionary development to another, higher one. As already indicated, such stages in the concept of O.D. Douglas seven: from the stage of wandering groups of hunters and gatherers to the level of industrial state societies.

American sociologist and demographer J. Matras, in his books “Population and Societies” (1973) and “Introduction to Population: A Sociological Approach” (1977), insists that in societies of any type, population growth entails social structural changes: differentiation and separation labor, the expansion of social boundaries and the adoption of innovations, which results in a transition from one stage of social evolution to another. As we have already seen, there are eight such stages in the J. Mattress scheme.

Another American sociologist and demographer Julian Lincoln Simon, in his works “The Economics of Population Growth” (1977) and “The Theory of Population and Economic Growth” (1986), puts forward the concept of “population push”. Its essence is that population growth and the associated increase in needs and requirements makes more intensive labor necessary, which brings to life many inventions, technological progress and increased productivity. J. Simon tries to substantiate this concept both with facts from the history of Ancient Greece, Rome, medieval Europe, and with modern data.

Demographic determinism is also popular among some historians. As the French historian Louis Chevalier wrote: “It is not enough to take into account that demography is one of the constituent parts of social history, because it revives its main and, as a rule, forgotten object, the population. Demography, as a privileged discipline, must finally take full rights... Demography is in the lead. The only and irreplaceable." The idea of ​​the decisive role of the demographic factor permeates his work “The Working and Dangerous Classes of Paris in the First Half of the 19th Century” (1958).

The idea of ​​demographic determinism is present in the works of academician Nikita Nikolaevich Moiseev (1917 - 2000) “The worldview of modern rationalism. Introduction to the theory of self-organization" (Moiseev N.I. Parting with simplicity. M., 1998) and "To be or not to be... a person" (M., 1999). The author has little knowledge of historical facts, which does not in the least prevent him from claiming to comprehend the entire path of humanity and predict its future fate.

“History is made by people” - this thesis contains the possibility

formulation of a separate theoretical problem that is significant

for understanding any era of human history. The term “demography” appeared around the middle of the 19th century.

In 1877, in the popular French encyclopedia P. La-

associated with the definition of its subject and tasks, which presupposed

identifying the role of the demographic factor in the development of history. One of the first thinkers to pose this problem

There was a representative of the French Enlightenment, K. A. Helvetius.

The ideas he expressed were of conceptual significance. According to

according to K.A. Helvetius, population growth

lies at the basis of all changes in the development of society. The theory of K.A. Helvetius is the concept of demographic

determinism, relating to history as a whole, as a result of which,

obviously, the thinker was not at all concerned with temporary,

nor territorial development features. T. R. Malthus

(1766-1834). Its essence is this. People have a constant

the desire to reproduce, instinct. - This is the law of population growth,

which is one of the laws of nature. In the materialistic understanding of history, which began to take shape

in the first half of the 19th century, the human factor was

initially classified as fundamental. K. Marx: “...the existence of people is the result of that previous process through which the organic

life. Only at a certain stage of this process does a person become

human. In the 20th century the most significant attempt to analyze the problem of demographic

factor was undertaken by historians of the Annales school

", who expressed the idea of ​​the fundamental importance

population size and its dynamics. P. Shonu (1923 - 2002)2. The concept of "serial

history" was largely influenced by the views of F. Braudel,

although its essence differs significantly from the source of influence.

The development of a "serial approach" to history presupposes an orientation

to study repetition in history with application to it

analysis of quantitative methods as opposed to “event” history.

P. Schonu's focus is on economic history, but

the general meaning of the concept is interaction

a number of human sciences - demography, anthropology and ethnology.

Historical demography, according to the historian, is in

the center of everything: economics, production, biology, as well as life,

death, love. Thus, the development of historical knowledge led to

the emergence of a relatively independent field of knowledge -

demographics. Demographic

factor is a prerequisite and condition for further development

society only as a product and result of social

development. It is not an external, but an internal component

all social processes and structures. Demographic factor, population dynamics

cannot be reduced to any one reason, say, material

relationships. Population explosion on the planet in the second

half of the 20th century (2.5 billion in the middle of the 20th century and more than 6 billion at the beginning

XXI century) scientists explain by improving the quality of life, reducing

mortality. The development of society is, according to 3. Freud,

the process of curbing the sexual instinct and using it

to solve various kinds of social problems. The fundamental importance of material relations in history lies in the fact that they are an important condition of human existence, therefore, to varying degrees, the basis of all spheres

human activity.

“History is made by people” - this thesis contains the possibility of formulating a separate theoretical problem that is significant for understanding any era of human history. We are talking about the influence on the course of events, very different in scale and consequences, population fluctuations and its dynamics. The problem of demographic determinism is one of the relatively recent ones in the practice of concrete historical research and the field of methodology.

The term “demography” appeared around the middle of the 19th century. In 1877, the article “Demography” was first published in the popular French encyclopedia by P. Larousse (1817-1875). An article under this title appeared in Russian reference publications in 1893. The term “demography” became established in the scientific literature of various countries around the middle of the 20th century. From this same time, the formation of a special discipline began - demography, or historical demography. In connection with its appearance in the curriculum of domestic universities, the textbook “Demography Course” was published in 1967. The formation of demography in research and in the field of education was associated with the definition of its subject and objectives, which involved identifying the role of the demographic factor in the development of history. This process began long before the appearance of the corresponding discipline and its terminology.

One of the first thinkers to pose this problem was the representative of the French Enlightenment K.A. Helvetius. The ideas he expressed were of conceptual significance. According to the ideas of K.A. Helvetia, population growth underlies all changes in the development of society. The thinker made a direct connection between this growth and material relations and believed that the accumulation of wealth by a small group of people, as well as the poverty of the majority, is due precisely to the growth in numbers. The accumulation of wealth leads to the development of cities, to which many flock, because for the poor there is “... more help, for vice - more impunity, and for voluptuousness - more means to satisfy it.” The spread of need leads to the formation of increasingly harsh legislation and to the emergence of despotism. Population growth also leads to a change in the form of government: “Citizens of a state, having become very numerous in order to gather in the same place, appointed representatives.”

This entails a split in the interests of representatives and those who represent them. The concentration of property in the hands of fewer and fewer people undermines the stability of power. “All empires came to destruction, and their fall must be dated from the time when peoples, having multiplied, began to rule through their representatives; when these representatives, taking advantage of the difference of interests between the persons they represented, could become independent from them,” wrote K. A. Helvetius. An excessively large population, in his opinion, is the ultimate cause of corruption of morals in all countries.

The theory of K. A. Helvetius is the concept of demographic determinism, relating to history as a whole, as a result of which, obviously, the thinker was not at all concerned with either the temporal or territorial features of development. This, however, did not prevent him from noticing some very significant features of the social side of social changes. The main conclusion of K.A. Helvetius: both the accumulation of wealth, and its influence on the structure of power, and the state of morals go back to the factor of population growth as its root cause.

The ideas of K.A. Helvetius turned out to be infectious; they were subsequently used by representatives of various directions of philosophical and historical thought. In this regard, the population theory of the English economist T.R. stands out. Malthus(1766-1834). Its essence is this. People have a constant desire to reproduce, an instinct. This is the law of population growth, which is one of the laws of nature. T.R. Malthus draws a direct and immediate connection between the growth of population and the growth of the means of subsistence: the population doubles every 25 years unless there are any restraining factors (geometric progression), while the means of subsistence cannot increase faster than an arithmetic progression. The essence of his further reasoning comes down to the search and justification of means to curb population growth. One thing is certain: there is a connection between population dynamics and the production of subsistence, but growth in numbers does not automatically mean either the accumulation of wealth (K.A. Helvetius) or the growth of poverty (T.R. Malthus). It all depends on the specific historical situation.

In the materialistic understanding of history, which began to take shape in the first half of the twentieth century, the human factor was initially classified as fundamental.

“History is nothing more than a successive change of individual generations...”, wrote K. Marx. Material production, the development of needs and the “reproduction of human life” were considered in this theory as the most important aspects of the development of history throughout its entire length. More specifically, taking into account the difference in the importance of the demographic factor at different stages of development of history, this was expressed in a mature version of the theory: “The social order under which people of a certain historical era and a certain country live are determined by both types of production: the stage of development, on the one hand, labor, on the other - family. The less developed labor... and, consequently, the wealth of society, the more pronounced is the dependence of the social system on clan ties.” We are talking not only about the changing importance of the demographic factor depending on the level of development of production, but also about taking into account the consequences of population size and its dynamics for the development of production: “An increase in population increases the productive power of labor, making possible a greater division of labor, a greater combination of labor, etc. d. An increase in population is the natural force of labor...,” wrote K. Marx. But this does not exhaust the essence of the interpretation of the problem by representatives of Marxism. A question arises, the formulation of which we do not find in K. A. Helvetius, although he gives an answer to it: “Population, its reproduction, numbers and population dynamics are a natural prerequisite and condition for social development, such as, for example, the geographical environment, or is it the result of the development of society, and at the same time one of its prerequisites?” The answer of K.A. Helvetius is clear: a natural and original premise.

K. Marx has a different situation: “...the existence of people is the result of that previous process through which organic life passed. Only at a certain stage of this process does a person become a person. But since man already exists, he, as a constant prerequisite of human history, is also its constant product and result, and man is a prerequisite only as his own product and result” (emphasis added by the author - N.S.). In relation to real historical research, this means that, relying on the demographic factor to explain something, it should also be considered as a product of certain previous conditions and circumstances of the development of society; only in this case is it a cause, a prerequisite for something else.

It should be noted that the term “demography” was not used in the materialist theory of that time.

In the 20th century The most significant attempt to analyze the problem of the demographic factor was made by historians of the Annales school, who expressed the idea of ​​​​the fundamental importance of population size and its dynamics. “...How imperfect is our knowledge about the population of the world of yesterday, but both for the short-term cycle and for the long-term, both at the level of local realities and on the huge scale of global realities - everything is connected with the quantity, with fluctuations in the number of people "- wrote F. Braudel. However, representatives of the Annales school did not consider the demographic structure of society as its fundamental basis. The concept of “global history” by F. Braudel is based on the recognition of the action and interaction in history of a set of factors and various levels of its development. In his opinion, mental and demographic structures are only separate components of the mentioned interaction. F. Braudel considered the most studied of them to be economic, social, political and cultural systems. Each of them in turn is divided into subsystems; systems (factors) interact and transform into each other, due to which any of them can become decisive in a given situation. Thus, the demographic factor interacts with others in this belief structure.

In the subsequent development of the Annales school, the attitude towards it changed, which is especially clearly manifested in the concept of “serial history” by one of the leading representatives of the third generation of the school, P. Shonu(1923 - 2002). The concept of “serial history” was largely influenced by the views of F. Braudel, although its essence differs significantly from the source of influence. The development of a “serial approach” to history presupposes an orientation toward the study of repetition in history, applying quantitative methods to its analysis as opposed to “event” history. P. Chaunu focuses on economic history, however, the general meaning of the concept lies in the interaction of a number of human sciences - demography, anthropology and ethnology. Historical demography, according to the historian, is at the center of everything: economics, production, biology, as well as life, death, love. Demography indirectly prepares the meeting of history with all human sciences.

Such an obvious exaggeration of the role of demography in the mentioned interdisciplinary synthesis by P. Schon does not mean the absence of elements of a rational approach to the study of population dynamics, etc., however, this is another problem.

Thus, the development of historical knowledge led to the emergence of a relatively independent field of knowledge - demography, or, if we are talking about the past, historical demography. The vast majority of research is devoted to finding out what demography is, what are the conditions for the formation of population, what are its dynamics and what are the reasons for this kind of dynamics, what is the relationship between historical science and demography, etc. This is quite understandable and justified, first of all, because the demographic factor is not a natural, natural beginning in the development of historical phenomena and processes. Consequently, it cannot be considered the fundamental principle of human activity, or its starting point, which does not depend on this activity itself and is only the cause. Demographic determinism in this sense is outdated and is not among the modern scientifically based options for solving the problem, although elements of these ideas have not been eliminated to this day and are found among famous historians. The demographic factor is a prerequisite and condition for the further development of society only as a product and result of social development. It is not an external, but an internal component of all social processes and structures. To this should be added the particular urgency of the demographic problem in modern Russia, which is experiencing a demographic crisis. Demographers paint a rather bleak picture for the future. According to statistics, in 1987, Russian maternity hospitals screamed for 2.5 million newborns; in 1999 - 1 million 200 thousand. In 2010, according to forecasts, only 600 thousand children will be born in Russia. First of all, it is necessary to explain such fertility dynamics.

The demographic factor, population dynamics, cannot be reduced to any one reason, say, material relations. Demographic explosion on the planet in the second half of the 20th century. (2.5 billion in the middle of the 20th century and more than 6 billion at the beginning of the 21st century) scientists explain by improving the quality of life and reducing mortality. However, there are facts that do not fit into this explanation scheme. Academician N.N. Moiseev (1917-1998) pointed out the paradoxes of demography: outbreaks of birth rates in India were observed during the years of the most severe natural disasters, famines and epidemics - and at the same time, an increase in average life expectancy was associated with a decrease in the birth rate.

Finnish scientists traced changes in fertility in the Scandinavian countries in the 20th century: the peaks in fertility occurred during both world wars. Demographers who believe that birth rates peak at the end of the war, when soldiers return home, turned out to be wrong: Sweden did not fight, and a rise in birth rates at the end of both wars was observed in this country. Thus, the problems associated with the formation of the demographic factor keep many secrets. The influence of this factor on the development of this society is even less studied.

We examined various types of determinism, the most pressing and intensively analyzed problems in the development of philosophical and historical thought. Other ideas about the action of cause-and-effect relationships in history and their varieties have also appeared. The founder of psychoanalysis Z. Freud(1856-1939) wrote about the depths of the unconscious, in which, in his opinion, the secrets of the motives of human behavior were kept. However, he spoke quite definitely about one of these motives - sexual instinct. The development of society, according to S. Freud, is the process of curbing the sexual instinct and using it to solve various kinds of social problems. Rapid development of technology in the 20th century. and, as one of the consequences of this, the emergence of environmental problems gave rise to technical and environmental types of determinism. Their essence is in recognizing the decisive role in the history of the development of technology and technology, as well as in classifying the capabilities of the habitat as a factor of similar significance.

These are the basic ideas about the factors in the development of history, and the emergence of new factors is the result of the development not only of philosophical and historical thought, but also of history itself. However, it is quite obvious that history has always been characterized by the action of numerous factors, a set of cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies. Another thing is clear: what makes up the fabric of history is the result of the interaction of factors, and this interaction, manifested in events and processes, is diverse, as is the measure of the significance of each of them in any specific situation. There is no such factor in history that would be the only and final basis for its development. Representatives of philosophical and historical thought, apparently, took little account of this factor; supporters of one or another type of determinism were looking for the root cause, the main factor that underlies everything that exists and explains everything.

The importance of other factors in relation to it was recognized, but they were considered as secondary, secondary. The search for the root cause positively characterizes thinking, as evidence of the desire to reach the deepest essence of events and processes, hidden from superficial observation, but the mentioned search is meaningless from the point of view of the desired final result. History is a product of the interaction of factors in which cause and effect change places: the effect has a reverse effect on the cause and in turn becomes the cause of something new. Consequently, not monocausality, but a multifactorial approach to history is the only rational way to study it. However, the problem does not end there.

In connection with the denial of monocausality, the question arises about the relationship between factors, and in accordance with this, one should distinguish between the areas of specific historical analysis associated with the explanation of real events, and theoretical thinking. When studying any event, the set of causes (factors) that gave rise to it will always be special, associated specifically with this situation. Will these reasons be of equal importance? Not at all, the difference on this basis is obvious in any case and does not require special proof. For example, the same factor - the geographical environment - had different meanings in the agriculture of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, medieval Scandinavia, etc.

As for the problem of the relationship of factors as a methodological problem (in relation to history as a whole), there are two approaches to solving it. According to the first approach, the factors are equivalent. Such views were held by the representative of positivism, the author of the theory of factors G. Spencer. By highlighting a set of factors in history, the scientist defended their equivalence. However, he believed that factors are equivalent in principle, but in relation to a specific situation, individual factors (or one) come first in importance, while the rest do not have this property; the situation changes and with it comes a new arrangement of factors. This is nothing more than a concession to real historicism. But even in this form, G. Spencer’s ideas are an argument in favor of the thesis about the unequal importance of factors when looking at history as a whole. However, it is necessary to rely on analysis and understanding of very specific historical events and processes. The difference between one and the other lies only in the level of generalization and abstraction, which involves abstraction from the specific diversity of phenomena in the social environment.

The inexhaustible variety of the latter is a product of the interconnection and mutual influence of a set of factors that differ in each case in their significance and role. The theory is not history turned inside out, therefore, if the mentioned inequalities manifest themselves in each event, then this also applies to history as a whole. However, concrete historical research in all its areas, among many factors, shows the special significance of economic structures and economic motivation of human activity in all times and eras of this activity, and we are talking not only about politics, law, social structure of society, etc., but and about spiritual phenomena in general.

The fundamental significance of material relations in history lies in the fact that they are an important condition of human existence, therefore, to varying degrees, the basis of all spheres of human activity. What belongs to the deep, essentially significant prerequisites and conditions of this activity cannot be secondary or insignificant in its knowledge. The development of history and the change of the world do not eliminate the importance of the material factor, namely, the method of producing material goods in people’s lives, and explains the continuing significance of economic determinism in various versions, which is important for understanding history today.

“Marx is right, doesn’t the one who owns the means of production, land, ships, machine tools, raw materials, finished products also have a dominant position? It remains, however, obvious that these two coordinates alone, society and economy, are not enough. The state... played its own, often significant role in those structures that, using a certain typology, can be grouped into various socio-economies of the world: some with slavery, others with serfs and lords, others with business people and pre-capitalists. This means returning to the language of Marx, remaining on his side, even if we abandon his exact expressions or the too strict order in which every society should smoothly move from one of its structures to another. The problem remains a problem of classification, a problem of an elaborate hierarchy of societies. And no one can escape this necessity, especially starting from the level of material life,” wrote F. Braudel.

Why? They leave. Disagreement with the truth does not in itself mean its refutation. In this case, something else is important to us: what does this confidence mean to “nobody”?

The meaning of F. Braudel's position is quite obvious: it contains traces of the influence of the ideas of K. Marx, but it cannot be called completely Marxist. In general this is Braudel's position, not Marx's. Another example of this confidence is the opinion of C. Kaphen: “... no one will deny that a gradual change in the mode of production significantly affects political and social institutions.” However, this is also denied. But let us continue the thoughts of Ch. Kaphen: “The logic of the historical process, historical evolution is inexorable: the method of production determines history, since it gives rise to a fundamental mechanism for satisfying basic human needs and desires. The way in which people satisfy their needs gives rise to corresponding forms of governance and social identities." It is important to emphasize that C. Kapchen does not count himself among the supporters of K. Marx. Consequently, the thesis about the fundamental significance of economic structures in history has ceased to be only Marxist. It is an integral part of a variety of theoretical ideas about history. Today, this thesis represents truth from the point of view of different methodological positions, which also helps to understand its place and significance among other types of determinism operating in history.

DEMOGRAPHIC DETERMINISM, one of the main. methodological bourgeois principles society science, which boils down to the absolutization of the role of the population factor in the development of society. The idea of ​​our defining role. in society development put forward in the 18th century. K. Helvetia, A. Barnave and others; in a unique form was interpreted by T. R. Malthus, who examined the growth of the population. as a factor hindering the progress of society, leading to social disasters (poverty, etc.) and revolutions. The principle of DD received the greatest justification in the works of representatives of the demographic school in the bourgeoisie. sociology, as well as a number of bourgeois. positivist sociologists (G. Spencer, mm Kovalevsky). In the bourgeoisie demography is widely used by the so-called theorist. morphological revolution by F. Hauser and neo-Malthusians. Along with the one-factor approach to assessing the role of population growth, based on the principle of D. d., it is widespread in the bourgeoisie. society science, especially in the 1970s, received a multifactorial approach due to the widespread use of the method of global modeling of social development.