External and internal analogies in social and philosophical knowledge in the context of the problem of homogeneity-heterogeneity of societies

Introduction

The analogy method is widely used by researchers in various fields of knowledge as a creative, heuristic means both for explaining and interpreting existing phenomena and for constructing new theories. Thinking by analogy involves establishing a similarity between some two different objects in relation to a certain number of common properties. The objects taken should not be identical, otherwise we would be talking about their identity, in which an analogy cannot arise.

For example, let's take a well-known fact: scientists can establish a similarity between Earth and Mars in relation to some parameters (atmospheric composition, the presence of a solid surface, cycles of day and night and seasons, etc.), which may suggest the similarity of the two planets regarding some other parameter of interest to them – the presence life. Here we can immediately note the obvious problem of this method: the analogy does not lead to a reliable assumption or conclusion, therefore, it needs additional confirmation or verification. Thus, in the natural sciences, verification of analogies is an integral part of the research process when making progress in the relevant field of knowledge ^[1].

If we look at the method of analogy from the side of social philosophy, then we should pay attention to its specifics. The situation here is perhaps more complicated, since finding analogies between two objects (for example, between a society and a living organism or a mechanical object) does not always aim to establish an actual correspondence between them, and it may also be a question of interpreting or explaining the social structure in a more understandable form. Thus, the representation of society as a mechanism may assume an actual similarity (society is another mechanism in the mechanistic universe) or not assume it, as a result of which such an analogy acquires a more metaphorical character.

It may seem that the method of analogy is an outdated technique that is not widely used in modern socio–philosophical research, but social and political philosophers actually continue to use it at the present time. For example, (unfortunately, the Soviet and Russian historian and philosopher Yu.I. Semenov, who passed away not so long ago, widely used biological analogies, speaking of society as a socio-historical organism (sociore) that is born one day, has a social consciousness, develops during the historical process and finally dies, forever coming off the historical stage ^[2].

At the same time, the critical remarks made to the supporters of the analogy method should not be ignored. In particular, they may point to the excessive speculativeness of such ideas, which was also discussed, for example, by the German sociologist Max Weber, who rejected the holistic view of society as a kind of organism in favor of his ideal-typical methodology. He warned about the exaggeration of the meaning and "reification" of borrowed organic concepts, which may even pose a danger to the researcher and, as a result, may lead him down the wrong path ^{[3, p. 14-15]}.

The modern analysis of the application of the analogy method within the framework of social philosophy has advanced along with works authored by Cohen ^[4], Kaufman and Clement ^[5], Grinin, Korotaev and Markov ^[6], Lempert ^[7], Mouton ^[8], Offer ^[9]. And now, when ideas about external and internal analogies begin to spread ^{[10, 11]}, we will try to determine the role and significance of such analogies in socio-philosophical research.

So, the purpose of this work is to consider a different range of analogies with society, with social phenomena in social philosophy, which will be the basis for subsequent dissertation research. Since it will be impossible to adequately consider most of these analogies in one article, the author found it necessary to present his thoughts in several works. This study will focus on identifying and considering specific examples of external and internal social analogies that are involved in building appropriate models of society. After identifying the general prerequisites of the analog models under consideration (the problem of homogeneity-heterogeneity of societies), the importance of thinking by analogy in relation to these prerequisites will be determined. The reasons that determine the appeal of thinkers to both external and internal analogies will also be outlined, as well as the answer to the question of whether internal analogies are a more progressive form of description and interpretation of social phenomena in relation to external ones.

External social analogies

Currently, we are moving on to consider a number of external social analogies that are drawn between objects of social philosophy, social sciences, on the one hand, and objects that are studied within the framework of other sciences and are not directly related to social studies, on the other. In general, we will be interested in analogies that refer to the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, geology). When considering the first variant of external analogies, in order to avoid misunderstanding, we will not use the concepts of "physical analogies" or "physical models", since it is already customary in social philosophy to use a term referring to mechanics.

Mechanistic analogies

So, among the social models that are based on references to physical science, the mechanical model occupies a special place. The famous English thinker Thomas Hobbes used a mechanistic approach to the interpretation of society in his works ^[12]. In the Fundamentals of Philosophy, devoted to the search for the foundations of the state structure of society, Hobbes describes his analytical and synthetic method, explaining it by analogy with a mechanical clock ^{[12, p. xiv]}. A person who is not familiar with the operation of a clockwork mechanism, but wants to understand how its parts interact, should disassemble the entire device into its component parts, and then reassemble it. By observing how mechanical parts interact and transfer movement from one part to another, we eventually understand how a watch works.

Similarly, the mechanistic approach of disassembling an object and its subsequent assembly was applied by Hobbes to understand the social mechanism that forces each person to accept the state structure of society as his preferred state. The difference, however, is that society, unlike clocks, does not lend itself to arbitrary deconstruction, so Hobbes was actually conducting a thought experiment.

So, Hobbes, in the course of a speculative analytical operation, deprived a conditional society of its state organization, as a result of which the individual remained left to himself without any restrictions. A well-known "natural state" is unfolding before us: every individual has a natural right to unlimited freedom, including the protection of his own life from encroachment by other members of such a "society"; moreover, ensuring his own safety and well-being does not exclude completely immoral acts. The desire to realize human needs, multiplied by the limited resources available, gives rise to individuals' fear of poverty and starvation. This dangerous condition pushes people into a "war of all against all" for available resources and for the opportunity to keep them for themselves. The incessant struggle, in turn, leads to a new fear for one's life, which causes a desire to end the war at any cost, which eventually starts the state mechanism. People conclude a social contract, according to which they give up their unlimited freedoms in favor of the established state, which now has the exclusive rights to punish those who try to break the contract, that is, to go against the state and society.

In the recreated social mechanism of Hobbes, we can find three conditional groups of people who, in our opinion, symbolize the three wheels of a gear train: the first group are potential or real violators of the social contract, the second are people interested in preserving it, the third is the state, designed to support the entire system in operation and prevent it failure. The mainspring, which sets in motion the entire social mechanism, is fear for one's life, caused in one case by the absence or lack of resources that are unable to cover virtually unlimited human needs; in the other, by the potential threat of returning to a state of war of all against all.

The mechanistic approach was popular in the Modern era, when the rapid development of experimental science and mathematics gave hope to the discovery of universal principles and laws, with the help of which it is possible to fully describe not only physical nature, but also social reality, including the individual from whom this reality is formed. Thus, the French philosopher Rene Descartes also used a mechanistic analogy both with a clockwork clockwork mechanism and with other machines like man-made fountains and mills ^[13]. In particular, in the "Discourses on the First Philosophy" he wrote: "But just as a clockwork mechanism consisting of wheels and plumb lines obeys the laws of nature."..> in the same way, I consider the human body as a kind of mechanism consisting of bones, nerves, muscles, blood vessels, blood and skin..." ^{[14, pp. 59-60]}. Obviously, the purpose of such a comparison is not to prove that the human body literally has mechanical parts or that nerves are actually the same pipes used in mechanical fountains ^{[13, p. 107]}, but to show that it is a similar mechanism, being an integral part of a comprehensive mechanistic universe.

Later, the French materialist Julien Ofre de Lametri continued the development of Descartes' ideas about man as a mechanism in his work with the telling title "Man-machine" ^[15]. According to de Lametri, the human body, by analogy, is a large mechanical watch with a heart as the mainspring that starts the entire system. Moreover, this biological mechanism is designed more perfectly than an ordinary watch: if one of the "wheels" suddenly stops, it will not necessarily affect other parts, which could lead to a stop of the entire mechanism. For example, loss of vision does not cause loss of hearing or sense of smell, much less death ^{[15, pp. 141-142]}. The so-called "human machine" starts its own springs, and the chylus (the name of some fluids in the body of animals, including humans) is like a watchmaker located inside the body. In addition, de Lametri argues that a human being is a living image of perpetual motion ^{[15, pp. 93, 135]}. But at the same time, we understand that one day its "springs" and "wheels" will inevitably fail, causing irreparable damage to the entire mechanism and leading the human machine to death ^{[15, p. 137]}.

Following the thoughts of the French philosophers, we can assume that the whole society, as well as an individual, is just another mechanism of the highest order, or at least is a collection of individual human machines capable of interaction, reproduction, self-regulation, etc. Anyway, in the mechanistic Universe of the considered thinkers of the Modern era, it is hardly possible to imagine society in any other way.

Elementary (chemical) analogies

The mechanistic approach to the representation of society certainly does not exhaust all possible analogies with objects of natural science knowledge. At the moment, we will be interested in analogies referring to chemistry, as well as to the physics of elementary particles. It is very interesting that we are able to present opposite models of society based on different interpretations of the association of individuals into a related "socio-chemical" compound.

The Belgian astronomer and sociologist Adolphe Quetelet just described human society as an "aggregation" or "combination" formed by homogeneous elements that come together due to the action of attractive forces that prevail over repulsive ones. The dominance of the forces of attraction is based on a sufficient number of common properties shared by human "elements": a common language, religion, origin, mores; whereas the forces of repulsion are represented by personal egoism ^{[16, pp. 147-148]}. If the latter overcomes the action of the forces of attraction, then society disintegrates, a state of social death arises. According to this description, we imagine that Quetelet models society by analogy with a chemically homogeneous body like a piece of metal. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that he also animates it, adding biological analogies with a living being who, passing through the stages of development of the organism, is born, matures, reaches maturity, ages and dies ^{[16, pp. 148-149]}. Here, for the first time, we encounter an integrated approach combining various types of analogies (with objects of living and inanimate nature), we will analyze it in more detail in subsequent work.

A diametrically opposite version of social interaction was proposed by the American economist Henry Carey in his work "Fundamentals of Social Science". For him, society is a combination of elements that are attracted to each other due to the differences between them: "In the inorganic world, each association presupposes movement, during which various particles exchange their corresponding properties. In the same way, in the social world, every association implies movement: ideas are put forward and used; services are provided and accepted; goods or things are subject to exchange" ^{[17, p. 200]}. Inorganic and social associations strengthen or weaken to the extent that the differences between their constituent elements increase or decrease. In the case where there are no differences between the particles, an inorganic compound or society has no opportunity to form.

So, at the end of the review of these two variants of elementary models, we note that the society as it is described by Quetelet resembles a civilizational model and is depicted as a compound consisting of homogeneous chemical elements with common properties. The consequence of this understanding is that different societies will differ in nature in the same way that a copper plate will differ from a tin plate. In order for heterogeneous societies to unite, mutual penetration, mixing of two cultures is necessary – just as when copper and tin are mixed, a bronze alloy appears ^{[16, p. 150]}. On the contrary, Carey, within the framework of his concept, proposes to focus on the opposite properties of the elements that make up society: a social association can arise similarly to the mutual attraction of differently charged particles or the attraction of two magnets with opposite poles.

Geological analogies

Geology is another source that social philosophers use when constructing external analogies for social phenomena. In particular, Karl Marx built his materialistic conception of history to a certain extent on parallels with geological formations. He used the term "Gesellschaftsformation" or literally "social formation"^[18] to name the stages that all societies potentially go through in the course of human history. By the way, this term has become so entrenched in academic usage that it is still part of the name of the whole approach – formational. Social formations include primitive communal communism (prehistory), the slave system, feudalism, capitalism, and a supposed communist society; each of the formations corresponds to its own mode of production. These stages of social development progressively replace each other in time so that a later formation cannot precede an earlier one (for example, capitalism cannot be earlier than slavery), doing this in exactly the same way as geological formations, being geological markers of time, are sequentially layered on top of each other in the space of the earth's crust according to the law on superpositions ^{[19, p. 402, 413; 20, p. 460]}.

We are also able to give an opposite approach in using geological analogies. American political scientist Samuel Huntington ^{[21, 22]} after the events related to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, proposed a civilizational global social model, which is also partially based on geophysical and geological analogies. In particular, he argued that cultural and religious differences that divide humanity into the most common cultural groups of people with an extremely wide level of cultural identity, or civilization, will be the main source of conflict in the era that arose after the end of the Cold War. Civilizations differ due to attributes such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and subjective social identity.

On the one hand, Huntington's civilizational model takes a planetary form ^[22]: like the internal structure of the Earth, it consists of a state or states of the core ("core"), which create a sufficiently strong magnetic (or gravitational) field capable of attracting culturally similar societies and repelling peoples with different cultural identities. The attracted countries "gravitate towards civilizational magnets", being located in concentric circles resembling the concentric layers of the Earth ^{[22, c. 138, 155-156, 164, 168]}.

On the other hand, the purely geological term "fault line" draws a different model of civilizations that, like tectonic plates, drift and collide at the borders ^{[22, pp. 125, 246-265]}. These two types of analogies also help the American political scientist to express two types of civilizational conflicts: the first arises between different core countries, for example, between Russia and the United States as key countries of Orthodox and Western civilizations; the second involves societies located near the lines of civilizational fault, as in the case of the Yugoslav wars that took place on the borders of Western, Orthodox and Islamic civilizations ^{[22, pp. 207-208]}.

Internal social analogies

Internal analogies are based on parallelism between social objects, one of which is a template or model for explaining and/or interpreting other social objects. For example, the French postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard paid much attention to the phenomenon of symbolic exchange in his socio-philosophical studies. This concept was derived by analogy with the practice of potlatch of North American Indians ^[23]. A potlatch is a lavish festive gift–giving ceremony performed by the head of a tribe in relation to other tribes, friendly or hostile. The purpose of the celebration is to defiantly, through waste, establish superiority in material goods over foreigners. It is assumed that the guests participating in the current feast will hold a retaliatory potlatch, which should be even more wasteful and generous; otherwise, the defendant should admit defeat and dependence on another tribe. If the defendant manages to surpass the first tribe in the exchange of gifts, then the series of festivities will continue until one of the tribes can surpass the rival in the waste of gifts.

If we follow Baudrillard's thought, we will come to the conclusion that competitive exchange by the type of potlatch is a key social model that describes the functioning and interaction of societies, is able to explain the meaning of power and, as a result, can be extrapolated by analogy to modern social relations. Thus, during the globalization of the late XX – early XXI centuries. The West supplied developing countries with the achievements of its civilization, including democracy, free market, production technologies, etc. However, what social benefits could developing countries give to the West in return? Obviously, they could not respond appropriately, so within the logic of symbolic exchange, they can be called "slaves" of Western civilization. In the absence of an adequate response, an inadequate reaction may follow: to get rid of the "slave" status, you can go to the extreme measure – to give your life to the "master", consciously accepting death. This is how Baudrillard explains the suicide attacks of September 11, 2001, which have become world famous ^[24].

Here is another vivid example of the application of internal social analogies. American sociologist George Ritzer interpreted the McDonald's fast food restaurant business model as a "prime example, a paradigm" in relation to a wide range of social phenomena. Moreover, he introduced a new term "McDonaldization" into scientific circulation, which he defined as "the process by which the principles of a fast food restaurant begin to dominate in an increasing number of institutions of American society, as well as around the world" ^{[25, p. 7]}. These principles include efficiency in task performance, measurability goals and objects of sale, predictability of products and services provided, controllability through technologies that minimize human involvement. Proponents of the concept of McDonaldization argued that such social institutions as the US legal system, universities, the Internet, the sex industry, and labor activity in general have already been "McDonaldized", that is, they work in accordance with these principles ^[25].

McDonaldization is not the only example of using modern business models to interpret social institutions. In the socio-philosophical turnover, one can find the opposite term – "eBayization", which assumes diversity, heterogeneity, adventure and surprise at the forefront, as opposed to the homogeneity and unification of the four principles of McDonald's ^[26]. It is not difficult to notice that the term refers to the American multinational company eBay, which carries out online sales of various goods through its website. In this context, we are faced for the third time with the "homogeneity–heterogeneity" dichotomy in relation to social analog models. Let's look at this issue in more detail.

The question of homogeneity or heterogeneity of societies

In our opinion, taking into account the considered social concepts, it is possible to establish two types of prerequisites that are assumed in the description and interpretation of society. On the one hand, humanity can be represented as homogeneous or homogeneous societies that do not fundamentally differ from each other: in particular, these are the social models of Hobbes, Carey, Marx and Ritzer – here the economic component is brought to the fore.

It is important to clarify why we are celebrating these particular thinkers here. In Hobbes' social mechanism, an important role is played by the economic factor – the struggle for limited resources, and the social model itself can potentially be extrapolated to any society. Economist Carey, in turn, bases his model on the need for economic exchange caused by the heterogeneity of the elements of society-people who possess different goods and are able to provide different services. Moreover, any society in his view will have the same basis for its formation and, therefore, will not have fundamental differences from another social association.

Marx, of course, has a more complex social model, but it is important for us to emphasize that, according to the formational approach, any society has the opportunity to go through the appropriate socio-economic formations, and different societies belonging to the same formation will also not have significant, fundamental differences in the form of society organization. In other words, capitalist England and capitalist France will be similar to each other, having a similar social structure, including the same antagonistic classes (the proletariat and the bourgeoisie), the same structure of productive forces. Finally, Ritzer's concept of McDonaldization itself presupposes the universal homogenization of public institutions in accordance with the McDonald's business model.

On the other hand, humanity can be represented as divided between heterogeneous or heterogeneous societies, which, in contrast to what was said earlier, have fundamental differences among themselves, consisting, as a rule, in cultural (civilizational) characteristics. This is the concept of IBEIZATION, the social models of Quetelet, Huntington, as well as numerous other versions of the civilizational approach.

Conclusion

What, then, is the role of analogies (both external and internal) in developing social models based on assumptions about the homogeneity or heterogeneity of human societies? Or, if we go beyond the heterogeneity-homogeneity dichotomy, we can formulate the question more broadly: what is the reason for such frequent use of thinking by analogy in the development of socio-philosophical concepts?

First, it should be said that certain analogies help to present the model of society in a more visual and tangible way. Although it is difficult to imagine the life of each person outside of society, society itself is presented to people in a very abstract way. If the existence of an individual, of some specific people, is noticeable to the naked eye, then how should society as a whole be described? So, a society with a state organization with a social division of labor definitely consists of some parts that are easier to name by analogy with a specific object that has already been more or less studied, therefore it is no coincidence, for example, that we have even in broad usage the concepts of "state mechanism", "state machine" or "state bodies the authorities."

Secondly, the question of the credibility of the proposed ideas plays an equally important role. Social models expressed through analogies seem more convincing than if they were expressed using pure abstract concepts that do not refer to any already familiar, popular, scientifically proven ideas. Persuasiveness is achieved due to the same clarity, on the one hand, and through the acceptance of similarity between different objects under study, on the other: there is an idea (or, perhaps, an illusion) that there is a universal similarity of heterogeneous objects, that a comprehensive model has been discovered that can explain phenomena of different order.

Thirdly, attention should be paid to the fact that analogies can give novelty to an already established theoretical construction. For example, in social civilizational models, as a rule, common analogies related to the world of wildlife are used: civilizations (or cultures) are born, mature, and die. However, Huntington, within the framework of his idea of civilizations, turned to another type of analogy, which was not characteristic of the civilizational approach. Geological external analogies allowed him to put the long-used idea of civilizations in a new light. Another example is even more obvious: Ritzer's use of the world-famous catering to develop the idea of global McDonaldization.

Are analogies secondary to the above assumptions about the homogeneity or heterogeneity of societies? Most likely, the answer will depend on how strong the role of thinking by analogy is in developing a specific social model. In the case of Hobbes' mechanicism, an important factor is the desire to build a comprehensive mechanistic picture of the world, which affects phenomena of different orders: the world of inanimate nature, the organic world, society. Consequently, the mechanistic approach itself determines the universality of various human societies in relation to each other.

However, social philosophers (and, most likely, we will not be mistaken if we say that there will be a majority of them) use analogies to conceptually "color" a very abstract idea of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of human societies and, as we have noticed, give it originality and persuasiveness. It cannot be said that for Marx, as for Huntington, analogies with the Earth sciences play a fundamental role in their respective social models. The Marxist social concept extends ideologically far beyond the similarity between geological formations and socio-economic formations. However, this analogy allows us to better express the idea of the universality of the historical stages through which humanity passes, only each society will do this with its own specifics.

Finally, let us pay attention to the question that follows from the distinction made between analogies in relation to the source of parallelism: are internal social analogies a more progressive form of expression of thought in relation to external analogies? In our opinion, the frequent use of external analogies by social philosophers is also caused by the desire to formulate such an idea of society that would be in accordance with natural science knowledge, which for centuries has been a role model and gave hope of discovering a comprehensive theory capable of explaining and describing any phenomena, including social ones. This is clearly evidenced by mechanistic, elementary, and some organizational (for example, ^[27]) social models. However, as the emancipation of social science from natural science took place, social philosophy eventually developed a tendency to find analogies based on phenomena within society itself. It is no coincidence that the social models of Baudrillard and Ritzer are more recent in time. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that internal social analogies, although they are a consequence of the noted release, they still remain analogies, which, as we noted at the very beginning, are probabilistic in nature. So, can the concept of McDonaldization be relevant in the 20s of the XXI century, when there are statements that the era of globalization that came after the end of the Cold War has come to an end ^[28]? It looks like she failed to pass the test of time.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.