15.2. Material Culture, Its Structure

Society could not exist without the continuous process of produc­tion. The meaning of social production is explained by the fact that man as a social being is reproduced in this process. Social production equals to the production of social life and hence has its own structure, covering intellectual production, production of man himself, and material production. To clarify the links among them let’s refer to the essence of the basic element in the struc­ture of social production – material production.

Activity in any sphere of society is directed by definite needs and interests growing out of production and at the same time working as sub­jective stimuli for its further development. A need is the state of an individual or social group, class, or society as a whole reflecting their dependence on the conditions of existence and acting as a motive force of life activity always directed in a particular way. The existence of a need is not a sufficient condition of activity. A certain goal is also necessary, for no activity is possible outside goal-setting and without the means for the attainment of goals.

Man cannot satisfy his needs with what nature provides for him in ready-made form. In order to have necessary minimum, people must work. By combining their labor with what is given by nature and using its laws, people create things nonexistent in nature, in other words, material wealth. So, material pro­duction could be defined as the labor activity of men who transform nature, using the necessary tools, in order to create material wealth meant to satisfy human needs.

When a goal coincides with the need, activity assumes a strictly purposive character, and the need itself, becomes a stable and conscious in­terest. An interest is an oriented motive of activity colored with an emotional-axiological attitude. It is interest that helps to discover the means for satisfying the need, that is, for achieving the goal. Needs and interests determine the direction and content of actions of both individuals and society as a whole. The leading role in the ensemble of all the social interests belongs to the interests in materi­al production. The highest form of the manifestation of such interests could be an interest in the growth of pro­ductive forces and labor productivity, and in the improvement of the entire system of production relations.

Material production has two sides: productive forces and production relations. Productive forces include the people who implement the process of production. They are the subject of labor, the principal and the decisive element in the productive forces. Man here is not just a force on the same level as the machine, but the inspiring element of the entire process of social production which has absorbed the experiences of all the previous generations. Apart from this the implements of labor should be mentioned. They are objects created by man in order to transform the external world in the interests of society. Production also requires buildings, ware­houses, transport, etc. Together with the implements of labor, all this constitutes the means of labor. The means and objects of la­bor combined make up the means of production.

The system of the means of production constitutes the so-called material and technical basis of society — the part of the productive forces comprising objects and energy. This part is objectified labor. To partici­pate in the process of production, it is necessary to apply living human labor. Thus two types of labor —living and objectified — are identified in the structure of pro­duction.

An important element of the structure of productive forces is production technology. The solution of technological tasks is largely determined by such factors as the character of labor, the implements of labor, the development of fundamental and applied science, and the degree of its implementation in production, the level of scientific organization of labor and so on. So, technology could be defined as a system of man-made means and implements of produc­tion which also includes devices and operations, the art of realiz­ation of the labor process.

In technology the mankind has accumulated its valuable experience of the methods of the cognition and transformation of nature and the fruits of culture over many centuries. The historical process of the development of technology includes three main stages: hand tools, machines, automata. The complexity of production today is such that it is no longer conceivable without scientific organization.

As one can see, productive forces cover human beings with production skills to produce material wealth; the means of production created by society, as well as the organization of labor, production technology, machinery, and scientific achievements.

The links between men which take shape in the pro­cess of production form a complex structural-functional and hierar­chically subordinated and coordinated system; this system forms what is known as production relations. It covers the relations:

- to the means of production, i.e. the form of property;

- among men arising in the process of exchange, distribution and consumption of the wealth being created;

- between men determined by their production specializa­tion, expressing the division of labor;

- of cooperation, subordination and coordination, or managerial relations, and

- all the other relations in which men become involved.

What are the principal elements of production relations? The main type of these is economic relations, of which the basis is formed by relations to the means of production: the latter are al­ways somebody's property. If society is domi­nated by private ownership of the means of production, relations of domination and subordination are established (such as bondage, serfdom, hired labor)

Production relations are objective, i.e. they are independent on the consciousness and will of the people. They act as an objective criterion for determining the various concrete historical types of society.

Pro­ductive forces and production relations, in their intimate intercon­nection, form a complex structure of material production, a historically concrete mode of production. The motive force of its development is its inherent dialectics of form and content. The starting point of the development of production is in the system of the pro­ductive forces, which constitute the most mobile element of material production.

In the development process, man himself develops, and so do his needs, which are the motive force of the development of production itself; men's skills improve, their qualification rises, professional division of labor becomes increasingly more differentiated, and specializa­tion is deepened and expanded. These changes in the structure of productive forces entail changes in production relations. Progress in productive forces thus determines the development of production relations.

Correspondence between production relations and the character and level of the devel­opment of productive forces is the main principle of the development of material production. But this is a contradictory process, and pro­duction relations cannot therefore constantly correspond to the de­veloping productive forces. Owing to the anticipatory development of productive forces, the balance achieved at a certain moment is then disrupted; a contradiction between them again arises and becomes more and more acute.

Of great importance is a technique as an element of the productive forces (from the Greek "techno" - the ability, skill). This term covers both labor facilities and methods of their usage, ways to aggregate activity, used in material production. In the process of technology man is gradually transferring his technological functions to technical means. Technological development leads towards human emancipation from heavy physical work, intellectualization of material production, growth in labor productivity. Technological development impacts on the social sphere of society, politics, and spiritual culture. It is progressive as it creates conditions for realization of man’s essential forces.

In the development of techniques there are three important stages:

1) Neolithic Revolution VIII c. B.C. covering the shift from gathering and fishing to the settled style of living. The conditions for specialization of labor, separation mental labor from physical labor were created.

2) Industrial Revolution of the end of the XVII - the beginning of the XIX cc. in Europe covering initiation and implementation of the machinery. Natural and technical disciplines started to develop. In the context of the industrial revolution modern science based on experiments, precise measurements shaped. Long before science was developing under the influence of technique, theoretically analyzing its results. There was an organic combination of science and technique, which became the impulse for scientific progress (i.e. the development of science, technique and production).

3) Scientific and Technical Revolution. Scientific progress sometimes is interrupted by scientific and technological revolutions that are rapid, radical changes in science, technique and production. Current STR started since the 40^th years of the XX c. is a fundamentally new stage in the development of productive forces, characterized by:

- a new role of science which is becoming a "productive force", one of the driving mechanism in society’s development;

- automate character of production, its monitoring and managing;

- using of new types of energy, including nuclear one;

- informatization of processes of production;

- creation and development of biotechnologies;

- changes in the social sphere;

- changes in the way of people’s life.

New phenomena caused changes not only in material production but also in all social spheres. The intrusion of cybernetics, informatics into society’s life could be seen the most important results of scientific and technical revolution. As long as computers relied on vacuum tubes and were bulky, balky, and expensive, they had only a minor impact on industrial processes and structure. However, with the invention of transistors and their refinement into today’s microchips, computers became omnipresent; their power was greatly multiplied, and they found many applications beyond computational number-crunching. It is this application of computerized information to all facets of life and technology that makes it the centerpiece of the new technological revolution. These processes have acquired a special intensity in the second part of the XX c. and provoked new terms applied for new stage of society’s development. The society was called “post-industrial” and “information”. D. Bell, who introduced this term, believes that the central position in such a society is the theoretical knowledge as the axis around which: new techniques and technologies; economic growth and stratification of society are organized. These major technical changes − in materials, fuels and prime movers, machinery, the organization of work, transportation, and communication − all involved more knowledge and more information. Workers were forced to acquire new and distinctive skills, and their relation to their work shifted: instead of being craftsmen working with hand tools, workers became machine operators, subject to factory discipline. In brief, the Information Age has indeed revolutionized the technical elements of industrial society. But does it have similar revolutionary implications for non-technical institutions, values and society as a whole?

Let’s look at some of the non-technical changes that are occurring, partly as a result of the technological changes but also causing the advance of technology because of the synergistic relationship between technology and society.

When the first electronic computers were introduced some decades ago, their complexity, size and expense seemed to dictate that the computerized information would perforce be concentrated and hence be susceptible to control by relatively few individuals. Indeed, this appeared to lend substance to G. Orwell’s vision of “1984”when all information − and hence all thought − would be controlled by “Big Brother”. However, the introduction of the transistor and the development of the microchip allowed for the miniaturization of computing devices, so that today’s small, hand-held computer can rival the past giants in information capacity and activity. The problem is no longer that Big Brother is watching you, but that “Little Brother” is messing up his program.

As a result, while the dispersion of information capabilities makes impossible the centralized control of information and the power implied therein, new problems regarding the secrecy of data, the patentability of software, and a whole host of new socio-legal problems confront us. We are still engaged in the process of discovering these new problems.

For example, A. Toffler points out that computers will enable information workers to do their work at home, being tied in with central computers at the office. Yes, it is indeed possible for more people to work at home. But the fact is that, with very few exceptions in certain occupations, such as editing and writing and the piece-rater processing of insurance forms and the like, that is simply not happening on a wide scale. The reason is that, as the ancient philosophers pointed out, man is a social and political animal. People like to congregate together; they derive intellectual stimulus and social satisfaction from personal contacts. The work place is not only a spot for making a living but is also the site of the social interchange that is apparently a hallmark of our human species. So, just because computers might offer us certain capabilities, this does not mean that we would want to take advantage of them, nor does it mean that they would necessarily be advantageous for the social interchange that, in the vast majority of cases, is essential for individual fulfillment.

Nowadays is marked with a rising level of education, itself made possible though previous technological advance. The increasingly complex nature of technological devices required an educated work force. As a result, we can trace the democratization of education throughout the XIX−XX cc. in the industrially advanced nations as a function of technological growth and complexity. The new Information Age requires even more complex and sophisticated technology, so there is need for a still higher degree of specialized technical skills − including social skills as well as manipulative ones.

There were other broad social and cultural transformations. Until the Industrial Revolution people had always been fearful that the vagaries of nature would deprive them of life’s necessities. With the plethora of material goods and foods made available through the technological advances of the XIX−XX cc., people were able to keep hunger at bay, and indeed overcome many of the hardships inflicted by nature through centralized heating and air conditioning systems, electrical lighting, and the like.

Of much greater significance than simply catering to our creature comforts are those major social changes occurring as an outgrowth of advancing information technology which will have a powerful effect upon our country’s and the world’s future. Among the most important are demographic changes resulting from public health, medical and nutritional advances deriving from sophisticated computerized research in health technologies. Advances in agriculture, combined with progress in medical knowledge and public health measures, meant that hunger began to disappear as a major threat in the industrially advanced nations. People lived longer − and better, in terms of material goods.

But there is a reverse side of this demographic coin, namely, rapidly exploding populations in the developing nations, where more than half the people are under 15 years of age. As a result, there are demands for technological development to meet the material needs of the world’s growing population. At the same time there are apparently conflicting demands that this be done without plundering the earth of its resources or damaging the environment. In other words, the Information Age must stimulate technological growth to meet these demands and do so by new kinds of technical applications that will maintain the productivity and salubrity of our planet for future generations.

Instead of man’s being the master of nature, it is now realized that man is a part of nature and that our future depends upon a fuller recognition of both nature’s and humanity’s capabilities and limitations. Because the scientific technology of the incoming Information Age offers us manifold choices, we can make decisions about the future course of society with due concern for conservation of natural resources, the preservation of the environment, and the well-being of our fellowman now and in the future.