Society is a vault of stones that collapsed. Essay on the topic “Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other” - (Seneca)”. If my sorrow were weighed, and together my suffering was put on the scales: then now it would be the sand of the sea

"In present times,
all politics "(S. Kierkegaard)
S. Kierkegaard raises the problem of politicization of all aspects of human life, not only in a single country, but also in the world. What is politics? Policy -
it is the art of managing society. Manage with what? With the help of power, there are all conditions for exerting influence. This political organizations, parties, bureaucracy, political relations, political ideology and all this is aimed at organizing life.
Under a democratic regime
the state, being the main political institution that exercises power on behalf of the people, adopts laws, codes and other documents by which the country lives. For example, the retirement age has approached a person, it is drawn up according to the law on pension provision, a person wants to get married
- valid
Family code. Globalization processes are taking place in the international arena today. There is also an international order of relations, which is called geopolitics. The geopolitical structure of the world is based on the principles of unipolarity or multipolarity. international politics, as suggested by Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in New
-
York should be built on multipolarity, i.e. mutual respect, taking into account the interests of countries, and not diktat, which
- that of one country. Today on the world stage there are such international organizations like the IMF, UN, OPEC, ICRC, WTO and others and many international documents that regulate the life of people in the world. For example, a person wants to have citizenship of another country, except for Russia -
there are international documents on the granting of dual citizenship, and the countries have agreed that there can be no triple citizenship. violated in what
- either country human rights international organizations have the right to intervene.
In conclusion, I come to the conclusion that life outside of politics is practically impossible today. Power organizes, protects, provides an opportunity to develop, meet the needs of man and society.
“The family is more sacred than the state”
Man as a social being from birth to death can develop harmoniously only in society, among other people. The process of socialization is the main indicator of the formation of an individual, however, activities in society require a person to comply with established regulations and established traditions. Moral norms, elementary rules necessary for future life, you can learn only in the family. For a child who does not have even the most primitive knowledge, the family
- the most sacred, endowing the first social status, instilling a certain behavior, gradually endowing also with duties, a kind of model
"adult" world. Family
- the primary social institution, without which it is very difficult to adapt and communicate with others. If growth and learning takes place outside the family circle, a person has to learn the rules and restrictions of society on his own, and the lack of proper education can negatively affect the individual.
The state in its functions in relation to citizens differs significantly from the family. As a combination of the regime of power and organs of government, it only exercises control, creating conditions for life, without cultivating personal qualities.
For an individual, the family is more important than the state. I absolutely agree with the statement “The family is more sacred than the state”. One of the confirmations may be the fact that historically the family was formed before any political system. Modern life replete with examples. The brightest concerns street children.
To them, brought up in orphanage, following the laws of the street, it is much more difficult to break out “into people” than for a child from a prosperous family.
If you draw parallels, the family can be called the mother, and the state
- employer. The mother educates, teaches, and the employer creates working conditions and monitors the performance of work. And the mother is also more valuable than the employer, just as the family is more valuable than the state.
"The human child at the moment of birth is not a man, but only a candidate for a man." (A. Pieron)
One cannot but agree with the words of Pieron. Why? In his words, he wanted to emphasize that real man -
it's a personality. At the time of birth, the child is only a candidate for a person who can become a person.
is a biosocial being. At the time of birth, a person has only his "bio", which makes him related to all animals: he has the same instincts, needs. The “socio” of a person can develop only in the course of communication with other people. As a result of communication with other people, a person develops his thinking, speech, consciousness. At the time of birth, a person
- an individual, he is only one of the people. Over time, it acquires individual features.
Individuality is inherent in any person. Each of us is not like the other appearance Everyone has their own special character traits, interests, abilities.
A person can become a personality only in the process of socialization. In the formation of a personality, the role of upbringing, interaction with other people is great. It is in these processes that the socialization of a person takes place, that is, the assimilation of values, norms, attitudes, patterns of behavior accepted in society.
To confirm the words of Pieron, one can cite very a prime example. In the Middle Ages, a king decided to conduct a cruel experiment. He forbade talking to the newborn. The child was locked in a room, fed, but did not communicate with him. As a result, he never became a man in the full sense: he could not speak, behave in society, and soon died. So in our life there are examples of this. If parents are not engaged in raising children, then children do not know how to build relationships with other people. For a newborn to become a real person, life in society, interaction with other people is necessary.

“Nature creates man, but society develops and shapes him.” (V.G. Belinsky)
Each person in a broad sense is a “child of nature”. According to biological laws, man has isolated himself and developed from the animal world. Therefore, animal instincts are quite understandable in human essence, they are of natural origin. However, a person would be no different from an animal if these instincts, bestowed by nature, constituted his deep fundamental principle and determined his entire existence. Society has a decisive influence on the formation of a person. By society, in this case, we understand a society isolated from nature.
(set of natural conditions of human existence) part of the world. Established moral norms and rules of conduct, cultural achievements, political
- legal features, social
- economic relations
- all these are various components of society as a whole.
Only in society does a person acquire personal characteristics (that is, such socially significant features that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society). Thus, in my opinion, V.G. Belinsky was deeply right when he noted that biologically man is created by nature; but essential characteristics human personality acquires and develops in society, in interaction with other individuals, entering into various relationships with them. On the other hand, it seems
that in this statement V.G. Belinsky, these two concepts
-
"society" and "nature"
- act as diametrical opposites. It doesn't seem right to me.
Man, society and nature are very closely interconnected and influence each other. It is known that, on the one hand, natural environment, geographical and climatic features have a significant impact on community development, accelerating or slowing down its pace and, ultimately, determine the mentality of the people (as a set of social values, attitudes, readiness to act or think in a certain way). On the other hand, society influences natural environment human habitat. IN Lately most often note the negative impact of human society on the ecological situation.
Thus, completing our short analysis, we note that nature and society are two main components, closely interconnected, interacting, which determine the features of the folding and formation of a person as a person. Moreover, the second component (society) is currently exerting a direct and most powerful influence; and the influence of nature in modern world largely indirect.
"You will never be able to create wise men if you kill naughty children."
(AND.
-
J. Rousseau)
I think that the author wanted to indicate the importance of play activity in a person's life, to note that play occupies an important place in a person's life. In the process of gaming activity, a person can acquire new knowledge. And I completely agree with this.
Wise men are not born, they become wise men in the course of vigorous activity. It is known that the activity
is a specifically human form of interaction with the outside world. Any of us
- and the sage, and the naughty -
in the process of activity, he cognizes the world, creates the conditions necessary for his own existence, spiritual products, and also forms himself (his will, character, abilities). Thus, the naughty through his characteristic vigorous activity cognizes the world and draws appropriate conclusions for himself. Shalit means playing.

ESSAY

“Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other” (Seneca).

The statement I have chosen touches upon the problem of social solidarity, that is, the interconnection of its constituent elements.

This problem has always been and will remain significant, since it determines the activity of society as a single mechanism in which everything is interconnected and interdependent. Therefore, the relevance of this problem cannot be correlated only with some particular stage of time, technical development or the state.

Renowned Roman philosopher, poet and statesman Seneca said: "Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other." Thus, metaphorically comparing society with a set of stones, Seneca points to the systemic nature of society, to the close connection of all its constituent elements. He also believes that society is a shaky structure that easily breaks apart without unity. I think that such a vivid parallel emphasizes in the best possible way that society is a system, and that in the absence of one element, the other would be lost, and the third would fail after them.

First of all, consider the concept of society as a system. Society as a system is a kind of integrity that includes certain elements that are closely interconnected. The structure of society includes subsystems: economic, social, political and spiritual spheres of life. All of them are interconnected and do not have clear boundaries between each other. I want to confirm the theory concrete examples. For example, in a difficult period for Russia at the beginningXVIIcentury, economic ruin, tax increases, and famine took place in the country. There was a dynastic crisis in the political sphere. All this led to confusion. Another example is the period of the American Civil War (1861-1865). This time was characterized by the fragmentation of the country, 11 slave states even formed their own "Confederation". Finally, after four years of war, the southern states surrendered and slavery was universally abolished. And of course, the main example of the fact that society should be united is the ongoing Civil War in Ukraine, and all the horrors that are happening there now. The split of society, Nazism, the murder of civilians in the South - East of Ukraine, the murder of children, the elderly.

My personal social experience is not great. However, on the example of the school, one can trace the close connection of all its elements. The success and prestige of the school depends not only on the efforts of students, but also on teachers, school administration and parents. Only a well-coordinated mechanism will bring the desired results.

So, having given theoretical arguments and examples, we are convinced that society is a single system that consists of interconnected elements, and which can collapse due to the lack of unity and harmony among its components.

Support is when you share human feelings, make it clear that he is not alone in his trouble. Everyone needs it from time to time: people are social creatures, they are focused on living in a group and getting close to their own kind. No one can cope with all the difficulties alone, but in the traditions of our culture even things that have nothing to do with it are called support, such as calls to "get together" and "hold on", lectures, lectures, lamentations, and even intimidation. We figure out how to support others, and how not.

How not to

If a person tells you that they are fine without support and do not need it at all, it is likely that by support they mean precisely these toxic and harmful reactions. Someone who has mostly encountered them when in need of help and acceptance really prefers to keep feelings to themselves and deal with them on their own. What is the difference between toxic reactions and real support? How to support each other competently and correctly? Let's start with the fact that it is not support, but only disguises itself as it.

"Pull yourself together!"

The phrases “Hold on”, “Be strong”, “Be of good cheer” and other calls for stamina are not too good way support. The person who seeks support has exactly the opposite goal. He wants to share the emotional burden with someone and just not “hold on”, but at least relax a little and feel better. The words “hold on” or “be of good courage” translate to him: “Support denied. Decide everything yourself, be strong. Get it together."

“And my neighbor’s cat was bitten by stray dogs”

Even in an extreme situation, lamentations do not help a person in any way. Did someone close to her friend end up in intensive care, stole her wallet, lost her dog? Don't tell her, "What a nightmare!" She already knows that this is really a nightmare. And do not tell her about similar cases that have occurred with your friends. This will not help her in any way, but will only increase the panic. In general, if you want to sympathize, you should not load a person with your emotions. Now he himself needs consolation, and he definitely does not have the resource to calm the interlocutor. Your tears and lamentations in the spirit of “What a horror, what to do now?” will only convince a frightened person that everything is really very bad.

"You're right, he's a fool"

Be careful if you want to join in the anger or displeasure of the interlocutor: inciting negative emotions rather maladaptive than helping to cope with the situation. And a person who complains about loved ones usually experiences conflicting feelings: those whom he loves did badly to him. Saying: "Yes, your husband is a real selfish!" or “It looks like your sister is not capable of logical thinking at all” - you seem to confirm his worst fears.

Nobody really wants to think that their loved ones are monsters. Even if the situation really requires a sharp negative assessment (in the case of physical or emotional abuse, for example), it is better to present this information in a more balanced way: “You know, it seems to me that such words are pure water manipulation”, “Such an act seems dishonest to you”, “I think what is happening is dangerous for you”.

“I know a wonderful homeopath, he will help!”

Unsolicited advice is also a bad idea. “How often does the child get sick? Listen, I have contacts of an excellent pediatrician, now I'll tell you. You need to harden it, I will send you a link to an article on how to do it.

Practical help is very important, but only if you are asked for it. Imposing it without asking is undesirable. Firstly, it is not a fact that a person who has fallen into a difficult situation is ready for active action right now - perhaps for this he first needs to recover and gather his thoughts. Secondly, it is not known whether he needs the form of assistance that you want to offer. Only the person himself can decide what actions will be right for him: harden the child, consult a trusted doctor, or simply wait out the period of endless childhood colds. By imposing concrete actions on the interlocutor, we put into it the idea of ​​his helplessness: "You yourself are not able to cope with anything, now I will tell you how to act."

"That doesn't happen to me"

Talking down, demonstrating that you are absolutely fine in this area, is a dishonest way of behavior, which is not supportive in any way. For example, in a situation where you say to a person who has been diagnosed with depression: “Wow, how unlucky you are. But I practice a positive way of thinking and try to enjoy every day, and I don’t get depressed, ”there is nothing but the desire to feel better at the expense of an interlocutor who is in a difficult situation.

"You are the one to blame!"

Accusations, “magic kicks” and other means of “folk” psychology are completely unacceptable - this is victimblaming and the exact opposite of support. An example of such a toxic reaction, unfortunately, is often given by parents of children and adolescents: “Did you fail the fourth control? And I told you, you need to sit at the computer less. But you're not listening, you're the smartest of us! I don't know how you're going to correct your grade now."

It is believed that such a reaction helps to get together and act, as well as to realize one's past mistakes and not repeat them again. In fact, the effect will be just the opposite: in a situation of stress, no one is able to analyze mistakes and draw conclusions for the future, and accusations and a harsh manner of speaking only increase the trauma. For a short time, a person can really pull himself together and act, not because the “magic kick” works, but because it is a stress reaction when all feelings are frozen.

But in the long run, this method is very toxic. It carries the message: “Did you have a problem? So you're bad yourself (bad yourself). Don't expect me to help you." In addition to additional stress for the person who has something wrong, “magic kicks” destroy relationships. It is difficult to trust someone who finishes off a lying person.

How to

Support at its core is a message to another person: "I hear you, I understand, I accept your feelings and your difficult situation, and I am ready to be in it with you." You can be with someone in a difficult situation in different ways - it depends on the degree of closeness with the person, and on the situation itself, and also on the strengths, resources and desire to help you have. How to support in this case?

Soberly assess your strengths

A small but sincere support is better than its simulation. Often, complaints are reacted in toxic ways precisely because the interlocutor from whom support is expected does not have the strength or resources for it, but he is afraid to admit it. There is no need to be ashamed: it is perfectly normal not to want or not be able to support someone. Offer only what you can really provide without violence against yourself. Perhaps you are now able to listen to the interlocutor for only five minutes, and no more. Or you can talk for half an hour, but are not ready to provide practical assistance.

If you don't even have the strength to be around a person when they are having difficult feelings, the most honest thing to say about it is: “I'm sorry, please, but I'm very tired right now, on my nerves, completely exhausted. I could talk to you tomorrow if it's convenient for you." It is not a fact that the interlocutor will not be offended by you - but it is better than committing violence against yourself, and then pouring aggression on another.

Listen and share
feelings of another

Verbal support may seem like the easiest way, but actually being around a person who is experiencing strong negative feelings is not easy. We want to emotionally isolate ourselves, “jump out” of an unpleasant topic, and therefore we often return to one of the toxic reactions.

To support a person in a conversation, you just need to be there, share the emotions of the interlocutor and not push him away. Let him talk. Use active listening: nod, agree, ask short clarifying questions. A person who is stressed, distressed or irritated is greatly supported by a simple verbal expression of sympathy. In Russian, the form "I'm sorry" still sounds a little clumsy, but it fits - just like "I sympathize" or "What a pity that this happened to you." You can reflect the feelings of the interlocutor: “This seems to be really unpleasant”, “Sounds very sad”, “I understand why you are so angry with them.” Refrain from giving an assessment of the situation, actions and deeds.

Ask if you need help

Another great way to support is to ask the person directly what they need in this situation: “Can I do something for you? Tell me if there's anything I can do to help you." Perhaps the conversation was enough. Or it turns out that practical help, advice, contacts are needed - this will be completely appropriate if the person asked for it directly.

No nation can achieve prosperity until it realizes that plowing a field is as worthy an occupation as writing a poem. (V. Booker)
I fully share the opinion of the author, since in our century information technologies much attention is paid to mental work, and physical labor and all professions associated with it are relegated to the background, are considered not prestigious.
This statement mainly refers to professional prestige, which occupies an important place in social stratification, and which depends on the interests of society. So, in an industrial society, the prestige of a profession did not depend on the level of income, but rather on the benefits it brought, because the interest of the industrial society was directed towards development (such professions as engineer, teacher, doctor were prestigious). In the information society, the interest of the society is aimed at the accumulation of goods, therefore, such professions as a banker, entrepreneur, and manager are now prestigious.
Thus, we can say that prosperity can be achieved by changing the interest of society not in one direction: production, development, accumulation, but in all these directions at once. Who knows, maybe it will come soon new Age and a new prosperous society?

The phrase of Seneca for me is the key to answering the question, what is society. There are many definitions of the concept of society. Let's consider one of them. Society is a dynamic system, isolated from nature, but closely related to it, which includes the ways of interaction between people and the forms of their unification. From this definition it follows that society, like any system, consists of elements, the so-called "stones", which are in constant interaction and development. In the structure of society, four subsystems can be distinguished, represented by the spheres of public life: economic, social, political and spiritual. Each sphere is a complex formation and consists of many elements. The diverse connections that arise between social groups are called social relations. Another important element of society are social institutions. Let's turn to history. In Rus', the first laws provided for various punishments for murder. The severity of the punishment depended on belonging to a particular social stratum or group. This example illustrates the connection between legal norms and social relations. Social life is in constant change and development, which can be both progressive and regressive. This factor depends on the strength of links between subsystems. Indeed, if an economic crisis begins in the country, then immediately there will be discord in the social sphere, which will entail the collapse of the spiritual sphere. In such a state, a regressive development of social life will be observed. There will be discord in society. Thus, society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other.

It is impossible not to agree with the statement of Seneca. The question of what society is, what is the place of man in it, has been worrying human minds since time immemorial. Today, the concept of "Society" has a huge number of definitions, - this is the fact that a society is a group of people united by common interests; society is a certain stage in the development of the human community; society is all of humanity as a whole in its past, present and future, and much more. However, the main thing that Seneca says is that the basis of society is the interaction between its members (if one did not support the other), without which the society would collapse. And it is really difficult to imagine a society in which people would not interact with each other in different types and forms (participation in joint activities (building a house), communication (parent-child), response to the challenges of nature (building flood protection dams), etc. d.).

In my opinion, a society cannot and will never exist without interaction between its members, no matter how much a person strives to be autonomous and independent. Without mutual support, society has no prospects for development.

Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other. (Seneca)
“I do not agree with this point of view. First, society is a multi-valued concept. Societies are different. I have faced the same situation in my life. There are two societies in the city that share a direction in music. Some consider their subculture more successful and interesting, they think that it will reach high altitudes, and others, respectively, their own. But because of these disputes and non-support, nothing collapses, on the contrary, they both have an incentive to work. But these 2 societies, it should be noted, are one whole society, based on the everyday definition.

Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other. (Seneca)

“I absolutely agree with the statement of Seneca. Indeed, a society usually consists of a group of people who are united by some common interest, due to which they are sometimes (and maybe always) forced to support each other. We all have to deal with society, with people. Wherever we are, somewhere we will find like-minded people, as well as people who will not share our interest, goals, desires. But anyway, if people didn't have common points contact and did not support each other, then I think there was no such thing as "society" at all"

Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other. (Seneca)

“What is a society? There are many definitions of this concept, but, in my opinion, society is a kind of system within which everything is interconnected. As you know, in our world there are 4 spheres of society: economic, social, political and spiritual. All these spheres are closely intertwined and interact with each other. In my opinion, this is what Seneca was talking about in this statement. And I fully share his opinion on this matter, because if we imagine that in any society a certain crisis is planned in one of the areas, then this crisis will affect all other components of human experience.
In particular, if the crisis begins in the political sphere, then it smoothly flows into the social one. the state regulates public relations. After that, the economy of the state suffers, because without normal social relationships, no economic processes can proceed. And after all the above crisis phenomena, the final moral decline occurs, which entails the final collapse of the whole society. And, as Seneca said: "The vault of stones collapsed ..."

Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other. (Seneca)

"Society. How often do we hear this word! But still, what is it? Seneca interprets it this way: "Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other." Is it really?
In my understanding, a society is a group of people united by common ideas and interests. Then it turns out that the stones are people, and they support each other with the help of common interests. This principle is easy to grasp in a small society. For example, class. It is a small society united by the desire to be educated. Or, for example, a society of philatelists. These are people who like to collect rare and interesting stamps.
But does this principle work in a society consisting of a large number of people? For example, the state. It consists of hundreds of thousands of people. They are all different. They have different colour eye, hair color, often skin color, they profess different religion they have different interests. They have nothing in common. Then it turns out that this is not a society? I don't agree with this. In my opinion, the most important thing that they have in common is love for the state. They still have a common official language(although they can also speak other languages), common traditions and customs. Likewise, a country, a nation is also a society. And even the world is a society (we are united by the fact that we live on planet Earth).
Based on all of the above, we can conclude that Seneca is completely right, in my opinion. And this is the most precise definition society."

Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other. (Seneca)
“The meaning of Seneca's statement can be considered from different angles. For example, from the point of view of economics, the concept of society and the essence of man as a system.
Society as a system consists of elements, the main principles of which are interaction, both between the elements themselves and between a specific element and the system, otherwise it is thrown out of it. If we consider a person as an element social system, then society cannot exist without their interconnection.
Since man is a biosocial being, for whom the need for communication is natural, society is indeed an integral organism. The order in it is established by creating social institutions, products political activity(constitutions, declarations, laws), etc., which means that the interaction of people is mandatory. Otherwise, chaos is formed (an example from history is anarchy, which has excluded itself as a variant of the existence of society).
From the point of view of the economy, it is impossible to implement and develop productive forces without human relations (at least production ones). A person by nature is not universal in everything in the same way (of course, there are many examples, but this characteristic is far from characteristic of all people), therefore, for a more effective economic structure, a combination of all the skills and knowledge that people possess, as well as the ability to competently compare and organize them .
Thus, I fully agree with the statement of Seneca, his point of view can be confirmed by considering society in the context of all spheres of life (political, economic, social and spiritual), as well as the interaction between them and the concept of society itself (in the context of the system).”

Society is a set of stones that would collapse if one did not support the other. (Seneca)
“In architecture, there is the concept of a cornerstone - a stone that holds the whole building. Take it out and the building will collapse. And in society, all the stones are cornerstones. Without any part, everything will collapse.
The society is divided into 4 spheres: economic, social, political and spiritual. Exist different opinions researchers about which one is the most important. Some scientists are supporters of economic determinism (they believe that the economic sphere is the most important), some believe that the spiritual sphere is the most significant, and the other part is of the opinion that all spheres are equal, and there is no main one. I lean towards the latter group of scientists. And, indeed, let's take the spiritual sphere of society. Let's assume that this "stone" was taken out. The lack of morality, morality will lead to chaos, rampant crime, followed by another "stone" - the social sphere, and then the political one. Absence good education will lead to a shortage of qualified specialists, which in turn will lead to the collapse of a useful "stone" - the economic sphere.
Let's see what happens if we remove the economic sphere. First of all, this will lead to an unstable situation in society, the social sphere, spiritual and political, will fall. any crises in the economy will lead to non-payment of wages, default, etc.
Remove the political realm? The country will be isolated, will not be in contact with other states, other spheres of society will suffer. But there is also political life inside the country, any disagreements in the "top" will lead to unrest in the "bottom".
And if you remove the social sphere of society, then the rest simply cannot exist, there will be no link between them.
Thus, it can be seen that it is worth taking out any "stone", as others immediately collapse after it. All spheres of society are very closely interconnected, and one cannot exist without the other.

A huge scope for reflection opens up the statement of Seneca, the Roman philosopher, about social interaction and the formation of society. The meaning of Seneca's statement, in my opinion, leads to the idea that everything in society is interconnected and changes in any one part will undoubtedly lead to changes in another, and only thanks to their unity will society flourish and develop.

I support the author's point of view on this issue. The question of what society is and what is the place of man in it has been worrying human minds since time immemorial. The concept, which at first glance seems quite simple, is actually very deep, which is why it draws great attention to itself.

In order to prove my point of view, I will give a number of arguments. Let's start with what is society? Society is a dynamic system, isolated from nature, but closely related to it, which includes the ways of interaction between people and the forms of their unification, and it is also a kind of complex system of systems or a supersystem. Indeed, society is in continuous development, which can be both progressive and regressive. So what is the difficulty? Society includes the economic, political, social and spiritual spheres, which in turn have certain development mechanisms. People interact with each other through joint work, communication, creativity, are united in interest groups. This association is the "set of stones", and interaction is the main component of the integrity of society.

A striking example of all of the above is the collapse of the USSR. The perestroika proposed by Gorbachev had the most sad consequences for our superpower. His political and economic reforms only led to the degradation of the country, his policy was completely pro-Western. All his activities, as we know, ended with the Belovezhskaya collusion and the collapse of the USSR. As a result, the Russian economy has received a severe blow. This example reveals society as a system, namely, it shows the relationship between economic and political spheres.

Summing up, I would like to say that a society cannot and will never exist without interaction between its members, no matter how much a person strives to be autonomous and independent. Without mutual support, society has no prospects for development.

The great Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca in this saying touches upon the problem of the significance of the relationship and interaction of all components of society. This problem will always be relevant as long as society exists. One cannot but agree with this opinion. After all, society is a complex holistic system that has a hierarchical structure and the property of self-regulation. The main component of society is a person, whose main areas of activity are political, economic, social and spiritual - "stones" from which society is built. The existence of society is impossible without the proper operation and functioning of one of the spheres: “malfunctions” in one of the spheres of human activity serve as reasons for disrupting work in others.

An example is the Great Depression from 1929 to 1933, which most severely affected the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany and France. Due to the fact that the stone - the economic sphere collapsed, the whole society suffered as a whole: the state of social sphere(the birth rate dropped sharply, the unemployment rate increased), political (the number of supporters of right-wing extremist parties increased, for example, the National Socialist German Workers' Party came to power in Germany).

As noted earlier, the main component, that is, the “stone”, in society is a person. If people did not interact with each other, then society would not exist.