G. Sorel’s meditation on the evolution of man and the nature of social might be the first to bring the idea of social myth as a factor in the social organization and evolution of human communities into the philosophical discourse. M. Asher, O. Voronyansky, D. Zhvania, I. Klimov, A. Lewis, C. Mannheim, K. Mochalov, V. Naidish, B. Paramonov, Z. Sternhel, A. Surkov, M. Schneider at different times paid attention to this side of the social philosophy of G. Sorel in the context of his research. However, the question of the essence of social myth as the implementation of the idea in opposition to ideology as a result of scientific analysis of reality still remains relevant today as the basic foundation of the philosophical problems of social consciousness and the influence of the latter on the formation of the historical process.The objective of the article is to analyze the provisions of G. Sorel’s theory of social myth about the opposition of the influence of ideas and ideologies on the dynamics of social reality.The philosopher drew attention to the fact that myths have a significant potential for social mobilization, the ability to manage and construct a social reality. According to G. Sorel, the social features are determined more by irrational soul contests, mysterious representations of justice than the ideas of mind without feelings and analytical calculations.Pluralistic understanding of rationality, according to G. Sorel, does not allow to consider the history of human communities as rigidly deterministic. According to him, social and living laws are not similar to physical and astronomical ones, and it is impossible to predict the future accurately. G. Sorel’s position can be defined as a warning against the global planning of the future in the uncertainty of the source data that underlies this planning. At the same time, the philosopher criticizes the ideology as analytical concept of planning and forecasting – as the one based on the results of scientific research.According to G. Sorel, a significant difference between the ideal as a social myth and ideology manifests in the way, in which they provide themselves with social support. Ideology in its nature is aimed at educating or persuading one or another social group. The ideal is creativity of the spirit, it is rooted in the very nature of the masses, so there is no need to persuade individuals in its charms; they gain confidence in it, living one life with similar people.According to Sorel, myths are necessary in order to accurately lay out the conclusions of social philosophy in accordance with the ideals that people live with. G. Sorel does not see another possibility to arrange the transition from principles to action, and this is the basic function of science. According to G. Sorel, the myth is an instrument for awakening social enthusiasm. The myth is the realization of hope and will through action. It does not serve the doctrine, since all doctrines are speculations that have little to do with the interests of ordinary people. A myth is an intermediary between action and idea. Any era in the development of one or another community sooner or later provides an opportunity or even gives impetus to the emergence of marginal ideological and spiritual phenomena, in which there is condensation, firstly, of all needs of this being (everything declared, but not implemented), and secondly, the pathos of denial and transformation. New social strata capture abnormal ideas and, firstly, pragmatically master them, and secondly, form their own outlook, whose critical direction helps to separate ideological manipulative elements from those that can be valid in the future and with which these strata share their own destiny.
Social myth as a factor in constructing images of the future
