The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
57
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
57-59
10.37547/tajssei/Volume07Issue01-08
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
26 October 2024
ACCEPTED
24 December 2024
PUBLISHED
25 January 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue01 2025
CITATION
Aripov Alisher Sayfiddinovich. (2025). Theoretical analysis of the social
characteristics of corruption. The American Journal of Social Science and
Education Innovations, 7(01), 57
–
59.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume07Issue01-08
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Theoretical analysis of the
social characteristics of
corruption
Aripov Alisher Sayfiddinovich
Independent Researcher of The Department Of "Social Sciences" Of Navai
State University, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
The social characteristics of corruption and
the specific importance of its prevention, the results of
identifying corruption through a philosophical
approach, the negative impact of corruption on social
life, and philosophical methods for eliminating it are
described.
Keywords:
Social characteristics of corruption, fight
against corruption, prevention of corruption, negative
impact of corruption.
Introduction:
The nature of corruption, its causes and
consequences, and anti-corruption measures are the
subject of constant debate. The complexity and
multifaceted nature of this phenomenon largely
determine the research difficulties that arise in its study,
and also create certain difficulties in its precise
definition.
The analysis attempts to show in detail the essence of
the phenomenon of corruption as a social phenomenon
and reveal its main features. First of all, it should be
noted that, in our opinion, in order to methodologically
simplify the study of the phenomenon of corruption, it
is appropriate to distinguish two meanings of its
understanding - broad and narrow.
At the same time, it should be immediately noted here
that such a division has already been made. In the broad
sense, it is understood as the use of a social position for
personal gain, for personal gain, and in the narrow
sense, as the giving of a bribe to an official. This division
does not fully correspond to the goals and objectives of
our study and therefore differs from the given
definition.
In the narrow sense, we understand corruption itself,
that is, the taking of bribes, giving bribes or any other
conduct by a person in charge in the public or private
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
58
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
sector, which violates his obligations arising from his
official position as a public figure, private employee,
independent worker or other similar status, and is
aimed at obtaining an illegal advantage for any person.
We introduce the following meaning into the broad
aspect of corruption: this is a certain system of
informal relations that replace the formal relations in
social relations between an official and an addressee
and are based on a violation of the rules of permissible
behavior.
As can be seen from the proposed definition, we
consider corruption in a broad socio-philosophical
sense and as a relationship between individuals
included in a certain network of interactions, that is, as
a social relationship and as some structural disposition
that is mastered by an individual in his interaction with
society.
The thesis that corruption is always reciprocal seems
obvious to us. This assumption is based on the
etymology of the word "corruption" mentioned in the
previous chapter, which comes from the Latin word
soggishrege.
At the same time, a number of researchers have
expressed the opinion that the presence of a second
party - a counterparty - is not at all necessary for the
implementation of a corrupt act. In this sense,
corruption is understood as a violation of moral,
socially significant norms, a deviation of a person’s
behavior from universal human norms.
We have already decided in this section that we will
consider corruption as a relationship between
individuals. For us, corruption is, first of all, one of the
parties to the relationship, in which an official is one of
the parties, “but not all, but only those who have an
administrative function and therefore have the
opportunity to use the shortcomings of the system for
personal corruption purpo
ses.” On the other hand, he
is opposed by a subject interested in receiving certain
services (goods, etc.).
It should be noted that considering corruption as a
relationship between two subjects does not deny the
existence of the other side - society. Despite the fact
that society is not directly involved in the act of
corruption, its implementation is carried out at the
expense of a corrupted society.
By social relations we understand the system of various
relations that arise between individuals in the process
of their economic, social, political activities. However,
despite the fact that the relations under study are
essentially interpersonal relations, we distinguish
them from personal relations, that is, relations based
on direct contacts, the purpose of which is to know a
person, his essence, moral experiences. Here we follow
Engels, who, speaking of the relationship between
workers and capitalists, noted that "the relationship of
the producer to the worker is not human, but exclusively
economic."
Thus, participants, most often, in corrupt interactions,
see each other not as a means of obtaining material
wealth or profit, but as individuals (a slightly different
interaction occurs in corrupt practices such as blat).
In other words, during a corruption intervention, society
can be conditionally divided into two large unstable
social groups: the corrupt, that is, those who have the
ability to manage resources, while seeking personal
gain, and the corrupt, that is, those who are trying to
obtain this or that resource, taking advantage of the
corrupter's desire to get rich.
A distinctive feature of the described phenomenon is
the
variability,
instability,
dynamics,
constant
changeability of the indicated social groups. The same
person can act in different ways. At a certain moment,
an employee acts in accordance with the role of a
corrupter, and at the next moment - as a corrupter.
We believe that the social relations of individuals with
each other are determined primarily by interests, which
depend on the place of each individual participant in the
social hierarchy and determine the incentives and
direction of activity. The interests of individuals may or
may not coincide, and therefore, in our opinion, these
two groups exist dialectically. If this interaction is
beneficial or necessary for both groups, social relations
are expressed in cooperation.
If there is no urgent need or the requirements of
representatives of one social group in relation to
representatives of the other are too high, then
representatives of these groups enter into antagonistic
relations, a conflict of interests arises. In our opinion,
such conflicts are permissible only if these requirements
are met by one of the participants in the corrupt
interaction. Otherwise, that is, if it is impossible to
resolve the conflict in this way, this will lead to the
exposure of one of the participants in the corrupt
interaction.
In addition, some authors understand corruption as a
situation in which the person (or employee) involved
has reasons to object to the implementation of a
corrupt act and therefore brings corruption to light. For
example, analyzing the causes of corruption in France,
V. Ruggiero formulated his own approach to this
problem. In his opinion, only the corrupt actions of some
of the above participants, which cause discontent, force
them to "implement" it and declare it corruption.
It should be noted here that if there is no interest on the
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
59
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
part of one of the participants, then corruption
relations do not arise. So, for example, an official who
refuses to take a bribe does not enter into the
relationship of corrupt - corrupt participants. On the
contrary, the applicant, unwilling to give a bribe, does
not become a corrupt employee. Therefore, in the
described cases, such social relations as corruption do
not arise.
Of course, the above-described scheme of the
emergence of corruption as a social relationship is
essentially an ideal model, since often the corrupt
person has no choice but to give a bribe to solve certain
problems. At the same time, we emphasize that such a
solution to local problems ultimately leads to the
collapse of the social system as a whole and should not
be considered by individuals as the only possible
mechanism for implementing their ideas and solving
problems with magical power.
Here we can highlight another feature characterizing
corruption: its hierarchy. Of course, corrupt officials
cannot act without the implicit consent (and
sometimes with full approval) of top management.
Examples of investigations in the field of combating
corruption indicate that the majority of employees of
some military commissariats, specific battalions of the
road and post service, hospitals, educational
institutions, etc. are involved in corrupt practices.
The interaction scheme between the management
level (A) and its subordinates (P) often looks like this:
P, having received a certain profit from a corrupt
employee, divides it with A, and A, in turn, transfers
part of the funds to the top management (B). At the
same time, A and B try to protect both themselves and
their subordinates. In other words, this scheme
actually acts as a rent for the opportunity to carry out
corrupt practices.
At the same time, it should be noted that the above-
mentioned interaction scheme can take on other
features in cases where some significant profit is
obtained and its "fruits" are used. At the same time, in
such interactions, the hierarchical structure of the
corruption network is not violated: and thus the level
of loyalty to its activities by P is maintained.
In addition, we can talk about the extreme density of
ties that characterize this type of social relations,
where the transition from one social group to another
can be carried out with almost one hundred percent
success rate. The simplicity of this transition is largely
determined by the nature of corruption. As noted
above, corruption is a system of informal relations. In
other words, corruption is systemic. Therefore, we
need to define the concept of a system - "a system is a
finite set of interacting elements" . The elements of
this system are individuals. Moving within this system
(horizontally and vertically), they create new ties within
it.
REFERENCES
Кузьминов Я. Говорим
-
власть, подразумеваем
-
коррупция // Московские новости. 1999. № 45.23
-29
ноября.
Miller S.,Roberts P., Spence E. Corruption and Anti-
corrruption: An applied philosophical approach (Basic
Ethics in Action), 2004.
Руджиеро В. Франция как проявление недовольства
// Коррупция и бюрократизм: истоки и пути
преодоления. М. 1998. С. 58.
Аверьянов А.Н. «Системное познание мира». М.,
1985. С. 43
