Page 1
New semantic foundations are created by individual creativity; they are born in the depths of human subjectivity. However, in order for a new culture to be born from here, it is necessary that these meanings be enshrined in symbolic forms and be recognized by other people as a model, and become semantic dominants. This process is social in nature and, as a rule, is painful and dramatic. The meaning born of genius is tested in the experiences of others, sometimes edited to make it easier to accept as an article of faith, a scientific principle, or a new artistic style. And since the recognition of new semantic foundations occurs in sharp clashes with adherents of the old tradition, the happy fate of the new meaning does not at all mean a happy fate for its creator.
In the course of historical development, the process of individualization of the individual and his awareness of his social significance deepens, which leads to an increasing role of human subjectivity in solving problems of social management.
He saw the task of phenomenological philosophy as embracing integral reality, all types of life activity, and restoring the dignity of creative human subjectivity, trampled upon by rationalistic science.
When we turn to the images of eros in culture, we see that its universality is ultimately determined by human nature, the diversity of spiritual impulses, and the depth of human subjectivity. As a universal and intense passion, eros permeates human existence throughout life. He, in fact, defines the fundamental principles of existence. And at the same time, it manifests itself as a deeply individual, highly personal, unique feeling. This passion is comprehensive and unique, it belongs to the human race and to me personally, to you, to him.
The specificity of society as a social system that arose as a result of the evolution of living nature on the basis of dialectically interconnected processes of anthroposociogenesis and collective labor activity of people, thanks to which the social conditions of their existence were created and at the same time their human subjectivity was formed, as well as the specificity of social organizations as structural elements of society, in the conditions which management activities are directly carried out.
From the standpoint of social anthropology, the foundation of the creative potential of a modern engineer, in which professionalism, the ability to create, organizational abilities and moral qualities should be integrated, is his subjectivity, which should be, first of all, the object of close attention of higher school teachers who form educational -educational process at a technical university. Human subjectivity is the spirituality of a person, his understanding of freedom and the possibilities of its use, the motivation of his behavior and the moral choice that he makes, choosing his way of life, the nature of his activities and, accordingly, his destiny. Consequently, the system of higher technical education must contain a powerful axiological (value) potential that shapes the moral and moral motives of the professional activity of the future engineer. In the formation of value orientations of a modern specialist, the decisive role belongs to philosophy, which is one of the basic social and humanitarian subjects of the curriculum of the national higher technical school.
Human subjectivity expresses the essential aspects of human individuality, but it itself is formed thanks to the development in the process of self-realization of a person as a social subject of his natural essential forces. It is human subjectivity that is the determining factor that initiates human creative activity in the system of management relations, as a result of which it should be considered as the starting position when modeling the mechanisms of social management. Accordingly, when forming these mechanisms, the problem of the priority of the organization or the individual arises. Western (American) management solves this problem in the interests of the organization, adapting the person to the organization. Japanese management gives priority to the employee's personality, while simultaneously focusing his activities on the interests of the organization.
At the same time, like any human science, cultural studies cannot limit itself to explanation. After all, culture is always addressed to human subjectivity and does not exist outside of a living connection with it. In cultural studies, primary understanding precedes explanation, guiding it and at the same time being deepened and corrected by this explanation.
Reflexivity is a fundamental property of the social process because it constitutes circumstances and is developed by them. Because of this, the social world appears as a statement of human subjectivity as it is perceived by a person living and acting in this world. Sociology turns its attention to an object that is already defined in some way in everyday life and ordinary language.
The analysis of the properties of everyday thinking and activity was perhaps the most significant achievement of Schutz’s phenomenologically oriented sociology. He showed and proved that human subjectivity is most fully and consistently realized in the world of everyday life.
Society as a socio-technological reality is acquiring life forms of a qualitatively new level, thanks to scientific ideas and the opportunities that are constantly expanding as a result of the development of technology that the subjects of activity have. The philosophy of this society will be the philosophy of postmodernism, in which priority belongs to human subjectivity, which determines the motivation and choice of a person in the activities he carries out. The possibilities of choice are revealed to a person thanks to his mastery of the riches of spiritual and technological culture, which themselves are in a state of constant development. The effect of these new laws of social development, already conceptualized in Western philosophy, must necessarily manifest itself in the educational system of Russian society at all levels of its organization. Having been conceptualized in relation to a higher technical school, they can receive practical implementation based on the principles of developmental education and the innovative orientation of the educational process.
Weber also rejects Nietzsche's psychologically oriented version of religious feeling. At the same time, the German sociologist turns to the intense motivation of human behavior, arising from all human subjectivity. In his opinion, the growing rationality in understanding the world has deepened the need to comprehend the ethical meaning of sharing goods and happiness between people.
We realize today that any social institution, be it a law, tradition or social institution, must be verified by the interests of the individual. An ideal human community can be created, apparently, with utmost consideration for the individuality of each individual, his mind, will and feelings, and all human subjectivity.
The person of the organization, being its system-organizing element, also acts as a system that has the fundamental characteristics of its organization. His social quality as a person is determined, firstly, by the structure of the social space of the organization of which he is an element and the social roles he performs, and secondly, by his human subjectivity. However, it is human subjectivity that is the basis of their difference.
UDC 159.922
E. V. Grebennikova
SUBJECTIVITY OF PERSONALITY: THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
The experience of theoretical and experimental research on the problem of personality subjectivity is summarized. A historical overview of the study of this problem, existing contradictions in terminology, as well as the key components of subjectogenesis are presented.
Key words: subjectivity of the individual, reflected subjectivity, subjectivity of the group, subjectogenesis.
Currently, one of the pressing problems in Russian psychology is the problem of individual subjectivity. Currently available information regarding the development of the problem under consideration indicates that it is problematic in nature and requires fundamental research.
In psychology, there are two alternative approaches to understanding personality: role and subjective. According to the role concepts (area of socio-psychological research) of personality, the social prevails over the individual. Based on the concepts of personality subjectivity (the area of individual psychological research), the individual component is dominant. Thus, a person acts, on the one hand, as a bearer of a role, and on the other hand, as a subject.
There are many known concepts that trace the idea of the unity of subject and role in personality. Thus, V. A. Petrovsky considers personality as a dynamic form of subject-role unity: the formation of subjectivity is a role, and the removal of a role is subjectivity.
To decipher the concept of “subjectivity,” V. A. Petrovsky uses the term “self-causality” - the fundamental property and ability of the subject to be the cause of himself, to be able to show both spontaneity and responsibility. In his opinion, subjectivity is represented by such human traits that are inherent to him internally - not alienable and not reducible to givenness.
Dealing with issues of individual subjectivity,
V. A. Petrovsky introduces the concept of reflected subjectivity. According to V. A. Petrovsky’s definition, reflected subjectivity is the ideal representation of one person in another.
There are three main, genetically successive forms of manifestation of reflected subjectivity. In the first case, reflected subjectivity acts as the imprint of the subject in the effects of interindividual influences. In the second case, the reflected individual acts as an ideal significant other. In the third - as a transformed subject.
The emergence of reflected subjectivity is possible only on the basis of real activity, provided that people carry out actions that act as a real source of transformation of the life world of another person. An individual in the aspect of reflected subjectivity can act not only as a subject of positive semantic transformations of the individual - the bearer of the individual. The effect of the inclusion of the first in the life manifestations of the second can be negative, objectively contributing not to the development, but to the regression of the life relations of the latter.
Using the method of reflected subjectivity, a number of interesting phenomena have been established: an increase in the originality of thinking in the presence of a creative person, a change in the level of disinterested risk when updating the image of a risk-taking person, an increase in the flexibility of students in the presence of a flexible teacher.
E. N. Volkova considers subjectivity as a personality property that reveals the essence of the human way of being, which consists in a conscious and active attitude towards the world and oneself in it, the ability to produce interdependent changes in the world and man.
According to V.I. Slobodchikov, with age there is an increase in subjectivity and an overcoming of objectivity. At the same time, human subjectivity in its development goes through five stages: revival, animation, personalization, individualization, universalization, each of which has its own time limits.
K. A. Osnitsky believes that subjectivity is expressed in the expression of will in the process of life on the basis of accumulated experience, personally significant goals, values and the formation of the image of the world. The formation of subjectivity is facilitated by a person’s regulatory experience, the integral structure of which is made up of five main components of the subject’s experience: the experience of reflection, the value-motivational experience, the experience of habitual activation, operational experience, and the experience of cooperation.
E. Yu. Korzhova believes that a person, acting as a subject of life activity, interacts with life situations (as it
ects) and realizes the potential of subjectivity on the basis of subject-object orientations in the subjective form of the internal picture of life activity (interiorized subjectivity) and the objective form of choosing behavior strategies (exteriorized subjectivity).
The internal picture of life activity (interiorized subjectivity) is a dynamic psychological characteristic determined by the possibility of looking at one’s life from the inside, a kind of internal slice of life activity. The eventful content of the internal picture of life activity differs in the content and weight of events in accordance with the spheres of life activity.
The choice of behavior strategies (exteriorized subjectivity) characterizes the external expression of a person’s interaction with a life situation, its mastery.
In recent years, works have appeared devoted to the study of group subjectivity. K. M. Gaidar means by the subjectivity of a group such a dynamic property as the ability for joint action and self-transformation in accordance with certain goals and interests. In addition to activity, K. M. Gaidar also identifies such spheres of manifestation of group subjectivity as communication and relationships. At the same time, K. M. Gaidar believes that the activity form of group subjectivity is not predominant for the student group.
K. M. Gaidar shows that the formation of a student group as a collective subject is gradual in nature and is mediated by the social situation of its development. It is curious that the natural direction of development of a student group is considered to be the movement from automation or cooperation to association, that is, from higher forms of organization to lower ones. The reason for considering this path the most natural, K. M. Gaidar sees, is that in this case, by the time of graduation, students acquire sufficient independence to successfully enter new membership groups.
Considering the subjectivity of the individual, one cannot fail to mention subjectogenesis. Subjectogenesis is usually understood as the generation of a person’s ability to self-determinate his own activity. In the process of subject genesis, we comprehend the laws of the universe and make them the basis for organizing cause-and-effect relationships between world processes, of which our own life is a part, in the way we need.
The main stages of subjectogenesis are:
A person’s acceptance of responsibility for the outcome of his actions that is not predetermined in advance (manifesting himself as the subject of an upcoming action);
Experiencing the possibility of realizing various options for the future, one’s involvement in constructing the image of the desired result and one’s ability to realize the desired (manifesting oneself as a subject of goal setting);
Realization of emerging opportunities in actions performed of one’s own free will (manifestation of oneself as a subject composing the action performed here and now);
Making a responsible decision to complete the action (manifesting oneself as the root cause, the subject of the end of the action);
Assessing the result as a personally significant new formation determined by one’s own activity (manifesting oneself as a subject of the action that took place).
In the absence of any of the stages of subjectogenesis, a person will consider himself an object of manipulation, carried out without taking into account his desires or even contrary to them. This can lead to a refusal to use the acquired experience under the pretext of its low value or lack of confidence in one’s abilities.
The first stage defect allows a person to quite sincerely, calmly, or even indignantly state: “I was just following orders!”, “That was the time,” “I acted according to the will of circumstances,” “I was out of my mind (sick, upset, drunk).” .
If the second stage is missed, a person may say, not without some satisfaction: “Well, what did I say?” or, it would seem inappropriate to complain, despite the luck: “But I thought that...”
Examples of skipping the third stage are the famous phrase from Ilf and Petrov “Ostap was carried away”, justifications like “Since I started soon, I had to finish it”, which are related by the orientation of explanations of one’s actions not according to the principle “for what, for what purpose”, but based on the “why did I do this” principle.
A number of consequences of skipping the fourth stage in psychology can be described using the effect of unfinished action. In addition to the peculiarities of the memorization processes, a signal about skipping this stage can be paradoxically joyful exclamations in a situation of one’s own failure such as: “I told you that I should have done more (already) ...” and no less surprising manifestations of disappointment in case of success: “And I I wanted more (already)..."
In the absence of the final stage of subjectogenesis, one can hear excuses like “it just happened”, “the devil led me astray”, surprise and irritation: “What is there to be happy about?”, indifferent:
“So what?”, perplexed: “Lucky (unlucky)”, etc.
It is believed that normally for a person at each individual moment there is a priority of the relevance of subjectogenesis in some areas of interaction with the world over others. At the same time, as diagnostic signs of the sphere of actual subjectogenesis, along with well-known diagnostic tools, various kinds of manifestations of non-adaptive activity can be successfully used.
Thus, subjectivity is an important quality that ensures development and self-development.
development of personality, a quality that determines the ability to change the world around us and oneself, guided by one’s own system of values, the ability to choose the way to represent this activity in the world and bear responsibility for the consequences of this choice. We can assume that a person characterized by a high level of subjectivity is active, independent, successful in objective and practical activities (educational, work), at the same time, such a person is the creator of his own life, he is able to adequately evaluate methods of activity, control its progress and results, change her techniques.
Bibliography
1. Grebennikova E. V., Firsova O. V. Awareness and attitude towards the disease of adolescents with cerebral palsy who have different levels of subjectivity // Vestn. Tomsk State ped. University (Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin). 2011. Issue. 6 (108). pp. 130-133.
2. Shelekhov I. L., Grebennikova E. V., Firsova O. V. The influence of the media on the formation of the image of an ideal partner among female students with different levels of subjectivity // Vector of Science of Tolyatti State University. 2011. No. 3 (6). Ser.: “Pedagogy, psychology.” pp. 324-327.
3. Stepansky V.I. Properties of subjectivity as a prerequisite for the personal form of communication // Questions of psychology. 1991. No. 5. P. 25-27.
4. Tatenko V. A. Subject of mental activity: search for a new paradigm // Psychological Journal. 1995. T. 16. No. 3. P. 23-34.
5. Uvarov E. A. Subjective activity as a leading factor of self-development // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005. No. 1. P. 2-20.
6. Petrovsky V. A. Personality in psychology: the paradigm of subjectivity. Rostov-n/D, 1996.
7. Volkova E. N. Subjectivity of the teacher: theory and practice: abstract. dis. ... Dr. Psy. Sci. M., 1998.
8. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human psychology. Introduction to the psychology of subjectivity. M., 1995.
9. Osnitsky A.K. Problems of research of subjective activity // Questions of psychology. 1996. No. 1. P. 5-19.
10. Korzhova E. Yu., Dvoretskaya M. Ya. Psychological diagnostics of personal health: subjective and spiritual aspects // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005. No. 6. P. 11-27.
11. Gaidar K. M. Dynamics of subject development of a student group during the period of study: abstract. dis. ...cand. psychol. Sci. M., 1994.
12. Petrovsky V. A., Ognev A. S. Basic provisions of subject genesis // Yearbook of the Russian Society of Psychologists. M., 1996. T. 2, issue. 1.
13. Ognev A. S. Psychology of personality subjectogenesis. M., 2009.
Grebennikova E. V., candidate of biological sciences, associate professor of the department.
Tomsk State Pedagogical University.
St. Kyiv, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061.
The material was received by the editor on 03/05/2013.
Y. V. Grebennikova
SUBJECTNESS OF PERSONALITY: THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
The article deals with generalizing the results of theoretical and experimental research on the problem of personality subjectness and contains a historical insight into the study of the problem as well as existing contradictions in terminology and key components of subjective genesis.
Key words: subjectness of personality, reflected subjectness, subjectness of group, subjective genesis.
Tomsk State Pedagogical University.
Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061.
Email: [email protected]
In modern Russian philosophy, terms such as “subjectivity” and “subjectivity” are used. What do they mean?
What is human subjectivity?
First of all, it is worth saying that, in fact, in philosophy there is no unambiguous approach to understanding the essence of subjectivity. There are a large number of points of view regarding this term.
According to one of them, subjectivity should be understood as a property of a person’s personality, which turns him into a subject independent of other people or gives the potential for such a transformation. In this case, the property in question must be constant, equally expressed and regularly observed. Ideally, it also maintains its independence from the influence of external factors.
On practice human subjectivity may be expressed, for example, in readiness to elect candidates in elections. In this case, he becomes the subject of the electoral process. Or, for example, in the readiness to enter into contracts with other people and thus become the subject of business legal relations. In this context, subjectivity should not necessarily be identified with the right - electoral or civil, which is not a philosophical, but a legal category. But it can be one of the conditions for the formation of appropriate readiness in a person - to choose, to sign contracts.
What is human subjectivity?
Under human subjectivity, in turn, is understood as a quality of personality that not only turns him into a subject independent of other people, but also characterizes him as an active user of this very independence.
A person, thus, becomes “subjective” when he begins to position himself in society, focusing exclusively on internal beliefs and attitudes and at the same time using his personal subjectivity - as a resource, a basis for appropriate positioning.
In practice, a person’s subjectivity can be expressed (if we speak in terms of the categories of examples indicated above) in the implementation of a personal assessment of the activities of candidates, formed on the basis of their own beliefs, before voting in elections. In business legal relations, subjectivity can be expressed in a proposal to partners to include in the contract those points that a person considers necessary to observe in the corresponding contract.
Let us note that there is another interpretation of the term “subjectivity” - as a synonym for self-confidence, bias, and an unfair assessment by a person of a particular situation. This understanding, in fact, may not contradict what we discussed above, since a person’s practical use of his subjectivity is often accompanied by a self-confident and biased analysis of situations and actions.
However, subjectivity in the first meaning (as a mechanism for the practical implementation of subjectivity) is not always “subjective” - that is, characterized by self-confidence. It is quite possible that a person will elect a candidate or determine the terms of an agreement with a partner, based on an objective analysis of the situation, using the advice of other people. In this case, his subjectivity - in the sense of the mechanism for realizing subjectivity - will be just that, objective.
Comparison
The main difference between human subjectivity and subjectivity is that the first term denotes, first of all, the personal potential of a person to carry out any actions, and the second - the mechanisms for the practical implementation of this potential.
Subjectivity, therefore, can exist without subjectivity - if, for example, a person goes to the polls and puts a “tick” on the ballot at random or signs an agreement with a partner without reading it. In turn, subjectivity can be realized by a person only if he has a personal base in the form of subjectivity.
Having determined what the difference is between human subjectivity and subjectivity, let’s add the key criteria to a small table.
8.1. The concept of the subject and his psychological organization
The subject as a source of activity, a manager of mental forces. The integrity of the psychological organization of the subject. Three sides of a person’s mental life: desires, feelings, reason.
What is the psychological meaning of the concept “subject”? What does it mean to be a steward of spiritual forces? What is the psychological structure of subjectivity?
The subject as a source of activity, a manager of mental forces
Consideration of man as a subject leads us to the study of fundamental problems of human psychology. In defining the subject of anthropological psychology, we pointed to subjectivity as its main subject. By its very semantics, “subjectivity” is a two-syllable word that can be represented as subjectivity . And if the second part of the word is in the general sense “activity, action”, then the first is what lies “under”, or “in front”, or “before” - some source, the root cause of activity. In other words, already at the level of subjectivity, a primary split is revealed, and, consequently, a distinction between the activity itself (for example, living movement) and its source (corporality). This splitting clearly reveals itself precisely at the level of human subjective existence, where subjectivity and its source are not only distinguished, but also opposed as different realities and where the source of activity becomes its original Master, manager, and activity itself ceases to be a formal determinant of the subject and is filled with subject content.
Subject in philosophical and psychological literature is defined as carrier of objective-practical activity and knowledge, source of activity directed at an object . “A person,” writes A.V. Brushlinsky, “objectively appears (and therefore is studied) in infinitely diverse systemic contradictory qualities. The most important of them is to be a subject, i.e. creator of his history: to initiate and carry out initially practical activities, communication, cognition, contemplation and other types of specific human activity, creative and moral.”
Understanding the subject in psychology is associated with endowing the human individual with the qualities of being active, independent, capable, and skillful in carrying out specifically human forms of life activity, primarily objective-practical activity. The most commonly used expression in psychology is "subject of activity". In this context, B.G. Ananyev used the category “subject”. He noted that “a person is a subject, first of all, of basic social activities - labor, communication, cognition.” Become a subject of a certain activity (educational, labor, etc.) means to master this activity, master it, be capable of its implementation and creative transformation.
At the same time, the concept of a subject in psychology is considered in a broader context - as the creator of one’s own life, as the manager of mental and physical abilities. A person as a subject is able to transform his own life activity into a subject of practical transformation, relate to himself, evaluate methods of activity, control its progress and results, and change its methods.
A person’s achievement of the level of subjectivity presupposes his mastery of a set of generic psychological abilities: thinking, consciousness, desires, will, feelings, etc.
The concept of subjectivity potentially includes all the totality of manifestations of human psychology represents a special kind of integrity. “Man as a subject,” writes A.V. Brushlinsky, “is the highest systemic integrity of all his most complex and contradictory qualities, primarily mental processes, states and properties, his consciousness and the unconscious.”
The subject as an integrity is formed in the course of historical and individual development. At birth, a person has two paths in the world: or fully coincide with the conditions of their life, or to be in relation to these conditions, to one’s nature . The first way is to eat an animal-like way of life. For this way of life, phylogenetically given natural abilities (sense organs, movement, nutrition, etc.) are quite sufficient. For the second method (actually human), only these natural, individual abilities are not enough.
In order for a person to stand in relation to his life activity, it must be given to him as not coinciding with him; there must be a way out beyond the immediate, natural flow of life. However, humans do not actually have organic, innate “exit” organs. The existing bodily abilities allow a person only to merge and coincide with his life activity.
To become a man, he must constantly transform nature itself (first of all, your nature, your organism, your body) into a special functional organ that implements a subjective attitude towards it; also transform the natural conditions of life into “second nature”. The world of “second nature”, culture, methods of activity constitutes the objective content of human subjectivity; the totality of the functional organs of subjectivity is its psychological content.
Animal behavior is an adaptation to existing conditions of existence; it can select from the environment what is useful for it. Human activity, in principle, changes the relationship with nature, creating the possibility of transforming reality and the subject himself.
The ability to change reality, people and oneself in the process of transforming the conditions of one’s life is an internal characteristic of human life itself in its generic and individual expression.
The activity-transformative mode of human existence as a subject is associated with the emergence of individual reflected consciousness. Individual consciousness is not only knowledge, but also an attitude towards the world and in the world, which is feasible only by the subject.
Human individual is not born, but becomes a subject in the process of communication and activity. The transformation of an individual into a subject occurs in the early preschool period, when the child develops a variety of object-instrumental and sensory-practical actions. The formation of these actions, their integration in the image of the Self leads to a peculiar invigorating the child’s entire life activity . This is most clearly revealed in the crisis of three years, phenomenally expressed in the famous “I myself!” The child’s behavior is increasingly freed from direct dependence on adults. His subjectivity is revealed (both for himself and for others) as genuine self : in the integrity of the “I” with a stable worldview and one’s own action.
L.A. STAKHNEVA, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the Department of General and Developmental Psychology, Oryol State University
Tel. 89616222826
UNDERSTANDING THE SUBJECT AND SUBJECTIVITY IN MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
To date, additional characteristics have appeared in the components of the categories of qualitative analysis of the human phenomenon: the concept of “humanity” is considered as a system of values and as a source of new values, “integrity” of a person - as a criterion of personality maturity, “subject” as the core of a person’s structure, “subjectivity” - as the personality’s ability to self-determination.
Key words: personality, subject, subjectivity, subjectivity, activity, development, self-determination.
The problem of the subject and subjectivity in modern psychology occupies a special place, reflecting the active, constructive position of man in the world. The subject is one of the central concepts of modern psychology, the categorical status of which is currently the most controversial. The difficulties of the psychological definition of the concept “subject” are due to both the insufficient development of this concept and its polysemy. Many psychologists point out the insufficiency of the methodological development of this concept: K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, A.L. Zhuravlev, B.A. Sosnovsky et al.
The category of the subject is general philosophical and reveals the quality of a person’s activity, reveals his place and role in the world, the ability for activity, self-determination, self-determination and development. The introduction of the category of subject into psychology contributed to the consideration of man in a new plane: in the unity of his natural, social, and spiritual principles.
In the works of K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya and A.V. Brushlinsky undertakes a philosophical and methodological interpretation of Rubinstein’s category of the subject and outlines a general methodological principle for the study of subjectivity. Let us take a closer look at the originality of the author’s interpretations of this concept, which is interpreted in both a broad and narrow sense.
K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya proposed to distinguish between a general understanding of the subject, coming from philosophy, associated with activity, initiative, self-development, self-determination, and a special - differential one, when the concept of “subject” is used to reveal the qualitative certainty of those relations in which the subject is included (the specificity of the moral subject, subject of mental activity, subject of communication, activity, cognition). The researcher notes that the psychological operationalization of the concept of “subject” causes certain difficulties in connection with the formulation of the following problems: always or under certain conditions a person is a subject, to what extent a concept that relates to society as a whole and to a group can relate to an individual and what quality personality, it then forms whether the concept of the subject refers to the ideal, desirable, in this sense, perfect quality of a person, personality, or it can reveal his real state, the problem of the subject is only a worldview problem, spiritual (and in this sense ideal) or at the same time real, vital? .
© L.A. Stakhneva
SCIENTIFIC NOTES
In a narrow psychological sense, this concept means:
- “the quality of personality associated with the possibility of a holistic organization of activity, the accessibility of the subject’s integral contour, the ability to determine this contour himself”;
- “integral abilities that manifest themselves in direction (the ability to set reasonable, real, achievable goals for a given person under a given set of circumstances); building and organizing personal life; choosing alternatives, making adequate decisions; the ability to mobilize one’s capabilities, concentrate one’s natural and psychological strengths; the ability to develop a socially mature decision, a realistic understanding of the course of life; the ability not only to adapt to the environment, but to find or change one’s place in life”;
- “the ability for a person to consciously regulate his voluntary activity, necessary for the constructive resolution of contradictions, since “the scale of contradictions and the constructiveness of their solution determine the level achieved by the individual as a subject. The ability to coordinate life events, to organize it and, most importantly, to resolve specific contradictions - this is a characteristic of the individual as a subject of life.”
K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya emphasizes that the semantic load of the psychological concept of “subject”, in contrast to the philosophical one as an ideal structure, presupposes the presence of internal disharmony; “The subject is not the standard and limit of improvement, he constantly solves the problem of improvement.... and in this sense lies his human specificity and constantly renewed life task.” In this interpretation, the emphasis is on defining the subject not as an ideal, but only the constant movement of the individual towards it by resolving contradictions, since only in the process of acquiring experience in constructively resolving contradictions does a person become a subject.
The concept of “subject” includes not only psychological activity, but also the socio-psychological representation of the individual in living space. On this basis, the subject is defined as “a set of cognitive, active-practical, content-ethical relations to the world.” In a summary analysis,
Regarding the definition of the concept “subject”, the author makes the following conclusions:
firstly, this concept presupposes a certain individualization, which is manifested in the coordination of one’s capabilities, abilities, expectations with counter conditions and requirements;
secondly, in relation to different personalities, we can talk about different degrees of their formation as subjects in accordance with the general definition that the subject is not the pinnacle of perfection, but a constant movement towards it;
thirdly, as a subject, a person changes the objective course of his life, creates through his actions new, previously absent conditions, secondary determinants of life.
According to A.V. Brushlinsky, the “subject” is “all of humanity as a whole, representing a contradictory unity of subjects of a different level and scale: states, nations, ethnic groups, social classes and groups, individuals interacting with each other.” In a narrow sense, the subject is not the human psyche, but the person who has the psyche, not one or another of his mental qualities, types of activity, etc., the person himself is a communicating, active person. "Subject" is:
Man, people at the highest (for each of them) level of activity, integrity, autonomy, etc.;
The creator of his own history, the arbiter of his own life path; one who carries out activity, communication, behavior, contemplation and other types of specifically human activity: creative, moral, free, etc.;
A qualitatively defined method of self-organization, self-regulation, coordination of external and internal conditions of activity, a center for coordination of all mental processes, states, properties, abilities, capabilities (and limitations) of the individual in relation to objective and subjective (goals, claims, tasks) conditions of activity, communication, etc. .d.;
The highest systemic integrity of all its most complex and contradictory qualities, primarily mental processes, states and properties, its consciousness and unconsciousness.
The subject as the highest integrity means that at the qualitative stage of its development, the entire basic system of its mental processes and properties changes accordingly - gradually or immediately.
A.V. Brushlinsky emphasizes that the subject represents a common unified basis for the development (in particular, for differentiation through integration) of all mental processes, states and properties, consciousness and the unconscious.
A number of researchers believe that a broad understanding of the concept of “subject” is unconstructive, since the diversity of substantive aspects included in the concept of “subject” is the main reason for the lack of definition of this term. A.K. Osnitsky believes that, despite all the constructiveness and promise of using the concepts of “subject” and “subjectivity,” there is a danger of understanding them too broadly and making them absolutist.
In the interpretation of L.I. Antsyferova’s main characteristic of a subject is a person’s experience of himself as a sovereign source of activity, capable, within certain limits, of intentionally carrying out changes in the world around him and himself. YES. Leontiev also points out that the development of a person as a subject presupposes being self-initiated and self-regulated. V.V. Stolin considers the concept of “subject” as a “cross-cutting” property of a person. He understands the subject as an integral property of a person, combining the characteristics of an organism, a social individual and a personality.
A comparative analysis of definitions showed that the search to clarify the meaning of this term is not yet over. The creative process of clarifying the parameters of the subject continues actively. The difficulties of operationalization are due to the fact that this concept is “multidimensional, generalized, unifying. From “man” this includes the specific, from “personality” - social, from “individual” - unique integrity, etc., but in its concrete representation it is always the subject as a real bearer of life, activity, experience, communication, pedagogical influence and etc.” .
So, in the psychological interpretation of the concept of “subject”, the active, active nature of man is noted, which manifests itself in the ability to transform one’s own life activity into a subject of practical transformation. The subject in psychology is, first of all, a bearer of activity, a bearer of everything subjective and objective in a person (reflection, activity, consciousness, etc.). In contrast to the concept of “activity,” the subject is an integral characteristic of a person that claims to be systematic (integrity and continuity, irreducibility to simpler properties). In contrast to such concepts as “individual” and “personality”, the concept of “subject” reflects the specific
some (functional) quality of a person, manifested in the ability for self-determination and self-development.
In general, in modern psychology, the concept of a subject is constructive in the following meanings: to designate optimal levels, stages of improvement and personality development. The concept of “subject,” revealing a certain quality of human activity, is associated with the idea of the highest structure of personality, ensuring self-determination. The concept under consideration is a fairly high generalization, including various levels of manifestation of active, proactive, integrative, systemic principles.
The problem of the subject is extremely complex. What is the need and expediency of using the concept of “subject” in modern psychology? The authors of the subject approach (K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, A.V. Brushlinsky, L.I. Antsyferova, etc.) believe that the heuristic potential of using the concept of “subject” lies in the fact that it sets a single basis for describing mental processes, properties, states, the opportunity is realized for a clear definition of the subject of psychology, its place among other human sciences. The subject of psychology becomes the subject in the continuous process of functioning and development of his psyche. Shifting the emphasis on the subject allows us to shift research from individual mental phenomena to a higher level - a holistic study of a person (A.V. Brushlinsky).
The methodological significance of the category “subject” is that it reveals, translating it from purely philosophical into the context of logic and methodology of science (humanitarian knowledge). The category of the subject set methodological guidelines for the differentiation of various psychological concepts of subjects and their synthesis on a special systemic basis.
Difficulties in determining the semantic load of the concept of “subjectivity” are due to the fact that it is practically absent in philosophical and psychological dictionaries, with the exception of a brief psychological dictionary, which explains: “The subjectivity of a person is manifested in his vitality, activity, communication, self-awareness.”
Let us turn to the author's interpretations of the analyzed concept. Subjectivity in the understanding of K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya manifests itself in the way of interpreting reality, as well as in dispositionality, since a special quality of the subject is his attitude to life as a personal problem. O.A. Konopkin considers subjectivity as a special property and ability
a person to self-determination of different spheres and aspects of his existence, which acts as a characteristic of the personality that constitutes it. A.K. Osnitsky understands subjectivity as a holistic characteristic of human activity, found in activity and behavior. Distinguishing the concepts of “subjective” and “subjective”, he notes that the subjective represents a holistic ontological characteristic of human existence, and the concept of “subjectivity” is a meaningful and effective characteristic of activity that emphasizes the intentionality of the subject, and therefore can be considered from this perspective as one of the facets of subjectivity. Epistemologically, the concept of “subjective” more often correlates with the originality of the results of a person’s reflection of external conditions and mental processes. Subjectivity in activity and behavior, in the processes of perception and decision-making is associated primarily with the individual characteristics of the transformative activity mastered by a person: the individual characteristics of setting and solving problems.
E.A. Volkova considers the concept of “subjectivity” through the category of “relationship”. On this basis, subjectivity is defined as a person’s attitude towards himself as an actor. Subjectivity as an attitude includes the nature of the emotional response to oneself and to another person. It exists on conscious and unconscious levels. The degree of awareness of the changes occurring with a person and produced by him determines the level of development of subjectivity. Subjectivity is associated with activity, initiative, and transformative capabilities of a person. At the same time, E.A. Volkova emphasizes that subjectivity cannot be understood as a quality inherent in an individual subject, since a person cannot alone be the bearer of his subjectivity. Subjectivity as a personality property is manifested in the ability to produce interdependent changes in the world and in a person. At the same time, the specificity of subjectivity lies in the interconnection of the objects of transformation. They include the surrounding reality, the person himself, and his inner world.
Let us note that the concepts of “subjectivity” and “subjectivity” are close, but not identical in meaning. Subjectivity, in contrast to subjectivity, is broader, since, firstly, it represents the essential predicate of a person, what belongs to the subject; secondly, the ontological characteristic of human existence, the integral form of existence. I'll expand
This characteristic of the definitions “subjectivity” and “subjectivity” is presented by V.I. Slobodchikov and E.I. Isaev: “Subjectivity is a basic category of anthropological psychology, defining the general principle of the existence of human reality, the direct self-existence of man; As a form of being and a way of organizing human reality, subjectivity reveals itself in a person’s ability to take a practical (transformative) attitude towards his own life and finds its highest expression in reflection.” Subjectivity, according to the authors, represents “a social, activity-transforming way of human existence; as selfhood, subjectivity is an obvious and directly given form of human self-existence.” And further: “Subjectivity is a variety of psychological abilities and mechanisms, generally represented in such psychological reactions as the mind, feelings, motives, will, ability, character of a person. Subjectivity is the central formation of human subjectivity, the central category of human psychology. The concept of subjectivity potentially includes the entire totality of manifestations of human psychology and represents a special kind of integrity. A person’s achievement of the level of subjectivity presupposes his mastery of a set of generic psychological abilities: thinking, consciousness, desires, will, feelings, etc.” [ibid., p. 253]. V.A. shares the same view. Tatenko, believing that the subjective can be understood as everything that sets the qualitative certainty of the life of a particular subject, belongs to the subject, is produced by the subject or stems from it, and in this does not oppose the idea of objective reality. The concept of “subjective” reflects, first of all, the authorial nature of human activity as a subject and is revealed in such concepts as “free, independent, autonomous, initiative, creative, original.”
Subjectivity in modern psychology is understood as the central formation of human reality, arising at a certain level of personality development and representing its new systemic quality, implying the ability to independently create life, the ability to make changes in the world and in oneself. As integrating characteristics of subjectivity, the following invariant definitions can be distinguished:
The ability of a person to transform his own life activity into an object of practical transformation;
The specificity of the subject is the author’s formulation and solution of problems, the determination of priority actions and actions, the personal determination of the attitude towards the tasks being solved, the self-determination of one’s position in relation to the world, people and oneself;
There are special personal qualities associated with actively transformative properties and abilities (activity, initiative, independence, responsibility, ability to reflect, internality, creativity, communication in terms of acceptance and understanding of others, integrity, etc.);
High level of functional development.
So, the basis of the concept of “subjectivity” is made up of the following characteristics: activity (“a holistic characteristic of human activity”, “the active side of the mental organization of a person”,
ka", "active-transforming function of personality", "author's nature of activity", "activity-transforming way of being"); dispositionality, manifested in the attitude “towards life as a personal problem”, in “a person’s attitude towards himself as an actor”, in the way of interpreting reality. And finally, one more important difference: if subjectivity as an ontological characteristic of human existence represents this property, then subjectivity is acquired, formed and manifested in activity, communication, and self-awareness.
In psychological and pedagogical research, subjectivity is considered as a determinant and condition for successful professional development. Subjectivity as an integrative quality of personality acts as a factor of personality stability and contributes to its preservation from disintegration, professional deformations, creates the basis for internal harmony, high performance, determines vitality and professional and personal productivity.
Bibliography
Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Psychology and personality consciousness. (Problems of methodology, theory and research of real personality): Selected psychological works. - M., 1999. - 224 p.
Antsyferova L.I. Psychological content of the phenomenon “subject” and the facets of the subject-activity approach // Individual and group subjects in a changing society: Abstracts of reports for the International Scientific and Practical Conference. - M., 1999. - P. 17-19.
Brushlinsky A.V. Psychology of the subject. - M., 2003. - 272 p.
Volkova E.N. Teacher's subjectivity: theory and practice. Author's abstract. dis. ... Doctor of Psychology. Sci. - M., 1998. Konopkin O.A. The phenomenon of subjectivity in personality psychology // Questions of psychology. - 1994. - No. 6. - P.148-150.
Brief psychological dictionary / Ed.-comp. L.A. Karpenko / Edited by. ed. A.V. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky. - Rostov-on-Don, 1998. - 512 p.
Leontyev D.A. Psychology of freedom: towards posing the problem of self-determination of personality // Psychological journal. - 2000. - T. 21. - P. 15-25.
Osnitsky A.K. Problems of research of subject activity // Questions of psychology. - 1996. - No. 1. - P. 5-19.
Sosnovsky B.A. Current issues of human psychology in modern Russia // Human psychology in conditions of social instability / Ed. B.A. Sosnovsky. - M., 1994. - P. 3-9.
Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human psychology: Introduction to the psychology of subjectivity. - M.: Shkola-Press, 1995. - 384 p.
Stolin V.V. Personal self-awareness. - M., 1983. - 284 p.
12. Tatenko VL. Psychology in the subjective dimension: Monograph. - ^ev, 199b. - 403 p.
UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECT AND SUBJECTIVITY IN MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
In the article are observed “Subject” and “Subjectivity” notions in the connection with the anthropological topic’s revival in psychology, determinism principles’ recomprehension, new view at human’s nature and development. The given notion reflects a specific human’s feature displayed in self-determination and self-development abilities. The subjectivity is regarded as an initiating creative principle of a personality interacting with a society, world, himself. The article represents philosophical and psychological approaches to the study of a “Subject” category and different psychological interpretations of the concept under analysis. The methodological importance of “Subject” category introduction into modern psychology notion apparatus is revealed.
Key words: personality, subject, subjectivity, activity, development, self-determination.