Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations. Uncover the meaning of the interactive component of communication

PSYCHOLOGY OF COMMUNICATION 10.1

Communication as the implementation of public and interpersonal relationships. The importance of communication for the development of the individual and society

Many sociologists and psychologists determine the degree of significance the bridge of communication in the system of interpersonal relationships in different ways nomu, taking into account the specifics. Some prefer to consider communication as the basis of social relations, others - as the consequences of relations. There is an opinion that communication is a reflection of social relations in the minds of people and society itself. Communication can be represented as a system invisible connecting threads crossing all spheres of action humanity, it contributes to the realization of impersonality constant, constant and variable relationships.

The process of communication depends on the conscious and unconscious of the individual's instincts. If conscious communication is expressed in specific and pre-planned acts, then demon consciousness happens naturally. Psychologists tend to consider communication as a combination of social and psi chological instincts. For social psychologists it is common education is a fundamental component of individual development. Participate The rules of communication often unconsciously determine its place in between personal relationships.

In the process of communication, a person takes upon himself the fulfillment of what interpersonal role is possible in the system of group communications Zey. This role depends on the influence of his individual psycho logical features. If a person has strong psychological qualities, then its role in interpersonal relationships will correspond to the concept of “leader”, and vice versa - a psychologically weak person becomes the performer of the role of “scapegoat”. The expression of personal qualities in the process of role communication necessarily evokes responses reactions of other participants.

Interpersonal relationships are expressed through emo tions. Domestic social psychologists distinguish three types

emotional manifestations of an individual: affects, emotions and feelings. These manifestations are multifaceted and vary in the strength of expression, which depends on the situation. Feelings are usually divided into two groups. First group - conjunctive feelings, that bring people together, unite their goals and desires. Second group - disjunctive feelings having destructive power and negatively affecting relationships.

Social relations are made up of interpersonal relationships. If interpersonal relationships are built on mutual trust and attraction, then social relationships are based on the unity of professional and social goals, without Depends on feelings and personal opinions.

Modern life forces us to look for new methods of assessing communication. The significance of the research carried out for this purpose is great, since the analysis of the connection between social and interpersonal relationships makes it possible to understand the essence of a person, his guidelines in interaction with the outside world, as well as the same state of his inner world. Unlike domestic Western researchers prefer their colleagues to the concept "communication" term "communication". However, the difference in the name does not mean a difference in essence, therefore speech and communication are identical.

Structure of communication. Communicative communication component

Researchers have identified many varieties of pods communication tours. A fairly common structure includes communicative, interactive and perceptual parts. The communicative part of the communication structure involves a simple exchange of information. Interactive part in general niya is based on the interaction of individuals. Perceptual part is expressed in the perception and knowledge of each other as individuals ladies in order to maintain the interactive part of communication.

The communicative part of communication is a mutual personal exchange of coded information between individuals and I look forward to its further use, which is only possible in case both participants recognize the encoding system information. Obstacles encountered during encoding and de-

coding, often have a social or psychological new The information that communicators operate on can be may be different in nature and essence: request, order, desire, message, hint.

The simplest communication models are verbal And untrue ballroom Verbal communication uses speech as encoding. Nonverbal - four groups of means in general knowledge: paralinguistic and extralinguistic, optical-kinetic, as well as proxemics and visual contact.

Paralinguistic and extralinguistic means communication are various near-speech additions ki, with the help of which a person can convey semantic coloring of your speech (pauses, coughing, drawling, etc.). Optical-kinetic communication is expressed by gestures and facial expressions. Proxemics organizes communication in space and time. Visual communication involves visual perception acceptance of each other by those communicating.

G. D. Lasswell proposed a model of the communication process sa, consisting of five questions.

1. Who's speaking?

2. What does it report?

3. To whom?

4. On what channel?

5. With what effect?

The first question involves analyzing the management of the community catative process, the second is the analysis of the content of the community ny. The essence of the third question is to analyze the audience to which the messages are addressed, the fourth question is aimed at analyzing the means of communication, and the fifth question allows you to analyze the result of communication. This model is demon Strategies the formation of the communication process.

The structure of communication includes the concept of “communication distance”. ! The distance between communicating can be public, official social-business, interpersonal and intimate. Each of them determines the distance that will be comfortable for communication. Public distance (more than 3.7 m) allows you to speak in front of large audiences. Official business or social distance (from 1.2 to 3.7 m) is suitable for communication between strangers or superficially familiar people.

Interpersonal distance (from 0.5 to 1.2 m) suggests other female, friendly communication. Intimate distance (from 0 to 0.5 m) is intended for communication between loved ones and relatives.

Interactive part of communication implies communication activities in the field of professional activity and may be operational and competitive. Cooperative communication subdra implies joint coordination of actions. Any joint This activity is based on voluntary cooperation of participants. Competition is the opposite of cooperation and is a form of conflict.

Perceptual part of communication based on understanding and mutual mutual perception of each other. Perception is the knower nal process during which analysis and comprehension take place sharing information about the environment received through the senses this world..

Communicative component of communication is considered a total the number of skills, knowledge, skills that begin with age ut to regress. Communication in any field of activity under implies not only the exchange of information, but also parallel training and experience"" Communication components develop the ability to perceive another person as an equal communication partner, the ability to instill trust, to form joint thinking, as well as to anticipate the emergence of conflict situations. Communication components also involve constructive criticism.

At the same time, any communication is associated with the emergence of communication barriers that prevent interaction between dividends Barriers to interaction include motivational nal, ethical barriers and communication styles barrier. In addition, barriers of perception and understanding are identified: aesthetic, social social situation, negative emotions, health status rovya, psychological protection, installation, double, gentle desire to communicate. Human communication is so multifaceted that it is quite difficult to define clear boundaries of barriers.

Modern life contributes to an increase in the number of communication barriers. To overcome them you should listen to yourself, cont. role your emotions and behavior, more often “put yourself on the line” place the partner and consider the situation from an objective point of view ki vision.

The phenomenon of causal attribution. The phenomenon of interpersonal attraction

The theory of causal attribution about the interpretation of causality in the process of social perception defines of individual behavior as a result of psychic projection. A certain image of a person is superimposed on his own, as a result of which this image is perceived as authentic ny. The main element of causal attribution is considered to be the totality of a person’s appearance and the image that he is endowed by those around him. Attribution itself presupposes at writing an image. The author of the theory of causal attribution lies F. Haider.

To study the phenomenon of causal attribution, it means mine became a theory E. Jones And K. Davis, who found out and ordered the reasons for the emergence of interpersonal attribution. Also included in the theory of causal attribution are the theories D. Boehm (self-perception), T. Kelly(search for reasons for behavior).

The theory of causal attribution is based on three theses.

1. Any person tries, consciously or unconsciously, to explain his or others’ actions.

2. All human actions are natural.

3. Causal explanations always have a significant impact influence on people's consciousness.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

3. Communication structure

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Analysis of interpersonal relationships as relationships that develop not somewhere outside social relations, but within them, allows us to place emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world.

Both series of human relationships, both social and personal, are realized precisely in communication. Thus, communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations.

The purpose of this work is to consider the problem of communication in social psychology. This whole problem is a specific problem of social psychology.

The first chapter provides a description of communication in the system of interpersonal relationships.

The second chapter is devoted to the consideration of two interrelated components - communication and activity. Finally, the final chapter provides a framework for communication; Three of its interrelated aspects are also considered here: communicative, interactive and perceptual. In particular, this chapter contains the main provisions of the relevant theories of domestic and foreign psychologists.

It should be noted that the problem under consideration is well covered both in the domestic psychological literature and in specialized periodicals.

1. Communication in the system of interpersonal relations

In real communication, not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, that is, not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social, that is, impersonal in nature, relationships are also embodied in the fabric of communication. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain “construction” of the system of his connections, and this process can be is also realized only in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.”

Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology. Sometimes there is a tendency to equate communication and interpersonal relationships. But, although these two processes are interconnected, one can hardly agree with the idea of their identification. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, so it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, that is, given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person to another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it is carried out in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely aggravated. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. The need for such a dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connections between interpersonal and social relations.

2. Relationship between communication and activity

With any approach, the fundamental question is the connection between communication and activity. There are different points of view on this problem. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem, who paid special attention not to the dynamics of social phenomena, but to their statics. In Russian psychology, the idea of unity of communication and activity is accepted.

This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are specific forms of joint activity of people: people do not just “communicate” in the process of performing various social functions, but they always communicate in some activity “about » her. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of this active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities.

Thus, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is stated by all researchers who take the point of view of the theory of activity in psychology. However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides of a person’s social existence, his way of life.

In other cases, communication is understood as a certain aspect of activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as a condition of communication.

Finally, communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a separate stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence. In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all elements characteristic of activity in general are sought (actions, operations, motives, etc.).

As for experimental practice, all researchers have much more in common than different. This commonality is the recognition of the fact of the unity of communication and activity and an attempt to fix this unity. In our opinion, it is advisable to have the broadest understanding of the connection between activity and communication, when communication is considered both as an aspect of joint activity (since activity itself is not only work, but also communication in the process of work), and as its unique derivative.

Such a broad understanding of the connection between communication and activity corresponds to a broad understanding of communication itself: as the most important condition for an individual to appropriate the achievements of the historical development of mankind, be it at the micro level, in the immediate environment, or at the macro level, in the entire system of social connections. The acceptance of the thesis about such an organic connection between communication and activity dictates some very specific standards for the study of communication, in particular at the level of experimental research.

One of these standards is the requirement to study communication not only and not so much from the point of view of its form, but from the point of view of its content. This requirement is at odds with the tradition of studying the communication process typical of Western social psychology. As a rule, communication is studied here primarily through a laboratory experiment - precisely from the point of view of form, when either the means of communication, or the type of contact, or its frequency, or the structure of both a single communicative act and communication networks are analyzed. If communication is understood as an aspect of activity, as a unique way of organizing it, then analyzing the form of this process alone is not enough. An analogy can be drawn here with the study of the activity itself.

The essence of the principle of activity lies in the fact that, unlike traditional psychology, activity is also considered not just from the side of form (that is, the individual’s activity is not simply stated), but from the side of its content (that is, the very object to which this activity is directed is identified) .

An activity, understood as an objective activity, cannot be studied outside of the characteristics of its subject. Similarly, the essence of communication is revealed only when the fact of communication itself is not simply stated, and not even the method of communication, but its content. In the real practical activity of a person, the main question is not how the subject communicates, but about what he communicates. Here again the analogy with the study of activity is appropriate; If the analysis of the subject of activity is important there, then the analysis of the subject of communication is equally important here.

Neither one nor the other formulation of the problem is easy for the system of psychological knowledge: psychology has always polished its tools only for analyzing the mechanism, if not activity, but activity, if not communication, but communication. The analysis of the substantive aspects of both phenomena, one might say, is not provided methodically. But this cannot become a basis for refusing to pose the question prescribed by both theoretical considerations and general methodological principles.

Naturally, highlighting the subject of communication should not be understood vulgarly: people communicate not only about the activity with which they are associated. In order to highlight two possible “reasons” for communication, the literature differentiates between the concepts of “role” and “personal” communication. Under some circumstances (namely, at the highest level of development of the group), this personal communication in form may look like role-playing, business, “subject-related” communication. Thus, the separation of role and personal communication is not absolute. In certain relationships and situations, both are associated with activity.

The idea of “wovenness” of communication into activity also allows us to consider in detail the question of what exactly in activity can “construct” communication. In the most general form, the answer can be formulated in such a way that through communication, activity is organized and enriched. Building a plan for joint activity requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of the goals and objectives of the activity, to understand the specifics of its object and even the capabilities of each of its participants. The inclusion of communication in this process allows for “coordination” or “mismatch” of the activities of individual participants. This coordination of the activities of individual participants can be achieved thanks to such a characteristic of communication as its inherent function of influence, in which the “reverse influence of communication on activity” is manifested.

We will find out the specifics of this function along with consideration of various aspects of communication. Now it is important to emphasize that activity through communication is not just organized, but actually enriched, new connections and relationships between people arise in it. All of the above allows us to conclude that the principle of connection and organic unity of communication with activity, developed in domestic social psychology, opens up truly new perspectives in the study of this phenomenon.

3. Communication structure

communication social psychology communicative

Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow indicate its structure so that analysis of each element is then possible. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, as well as the definition of its functions. In domestic social psychology, the structure of communication is characterized by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual.

The communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. The interactive side consists in organizing interaction between communicating individuals, that is, in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. The perceptual side of communication means the process of communication partners perceiving each other and establishing interaction on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense.

For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative. The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular for constructing a system of experimental research. All aspects of communication indicated here are revealed in small groups, that is, in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the issue of the means and mechanisms of interaction between people in the context of their mass actions. Such mechanisms in social psychology traditionally include the processes of mental infection, suggestion (or suggestion) and imitation. Although each of them is, in principle, possible in the case of direct contact, they acquire much greater, independent significance precisely in situations of communication between large masses of people. This scheme does not consider either the mechanism, forms, or functions of communication in the broad sense of the word discussed above.

In principle, we should, for example, talk about two series of communication functions: social and strictly socio-psychological. However, practical social psychology analyzes mainly the latter, while problems associated with understanding communication in a broader sense are simply not raised here. This is explained by the fact that in the established tradition these problems are studied in line with other disciplines, in particular in sociology. This should not be considered a great advantage of psychology. However, at this stage of its development, it practically did not approach problems of this kind. Let's consider the characteristics of each of the identified sides of communication.

3.1 The communicative side of communication

When they talk about communication in the narrow sense of the word, they first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange with each other various ideas, ideas, interests, moods, feelings, attitudes, etc. All this can be considered as information, and then The communication process itself can be understood as a process of information exchange. From here it is tempting to take the next step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory.

However, this approach cannot be considered as methodologically correct, because it omits some of the most important characteristics of human communication, which is not limited to the process of transmitting information. Not to mention the fact that with this approach, basically only one direction of the flow of information is recorded, namely from the communicator to the recipient (the introduction of the concept of “feedback” does not change the essence of the matter), another significant omission arises here. Whenever we consider human communication from the point of view of information theory, only the formal side of the matter is fixed: how information is transmitted, while in the conditions of human communication information is not only transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed.

Therefore, without excluding the possibility of applying some provisions of information theory when describing the communicative side of communication, it is necessary to clearly place all the accents and identify the specifics even in the process of information exchange itself, which, indeed, takes place in the case of communication between two people. Firstly, communication cannot be considered as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as its reception by another system because, unlike the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is an active subject : mutual informing of them presupposes the establishment of joint activities.

This means that each participant in the communicative process assumes activity in his partner as well; he cannot consider him as a certain object. The other participant also appears as a subject, and it follows from this that when sending him information, it is necessary to focus on him, that is, analyze his motives, goals, attitudes (except, of course, the analysis of one’s own goals, motives, attitudes). But in this case, it must be assumed that in response to the information sent, new information will be received coming from the other partner. Therefore, in the communication process there is not a simple “movement of information”.

But at least an active exchange of it. The main “add-on” in a specifically human exchange of information is that the significance of information plays a special role here for each participant in the communication. Information acquires this significance because people not only “exchange” meanings, but also strive to develop a common meaning.

This is only possible if the information is not just accepted, but also understood and meaningful. Therefore, in every communicative process, activity, communication and cognition are actually given in unity. Secondly, the nature of the exchange of information between people, and not between, say, cybernetic devices, is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. In other words, the exchange of such information necessarily involves an impact on the partner’s behavior, that is, the sign changes the state of the participants in the communication process. The communication influence that arises here is nothing more than the psychological influence of one communicator on another with the aim of changing his behavior.

The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is. This means (in a certain sense) a change in the very type of relationship that has developed between the participants in communication. Nothing similar happens in “purely” information processes. Thirdly, communicative influence as a result of the exchange of information is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single or similar system of codification and decodification. In everyday language, this rule is expressed in the words: “everyone must speak the same language.”

This is especially important because the communicator and the recipient constantly change places in the communication process. Any exchange of information between them is possible only on the condition that the signs, and, most importantly, the meanings assigned to them are known to all participants in the communicative process. Only the adoption of a unified system of meanings ensures that partners can understand each other. Also L.S. Vygotsky noted that “thought is never equal to the direct meaning of words.”

Therefore, communicators must have identical - in the case of auditory speech - not only the lexical and syntactic systems, but also the same understanding of the communication situation. And this is possible only if communication is included in some general system of activity. Fourthly, in the conditions of human communication, completely specific communication barriers can arise.

These barriers are not related to vulnerabilities in any communication channel or to encoding and decoding errors. They are social or psychological in nature. On the one hand, such barriers may arise due to the fact that there is no common understanding of the communication situation, caused not just by the different “language” spoken by the participants in the communication process, but by deeper differences that exist between partners. These can be social, political, religious, professional differences, which not only give rise to different interpretations of the same concepts used in the process of communication, but also generally different attitudes, worldviews, and worldviews.

Barriers of this kind are generated by objective social reasons, the belonging of communication partners to various social groups, and when they manifest themselves, the inclusion of communication in a broader system of social relations becomes especially clear. Communication in this case demonstrates its characteristic that it is only a side of communication. Naturally, the process of communication is carried out even in the presence of these barriers, even military opponents negotiate. But the whole situation of the communicative act is significantly complicated by their presence.

On the other hand, barriers to communication can also be of a more “purely” expressed psychological nature: they can arise either as a result of the individual psychological characteristics of those communicating (for example, excessive shyness of one of them, the secrecy of another, the presence of a trait in someone called “lack of communication”). "), or due to a special kind of psychological relationship that has developed between the communicating people: hostility towards each other, mistrust, etc. In this case, the connection that exists between communication and attitude, which is naturally absent in cybernetic systems, becomes especially clear.

It should be added that the information itself coming from the communicator can be of two types: motivating and stating. Incentive information is expressed in an order, advice, or request. It is designed to stimulate some kind of action. Stimulation, in turn, can be different. First of all, it can be activation, that is, an incentive to action in a given direction. Further, it can be interdiction, that is, also an impulse, but an impulse that does not allow, on the contrary, certain actions, a prohibition of undesirable activities.

Finally, it may be destabilization - mismatch or disruption of some autonomous forms of behavior or activity. Ascertaining information appears in the form of a message; it takes place in various educational systems; it does not imply a direct change in behavior, although, ultimately, in this case, the general rule of human communication applies. The very nature of the message can be different: the degree of objectivity can vary from a deliberately “indifferent” tone of presentation to the inclusion of obvious elements of persuasion in the text of the message itself. The message option is set by the communicator, that is, by the person from whom the information comes. The transmission of any information is possible only through signs, or rather, sign systems.

There are several sign systems that are used in the communication process; accordingly, a classification of communication processes can be constructed. In a rough division, a distinction is made between verbal communication (speech is used as a sign system) and nonverbal communication (various non-speech sign systems are used).

Verbal communication, as already mentioned, uses human speech, natural sound language, as a sign system, that is, a system of phonetic signs that includes two principles: lexical and syntactic. Speech is the most universal means of communication, since when transmitting information through speech, the meaning of the message is least lost.

True, this should correspond to a high degree of common understanding of the situation by all participants in the communicative process, which was discussed above. With the help of speech, information is encoded and decoded: the communicator encodes while speaking, and the recipient decodes this information while listening. For a communicator, the meaning of information precedes the encoding process (utterance), since he first has a certain idea and then embodies it in a system of signs.

For the “listener,” the meaning of the received message is revealed simultaneously with decoding. In this last case, the significance of the situation of joint activity is clearly manifested: its awareness is included in the decoding process itself, revealing the meaning of the message is unthinkable outside of this situation.

The accuracy of the listener’s understanding of the meaning of the utterance can become obvious to the communicator only when there is a change in “communicative roles” (a conventional term designating “speaker” and “listener”), that is, when the recipient turns into a communicator and with his utterance makes it known how he revealed the meaning of the received information. Dialogue, or dialogic speech, as a specific type of “conversation” is a consistent change of communicative roles, during which the meaning of a speech message is revealed, that is, the phenomenon that was designated as “enrichment, development of information” occurs.

However, the communication process is incomplete if we are distracted from its non-verbal means. The first among them is the optical-kinetic system of signs, which includes gestures, facial expressions, and pantomime. This gross motor activity of various parts of the body reflects the emotional reactions of a person, so the inclusion of an optical-kinetic system of signs in a communication situation gives nuance to communication. These nuances turn out to be ambiguous when the same gestures are used, for example, in different national cultures. The significance of the optical-kinetic system of signs in communication is so great that at present a special field of research has emerged - kinetics, which specifically deals with these problems.

Paralinguistic and extralinguistic sign systems are also “additives” to verbal communication. The paralinguistic system is a vocalization system, that is, the quality of the voice, its range and tonality. Extralinguistic system - the inclusion of pauses and other inclusions in speech, for example, coughing, crying, laughter, and finally, the very tempo of speech. The space and time of organization of the communicative process also act as a special sign system and carry a semantic load as components of communicative situations.

For example, placing partners facing each other promotes contact and symbolizes attention to the speaker, while shouting in the back can also have a certain negative meaning. The advantage of certain spatial forms of organizing communication, both between two partners in the communicative process and in mass audiences, has been experimentally proven. In general, all nonverbal communication systems undoubtedly play a large auxiliary (and sometimes independent) role in the communication process. Together with the verbal communication system, these systems provide the exchange of information that people need to organize joint activities.

3.2 Interactive side of communication

The interactive side of communication is a conventional term denoting the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities. The importance of the interactive side of communication has led to the development of a special direction in the history of social psychology, which considers interaction as the starting point of any socio-psychological analysis.

This direction is associated with the name of G. Mead, who gave the direction a name - “symbolic interactionism”. Mead's concept is sometimes called “social behaviorism,” and this greatly confuses the matter. Mead did use the term “behaviorism” to characterize his position, but for him the term acquired a completely special meaning. For Mead, behaviorism is only a synonym for a method of analyzing consciousness and self-awareness that has nothing to do with introspection and is built entirely on recording observable and controlled behavior. Otherwise, Mead lacks the entire arsenal of behaviorist argumentation.

Clarifying the social nature of the human “I,” Mead, following James, came to the conclusion that communication plays a decisive role in the formation of this “I.” Mead also used C. Cooley’s idea of the so-called “mirror self,” where personality is understood as the sum of a person’s mental reactions to the opinions of others. However, Mead's solution to the problem is much more complicated. The formation of the “I” actually occurs in situations of communication, but not because people are simple reactions to the opinions of others, but because these situations are at the same time situations of joint activity. A personality is formed in them, in them she realizes herself, not just looking at others, but acting together with them.

For Mead, the situation of communication is revealed as a situation primarily of interaction. The model for such situations is play, which Mead has in two forms: play and game. In the game, a person chooses a so-called “significant other” for himself and is guided by how he is perceived by this “significant other.” In accordance with this, a person develops an idea of himself, of his “I”. Following W. James, Mead divides this “I” into two principles (here, for lack of adequate Russian terms, we retain their English name): “I” and “me”.

“I” is the impulsive, creative side of the “I”, a direct response to the demands of the situation; “me” is a reflection of “I”, a kind of norm that controls the activity of “I” on behalf of social interaction, this is the individual’s assimilation of the relationships that develop in a situation of interaction and which require conformity with them.

Constant reflection of “I” with the help of “te” is necessary for a mature personality, because it is precisely this that contributes to the individual’s adequate perception of himself and his own actions. (On the surface, these Meadian ideas bear some resemblance to Freud's diagram of the relationship between the id and the ego.

But the content that Freud gave to this attitude was reduced to sexual control, while Mead, through this attitude, controls the entire system of interactions of the individual with others.) Thus, the central idea of the interactionist concept is that the personality is formed in interaction with other individuals, and the mechanism of this process is the establishment of control over the actions of the individual by the image of him that others develop. Despite the importance of posing such a problem, Mead's theory contains significant methodological flaws.

The main ones are two. First, the concept places disproportionate emphasis on the role of symbols. The entire outline of interaction outlined above is determined by a system of symbols, i.e., human activity and behavior in interaction situations are ultimately determined by the symbolic interpretation of these situations.

A person appears as a creature living in a world of symbols, included in iconic situations. And although to a certain extent one can agree with this statement, since to a certain extent society indeed regulates the actions of individuals with the help of symbols, Mead’s excessive categoricalness leads to the fact that the entire totality of social relations, culture - everything comes down only to symbols.

This leads to the second important miscalculation of the concept of symbolic interactionism: the interactive aspect of communication here is again divorced from the content of objective activity, as a result of which the entire wealth of macrosocial relationships of the individual is essentially ignored. The only “representative” of social relations remains only relations of direct interaction. Since the symbol remains the “last” social determinant of interaction, for analysis it is sufficient only to describe the given field of interactions without involving the broad social connections within which this act of interaction takes place. There is a well-known “closure” of interaction to a given group. Of course, this aspect of analysis is possible and even tempting for social psychology, but it is clearly insufficient.

3.3 Perceptual side of communication

As noted above, in the process of communication there must be mutual understanding between the participants in this process. Mutual understanding itself can be interpreted here in different ways: either as an understanding of the goals, motives, and attitudes of an interaction partner, or as not only understanding, but acceptance, sharing of these goals, motives, and attitudes, which allows not only to “coordinate actions,” but also establish a special kind of relationship: intimacy, affection, expressed in feelings of friendship, sympathy, love.

In any case, the fact of how the communication partner is perceived is of great importance, in other words, the process of perception by one person of another acts as an obligatory component of communication and can conditionally be called the perceptual side of communication. The term “Social perception” is used by researchers, including those in social psychology, to refer to the process of perception of so-called “social objects,” which means other people, social groups, and large social communities.

However, this term is not accurate for our case. In order to more accurately indicate what we are talking about in terms of interest to us, it is advisable to talk not about social perception in general, but about interpersonal perception, or interpersonal perception. It is these processes that are directly included in communication in the sense in which it is considered here. But besides this, there is a need for one more comment.

The perception of social objects has so many specific features that the very use of the word “perception” seems not entirely accurate here. In any case, a number of phenomena that take place during the formation of an idea about another person do not fit into the traditional description of the perceptual process, as it is given in general psychology. In Russian literature, the expression “cognition of another person” is often used as a synonym for “perception of another person.”

Another attempt to build a structure of interaction is related to the description of the stages of its development. In this case, interaction is divided not into elementary acts, but into the stages through which it passes. This approach was proposed, in particular, by the Polish researcher J. Szczepanski. For Szczepanski, the central concept in describing social behavior is the concept of social connection. It can be presented as the sequential implementation of: a) spatial contact, b) mental contact (according to Szczepansky, this is mutual interest), c) social contact (here this is a joint activity), d) interaction (which is defined as “systematic, constant implementation actions aimed at provoking an appropriate reaction on the part of the partner...", finally, e) social relations (mutually related systems of actions).

Although all of the above relates to the characteristics of “social connection,” its type, such as “interaction,” is presented most fully. Arranging a series of steps preceding interaction is not too strict: spatial and mental contacts in this scheme act as prerequisites for an individual act of interaction, and therefore the scheme does not eliminate the errors of the previous attempt.

But the inclusion of “social contact”, understood as joint activity, among the prerequisites for interaction largely changes the picture: if interaction arises as the implementation of joint activity, then the road to studying its substantive side remains open. However, the looseness of the scheme reduces its ability to understand the structure of interaction. In practical experiments, researchers are still dealing with the phenomenon of interaction as such, without satisfactory attempts to find its anatomy. Thus, for social psychology, the study of not only the cooperative form of interaction is very significant.

In addition, with the absolute acceptance of only one type of interaction, the fundamentally important problem of the content of the activity within which certain types of interaction are given is removed. And this content of activity can be very different. It is possible to state a cooperative form of interaction not only in production conditions, but, for example, also when carrying out any asocial, illegal acts - joint robbery, theft, etc.

Therefore, cooperation in socially negative activities is not necessarily the form that needs to be stimulated; on the contrary, activity that is conflicting in conditions of asocial activity can be assessed positively. Cooperation and competition are only forms of “psychological pattern” of interaction, while the content in both cases is determined by a broader system of activity, which includes cooperation or competition. Therefore, without disputing the importance of studying cooperative forms of interaction, it is hardly correct to ignore the other form, and most importantly, it is unlikely to be correct to consider both of them outside the social context of activity.

Conclusion

Thus, in this work we examined the problem of communication in social psychology. As we have shown, communication is connected with both public and personal relationships of a person. Both series of human relationships, both social and personal, are realized precisely in communication.

Thus, communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society, that is, included in communication. In addition, communication is inextricably linked with human activity. Communication itself between people occurs directly in the process of activity, about this activity. Communication, being a complex psychological phenomenon, has its own structure.

In interpersonal communication, three sides can be distinguished.

1. The communicative side of communication is associated with the exchange of information, enriching each other through the accumulation of knowledge by each.

2. The interactive side of communication serves the practical interaction of people with each other in the process of joint activities. Here their ability to cooperate, help each other, coordinate their actions, and coordinate them is manifested. The lack of communication skills and abilities or their insufficient development negatively affects the development of the individual.

3. The perceptual side of communication characterizes the process of people’s perception of other people, the process of learning their individual properties and qualities.

The main mechanisms of perception and knowledge of each other in communication processes are identification, reflection and stereotyping. The communicative, interactive and perceptual aspects of communication in their unity determine its content, forms and role in people’s lives.

Bibliography

1. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., Moscow State University, 1988.

2. Lomov B.F. Communication as a problem of general psychology / Methodological problems of the social psyche. M., 1976. P.130.

3. Leontyev A.N. Problems of mental development. M., 1987.

4. Vygotsky L.S. Selected psychological studies. M., 1956.

5. Bodalev A.A. Perception and understanding of man by man. M., 1982. P.5.

6. Leontyev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975. P. 289.

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., Moscow State University, 1988. P. 88.

Lomov B.F. Communication as a common problem

psychology / Methodological problems of the social psyche. M., 1976. P.130.

Leontyev A.N. Problems of mental development. P. 289.

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., Moscow State University, 1988. P. 94.

Vygotsky L.S. Selected psychological studies. M., 1956. P. 379.

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., Moscow State University, 1988. P. 102.

Bodalev A.A. Perception and understanding of man by man. M., 1982. P.5.

Leontyev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975. P. 289

Posted on Allbest.ru

Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations

Analysis of the connection between social and interpersonal relations allows us to place the correct emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of domestic social psychology. The term “communication” itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term “communication,” but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely the theory activities. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.

Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. “Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society” (Leontiev A.A. Communication as an object of psychological research. Methodological problems of social psychology, 1975. P. 289), i.e. included in communication. Here it is especially important to emphasize the idea that in real communication not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, i.e. not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social, i.e., impersonal in nature, relationships are also embodied in the fabric of communication . The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of the system of his connections, and this process can also only be realized in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.”

Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups rather studied in sociology. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessarily carried out in a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, that is, it is given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person to another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. In this case, it is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion of human history (in this sense, we can talk about the importance of communication in the “phylogenesis” of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people (see. A. A. Leontiev, Psychology of Communication (Tartu, 1973). In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, that is, their change as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other social relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process figure in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals? Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives a certain amount of money for it, and money here acts as the most important means of communication in the system of social relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby “personally” communicates with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena, a form of direct communication is given - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the “second plan”, but in real life this “second plan” of communication is always present. Although in itself it is the subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.

Unity of communication and activity

However, with any approach, the fundamental question is the connection between communication and activity. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem when, polemicizing with G. Tarde, he paid special attention not to the dynamics of social phenomena, but to their statics. Society looked to him not as a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but as a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication. This gave reason to A. N. Leontiev to note that with this approach the individual appears more “as a communicating than as a practically acting social being” (Leontiev A. N. Problems of mental development. M., 1972. P. 271).

In contrast to this, in domestic psychology the idea is accepted unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of an active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities. Thus, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is stated in one way or another by all researchers.

However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides social existence of a person, his way of life (Lomov B. f. Communication and social regulation of individual behavior // Psychological problems of social regulation of behavior. M., 1976. P. 130). In other cases, communication is understood as a certain side activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as condition communication (A. N. Leontyev. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975. P. 289). Finally, communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin, 1991). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc. (A. A. Leontyev. Communication as an object of psychological research //Methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1975. P. 122).

It is unlikely that it will be very important to clarify the advantages and comparative disadvantages of each of these points of view: none of them denies the most important thing - the undoubted connection between activity and communication, everyone recognizes the inadmissibility of separating them from each other during analysis. Moreover, the divergence of positions is much more obvious at the level of theoretical and general methodological analysis. As for experimental practice, all researchers have much more in common than different. This common thing is the recognition of the fact of the unity of communication and activity and attempts to fix this unity.

Isolating the subject of communication should not be understood vulgarly: people communicate not only about the activity with which they are associated. In order to highlight two possible reasons for communication, the literature differentiates the concepts of “role” and “personal” communication. Under some circumstances, this personal communication in form may look like role-playing, business, “subject-problem-based” (Kharash A.U. Towards the definition of tasks and methods of social psychology in the light of the principle of activity // Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1977 . P. 30). Thus, the separation of role and personal communication is not absolute. In certain relationships and situations, both are associated with activity.

The idea of “wovenness” of communication into activity also allows us to consider in detail the question of what exactly in activity can constitute communication. In the most general form, the answer can be formulated as follows: through communication, activity is being organized And enriches itself. Building a plan for joint activities requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of its goals, objectives, understanding the specifics of its object and even the capabilities of each participant. The inclusion of communication in this process allows for “coordination” or “mismatch” of the activities of individual participants (A. A. Leontyev. Communication as an object of psychological research // Methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1975. P. 116).

This coordination of the activities of individual participants can be achieved thanks to such a characteristic of communication as its inherent function impact, in which the “reverse influence of communication on activity” is manifested (Andreeva G.M., Yanoushek Ya. The relationship of communication and activity // Communication and optimization of joint activities. M., 1987). We will find out the specifics of this function along with consideration of various aspects of communication. Now it is important to emphasize that activity through communication is not just organized, but actually enriched, new connections and relationships between people arise in it.

Communication structure

Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow indicate its structure so that analysis of each element is then possible. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, as well as the definition of its functions. We propose to characterize the structure of communication by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The structure of communication can be schematically depicted as follows (Fig. 1.2).

Rice. 1.2. Communication structure

Communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. Interactive side consists in organizing interaction between communicating individuals, i.e. in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. Perceptual The side of communication means the process of perception and knowledge of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense. For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative (Lomov B.F. Communication and social regulation of individual behavior // Psychological problems of social regulation of behavior. M., 1976. P. 85). The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects, or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular, for building a system of experimental research. All aspects of communication identified here are revealed in small groups, i.e., in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the issue of the means and mechanisms of influence of people on each other and in the conditions of their joint massive actions, which should be the subject of special analysis, in particular, when studying the psychology of large groups and mass movements.

A. Dobrovich. Sisyematics of generalizations

1) General model

When constructing a general model of communication, it is advisable to use R. Jacobson’s scheme (1964):

Where A -“addressee”, B -“addressee” of information.

Connection can be direct (in human communication - speech and gestures in the broad sense of the word, including, for example, “vocal gestures”; intonation) or indirect (telephone, teletype, etc.).

Code - the rules of the language (or “bundle” of languages) used to convey the message; context- a predetermined “semantic field” in which the message becomes informative.

2) Contact

By “contact” we mean a case of communication with feedback:

This is precisely how K. Büller understands “contact” as the “mutual orientation” of partners (1927). For him, contact is “a process of coordinated changes in behavior.”

The addressee not only communicates information, but also receives a response. In other words, the sender, having made a message, becomes the addressee; he, having received the message, becomes the addressee. This process can continue indefinitely.

From our point of view, the concept of “formal” (or “informal”) communication is applicable specifically to contact, and not to communication in general. “Formal communication” we will call contact on which certain restrictions are imposed. The meaning of this definition will be revealed later. For now, let's continue to consider the contact.

3) Contact unit

A transmits to B one “communicative stimulus” (or “communicat”) and receives one response; B receives one stimulus and transmits one in response; there is an “exchange” of communications. Following the psychotherapist E. Berne (1964), let's call such an exchange a “transaction.”

Examples.

A looked at B with a contemptuous look. He pointedly turned away - a transaction had taken place. The same thing, but B simply looked in the other direction and did not notice the sign of contempt - the transaction did not take place (there was no contact). A told B some news, B smiled without saying a word - the transaction nevertheless took place, since a smile is a “gesture”, a communicative stimulus. And as an actor he delivered a spectacular line, the audience (as the addressee) held their breath - the transaction took place. The same - if the audience hissed indignantly, laughed or burst into applause. Human transactions almost always involve the use of several codes simultaneously, i.e., a “bundle” of languages. The language of words is combined with the language of pauses, intonations, postures and facial expressions.

As can be seen from the examples just given, communication is capable of carrying both elementary and highly complex information. An example of an elementary one is the so-called “stroking”: information about belonging to the same community, about a favorable attitude towards a partner. An example of highly complex information is the verbal-musical-pantomimic transmission of mystical experience by a priest or shaman.

Let us especially highlight the “emotional radical” of the communicative stimulus. If we agree, according to Berne, to call an elementary “positive” stimulus “stroking,” then an elementary “negative” stimulus deserves the name “kick,” “bite,” or “puncture.” “Prick” is preferable from a style point of view.

5) Contact partners. Masks

Further development of the scheme concerns contact partners. Since we are talking about people, each of them has:

a) a set of masks for “impersonal” communication;
6) personality for “interpersonal” communication. Let us now turn to the contact of the masks.

Mask - This is a set of signs (speech, gestures), the presentation of which ensures “smooth” and safe interaction in a human group. Examples: politeness mask. In a public place, the absence of such a mask (an angry or absent-minded facial expression, a rude tone, too loud laughter, etc.) entails sanctions from the group: criticism, ridicule, aggressiveness. And at the same time, appearing in a mask of politeness among tipsy revelers means causing them irritation or offense; here a different mask is required: benevolence or loyal non-interference. The mask of grief is suitable for funerals, but not for weddings, etc. People change masks almost automatically, depending on the circumstances.

If in communication between partners only contact between masks is allowed, i.e. a restriction on participation is imposed personalities in conversation, then in front of us the first case of formal communication.

The specified limitation may be different in nature. Let us note four types of restrictions imposed on contact.

a) Conventional restrictions. In this social group there is a “convention” - a custom according to which on the bus it is not customary to ask questions of a personal nature to a random companion (“You must have slept poorly today?”) or to communicate anything from your personal sphere (“You know, I I was disappointed in life." Only impersonal communicative stimuli such as: “Allow me?” - Please”, “Sorry! “It’s okay,” etc. The Convention, therefore, forces partners to “impersonal” contact, to communicate in masks.
b) Situational restrictions. They are close to conventional. Here we highlight special situations in which participation personalities as contact partners only “spoils” the matter. Examples: the ceremony of turning over a shift or changing the guard, the Japanese tea ceremony, etc.
c) Emotional restrictions. Communication partners are emotionally cold or hostile to each other and, trying to prevent conflict, use masks exclusively in contact.
d) Violent restrictions. One of the partners may be ready for interpersonal communication, but the other, for one reason or another, suppresses these attempts, putting on a mask and forcing his interlocutor to do the same. Restrictions of this kind, as we see, differ from emotional ones only in some nuances.

Contact restrictions, according to D. S. Parygin (1970), create “psychological barriers between people,” replacing genuine communication with “stereotypes” and “standard behavioral reactions.”

Any instance of mask contact can be explained by these limitations or a combination of them.

6) Personality and position of the individual in contact

Personality is a structure of extreme complexity, and we will consider it only in particular aspects that are of greatest importance in contact. A person as a “communicator” has at least three personal positions. They, according to E. Berne, coexist within the same person, complementing each other.

a) Position of the child, “child” (position D). Preserved from an early age. Concentrates the strengths and weaknesses of a child's nature. The “strong” ones, apparently, should include looseness, creative impulses, impulsive cheerfulness, imagination, and curiosity. To the “weak” - timidity, uncertainty, helplessness, gullibility, lack of restraint.
b) Position of the parent (position P). It is learned in childhood through adoration and imitation of elders. Her strengths: confidence in the correctness of moral demands, the ability to use an authoritative tone, to patronize and protect the weak. Less attractive traits: peremptory nature, dogmatism, consciousness of superiority and the right to “punish.”
c) Adult position (position B). Calculation of actions, control over them, sobriety in assessments, understanding of the relativity of dogmas. At the same time, excessive skepticism, constraint (lack of spontaneity), poverty of imagination, underestimation of the emotional side of life.

If a person were deprived of any of these positions, his behavior would become “non-adaptive”: either too rigid, or too loose and careless. However, at a certain unit of time (during the course of contact), one of the positions is leading; the next moment another may prevail.

From the above it follows that not two, but six partners actually participate in contact:

Addressee Addressee

This circumstance requires a more detailed taxonomy of transactions. They are divided as follows:

7) Complementary transactions

A communicative stimulus is sent by the addresser from position X and received by the addressee in position Y; a response stimulus is sent from position Y to be received by a partner in position X.

Ivanov.
Petrov. Yes, in their years we were more modest.

In this example, the communication stimulus is sent from the parent's position (from left to right, as indicated by the arrow). The stimulus is addressed to the “parental” position of the partner. The partner answers from this position (arrow from right to left).

Teacher. How did you come up with a three-digit number?
Student. Oh yes: I forgot to take the square root.

C h e t o d . Shouldn't we go to the bar while the bosses aren't there?
Accountant. Just hurry up: I’m dying - I want beer.

Examples I, II and III can, as is sometimes done in directing, be called “attaching partners side by side.”

Ivanov. In my opinion, you should give way to that old lady.
Petrov. You're right (gives way).

Option: Unfortunately, I am sick and can barely stand on my feet. I hope the lady will forgive me.

Ivanov. Aren't you ashamed to sit when an elderly woman is standing next to you?
Petrov. Forgive me, I just didn't notice. I was thinking, you know...

Option:Why are you here? Who are you to tell me?;

S i d o r o v a . Show me out: there are always drunks milling around our entrance.
Ivanov. Well, of course, I’ll see you off.

Petrov. You are so experienced - teach me how to live further.
Ivanov. First of all, you need to rest and calm down.

Option:You are always whining and waiting for advice from others!

Examples IV and V for the partner on the left are “top extension”; examples VI and VII for the partner on the left are “an extension from below.”

Often such transactions are fixed. For example, the small talk of pensioners who do not know each other may be limited to P-P transactions (see I). A business conversation or diplomatic reception requires fixed B-B transactions (see II). In a picnic or costume ball situation, D-D transactions are recorded (see III), while others are considered inappropriate. The relationship between a teacher and a student requires transactions in the P-B positions (see IV), and between the teacher and students - P-D (see V). For women, it is natural (and desirable) to have transactions with a man of type V-R (see VI) or even D-R (see VII). Transactions of the D-R type constantly arise between the patient and the psychotherapist, and changing the mutual position during contacts was considered prohibited until recently.

If we defined the contact of masks as the first case of formal communication, then with fixed transactions we are faced with second case; there is a restriction imposed on changing positions. As in the previous case, the restriction can be conventional, situational, emotional, violent or mixed in nature.

8) Transactions without complementarity

Here, the partner's response stimulus either comes from a different position than the original stimulus was sent, or is addressed to a different position from which this initial stimulus was sent.

Ivanov. What happened to the young people? They have completely blossomed.
Petrov. Remember: when we were young, our parents said the same thing.

C h e t o d .
Accountant. For shame, you're at work!

We call cases of types VIII and IX transactions without complementarity, but "With taking into account the address.” Indeed: the right partner in these examples does not respond from the position from which it was expected, but is addressed to the original position of the left partner.

C h e t o d . Shouldn't we go to the cinema while the bosses are away?
Accountant. Please give me the statement for the month of July.

Husband.
Wife.

Cases of type X and XI are transactions “without taking into account the address”. Indeed: the right partner not only responds from an unexpected position, but also does not address the original position of the left partner. Case XI depicts the so-called “cross” transaction. Here are more examples of the same type.

Husband. Have you ever seen my cufflinks?
Wife. Are you always nagging me? Why do I have to remember everything?

S e m e n. Take your bag, brother, and go get some bread.
S t e p a n. Too lazy to tear yourself away from the sofa? Take it and go yourself!

Cross transactions often mean a quarrel between partners. In general, transactions without complementarity usually contain a painful “prick” for at least one of the participants in the contact.

If transactions of type VIII - XIII are determined all contact progress, i.e. a limitation is imposed on any complementarity before us the third case of formal communication. We will call such communication “conflict”. The nature of the restriction is most often emotional or violent.

And however, if a restriction is imposed on any of the two “emotional radicals” of the communicative stimulus, then this is - the fourth case of formal communication. We are talking about a ban on “injections” (salon chirping, where only mutual stroking is allowed) or a ban on stroking (traditional picking of partners who are ordered to act only as opponents to each other; the extreme case is the Montagues and Capulets).

9) Hidden transactions

A communicative stimulus may consist of two (or three) messages, each of which is addressed to a different position of the partner. The message that most closely matches the “conventions” and context of the conversation is considered explicit; the other turns out to be “hidden”, indirect.

Ivanov. Come to me, I live alone. Let's drink some hot tea... (I really like you.)
Petrova. Yes, it would be nice to warm up with tea... (You do for me too.)

Petrov. Now I will give you the floor. (I see you are burning with impatience to show off on the podium.)
Ivanov. Hm! (I don’t have to perform at all if you intend to make a laughing stock out of me.)

Petrov. Now I will give you the floor. (I can imagine how you will deal with them!)
Ivanov. Great! (Don't worry, I'll give them a hard time.)

Salesman . This thermos would suit you best... (I just don’t know if you can afford such expenses.)
Buyer. I take it, it's just what I need.

The covert transactions in Examples XV, XVI and XVII are clearly provocative. However, in some cases such provocation is not intentional. If we return to the cross-transactions of examples XI, XII and XIII, then, strictly speaking, these are most likely cases of unintentional provocations. The picture here seems to be like this.

Husband. Have you seen my cufflinks? (Sorry, honey, for distracting you, I'm so distracted.)
Wife. You're always losing everything, you can't live without a nanny!

Husband. Have you ever seen my cufflinks?

Wife. Why are you picking on me? Why do I have to remember everything?

Although the use of hidden transactions sometimes leads to cross-transactions and further to disrupted complementarity or a breakdown in communication (i.e., a quarrel), it should be noted the special role of this “hidden” interaction in arousing the feelings of the interlocutors. The restriction placed on hidden transactions is the fifth case of formal communication. Contact becomes “dry”, “boring”, “painful” for the partner. Such a restriction can be either conventional-situational in nature (business meeting) or emotionally violent (conversation between hostile and wary people).

Before we go any further, we need to address the issue of violent contact restrictions. Such restrictions are referred to as cases of “games,” meaning the “losing” of the partner who was limited in communication or in achieving their goals. We would prefer to call these cases “manipulations.” Communicative manipulations of people are most often far from innocent games. Unlike sports, card, and similar games, which can be “fair” or “unfair,” manipulation is always dishonest. Let's talk about them in more detail.

10) Manipulation

According to their structure, they can be divided into “single-cycle” And “multi-cycle”. An example of a one-step manipulation TRAP is the case of Seller-Buyer (see XVII), although such manipulation often consists of many “steps” - cunning “moves”. Example XI is sometimes a one-shot version of the DOOR SLAMMING manipulation:

Husband (friendly). Have you ever seen my cufflinks?
Wife. You're always losing everything, you can't live without a nanny!

(The husband, having exploded, leaves the room, slamming the door hard. For some reason, this is what the wife wanted).

Another example: a single-cycle version of the manipulation ALL BECAUSE OF YOU. The father of the family pores over drawings, which he does not know how to make and does not like. The son knocks and comes in with the question: “Mom is calling for dinner - are you coming?” The unfortunate draftsman places a blot on whatman paper and exclaims fiercely: “What have you done, it’s all because of you!”

Multi-cycle manipulations consist of a whole series of transactions.

Example:

Multi-cycle manipulation DOOR SLAMMING:

Husband (friendly). I wonder where the key to this box went. Didn't you come across it?
Wife. Blind, or what? Over there, by the mirror.
Husband. What does being “blind” have to do with it - things should be in their places.
Wife. You and your mommy won't miss a chance to say nasty things to me.

Another example: the DEAD-END manipulation. The wife feels that her husband has begun to be burdened by her. Meanwhile, he brings tickets to the theater for a performance that has long interested both. During his wife's excited dressing, he, however, makes a sharp remark to her: “You're always digging!”

No problem, we can take a taxi.

By taxi? What extravagance! This is why I have to work like hell!

If he manages to provoke his wife into retaliatory “injections,” the manipulation turns into DOOR SLAMMING. The husband goes to his friends, leaving his wife, if she wishes, to rush to the theater herself. At the same time, on the one hand, he achieved what he wanted, on the other, he is not responsible for the scandal. After all, it was none other than him who brought the tickets! The wife finds herself driven into a “dead end”.

Sometimes there may be long (and planned) breaks between series of manipulative transactions. This is the manipulation TRY TO TAKE IT AWAY. Petrov took a rare book from Ivanov. Ivanov asks to return her. Petrov expresses his readiness to do this, “forgets” his promise several times, and then invites Ivanov to visit. Accepting him, he behaves in such a way that he feels flattered. However, as if by the way, Petrov drops the phrase: “I hope you came to us not only because of your book?” This makes it difficult for Ivanov to remember the book, and he leaves with nothing. The next day, Petrov throws up his hands: “We started talking and forgot about the book!” Ivanov is forced to answer: “It’s okay.” Taking advantage of this, Petrov immediately seeks permission to transfer the book to his friend N. - “just for a couple of days.” Further, forestalling Ivanov’s question about the book, he again invites him to visit, etc.

From the point of view of the “benefit” of the manipulator, manipulations can be divided into everyday beneficial and psychologically beneficial (although often one is combined with the other). Everyday benefits, for example, TRAP, DEAD END, TRY TO TAKE IT AWAY. A striking example of everyday beneficial manipulation is the so-called SANDWICH. The husband asks his wife not to throw away yesterday’s cutlets, but to make a sandwich out of them and wrap them for him at work (although the wife knows that at work there is a buffet where the food is tasty and inexpensive). This continues day after day and has a very specific purpose: to prevent the wife from asking her to buy her a new coat. A “context” is created in which such a request would sound inappropriate and even arrogant.

Psychologically the manipulation ALL BECAUSE OF YOU, described earlier, is beneficial. It represents a typical “cleansing of conscience” at the expense of a scapegoat. Psychological gain, in addition to clearing your conscience, may also consist in receiving “strokes” to which you have the right not to respond, in delivering “injections” with impunity, or in “an extension from above.”

Examples.

Manipulation ALCOHOLIC. A drunkard turns to a well-wishing acquaintance with repentance and requests for help with advice. An acquaintance sincerely sympathizes with him and discusses his problems with him.

After a long conversation, the alcoholic, however, reveals that he remains inconsolable. Thus, firstly, he clears his conscience, secondly, he receives “strokes” that he has not been given for a long time; and thirdly, without confirming the value of the consolations heard, it leaves the partner without reciprocal strokes. Sometimes, to “add on from above,” he also resorts in the finale to a sensitive “prick”: “What can you, a teetotaler, understand in the soul of a drinker?” (in fact, this is an R-D transaction: addressing a “wise” person to a “naive child”),

Manipulation COULD YOU? - YES, BUT...

D a m a. My TV hasn't worked for a month now.
O D I N I G O S T E Y. Could you ask your husband to fix it?
D a m a. Yes, but my husband is absolutely helpless in these matters.
Another one. Then call a specialist.
D a m a. Yes, but the repairman will most likely demand that the TV be taken to the workshop.
Third year. Why don't you do it?
D a m a. Yes, but I don't have time to spend an hour on the phone ordering a taxi.
Fourth year. So ask your husband about it.
D a m a. What are you, this is a helpless person...

The conversation descends into awkward silence. The lady is secretly triumphant: the guests gave her a whole bouquet of “strokes”, sympathizing or at least feigning sympathy. At the same time, she is not obliged to “return” their strokes in return.

Manipulation IF YOU WERE NOT HERE. The husband constantly tells his wife that “if it weren’t for you,” he would have finished his dissertation long ago. One fine day, the wife and children are going to live with their relatives for two weeks. The husband, however, is not enthusiastic about this idea. He is forced to undertake a new manipulation (for example, IMAGINAL SICK) in order to detain his wife. In reality, he needed to clear his conscience, and at the same time maintain a sense of guilt in his wife, which would make it easier for him to “get on top.”

Manipulation HOME SAGE. Someone accustoms his surroundings to the idea that he is capable of disinterestedly giving wise advice. Skillfully encouraging the pilgrimage of those thirsty for advice, he keeps a secret account of his victories - “extensions from above.” The manipulative nature of such actions is revealed by the fact that the “sage” himself cannot stand anyone’s advice. An extension “next to” or “below” is considered by him as a loss.

Another manipulation. Its children's version is presented in Charles Dickens's novel “Great Expectations.” A girl in a clean, starched dress goes out onto the porch and asks the boy, her admirer, to make her a pie out of sand. The boy rushes to fulfill this request, after which the girl winces; “Ugh, how dirty and disgusting you are - covered in sand.” The manipulation may accordingly be called SAND PIE. Its adult version is often associated with the sexual negativism of one of the spouses. A woman can reproach a man for being an “animal” and experiencing only attraction to her, but not love. Under this pretext, she provokes a long-term cooling in the relationship. Nevertheless, after some time, she resorts to coquetry, caresses, etc., giving the man a reason to be more persistent. However, in response to his more decisive demands, she bursts into tears: “What did I say - you’re just an animal!” Thus, she manages, on the one hand, to avoid relationships that are unpleasant to her, and on the other, to maintain the appearance of marriage, to keep the man “with her.”

A simple manipulation model might look like this:

Petrov. Now I will give you the floor. (I can imagine how you will deal with them!) Petrov’s hidden transaction involves “stroking.”
Ivanov. Great. (I’ll give them some pepper.)

P etrov . Well, step up to the podium. (Just don't mumble, for God's sake!)

Petrov’s hidden transaction is an offensive “prick.”

Ivanov. I'm coming.

Option:A?..(Ivanov, not finding anything to answer, obediently goes to the podium.)

In the “I’m going, going” option, Ivanov accepts a forced extension from below; in option “Ah?” he does not have the opportunity to deliver a retaliatory “injection” and involuntarily finds himself “on the ground”. Witnesses to this scene hold back their laughter.

Manipulators are often psychologically perverted people (sadistic tendencies). They are dangerous for the partner and force him to be on guard in the future, that is, to contact him formally - right up to the contact of masks. Moreover, one of the “pleasures” of the manipulator is to again extract the partner “from under the mask” at any cost, in order to then again inflict a humiliating “injection” on him.

If contact as a whole is a series of manipulations and nothing more, we are undoubtedly facing sixth case of formal communication. Here one of the partners forcibly limits the actions of the other.

We should not forget, however, that manipulation is sometimes resorted to out of unconscious deceit or intuitively pursuing mutually beneficial goals. Thus, DOOR SLAMMING is sometimes provoked by a loving woman. Following the manipulation, her communication with the man becomes formal for some time. But this is unusual for a man and is extremely painful for him. A feeling of guilt, attachment to a woman, or at least boredom prompts him to take the first step towards reconciliation, which turns out to be the more ardent, the colder the formal period of the relationship. This is how a faded marriage is sometimes “revitalized.” The formalization of contacts in this example serves the task of more complete informal (intimate) communication.

Sots.ps analyzes first of all those patterns of human behavior and activity that are determined by the fact of communication and interaction of people. Ch. task, cat. stands before social ps, - to reveal the specific mechanism of “weaving” the individual into the fabric of social reality in order to understand what is the result of the influence of social conditions on the activity of the individual. The personality itself, on the one hand, is already a “product” of these social connections, and on the other hand, is their creator, an active creator. There is an interaction between the individual and society as a whole, so the study of the individual is always another side of the study of society.

There are two main types of relationships: public and interpersonal

General structure relationships are studied by sociology. They are impersonal. They are based on production, material relations, and a whole series is built on top of them: social, political, ideological. All this together represents a system of social relations. The specifics of their mortgage. in that they do not simply “meet” individual with individual, but individuals “meet” as representatives of certain social groups (classes, professions, political parties, etc.). Such relationships are built not on the basis of the interaction of specific individuals, but on the basis of a certain position occupied by each person in the system of society.

Interpersonal(Myasishchev calls them “psychological”) relationships do not develop somewhere outside the community. rel., and within them, there are no “pure” general rel. In almost all group actions, their participants appear in two capacities: as performers of an impersonal social role and as unique human individuals. The concept of “interpersonal role” is introduced as a fixation of a person’s position in the system of group connections based on the individual psychological characteristics of the individual (shirt-guy, insider, scapegoat, etc.). Interl. rel. can be considered as a factor in the psychological “climate” of the group. The most important specific feature of interl. rel. – emotional basis. Based on the set of feelings, two large groups can be distinguished:

1)conjunctive- this includes various kinds of things that bring people together, uniting their feelings. The parties demonstrate their readiness to cooperate, to collaborate. actions.

2)disjunctive feelings- here rel. feelings that separate people, there is no desire to collaborate.

Practical rel. relationships between people in a group do not develop solely on the basis of immediate emotions. contacts. Relationships mediated by joint activities are important here. When the act of communication must take place even if the groups are antagonistic.

1. Communication in the system of public relations

Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. There are two series of relationships - public And interpersonal.

Social relations-- various relationships between individuals or groups determined by their social roles.

Social role is the fixation of a certain position occupied by one or another individual in the system of social relations. Each individual performs not one, but several social roles: he can be an accountant, a father, a member of a trade union, a player on the national football team, etc.

Social relations arise between:

· individuals as part of a social group;
· groups of individuals;
individual individuals and groups of individuals.

In this regard, social relations are considered at different levels:

· at the level of social communities (class, national, group relations, etc.);
· at the level of groups engaged in any activity (production, educational, etc.);
· at the level of relationships between people in groups.

Social relations develop in all spheres of public life. There are economic, social, political, ideological and other types of relations. All of them together constitute a system of social relations.

In social relations, a person acts as a representative of certain classes, professions, movements, associations, parties, etc. Such relationships are built on the basis of a certain position occupied by each person in society, the fulfillment of specific social roles by a person. Social relations are realized in the activities of specific individuals, in acts of their communication and interaction. Social relations are characterized by social differentiation.

Social differentiation- an intragroup process that determines the position and status of members of a given community.

Social relations are impersonal character. They are characterized, as a rule, by a lack of depth in relationships between subjects: the contact partner can easily be replaced by another person. Their essence is not in the interaction of specific individuals, but in the interaction of specific social roles. But within the limits of his role, the behavior of an individual is not strictly specified - each social role always leaves a certain range of possibilities for its performer, and he appears, as it were, in two qualities: as a performer of an impersonal social role and as a unique human personality. Therefore, interpersonal relationships serve as the basis for building interpersonal relationships within the system of impersonal social relations.

2. Communication in the system of interpersonal relations

Interpersonal relationships- subjectively experienced relationships between people, objectively manifested in the nature and methods of mutual influence of people in the process of activity and communication.

Interpersonal relationships are determined, on the one hand, by role relationships and individual personal characteristics of the subjects, on the other.

Interpersonal relationships are woven into the system of social relations.

The nature of interpersonal relationships differs significantly from the nature of social relations in the emotional component. Interpersonal relationships are based on the various emotional states of interacting people.

Based on criteria such as the depth of the relationship, selectivity in choosing partners, the functions of relationships, N.N. Obozov proposes (without claiming completeness) the following classification of interpersonal relationships: dating relationships, friendly, comradely, friendly, love, marital, related And destructive relationships.

Interpersonal relationships include three components - cognitive(informational), affective(emotional) and behavioral.

Cognitive component involves awareness of what one likes or dislikes in interpersonal relationships.

Affective component finds its expression in various emotional experiences of people about the relationships between them. These are positive and negative emotional states, conflict states (intrapersonal, interpersonal), emotional sensitivity, satisfaction with oneself, with a partner, etc. The affective component is usually the leading one.

The emotional content of interpersonal relationships can change in opposite directions: from conjunctive (positive, bringing together) to indifferent (neutral) and disjunctive (negative, dividing) and vice versa. The options for manifestations of interpersonal relationships are enormous.

Conjunctive feelings manifest themselves in various forms of positive emotions and states, the demonstration of which indicates a readiness for rapprochement and joint activity.

Indifferent feelings suggest manifestations of a neutral attitude towards the partner. This may include indifference, indifference, indifference, etc.

Disjunctive feelings are expressed in the manifestation of various forms of negative emotions and states, which is regarded by the partner as a lack of readiness for further rapprochement and communication.

In some cases, the emotional content of interpersonal relationships may be ambivalent(controversial).

Behavioral component implemented in specific actions. If one of the partners likes the other, the behavior will be friendly, aimed at providing assistance and productive cooperation. If the object is not attractive, then the interactive side of communication will be difficult.

Interpersonal relationships can be built on "verticals"(between a manager and a subordinate and vice versa) and "horizontal"(between persons occupying the same status).

Interpersonal relationships can be formed with positions of dominance- equality - subordination and dependence - independence.

Control questions:

1. Describe social relations.
2. Describe interpersonal relationships.
3. What are the similarities and differences between social and interpersonal relationships?

Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations. Uncover the meaning of the interactive component of communication

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations

Unity of communication and activity

Communication structure

A. Dobrovich. Sisyematics of generalizations

1) General model

2) Contact

3) Contact unit

Examples.

5) Contact partners. Masks

6) Personality and position of the individual in contact

7) Complementary transactions

8) Transactions without complementarity

9) Hidden transactions

10) Manipulation

Example:

Examples.