Topic 2.7. Personality and its socialization.
Plan
1. The concept of personality. Basic theories of personality.
2. Personality structure. Personal self-awareness. Personality formation.
3. Socialization and its main characteristics.
4. The concept of social behavior. Prosocial and antisocial behavior. Aggression and regulation of social behavior
1. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Activity and personality psychology. –– M.: Nauka, 1980.–– P. 113-185, 210-259.
2. Averin V.A. Personality psychology: Textbook. –– St. Petersburg: Publishing house of Mikhailov V.A., 1999. –– 89 p.
3. Asmolov A.G. Personality psychology: Principles of general psychological analysis: Textbook. –– M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1990. –– P. 7-363.
4. Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication: Selected psychological works. –– 2nd ed., revised. –– M.: International Pedagogical Academy, 1995 – P. 5-20.
5. Bodalev A.A. Psychology about personality. –– M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1988. –– P. 5-11, 37-59.
6. Bozhovich L.I. Personality and its formation in childhood. –– M.: Education, 1982. –– P. 39-123.
7. Zeigarnik B.V. Theories of personality in foreign psychology. –– M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1982.–– P. 6-97.
8. Leontyev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. –– M.: Nauka, 1982. –– P. 86-135.
9. Merlin V.S. Personality structure. Character, abilities, self-awareness. Textbook for the special course. –– Perm: University Publishing House, 1990. –– P.81-108.
10. Orlov A.B. Personality and essence: the external and internal “I” of a person. //Questions of psychology. –– 1995. –– No. 2. –– P. 5 - 19.
11. Psychology of individual differences. Texts.–– M: Pedagogy, 1982.–– P. 179-218.
12. Personality psychology. Texts. –– M: Pedagogy, 1982.–– P. 11-19, 39-41.
13. Psychology of the developing personality / Ed. A.V. Petrovsky. –– M.: Pedagogy, 1987.–– P. 10-105.
The concept of personality. Basic theories of personality.
A person as a subject of social relations, a bearer of socially significant qualities is personality.
Personality is a systemic social quality of an individual, formed in joint activity and communication.
Along with the concept of personality, we also use such terms as person, individual and individuality. All these concepts have specifics, but they are interconnected:
Man is the most general, integrative concept. It means a being that embodies the highest degree of development of life, a product of social and labor processes, an indissoluble unity of the natural and the social. But, carrying within himself a social-tribal essence, each person is a single natural being, an individual;
An individual is a specific person as a representative of the genus Homo sapiens, the bearer of the prerequisites (inclinations) of human development;
Individuality is the unique identity of a particular person, his natural and socially acquired properties.
In the concept of personality, the system of socially significant qualities of a person comes to the fore.
Personality has a multi-level organization. The highest and leading level of psychological organization of the individual - its need-motivational sphere - is - focus personalities, her attitude towards society, individuals, herself and her social responsibilities.
A person is not born with ready-made abilities, character, etc. These properties are formed during life, but on a certain natural basis. The hereditary basis of the human body (genotype) determines its anatomical and physiological characteristics, the basic qualities of the nervous system, and the dynamics of nervous processes. The natural, biological organization of man contains the possibilities of his mental development.
A human being becomes human only through mastering the experience of previous generations, enshrined in knowledge, traditions, and objects of material and spiritual culture.
In the formation of an individual as a personality, processes are essential personal identification (the formation of an individual’s identification with other people and human society as a whole) and personalization (an individual’s awareness of the need for a certain representation of his personality in the life activities of other people, personal self-realization in a given social community).
A person interacts with other people on the basis of " Self-concepts ", personal reflection - your ideas about yourself, your capabilities, your significance.
A person is born with certain hereditary inclinations. Most of them are multi-valued: on their basis, various personality traits can be formed. In this case, the educational process plays a decisive role.
However, the possibilities of education are also related to the hereditary characteristics of the individual. Hereditary basis The human body determines its anatomical and physiological characteristics, the basic qualities of the nervous system, and the dynamics of nervous processes. The biological organization of man, his nature, contains the possibilities of his future mental development.
Modern scientific data indicate that certain biological factors can act as conditions that complicate or facilitate the formation of certain mental qualities of a person.
In the second half. In the 20th century, many approaches and theories of personality emerged.
Structural theories of personality are aimed at identifying the structure of personality, its typology, constituent elements, and personality traits. The most prominent representatives of structural theories of personality are G. Allport, K. Rogers, D. Cattell, G. Eysenck.
Gordon Willard Allport(1897 - 1967), an American psychologist, one of the founders of the modern systematic approach to the study of personality psychology, believed that any personality has a stable set of traits. (His theory is called the “theory of personality traits.”) Allport studied the hierarchy of value orientations of the individual and typologized personalities on this basis (“Personality: A Psychological Interpretation,” 1938).
Another American psychologist Carl Ransom Rogers (1902 - 1987), one of the leaders of the so-called humanistic psychology, believed that the core of personality is its self-concept. Formed in the social environment, it is the main integrative mechanism of self-regulation of the individual. The self-concept is constantly compared with the ideal self, causing attempts to protect the self-concept from disintegration: the individual constantly strives for self-justification of his behavior, uses a variety of psychological defense mechanisms (up to perceptual distortions - distortions of perception, and ignoring objects he does not like). Rogers developed a special (interactive) system of psychotherapy based on a trusting relationship with the patient (“Client-Centered Therapy”, 1954).
In the 20th century, experimental and mathematical methods began to be widely used in the study of personality psychology. American psychologist James McKeen Cattell (1860 - 1944) was the founder of the testological movement in psychology. He was the first to use a complex method of modern statistics in the psychological study of personality - factor analysis, which minimizes many different indicators and personality assessments and allows one to identify 16 basic personality traits (Cattell's 16-factor personality questionnaire).
The Cattell questionnaire reveals such basic personality qualities as rationality, secrecy, emotional stability, dominance, seriousness (frivolity), conscientiousness, caution, sensitivity, gullibility (suspiciousness), conservatism, conformity, controllability, tension.
The Cattell questionnaire contains more than 100 questions, the answers to which (affirmative or negative) are grouped in accordance with the “key” - a certain way of processing the results, after which the severity of a particular factor is determined.
Methods for mathematical analysis of the results of observations and surveys, and documentary data were also developed G. Eysenck . His concept of personality traits is associated with its two interrelated basic qualities: 1) extraversion-introversion; 2) stability-instability (neuroticism, anxiety).
cognitive psychology
The disadvantage of structural theories of personality was that based on knowledge of personality traits it is impossible to predict human behavior, because it also depends on the situation itself.
As an alternative to this theory, arose social learning theory. The main psychological characteristic of a person in this theory is an action, or a series of actions. A person’s behavior is influenced by other people, their support or condemnation of actions. A person acts one way or another based on his life experience, which is acquired as a result of interaction with other people. Forms of behavior are acquired through imitation (vicarious learning). A person’s behavior and his personal characteristics depend on the frequency of occurrence of the same “stimulus situations” and on assessments of behavior in these situations received from other people.
One of the main directions of modern foreign psychology is becoming cognitive psychology(from Latin cognitio - knowledge), which, in contrast to behaviorism, postulates knowledge as the basis of behavior. Within the framework of cognitive psychology, the laws of cognitive activity are studied (J. Bruner), the psychology of individual differences (M. Eysenck), and personality psychology (J. Kelly). In connection with the development of cybernetics and the actualization of the problem of managing complex systems, there is an increased interest in the structure of the human.
Proponents also proposed their own approach to personality psychology humanistic psychology(Maslow, Rogers). The main attention of representatives of this direction was paid to the description of the inner world of the individual. The basic human need, according to this theory, is self-actualization, the desire for self-improvement and self-expression.
A person who, thanks to work, emerges from the animal world and develops in society, carries out joint activities with other people and communicates with them, becomes a person, a subject of knowledge and active transformation of the material world, society and himself.
A person is born into the world already a human being. This statement only at first glance seems to be a truth that does not require proof. The fact is that the genes of the human embryo contain natural prerequisites for the development of actually human characteristics and qualities. The configuration of a newborn’s body presupposes the possibility of walking upright, the structure of the brain provides the possibility of developing intelligence, the structure of the hand provides the prospect of using tools, etc., and in this way a baby - already a person in terms of the sum of its capabilities - differs from a baby animal. In this way, the fact that the baby belongs to the human race is proven, which is fixed in the concept of an individual (in contrast to a baby animal, which is called an individual immediately after birth and until the end of its life). The concept of “individual” embodies the generic identity of a person. An individual can be considered a newborn, an adult at the stage of savagery, and a highly educated resident of a civilized country.
Therefore, when we say of a particular person that he is an individual, we are essentially saying that he is potentially a person. Having been born as an individual, a person gradually acquires a special social quality and becomes a personality. Even in childhood, the individual is included in the historically established system of social relations, which he finds already ready. The further development of a person in society creates such an interweaving of relationships that shapes him as a person, i.e. as a real person, not only not like others, but also not like them, acting, thinking, suffering, included in social connections as a member of society, a participant in the historical process.
Personality in psychology refers to a systemic (social) quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the degree of representation of social relations in the individual.
So, personality can only be understood in a system of stable interpersonal connections, which are mediated by the content, values, and meaning of joint activity for each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are manifested in specific individual properties and actions of people, forming a special quality of the group activity itself.
The personality of each person is endowed only with its own inherent combination of psychological traits and characteristics that form its individuality, constituting the uniqueness of a person, his difference from other people. Individuality is manifested in traits of temperament, character, habits, prevailing interests, in the qualities of cognitive processes (perception, memory, thinking, imagination), in abilities, individual style of activity, etc. There are no two identical people with the same combination of these psychological characteristics - a person’s personality is unique in its individuality.
Just as the concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form unity, but not identity. The ability to add and multiply large numbers very quickly “in the mind”, thoughtfulness, the habit of biting nails and other characteristics of a person act as traits of his individuality, but are not necessarily included in the characteristics of his personality, if only because they may not be represented in forms activities and communications that are essential to the group in which the individual possessing these traits is included. If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relationships, then they turn out to be insignificant for characterizing the individual’s personality and do not receive conditions for development. The individual characteristics of a person remain “mute” until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relationships, the subject of which will be this person as an individual.
The problem of the relationship between the biological (natural) and social principles in the structure of a person’s personality is one of the most complex and controversial in modern psychology. A prominent place is occupied by theories that distinguish two main substructures in a person’s personality, formed under the influence of two factors - biological and social. The idea was put forward that the entire human personality is divided into an “endopsychic” and “exopsychic” organization. “Endopsyche” as a substructure of personality expresses the internal mechanism of the human personality, identified with the neuropsychic organization of a person. “Exopsyche” is determined by a person’s relationship to the external environment. “Endopsychia” includes such traits as receptivity, characteristics of memory, thinking and imagination, the ability to exert volition, impulsiveness, etc., and “exopsychia” is a person’s system of relationships and his experience, i.e. interests, inclinations, ideals, prevailing feelings, formed knowledge, etc.
How should we approach this concept of two factors? Natural organic aspects and traits exist in the structure of the individuality of the human personality as its socially conditioned elements. The natural (anatomical, physiological and other qualities) and the social form a unity and cannot be mechanically opposed to each other as independent substructures of the personality. So, recognizing the role of the natural, biological, and social in the structure of individuality, it is impossible to distinguish biological substructures in the human personality, in which they already exist in a transformed form.
Returning to the question of understanding the essence of personality, it is necessary to dwell on the structure of personality when it is considered as a “supersensible” systemic quality of an individual. Considering personality in the system of subjective relations, three types of subsystems of an individual’s personal existence are distinguished (or three aspects of the interpretation of personality). The first aspect of consideration is the intra-individual subsystem: personality is interpreted as a property inherent in the subject himself; the personal turns out to be immersed in the internal space of the individual’s existence. The second aspect is the interindividual personal subsystem, when the sphere of its definition and existence becomes the “space of interindividual connections.” The third aspect of consideration is the meta-individual personal subsystem. Here attention is drawn to the impact that, voluntarily or unwittingly, an individual has on other people. Personality is perceived from a new angle: its most important characteristics, which were tried to be seen in the qualities of an individual, are proposed to be looked for not only in himself, but also in other people. Continuing in other people, with the death of the individual the personality does not completely die. The individual, as the bearer of personality, dies, but, personalized in other people, continues to live. In the words “he lives in us even after death” there is neither mysticism nor pure metaphor, this is a statement of the fact of the ideal representation of the individual
after his material disappearance.
Of course, a personality can be characterized only in the unity of all three proposed aspects of consideration: its individuality, representation in the system of interpersonal relationships and, finally, in other people.
If, when deciding why a person becomes more active, we analyze the essence of needs, which express the state of need for something or someone, leading to activity, then in order to determine what activity will result in, it is necessary to analyze what determines its direction, where and what this activity is aimed at.
The set of stable motives that orient the activity of an individual and are relatively independent of existing situations is called the orientation of a person’s personality. The main role of personality orientation belongs to conscious motives.
Interest is a motive that promotes orientation in any area, familiarization with new facts, and a more complete and profound reflection of reality. Subjectively - for the individual - interest is revealed in the positive emotional tone that the process of cognition acquires, in the desire to become more deeply acquainted with the object, to learn even more about it, to understand it.
Thus, interests act as a constant incentive mechanism for cognition.
Interests are an important aspect of motivation for an individual’s activity, but not the only one. An essential motive for behavior is beliefs.
Beliefs are a system of motives of an individual that encourages her to act in accordance with her views, principles, and worldview. The content of needs, appearing in the form of beliefs, is knowledge about the surrounding world of nature and society, their certain understanding. When this knowledge forms an orderly and internally organized system of views (philosophical, aesthetic, ethical, natural science, etc.), they can be considered as a worldview.
The presence of beliefs covering a wide range of issues in the field of literature, art, social life, and industrial activity indicates a high level of activity of a person’s personality.
Interacting and communicating with people, a person distinguishes himself from the environment, feels himself to be the subject of his physical and mental states, actions and processes, acts for himself as “I”, opposed to “others” and at the same time inextricably linked with him.
The experience of having a “I” is the result of a long process of personality development that begins in infancy and which is referred to as the “discovery of the “I.” A one-year-old child begins to realize the differences between the sensations of his own body and those sensations that are caused by objects located outside. Then, at the age of 2-3 years, the child separates the process that gives him pleasure and the result of his own actions with objects from the objective actions of adults, presenting the latter with demands: “I myself!” For the first time, he begins to realize himself as the subject of his own actions and deeds (a personal pronoun appears in the child’s speech), not only distinguishing himself from the environment, but also opposing himself to everyone else (“This is mine, this is not yours!”).
It is known that in adolescence and adolescence, the desire for self-perception, to understand one’s place in life and oneself as a subject of relationships with others intensifies. Associated with this is the formation of self-awareness. Senior schoolchildren develop an image of their own “I”. The image of “I” is a relatively stable, not always conscious, experienced as a unique system of an individual’s ideas about himself, on the basis of which he builds his interaction with others. The image of “I” thereby fits into the structure of the personality. It acts as an attitude towards oneself. Like any attitude, the image of “I” includes three components.
First, the cognitive component: the idea of one’s abilities, appearance, social significance, etc.
Secondly, the emotional-evaluative component: self-respect, self-criticism, selfishness, self-deprecation, etc.
Thirdly, behavioral (volitional): the desire to be understood, to win sympathy, to increase one’s status, or the desire to remain unnoticed, to evade evaluation and criticism, to hide one’s shortcomings, etc.
The image of “I” is a stable, not always conscious, experienced as a unique system of an individual’s ideas about himself, on the basis of which he builds his interaction with others.
The image of “I” is both a prerequisite and a consequence of social interaction. In fact, psychologists record in a person not just one image of his “I”, but many successive “I-images”, alternately coming to the forefront of self-awareness and then losing their meaning in a given situation of social interaction. “I-image” is not a static, but a dynamic formation of an individual’s personality.
The “I-image” can be experienced as an idea of oneself at the moment of the experience itself, usually referred to in psychology as the “real Self,” but it would probably be more correct to call it the momentary or “current Self” of the subject.
The “I-image” is at the same time the “ideal I” of the subject - what he should, in his opinion, become in order to meet the internal criteria of success.
Let us indicate another variant of the emergence of the “I-image” - the “fantastic I” - what the subject would like to become, if it turned out to be possible for him, how he would like to see himself. The construction of one’s fantastic “I” is characteristic not only of young men, but also of adults. When assessing the motivating significance of this “I-image,” it is important to know whether the individual’s objective understanding of his position and place in life has been replaced by his “fantastic self.” The predominance in the personality structure of fantastic ideas about oneself, not accompanied by actions that would contribute to the realization of the desired, disorganizes the activity and self-awareness of a person and in the end can severely traumatize him due to the obvious discrepancy between the desired and the actual.
The degree of adequacy of the “I-image” is clarified by studying one of its most important aspects—personal self-esteem.
Self-esteem is a person’s assessment of himself, his capabilities, qualities and place among other people. This is the most significant and most studied aspect of a person’s self-awareness in psychology. With the help of self-esteem, the behavior of an individual is regulated.
How does a person carry out self-esteem? K. Marx has a fair idea: a person first looks, as in a mirror, into another person. Only by treating the man Paul as one of his own kind does the man Peter begin to treat himself as a man. In other words, by learning the qualities of another person, a person receives the necessary information that allows him to develop his own assessment. In other words, a person is oriented toward a certain reference group (real or ideal), whose ideals are its ideals, interests are its interests, etc. d. In the process of communication, she constantly compares herself with the standard and, depending on the results of the check, appears satisfied with herself or dissatisfied. Too high or too low self-esteem can become an internal source of personality conflicts. Of course, this conflict can manifest itself in different ways.
Inflated self-esteem leads to the fact that a person tends to overestimate himself in situations that do not provide a reason for this. As a result, he often encounters opposition from others who reject his claims, becomes embittered, displays suspicion, suspiciousness and deliberate arrogance, aggression, and in the end may lose the necessary interpersonal contacts and become withdrawn.
Excessively low self-esteem may indicate the development of an inferiority complex, persistent self-doubt, refusal of initiative, indifference, self-blame and anxiety.
In order to understand a person, it is necessary to clearly imagine the action of the unconsciously developing forms of a person’s control over his behavior, to pay attention to the entire system of assessments with which a person characterizes himself and others, to see the dynamics of changes in these assessments.
Back to section
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.
Similar documents
General characteristics and content of personality orientation in psychology. System of personality orientation according to V.A. Slastenin and V.P. Kashirin. Conditions for the formation of professional orientation. Methodology of Smekal and Kucher for personality research.
abstract, added 09.19.2014
The essence and distinctive features of personality orientation and motivation for activity. Characteristics of the forms of personality orientation in the order of their hierarchy. Motivation as a set of reasons that explain human behavior, its direction and activity.
test, added 12/23/2010
Personality as a systemic quality of an individual determined by involvement in social connections, formed in joint activities and communication, the principles and stages of its formation, the main influencing factors. Congenital and acquired qualities.
test, added 04/22/2014
The concept and general characteristics of personality, its structure and directions of formation. The essence and directions of activity research in modern psychology. Stages of personality development in communication. The multifaceted nature of this process, its elements.
abstract, added 11/30/2015
The concept of personality orientation in modern psychology. Needs and motives. Specificity and essential property of human interest. Value orientations of the individual, motivation of his behavior. The role of orientation in human life.
test, added 01/17/2012
The essence and types of personality orientation, factors influencing the choice of direction. The place of conscious motives in the orientation of the individual. The structure and characteristics of the personality orientation of convicts, the values that contribute to their resocialization.
test, added 10/22/2009
Personality orientation: psychological characteristics, types. The concept of subjective assessment of interpersonal relationships, socio-psychological adaptability. Tension in interpersonal relationships. The essence of the personality orientation questionnaire by B. Bass.
course work, added 10/24/2011
The problem of personality orientation in psychology, its connection with the accentuation of character in high school age. Procedure and methods for studying the types of personality orientation and character accentuation of high school students. Analysis and interpretation of the obtained data.
thesis, added 02/01/2012
The most important prerequisite for the substantiation of management theory is the presentation of the objects of management of socio-psychological management, people, as members of human society. This implies that the individual must be treated as an individual.
Personality in psychology refers to a systemic social quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the level and quality of representation of social relations in the individual.
As follows from the fact of discrepancy, non-identity of the concepts “individual” and “personality”, the latter can only be understood in a system of stable interpersonal connections that are mediated by the content, values, and meaning of joint activity for each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are real, but “supersensual” in nature. They manifest themselves in specific individual properties and actions of people included in the team, but are not reducible to them. They form a special quality of the group activity itself, which mediates these personal manifestations, which determine the special position of each individual in the system of interindividual connections and, more broadly, in the system of social relations.
The personality of each person is endowed only with his own inherent combination of traits and characteristics that form his individuality. Individuality is a combination of a person’s psychological characteristics that make up his originality, his difference from other people. Individuality is manifested in traits of temperament, character, habits, prevailing interests, in the qualities of cognitive processes (perception, memory, thinking, imagination), abilities, individual style of activity, etc. No two people have the same combination of these psychological characteristics - human personality unique in its individuality.
Just as the concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form unity, but not identity. The ability to add and multiply large numbers very quickly “in the mind,” dexterity and determination, thoughtfulness, the habit of biting nails, laughter and other characteristics of a person act as traits of his individuality, but are not necessarily included in the characteristics of his personality, if only because they can be and are not represented in forms of activity and communication that are essential for the group in which the individual possessing these traits is included. If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relationships, then they turn out to be insignificant for assessing the individual’s personality and do not receive conditions for development. Only those individual qualities that are “involved” to the greatest extent in the leading activity for a given social community act as strictly personal qualities. The individual characteristics of a person remain “mute” until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relations, the subject of which will be this person as an individual.
Natural, organic aspects and traits exist in the structure of the individuality of the human person as its socially conditioned elements. The natural (anatomical, physiological and other qualities) and the social form a unity and cannot be mechanically opposed to each other as independent substructures of the personality.
The structure of a personality, therefore, first of all includes the systemic organization of its individuality, represented in the structure of a person’s temperament, character, and abilities, which is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the psychology of the individual. Thus, the first component of the personality structure is highlighted - its intra-individual (intra-individual) subsystem.
The personality, being the subject of a system of actual relations with society, with the groups in which it is integrated, cannot be confined only to some closed space inside the organic body of the individual, but finds itself in the space of interindividual relations. Not the individual himself, but the processes of interpersonal interaction, which include at least two individuals (and in fact a community, group, collective), can be considered as manifestations of the personality of each of the participants in this interaction.
It follows from this that the personality in the system of its “actual relations, as it were, acquires its own special existence, different from the physical existence of the individual. The real existence of the personality is found in the totality of the objective relationships of individuals, mediated by their activities, and therefore one of the characteristics of the personality structure should be sought in” space" outside the organic body of the individual, which constitutes the interindividual subsystem of the personality.
It is noteworthy that by transferring the consideration of the individual into the inter-individual “space”, we get the opportunity to answer the question of what the phenomena of the collective are: collectivist self-determination, collectivist identification, etc. What is it: actual group or personal manifestations? When the characteristics and the very existence of the personality are not locked “under the skin” of the individual, but are taken out into the interindividual “space,” the false alternative generated by the identification of the concepts “individual” and “personality” (either personal or group) is overcome. The personal appears as a manifestation of group relationships, the group appears in the specific form of manifestations of the individual.
Research on the systems approach in science has shown that the most important characteristic of each system is its structure. Structure is “a set of stable connections between many components of an object that ensure its integrity.” The development of a scientific idea of the structure of personality is a prerequisite for the creation of a holistic theory capable of revealing the social essence of man in all the diversity of its manifestations. Among social scientists (primarily among psychologists), a generally accepted understanding of the socio-psychological structure of personality has developed. In particular, one can consider an established approach in psychology associated with the identification of orientation, character, temperament and abilities in a person. Scientists consider them as complex structures of properties that together constitute a common system that characterizes an integral personality. At the same time, they designate orientation as a system of needs, interests and ideals; temperament - as a system of natural properties; abilities - as an ensemble of intellectual, volitional and emotional properties and, finally, character - as a synthesis of relationships and modes of behavior.
The foregoing allows us to schematically depict the socio-psychological structure of an individual’s behavior in the following way.
In individual psychological differences between people, a significant place is occupied by the so-called dynamic features of the psyche. What is meant, first of all, is the degree of intensity of mental processes and states, as well as one or another speed of their occurrence. As is known, with relative equality of motives for behavior and activity, under the same external influences, people differ noticeably from each other in impressionability, impulsiveness, and energy. Thus, one person is prone to slowness, another to haste, one is characterized by the ease of awakening feelings, and the other by composure, one is distinguished by sharp gestures, expressive facial expressions, the other by restraint of movements, very little facial mobility. Differences in dynamic characteristics appear - ceteris paribus - in the general activity of the individual, in his continent and his emotionality.
Of course, the dynamic manifestations of a person may largely depend on the upbringing of attitudes and habits, on the requirements of the situation, etc. But there is no doubt that the individual differences in question also have their own innate basis. This is confirmed by the fact that such differences are detected already in childhood, appear in a wide variety of areas of behavior and activity and are characterized by particular constancy.
The dynamic traits inherent in an individual are internally interconnected and constitute a unique structure. An individually unique, naturally determined set of dynamic manifestations of the psyche is called human temperament.
The idea of what kind of temperament a person has is usually formed on the basis of certain psychological characteristics characteristic of a given person. A person with noticeable mental activity, quickly responding to surrounding events, striving for frequent changes of impressions, relatively easily experiencing failures and troubles, lively, active with expressive facial expressions and movements is called a sanguine person. A person who is unperturbed, with stable aspirations and mood, with constancy and depth of feelings, with uniformity of actions and speech, with a weak external expression of mental states is called a phlegmatic person. A person who is very energetic, capable of devoting himself to a task with particular passion, quick and impetuous, prone to violent emotional outbursts and sudden changes in mood, with rapid movements is called choleric. An impressionable person, with deep feelings, easily vulnerable, but outwardly weakly reacting to the environment, with restrained movements and muffled speech is called a melancholic. Each type of temperament has its own correlation of mental, primarily different degrees of activity and emotionality, as well as certain features of motor skills. A certain structure of dynamic manifestations characterizes the type of temperament.
It is clear that not all people can be classified into four types. The question of the diversity of temperaments has not yet been finally resolved in science. But the named types are considered to be the main ones. Quite often in life there are people who can be classified as one or another of these types.
Translated from Greek, “character” is “a marking, a “sign.” Indeed, character is the special signs that a person acquires while living in society. Just as the individuality of a person is manifested in the peculiarities of mental processes (good memory, rich imagination, intelligence, etc.) and in the traits of temperament, we find ourselves in the traits of character.
Character is a set of stable individual characteristics of a person that develops and manifests itself in activity and communication, determining the individual’s typical modes of behavior.
A person's personality is characterized not only by what he does, but also by how he does it. Acting on the basis of common interests and beliefs shared by everyone, striving for common goals in life, people can discover in their social behavior, in their actions and deeds, different, sometimes opposing individual characteristics. You can, along with other people, experience the same difficulties, fulfill your duties with equal success, love or dislike the same thing, but at the same time be soft and compliant. The formation of character occurs in conditions of inclusion of the individual in social groups of different levels of development (in the family , friendly company, work or educational team, antisocial association, etc.). Depending on how the individual is individualized in his reference group and what is the level of development of interpersonal relationships in it, a teenager, for example, may develop in one case openness, directness, courage, integrity, strength of character, in another case - hidden - falsehood, deceit, cowardice, conformity, weak character. In a team, as a group of a high level of development, the most favorable opportunities are created for the development and consolidation of the best character traits. This process contributes to the optimal integration of the individual in the team and the further development of the team itself.
Abilities are those psychological characteristics of a person on which the success of acquiring knowledge, skills, and abilities depends, but which themselves cannot be reduced to the presence of this knowledge, skills, and abilities. Otherwise, a grade on an exam, an answer on the board, a successful or unsuccessful test would allow a final conclusion to be made about a person’s abilities. Meanwhile, data from psychological research and pedagogical experience indicate that sometimes a person who initially did not know how to do something and thus differed unfavorably from those around him, as a result of training, begins to extremely quickly master skills and inability and soon overtakes everyone on the path to mastery. Negi exhibits greater abilities than others. Manifesting itself in the mastery of knowledge, skills and abilities, abilities at the same time cannot be reduced to knowledge and skills. Abilities and knowledge, abilities and skills, abilities and skills are not identical to each other. In relation to skills, abilities and knowledge, a person’s abilities act as a certain opportunity. Human abilities are only an opportunity to acquire skills and abilities.
So, abilities are individual psychological characteristics of a person, which are the conditions for the successful implementation of a given activity and reveal differences in the dynamics of mastering the knowledge and skills necessary for it. If a certain set of personality qualities meets the requirements of an activity that a person masters during the time pedagogically justifiably allotted for its mastery, then this gives grounds to conclude that he has abilities for this activity. And if another person, all other things being equal, cannot cope with the demands that an activity places on him, then this gives reason to assume that he lacks the corresponding psychological qualities, in other words, a lack of abilities. The latter does not mean, of course, that a person cannot master the necessary skills and knowledge at all, but only that the process of assimilation will be drawn out, will require significant efforts and time of teachers, extreme effort with relatively modest results. This also does not exclude the possibility that abilities may develop over time.
Being individual psychological characteristics, abilities cannot be contrasted with other qualities and properties of the individual - qualities of the mind, memory characteristics, character traits, emotional properties, etc., but must be put on a par with them. If any of these qualities or a combination of them meets the requirements of activity or is formed under the influence of these requirements, then this gives every reason to consider this individual psychological feature of a person as an ability.
Among the many qualities of a person that make up her individuality, the qualities of the intellect (mind) are essential. They manifest themselves in the characteristics of a person’s mental activity, in the specifics of his mental abilities. Mental abilities are a set of certain qualities that characterize the thinking of a given person. Such qualities of the mind include: curiosity, inquisitiveness, depth of thought, flexibility and mobility of the mind, logic, evidence, critical thinking, etc.
Curiosity is understood as a person’s desire to learn something new that he encounters in life, in work, in study. An inquisitive person is a person who strives to learn about an object or event, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the main phenomena and causes previously unknown to him.
Depth of mind. This quality of intelligence is manifested in a person’s ability to reveal the essence of a specific phenomenon, in his ability to establish basic, essential connections between phenomena and within them.
Flexibility and agility of mind. These qualities characterize a person’s ability to quickly disconnect from old connections in the analysis of events and quickly establish new relationships and connections, while being able to consider a phenomenon or fact from an unusual point of view.
Logic. This quality of the mind characterizes the course of the thinking process and is determined by the relationships between analysis and synthesis, the clear direction of the thinking process, its consistency, compliance with the question posed, and the correct comparison of general and particular problems.
Evidence and criticality of mind reflect a person’s ability to justify his decision. A person’s thinking acquires evidence and persuasiveness when he is able to provide irrefutable arguments and facts to justify his decision.
The most important element of the socio-psychological structure of the individual is will. Will is the regulating side of consciousness, expressed in a person’s ability to perform purposeful actions and deeds that require overcoming difficulties.
As is known, an act of will is performed under conditions of certain physical and psychological stress, i.e. volitional effort, which is characterized by a corresponding amount of energy expended in not performing a purposeful action or, conversely, in refraining from it. As psychological research shows, the intensity of a person’s volitional efforts, his strength and resilience depend on his worldview, the significance of the goal, the level of responsibility and strength of character (including the type of temperament).
The level of development of the will is manifested in the following basic volitional properties of the individual: purposefulness, determination, perseverance, endurance, independence.
Determination is the ability of an individual to set and achieve socially significant goals. A purposeful person has clear and distinct goals in life (work, study). Often this is a person obsessed with work, working 12-16 hours a day (for example, the famous physicist Edison believed that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% “sweating”).
Determination is the ability of an individual to quickly and thoughtfully choose a goal and determine ways to achieve it. A decisive person is able to cast aside all hesitations and doubts at the right moment and firmly settle on a specific goal or choose a means of realizing it.
Persistence. This volitional personality trait is manifested in the ability to direct and control behavior for a long time in accordance with the intended goal. A persistent person does not stop in the face of failures, does not succumb to feelings of doubt or reproaches, but again and again mobilizes his physical and mental strength to achieve his goal.
Self-control (or self-control) is understood as a volitional property of a person, which is reflected in the ability to restrain physical and mental manifestations (actions, emotions) that interfere with achieving a goal. Endurance is especially necessary in difficult, extreme conditions that threaten a person’s health and life, his honor, dignity, etc.
Independence is a strong-willed personality trait, expressed in the ability to set goals on one’s own initiative and find means to achieve them. An independent person does not wait for instructions from other people, does not rely on a hint, but makes decisions himself and puts them into practice.
The next element of the socio-psychological structure, which plays a stimulating role in the activity of the individual, is emotions and feelings. Feelings are complex, stable personality traits that manifest themselves under the influence of any influence. Personal experiences that reflect certain influences are emotions. Emotions are mental processes on the basis of which feelings are formed as personality properties.
In psychology, the following personal feelings are distinguished: moral (moral), intellectual (cognitive), aesthetic.
The moral feeling is the emotional one; the individual’s attitude towards people’s behavior and his own. Such feelings arise and develop in the process of joint activity of people and reflect the moral norms accepted in society, in a particular team. These experiences are the result of an assessment of actions, their compliance or non-compliance with moral standards that a person considers obligatory for himself and others. Moral feelings include feelings of sympathy and antipathy, respect and contempt, gratitude and ingratitude, love and hatred. The highest moral feelings, determined by the worldview of the individual (system of views and beliefs), are Intellectual feelings are experiences that arise in the process of mental activity. The main intellectual (cognitive) feelings include: curiosity, joy and admiration, pride in connection with solving a problem, doubt and disappointment in case of failure, inspiration, etc. The development in a person (primarily in the context of the transition of the economy to market relations) of the sense of new things is especially important as a motive for the search for new techniques and methods of work, the struggle for the introduction of innovations (innovations) and practice, the formation of market thinking. Intellectual feelings are very closely related to moral feelings. Thus, the desire to know the truth is determined not only by an intellectual feeling, but is also dictated by a person’s moral duty.
Aesthetic feelings arise and develop when a person perceives and creates beauty. Perceiving something beautiful (for example, masterpieces of art), a person experiences an aesthetic sense of beauty, which evokes a desire to admire it and encourages more and more new encounters with it.
The systemic qualities of a person include the entire set of characteristics that reflect his sociality and belonging to humanity. These qualities include such general characteristics as worldview, beliefs, patriotism, civic responsibility, etc.
The social behavior of an individual is largely related to its role. The concept of “role” in social psychology means the social function of an individual, a mode of behavior that corresponds to accepted norms depending on its status (positions) in the system of interpersonal relations. This understanding is due to the fact that in similar circumstances (for example, at the same enterprise), workers occupying the same positions behave in the labor process in the same way in accordance with production requirements, i.e. their labor behavior is regulated by relevant documents (regulations, job descriptions, etc.). In other words, a role is a stable pattern of behavior reproduced by people who have the same status (position) in the social system. The role, therefore, reflects the socially typical aspects of behavior.
Based on the above definition, the social role performs two functions:
1) indicates to a person how to behave in a given position (student, customer in a store, passenger on a bus, son in a family, etc.);
2) forms certain expectations of the partner from the behavior of its performer, which, in turn, determine the partner’s response behavior. The functional role of each member of the work team is determined; job descriptions (salesman, foreman, etc.) which reflect the duties, rights, responsibilities of the employee, his official relationships with other team members, as well as the basic requirements for his professional qualities. A detailed and clear job description is the basis for adequate understanding and assimilation of the functional role. However, as the results of sociological research indicate, detailed regulation of an employee’s functional activities is not always justified, i.e. the instruction should establish a certain degree of independence for the employee, the opportunity to show initiative and creativity.
The foregoing allows us to reveal the structure (internal structure) of the social role. It includes the following elements:
1) role prescriptions (social and group norms of behavior, requirements of a specific profession, position, etc.);
2) role expectations;
3) role behavior (i.e. playing a role);
4) assessment of role behavior;
5) sanctions (in case of failure to fulfill the role). The central element of the structure, which allows us to explain why different people perform the same role, for example, a line manager (manager) in an enterprise, differently, is the concept of “role behavior”.
The above-described features of individual social behavior are clearly manifested in groups.
A group is a real existing entity in which people are brought together, united by some common characteristic, a type of joint activity, or placed in some identical conditions or circumstances, and in a certain way are aware of their belonging to this entity.
The elementary parameters of any group include: group composition (or its composition), group structure, group processes, group norms and values, system of sanctions. Each of these parameters can take on completely different meanings depending on the type of group being studied. For example, the composition of a group can be described differently depending on whether, for example, the age, professional or social characteristics of the group members are significant in each particular case. A single recipe cannot be given for describing the composition of a group due to the diversity of real groups; in each specific case, it is necessary to start with which real group is selected as the object of study: a school class, a sports team or a production team. In other words, we immediately set a certain set of parameters to characterize the composition of the group depending on the type of activity with which this group is associated. Naturally, the characteristics of large and small social groups are particularly different, and they must be studied separately.
The same can be said about the structure of the group. There are several fairly formal signs of group structure, which, however, were identified mainly in the study of small groups: the structure of preferences, the structure of “power,” the structure of communications.
However, if we consistently consider the group as a subject of activity, then its structure must be approached accordingly. Apparently, in this case, the most important thing is to analyze the structure of group activity, which includes a description of the functions of each group member in this joint activity. At the same time, a very significant characteristic is the emotional structure of the group - the structure of interpersonal relationships, as well as its connection with the functional structure of group activity. In social psychology, the relationship between these two structures is often considered as the relationship between “informal” and “formal” relations.
An important component of characterizing an individual’s position in a group is the system of “group expectations.” This term denotes the simple fact that each member of the group not only performs his functions in it, but is also necessarily perceived and evaluated by others. In particular, this refers to the fact that each position, as well as each role, is expected to perform certain functions, and not only a simple list of them, but also the quality of performance of these functions. The group, through a system of expected patterns of behavior corresponding to each role, controls the activities of its members in a certain way. In a number of cases, a discrepancy may arise between the expectations that the group has regarding any of its members and his actual behavior, the actual way he fulfills his role. In order for this system of expectations to be somehow defined, there are two more extremely important formations in the group: group norms and group sanctions.
All group norms are social norms, i.e. represent “establishments, models, standards of behavior from the point of view of society as a whole and social groups and their members.”
In a narrower sense, group norms are certain rules that are developed by a group, accepted by it, and to which the behavior of its members must obey in order for their joint activities to be possible. Norms thus perform a regulatory function in relation to this activity. Group norms are related to values, since any rules can be formulated only on the basis of acceptance or rejection of some socially significant phenomena. The values of each group are formed on the basis of developing a certain attitude towards social phenomena, dictated by the place of this group in the system of social relations, its experience in organizing certain activities.
Although the problem of values is studied in its entirety in sociology, for social psychology it is extremely important to be guided by some facts established in sociology. The most important of them is the different significance of different types of Nastya prices for group life, their different correlation with the values of society. When we are talking about relatively general and abstract concepts, for example about good, evil, happiness, etc., then we can say that at this level values are common to all social groups and that they can be considered as values of society. However, when moving to the assessment of more specific social phenomena, for example, such as labor, education, culture, groups begin to differ in the assessments accepted. The values of different social groups may not coincide with each other, and in this case it is difficult to talk about the values of society. The specificity of the attitude towards each and such values is determined by the place of the social group in the system of social relations. Norms as rules governing the behavior and activities of group members, naturally, are based specifically on group values, although the rules of everyday behavior may not bear any special specificity of the group. Group norms thus include both generally valid norms and specific ones. developed by this particular group. All of them, taken together, act as an important factor in the regulation of social behavior, ensuring the ordering of the position of various groups in the social structure of society. The specificity of the analysis can be ensured only if the relationship between these two types of norms in the life activity of each group is identified, and in a specific type of society.
A formal approach to the analysis of group norms, when experimental studies reveal only the mechanism of an individual’s acceptance or rejection of group norms, but not their content, determined by the specifics of activity, is clearly insufficient. It is possible to understand the relationship of an individual with a group only by identifying which norms of the group he accepts and which he rejects, and why he does so. All this takes on special significance when there is a mismatch between the norms and values of the group and society, when the group begins to focus on values that do not coincide with the norms of society.
An important problem is the measure of acceptance of norms by each member of the group: how the individual accepts group norms, how much each of them deviates from observing these norms, how social and “personal” norms are correlated. One of the functions of social (including group) norms is precisely that through them the demands of society “are addressed and presented to a person as an individual and a member of a particular group, community, society.” At the same time, it is necessary to analyze sanctions - the mechanisms by which a group “returns” its member to the path of compliance with norms. Sanctions can be of two types: incentive and prohibitive, positive and negative. The sanction system is not designed to compensate for non-compliance, but to ensure compliance. The study of sanctions makes sense only if specific groups are analyzed, since the content of sanctions is correlated with the content of norms, and the latter are determined by the properties of the group.
Thus, the considered set of concepts, with the help of which a socio-psychological description of the group is carried out, is only a certain conceptual grid, which has yet to be filled with content.
Such a grid is useful and necessary, but the problem is to clearly understand its functions and not reduce the real processes occurring in groups to a simple statement, a kind of “adjustment” to this grid. In order to take the next step along the path of analysis, it is now necessary to give a classification of groups that are the subject of consideration within the framework of social psychology.
First of all, the division of groups into conditional and real is significant for social psychology. She focuses her research on real groups. But among these real ones, there are also those that primarily appear in general psychological research - real laboratory groups. In contrast, there are real natural groups. Socio-psychological analysis is possible in relation to both types of real groups, but the real natural groups identified in sociological analysis are of greatest importance. In turn, these natural groups are divided into so-called “large” and “small” groups. Small groups are a well-established field of social psychology. As for large groups, the question of their study is much more complicated and requires special consideration. It is important to emphasize that these large groups are also unequally represented in social psychology: some of them have a solid tradition of research (these are mostly large, unorganized, spontaneously arose troupes, the very term “group” in relation to which is very conventional), while others are organized , long-existing groups, like classes and nations, are much less represented in social psychology as an object of research. The whole point of the previous discussions on the subject of social psychology requires the inclusion of these groups in the scope of analysis. In the same way, small groups can be divided into two varieties: emerging troupes, already set by external social requirements, but not yet united by joint activity in the full sense of the word, and groups of a higher level of development, already established. This classification can be clearly represented in the following diagram. Everything, starting with the rubric of “real natural groups” is the object of research in social psychology. All further presentation will be carried out according to this scheme. The general patterns of communication and interaction of people analyzed above must now be considered in the context of those real groups where these patterns acquire their special content.
Hence the content of the second node: what exactly does social psychology study in the field of intergroup relations? The fundamental difference between the socio-psychological angle of view on the problem is that here the focus of attention (unlike sociology) is not on intergroup processes and phenomena in themselves or their determination by social relations, but on the internal reflection of these processes, i.e. cognitive sphere associated with various aspects of intergroup interaction. Socio-psychological analysis focuses on the problem of relationships that arise in the course of interaction between groups, as an internal, psychological category. However, in contrast to the cognitivist orientation, such an understanding presupposes not only the closest connection between the subjective reflection of intergroup relations and the actual activities of the groups under study, but also its determination of all cognitive processes accompanying these relations. Just as in the interpretation of the group itself, here cause-and-effect dependencies, the conditioning of the cognitive sphere by the parameters of joint group activity are the main direction of study of the entire field. In this case, reasoning by analogy is appropriate: groups exist objectively, and for social psychology it is important under what conditions the group turns into a psychological reality for the individual; in the same way, intergroup relations exist objectively (their study from this point of view is a matter of sociology), and for social psychology it is important how this fact is reflected in the consciousness of group members and predetermines their perception of each other.
The nature of intergroup perception is that here we are dealing with the ordering of individual cognitive structures, linking them into a single whole; this is not a simple sum of the perception of an alien group by individuals belonging to the subject of perception, but precisely a completely new quality, a group formation. It has two characteristics: for the group-subject of perception it is “integrity,” which is defined as the degree of coincidence of the members of this group’s ideas about another group (“everyone” thinks this way or “not everyone” thinks about the other group this way). Regarding the group-object of perception, this is “uniformity,” which shows the degree to which ideas about another group are spread to its individual members (“everyone” in the other group is like that or “not everyone”). Integrity and unification are specific structural characteristics of intergroup perception. Its dynamic characteristics also differ from the dynamic characteristics of interpersonal perception: intergroup social-perceptual processes are more stable, conservative, and rigid, since their subject is not one person, but a group, and the formation of such processes is not only a longer, but also a more complex process, which includes both the individual life experience of each group member and the experience of the “life” of the group. The range of possible sides from the point of view of which another group is perceived is much narrower compared to what occurs in the case of interpersonal perception: the image of the other group is formed directly depending on situations of joint intergroup activity.
This joint intergroup activity is not limited to direct interaction (as was the case in Sherif’s experiments). Intergroup relations and, in particular, ideas about “other groups” can arise in the absence of direct interaction between groups, as, for example, in the case of relations between large groups. Here, the broader system of social conditions and the socio-historical activities of these groups act as a mediating factor. Thus, intergroup activity can appear both in the form of direct interaction between different groups, and in its extremely indirect impersonal forms, for example, through the exchange of cultural values, folklore, etc. There are many examples of this kind of relationship that can be found in the field of international life, when the image of the “other” (another country, another people) is formed not necessarily in the course of direct interaction, but on the basis of impressions gleaned from fiction, the media, etc. P. Both the very nature of intergroup perception and its dependence on the nature of culture determine the particularly important role of stereotypes in this process. Perceiving an out-group through a stereotype is a widespread phenomenon. It is necessary to distinguish two sides: a stereotype helps to quickly and reliably categorize a perceived group, i.e. attribute it to some broader class of phenomena. In this capacity, a stereotype is necessary and useful, since it provides relatively quick and schematic knowledge. However, as soon as the stereotype of another group is filled with negative characteristics (“they are all so and so”). it begins to contribute to the formation of intergroup hostility, as the polarization of value judgments occurs. As already noted, this pattern is especially harsh in interethnic relations.
The socio-psychological structure of the team ends with the nomination of leaders in small groups and in the team as a whole. Leadership is a natural socio-psychological process in a group, built under the influence of a person’s personal authority on the behavior of group members. 3. Freud understood leadership as a two-pronged psychological process: on the one hand, a group process, on the other, an individual one. These processes are based on the ability of leaders to attract people to themselves, to unconsciously evoke feelings of admiration, adoration, and love. People's worship of the same person can make that person a leader. Psychoanalysts have identified ten types of leadership
1. "Sovereign", or "patriarchal lord". A leader in the form of a strict but beloved father, he is able to suppress or displace negative emotions and instill self-confidence in people. He is nominated on the basis of love and is revered.
2. "Leader". In it people see the expression, the concentration of their desires, corresponding to a certain group standard. The personality of the leader is the bearer of these standards. They try to imitate him in the group.
3. "Tyrant". He becomes a leader because he instills in others a sense of obedience and unaccountable fear; he is considered the strongest. A tyrant leader is a dominant, authoritarian person who is usually feared and obeyed.
4. "Organizer". It acts as a force for group members to maintain the “I-concept” and satisfy everyone’s needs, relieves feelings of guilt and anxiety. Such a leader unites people and is respected.
5. "The Seducer." A person becomes a leader by playing on the weaknesses of others. It acts as a “magical force”, giving vent to the suppressed emotions of other people, preventing conflicts, and relieving tension. Such a leader is adored and often does not notice all his shortcomings.
6. "Hero". Sacrifices himself for the sake of others; this type manifests itself especially in situations of group protest - thanks to his courage, others are guided by him and see in him the standard of justice. A heroic leader carries people along with him.
7. "Bad example." Acts as a source of contagion for a conflict-free personality, emotionally infects others.
8. "Idol". Attracts, attracts, positively infects the environment, he is loved, idolized and idealized.
9. "Outcast."
10. "Scapegoat"
There is a distinction between "formal" leadership - where influence comes from a formal position in the organization, and "informal" leadership - where influence comes from others' recognition of the leader's personal superiority. In most situations, of course, these two types of influence are intertwined to a greater or lesser extent.
The officially appointed head of the unit has advantages in gaining a leading position in the group, and therefore more often than anyone else, becomes a recognized leader. However, his status in the organization and the fact that he is appointed "from the outside" place him in a position somewhat different from that of informal natural leaders. First of all, the desire to move higher up the career ladder encourages him to identify himself with larger divisions of the organization rather than with a group of his subordinates. He may believe that emotional attachment to any work group should not serve as a brake on his path, and therefore identifying himself with the leadership of the organization is a source of satisfaction for his personal ambitions. But if he knows that he will not rise higher, and does not particularly strive for this, such a leader often strongly identifies himself with his subordinates and does everything in his power to protect their interests.
Formal leaders first of all determine how and by what means it is necessary to achieve the goal set, as a rule, by other people, organize and direct the work of subordinates in accordance with detailed plans, while taking a passive position. They build their interaction with others on the basis of a clear regulation of rights and responsibilities, they try not to go beyond them, seeing themselves and others as members of one organization, in which a certain order and discipline should prevail.
In contrast, informal leaders determine what goals to strive for by formulating them themselves, without going into unnecessary detail. Their followers are those who share their views and are ready to follow them, regardless of difficulties, and leaders at the same time find themselves in the role of inspirers, as opposed to managers who ensure the achievement of goals through rewards or punishment. Unlike formal leaders, informal leaders are not controlled by others, but build relationships with followers on trust in them.
To summarize what has been said, we will use a table based on the materials of O. Vikhansky and A. Naumov.
In a team whose overall level is below average, the informal leader most often acts as an expert specialist on any issue or as an emotional center; he can encourage, sympathize, and help. In a team with a high level of development, he is primarily an intellectual center, a source of ideas, and a consultant on the most complex problems. And in both cases, he is the integrator of the team, the initiator and organizer of its active actions, the model with which others compare their thoughts and actions.
Since the informal leader reflects the interests of the team, he is a kind of controller, ensuring that the specific actions of each of his members do not contradict common interests or undermine the unity of the group. In necessary cases, he can enter into conflict with the administration in this regard, authorizing, even in the sphere of production activities, only those decisions that do not contradict the interests of the team he represents. It is almost impossible to combat this phenomenon, because pressure on the leader only causes even greater unity of the team and its opposition to the administration.
It is believed that in a conflict situation, if there is an opportunity with an informal leader, it is better to compromise by offering him at the same time an official position, which he usually does not have, but fully deserves.
The easiest way to do this is when the boundaries of the formal and informal team headed by such a leader coincide, and its members are oriented towards general organizational values. Under these conditions, it will be much easier for a leader who has received official authority to manage the team, and to a certain extent he will be able to neglect the interests of the team for the sake of the interests of the official organization, to which people, trusting him, will agree. However, at the same time, official decisions still have to be adjusted taking into account the interests of the team, because abusing their trust is dangerous.
The study of leadership has been undertaken on a large scale and in a systematic manner since the early 1930s. Then the goal was set to identify those personal characteristics of people that make them leaders. They turned out to be the following qualities: the level of knowledge and intelligence, impressive appearance, common sense, a high degree of self-confidence, honesty, etc. However, the “theory of great men” based on them could not explain, for example, why Stalin became the leader, clearly not meeting the overwhelming most of the listed requirements.
“It is noteworthy that until the second half of the 30s, subject indexes to books on psychology, as a rule, did not contain the term “personality” at all.
At the present stage of improvement of socialist society, the task of forming a harmoniously developed, socially active personality, combining spiritual wealth, moral purity and physical perfection, has been set. Consequently, philosophical, psychological, sociological research of personality becomes a priority and attracts special public attention due to its not only theoretical but also practical significance. […]
One of the attempts to solve this problem is our proposed concept of personalization of an individual in a system of activity-mediated relationships with other people. This concept is a further development of the psychological theory of the collective. It creates an idea of the psychological structure of personality, the patterns of its formation and development, and offers new methodological tools for its study.
The starting point for constructing the concept of personalization of an individual is the idea of unity, but not the identity of the concepts of “personality” and “individual”. […]
Personality is a systemic social quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication, and also characterizing the level and quality of social relations reflected in the individual.
If we recognize that personality is the quality of an individual, then we thereby affirm the unity of the individual and personality and at the same time deny the identity of these concepts (for example, photosensitivity is the quality of photographic film, but we cannot say that photographic film is photosensitivity or that photosensitivity is this is photographic film).
The identity of the concepts of “personality” and “individual” is denied by all leading Soviet psychologists - B. G. Ananyev, A. N. Leontyev, B. F. Lomov, S. L. Rubinstein and others. “Personality is not equal to the individual: this is a special quality , which is acquired by the individual in society, in the totality of relationships, social in nature, in which the individual is involved... Personality is a systemic and therefore “supersensible” quality, although the bearer of this quality is a completely sensual, bodily individual with all his innate and acquired properties » (Leontyev A.N. Selected psychological works, M., 1983, Volume 1., p. 335).
First of all, it is necessary to clarify why personality can be said to be a “supersensible” quality of an individual. It is obvious that the individual has completely sensory (that is, accessible to perception with the help of the senses) properties: physicality, individual characteristics of behavior, speech, facial expressions, etc. How are qualities discovered in a person that cannot be seen in their immediate sensory sense? form?
Just as surplus value is K. Marx showed this with utmost clarity - there is a certain “supersensible” quality that you cannot see in a manufactured object through any microscope, but in which the labor of a worker not paid for by the capitalist is embodied, the personality personifies the system of social relations that make up the sphere of existence of the individual as his systemic (internal) dismembered, complex) quality. They can only be discovered by scientific analysis; they are inaccessible to sensory perception.
To embody a system of social relations means to be their subject. A child involved in relationships with adults initially acts as an object of their activity, but, mastering the composition of the activities that they offer him as leading for his development, for example, learning, he becomes, in turn, the subject of these relationships. Social relations are not something external to their subject; they are a part, a side, an aspect of personality as a social quality of an individual.
K. Marx wrote: “...the essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in an individual. In its reality it is the totality of all social relations." (Marx K., Theses on Feuerbach // Marx K., Engels F. Works - 2nd ed., Volume 42, p. 265). If the generic essence of a person, unlike other living beings, is a set of social relations, then the essence of each specific person, that is, the abstract inherent in an individual as a person, is a set of specific social connections and relationships in which he is included as a subject. They, these connections and relationships, are outside him, that is, in social existence, and therefore impersonal, objective (the slave is completely dependent on the slave owner), and at the same time they are inside, in him as individuals, and therefore subjective (the slave hates slave owner, submits or rebels against him, enters into socially determined connections with him). […]
To characterize a personality, it is necessary to examine the system of social relations in which, as mentioned above, it is included. Personality is clearly closely “under the skin” of the individual, and it goes beyond the boundaries of his physicality into new “spaces.”
What are these “spaces” in which one can discern manifestations of personality, understand and evaluate it?
The first is the “space” of the individual’s psyche (intra-individual space), his inner world: his interests, views, opinions, beliefs, ideals, tastes, inclinations, hobbies. All this forms the direction of his personality, a selective attitude towards the environment. This may include other manifestations of a person’s personality: features of his memory, thinking, fantasy, but such that one way or another resonate in his social life.
The second “space” is the area of interindividual connections (interindividual space). Here, not the individual himself, but the processes in which at least two individuals or a group (collective) are included are considered as manifestations of the personality of each of them. The clues to the “personality structure” turn out to be hidden in the space outside the individual’s organic body, in the system of relationships of one person with another person.
The third “space” for an individual to realize his capabilities as a person is located not only outside his inner world, but also outside the boundaries of actual, momentary (here and now) connections with other people (meta-individual space). By acting, and actively acting, a person causes changes in the inner world of other people. Thus, communication with an intelligent and interesting person influences people’s beliefs, views, feelings, and desires. In other words, this is the “space” of the subject’s ideal representation (personalization) in other people, formed by the summation of the changes that he made to the psyche and consciousness of other people as a result of joint activities and communication with them.
It can be assumed that if we were able to record all the significant changes that a given individual made through his real activities and communication in other individuals, then we would receive the most complete description of him as a person.
An individual can achieve the rank of a historical figure in a certain socio-historical situation only if these changes affect a sufficiently wide range of people, receiving the assessment not only of contemporaries, but also of history, which has the opportunity to accurately weigh these personal contributions, which ultimately turn out to be contributions into public practice.
A personality can be metaphorically interpreted as a source of some kind of radiation that transforms people associated with this personality (radiation, as is known, can be useful and harmful, can heal and cripple, accelerate and slow down development, cause various mutations, etc.).
An individual deprived of personal characteristics can be likened to a neutrino, a hypothetical particle that completely penetrates a dense medium without making any changes in it; “impersonality” is a characteristic of an individual who is indifferent to other people, a person whose presence does not change anything in their lives, does not transform their behavior and thereby deprives him of his personality.
The three “spaces” in which a person finds himself do not exist in isolation, but form a unity. The same personality trait appears differently in each of these three dimensions. […]
So, a new way of interpreting personality is being paved - it acts as the ideal representation of the individual in other people, as his “otherness” in them (as well as in himself as an “other”), as his personalization. The essence of this ideal representation, these “contributions” is in those real semantic transformations, effective changes in the intellectual and emotional sphere of the personality of another person that are produced by the activity of the individual and his participation in joint activities. The “otherness” of an individual in other people is not a static imprint. We are talking about an active process, about a kind of “continuation of oneself in another,” about the most important need of the individual - to find a second life in other people, to make lasting changes in them.
The phenomenon of personalization opens up the opportunity to clarify the problem of personal immortality, which has always worried humanity. If a person’s personality is not reduced to its representation in a bodily subject, but continues in other people, then with the death of an individual the personality does not “completely” die. “No, all of me will not die... as long as at least one person in the sublunary world is alive” (A.S. Pushkin). The individual as the bearer of personality passes away, but, personalized in other people, it continues, giving rise to difficult experiences in them, explained by the tragedy of the gap between the ideal representation of the individual and his material disappearance.
In the words “he lives in us even after death” there is neither mysticism nor pure metaphor - this is a statement of the fact of the destruction of an entire psychological structure while maintaining one of its links. It can be assumed that at a certain stage of social development, personality as a systemic quality of an individual begins to act in the form of a special social value, a kind of model for mastering and implementing in the individual activities of people.”
Petrovsky A., Petrovsky V., “I” in “Others” and “Others” in “Me”, in Reader: Popular Psychology / Comp. V.V. Mironenko, M., “Enlightenment”, 1990, pp. 124-128.