Zhuravlev al social psychology. Social Psychology. Ed. Zhuravleva A. See what "Zhuravlev A. L." in other dictionaries

(2005), “Honored Worker of Higher Professional Education of the Russian Federation” (2003).

Scientific results

Area of ​​scientific research: psychological characteristics of the personality and activities of various categories of managers, psychological methods and leadership style, management of socio-psychological phenomena.

Author of 350 works, of which 12 are original and collective monographs. The works are devoted to the problems of social, economic, organizational and economic psychology, personality psychology, labor and management in modern Russian society.

Developed a proprietary questionnaire to determine individual leadership style. Actively researched the psychological phenomena of work groups. Developed a psychological concept of joint activities. Heading the laboratory of social psychology at the IP RAS (since 1987), he implemented a number of major scientific projects devoted to the study of the dynamics of social psychology of individuals and groups in a changing Russian society, as well as the study of economic and psychological phenomena.

Major works

• “Individual management style of a production team.” M., 1976 (co-author).
• "Psychology and Management". M., 1978 (co-author).
• “Joint activities: theory, methodology, practice.” M., 1988 (co-author).
• “Business activity of entrepreneurs: methods of assessment and influence.” M., 1995 (co-author).
• “Socio-psychological dynamics in conditions of economic changes.” M., 1998 (co-author).
• “Moral and psychological regulation of economic activity.” M., 2003 (co-author).
• "Psychology of managerial interaction." M., 2004; “Psychology of joint activity”, M., 2005; "Social psychology: a textbook." M., 2006 (co-author).
• "Psychology of joint activity." M., 2005.
• One of the authors and resp. ed. publication "Problems of Economic Psychology". T. 1. M., 2004; T. 2, 2005.
• "Social psychology: a textbook." M., 2006 (co-author)

Links

• Anatoly Laktionovich Zhuravlev: “You can’t rewrite history” (Interview).

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Zhuravlev A.L." is in other dictionaries:

Zhuravlev, Alexander Alexandrovich Wikipedia has articles about other people with the last name Zhuravlev. Alexander Alexandrovich Zhuravlev Birth name: Alexander Occupation: Russian and Soviet restorer Date of birth ... Wikipedia

ZHARAVLEV ZHERAVKIN ZHURAV ZHURAVEL ZHURAVKIN ZHURAVKOV ZHURAVOK ZHURAVLEV ZHURAEV ZHURKIN Non-church bird names were not uncommon in Russian villages. From the name Zhuravl the patronymic name was formed, which became the surname. Zhuravok, Zhurai in folk dialects... ...Russian surnames

Yuri Ivanovich Zhuravlev Russian scientist, mathematician, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Date of birth: January 14, 1935 Place of birth: Voronezh, USSR Scientific field: Discrete mathematics, Mathematical cybernetics Place of work ... Wikipedia

Andrei Zhuravlev (better known as Andrei Ioannov; 1751 1813) archpriest, historian of the schism of the Old Believers. Initially an Old Believer himself, well acquainted with the teachings of schismatic sects, Zhuravlev converted to Orthodoxy and was appointed priest... ... Wikipedia

Jerzy Zhuravlev (Polish: Jerzy Żurawlew; January 21, 1887, Rostov-on-Don October 3, 1980, Warsaw) Polish pianist and music teacher, initiator (1927) of the International Chopin Piano Competition. Zhuravlev's father was Russian, mother... ... Wikipedia

Zhuravlev, Grigory Nikolaevich Artist, icon painter from the village of Utyovka Grigory Nikolaevich Zhuravlev (standing on the right) with his brother Afanasy Occupation: Russian artist, icon painter ... Wikipedia

Boris Nikolaevich Zhuravlev (July 25, 1910, St. Petersburg 1971, ibid.) Leningrad architect, author of projects for the Leningrad metro stations “Ploshchad Vosstaniya” and “Frunzenskaya”, the Rossiya Hotel and other buildings. Biography of Boris... ... Wikipedia

We agreed in advance about a meeting with the director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor Anatoly Laktionovich Zhuravlev... Through a massive door, surrounded on both sides by memorial plaques, I find myself in the atmosphere of a serious academic institution. I find the director’s office... I am greeted by a man of pleasant appearance, tall, and with a friendly smile. On the table I notice sheets of paper covered in neat handwriting, reprints of articles and new, apparently just from the publishing house, scientific books. Out of habit, I mentally try to create a portrait of the famous psychologist who is sitting opposite me. Everything suggests that my interlocutor is an intelligent, purposeful person, attentive to detail and possessing extraordinary organizational skills. I start with a prepared question...

– Anatoly Laktionovich, how do you assess the current state of psychological science in the world?

– Modern psychology occupies a worthy place in world science. It fully meets the strict criteria of scientific knowledge about man and society. This refers to experimental studies, theoretical models, and the use of mathematical tools to process the results obtained.

In recent years, psychological science has also proven its practical significance by participating in solving a number of vitally important social problems. We are talking, first of all, about the design and operation of the most complex types of equipment, where it is impossible to do without taking into account psychological factors. The development of technical sciences in the twentieth century was so intense that psychology developed, as if catching up with them. But today it already plays an important role in optimizing human relations with technology - electronic, space and any other.

The second current area of ​​work, which, in my opinion, is not yet fully understood by psychologists, is related to the problems of intercultural interaction caused by globalization, integration processes, on the one hand, and the standardization of social life, on the other. Modern psychology has only just begun to study these issues.

The third direction in which it is vitally important for psychological science to work is related to such negative world phenomena as the participation of various countries and communities in wars, including a terrorist war of an international nature. The work of psychologists is needed in the process of overcoming post-traumatic stress that many people experience; today, not only those who have become victims of terrorist attacks need psychological help.

If we talk about trends in world psychology, now it becomes obvious the need for integration of various scientific disciplines, the inclusion of psychological science in entire integration complexes and the implementation of interdisciplinary research. I mean the emergence of the so-called cognitive sciences, among which psychology occupies a worthy place. I can say the same about neuro-sciences, which study the functioning of the brain, human and animal behavior; about the complex of social sciences, including branches of psychology, such as social psychology, personality psychology, psycholinguistics. Of course, this trend towards integration indicates the prospects for the development of world science.

It is also impossible not to note the improvement of scientific methods in modern psychology. At the end of the twentieth century, these are, first of all, qualitative research methods, with the help of which we obtain so-called “ideographic knowledge”. Despite the fact that the level of development of science is determined by experimental technologies, the rigor and accuracy of research, mathematization, and control of variables, we will not be able to understand the psyche without qualitative methods of analysis, without ideographic knowledge about it. And this trend in world psychology is clearly expressed.

If we talk about modern scientific problems, we should note a developing direction that can be conditionally called “the psychology of overcoming behavior.” This is the so-called “coping behavior”, which is associated with the increasing needs of an increasingly complex life. In recent years, a special term has even appeared: “extreme psychology” - the study of human behavior in extreme conditions. These studies are based on the study of specific types of activities, special conditions that cause stress. The psychology of overcoming behavior extends to the entire spectrum of human life, to various forms of behavior, including his everyday life. Now these studies are becoming broader in nature, and a certain research paradigm is changing. The psychology of overcoming behavior is now the most relevant area of ​​research in world psychology.

– How could you characterize the state of psychological science in our country?

– I would like to emphasize that domestic psychology is part of world psychological science and over the past decades it has been productively integrated into it. Much that is characteristic of the development of world science is also characteristic of domestic psychology.

But I would like to emphasize some features concerning the intensity of development of domestic science since the 90s of the last century. Firstly, a huge number of different educational centers have appeared. Secondly, over the past 15 years, the number of scientific and scientific-practical journals has increased, which, of course, is considered an indicator of the development of science. Thirdly, a large number of professional associations of researchers and practical psychologists have appeared in various areas of public practice. These are positive trends and the outlook is encouraging. If we talk about research psychology, we can notice that the number of published scientific monographs and scientific publications has decreased somewhat, although there has already been a tendency to restore these indicators.

The nineties demonstrated what was previously underrepresented in Russian psychology. This refers to practical psychology and educational psychological programs. Therefore, in Russia the number of faculties and universities training practicing psychologists has increased sharply.

Currently, psychological science in the field of education is intensively developing. The close attention of psychologists to this area is natural and understandable, since completely new requirements have appeared for modern training programs, related, among other things, to the use of electronic means and Internet technologies, which are actively being introduced into the life of Russian society. The training of professionals had to take these changes into account, and they, of course, required scientific support and special research. Therefore, the psychological and pedagogical direction of research is now intensively developing.

The general trend of both world and domestic psychology is an increasing interest in the study of social phenomena, since the patterns of their relationship with the psyche are clearly insufficiently studied. Psychosocial problems are extremely relevant, their development is carried out in a variety of directions: these are psychosocial problems in the field of medicine, and in the field of psychocorrection, and issues of the formation of a modern personality, its interaction with society, and much more. This area will develop intensively not only in the coming years, but also in the coming decades. The functioning of the brain and the laws of the functioning of social phenomena still remain the least studied. I consider the prospects for the development of domestic psychology both in the direction of searching for patterns of brain function that explain the functioning of the psyche, and in the direction of searching for natural connections between the psyche and human life in society. Psychophysiological and psychosocial problems are the two most relevant coordinates in research in search of patterns in the functioning of the psyche.

– Anatoly Laktionovich, has psychology been able to integrate into the modern market process?

– Of course, there is a certain integration of modern psychology into the market process, but this happens unevenly. The most active position is occupied by practical psychologists. So, in the field of business, these are, first of all, economic and organizational psychologists. Psychologists work productively in the field of politics. They are engaged in the development and use of political technologies taking into account psychological phenomena. Many psychologists work in the healthcare system. Now we can talk not only about clinical psychology, but also about health psychology. The same applies to the field of education. It must be said that the emergence of psychological assessment centers, personnel services, political technology centers, as well as consultation centers specialized in psychological assistance to the population related to personal growth, indicates that psychology fits well into the modern market economy.

I will particularly focus on the issue of professional training of specialists. Recently, a large number of non-state centers for the professional training of psychologists have appeared. The level of professional training can vary quite a lot. There are institutions that implement the state standard of professional training well, but there are centers that do not work well enough. I judge, in particular, by the level of training with which bachelors come to us to receive a master’s degree - that is, in the 5th, 6th year of professional training, which is conducted by our Institute at the Faculty of Psychology of the State University of Humanities (GUGN) . I judge this problem based on feedback from teachers who complain that from many Moscow universities people come to us who do not have the necessary basic 4-year training. Our teachers are forced to compensate for deficiencies in basic knowledge and at the same time provide additional programs, implementing the master's level. This problem is quite acute.

And on this basis we can conclude: if market mechanisms actually work in our country, then in the future some training centers for professional training of psychologists should close, because in conditions of a shortage of students they will not find their consumers. Universities will face this problem in the very near future due to the demographic gap - that is, a sharp decline in school graduates. From 2005 this aspect will become relevant.

However, there are areas of science that cannot fit into the market process in any country. This is, first of all, an academic science (fundamental or university), and, in my opinion, it should not depend on market relations at all, otherwise the prospects for psychological science as a whole will be very uncertain.

Basic science in our country is not included in market mechanisms and is developed through government support from government funds or sponsors. Promising industries are determined by science itself, by a community of scientists who work specifically in their field, and not according to market orders.

– How do you generally assess the level of training of specialists in psychological universities in our country?

– To summarize the topic of specialist training, I will say that this level is heterogeneous and contrasting. The range of grades is wide: there is very weak training, but there is still qualified training, which has always been the strength of domestic education in the field of psychology. The training of specialists in domestic universities is characterized by the fact that we provide a very broad scientific basis of knowledge. Undoubtedly, the state standard is discussed and has a number of shortcomings, but in general the basic knowledge of our professional psychologists is quite high, and our specialists look decent on the world stage. We can simply be proud of many of their achievements.

– How many young scientists come to science today – in particular, to your Institute? What is their professional level?

– Literally over the last 2-3 years, the attractiveness of science among young people, including graduates of psychological faculties, has noticeably increased. What attracts them to scientific work? This is, of course, the content of the research. Incredibly fun to work with! The opportunity to realize oneself to the full is also important. Thirdly, science offers very serious prospects. A person who has worked in academic science for 7-12 years becomes a unique specialist who is in great demand. The Academy of Sciences is attractive due to its positive image. As they say now, the brand of the Academy of Sciences is worth a lot. And yet, I would like to emphasize that the main motivation lies precisely in the content of the work and in the serious prospects. These factors are decisive for those young people who enter science.

Over the past two years, we have hired 19 young employees – graduates of faculties and postgraduate schools – to work at our Institute. The increase due to youth is about 11-12% of the composition of our Institute. Young people came to a variety of laboratories and became involved in research in many scientific areas. And this trend is encouraging.

Graduates of various universities and graduate schools of various psychological centers come to us. We still, despite the fact that we have our own educational centers on the basis of our Institute, recruit representatives of different schools, and not only from Moscow. This tendency has always been a characteristic feature of the work of our Institute throughout its thirty-year existence. This principle of work was once proclaimed by the founder of the Institute, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences Boris Fedorovich Lomov. He created the Institute as a center for comprehensive research. Representatives of not only different branches of psychological knowledge and even different branches of science, but also representatives of different scientific schools worked here. This trend continues today. Today's young specialists are extremely well trained: they are proficient in modern electronic equipment, foreign languages, and modern programs for mathematical and statistical analysis. The staff have a high level of specialized knowledge in the field of research planning, in science in general, they are widely erudite. The future of our Institute is in good hands.

However, not all young people are assigned to the Institute. The reason for leaving is most often associated with the low financial status of young scientists. In those departments, in those areas of research where young people fit into various research programs, educational processes for training professional psychologists together with qualified representatives of laboratories, consolidation occurs quite quickly, and good financial opportunities appear. But for some young people, due to family circumstances and current living conditions, the first years in science are quite difficult to work with, and they decide to leave. But this is not becoming a mass phenomenon.

– As director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, what areas of research do you personally consider priority?

– I want to emphasize that continuity in the development of scientific areas is extremely important for our Institute and for me personally. This continuity is based on those psychological schools that have emerged over the past 30 years. The development of these schools is the strongest aspect of our organization. I intend to contribute to the development of these areas. First of all, I mean the scientific school of corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences B.F. Lomov in the field of psychological theory. It is represented by a systematic approach to the study of mental phenomena and originates from the classical Leningrad school of B.G. Ananyeva. Systematicity is the basis of our research.

As for specific branches of psychology, thanks to B.F. Lomov, an authoritative scientific school in the field of engineering psychology and labor psychology has emerged. I believe that today's research in this field meets the real requirements of life, which were discussed at the beginning of our conversation. I mean modern research related to the development of new technology, research into the mental regulation of interaction with new technology using the example of complex technical systems, psychological problems caused by the development of high technologies, and the development of methodology, which is the basis for studying the model of regulation of mental activity.

Next I would call the psychology of the subject (or the subject-activity approach in psychology), which originates from the classic of science S.L. Rubinstein, was developed in the works of Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.V. Brushlinsky, as well as by S.L. Rubinstein’s student K. .A.Abulkhanova. These works formed and continue the school of S.L. Rubinstein.

Of the well-known schools in Russian psychology, the B.M. Teplov-V.D. Nebylitsyn school in the field of differential psychophysiology and personality psychology is successfully developing at our Institute. A huge contribution to the development of this direction was made by the theoretical, methodological and experimental works of V.M. Rusalov. This scientific direction will gain good prospects at our Institute. Within the walls of the Institute, work on the neurophysiological foundations of the psyche is intensively developed, without which it is in principle impossible to understand the psyche. This school comes from P.K. Anokhin and his student V.B. Shvyrkova. They laid the foundations of a direction that is successfully developing in our Institute under the leadership of Yu. I. Alexandrov. Research in the field of psychophysics, based on the works of K.V. Bardin, one of the founders of this trend in Russian psychology, is being intensively developed. Along with those mentioned, I would emphasize the importance of research in the field of social psychology of the individual and the group, the basis for which is the work of K.K. Platonov and E.V. Shorokhova, the founders of the institute school.

We have developed a unique school in the field of the history of psychology, at the origins of which were B.F. Lomov and E.A. Budilova. Today it is developing under the leadership of V.A. Koltsova.

The Institute is actively developing a direction related to research in speech psychology and psycholinguistics. This school is headed by corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education T.N. Ushakova and her student N.D. Pavlova. Closely related to this scientific direction are studies of nonverbal communications, among which the most widely known are the theoretical and methodological works of V.P. Morozov. The originality of his developments has been repeatedly confirmed by patents of the Russian Federation.

Developments in the field of personality psychology, which have enormous prospects, are closely related to our Institute. Research in this area is carried out by RAO Academician K.A. Abulkhanova and honorary member of RAO L.I. Antsyferova, as well as their numerous students.

We have significant achievements in the field of cognitive psychology. Under the leadership of V.A. Barabanshchikov, the most interesting studies of perception as a cognitive mental process and as a real life event are being carried out. Original research is being conducted on the development of the psyche in different age periods, including the prenatal period. In the laboratory of cognitive psychology, these studies are headed by E. A. Sergienko.

Research on the psychology of post-traumatic stress and on overcoming stress, carried out under the leadership of N.V. Tarabrina, is promising and has received international recognition.

Interesting research is being carried out on various types of operator activities, primarily in the field of flight work. These system developments, from theory to practical application, are headed by V.A. Bodrov. Works related to the study of psychological factors of performance, stress prevention, including specific types of stress - for example, informational - have become classic.

The Institute is successfully developing original directions for the study of self-regulation of functional states using the example of representatives of various professions. There are original theoretical models and a system of practical methods of self-regulation that are provided to modern professionals. This scientific direction is headed by L. G. Dika.

Under the leadership of V.A. Koltsova, together with professional historians, we are intensively developing a topical field - historical psychology. In particular, the Institute has developed an original method of historical reconstruction of psychological phenomena that took place in earlier periods of social development.

A recognized area is psychological research into creativity. They are based on the works of Ya.A. Ponomarev, a world-famous psychologist. Today his students, including D.V. Ushakov, are developing this promising direction.

The school, which carries out research in the field of general and specific types of abilities, was founded by V.N. Druzhinin, who left us too early. He has many followers who develop the problem of abilities, intelligence, and giftedness. First of all, I mean the research of M.A. Cold.

It is impossible not to note the prospects for the development of mathematical psychology - a branch formed at our Institute by V.Yu. Krylov, a famous mathematician and psychologist.

These areas will continue to develop in the future, since they have deep, powerful roots and talented followers working at our Institute. Speaking about the development of the Institute of Psychology, I want to emphasize that we have enormous scientific potential. Evidence of this, firstly, is the large number of defended dissertations - we have a high level of “graduation”. Secondly, every year we publish about 25 monographs. These are fundamental works in various scientific areas, including original author's developments, as well as systematizing, summing up results, reflecting the state of a particular branch of science as a whole. The monographs have theoretical and practical value and contribute to the development of psychological science as a whole. The production of new knowledge in the field of psychology is the main task of the Institute as a research institution.

– We wish the staff of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and you personally further success in your scientific activities. We hope for further cooperation with our newspaper...

Interview conducted by Olga Lebedeva

“Psychological newspaper: We and the World” (No. 32004)

Zhuravlev Anatoly Laktionovich,Moscow

Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor. Corresponding member of RAO. .

Scientific director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Vice-President, Member of the Presidium of the Russian Psychological Society. Member of the Presidium of the Federation of Educational Psychologists of Russia.

Member of the Presidium of the Scientific and Methodological Council on Psychology of the UMO of Universities of the Russian Federation.

Editor-in-chief of the "Psychological Journal" of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the editorial board of the "National Psychological Journal", member of the editorial board of the "Russian Psychological Journal", the journal "Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Psychology and pedagogy".

He graduated from Leningrad State University in 1972. In 1976 he defended his candidate's dissertation, in 1999 - his doctoral dissertation.

He has been working at the Institute of Psychology (IPAN USSR, now IP RAS) since 1976.

In April 2016, according to Resolution of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences No. 92, for the first time in the history of Russian science, psychology was included in the list of specialties represented by academicians. On October 28, 2016, Anatoly Laktionovich Zhuravlev became the first academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in psychology.

Area of ​​scientific research: psychological characteristics of the personality and activities of various categories of managers, psychological methods and leadership style, management of socio-psychological phenomena.

Heading the laboratory of social psychology at the IP RAS (since 1987), he implemented a number of major scientific projects devoted to the study of the dynamics of social psychology of individuals and groups in a changing Russian society, as well as the study of economic and psychological phenomena.

Author of 350 works, of which 12 are original and collective monographs. The works are devoted to the problems of social, economic, organizational and economic psychology, personality psychology, labor and management in modern Russian society. Main works:

• “Individual management style of a production team.” M., 1976 (co-author).
• "Psychology and Management". M., 1978 (co-author).
• “Joint activities: theory, methodology, practice.” M., 1988 (co-author).
• “Business activity of entrepreneurs: methods of assessment and influence.” M., 1995 (co-author).
• “Socio-psychological dynamics in conditions of economic changes.” M., 1998 (co-author).
• “Moral and psychological regulation of economic activity.” M., 2003 (co-author).
• "Psychology of managerial interaction." M., 2004; “Psychology of joint activity”, M., 2005; "Social psychology: a textbook." M., 2006 (co-author).
• "Psychology of joint activity." M., 2005.
• One of the authors and resp. ed. publication "Problems of Economic Psychology". T. 1. M., 2004; T. 2, 2005.
• "Social psychology: a textbook." M., 2006 (co-author)

Awards:

• Laureate of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences Prize in the field of psychology named after S.L. Rubinstein (2005),
• “Honored Worker of Higher Professional Education of the Russian Federation” (2003).
• medal "For Labor Distinction"
• medal “In memory of the 850th anniversary of Moscow”,
• medal named after G.I. Chelpanov, 1st degree “For contribution to the development of psychological science” (Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education and Moscow State University of Psychology and Education) (2006),
• Order “Creator of the Epoch” (in the category “Advocate of Science”) (UNESCO Institute for the Culture of Peace, etc.) (2007).

Existential interview:

1. How would you define the mission of psychology in the modern world?

The mission of psychology is to implement three closely related functions: first, to produce new high-quality knowledge about the psychology of a modern, intensively changing person and about the role of psychological factors in the life of various communities; secondly, transmit the acquired knowledge to other people, including specialists from various disciplines; thirdly, to use this knowledge in the process of helping influence the life activity (functioning and development) of a person and his communities. In the future, psychology can lay claim to a fundamental change (increase) in the level of psychological culture of work, everyday life, relationships between people and life in general, that is, the humanization of society.
The mission of psychology today is in many ways close to the multifaceted mission of the social and human sciences in general, from which psychology cannot be isolated. In order to realize all facets of the common mission, it is necessary to interact productively, without losing its specificity, with specialists in the field of philosophy and sociology, law and political science, pedagogy and social work, economics and history, linguistics and art history, etc.

2. What advice could you give to a young psychologist?

My advice to a young psychologist can only relate to his professional field; with many others, the situation is much more complicated. It may sound trivial, but it is very important to try to make your professional life purposeful, that is, to carefully think through, formulate and be sure to achieve specific goals and solutions to specific problems in your professional activities. It is fundamentally important to reflect on these goals and objectives! It must be remembered that professional success depends not only on general and special abilities and not only on the level of general and special professional training, but also to a huge extent on the state of the motivational-need sphere and the overall orientation of the young specialist. Labor and cognitive motivation, achievement motivation, love for work and one’s profession, a motivated attitude towards one’s responsibilities, psychological readiness and deep involvement in one’s work and many other simple and ordinary characteristics, integrated into the system, largely determine success in professional activity. Often a big deal comes from the smallest, at first glance, even insignificant.
You need to be sure that a lot and, moreover, even the most important thing in the profession depends primarily on yourself. When experiencing such a feeling and striving to realize your whole self, you will gradually notice that the help of other people is increasing, favorable social conditions and circumstances are developing, a happy occasion, luck, etc. unexpectedly occurs.
However, all this is clearly not enough to form a modern specialist. To be a professional psychologist, you need to be guided by high moral values, and to do this, strictly observe the well-known and, perhaps, the main rule in life: do not act towards Others as you would not like Others to act towards you ...

3. What is love for you (in a broad sense)?

Love for me is one of the specific types of human passion, i.e. a complex, acutely (or intensely) experienced and relatively stable feeling, which is based on a strong and conscious desire for well-being and happiness for the object of love, the desire to be with the object of love. Love is associated with a person’s readiness to selflessly give what is necessary, to undergo suffering, loss and even sacrifice for the sake of the object of love, which most often is mother and father, children, woman or man, Motherland, relatives, profession, friends, pets, etc. d.
Despite the highest degree of complexity, love can be subjected to multidimensional scaling. Strong love is a passion that has been suffered, tested by time and life circumstances, accompanied by some acquired advantages and losses. Moderate love is close to the experience of generalized feelings of deep respect for the corresponding object. Love, as a rule, predominantly elevates a person, leads him to self-development, however, there is a certain number of circumstances in which love can lead to other, directly opposite, reverse effects, which may include destructive behavior, self-destruction, etc.
Poets, writers, and artists describe love much more accurately. They have a huge advantage in accurately conveying the state and feeling of love due to the possibilities of the artistic method of analyzing and explaining them. The scientific method of study is still forced to simplify a complex phenomenon, thereby impoverishing its richness and making it more superficial. And so far this is the case with the study of many other interesting and important phenomena from the sphere of feelings with which a person is endowed, for example, the study of conscience, shame, empathy, guilt, suffering, etc.
Thus, love is a complex (or rich), strong (or intense) and deep, permeating the entire mental (and not only) organization of a person, a feeling (and state), that is, a passion based on a sacrificial attitude.

4. How do you feel about death?

Death is a natural, that is, given by Nature, transformation of a person’s bodily existence, as a result of which the body ceases to possess the generally accepted signs of life. I treat this as a normal and natural phenomenon. By unnatural transformation I mean premature death resulting from a natural disaster, accident, illness, crime by other people, and so on. You can understand death only through understanding human life. And in this regard, the physical death of a person is easier to understand, but with the cessation of other forms of human life the situation is much more complicated.
The life of a particular person can continue, firstly, through the continuation of his family and the so-called genetic memory; secondly, through the memory of other people, expressed in oral (retellings) or written (biographies) forms; thirdly, through the products of activity produced by a person during his bodily life and demanded (used) by other people. Popular wisdom, which consists in the fact that “a person is alive as long as he is remembered,” captures the most important thing that is the essence of a person - his moral, psychological and spiritual components, through which a person is expressed in another person and enters into a larger and common history . First of all, we are talking about the content of memory about a person and the products of his activity.
Taking into account the above, it is advisable to strive for the continuation of human life, and in any of its forms, especially in a capable form, producing from a word, a look or a gesture, which in themselves are the most complex acts of social behavior, to outstanding products of creativity. The desire to produce meaningful and high-quality products of human activity - of course, not to the detriment of other people, both living and future generations - is a way to prolong his life. Since through the products of activity produced by a person and the preservation of the memory of him, not only the expansion of the boundaries of a person as a subject of life occurs, but also their transfer in time, then every person living a bodily life should not care at all what people will remember about him after his death. physical death and what spiritual and moral components of life it will be represented, that is, preserved in the lives of other people.

5. Please formulate the main thing that you have understood in this life?

In my life I realized a well-known and very practically important truth: for all actions committed by a person, especially those that are usually condemned among people, one inevitably has to answer with some small or large suffering, small or large losses, losses, etc. In other words: what you yourself do in life will definitely come back to you in some form, both good and bad. Of course, the connection between such events is very complex, not primitively direct, but reliably effective. At the same time, you yourself understand approximately with what or what events this may be connected. If such understanding does not appear immediately, then awareness of the connections occurs later and involuntarily, and sometimes even very painfully. It would seem that all this leads to a simple practical consequence - do not do bad things, try to avoid negative situations, but in real life this does not work out for the vast majority of people, for which there are always good explanatory reasons. Understanding the laws of social behavior of people and following them in the behavior of specific people are not always compatible and consistent with each other - this is one of the many complexities of life itself and the actual refracting, transforming role of the psyche, the laws of action of which are extremely important to study.
Thus, based on your personal and diverse life experiences, you come to the conclusion that above all else in human society there are moral values, the regulating forces of which are realized in the space of relationships and interactions between people.

Social Psychology. Ed. Zhuravleva A.L.

M.: 2002. - 351 p.

The content of the manual also represents the integration of classical and modern socio-psychological knowledge that developed in the 90s of the 20th century. Its authors practice both research and teaching in the field of social psychology, which made it possible to take into account the results of modern research into the main classical objects of social psychology: the individual in a group, small and large social groups, interpersonal and intergroup interaction.

This textbook is a summary of the course “Social Psychology” for students of psychology departments of classical, social and humanities universities.

Format: doc/zip

Size: 605Kb

/Download file

Format: pdf(In format pdf is better, here is the book itself)

Size: 10.9 MB

yandex.disk

Content
Chapter 1. Subject, history and methods of social psychology........5
1.1. Subject and structure of social psychology (A.L. Zhuravlev).......5
1.2. History of Russian social psychology (E.V. Shorokhova)...10
1.3. On the history of the origins of foreign social psychology (S.K. Roshchin).......22
1.4. The formation of modern social psychology abroad (V.A. Sosnin)...31
1.5. Program and methods of socio-psychological research (V.A. Khashchenko)...37

Chapter 2. Social psychology of personality...................61
2.1. Socio-psychological ideas about personality in foreign psychology (S.K Roshchin).61
2.2. Ideas about personality in domestic social psychology (E.V. Shorokhova).......66
2.3. Social attitude of the individual (S. A. Roshchin)................87
2.4. Self-concept as a socio-psychological phenomenon (V.A. Sosnin)..........94
2.5. Socialization of personality (S.K. Roshchin)................................. 102
2.6. Social behavior of the individual and its regulation (E.V. Shorokhova)....... 105

Chapter 3. Psychology of Interpersonal Interaction.................................123
3.1. Research of communication in social psychology: structure and functions (V.A. Sosnin)...123
3.2. Theoretical approaches to the study of communication in social psychology (V.A. Sosnin)...130
3.3. Nonverbal methods of communication (S.K. Roshchin) ................. 136
3.4 Communication techniques: practical orientation (V.A. Sosnin)........... 139
3.5. Psychology of interpersonal cognition (E I. Reznikov) ............... 146
3.6. Psychology of interpersonal relationships (E.N. Reznikov)................................. 164
3.7. Psychology of interpersonal influence (E.N Reznikov) ........... 179

Chapter 4. Psychology of small groups....................................193
4.1. The concept and types of small groups (V.P Poznyakov) ............... 193
4.2. Structure of a small group (V.P Poznyakov)............ 198
4.3 Development of a small group (V.P. Poznyakov) ..................................... 203
4.4. Group cohesion (V Ya. Poznyakov) .............................. 207
4.5. Interaction of the individual and the “scarlet group” (V P. Poznyakov).........209
4 6 Leadership in small groups (V. P. Poznyakov)............216
4.7. Socio-psychological approach to the study of conflicts (V.L. Sosnin)... 219

Chapter 5. Psychology of intergroup relations..........231
5.1 Basic theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations (V.P. Poznyakov).233
5.2. Processes of intergroup differentiation and integration (V P Poznyakov)....... 240
5 3. Factors of determination of intergroup relations (V.P. Poznyakov)......................... 244

Chapter 6. Psychology of large social groups and mass mental phenomena...252
6.1. Theoretical problems in the study of large social groups (E.V. Shorokhova).252
6.2. Psychology of the Crowd (L.L. Zhuravlev)...............267
6.3. Mass phenomena in large diffuse groups (AL. Zhuravlev).. 273

Chapter 7. Some branches of social psychology...280
7.1 Political psychology (S.K. Roshchin)................... 280
7 2 Economic psychology (V P. Poznyakov) ............292
7 3 Ethnic psychology (E.I. Reznikov). . .... 313
7.4 Social psychology of entrepreneurship (V.P Poznyakov)...331

A.L. Zhuravlev (Moscow, IP RAS)
PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE COLLECTIVE SUBJECT 1

Introduction. The relevance of the study of the collective subject is determined primarily by theoretical foundations, the most important among which is the need for a more differentiated representation (or designation) of numerous group phenomena studied primarily by social psychology. At present, unfortunately, the term “group” (for now we will not differentiate it from the term “collective”) refers to extremely diverse phenomena, or phenomena that take place in a group. These simultaneously include, for example: potential and real, attitudinal and behavioral, internally existing and externally manifested, and many other characteristics of the group. This situation, of course, is characteristic of the corresponding level of theoretical understanding of the results of research into group phenomena, i.e. a level that can no longer be considered satisfactory today. And above all, there is a theoretical need to take a serious step towards the differentiation and specification of group phenomena. To solve such a problem, there is a need and opportunity to use the concept of “collective (or group) subject” to designate a certain set of group characteristics, which will be specifically discussed below.

One of the theoretical advantages of the concept of “subject” is its integral nature and the possibility of being used in psychology to designate the characteristics of both an individual (“individual subject”) and a group (“group, collective subject”). That is, the concept of “subject” allows us to identify the common in psychological properties of the individual, small and large groups and society as a whole. One can agree with the opinion of A.V. Brushlinsky, that in fact the subject can be a community of any scale , including all of humanity.

Along with the theoretical, there is the most important practical relevance of highlighting the phenomenon and concept of “collective subject.” It is now that the fact that any modern society (be it Western, Eastern or, in particular, Russian) lives in conditions of various types of threats to its normal functioning and especially development. Specifically, we mean natural and man-made disasters, wars and terrorist attacks of varying scales, economic, ideological, informational and other impacts on people of varying intensity, and much more. However, not only the threat is recognized as a certain reality, but also the only opportunity to counter this threat by the community of people as a collective subject. Although in each specific case a threat can be understood as a community of different sizes and different scales (or levels), each time it is possible to effectively resist and, accordingly, survive only by an active, integral, jointly acting set of people. And in this sense, in our opinion, it is more adequate to use the concept of “collective subject”, denoting one or another community with the corresponding characteristics (qualities, abilities, etc.).

Consequently, at present there are both theoretical and practical grounds for intensive research into the psychology of the collective subject.

Understanding the collective subject in modern psychology.

In modern social psychology, the concept of “collective subject” is used in several meanings (or senses).

Firstly, “collective subject” and “collective as a subject” are used in the same sense, and thus the first becomes only the epistemological meaning of the collective. Therefore, when ontological meaning is meant, the concepts of “collective”, “group” are used, and when epistemological meaning is used, then - “collective (group) subject, or “collective (group) as a subject.” These concepts are considered as an alternative to “collective ( group) as an object." In its most vivid form, this understanding of the collective subject is found in the social psychology of management, which operates with the concepts of “the collective as a subject and object of management (influence),” i.e. in the context of the epistemological opposition of subject and object.

Secondly , “collective subject” is understood as an alternative (in the sense of opposition) to the “individual subject” or “subject” in general, which is, as it were, a priori understood as an “individual subject”. Such consideration of the collective subject is typical for socio-psychological studies of joint activity (especially joint work activity) , as well as for research in the field of work psychology that analyzes collaborative work. In fact, the emphasis is on the fact that the “collective subject” is not one or a separate person, but connected with other people in some of their community (this is an interconnected and interdependent group of people).

“Individual subject” and “individual activity” are just some of the conventions that are allowed in research or practical analysis. This theoretical position was most clearly and comprehensively formulated by B.F. Lomov, who wrote: “Strictly speaking, any individual activity is an integral part of joint activity. Therefore, in principle, the starting point of the analysis of individual activity is to determine its place in joint activity, and, accordingly, the function of a given individual in the group . Of course, for the purpose of scientific research, individual activity can be “cut out” from the general context and considered in isolation. But inevitably the picture becomes incomplete. In general, it is hardly possible (and especially in the conditions of modern society) to find an activity in which an individual, like Robinson, would do everything himself from beginning to end.”

With this understanding, the collective subject has both epistemological and ontological meaning. This fundamentally distinguishes this approach from the first, which operates only with the epistemological significance of the collective subject.

However, within the framework of this understanding of the collective subject, an alternative to it can be considered not only an individual subject, but also an unrelated set of individuals, which is fundamentally important for identifying criteria and specific characteristics of a collective subject . This was well understood by V.M. Bekhterev, who, analyzing the characteristic features of a collective, wrote: “A random accumulation of many persons in a given period of time in a certain place cannot be called a collective personality, society or collective. Such a gathering of people is a gathering without any unifying principle, ... it is clear that in this case there can be no talk of any kind of collective.” Therefore, it can be argued that interconnectedness is the most important characteristic of a collective subject.

Thirdly, the content of a “collective subject” is a certain quality of a collective (group), the quality of being a subject, which characterizes collectives to varying degrees. In recent years, this quality has sometimes begun to be designated “subjectivity,” although it has not yet become widespread . Consequently, different collectives are collective subjects to varying degrees. To be fully a collective subject means to be active, active, integrated, i.e. acting as a single whole, responsible, etc. A collective subject can be characterized by one or another set of qualities, but the fundamental understanding does not change. This meaning of “collective subject” is more often found in the study of children's, school, and youth groups, which are integrated primarily by interpersonal relationships, communication, and to a lesser extent by joint activities. . This understanding of the “collective subject” has been poorly reflected by social psychologists, so it is difficult to answer, for example, the question of whether a collective (group) can not be a subject or whether every collective is a subject, but with varying degrees of expression of the quality of subjectivity?

Fourthly, a broad interpretation of the “collective subject” in social psychology can be presented as follows. A collective subject is any group of people acting or behaving together. Any set of people, manifesting itself through any form of behavior, attitude, activity, communication, interaction, etc., is a collective subject. Therefore, groups can be actual or potential subjects. At the same time, “group” and “collective” subjects are most often not differentiated. “Collectivity” in the modern language of social psychology should be understood as “togetherness”, nothing more, which is extremely important. Collectivity (togetherness) cannot be confused with collectivism as a psychological quality of a group or an individual in a group. This understanding of the collective and collectivity was characteristic of domestic social psychology at the beginning of the 20th century and was defined primarily in the works of V.M. Bekhterev, who wrote that “A collective is a collective both in the case when we have a crowd, and in the case when when we have an organized society of people of one kind or another, such as a scientific, commercial or some other society, cooperative, people, state, etc.” However, it must be recognized that a similar interpretation of the collective is also found in earlier works by representatives of Russian psychological (subjective) sociology.

To summarize, we can conclude that in modern social psychology not only does there not exist a generally accepted understanding of the “collective subject,” but there is not even any interpretation that has become widespread. Differences in the meanings of this concept today are determined primarily by different understandings of “collectivity” and “collective” in social psychology. The content of the “subject” (i.e., the second component of the concept of “collective subject”) should be developed in social psychology precisely in the context of the “collective; only then will social psychology be able to introduce fundamentally new content into this concept in comparison with the general theory of psychology. By the way, none of the psychological dictionaries includes, and therefore does not interpret, the concept of “collective subject.” When there are no clearly established, albeit different, interpretations of this concept, the way is actually “open” for the formation of an integral approach that unites the currently used meanings and meanings of the collective subject in social psychology.

Some signs of a collective subject

Despite the described polysemy of interpretations of the collective subject, its understanding remains clearly incomplete if one does not highlight those basic properties (qualities) of the group that make it a collective subject. Recently, the term “subjectivity” has become increasingly used, which means the ability b individual or group life b subject, i.e. show b subjective qualities. However, it is difficult to find any complete series of such qualities in the literature, especially when it comes to a collective subject. In our opinion, we can identify three most important properties of a group, which are necessary and, in fact, criteria in the description of a collective subject.

I. The interconnectedness and interdependence of individuals in a group contributes to the formation of a group state as a state of preactivity - the most important prerequisite for any activity. The criterion of this quality is that only if it is present, the group becomes a collective subject. However, specific characteristics (indicators) of interconnectedness and interdependence are also important, and indicators of two classes:

a) dynamic (intensity or closeness of mutual connections and dependencies between individuals in a group);

2. The quality (ability) of a group to exhibit joint forms of activity, that is, to perform, to be a unified whole in relation to other social objects or in relation to itself. Collaborative forms of activity typically include the following; communication within the group and with other groups, group actions, joint activities, group attitude, group behavior, intergroup interaction, etc. To denote this quality of a group, the concept of “activity” has recently been increasingly used, meaning a wide range of its manifestations, and not only in joint activities. Using the concept of “joint activity” allows us to combine a whole set of group phenomena and, accordingly, the concepts of “joint activity”, “communication”, “communication”, “group action”, “group behavior”, “intra-group and inter-group relations”, etc. .

Here it is appropriate to note the urgent urgent need for a theoretical analysis of the relationship between the basic concepts of social psychology, among which not only “activity”, but also “interaction” claim to be the most general; “group behavior”, perhaps something else (at present it is no longer possible to “pass by” such terms as: “being” of a group, “life” of a group, etc.).

3. The quality (ability) of a group for self-reflection, as a result of which the feelings of “We” are formed (primarily as experiences of belonging to a group and unity with one’s group) and the image-We (as a group idea of ​​one’s group). There may be many analogies with the image - I, however, due to the complete lack of study of, let's say, group self-reflexivity, in this case we will not get ahead of specific empirical studies of the distinguished quality of the collective subject.

Consequently, the subjectivity of a group is simultaneously described by three features: the interconnectedness of group members, joint activity and group self-reflexivity.

While highlighting the three main characteristics of a collective subject, it should be recognized that the main one among them is the group’s ability to demonstrate joint forms of activity. This position must be explained as follows. On the one hand, if the group is characterized by the second sign, then interconnectedness and interdependence will naturally take place, although there is no feedback between these signs. On the other hand, group self-reflection (or self-knowledge of the group) can be considered as, although very specific, but a form of joint activity directed towards oneself. Therefore, in order to emphasize the importance of the second characteristic, we can designate it as a general characteristic

Keeping all three main features of a collective subject in the analysis, it is possible to formulate the following proposition: for specific groups, these features are characteristic not only to varying degrees, but some of them may be leading, dominant, while others will be less pronounced. This allows us to identify qualitatively different states of subjectivity of the group:

Subjectivity as the interconnectedness and interdependence of a collection of individuals can be designated as potential subjectivity, or pre-subjectivity (what is fundamentally important is that a specific group may not yet exhibit joint forms of activity, but already be psychologically ready for this and in this sense be a collective subject in the most elementary, potential its quality);

Subjectivity as a joint activity is designated by subjectivity itself, or real b new (as opposed to potential) subjectivity, thereby once again emphasizing the main meaning of subjectivity in the group’s ability to manifest joint forms of activity; ^

Subjectivity as group self-reflexivity 1 in relation to natural groups can be considered 1 the most complex state of subjectivity, which does not always characterize one or another specific group.

Three basic psychological states of the collective subject can most likely be considered b expressed as different levels of subjectivity: from elementary forms of interconnectedness to the most complex forms of group self-reflection - such level-by-level development can be characteristic of a collective subject..

And one more important concept must be introduced precisely in this context - the psychological type of subjectivity (and, accordingly, the collective subject). On the one hand, the presence of the most pronounced feature (or features) determines the psychological type of subjectivity, which leads to the selection, for example , its three main types, corresponding to the characteristics described above. But on the other hand, the connections between the characteristics are such that the presence of one of them automatically presupposes the presence of the other, hence each of the three types is characterized by a different number of characteristics, which violates the traditional logic of constructing typologies. The first type of collective subject, based on interconnectedness, is characterized by one leading feature (the first); the second type, based on joint activity, is characterized by two signs (both the first and the second); the third type of collective subject (if we are talking about natural groups) presupposes the expression of all three characteristics simultaneously.

Of course, some other psychological types of a collective subject are also possible, found, for example, among specially formed groups of socio-psychological training, psychotherapeutic groups, etc. They are characterized by basic forms of joint activity, directed towards themselves and primarily in the form of group self-reflection, i.e. the most pronounced are the first and third of the above-mentioned characteristics of a collective subject.

Thus, the use of the main features of a collective subject allows us to distinguish not only the psychological phenomenon of subjectivity as a whole, but also its levels and psychological types.

It is natural that the introduction of various individual criteria of a collective subject or different sets of them can narrow or, conversely, expand the boundaries of the phenomenon of interest. In close connection with this, the question arises about the possibility of the existence of groups that do not possess the quality of subjectivity or the properties of a collective subject. Answering this question, it can be argued that such groups are possible under certain conditions, including the following:

Spontaneous groups that are formed in accordance with a specific situation and then easily disintegrate or change, for example, the so-called transport, street and other similar groups;

Territorial groups formed at the place of residence, although they can become real subjects, their typical states, as a rule, are not characterized by subjectivity;

Any short-term existing group, which can be either spontaneous or specially, but temporarily (situationally) organized;

Many natural and organized groups, but located in the earliest stages (stages) of their formation and formation, only nominally, but not really, meet the criterion of interconnectedness and interdependence, etc.

Consequently, such social groups, which are detected only by spatial and temporal signs, do not really possess the qualities of a collective subject. However, such an interpretation is possible only when the first of the above-mentioned signs of a collective subject is considered sufficient to attribute one or another group to it. If the second sign (joint activity) is taken into account as necessary, along with the first, then the totality of the group that does not possess the quality of subjectivity will increase sharply.

The main directions and schemes of analysis of the collective subject.

A collective subject is characterized by the multiplicity of its manifestations, which are recorded in a number of concepts used in social psychology, for example: a collective subject of behavior, life, activity, communication, relationships, cognition, management, etc. A similar picture is found at the individual-personal level, for example, with the multiplicity of the phenomenon “I”, etc. So here, we can talk about the multiplicity of manifestations of the phenomenon “We” (collective subject). However, it is here that it is necessary to recall the thesis of A.V. Brushlinsky that “the subject is not the human psyche, but the person who has the psyche, not one or another of his mental properties, types of activity, etc., but the person himself - active, communicating, etc.” A similar thing can be formulated in relation to the collective subject: studying its various forms of manifestation, nevertheless, these manifestations themselves, no matter how numerous they may be, cannot be called a collective subject, which can only be a collective acting together, communicating, relating to social objects etc.

The phenomenon of a collective subject manifests itself through various forms of joint group activity (or joint life activity), which, unfortunately, are not systematized in social psychology due to the difficulties associated with their multiplicity and high degree of diversity. Of the most well-known forms of joint activity, the following can be distinguished (they are also, apparently , and are the main forms):

Joint activity in all its diversity of types: work, study, play, etc.;

Intragroup interaction in all its forms, including establishing communications, communication, etc.

Group behavior (joint actions, expression of group opinions, assessments, attitudes towards social and other objects, etc.);

Group self-knowledge (self-reflection) for the purpose of, for example: establishing group norms, rules of behavior, their self-correction, etc.

Intergroup interaction on a wide range of issues related to the activity of one’s own and other groups.

Despite the proposed grouping of forms of joint activity of a group, their systematization seems to us to be a relatively independent task that requires special research.

Almost each of the above manifestations of the collective subject represents one or another direction of research in social psychology, which has been developed to varying degrees. The “collective subject of activity” or the “subject of joint activity” is mainly studied.

The approaches to the study of the collective subject that have developed today differ fundamentally in what psychological phenomenon is taken as the “unit” or “cell” of the analysis of the collective subject. The main ones can be schematically presented as follows.

1. Individual activity is considered an invariant of joint activity, therefore, from individual activity it is possible to derive all the elements of joint activity, and from there move on to the analysis of the collective subject performing joint activity. In this case, individual activity is that “cell” (“unit”), based on which it is possible to describe both joint activity and its collective subject. A detailed critical analysis of such ideas about “collective activity” and “collective consciousness” was carried out by A.I. Dontsov.

2. A collective subject is a certain set of individuals (personalities) who are in interpersonal relationships mediated by activity or its individual elements (goals, for example, etc.). That is, the main “unit” of analysis of a collective subject is activity-mediated interpersonal relationships, the description of which is actually a description of the collective subject.

3. The main “unit” of analysis of joint activity and its collective subject is the interaction of participants in joint activity (or members of a team performing joint activity), but not every interaction, namely subject-oriented, i.e. focused on the subject of joint activities. A similar analysis scheme (from subject-oriented interaction to joint activity and collective subject) can be used to study the other above-mentioned manifestations of the collective subject. The main thing in this case is to proceed from the analysis of the phenomenon of interaction of elements (members) of a collective subject, whether aimed at knowledge, communication, management, relation to other social objects, etc., or to analyze its behavior and life activity as a whole. This or that quality (property, state) of the manifestation of a collective subject is determined by the interaction of the constituent elements of the collective subject, which can be both individuals and communities of different quantitative composition (see below in the text).

Formal and structural characteristics of a collective subject.

If we rely on the last of the above-mentioned and most widely interpreted approaches to understanding the “collective subject,” then it is necessary to identify fundamentally different forms of its existence, described by formal (non-substantive) characteristics, starting with the quantitative composition of the community of people that is designated by the collective subject . As a result, the collective subject can be represented in the following forms:

Dyad (spouses, parent-child, teacher-student, leader-executive, doctor-patient, consultant-client, commander-private, etc., etc.);

Small group (family, study group, production team, department, laboratory, group of friends, various hobby groups, etc.),

A medium-sized group (small and medium-sized enterprise, workshop of a large enterprise, typical research institutes and design bureaus, universities, organized meetings, rallies, etc.);

Large social groups (classes and social strata, ethnic groups, troops, large political parties, social movements, large crowds, gatherings; processions, territorial groups, etc.);

Society as a whole as an organized set of intersecting and included in each other (in accordance with the “matryoshka” principle) individuals, small, medium and large social groups.

Another fundamental formal feature of a collective subject, along with its quantitative composition, are the forms of its organization, i.e. structures of connections between the constituent elements of the subject. Their diversity currently does not lend itself to any systematization and grouping, except for a simplified division of the collective subject into the following forms depending on the characteristics of the structure of connections:

Externally and internally defined organization;

Strictly, moderately and weakly regulated (organized);

Hierarchically and side by side organized;

Organized on formal (business, functional, official) and informal (unofficial, personal) connections and dependencies, etc.

The next formal-structural characteristic of a collective subject is its homogeneity (homogeneity) - heterogeneity (heterogeneity), or rather their degree, according to a variety of characteristics characterizing the elements included in it. Most often, we mean individuals who are part of a collective (group). The degree of homogeneity/heterogeneity is assessed, for example, by socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, family status, etc.), social (property status, political orientation, ethnicity, etc.). The result of the analysis of the homogeneity/heterogeneity of various characteristics of a collective subject is its “composition”.

Dynamic (procedural) characteristics of a collective subject of activity.

As noted above, the various manifestations of the collective subject in social psychology have been studied extremely unevenly. Currently, there are opportunities to characterize the subject of joint activities in more detail, i.e. one of its manifestations. However, it must be argued that this manifestation is the most important. It is appropriate here to recall that B.G. Ananyev, for example, related the concept of “subject” to the characteristics of a person, manifested in his activities and mainly in his work. He wrote: “Man is the subject, first of all, of basic social activities - labor, communication, cognition,” and also: “The main objective activity of man is labor, on the basis of the development of which all other forms of it arose, including play and learning.”

Research of a collective subject is carried out in inextricable connection with the study of joint activity, therefore the selected properties (characteristics) of a collective subject are at the same time properties of joint activity. In accordance with its main features, the following properties of both joint activity and its collective subject are highlighted.

1. The purposefulness of a collective subject of activity in this context is understood as the desire for a main socially significant goal. Purposefulness characterizes such a state of the team when the goal has a decisive influence on joint activity, subordinates it to itself, and, as it were, “permeates” it. In turn, the purposefulness of a collective subject of activity is characterized by group interests, the content of the goals that the group puts forward for itself, collective social attitudes, beliefs, and ideals. Purposefulness expresses, first of all, really existing trends in the activities of a team and is the most important characteristic of its social and socio-psychological portrait.

2. Motivation as a property of a collective subject of activity represents an active, interested and effective attitude (motivation) to joint activity. It characterizes a state of the motivational sphere of SD participants in which there are emotional experiences of need, drive, desire to act together, as well as awareness of the need for joint activity and a biased, enthusiastic attitude towards it. Motivation is formed as a result of the integration of individual motives, their mutual “addition” and “interweaving”. It manifests itself in the peculiarities of the activity and interest of team members in the SD.

3. The integrity (or integration) of a collective subject of activity is understood as the internal unity of its constituent elements. This property characterizes the degree of interconnectedness and interdependence of members of a collective subject. In socio-psychological and psychological literature, some other terms are used to denote integrity: unity, integrity, conjugation.

4. An important property of a collective subject of activity is its structure, which means clarity and rigor b mutual distribution of functions, tasks, rights, duties and responsibilities between members of the team, the certainty of its structure. A well-structured collective subject has, first of all, the property of being easily divided into basic elements or parts that correspond to the functions and tasks performed in joint activity, i.e. each of its links has its own place.

5. Coherence as a property of a collective subject of activity represents a harmonious combination of its members, the mutual conditionality of their actions. To denote this property in specific types of professional activities, terms such as “coordination”, “coherence”, “harmony”, “teamwork”, etc. are also used. Coherence (or inconsistency) manifests itself at all stages of the implementation of SD and characterizes the combination of its main structural elements: goals and objectives, motives, actions and operations, intermediate and final results.

6. Organization of a collective subject of activity means orderliness , composure, subordination to a certain order of performing joint activities, the ability to act precisely in accordance with a pre-established plan (plannedness). To denote the property of organization, the term “adjustability” is sometimes used, and in recent years the closely related concept of “controllability” has become widely used, which is understood as the ability to follow control influences. In this property, two main aspects can be distinguished: the ability of a collective subject of activity to follow external organizational and control influences, i.e. its efficiency, which characterizes the team as an object of management in relation to management bodies; the ability of a collective subject to organize itself and manage its activities. In this sense, organization and controllability are characterized by cohesion in solving intra-collective problems and the degree of development of self-government.

7. An integral property of a collective subject of activity is its effectiveness, which means the ability to achieve a positive result. In performance, certain levels of development of the team’s properties are “focused” in the form of indicators of specific products of activity. In the socio-psychological literature there are also other terms that are similar in content to effectiveness: “productivity”, “productivity”, “efficiency”, “effectiveness”.

Along with the properties that characterize both joint activity and its subject, properties are identified that are related only to the collective subject of activity, but not to the joint activity itself. What they have in common is that they are potential characteristics in relation to joint activities (but real for a collective subject), for example: preparedness, competence, professionalism, etc. collective subject. The listed properties remain factors of joint activity.

Psychological characteristics of other manifestations of the collective subject.

In accordance with the provision about the multiplicity of manifestations of a collective subject, it can be characterized, for example, in connection with the qualities (properties) of both intra-subjective (intra-collective, intra-group) and inter-subjective (inter-collective, inter-group) relations. As a result of this, one can obtain a socio-psychological “portrait” of the collective subject of relations. And such characteristics, i.e. which are not properties of joint activity (although they remain its factors, nevertheless related to the collective subject), are intensively developed in social psychology. If we limit ourselves to the leading properties of the collective subject of relations, then they can be the following polarly presented properties:

Cohesion - disunity;

Compatibility - incompatibility;

Openness - closedness;

Satisfaction - dissatisfaction;

Conflict - non-conflict;

Tolerance - intolerance;

Stability - variability;

Agreeableness - aggressiveness;

Respect is disdain.

Of course, this set can be replenished, but the listed properties of the collective subject of relations are actually studied in social psychology.

The next most important manifestation of the collective subject is the phenomenon of communication. Like relationships, communication can be intrasubjective (intracollective) and intersubjective (intercollective). The main properties that describe this manifestation (quality) of collective subjects studied in social psychology are the following;

Purposefulness - aimlessness

Contact - non-contact (isolation)

Sociability - isolation

Balance - imbalance

Competence - incompetent O there is

Comfort - discomfort, etc.

Based on the comparison of the above-described aggregates, it is necessary to formulate a theoretical position that some psychological properties of the collective subject simultaneously characterize its various manifestations, and thus they can be called general properties, and some of them are specific and characterize only individual manifestations of the collective subject. The latter properties constitute a group of private, or partial ones. However, such a division has not been essentially made in social psychology, so such work remains to be done.

The formulation of such a problem is also natural because various manifestations of a collective subject represent psychological phenomena of varying degrees of generality/particularity. In this regard, the most generalized manifestation of a collective subject may be behavior that integrates its particular forms, which include communication, attitude, management, etc. Other generalized forms of activity of a collective subject are also interaction and broadly understood joint activity. Such, for example, scales of properties as “activity-passivity”, “satisfaction-dissatisfaction”, “stability-variability” and some others are related to any manifestations of a collective subject and thus can be classified as a group of its most general properties, etc. .

LITERATURE

1. Abullanova K L. About the subject of mental activity. M. 1973

2. Ananyev B.G. Man as an object of knowledge. L., 1969.

3. Bekhterev V M. Selected works in social psychology

4. Brushlinsky A 8. Subject, thinking, teaching, imagination. M. - Voronezh, 1996.

5. Dontsov A.I. Psychology of the collective. M., 1984.

b ZhuravlevA. J]. Psychology of joint activities in conditions of organizational and economic changes: Dissertation in the form of a report by Dr. Psychol. n. M - IP RAS, 1999.

7. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. M., J984.

8 Rubinshtein S.L. Problems of general psychology. M., 1973

9. Joint activities in the conditions of organizational and economic changes / Ed. AL Zhuravlev M, 1997 10. Social and psychological dynamics in the conditions of economic changes / Ed. A.L., Zhuravlev, E.V. Shorokhova. M, 1998. And Social and psychological studies of leadership and entrepreneurship / Ed. A.L. Zhuravlev, B. V. Shorokhova M., 1999

10. Chernyshev A.S., Krikunov A.S. Social and psychological foundations of team organization. Voronezh, 1991.