Problems of modern personality in society. The problem of personal socialization in modern society

Introduction

One of the fundamental problems of the sciences involved in the study of personality is the study of the process of socialization, i.e. the study of a wide range of issues related to how and thanks to what a person becomes an active social subject.

The concept of “socialization” is broader than the traditional concepts of “education” and “upbringing”. Education involves the transfer of a certain amount of knowledge. Education is understood as a system of purposeful, consciously planned actions, the purpose of which is to develop in a child certain personal qualities and behavioral skills. Socialization includes education, upbringing, and, moreover, the entire set of spontaneous, unplanned influences that influence the formation of personality, the process of assimilation of individuals into social groups.

The object of the study is the population of the Orenburg region.

The subject of the study is the problems of socialization of the population of the Orenburg region.

The purpose of the study is to study and analyze the problems of socialization of the personality of the population of the Orenburg region.

Research objectives:

.Consider the theoretical aspect of personal socialization in the modern world;

.Conduct a sociological study on the problem of personal socialization;

.Formulate conclusions and practical recommendations.

1 Theoretical aspect of personal socialization in the modern world.

.1 Socialization of personality

Socialization of personality represents the process of personality formation in certain social conditions, the process of a person’s assimilation of social experience, during which a person transforms social experience into own values and orientation, selectively introduces into its system of behavior those norms and patterns of behavior that are accepted in society or group. Norms of behavior, moral standards, and beliefs of a person are determined by those norms that are accepted in society.

The following stages of socialization are distinguished:

1. Primary socialization, or adaptation stage (from birth to adolescence, the child assimilates social experience uncritically, adapts, adapts, imitates).

. Individualization stage(there is a desire to distinguish oneself from others, a critical attitude towards social norms of behavior). In adolescence, the stage of individualization, self-determination “World and Self” is characterized as intermediate socialization, since everything is still unstable in the worldview and character of the teenager.

Adolescence (18 - 25 years) is characterized as stable conceptual socialization, when stable personality traits are developed.

. Integration stage(there is a desire to find one’s place in society, to “fit in” with society). Integration proceeds successfully if a person’s characteristics are accepted by the group, by society. If not accepted, the following outcomes are possible:

· maintaining one’s dissimilarity and the emergence of aggressive interactions (relationships) with people and society;

· changing oneself, the desire to “become like everyone else” - external compromise, adaptation.

. Labor stagesocialization covers the entire period of a person’s maturity, the entire period of his working activity, when a person not only assimilates social experience, but also reproduces it by actively influencing the environment through his activities.

. After workthe stage of socialization considers old age as an age that makes a significant contribution to the reproduction of social experience, to the process of transmitting it to new generations.

Socialization is the process of personality formation.

Individual? Personality - through the process of socialization, which includes the development of:

· culture of human relations and social experience;

· social norms;

· social roles;

· types of activities;

forms of communication.

Mechanisms of socialization:

·identification;

· imitation - reproducing the experience of others, their movements, manners, actions, speech;

· sex-role typing - the acquisition of behavior characteristic of people of the same sex;

· social facilitation - strengthening a person’s energy, facilitating his activities in the presence of other people;

· social inhibition - inhibition of behavior and activity under the influence of other people;

· social influence - one person's behavior becomes similar to another person's behavior. Forms of social influence: suggestibility - a person’s involuntary compliance with influence; conformism - a person’s conscious compliance with the opinion of a group (develops under the influence of social pressure).

.2 Problems of personal socialization in modern society

The problem of personality socialization, despite its wide representation in the scientific literature, remains relevant to this day. Processes occurring in any spheres of social life influence the individual, his living space, and internal state. As noted by S.L. Rubinstein, personality is “... not only this or that state, but also a process during which internal conditions change, and with their change, the possibilities of influencing the individual by changing external conditions also change.” In this regard, the mechanisms, content, and conditions of socialization of the individual, undergoing significant changes, cause equally intense changes in the personality being formed.

Modern man is constantly under the influence of many factors: both man-made and those of social origin, which cause a deterioration in his health. The physical health of an individual is inextricably linked with mental health. The latter, in turn, is associated with a person’s need for self-realization, i.e. provides that sphere of life that we call social. A person realizes himself in society only if he has a sufficient level of mental energy, which determines his performance, and at the same time, sufficient plasticity and harmony of the psyche, allowing him to adapt to society and be adequate to its requirements. Mental health is a necessary condition for the successful socialization of an individual.

Statistics show that on average there are only 35% of people free from any mental disorders. The layer of people with pre-morbid conditions in the population reaches considerable sizes: according to different authors- from 22 to 89%. However, half of the carriers of mental symptoms independently adapt to the environment.

The success of socialization is assessed by three main indicators:

a) a person reacts to another person as an equal;

b) a person recognizes the existence of norms in relations between people;

c) a person recognizes the necessary degree of loneliness and relative dependence on other people, that is, there is a certain harmony between the parameters “lonely” and “dependent”.

The criterion for successful socialization is a person’s ability to live in the conditions of modern social norms, in the “I - others” system. However, it is increasingly rare to find people who meet these requirements. Increasingly, we are faced with manifestations of difficult socialization, especially among the younger generation. As the results of research in recent years show, the number of children with behavioral disorders and deviations in personal development is not decreasing, despite the existence of an extensive network of psychological services.

This is how the problem of aggression among teenagers retains its practical significance. Undoubtedly, aggressiveness is inherent in any person. Its absence leads to passivity, submissiveness, and conformity. However, its excessive development begins to determine the entire appearance of the personality: it can become conflicting, incapable of conscious cooperation, and therefore complicates the comfortable existence of the individual among the people around him.
Another problem that causes concern to the public is the violation of social norms and rules by teenagers and their unwillingness to obey them. This in itself is a manifestation of a violation of the socialization process. There are more and more children belonging to the group of deviant teenagers. Also, a problem in modern society is the increasing incidence of suicide among the child population. The scale of the problem is much wider than it seems at first glance. After all, statistics usually include completed attempts to leave life, but an even larger number of people with a tendency towards suicidal behavior remain unaccounted for.

All this allows us to conclude that modern children have a low ability to adapt, which makes it difficult for them to master social space in adequate ways. As a rule, unresolved difficulties of one age entail the emergence of others, which leads to the formation of a whole symptom complex, becoming entrenched in personal characteristics. Speaking about the importance of forming a socially active personality of the younger generation, we, however, are actually faced with the difficulties of their adaptation to changing conditions.

This is the origin of such a social problem as the experience of loneliness among young people. If a few decades ago the problem of loneliness was considered a problem for older people, today its age threshold has dropped sharply. A certain percentage of lonely people is also observed among student youth. Note that lonely people have minimal social contacts; their personal connections with other people, as a rule, are either limited or completely absent.

We see personal helplessness and personal maturity of the subject as the extreme poles of socialization. Undoubtedly, the goal of society should be the formation mature personality, possessing such qualities as autonomy, responsibility, activity, independence. These characteristics are most often inherent in an adult, but their foundation is laid already in childhood. Therefore, all efforts of teachers and society as a whole should be aimed at developing the indicated qualities. According to D.A. Tsiring, personal helplessness develops in the process of ontogenesis under the influence of various factors, including the system of relationships with others. A person’s location at one point or another on the continuum “personal helplessness - personal maturity” is an indicator of his socialization, and, in general, subjectivity.

2. Sociological research on the problem of personality socialization

.1 Questionnaire

Dear respondent!

I, Oksana Skachkova, a 1st year student at the Faculty of Management of the State Institute of Cinematography, am conducting a sociological study on the topic: “Problems of personal socialization.”

This sociological study was conducted with the aim of studying, analyzing and identifying problems of individual socialization.

I ask you to take part in a survey of the topic under study in order to identify your opinion on the state of problems of personal socialization in modern Russian society, since this study is relevant.

You are presented with a list of questions with possible answers, from which you need to choose one that is close to you.

The questionnaire is anonymous.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

Questionnaire

1. Please indicate your age._______

Who can influence your opinion?

B) Just me.

Your hobbies?

A) computer;

What was most important when choosing your profession?

A) personal interest;

B) payment for this profession;

C) the demand for this profession;

D) I find it difficult to answer.

How will you behave in a conflict situation?

A) I will remain silent to end the conflict;

B) I will conflict;

C) I will try to smooth out the conflict;

D) I find it difficult to answer.

How do you feel about work?

A) positive;

B) negative;

B) I find it difficult to answer.

Indicate your life values.

A) family, love, care;

B) work, career, money;

C) friends, hobbies, fun;

D) focus on personal growth.

Is your parents' experience valuable to you?

B) I find it difficult to answer.

Do you have many friends and acquaintances?

A) Yes, I don’t suffer from loneliness;

B) There is one.

Do you love your loved ones?

B) I find it difficult to answer.

.2 Analysis of the survey conducted

After conducting a survey on the topic “Problems of personal socialization”, the main conclusions can be formulated:

.The age of the respondents is from 18 to 35 years.

.When asked who could influence the respondents’ opinions, the majority of answers were “Family.” This means that family means a lot in life for the respondents. Everyone listens more to family than to friends or public opinion.

.The main hobby of the respondents is the computer. Unfortunately, in the current age, gadgets occupy an integral place in the life of every person. And sometimes they even replace communication with real people. For example, gamers are those people who spend almost all their free time computer games. This has a bad effect on their psyche and health.

.When choosing a profession, for the majority of respondents it is salary (87% chose this answer option). Consequently, at this time, when choosing a profession, a person is motivated not by interest in this profession, but by how much he can earn.

.To remain silent in order to end the conflict was the main choice of respondents. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, people generally do not welcome conflicts and try in every possible way to avoid them. And secondly, it is much easier to remain silent than to answer the person who started the conflict and anger him even more.

.To the question “How do you feel about work?” the majority of respondents answered “positively.” This answer can be explained by the fact that each of us believes that “you can’t pull even a fish out of the pond without difficulty.” Every person who wants to earn money goes to work. There he works, and receives money for his work. But there were also those who gave a negative answer. I think these people don't like their jobs, they don't like what they do.

.The main values ​​of the respondents were family and love (53%, 18 people), with self-improvement in second place (33%, 11 people).

.Most respondents note that the experience of their parents is important to them. This means that parents and children are on good terms. After all, parents want the best for their children, and meanwhile children look at their parents and try not to make their mistakes. This interaction makes the family a necessary link in an integrated approach to educational work, an indispensable factor in the mental, labor, moral and physical education of people.

.Absolutely all respondents have many acquaintances and friends. This fact suggests that modern people do not suffer from loneliness.

.Just like when asked about friends and acquaintances, all respondents answered that they love their loved ones. After all, this is the most expensive thing we have. Our family and friends, who love us just as much, will always be able to support and help. This answer suggests that in the 21st century, love for one’s neighbor has not lost its power.

The process of socialization of the individual at present takes place under the influence of various factors: technologization, globalization, information processes, and the convergence of communication spaces have significantly affected the content of all aspects of human life.

In order to solve the problems of socialization of the population of the Orenburg region, every person must understand that gadgets cannot replace “live” communication. We need to spend more time with family and friends, communicate, share, and not be closed off. It is also useful to read books and know what is happening in the region, in the country and in the world. After all, this is self-development.

In turn, the state must take measures to solve problems related to the choice of professions. The study showed that the majority responded that wages were the main factor. This means that many people work in jobs they don’t like. This leads to a deterioration in the condition (both moral and physical) of the employee, and therefore to a deterioration in productivity.

Bibliography

socialization personality society orientation

1.Volkov Yu.G. Sociology: textbook / Yu.G. Volkov. - M.: Science Spectrum, 2008. - 384 p.

2.G.M. Andreeva Social psychology: Textbook for higher educational institutions - 5th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Aspect Press, 2002

.Kravchenko A.I., Sociology. Tutorial. - M., 2005.

.Kasyanov V.V. Sociology for economists / V.V. Kasyanov. - Rostov-on-Don.: Phoenix, 2004. - 288 p.

5.Lavrinenko V.N. Sociology. M.: Culture and Sports, UNITY, 1998.

6.Stolyarenko L.D. Basics of psychology. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2003.

7.Sociology: textbook for universities / ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko. - M.: UNITY - DANA, 2006. - 448 p.

8.Yadov V.A. Sociological approach to the study of personality // Man in the system of sciences. M., 1989. S. 455-462

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal state budget educational institution higher vocational education

Kovrov State Technological Academy

them. V.A. Degtyareva

Department of Humanities

Essay on philosophy

Personality problems in modern society. The value of freedom.

executor:

student of group EB-112

Zheleznov Ilya

Supervisor:

Professor of the Department of Humanities

Zueva N.B.

Kovrov

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………3

1) The concept of personality, its structure……………………………………………………………………………….4

2) Personal problems in modern society……………………………………………7

3 The value of freedom……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………13

LIST OF SOURCES USED……………………………………………………14

INTRODUCTION

Of all the problems that people have faced throughout human history, perhaps the most perplexing is the mystery of human nature itself. In what directions have we searched, what many different concepts have been put forward, but a clear and precise answer still eludes us. The essential difficulty is that there are so many differences between us. People differ not only in their appearance. But also by actions, often extremely complex and unpredictable. Among the people on our planet you will not find two exactly alike. These enormous differences make it difficult, if not impossible, to solve the problem of establishing what the members of the human race have in common.

Astrology, theology, philosophy, literature and social sciences are just some of the movements that attempt to understand the complexity of human behavior and the very essence of man. Some of these paths turned out to be dead ends, while other directions are on the verge of flourishing. Today the problem is acute. More than ever, since most of the serious ills of humanity are rapid population growth, global warming, environmental pollution, nuclear waste, terrorism. Drug addiction, racial prejudice, poverty are a consequence of people's behavior. It is likely that the quality of life in the future, and perhaps the very existence of civilization, will depend on how far we advance in understanding ourselves and others.

Let's look at a couple of articles:

1) Everett Sjostrom- a famous American psychologist and psychotherapist, wrote in an article about his work “The Manipulator” in 2004 that modern man, as a rule, is to some extent a manipulator, i.e. a person who, in pursuit of satisfying his desires, hides his own real feelings behind a wide variety of types of behavior. He contrasts a manipulator with a person who is actualized, self-confident and lives a full life, aimed at achieving not immediate desires, but serious life goals.

2) A modern view of the problem of personality is recorded in Vadim Zeland’s book “Transurfing of Reality” - 2006. This book talks about the difficult position of the individual in modern society, the way to preserve oneself as an individual, the way to develop personal choice and decisions on how not to become part of the crowd. A person, according to Zealand’s theory, is a sponge that absorbs all the information, which in our time is in abundance, all the opinions imposed on him by the media and other people, but a person has the right to decide for himself whether to accept this water (information) and squeeze out everything unnecessary, leave everything the most important thing for yourself, this is how your personality is formed.

3) Socialization of modern personality occurs in new sociocultural and technological conditions. The intensive and uncontrolled development of modern technologies for satisfying needs leads to the problem of excessively easing living conditions. Distortions and disharmonies in the socialization process, which complicate and even completely block the harmonious development of the individual, increase with the acceleration of the introduction of technical and social innovations into people’s everyday lives. The “unbearable lightness of being” provided by modern technologies for satisfying needs is potentially fraught with negative consequences for the entire process of cultural and historical development. As psychologists A.Sh. Tkhostov and KH. Surnov note in their study, “... of course, man is the subject and protagonist of progress; its main figure and driving force. But on the other hand, a person constantly runs the risk of becoming a victim of such progress, which at the individual psychological level turns into regression. A car leads to obesity, and using a calculator too early does not give the opportunity to develop the skills of arithmetic operations.” The desire for maximum relief with the help of technical and organizational means of absolutely all aspects of life as the main goal of progress is fraught with a big psychological and social problem.

In the course of his formation and existence, a person in modern society faces a number of difficulties that prevent him from forming a stable worldview, gaining psychological comfort and the ability to engage in full-fledged social activity. These difficulties, in my opinion, are:

1. deformation of the socialization process;

1. problem of self-identity;

1. information oversaturation of society;

1. communication deficit;

1. problem of deviant behavior.

This, in turn, determines the relevance of this topic, since modern society, accelerated to the limit, requires even greater socialization of the individual, which in turn is impossible without self-identity.

The purpose of the work is to characterize the sociology of personality and the problems that arise in the process of its socialization.

The main tasks are:

1. Preparation of material;
2. Consider problems associated with personality formation;
3. Identify the sociological concept of personality and its structure.

The object of the study is the individual in modern society

The subject of the study is the factors influencing the formation and development of personality.

Chapter I. The concept of personality, its structure.

The problem of man, personality is one of the fundamental interdisciplinary problems. Since ancient times, it has occupied the minds of representatives of various sciences. A huge amount of theoretical and empirical material has been accumulated, but even today this problem remains the most complex and most unknown. It is not for nothing that it is said that a person contains the whole world within himself. Each person is connected by thousands of threads, visible and invisible, with the external environment, with society, outside of which he cannot form as an individual. It is this interaction between the individual and society that sociology considers, and the “society-person” relationship is a basic sociological relationship.

Let us turn to the concept of “personality”. Personality, individual, man these close, but not identical concepts are the object of various sciences: biology and philosophy, anthropology and sociology, psychology and pedagogy. Man is considered as a species representing the highest stage of the evolution of life on Earth, as a complex system in which the biological and social are combined, i.e., as a biosocial being. Each individual, specific person is an individual, he is unique; hence, when they talk about individuality, they emphasize precisely this originality, uniqueness. The uniqueness of the sociological approach to man is characterized by the fact that he is studied, first of all, as a social being, a representative of a social community, a bearer of its characteristic social qualities. When studying the processes of interaction between a person and the social environment, a person is considered not only as an object of external influences, but mainly as a social subject, an active participant in social life, having his own needs, interests, aspirations, as well as the ability and ability to exert his own influence on the social environment. As you can see, sociologists are interested in the social aspects of human life, the patterns of his communication and interaction with other people, groups and society as a whole. However, the interests of sociologists are not limited only to the social properties of humans. In their research, they also take into account the influence of biological, psychological and other properties. What content is included in the concept of “personality”? A number of questions immediately arise: is every individual a person, what are the criteria that give grounds to consider an individual a person, are they related to age, consciousness, moral qualities, etc. The most common definitions of personality, as a rule, include the presence of stable qualities and properties in the individual, who is seen as a responsible and conscious subject. But this again raises questions: “Is an irresponsible or insufficiently conscious subject a person?”, “Can a two-year-old child be considered a person?” An individual is a person when he, in interaction with society through specific social communities, groups, institutions, realizes socially significant properties and social connections. Thus, the broadest “working” definition of personality can be formulated as follows: personality is an individual included in social connections and relationships. This definition is open and flexible; it includes the measure of assimilation of social experience, the entirety of social connections and relationships. A child raised in human society is already included in social connections and relationships that expand and deepen every day. At the same time, it is known that a human child raised in a pack of animals never becomes a person. Or, for example, in the case of a severe mental illness, a rupture occurs, the disintegration of social ties occurs, and the individual loses his personality qualities. Undoubtedly, while recognizing everyone’s right to be an individual, at the same time they talk about an outstanding, bright personality or an ordinary and mediocre one, moral or immoral, etc.

Sociological analysis of personality involves determining its structure. There are many approaches to consider it. The concept of 3. Freud is well known, who identified three elements in the personality structure: It (Id), I (Ego), Super-I (Super-Ego). It is our subconscious, the invisible part of the iceberg, where unconscious instincts dominate. According to Freud, two needs are fundamental: libidinal and aggressive. The Self is the consciousness connected with the unconscious, which breaks into it from time to time. The ego seeks to realize the unconscious in a form acceptable to society. Superego moral “censor”, including the totality moral standards and principles, internal controller. Therefore, our consciousness is in constant conflict between the unconscious instincts penetrating into it, on the one hand, and the moral prohibitions dictated by the Super-I on the other. The mechanism for resolving these conflicts is sublimation (repression) of the It. Freud's ideas have long been considered anti-scientific in our country. Of course, one cannot agree with him on everything; in particular, he exaggerates the role of the sexual instinct. At the same time, Freud's indisputable merit lies in the fact that he substantiated the idea of ​​a multifaceted personality structure, human behavior, where the biological and social are combined, where there is so much that is unknown and, probably, completely unknowable.

So, personality is the most complex object, since it, being, as it were, on the edge of two huge worlds - biological and social, absorbs all their diversity and multidimensionality. Society as a social system, social groups and institutions do not have such a degree of complexity, because they are purely social formations. Of interest is the personality structure proposed by modern domestic authors, which includes three components: memory, culture and activity. Memory includes knowledge and operational information; culture social norms and values; activity practical implementation of the needs, interests, desires of the individual. The structure of the personality and all its levels are reflected in the structure of the personality. Let us pay special attention to the relationship between modern and traditional culture in the personality structure. In crisis extreme situations, directly affecting the “highest” cultural layer (modern culture), the traditional layer, dating back to ancient times, can be sharply activated. This is observed in Russian society, when, in the conditions of the loosening and sharp breakdown of ideological and moral norms and values ​​of the Soviet period, there is not just a revival, but a rapid growth of interest not only in religion, but also in magic, superstitions, astrology, etc. “Lay-by-layer “Removal of layers of culture occurs in some mental illnesses. Finally, when analyzing the structure of personality, one cannot ignore the question of the relationship between the individual and social principles. In this regard, personality is a “living contradiction” (N. Berdyaev). On the one hand, each personality is unique and inimitable, it is irreplaceable and priceless. As an individual, a person strives for freedom, self-realization, to defend his “I”, his “self”; individualism is immanently inherent in him. On the other hand, as a social being, personality organically includes collectivism, or universalism. This provision has methodological significance. The debate about whether every person is an individualist or a collectivist by nature has not subsided for a long time. There are plenty of defenders of both the first and second positions. And these are not just theoretical discussions. These positions have direct access to the practice of education. For many years we have persistently cultivated collectivism as the most important quality of personality, anathematizing individualism; on the other side of the ocean, the emphasis is on individualism. What is the result? Collectivism taken to the extreme leads to leveling of personality, to leveling, but the other extreme is no better.

Obviously, the solution is to support the optimal balance of properties inherent in the personality. Development and flourishing of individuality, personal freedom, but not at the expense of others, not to the detriment of society.

Chapter II. Personality problems in modern society

In the course of his formation and existence, a person in modern society faces a number of difficulties that prevent him from forming a stable worldview, gaining psychological comfort and the ability to engage in full-fledged social activity. These difficulties, in my opinion, are: deformation of the socialization process; problem of self-identity; information oversaturation of society; lack of communication, problem of deviant behavior.

Socialization modern personality occurs in new sociocultural and technological conditions. The intensive and uncontrolled development of modern technologies for satisfying needs leads to the problem of excessively easing living conditions. Distortions and disharmonies in the socialization process, which complicate and even completely block the harmonious development of the individual, are increasing with the acceleration of the introduction of technical and social innovations into people’s everyday lives. The “unbearable lightness of being” provided by modern technologies for satisfying needs is potentially fraught with negative consequences for the entire process of cultural historical development. As psychologists A.Sh. Tkhostov and K.G. Surnov note in their study, “... of course, man is the subject and protagonist of progress; its main figure and driving force. But on the other hand, a person constantly runs the risk of becoming a victim of such progress, which at the individual psychological level turns into regression. A car leads to obesity, and using a calculator too early does not give the opportunity to develop arithmetic skills.” The desire for maximum relief with the help of technical and organizational means of absolutely all aspects of life as the main goal of progress is fraught with great psychological and social danger. The ease with which a person satisfies his needs does not allow him to show purposeful efforts towards self-improvement, which ultimately leads to underdevelopment and degradation of the personality. Another problem of the modern personality, generated by the special conditions of formation and existence, is the problem of self-identity. The need for self-determination and self-identity has always been an important human need. E. Fromm believed that this need is rooted in human nature itself. Man is taken out of nature, endowed with reason and ideas, and because of this he must form an idea of ​​himself, must be able to say and feel: “I am I.” “A person feels the need for relatedness, rootedness and self-identity.

The modern era is called the era of individualism. Indeed, in our time, more than ever, a person has the opportunity to independently choose his life path, and this choice depends less and less on traditional social institutions and ideologies, and more and more on individual goals and passions. However, individualism usually refers to an attempt to fill the void with a variety of different combinations of hobbies, “lifestyle”, individual consumption and “image”. All modern people They consider themselves individualists, having their own opinions and not wanting to be like others. However, behind this, as a rule, there are no beliefs or a clear idea of ​​​​the world around us and oneself. In the past, the entire set of signs given to the world by a person’s appearance and behavior was dictated by his true social status, profession and living conditions. Modern man is accustomed and accustomed to the idea that every detail of his appearance first of all, it says something about him to others, and only secondly is it really needed for something. We believe that this is due to the urban lifestyle, because it is in the street crowd that it is important to be different in order to be noticed.

The “personality” in whose interests modern man acts is the social “I”; this "personality" consists largely of the role assumed by the individual, and is in reality only a subjective disguise of his objective social function. As E. Fromm notes, “modern egoism is greed, arising from the frustration of the true personality and aimed at establishing a social personality.”

Due to false forms of self-identification in society, the concepts of “personality” and “individuality” are being replaced (being a person often means being different from others, standing out in some way, that is, having a strong personality), as well as “individuality” and “image” (individual originality a person comes down to his manner of “presenting himself,” to the style of clothing, unusual accessories, etc.). The Russian philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov wrote about this substitution of concepts: “Individuality, deprived of the opportunity to express itself in truly important, significant not only for itself, but also for another (for others, for all) actions, since the forms of such actions are predetermined assigned to her, ritualized and protected with all her might social mechanisms, involuntarily begins to look for a way out for himself in trifles, in quirks that mean nothing (to others, to everyone), in oddities.” In other words, individuality here becomes just a mask behind which hides a set of extremely general cliches, stereotypes, impersonal algorithms of behavior and speech, deeds and words. The next important problem of the social existence of a modern person is the information oversaturation of the surrounding world. Researchers of the influence of information flow on the human brain know that the resulting overloads can not only cause significant harm, but also completely disrupt the functioning of the brain. Consequently, information loads require the development of effective means of control and regulation, more stringent than during physical loads, since nature, having not yet encountered such a powerful level of information pressure, has not developed effective protection mechanisms. In this regard, the study of altered states of consciousness in Internet addicts requires special attention. As A.Sh. Tkhostov notes, “... on the Internet, a highly motivated user may find himself under the influence of a very intense flow of extremely significant (and often completely useless) information for him,” which he needs to have time to record, process, without missing out on tens and hundreds of new ones, every second emerging opportunities. The brain, overstimulated by excess stimulation, cannot cope with this task. A person becomes a translator of information processes, and his own subjectivity spirituality, the ability to choose, free self-determination and self-realization moves to the periphery of public life and turns out to be “open” in relation to the information-organized social environment. In this regard, only knowledge and properties of such instrumental subjectivity are in demand, which create new structures, directions and technological connections in this information environment. This also gives rise to a transformation of the personality itself, since subjectivity, built into the technical informatization of knowledge, is the basis for the deformation of modern man, who is losing the moral norms of self-awareness and behavior. Deprived of rootedness in real culture, these norms themselves become conditional. Rationality of the modern type acts as a method of technical-instrumental behavior of an individual who seeks to take root in an unstable world and strengthen his own position, or at least make it safe.

Another pressing problem of the modern personality is the lack of communication. According to S. Moscovici, in the conditions of industrial production, the creation of cities, the collapse and degradation of the traditional family and the traditional stratified model of society, in which a person was destined for a rightful place, there is an irreversible degradation of normal methods of communication. The emerging communication deficit is compensated by the development of the press and other modern communication technologies, which give rise to a specific phenomenon of the crowd: an unstructured public formation connected only by communication networks. However, this compensation is initially defective; its ease contains some inferiority. For example, Internet communication is much simpler than real human communication, so it does not require effort, it is more secure, it can be started and stopped at any time, it allows you to maintain anonymity and it is accessible. However, being technologically mediated, this communication is incomplete, because the interlocutors remain more abstract characters for each other than living people. The biggest disadvantage of such surrogate communication is that it does not provide a stable identity.

A society organized with the help of a communication network, according to S. Moscovici, is a crowd with a blurred identity, increased suggestibility, and loss of rationality. However, communication in real life may not always be complete either. Most modern social groups and communities are unstable and, as a rule, small formations that arise randomly and also spontaneously disintegrate. These “social ephemeris”4 are mainly created in the sphere of leisure and entertainment, as if in contrast to the formal associations that exist during work (for example, visitors to a nightclub, hotel residents, a circle of friends, etc.). At the same time, the ease with which people enter these communities, as well as the absence of formal restrictions in them, does not mean that the human personality here can be completely freed and revealed. The spontaneity of relationships and the instability of connections impose no less a limitation on purely personal, “mental” communication between people, and the entire communication process often comes down to the exchange of “standard” phrases or jokes. Within the framework of “social ephemeris,” communication, as a rule, is superficial and practically reduced to the level of reflexes, that is, more or less similar reactions to the same type of remarks from the interlocutor. In other words, only a certain outer shell participates in the conversation, but not the whole person. As a result, a person’s personality withdraws into itself and loses its “depth.” The living, direct connection between people is also lost. The destructive consequences of this kind of isolation were described by N.Ya. Berdyaev, who noted that “egocentric self-isolation and concentration on oneself, the inability to lose one’s temper is the original sin.” Thus, the conditions for the formation and existence of a modern personality lead to the emergence of a fragmented, closed personality, alienated from society and from itself, which is reflected in a number of postmodern concepts that proclaim the idea of ​​splitting the human “I”. In the philosophy of postmodernism, the phenomenon of “I” itself is assessed as culturally articulated, associated with a certain tradition, and therefore historically transitory.

The concepts of “man”, “subject”, “personality” are, from this position, only consequences of changes in the basic attitudes of knowledge. “If these attitudes disappear in the same way as they arose, if some event (the possibility of which we can only foresee, not yet knowing its form or appearance) destroys them, as it collapsed at the end of the 17th century. the soil of classical thinking, then we can guarantee this a person will be erased, like a face drawn on the coastal sand.” As for the philosophy of postmodernism’s own version of the articulation of the subject, it is characterized by a radical decentration of both the individual and any forms of the collective “I”. The rules of the episteme, acting as a regulator in relation to the activity of consciousness, but not reflexively recognized by the latter, act as a factor in the decentration and depersonification of the subject. From the point of view of postmodernism, the very use of the term “subject” is nothing more than a tribute to the classical philosophical tradition: as Foucault writes, the so-called analysis of the subject is in fact an analysis of “the conditions under which it is possible for a certain individual to perform the function of a subject. And it would be necessary to clarify in what field the subject is a subject and a subject of what: discourse, desire, economic process, and so on. There is no absolute subject." Thus, the programmatic presumption of the “death of man”, fundamental to the philosophical paradigm of postmodernity, is formulated. The rejection of the concept of “subject” is largely due to the recognition in the philosophy of postmodernism of the randomness of the phenomenon “I”. The presumption of subordination of unconscious desires to the cultural norms of the “Super-Ego”, put forward in classical psychoanalysis, was reformulated by J. Lacan into the thesis about the predetermination of desire by the material forms of language8. The subject, as a link between the “real”, “imaginary” and “symbolic”, is characterized by J. Lacan as “decentred”, because his thought and existence turn out to be non-identical to each other, being mediated by the alien reality of language. The unconscious, therefore, appears as a language, and desire as a text. The rational subject of the Cartesian type, as well as the desiring subject of the Freudian type, are replaced by a “decentred” instrument for the presentation of cultural meanings (“signifiers”) of language. As a consequence, the “death of man” is postulated, dissolved in the determinative influence of language structures and discursive practices on individual consciousness.

As for the so-called social roles, which presuppose the certainty of their subject-performer, these versions of self-identification are nothing more than masks, the presence of which does not at all guarantee the presence of a hidden “I” behind them, claiming the status of identity, “since this identity, however, the rather weak one, which we try to insure and hide under a mask, is in itself only a parody: it is inhabited by plurality, countless souls argue in it; systems intersect and command each other... And in each of these souls, history will reveal an identity that is not forgotten and is always ready to be reborn, but complex system elements, numerous in turn, different, over which no force of synthesis has power.”

Thus, postmodernism proclaims the “death of the subject itself,” the final “end of the autonomous ... monad, or ego, or individual,” which has undergone a fundamental “decentration.” The theories of postmodernism reflect the state of the modern personality, fragmented, subject to the influence of diverse and contradictory information flows, and therefore without a clear self-identity. Postmodernism correctly captures the state of modern society and the individual, but incorrectly declares this state to be normal, since the current state of affairs poses a danger to both the individual and society as a whole. Self-identification of a person with random “markers” causes constant discomfort, a feeling of dissatisfaction and uncertainty. This, in turn, increases the general degree of public discontent, which results in large-scale undirected aggression, shaking the institutions of the social system and throwing society back to the level of a textbook “war of all against all.” A crisis of self-identity implies the impossibility of a person acquiring “attachment” to the environment, his coordinates of existence and the subjective experience of this process as a lack of integrity and comfort of the cultural environment. In addition, this crisis was expressed in the attitude of modern man to the future and his own prospects. A person can only solve immediate problems, but not build an overall life strategy.

All this happens because the individual does not have a system of ideological coordinates, which should determine the content of the personality, give systematicity to its manifestations, determine the general strategy of behavior, and also provide filtering of incoming information and its critical assessment.

Deviant behavior, understood as a violation of social norms, has become widespread in recent years and has brought this problem into the spotlight of sociologists, social psychologists, doctors, and law enforcement officials.

There are several concepts explaining the causes of deviant behavior. So, according to the concept of disorientation proposed by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, the breeding ground for deviations is social crises, when there is a mismatch between accepted norms and a person’s life experience and a state of anomie absence of norms occurs. American sociologist Robert Merton believed that the cause of deviation is not the absence of norms, but the inability to follow them.

Explaining the causes, conditions and factors determining this social phenomenon has become an urgent task. Its consideration involves searching for answers to a number of fundamental questions, including questions about the essence of the category “norm” (social norm) and deviations from it. In a stable functioning and steadily developing society, the answer to this question is more or less clear. A social norm is a necessary and relatively stable element of social practice, serving as an instrument of social regulation and control. A social norm finds its embodiment (support) in laws, traditions, customs, i.e. in everything that has become a habit, firmly established in everyday life, in the way of life of the majority of the population, supported by public opinion, plays the role of a “natural regulator” of social and interpersonal relations. But in a reformed society, where some norms have been destroyed and others have not been created even at the theoretical level, the problem of forming, interpreting and applying norms becomes an extremely difficult matter.

So after the breakup Soviet Union in Russia there is a surge in drug addiction, crime, alcoholism, etc. Let's consider the problem of drug addiction in more detail. The causes of drug addiction are the following motives characteristic of young people: dissatisfaction with life, satisfying curiosity about the effects of a narcotic substance; symbolism of belonging to a certain social group; expression of one’s own independence, and sometimes hostility towards others; learning about pleasurable, new, exciting or dangerous experiences; achieving “clarity of thinking” or “creative inspiration”; achieving a feeling of complete relaxation; escape from something oppressive.

Studies have shown that the first direct acquaintance of most adolescents with drugs occurs before the age of 15 (and only for 37% - later); before 10 years - 19%; from 10 to 12 years old - 26%; from 13 to 14 years old - 18%. Without accurate data, we can still assume that drug addiction is getting younger every year, which is associated with the acceleration process and the acceleration of the pace of a teenager’s entry into adulthood.

As for schoolchildren’s awareness of drugs, the situation here is twofold: on the one hand, 99% of respondents answered positively to the question of whether they know what drugs are, but on the other hand, practice shows that this knowledge is not always objective and are often determined by myths existing in society about drugs and drug addiction. But it’s one thing to talk about drug addiction in general, and quite another to face it face to face. What is the possible reaction to the news that your close friend is using drugs? 63% of respondents said that they would try to somehow influence to help a person in need get out of the hole into which he himself had climbed; 25%

will not change their attitude and 12% will break off the relationship (that is, we have 37% either passive contemplatives or people who do not want to take care of their neighbor, which, in fact, is practically the same thing). Perhaps this happens because one of the many myths formed in our minds is triggered: people who become drug addicts are weak, offended by fate and unable to control their actions. It should be noted once again that drug addiction among young people, perceived today as “problem number one,” is only a consequence, a reflection of deep internal contradictions, both mental and social. Many attempts to correct the situation today come down to the fact that the fight is often directed against the drugs themselves and their use (that is, against the effect, not the cause). Naturally, widespread promotion of a healthy lifestyle, increased awareness of the objective consequences of drug use, organization and implementation of other preventive measures - all this is significant (and effective only if a person can stop taking drugs, switching to something else, no less dangerous in social terms), but somewhat similar to the behavior of the drug addict himself: a solution to the problem is expected from a one-time injection, which, indeed, creates the illusion of resolution, but only for a while. Recognizing the importance of preventive work, it should be said that it will become truly effective only when, along with the prevention of drug addiction, work is carried out to prevent psychotraumatic situations that arise mainly in the process of a child’s communication in the family - with parents, at school - with classmates and teachers. Accordingly, prevention work should be carried out not only with specific people, but also with representatives of their social environment.

Chapter III . The value of freedom

Freedom is one of the main philosophical categories that characterize the essence of man and his existence.

Freedom is considered in relation to necessity, arbitrariness and anarchy, with equality and justice.

The concept of freedom was born in Christianity as an expression of the idea of ​​equality of people before God and the possibility for a person of free choice on the path to God.

Free will is a concept that means the possibility of unhindered internal self-determination of a person in fulfilling certain goals and objectives of the individual. Will is a person’s conscious and free striving to achieve his goal, which is of a certain value to him. An act of will that expresses an obligation has the character of a spiritual phenomenon rooted in the structure of a person’s personality. Will is the opposite of impulsive aspirations and drives, the vital needs of a person. The concept of will refers to a mature personality who is fully aware of his actions and actions.

To understand the essence of the phenomenon of personal freedom, it is necessary to understand the contradictions of voluntarism and fatalism, to determine the boundaries of necessity, without which the realization of freedom is unthinkable.

Voluntarism is the recognition of the primacy of will over other manifestations of a person’s spiritual life, including thinking. The roots of voluntarism are contained in Christian dogmatics, the teachings of Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. The will is considered the blind, unreasonable principle of the world, dictating its laws to man. To act in the spirit of voluntarism means not to take into account the objective conditions of existence, the laws of nature and society.

Fatalism initially predetermines the entire course of a person’s life, his actions, explaining this either by fate, or the will of God, or strict determinism (Hobbes, Spinoza, Laplace). Fatalism leaves no room for free choice and does not provide alternatives. Strict necessity and the resulting predictability of the main stages of human life are characteristic of astrology and other occult teachings, both past and present, various social utopias and dystopias.

European tradition often uses the term “freedom” as an analogue of “will” and, contrasting the concepts of necessity, violence and slavery, connects it with responsibility.

The most profound solution to the problem of freedom and responsibility can be found in the works of Russian religious thinkers F.M. Dostoevsky, N.A. Berdyaeva, M.M. Bakhtin, for whom freedom is a measure of personal dignity, and responsibility is a measure of humanity, a criterion of the highest moral principles. Considering the relationship between freedom and responsibility as the main direction of development of society, Russian philosophy does not think of them outside the ethical dimension. The ethics of free action (M.M. Bakhtin) is associated with the concepts of conscience, duty, honor, and dignity of a particular individual. Then a person is a person who acts; his way of existence is a responsible act.

ON THE. Berdyaev in his philosophy of freedom distinguishes three types of freedom:

1. existential freedom (baseless, primordial ontological. It is rooted in the existence of the world).
2. freedom is rational (conscious necessity social. It manifests itself in society).
3. mystical freedom (creativity spiritual. It manifests itself in the Spirit. Only here can a person fully realize himself).

E. Fromm expresses his own concept of freedom in his book “Escape from Freedom.”

He distinguishes two types of freedom:

"Freedom from..." He calls it negative because it is a person’s attempt to escape responsibility.

Fromm says that modern man, having received freedom, is burdened by it, since freedom entails the need for choice and responsibility for one’s actions. Therefore, a person strives to transfer his freedom, and, along with it, responsibility, to someone else (be it the church, state power, political party, public opinion). All this leads only to loneliness and alienation of a person, and is realized in authoritarianism (sadism and masochism as an attempt to realize oneself through power over another or subordination of one’s will to another); conformism (loss of one’s own individuality) or destruction (violence, cruelty, destruction of oneself and others);

"Freedom for..." This type of freedom is positive, since through spontaneous activity (creativity, love) it leads to self-creation and self-realization of the individual.

Models of the relationship between the individual and society. Several models of the relationship between the individual and society regarding freedom and its attributes can be identified.

Most often, this is a struggle for freedom, when a person enters into an open and often irreconcilable conflict with society, achieving his goals at any cost.

This is an escape from the world, the so-called escapist behavior, when a person, unable to find freedom among people, flees to his “world” in order to have a way of free self-realization there.

This is an adaptation to the world when a person, sacrificing to some extent his desire to gain freedom, goes into voluntary submission in order to gain a new level of freedom in a modified form.

It is also possible for the interests of the individual and society to coincide in gaining freedom, which finds a certain expression in the forms of developed democracy. Thus, freedom is a most complex and deeply contradictory phenomenon of human life and society. This is the problem of correlating freedom and equality without suppression and leveling. Its solution is associated with an orientation towards one or another system of cultural values ​​and norms. The concepts of personality, freedom, and values ​​enrich the idea of ​​a person and allow us to correctly understand the structure of society as a phenomenon generated in the process of human life.

If we talk about the specifics of understanding human freedom and responsibility at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, it should be emphasized that the world is entering a period of civilizational turning point, when many traditional ways of human existence will require significant correction. Futurologists predict an increase in the phenomena of instability of many physical and biological processes, and an increase in the phenomenon of unpredictability of social and psychological phenomena. In these conditions, being an individual is an imperative for the development of man and humanity, implying the highest degree of responsibility, which extends from a narrow circle of the individual’s immediate environment to planetary and cosmic tasks.

Modern humanity, according to the conviction of J. Ortega y Gasset, is in a serious crisis, moreover, it faces a terrible danger of self-destruction. Ortega dedicated his most famous work, the essay “The Revolt of the Masses,” to understanding this tragic situation. The essay, written in 1930, was extremely popular, many of its ideas deeply penetrated the culture of the 20th century, and the problems raised remain relevant today.

A historical crisis, he argues, occurs when “the world,” or the belief system of past generations, loses its significance for new generations living within the same civilization, that is, a certain way of organizing society and cultural life. It is as if a person finds himself without peace. A similar state is typical today for the entire European civilization, which has gone far beyond the boundaries of Europe and has become synonymous with modern civilization in general. The reason for this crisis is the uprising of the masses. In our time, Ortega argues, society is dominated by the “man of the masses.” Belonging to the masses is a purely psychological sign. A mass person is an average, ordinary person. He does not feel any special gift or difference in himself, he is “exactly” like everyone else (without individuality), and he is not upset by this, he is content to feel the same as everyone else. He is indulgent towards himself, does not try to correct or improve himself; he is self-satisfied; lives effortlessly “floats with the flow” He is not capable of creativity and gravitates towards an inert life, which is condemned to eternal repetition, marking time. In thinking, as a rule, he is content with a set of ready-made ideas - this is enough for him.

This “simple” person in society is opposed by another psychological type of personality - the “person of the elite”, the chosen minority. "Chosen One" does not mean "important" who considers himself superior to others and despises them. This is, first of all, a person who is very demanding of himself, even if he is personally unable to satisfy these high demands. He is strict with himself, his life is subordinated to self-discipline and service to the highest (principle, authority), it is an intense, active life, ready for new, highest achievements. A “noble” person is characterized by dissatisfaction and uncertainty about his perfection; even if he is blinded by vanity, he needs confirmation of this in someone else's opinion. The degree of talent and originality of such people varies, but they are all capable of creativity, having accepted the “rules of the game” of their cultural system, voluntarily submitting to them.

The contradiction between a person’s desire for a free existence and the desire of society as a system to establish order is examined. The freedom of human individuals is noted by G. Spencer in his definition of social reality. Existentialists believe that human existence goes beyond the material and social world. A. Camus: “Man is the only creature who does not want to be what he is.” The equivalence of human existence to freedom is confirmed by the fact that both of these concepts can only be defined apophatically, that is, by listing what they are not. How is it possible to induce human individuals to respect social order? On the other hand, everything in a person is socially shaped by society, even his biological traits. For example, the behavior of infants varies depending on the social environment in which they live. The phenomenon of childhood itself manifests itself only in a developed society. For example, in the Middle Ages, children were treated like little adults; they were dressed in the same clothes as adults; there was no production of toys.

Georg Simmel: “The very development of society increases human freedom.” With the growing scale of society and its differentiation, a person feels more and more free from every connection with a specific social circle, simply because there are more and more such social circles with the development of society. Talcott Parsons: “Why are the roles of family, community, and religion diminishing? Because alternative associations have appeared: political, cultural, entertainment circles.” On the other hand, the person feels increasingly lonely. M. Heidegger: “Loneliness is a negative mode of sociality,” that is, isolation from society. At the same time, with increasing isolation, the longing for society grows.

Thus, if we take the philosophical aspect of the problem, then freedom is associated with necessity and possibility. What is free is not the will that chooses based solely on a person’s desires, but the will that chooses based on reason, in accordance with objective necessity. The measure of personal freedom is determined by a specific situation, the presence of a range of possibilities in it, as well as the level of personal development, level of culture, understanding of one’s goals and the extent of one’s responsibility.

Freedom is associated with the responsibility of the individual to himself, other people, the team, and society. Personal freedom forms a single complex with the rights of other members of society. It is impossible to separate political and legal rights freedom of speech, conscience, beliefs, etc. from socio-economic rights to work, rest, education, medical care, etc. Human rights are usually enshrined in the Constitution of the state. The highest value of a person in a rule-of-law state is his rights and freedoms, and a person has the right to actively fight for them if they are violated.

Thus, the peculiarity of spiritual values ​​is that they have a non-utilitarian and non-instrumental character: they do not serve for anything else; on the contrary, everything else is subordinated and acquires meaning only in the context of higher values, in connection with their affirmation. A feature of the highest values ​​is also the fact that they form the core of the culture of a certain people, the fundamental relationships and needs of people: universal (peace, the life of mankind), communication values ​​(friendship, love, trust, family), social values ​​(freedom, justice, law , dignity, Honor, Glory, etc.), aesthetic values ​​(beautiful, sublime). The highest values ​​are realized in an infinite variety of situations of choice. The concept of values ​​is inseparable from the spiritual world of the individual. If reason, knowledge constitute essential components consciousness, without which purposeful human activity is impossible, then spirituality, being formed on this basis, refers to those values ​​that are associated with the meaning of a person’s life, one way or another deciding the issue of choosing his life path, the goals and meaning of his activities and the means of achieving them.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion of the problem of personality in modern society:

So, an identity crisis, a decrease in the ability to process information and forecast, as well as the self-isolation of modern man indicate a lack of integrity of his personality, which causes disharmony in its psychological, social and cultural aspects. To summarize, we can say that objectively the modern personality has a need for integrity, however, firstly, the sociocultural environment does not contribute to its formation, and secondly, this need, as a rule, is not recognized by the individual himself. Being unconscious, it can find various distorted manifestations.

Thus, the search for integrity can occur in the form of a passion for Eastern spiritual practices, conversion to religious fundamentalism, attending various trainings and seminars on self-development, etc. However, all these methods give only a temporary and unstable effect, since a person continues to be within a fragmented and aggressive socio-cultural environment, or (in the case of religious fundamentalism) lead to opposition between the individual and society.

Conclusion of personality value:

Different cultures place different emphasis on freedom. For example, in modern Western European culture, liberalism places the concept of freedom at the forefront. And on the contrary, in many Eastern cultures there is a traditionally rational and purely practical attitude towards this concept, or even a complete lack of attention to the issue of freedom, which does not exist as an independent value. Also, freedom as an independent value is often assessed in cultures as something at least dangerous, and even downright harmful. Such an assessment may be based on the assumption that real freedom can only be achieved through individual self-sufficiency, whereas in practice all people live in communities.

The conclusion is also obvious that the more attention is paid to social benefits, the less value individual freedom has. And this point of view is often shared by the individual himself, as a bearer of culture. That is, such a restriction is non-violent in nature, but is based on the mutually beneficial coexistence of people.

Bibliography:

1.Kom I. S. Sociology of personality: Textbook / I. S. Kom M., 1994.

2. Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history. St. Petersburg : JSC Komplekt, 1993

3. Jamieson F. Postmodernism or the logic of culture of late capitalism // Philosophy of the postmodern era. Mn. : Krasiko-Print, 1996

5. Foucault M. Words and Things: Archeology of the Humanities. M.: Progress, 2000

6. Borisova L. G., Solodova G. S. Sociology of personality: Textbook / L. G. Borisova, G. S. Solodova Novosibirsk, 1997.

7.Moskalenko V.V. Socialization of personality: Reader / V.V. Moskalenko Kyiv, 2001

8.S.A. Bykov: Drug addiction among young people as an indicator of maladaptation // Bulletin of VEGU. 2000.

9. Fromm E. To have or to be? M.: Progress, 1990 P.46

10. Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history. St. Petersburg : JSC Komplekt, 1993 P.46

11. Berdyaev N.A. About slavery and human freedom. Experience of personalistic me-

taphysics. M.: Republic, 1995. P.120

12. Foucault M. Words and Things: Archeology of the Humanities. M.: Progress, 1977 P.398

Articles:

1. Shostrom E. Manipulator. The inner journey from manipulation to actualization. M.: April-Press, 2004.

1. Zeland V. Transurfing reality. AST, 2006.
2. Tkhostov A.Sh., Surnov K.G. The influence of modern technologies on personality development and the formation of pathological forms of adaptation: the other side of socialization. URL: http://vprosvet.ru/biblioteka/psysience/smi-v-razvitii-lichnosti/

1

The article proposes the author's socio-philosophical understanding of socialization as a process of dialectical interaction between the individual and the social environment, during which the development and formation of a person as an object and subject of social relations takes place. The main problems of modern socialization related to the process of informatization of society are revealed at the level of deformation of public and individual consciousness. Negative trends have been identified due to the replacement of traditional institutions of socialization with virtual communities. The main ones are related to the problems of personality transformation at three levels of its organization: activity, communication, self-awareness. It is shown that in modern conditions one of the main functions of socialization is disrupted - the transmission of culture from generation to generation, which leads to hypertrophy of the processes of becoming a person as a subject of social activity and social relations.

socialization

virtual community

information processes

contradiction

1. Korneeva E.N. A look at socialization from the point of view of developmental psychology // Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. − 1996. − No. 2. − P. 17−23.

2. Kuznetsova A.Ya. Personality as a result of the socialization process // Biological and social in the formation of a holistic personality. − Riga, 1997. − 212 p.

3. Cooley Ch. Social self; edited by IN AND. Dobrenkova. − M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1994. − 358 p.

4. Maslow A. Motivation and personality. − St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 1999. – 408 p.

5. Mead, J. Az and I / J. Mead; edited by IN AND. Dobrenkova. − M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1994. − 541 p.

6. Parsons T. Essay on the social system // On social systems. − M.: Academic Project, 2002. − 691 p.

7. Suslova T.I. The problem of youth socialization // Social work in Russia: education and practice: collection. scientific tr.; edited by prof. ON THE. Grika. – Tomsk: Tomsk. state University of Control Systems Radioelectronics, 2009. – pp. 182−184.

8. Rostovtseva M.V., Mashanov A.A. Philosophical meaning the concept of “social adaptation” // Bulletin of KRASGAU. − 2012. – No. 6. – P. 288−293.

9. Rostovtseva M.V., Mashanov A.A. Basic approaches to the study of personality adaptability // Bulletin of KRASGAU. − 2012. – No. 7. – P. 191−196.

The urgent task of modern social philosophy is to understand the deep content of what is happening social processes and changes, identifying the sources and mechanisms that determine people’s social activities. Socialization of the individual is one of the fundamental processes when the individual and the whole - society and man - merge into a single being, and at the same time, that unique and inimitable thing is born that moves world history forward and allows humanity to move to a new, qualitative stage of development. The process of socialization is the main issue of the reproduction of human essence, a spiritually healthy society and a specific full-fledged personality. Preserving man as a species, ensuring continuity in development, protecting cultural and historical heritage, establishing and establishing man as a full-fledged member of the society to which he belongs - this is just an incomplete list of problems that the socio-philosophical problem of socialization covers.

Socialization is the main way of personality formation, the basis for its subsequent development and improvement. This process is determined, on the one hand, by the preferences of the individual, his characteristics, and active involvement in various spheres of social life. On the other hand, the social structure itself is designed to enable a person to find his place in society, to create conditions for awareness and realization of his inner potential and internal intentions. Therefore, at all times and in any society, a specific historical analysis of socialization, its content and characteristics acquires special importance. High dynamism of social changes in Russia in the 21st century. makes this task more relevant than ever. These circumstances determined the choice of the subject of this study - a socio-philosophical analysis of the problems of modern socialization of the individual.

To understand the real complexity of the socialization process, philosophical reflection of a wide range of problems in their mutual dependence is necessary.

The term “socialization” itself began to be actively used to designate the process of formation and development of personality from the end of the 19th century (F. Giddings, E. Durkheim, G. Tarde, etc.). At this time, theories of socialization were based on approaches to considering the role of objective and subjective factors of socialization, to determining the priority of the individual or social in the formation of personality.

The first approach affirms or assumes a person’s passive position, and considers socialization itself as a process of his adaptation to society, which shapes each of its members in accordance with its inherent culture. This approach can also be called subject-objective. Its founders are considered to be the French scientist E. Durkheim and T. Parsons.

The basis of socialization, according to T. Parsons, are the functional forms of interdependence of the social system and the five main environments of its functioning: higher reality, cultural system, personality system, behavioral organism and physical-organic environment. With this emphasis, one can see two main semantic meanings of socialization. Firstly, socialization, practically identified with adaptation, acts as a function and a necessary condition for the emergence of the property of self-sufficiency of society. Secondly, socialization underlies T. Parsons’ analysis of the relationship between the system of society and the system of personality. Moreover, the adaptive process itself, according to the author, is the primary function of a person’s role in the social system. Thus, in the first case, structural-functional analysis actually merges socialization and adaptation with the stable existence and development of society, with its constant reproduction as a system, and in the second it tries to find the organic-cultural foundations of a person’s rootedness in the social environment, correlating the social roles that he performs. with regulatory standards and public values.

The consideration of a person as a subject of socialization is based on the psychological concepts of American scientists C.H. Cooley, W.I. Thomas and F. Znaniecki, J.G. Mida. Charles Cooley, the author of the theory of the “mirror self” and the theory of small groups, believed that the individual “I” acquires a social quality in communications, in interpersonal communication within the primary group (family, peer group, neighborhood group), i.e. in the process of interaction between individual and group subjects. George Herbert Mead, developing a direction called symbolic interactionism, argued that the “social individual” is the source of movement and development of society. . The essence of socialization in humanistic psychology, whose representatives are A. Allport, A. Maslow, K. Rogers and others. Here the subject is considered as a self-forming and self-developing system, as a product of its own self-education.

From our point of view, we note that the process of development and formation of personality in society is influenced by a whole range of different factors: both environmental and intrapersonal. Socialization is a dialectical process in which the dynamics of a person’s passive and active position take place. Passive - when he assimilates norms and is the object of social relations; active - when he reproduces this experience and acts as a subject of social relations; and the active-passive position of the individual as the achievement and development of a person’s ability to integrate subject-object relations, namely, finding that option of life activity in which a person both “accepts” everything that has been developed and is being developed in a given social environment, and actively self-realizes himself in a given society. The formation of a person as a social being and the formation of human individuality are not two different processes, but a single process of personal development.

Let us define socialization as a continuous process of dialectical interaction between the individual and the social environment, during which the development and formation of a person as an object of social relations and as an active subject of social activity takes place, through the development of socially necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to perform various social roles and functions. The main criterion for successful socialization is the establishment of a person as a full-fledged member of society to which he belongs through the self-realization of the individual, taking into account his individual characteristics, internal intentions and needs.

The modern process of personal socialization occurs under the influence of a number of interdependent factors that give rise to problems at its different levels. These steps in this work will be designated as macro level, middle level and micro level.

Macro-level factors include processes occurring in the world, taken on a global scale. They are marked by a sharp transition to a new techno-information formation, which generates competition between social ideals and identities of the previous time and the not yet fully formed identities of the new time, which negatively affects the process of socialization as a whole. Globalization, integration, informatization - these are the concepts that form the basis of the social existence of Russians. They have enveloped the inner mental world of the entire Russian society and every individual Russian and claim dominance in all spheres of people’s lives. We operate with these concepts, write about them, talk about their negative and positive effects, but most of us have a very vague idea of ​​the semantic meaning of these abstractions. This is largely due to the fact that the formation of an innovative type of society is proceeding at such a pace that the nature of the ongoing transformations does not make it possible to foresee the consequences of these innovations. Modern man simply does not have time to realize the changes that have taken place in society, and their rapid rooting does not make it possible not only to internally adopt them, i.e. to internalize, but also to see one’s place in the new social structure. As a result, many modern Russian people are in a state of existential vacuum, they are value-disoriented and lost in the modern information space. The foundations of the stability of human existence are being undermined, and the social sphere is characterized by states of “fermentation,” mass loss, uncertainty, and increased anxiety.

These circumstances cause problems at the “average” level, associated with the specifics of the functioning of modern institutions of socialization. As noted above, the basis of the socialization process is the dialectical unity of its active and passive, subjective and objective aspects. At each subsequent stage of socialization, this ratio looks different than at the previous one, but the share of the active principle, the subjective aspect of a person should constantly increase. Ideally, a successfully socialized person is a person who has clearly established the connection between his needs (what I need from society) and his abilities (what I can do myself and give to society) and has the opportunity to “distance himself” from the social environment as he becomes self-sufficient, self-founding. A mature, successfully socialized person strives to live his own life, not only giving himself to society, but also realizing himself in various forms of life in an individual, inherent way, corresponding to his abilities and characteristics.

In this regard, the objective circumstances of modern reality contribute to this more than ever in the entire history of human existence. Modern society pushes the human personality to the top of the social pedestal. The new generation has been entrusted with the role of creator of new social, spiritual, and moral values. It is today’s youth that “meantfully fills” the new era with a special worldview, worldview, creates new archetypes of consciousness for future generations, develops original trajectories of social adaptation in a constantly changing environment, which over time will take root in society and become the leading guidelines for people’s life. Under these conditions, fertile soil has been created for the development and affirmation of one’s own individuality and uniqueness.

However, what is really happening. The “isolation” of a person from society in modern information conditions is hypertrophied, which gives rise to a dialectical contradiction. It is associated with real “isolation” and an almost hopeless loss of spiritual connection with previous generations, but on the other hand we are witnessing a process of mass “socialization.” A person strives to unite, to include himself in society, but not in society in its traditional sense, but in a community, or, more precisely, in communities that have an informational nature. We are not afraid to assert that by now traditional institutions of socialization have practically been replaced by such virtual information communities. This even applies to the institution of family. The loss of traditional moral guidelines and discreteness in social continuity, leading to a complete denial of the spiritual experience of past generations, turns traditional society into a kind of information field, the various segments of which are embodied for the individual in socializing institutions - information communities. This thesis is confirmed by statistical sociological studies that state the facts of an increase in the amount of free and working time spent (by both the adult population and children and adolescents) on the World Wide Web Internet, virtual spaces and so-called “social networks”, which by their nature are rather mystifying, rather than real social character.

The logical consequence of the above is profound changes at the micro-level of socialization, representing the formation and development of a specific personality in its three main areas: activity, communication and self-awareness.

The modern unification of man into communities is reminiscent of the historical fact of the unification of ancient people into tribes, only this unification was spontaneous, unconscious in nature, dictated by the instincts of self-preservation. Primitive people passively obeyed the demands of the leader and the pack in order to survive. In modern society, in our opinion, the strategy of totalitarian adaptive behavior also prevails, based on passive, conformal acceptance of the goals and value orientations of the group, especially since there are countless numbers of these virtual groups, which provides the same countless opportunities for variation within them. The passive aspect of socialization in this regard is also manifested in the fact that a person’s adaptive behavior in communities is more reminiscent of “blind faith” than conscious conformism. Chaos, anarchy in most social spheres and traditional institutions of socialization, the lack of the ability to see the prospects of one’s own life, lower modern man to the stage of primitive existence, when people, due to the limited development of the mind, came up with explanations for the inexplicable, violating the stability of their existence. In ancient times, humanity created gods and believed in them, we believe in mythologized ideals and slogans: “A fair social order!” "Information order!" "Electronic wallets!" "Free chatting!" “Quick earnings on social networks!” and so on. Under their ephemeral influence, becoming objects of manipulation, we carry out spontaneous, sometimes unconscious behavior that bears little resemblance to active, purposeful activity aimed at inclusion in the sphere of real social relations. In this regard, the process of socialization loses one more of its functions - ensuring the formation of a person as a subject of social activity, a subject of work and communication.

The problem of increasing the share of virtual communication compared to real communication is quite widely described in the scientific literature. We would like to dwell on its next aspect.

In the process of development various types activity there is an expansion and multiplication of contacts of the individual with other people, with society. It is in the process of real communication that information, experience, abilities, abilities, skills, as well as results of activity are exchanged, which is a necessary and universal condition and factor not only in the socialization and social adaptation of a person, but also in the formation and development of society and personality.

Modern communication in most cases is increasingly a coded, symbolically simplified transmission of information. Such changes in the sign system of communication entail the loss of the semiotic and semantic meaning of most traditional concepts (etiquette - netiquette; encyclopedia - Wikipedia, etc.) and give rise to countless new, often ambiguous categories (forum, moderator, “chat”, provider, emoticon and so on.). Contradictions in interpersonal communication between older generations and modern youth are intensifying: parents and children, educators and pupils, teachers and students, teachers and students actually speak different languages, and therefore the older generation is losing the socializing function of a mentor, authority, master. The ideal of personal reference points and behavior patterns often become surreal characters and virtual heroes, which most young people strive to imitate. This is facilitated by the absence of perceptual and interactive aspects in the process of virtual communication, which significantly impoverishes the transfer of experience, knowledge, and skills, which are the support of people’s social existence, and complicates the development of social roles and functions.

In addition, the contradictions between the form, means of communication and its content and depth are intensifying; between the needs of the individual to receive adaptively valuable information and the wide variety of forms of its provision, which complicates its selection and causes the cognitive dissonance, disorientation in conflicting flows of information.

The described circumstances inevitably lead to disturbances at the level of self-awareness of each individual, the formation of the image of a specific “I”.

Today, most people unite in communities to satisfy the need for self-affirmation, self-realization as an individual. Information communities open up more and more opportunities for each person to realize their subjectivity, to find themselves and their place in society, but in an unreal, fantastically convenient, hypertrophied society. Most of these opportunities represent various means of adapting and presenting oneself in the way one wants to be seen and how one would be comfortable with and accepted by others. In the world of virtual communities, we have the opportunity to satisfy our needs to a greater extent than in a real social environment, to feel our importance and need, to feel the demand from other people that is so necessary for full-fledged life. At the level of self-perception in a virtual community, a person has the opportunity to occupy his niche, find himself and illusorily satisfy most of his needs. This contributes to the fact that in the real social environment the process of inclusion of the individual as a capable subject in the system of social relations is disrupted. This fact is confirmed by the increase in unemployment, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide and other negative phenomena that indicate extreme forms of maladaptation and desocialization of the individual.

In fact, the described circumstances represent nothing more than a deep moral problem of modern socialization and traditional society, which is losing the true roots of its spiritual development, which gradually become an atavism of our consciousness in the endless race to ensure a “high” standard of living. Under these conditions, one of the main functions of socialization is violated - ensuring continuity in development, transmission of culture from generation to generation, which affects the level of general culture and spirituality modern generation. In addition, in modern circumstances, the process of becoming a person as a subject of social relations, an active subject of activity, communication, and self-awareness is disrupted. That is why at present there is an urgent need to solve the problem of the formation by social institutions of effective socialization trajectories of the individual, and the process of socialization of the individual itself is turning into a special task of modern society.

Reviewers:

Neskryabina O.F., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Journalism, Institute of Philology and Linguistic Communication, Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk;

Kudashov V.I., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head. Department of Philosophy Humanitarian Institute Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk.

The work was received by the editor on May 16, 2013.

Bibliographic link

Rostovtseva M.V., Mashanov A.A., Khokhrina Z.V. SOCIO-PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF SOCIALIZATION OF PERSONALITY IN CONDITIONS OF INFORMATIZATION OF MODERN SOCIETY // Fundamental Research. – 2013. – No. 6-5. – P. 1282-1286;
URL: http://fundamental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=31731 (access date: 03/31/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

Since ancient times, man has thought about his nature, and what he is, what place he occupies in the world, what are the limits of his capabilities, whether he is capable of becoming the master of his destiny or is doomed to be its blind instrument. Today, the human problem is the focus of attention of many scientists and forms the basis and subject of interdisciplinary research.

Personality psychology became an experimental science in the first decades of our century. Its formation is associated with the names of such scientists as A.F. Lazurovsky, G. Allport, R. Cattell and others. However, theoretical research in the field of personality psychology was carried out long before this time, and at least three periods can be distinguished in the history of relevant research: philosophical and literary, clinical and experimental itself.

The first originates from the works of ancient thinkers and continued until the beginning of the 19th century. In the first decades of the 19th century, along with philosophers and writers, psychiatrists became interested in the problems of personality psychology. They were the first to conduct systematic observations of the patient's personality in a clinical setting, studying his life history in order to better understand his observed behavior. At the same time, not only professional conclusions were made related to the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, but also general scientific conclusions about the nature of the human personality. This period is called clinical.

In the first decades of the current century, professional psychologists also began to study personality, who until that time had paid attention mainly to the study of cognitive processes in the human condition. This period coincided with a general crisis in psychological science, one of the reasons for which was the inability of the psychology of that time to explain holistic behavioral acts.

Experimental studies of personality in Russia were started by A.F. Lazursky, and abroad - G. Eysenck and R. Kettel.

At the end of the 30s of our century, active differentiation of research areas began in personality psychology. As a result, by the second half of the twentieth century, many different approaches and theories of personality had developed.

Currently, there is a strong opinion that a person is not born as a person, but becomes. Most psychologists and sociologists agree with this. However, their points of view on what laws personality development is subject to differ significantly. These discrepancies relate to the understanding of the driving forces of development, in particular the importance of society and various social groups for the development of the individual, patterns and stages of development, the presence, specificity and role of crises of personal development in this process, possibilities for accelerating development and other issues.

Each type of theory is associated with its own special idea of ​​personality development. At the same time, in recent decades there has been an increasing tendency towards an integrated, holistic consideration of personality from the perspective of different theories and approaches.

The problem of personality formation has acquired particular relevance in modern conditions, in particular in Russia. The success of the economic reforms carried out in the country requires solving a whole range of problems, and the key one is the problem of personality formation.

The collapse of the Soviet system entailed the liquidation of valuable elements not only that held together the monolithic, as it seemed recently, blocks of social development, but also that were, albeit to varying degrees, part of the inner world of the people called the “Soviet people.” And the seemingly easy reset of values ​​actually turned out to be a painful revaluation for most of society of what was part of themselves, and caused active polarization of groups. Some of them verbally accepted new values, remaining essentially in their previous positions, while the other part was unable to do even this.

Young people entering life, not closely connected with the values ​​of those leaving, do not have the opportunity to perceive new values, falling into a vacuum, as it were. They are forced to either seek the truth on their own or follow the leader. There are no many grounds for full-scale value self-determination of the current generation, which in the overwhelming majority has no idea which path to take. Deterioration social status of young people as a whole sharpens the features of their socio-psychological portrait.

The current state of Russian society today is characterized as critical, which makes it problematic to preserve the moral health of the nation and ensure the spiritual security of Russia. Culture is losing the functions of socialization, social consolidation and spiritual and moral self-determination of a person. Value-normative uncertainty has a particularly detrimental effect on the younger generation, which today is most acutely experiencing an identity crisis.

An incorrect understanding of value-orientation activity was a distinctive feature of scientists of the former USSR who were engaged in research on youth problems. Because they almost always proceeded from the “should”. “beyond the given”, the subject of their research was not a real young man, but a proper ideal, an abstract “communist personality”, devoid of life’s contradictions. However, life has shown that focusing on predetermined ideals divorced from life leads to a dead end. This happened, for example, with the conclusion that “socialist society managed to form a new person.” In this sense, it is necessary to study real, not fictitious problems.

The process of personality formation is carried out in a very diverse way, both in the course of targeted influence on a person in the education system, and under the influence of a wide range of influencing factors (family communication, art, media, etc.).

The deformation of socialism in past decades, the immorality of the social structure of society led to the destruction of such traditional traits in the younger generation as romanticism, selflessness, readiness for heroism, maximalism, the desire for truth and the search for an ideal. As a result, selfishness, pragmatism, theft, drunkenness, drug addiction, substance abuse, prostitution, social savagery and other negative phenomena have become widespread.

Alienation in the economic, social and political spheres, lack of faith in state and political institutions, impotence and corruption of the administrative system caused a sharp escalation of contradictions between different social groups.

Despite this, young people are mastering a new social space, demonstrating psychological readiness to perceive changes in all spheres of life, developing their own alternative culture, forming new life styles and thinking stereotypes.

The combination of the above problems determined the relevance of the thesis research, the PURPOSE of which is to identify the main aspects of the problem of personality formation, which have been and are in the focus of attention of various scientists, as well as to determine ways of adapting the personality to modern conditions in Russia.

The purpose of the study predetermined the solution of the following TASKS:

Consider the phenomenon of the individual as a subject and object of social relations, including showing the features of the process of socialization of the individual in modern Russia.

Explore some aspects of modern personality theories.

Determine the conditions for optimizing the socio-cultural integration of the individual and ways to form a new model of his behavior.

OBJECT OF RESEARCH - personality in modern conditions.

SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH - the study of various approaches to the problem of personality formation.

Preliminary analysis of theoretical and practical aspects the issue under study allowed us to formulate an initial hypothesis, which consists of the following assumptions:

1. Only the creation of special programs that take into account the general laws of the socialization mechanism can affect the effectiveness of the process of personality formation.

2. One of the ways to adapt a person to modern conditions may be to introduce him to the values ​​of Russian culture (in Russian society), since this leads to a revival of the spiritual and moral principles.

The theoretical basis for the study of socio-psychological and cultural aspects of the problem of personality formation was the works of P. Berger,. T. Luhmann, W. Durkheim, L.G. Ionin, P. Monson, Z. Freud, E. Fromm, J. Mead and other scientists.

CHAPTER 1. PERSONALITY AS A SUBJECT AND OBJECT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

1.1 Concept of personality

To the question of what personality is, sociologists and psychologists answer differently, and the variety of their answers, and partly the divergence of opinions on this matter, reveals the complexity of the personality phenomenon itself. The word personality (“personaliti”) in English comes from the Latin “persona”. Originally this word meant the masks that actors wore during theatrical performance in ancient Greek drama. In fact, this term originally indicated a comic or tragic figure in theatrical action.

Thus, from the very beginning, the concept of “personality” included an external, superficial social image, which the individual takes on when he plays certain life roles - a certain “mask”, a public face addressed to others. To get an idea of ​​the variety of meanings of the concept of personality in sociology and psychology, let us turn to the views of some recognized theorists in this area. For example, Carl Rogers described personality in terms of the self: as an organized, durable, subjectively perceived entity that is at the very core of our experiences. Gordon Allport defined personality as what an individual actually is - an internal “something” that determines the nature of a person’s interaction with the world. And in the understanding of Erik Erikson, an individual goes through a series of psychosocial crises throughout his life and his personality appears as a function of the results of the crisis. George Kelly viewed personality as each individual's unique way of making sense of life's experiences.

A completely different concept was proposed by Raymond Cattell, according to whom the core of the personal structure is formed by sixteen initial traits. Finally, Albert Bandura viewed personality as a complex pattern of continuous interaction between the individual, behavior and situation. Such an obvious dissimilarity of the above concepts clearly shows that the content of personality from the perspective of different theoretical concepts is much more multifaceted than that presented in the original concept of “external social image” Kjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality. St. Petersburg - Peter - 1997., pp. 22-23. . Another definition of personality: “Personality is character traits behavior of an individual” Jeri D. et al. Large explanatory sociological dictionary. Volume 1., M. - Veche-Ast, 1999. . “Personality”, therefore, in this case is derived from behavior, i.e. someone's “personality” is considered to be the reason for his or her behavior. To this we can add that many definitions of personality emphasize that personalities do not include psychological qualities a person, characterizing his cognitive processes or individual style of activity, with the exception of those that manifest themselves in relationships with people in society.

As noted by Kjell L. and Ziegler D. Kjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality. St. Petersburg - Peter - 1997., p. 24. most theoretical definitions of personality contain the following general provisions:

* Most definitions emphasize the importance of individuality, or individual differences. A personality represents those special qualities that make a given person different from all other people. In addition, understanding what specific qualities or combinations thereof differentiate one personality from another can only be done by studying individual differences.

* In most definitions, personality appears in the form of some hypothetical structure or organization. The behavior of an individual that is directly observable, at least in part, is considered to be organized or integrated by the person. In other words, personality is an abstraction based on conclusions obtained from observing human behavior.

* Most definitions emphasize the importance of viewing personality in relation to the individual's life history or developmental prospects. Personality is characterized in the evolutionary process as subject to the influence of internal and external factors, including genetic and biological predisposition, social experience and changing environmental circumstances.

* In most definitions, personality is represented by those characteristics that are “responsible” for stable forms of behavior. Personality as such is relatively unchanging and constant over time and changing situations; it provides a sense of continuity in time and environment.

Despite the above points of contact, definitions of personality vary significantly among different authors. But from all of the above, it can be noted that personality is most often defined as a person in the totality of his social, acquired qualities. This means that personal characteristics do not include such human characteristics that are genotypically or physiologically determined and do not in any way depend on life in society. The concept of “personality” usually includes such properties that are more or less stable and indicate a person’s individuality, determining his actions that are significant for people.

In everyday and scientific language, along with the term “personality”, terms such as “person”, “individual”, “individuality” are very often found. Do they represent the same phenomenon, or are there some differences between them? Most often, these words are used as synonyms, but if you strictly approach the definition of these concepts, you can discover significant semantic shades. Man is the most general, generic concept, leading its origin from the moment of its isolation Homo sapiens. An individual is a single representative of the human race, a specific bearer of all the social and psychological traits of humanity: reason, will, needs, interests, etc. The concept of “individual” in this case is used in the meaning of “a specific person”. With this formulation of the question, both the peculiarities of the action of various biological factors (age characteristics, gender, temperament) and the differences in the social conditions of human life are not recorded. However, it is impossible to completely abstract from the action of these factors. It is obvious that there are big differences between the life of a child and an adult, a person of a primitive society and more developed historical eras. In order to reflect the specific historical features of human development at various levels of his individual and historical development, along with the concept of “individual”, the concept of personality is also used. The individual in this case is considered as the starting point for the formation of personality from the initial state, personality is the result of the development of the individual, the most complete embodiment of all human qualities.

So, at the moment of birth, the child is not yet a person. He is just an individual. V.A. Chulanov notes that in order to form a personality, an individual needs to go through a certain path of development and indicates 2 groups of conditions for this development: biological, genetic inclinations, prerequisites and the presence of a social environment, the world of human culture with which the child interacts Sociology in questions and answers : Textbook./ed. Prof. V.A. Chulanova. - Rostov-on-Don. - Phoenix, 2000, p. 67. .

Individuality can be defined as a set of traits that distinguish one individual from another, and the differences are made at a variety of levels - biochemical, neurophysiological, psychological, social, etc.

Personality is the object of study in a number of humanities, primarily philosophy, psychology and sociology. Philosophy considers personality from the point of view of its position in the world as a subject of activity, cognition and creativity. Psychology studies personality as a stable integrity of mental processes. properties and relationships: temperament, character, abilities, etc.

The sociological approach highlights the socially typical in personality. The main problems of the sociological theory of personality are related to the process of personality formation and the development of its needs in inextricable connection with the functioning and development of social communities, the study of the natural connection between the individual and society, the individual and the group, the regulation and self-regulation of the social behavior of the individual.

The “personality as an object” system appears as a specific system of scientific concepts that reflect some essential properties of the normative requirements imposed by social communities on their members Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. Lecture course. - M.: Center, 1997 p. 72. .

The personality as a subject of social relations is primarily characterized by autonomy, a certain degree of independence from society, capable of opposing itself to society. Personal independence is associated with the ability to dominate oneself, and this, in turn, presupposes that the individual has self-awareness, that is, not just consciousness, thinking and will, but the ability for introspection, self-esteem, and self-control. Ibid. - p.74..

In the history of the development of human sciences, the main question had to be answered: what made man, who as a biological being is weak and vulnerable, able to successfully compete with animals, and later became the most powerful force?

Meanwhile, the fact that man is a historical, social and cultural being allows us to understand that his “nature” is not something automatically given, but is constructed differently in each culture.

So, the concept of “personality” is introduced to highlight and emphasize the non-natural (“supernatural”, social) essence of man and the individual, i.e. the emphasis is on the social principle. Personality is the integrity of a person’s social properties, a product of social development and the inclusion of the individual in the system of social relations through active activity and communication.

In sociology, personality is defined as:

The systemic quality of an individual, determined by his involvement in social relations and manifested in joint activities and communication;

Subject of social relations and conscious activity.

The concept of “personality” shows how socially significant traits are individually reflected in each person and how his essence is manifested as the totality of all social relations.

1.2 Peculiarities relationship between the individual and society

Society in sociology is understood as an association of people characterized by:

a) the commonality of the territory of their residence, which usually coincides with state borders and serves as the space within which the relationships and interactions of members of a given society take shape and develop;

b) integrity and stability;

c) self-reproduction, self-sufficiency, self-regulation;

d) such a level of cultural development that finds expression in the development of a system of norms and values ​​that underlie social connections. Sociology. Educational pos. (Ed. E.V. Tadevosyan.-M.: 3science, 1995, p. 144. .

In general, recognizing that society is a product of interaction between people, sociologists, both in the past and today, often answered the question of what serves as the fundamental basis for uniting people into society in different ways.

There have been and are many attempts to systematize sociological views on resolving the issue of the relationship between the individual and society. One of the most fruitful options for classifying modern sociological trends was proposed by the Swedish sociologist P. Monson P. Monson. Modern Western sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 24. . He identified four main approaches.

The first approach and the sociological tradition that follows from it proceed from the primacy of society in relation to the individual and focus their attention on the study of patterns of a “high” order, leaving the sphere of subjective motives and meanings in the shadows. Society is understood as a system that rises above individuals and cannot be explained by their thoughts and actions. The logic of reasoning with this position is approximately as follows: the whole cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts; individuals come and go, are born and die, but society continues to exist. This tradition has its origins in the sociological concept of Durkheim and even earlier in the views of Comte. Of the modern trends, it primarily includes the school of structural-functional analysis (T. Parsons) and the theory of conflict (L. Coser, R. Dahrendorf).

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is considered the founder of positivist sociology. Comte's main work, “Course of Positive Philosophy,” in 6 volumes, was published in 1830-1842. The scientist’s work coincided with a period of profound social changes, which he perceived as a general moral, intellectual and social crisis. He saw the reasons for this crisis in the destruction of traditional institutions of society, in the absence of a system of beliefs and views that would meet new social needs and could become the ideological basis for future social transformations. The transition of society to a new state cannot occur, according to Comte, without the active participation of man, his strong-willed and creative efforts. O. Comte believed in the limitless possibilities of reason as the driving force of history, in “positive” science, which should replace religion and become the main organizing force of society. History of Sociology: Textbook. village (Under the general editorship of A.N. Elsukov et al. - Mn.: Higher school, 1997, p. 35. .

In the theoretical understanding of society by E. Durkheim (1858-1917), two main trends can be traced: naturalism and social realism. The first is rooted in an understanding of society and its laws by analogy with nature. The second presupposes an understanding of society as a reality of a special kind, different from all other types. Sociology is the main methodological setting of this researcher.

The main idea that inspired Durkheim was the idea of ​​social solidarity, the desire to find an answer to the question of what connections unite people in society. His fundamental thesis was: that the division of labor, by which he understood professional specialization, is increasingly fulfilling the integrating role that was previously performed by the general consciousness. The division of labor causes individual differences according to professional role. Everyone becomes an individual. Knowing that everyone is connected unified system relationships created by the division of labor evokes feelings of dependence on each other, solidarity, and connection with society. Wherein collective consciousness takes new forms and changes its content. It decreases in volume and the degree of certainty also decreases; in content it turns into secular, rationalistic, individual-oriented Durkheim E. On the division of social labor: Method of sociology.-M..1991, p.122. .

Any modern society in which organic solidarity reigns is fraught with the danger of disunity and anomaly. Durkheim. naturally, I saw the availability social problems and conflicts. However, he considered them simply a deviation from the norm, caused by insufficient regulation of relations between the main classes of society. In this regard, the researcher developed the idea of ​​​​creating professional corporations as new bodies of social solidarity. They should, according to his plan, perform a wide range of social functions - from production to moral and cultural, develop and implement new forms that will regulate relations between people and contribute to the development of personality Gromov I.A., Matskevich A.Yu., Semenov V.A. Western theoretical sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 69. .

The works of T. Parsons (1902-1979) had a great influence on the development of modern sociological theory. Concepts such as “social system” and “society” in Parsons are interrelated, but not reducible to each other. He believes that society is a special type of social system: it is a social system that has reached the highest level of self-sufficiency in relation to its environment. Parsons names five external environments of the social system - “Ultimate reality”, “Cultural system”, “Personality system”, “Organism” and “Physical-organic environment” Gromov I.A., Matskevich A.Yu., Semenov V.A. Western theoretical sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1996, p.171. .

The main features of this system are, according to Parsons, the orderliness of relations between individuals and the collectivity of human existence. Therefore, as an ordered system, a societal community contains values ​​and differentiated and specialized norms and rules, the presence of which presupposes a cultural reference that contributes to their legitimation.

The relationship of the social system to the personality system, Parsons believes, is radically different from its relationship to the cultural system, since the personality (like the organism and the physical-organic environment) is located “below” the social system in the cybernetic hierarchy. The social system represents only one side of human behavior. the other side is the vital activity of the human body. The functional requirements put forward by individuals, organisms and the physical-organic environment constitute a complex system of measurements of the actual organization and existence of social systems Gromov I.A., Matskevich A.Yu., Semenov V.A. Western theoretical sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 69. .

The main functional problem of the relationship of the social system to the personality system is the problem of socialization in the theory of T. Parsons. Socialization is defined by him as a set of processes through which people become members of the system of a societal community and establish a certain social status. The complex relationship between the individual and the social system involves, on the one hand, the establishment and development of adequate motivation to take part in socially controlled patterns of action, and, on the other, adequate satisfaction and encouragement for the participants in such action. Thus, the primary functional need of a social system in relation to the personality of its members is the motivation to participate in the social system, which presupposes agreement with the requirements of the normative order. Parsons identifies three aspects of this functional need: first, the most general obligations arising from the acceptance of central value patterns, directly related to religious orientation; secondly, a sublevel of personality formed in the process of early socialization, associated with the erotic complex and the motivational importance of kinship and other intimate relationships; thirdly, direct instrumental and non-instrumental actions of the individual (“services”), varying in purpose and situation.

Despite the importance of all aspects of functional needs, the relationship between the personality system and the social system is structured through “services”, which are the main elements of the formation of the political subsystem of the social system Ibid., p.173. .

Many sociologists quite rightly raised the question that along with order in society there is also disorder (theories of social conflict): stability, stability, harmony is accompanied by conflict, the struggle of opposing social groups, organizations, individuals.

The main arguments put forward against Parsons’ thesis about stability as an attribute of society were the following: I) a group of people is involved in the distribution of the means of living. She is against the whole society. Therefore, conflict is inevitable; 2) political power protects the existing economic order of distribution of the social product. She also opposes society. Therefore, the conflict between it and the masses of the people is objectively determined; 3) in every society there is an initial chain: money - power - values ​​- ritual. From the first to the last component, everywhere there is a clash of interests of opposing social groups. Consequently, conflicts are generated by the entire system of social relations; 4) in any society there is coercion of some by others, because only some own the means of production. Thus, social conflict is a product of economic relations.

A study of the opposition between man, as an integral personality, and society, as a universal social system, can be found in the works of N. Luhmann (1927-1998). This is a sociologist who began to write about “world society”: “World society is not constituted due to the fact that more and more people, despite spatial distance, enter into elementary contacts between those present. This only further reveals that fact. that in each interaction a certain “and so on” of other contacts of partners is constituted, and the possibilities (of these contacts) further reach global interconnections and include them in the regulation of interactions” Theory of Society. Collection (Translated from him, English) Intro. Art. comp. And general Ed. A.F. Filippova. - M.: “KANON-press-C”, “Kuchkovo Pole”, 1999, p.14. . In his later publications, Luhmann not only did not consider himself a supporter of the concept of “global society” (i.e., attitude towards the first approach in systematizing the interaction between the individual and society, proposed by Monson), but also criticized them, first of all, because these theorists, as it seemed to him, underestimate the scale of the “decentralized and interconnecting worldwide communication of the “information society” Ibid., pp. 14-15. .

L. Coser (b. 1913), for example, sought to “supplement” and “improve” the theory of structural-functional analysis. He tried to prove that collisions are a product of the internal life of society, the existing order of things in it, the very relations between individuals and groups. According to Coser, social conflict is an integral attribute of social relations. In his presentation, any social system presupposes a certain distribution of power, wealth and status positions among individuals and social groups History of Sociology // Under the general editorship of A.N. Elsukova.-M., 1997, p. 211. . Groups or systems that are not challenged are unable to respond creatively. The most effective means of containing conflict is to ascertain the relative strength of the conflicting parties; the strength of opponents must be assessed before the outbreak of conflict; antagonistic interests can be resolved in a conflict-free manner.

The essence of social conflict in the theory of R. Dahrendorf (b. 1929) is the antagonism of power and resistance. He believed that power always implies anarchy and therefore resistance. The dialectic of power and resistance is the driving force of history. Power breeds conflict. The researcher sees the cause of the conflict in the inequality of the positions occupied by people. Dahrendorf created a typology of conflicts in relation to power within social groups, between groups, at the level of the entire society and conflicts between countries. Ibid. p.214. .

So, the first approach and the sociological tradition that follows from it proceed from the dominant position of society in relation to the individual and focus their attention on the study of patterns of a “high” order, leaving the sphere of subjective, personal motives and meanings in the shadows. Society is understood as a system that rises above individuals and cannot be explained by their thoughts and actions. O. Comte believed in the limitless possibilities of reason as the driving force of history, in “positive” science, but he believed that this was just the organizing force of society, Durkheim believed that professional specialization increasingly plays that integrating role. According to Parsons, the “personality system” is a component of the social system, and society is a social system that has reached the highest level of self-sufficiency in relation to its environment. The personality (like the organism and the physical-organic environment) is located “below” the social system in the cybernetic hierarchy. The understanding of society in all these views is a reality of a special kind, different from all other types.

The second approach proposed by Monson to address the issue of the relationship between the individual and society shifts the focus of its attention towards the individual, arguing that without studying the inner world of a person and his motivations, it is impossible to create an explanatory sociological theory. This tradition is associated with the name of the German sociologist M. Weber, and among modern representatives we can name such directions as symbolic interactionism (G. Blumer), phenomenology (A. Schutz, N. Luckmann) and ethnomethodology (G. Garfinkel, A. Sicurel), social dramaturgy of I. Hoffman.

M. Weber (1864-1920) - the founder of “understanding” sociology and the theory of social action. The main idea of ​​Weber's sociology was to substantiate the possibility of maximally rational behavior manifested in all spheres of human relationships. He rejected such concepts as “society”, “people”, “humanity”, “collective”, etc. as a subject of sociological knowledge. The subject of a sociologist's research can only be the individual, since it is he who has consciousness, motivation for his actions and rational behavior. Sociology. Textbook // General ed. E.V. Tadevosyan, . - M., Knowledge, 1995, p.63. .

The founder of the theoretical constructions of symbolic interactionism is considered to be D.G. Mead (1863-1931) and his book “Mind, Self and Society”.

In the clearest and most concise form, the main assumptions of the theory of symbolic interactionism are set out in the work of G. Blumer (1900-1987) “Symbolic interactionism: “Perspectives and method” Gromov I.A., Matskevich A.Yu., Semenov V.A. Western theoretical sociology. p.205. :

Human activities are carried out in relation to objects based on the meanings they attach to them.

Meanings themselves are a product of social interaction between individuals.

Meanings are changed and applied through interpretation, a process used by each individual in relation to the signs (symbols) surrounding him.

Here we observe the fundamental role of the activity of the individual, personality, and the meanings that a person attaches to the environment.

One of prominent representatives phenomenological approach in sociology is A. Schutz. Schutz reflected his basic views in the fundamental work “Phenomenology of the Social World” Schutz A. Formation of concepts and theories in the social sciences // American Sociological Thought. - M.: MSU, 1994.

3 Berger P., Luckmann T. Social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. -M.: Medium, 1995. . The scientist believed that the world around us is a product of our consciousness, in other words, we can say that he believed that only what exists (for humans) is conscious and “translated” into signs (symbols). Schütz describes the transition from individual to society as follows. At a certain stage of development, the individual “stock of knowledge” must be “shared” with other people. The combination of different worlds is carried out on the basis of “self-evident concepts,” creating what Schutz calls the “life world.” Probably, Schutz precisely identifies the “life world” with the concept of “society”. That is, “individual reserves of knowledge” that characterize a person, when combined, form the substance “society”.

An attempt to construct a phenomenological theory of society is presented in the work of P. Berger (b. 1929), written in collaboration with T. Luckmann (b. 1927). “Self-evident” meanings are considered by scientists as the basis of social organization, but the authors pay more attention to the meanings developed jointly and standing, as it were, “above the individual.” Society turns out to be the social environment of the individual, which he himself creates, introducing into it certain “proper” values ​​and meanings, which he subsequently adheres to. Here the individual (the basis of personal development in the modern view) turns out to be the creator of society, i.e. in this case, priority in interaction is given to him.

The founder of the ethnomethodological school is G. Garfinkel (b. 1917). He was interested in how a rational, correct description of practical everyday life is possible. social interactions. What an individual is, Garfinkel formulates in the spirit of T. Parsons’ approach - “a member of a collective.” Mutual understanding between individuals is not limited to formal rules for recording phenomena that serve to predict each other's future behavior. It is a kind of agreement that serves to normalize everything that may turn out to be in practice social behavior.

Social interaction, according to Garfinkel. can be correctly described by analogy with a game. From this point of view, it becomes possible to identify both the set of basic rules that those. those who seek to obey them are considered the rules of normal interaction. and ways of understanding specific social situations by their participants with the help of these rules History of sociology //Under the general editorship. A.N.Elsukova.. - Mn.: Higher. school, 1997. p.246-248. .

I. Goffman (1922-1982) made significant contributions to modern sociology through his studies of social interactions, contacts, meetings and small groups, reflected in such publications as Behavior in Public Places, Ritual of Interactions and Relationships in Public. He also worked on role analysis ("Contacts"). Most of all, he was interested in the components of fleeting, random and short-term contacts, in other words, the sociology of everyday life. In order to search for a certain orderliness in such contacts, Goffman used an analogy with drama (“dramaturgical approach”) when analyzing the processes of staging social meetings in his work “The Representation of the Self in Everyday Life.” He tried to describe all aspects of life - from deeply personal to social ones - in theatrical terms. The management of the “performance” is carried out constantly, as if a person were simultaneously a producer committing himself to a role, an actor performing it, and a director monitoring the performance. That is, the interaction between the individual and society occurs based on the role that the person (person) plays.

So, the second approach proposed by Monson to address the issue of the relationship between the individual and society shifts the focus of its attention towards the individual. According to this tradition, it turns out that without studying the inner world of a person and his motivations, it is impossible to create an explanatory sociological theory. Weber believed that only the individual can be the subject of sociologist's research, since it is he who has consciousness, motivation for his actions and rational behavior. A. Schutz saw the fundamental role of consciousness in everything. P. Berger and T. Luckmann wrote that society turns out to be the social environment of the individual, which he himself creates, introducing into it certain “proper” values ​​and meanings, which he subsequently adheres to. Other sociologists, “supporters” of this tradition, considered the basis in the interaction between society and the individual to be the symbols (signs) that a person operates with.

Monson focuses on studying the very mechanism of the process of interaction between society and the individual, taking, as it were, a “middle” position between the approaches that we described above. One of the founders of this tradition was P. Sorokin, and one of the modern sociological concepts is the theory of action, or the theory of exchange (J. Homans).

P. Sorokin (1889-1968) is the author of such famous books. like “System of Sociology” (1920), “Social Mobility” (1927). “Modern sociological theories” (1928), “Social and cultural dynamics” (1937-1941), “Society, culture and personality” (1947) and many others.

Sorokin formulated the initial thesis that social behavior is based on psychophysical mechanisms; the subjective aspects of behavior are “variable” quantities. All people, according to Sorokin, enter into a system of social relationships under the influence of a whole complex of factors: unconscious (reflexes), bioconscious (hunger, thirst, sexual desire, etc.) and socioconscious (meanings, norms, values) regulators. In contrast to random and temporary aggregates (such as a crowd), characterized by the absence of clear connections between people, only society is capable of producing meanings, norms, and values ​​that exist, as it were, within the socio-conscious “egos” - the constituent members of society. Therefore, any society can be assessed only through the prism of its inherent system of meanings, norms and values. This system is the simultaneous cultural quality of Johnston B.V. Pitrim Sorokin and sociocultural trends of our time // Sociological research. - 1999, - No. 6, P. 67. .

Cultural qualities hidden in socially conscious individuals and societies are found in all achievements of human civilization, also persisting in discrete periods of cultural history (wars, revolutions, etc.).

So, all people, according to Sorokin, enter into a system of social relationships under the influence of a whole complex of factors: unconscious and socially conscious regulators. Those. relationships occur thanks to socially conscious, for example, regulators, and regulators, in turn, arise due to the presence of individuals (personalities). The cultural qualities hidden in socially conscious individuals and societies are revealed in all the achievements of human civilization.

D.K. Homans (b. 1910) characterized the task of his own sociology as follows: “Although sociologists will make many empirical discoveries, the central intellectual problem of sociology is not analytical; this problem of discovering new fundamental positions. I think the basic principles have already been discovered, and they are psychological. This problem is rather synthetic, i.e. the problem of showing how the behavior of many people in accordance with psychological propositions is woven together to form and maintain relatively stable social structures.” Some problems of modern foreign sociology: Critical analysis. Book 2.-M., 1979, p. 156. According to Homans, institutions and human society as a whole consist only of human actions, they can therefore be analyzed in terms of individual actions and can be explained on the basis of principles of individual behavior.

As Homans noted, “the secret of social exchange between people is to give to the other person from your behavior what seems more valuable to him than to you, and to receive from him what is of more value to you than to him.” History bourgeois sociology of the first half of the 20th century, - M., 1979.p.70. .

So, the third approach outlined by Monson to solving the issue of the relationship between the individual and society can be called combining the first two approaches. None of these concepts is dominant over the other; moreover, they are interconnected: one cannot exist without the other. All people, according to Sorokin, enter into a system of social relationships under the influence of a whole complex of factors: unconscious and socially conscious regulators. The cultural qualities hidden in socially conscious individuals and societies are revealed in all the achievements of human civilization. Homans believes that people enter into a system of social relationships based on social exchange among themselves. Therefore, we cannot say that society dominates the individual, or, on the contrary, the individual has priority over society.

Another approach outlined by Monson is Marxist. Marxist sociology - approaches in academic sociology that use Marxism. Marxism is a general set of mainly theoretical works that claim to develop, correct or revise the works of Marx (1818-1883) by practitioners who consider themselves to be his followers Jerry D. and others. Large explanatory sociological dictionary. Volume 1., M. - Veche-Ast, 1999., p. 394, 396. . Marx’s entire intellectual project contained several goals, one of which was “to understand and explain the position of man as he saw it in capitalist society” Ibid. P.390. This goal was not strictly sociological (which Marx did not claim), but his thought had a profound impact on the development of sociology, providing a starting point for extensive research, stimulating productive critical reactions on the part of non-Marxist scientists. Essentially, K. Marx believed that the human condition under capitalism was characterized by alienation, that is, the separation of people from their world, products, comrades and themselves. His theory is based on the following ideas: the economy has a primary influence on the formation and development of social structures and on the ideas that people have about themselves, as well as about their society. According to Marx, economic relations constitute the basis of society, which has a superstructure of non-economic institutions. The nature and capabilities of the latter are significantly determined by the basis.

In terms of the type of explanation of social phenomena, this approach is similar to the first approach. However, the fundamental difference is that in line with the Marxist tradition, the active intervention of sociology in the transformation and change of the surrounding world is assumed, while other traditions consider the role of sociology rather as advisory. Marx assigned the main role in social development to production relations, and non-economic institutions - the state, religion, etc. - play only a relatively autonomous role in social development. The views of K. Marx were developed by Monson into a separate model of relations between the individual and society, probably due to this economic approach. The concept of “personality” was not considered by Marx at all, but was implied in the meaning of “man in a capitalist society”, “human consciousness”. According to Marx, consciousness reflected the material conditions of existence in which the classes (of which society is composed) found themselves. So, K. Marx considered society (classes, economic situation) to be dominant in the concepts of “personality” and “society”.

The focus of sociology has always been and continues to be on the problems of interaction between the individual and society. This is one of the main questions in sociology, because it is on its solution that this or that understanding of the essence of the individual and society, their organization” of life, sources and paths of development depends. Sociologists have argued a lot about the priority of the individual and society. Probably, its real solution is not in isolation, and especially not in opposing one to the other, but in organizing their close and harmonious interaction. One thing is clear that there is no and cannot be an improvement of society without the free and all-round development of the individual, just as there is no and cannot be a free and all-round development of the individual outside and independently of a truly civilized society.

Our analysis of various schools, directions and currents of sociological theory does not pretend to be an exhaustive presentation of the entire theoretical heritage of Western sociologists, but highlights only the key points that form the basis of scientific research on the problem “personality - society”.

1.3 Formation and development of personality - problem of modern psychology and sociology

The problem of personality, the relationship between the individual and society belongs to the most interesting and important topics in sociology. However, not only in sociology, but also in philosophy, psychology, social psychology and many other disciplines.

Studying, in particular, the history of sociology leads to the conclusion that sociological thought is aimed at finding answers to two fundamental questions:

1) what is society (what makes society a stable whole; how is social order possible)?

2) what is the nature of the relationship between society as an ordered structure, on the one hand, and the individuals operating in it, on the other? Kazarinova N.V. Filatova O. G. Khrenov A. E. Sociology: Textbook. - M., 2000, P. 10. And the individual, as we have already noted, is considered as the starting point for the formation of personality from the initial state, personality is the result of the development of the individual, the most complete embodiment of all human qualities. It follows from this that the problem of personality has been and is still a pressing problem.

First of all, we note that personality as an object of social relations is considered in sociology in the context of two interrelated processes - socialization and identification. Socialization is usually understood as the process of an individual’s assimilation of patterns of behavior, social norms and values ​​necessary for his successful functioning in a given society. Identification is copying the behavior of another, close to a passionate desire to resemble, as much as possible, that person (the concept owes much to Freud's understanding of the solution to the Oedipus complex through identification with a parent of the same sex). Socialization covers all processes of cultural inclusion, training and education, through which a person acquires a social nature and the ability to participate in social life. The entire environment of the individual takes part in the process of socialization: family, neighbors, peers in a children's institution, school, the media, etc. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. - M., 1997, p.76. It is in the process of socialization that personality is formed.

One of the first elements of child socialization was highlighted by the founder of the psychoanalytic theory of personality, S. Freud (1856-1939). According to Freud, personality includes three elements: “id” - a source of energy stimulated by the desire for pleasure; “ego” - exercising control of the personality, based on the principle of reality, and “superego”, or the moral evaluative element. Socialization appears to Freud as a process of “deployment” of a person’s innate properties, as a result of which the formation of these three components of personality occurs.

Many psychologists and sociologists emphasize that the process of socialization continues throughout a person's life and argue that the socialization of adults is different from the socialization of children. If adult socialization changes external behavior, then the socialization of children and adolescents shapes value orientations.

Similar documents

Features of the relationship between the individual and society. The formation and development of personality is a problem of modern psychology and sociology. Role concept of personality. Psychoanalytic personality theory of S. Freud. Cultural-historical concept of personality.

thesis, added 08/22/2002


Psychodynamic direction in personality theory. Psychoanalytic theory of S. Freud. Instincts as the driving force of society. Alfred Adler's individual theory of personality. Carl Gustav Jung: Analytical Theory of Personality.

training manual, added 09/17/2007


Psychoanalytic theory of personality. E. Fromm's concept of personality. Cognitive direction in personality theory: D. Kelly. Humanistic theory of personality. Phenomenological direction. Behavioral theory of personality.

abstract, added 06/01/2007


Psychoanalytic theory of personality according to Freud. Personality structure. Personal defense mechanisms. Processes and experiences in the psychological experience of people. Psychological health as a manifestation of personal unity.

abstract, added 06/28/2007


Domestic concepts of personality theory: A.F. Lazursky, S.L. Rubinstein, A.N. Leontyev, A.V. Petrovsky. Freud's psychoanalytic theory. Personality in humanistic theory. Cognitive theory of personality. Dispositional direction in personality theory.

abstract, added 09/08/2010


Social environment not as a “factor”, but as a “source” of personality development - the concept of L.S. Vygotsky. Historical roots of psychodynamic theories of personality, Freudian psychoanalysis. Features of personality formation in individual stages of human age development.

test, added 11/20/2010


The three areas of Sigmund Freud's views are the method of treating functional mental illnesses, the theory of personality and the theory of society, views on the development and structure of human personality. Personality as a trinity. "Logic" of unconscious conflict.

abstract, added 02/04/2009


Necessary and sufficient criteria for personality development. Stages of personality formation. Stages of personality formation according to A.N. Leontiev. Stages of personality development in ontogenesis according to L.I. Bozovic. Mechanisms of personality formation.

lecture, added 04/26/2007


Psychoanalytic theory of the Austrian psychiatrist S. Freud. The concept of the unconscious mental. The structure of personality and the dynamics of relations between consciousness and the unconscious. Defense mechanisms, their awareness and personality development. The content of criticism of Freud's theory.

abstract, added 11/25/2009


Socio-psychological structure of personality. Characteristics and classification of groups, the concept of a team. Personality in modern society and its socialization. Types of relationships in groups and teams. Group norms as a regulator of interpersonal relationships.