From direct employers category B driver. Driving license category A

The concepts of “personality” and “individuality”, from the point of view of domestic psychology, do not coincide. Moreover, in Russian psychological science there are quite a lot of disagreements regarding the relationship between these concepts. From time to time, scientific disputes arise on the question of which of these concepts is broader. From one point of view (which is most often presented in the works of representatives of the St. Petersburg psychological school), individuality combines those biological and social features a person, which make him different from other people, i.e. the concept of “individuality” from this position seems broader than the concept of “personality”. From another point of view (which can most often be found among representatives of the Moscow psychological school), the concept of “individuality” is considered as the narrowest in the structure of human organization, uniting only a relatively small group of qualities. What these approaches have in common is that the concept of “personal

"ness" includes, first of all, human qualities that manifest themselves at the social level during the formation social relations and human connections.

However, there is whole line psychological concepts in which the individual is not considered as a subject of the system public relations, but is presented as a holistic integrative formation that includes all human characteristics, including biological, mental and social. Therefore, it is believed that with the help of special personality questionnaires can describe a person as a whole. This difference of opinion is caused by differences in approaches to considering the relationship between the biological and the social in the structure of a person’s personality.

The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person’s personality is one of central problems modern psychology. In the process of formation and development psychological science Almost all possible connections between the concepts of “mental”, “social” and “biological” were considered. Mental development was interpreted as a completely spontaneous process, independent of either the biological or the social, and as a derivative only of the biological or only of social development or as a result of their parallel action on the individual, etc. Thus, we can distinguish several groups of concepts that differently consider the relationship between the social, mental and biological.

In the group of concepts that prove the spontaneity of mental development, the mental is viewed as a phenomenon completely subordinate to its own internal laws, in no way connected with either the biological or the social. At best, the human body, within the framework of these concepts, is assigned the role of a kind of “container” mental activity. Most often we come across this position among authors who prove the divine origin of psychic phenomena.

In biologizing concepts, the mental is viewed as a linear function of the development of the organism, as something that unambiguously follows this development. From the perspective of these concepts, all features of mental processes, states and properties of a person are determined by the features biological structure, and their development is subject exclusively to biological laws. In this case, laws discovered in the study of animals are often used, which do not take into account the specifics of development human body. Often in these concepts, to explain mental development, the basic biogenetic law is invoked - the law of recapitulation, according to which in the development of an individual the evolution of the species to which this individual belongs is reproduced in its main features. An extreme manifestation of this position is the statement that the mental as an independent phenomenon does not exist in nature, since all mental phenomena can be described or explained using biological (physiological) concepts. It should be noted that given point vision is very widespread among physiologists. For example, I.P. Pavlov adhered to this point of view.

There are a number of sociological concepts that also proceed from the idea of recapitulation, but here it is presented somewhat differently. Within the framework of these concepts, it is argued that the mental development of an individual

What shapes personality: heredity or environment!

From the very moment of birth, the influences of genes and environment are closely intertwined, shaping the personality of the individual. Parents provide both genes and a home environment to their offspring, both of which are influenced by the parents' own genes and the environment in which they were raised. As a result, there is a close relationship between the inherited characteristics (genotype) of the child and the environment in which he is raised. For example, because general intelligence is partly heritable, parents with high intelligence are more likely to have a child with high intelligence. But in addition, parents with high intelligence are likely to provide their child with an environment that stimulates the development of mental abilities - both through their own interactions with him and through books, music lessons, trips to the museum and other intellectual experiences. Due to this double positive connection between genotype and environment, the child receives a double dose of intellectual capabilities. Likewise, a child raised by parents with low intelligence may encounter a home environment that further exacerbates hereditary intellectual disability.

Some parents may deliberately create an environment that negatively correlates with the child's genotype. For example, introverted parents may encourage a child's social activities to counteract the child's own introversion. Parents of a very active child, on the contrary, may try to come up with some interesting quiet activities for him. But regardless of whether the correlation is positive or negative, it is important that a child's genotype and his environment are not just two sources of influence that add up to shape his personality.

Under the influence of the same environment different people react to an event or the environment itself in different ways. A restless, sensitive child will sense parental cruelty and react to it differently than a calm, flexible child; a harsh voice that brings a sensitive girl to tears may not be noticed at all by her less sensitive brother. An extroverted child will be drawn to people and events around him, while his introverted brother will ignore them. A gifted child will learn more from what he reads than an average child. In other words, every child perceives the objective environment as a subjective psychological environment, and it is this psychological environment that shapes further development personality. If parents create the same environment for all their children - which, as a rule, does not happen - it will still not be psychologically equivalent for them.

Consequently, in addition to the fact that the genotype influences simultaneously with the environment, it also shapes this environment itself. In particular, the environment becomes

in a summary form reproduces the main stages of the process of historical development of society, primarily the development of its spiritual life and culture.

The essence of such concepts was most clearly expressed by V. Stern. In his proposed interpretation, the principle of recapitulation covers both the evolution of the animal psyche and history spiritual development society. He writes: “The human individual in the first months of infancy, with a predominance of lower feelings, with an unreflective reflexive and impulsive existence, is in the mammalian stage; in the second half of the year, having developed the activity of grasping and versatile imitation, he reaches the development of the highest mammal - the monkey, and in the second year, having mastered vertical gait and speech, the elementary human state. In the first five years of play and fairy tales, he stands on the level of primitive peoples. This is followed by entry into school, a more intense introduction into a social whole with certain responsibilities - an ontogenetic parallel to a person’s entry into culture with its state and economic organizations. In the first school years, the simple content of the ancient and Old Testament world is most adequate to the child's spirit; the middle years bear the features

This is a function of the child’s personality thanks to three types of interaction: reactive, evoked and proactive. Reactive interaction occurs throughout life. Its essence lies in the actions or experiences of a person in response to influences from the external environment. These actions depend both on the genotype and on the conditions of upbringing. For example, some people perceive an act that harms them as an act of intentional hostility and react to it very differently than those who perceive such an act as the result of unintentional insensitivity.

Another type of interaction is caused interaction. The personality of each individual evokes its own special reactions in other people. Thus, a baby who cries when picked up is less likely to positive emotion a parent than one who likes to be babysat. Obedient children evoke a parenting style that is less harsh than aggressive ones. For this reason, it cannot be assumed that the observed relationship between the characteristics of a child’s upbringing by parents and the make-up of his personality is a simple cause-and-effect relationship. In reality, a child's personality is shaped by the parent's parenting style, which in turn has a further influence on the child's personality. Caused interaction occurs, just like reactive interaction, throughout life. We can observe that the favor of a person causes the favor of those around him, and a hostile person causes others to have a hostile attitude towards him.

As the child grows, he begins to move beyond the environment created by his parents and choose and build his own. This latter, in turn, shapes his personality. A sociable child will seek contacts with friends. His sociable nature encourages him to choose his surroundings and further reinforces his sociability. And what cannot be chosen, he will try to build himself. For example, if no one invites him to the cinema, he organizes this event himself. This type of interaction is called proactive. Proactive interaction is the process by which an individual becomes an active agent in the development of his or her own personality. A sociable child, entering into proactive interaction, selects and builds situations that further contribute to his sociability and support it.

The relative importance of the considered types of interaction between the individual and the environment changes during development. The connection between a child's genotype and his environment is strongest when he is small and almost entirely confined to the home environment. As the child matures and begins to choose and shape his environment, this initial connection weakens and the influence of proactive interaction increases, although reactive and evoked interactions, as noted, remain important throughout life.

fanaticism of Christian culture, and only in the period of maturity is spiritual differentiation achieved, corresponding to the state of culture of the New Age.”

Of course, we will not discuss the question of the truth of this or that approach. However, in our opinion, when citing such analogies, one cannot fail to take into account the system of training and education, which develops historically in every society and has its own specifics in each socio-historical formation. Moreover, each generation of people finds society at a certain stage of its development and is included in the system of social relations that has already taken shape at this stage. Therefore, in his development, man does not need to repeat the entire previous history in a condensed form.

No one will dispute the fact that a person is born as a representative of a certain biological species. At the same time, after birth, a person finds himself in a certain social environment and therefore develops not only as a biological object, but also as a representative of a particular society.

Of course, these two trends are reflected in the patterns of human development. Moreover, these two tendencies are in constant interaction, and for psychology it is important to clarify the nature of their relationship.

The results of numerous studies of the patterns of human mental development suggest that the initial prerequisite for the mental development of an individual is his biological development. An individual is born with a certain set of biological properties and physiological mechanisms, which act as the basis of his mental development. But these prerequisites are realized only when a person is in the conditions of human society.

Considering the problem of interaction and mutual influence of biological and social mental development human, we distinguish three levels of human organization: the level of biological organization, the social level and the level of mental organization. Thus, it is necessary to keep in mind that we're talking about about interaction in the triad “biological-mental-social”. Moreover, the approach to studying the relationship between the components of this triad is formed from an understanding of the psychological essence of the concept of “personality”. However, answering the question of what personality is psychologically is in itself a very difficult task. Moreover, the solution to this issue has its own history.

It should be noted that in various domestic psychological schools, the concept of “personality”, and even more so the relationship between the biological and the social in the individual, their role in mental development, is interpreted differently. Despite the fact that all domestic psychologists unconditionally accept the point of view that states that the concept of “personality” refers to the social level of human organization, there are certain disagreements on the issue of the degree to which social and biological determinants are manifested in the individual. Thus, we will find a difference in views on this problem in the works of representatives of Moscow and St. Petersburg universities, which are the leading centers of Russian psychology. For example, in the works of Moscow scientists one can most often find the opinion that social determinants play a more important role significant role in the development and formation of personality. At the same time, the works of representatives of St. Petersburg University prove the idea of equal importance for personality development social and biological determinants.

From our point of view, despite the divergence of views on certain aspects of personality research, in general these positions rather complement each other.

In the history of Russian psychology, the idea of the psychological essence of personality has changed several times. Initially, the understanding of personality as a psychological category was based on the enumeration components, forming the personality as a certain mental reality. In this case, personality acts as a set of qualities, properties, traits, and characteristics of the human psyche. From a certain point of view, this approach was very convenient, since it allowed us to avoid a number of theoretical difficulties. However, this approach to the problem of understanding psychological essence the concept of “personality” was called “collector’s” by academician A.V. Petrovsky, because in this case the personal

ity turns into a kind of container, a container that absorbs interests, abilities, traits of temperament, character, etc. From the perspective of this approach, the task of a psychologist comes down to cataloging all this and identifying the individual uniqueness of its combination in each individual person. This approach deprives the concept of “personality” of its categorical content.

In the 60s XX century the issue of structuring numerous personal qualities. Since the mid-1960s. attempts have been made to find out general structure personality. The approach of K.K. Platonov, who understood personality as a kind of biosocial hierarchical structure, is very characteristic in this direction. The scientist identified the following substructures in it: direction; experience (knowledge, abilities, skills); individual characteristics of various forms of reflection (sensation, perception, memory, thinking) and, finally, the combined properties of temperament.

It should be noted that K. K. Platonov’s approach was subject to certain criticism from domestic scientists, and above all representatives of the Moscow psychological school. This was due to the fact that the general structure of personality was interpreted as a certain set of its biological and socially determined characteristics. As a result, the problem of the relationship between the social and biological in personality became almost the main problem in personality psychology. In contrast to the opinion of K.K. Platonov, the idea was expressed that the biological, entering the human personality, becomes social.

By the end of the 1970s, in addition to focusing on a structural approach to the problem of personality, the concept of a systems approach began to develop. In this regard, the ideas of A. N. Leontiev are of particular interest.

Let us briefly characterize the features of Leontiev’s understanding of personality. Personality, in his opinion, is a special type of psychological formation generated by a person’s life in society. The subordination of various activities creates the basis of personality, the formation of which occurs in the process of social development (ontogenesis). Leontyev did not include the genotypically determined characteristics of a person - physical constitution, type nervous system, temperament, biological needs, affectivity, natural inclinations, as well as lifetime acquired knowledge, skills and abilities, including professional ones. The categories listed above, in his opinion, constitute the individual properties of a person. The concept of “individual,” according to Leontiev, reflects, firstly, the integrity and indivisibility of a particular person as a separate individual of a given biological species and, secondly, the characteristics of a particular representative of the species that distinguish it from other representatives of this species. Why did Leontiev divide these characteristics into two groups: individual and personal? In his opinion, individual properties, including those genotypically determined, can change in a variety of ways during a person’s life. But this does not make them personal, because personality is not an individual enriched by previous experience. The properties of an individual do not transform into personality properties. Even transformed, they remain individual properties, not defining the emerging personality, but constituting only the prerequisites and conditions for its formation.

The approach to understanding the problem of personality formulated by Leontiev found its further development in the works of domestic psychologists - representatives of the Moscow school, including A. V. Petrovsky. In the textbook “General Psychology”, prepared under his editorship, it is given following definition personality: “Personality in psychology denotes a systemic social quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the level and quality of representation of social relations in the individual.”

What is personality as a special social quality of an individual? First of all, we should proceed from the fact that the concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical. Personality is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society in the process of entering into relations that are social in nature. Therefore, very often in Russian psychology, personality is considered as a “supersensible” quality, although the bearer of this quality is a completely sensual, bodily individual with all his innate and acquired properties.

To understand the basis on which certain personality traits are formed, we need to consider a person’s life in society. The inclusion of an individual in the system of social relations determines the content and nature of the activities he performs, the circle and methods of communication with other people, i.e., the features of his social existence and lifestyle. But the way of life of individual individuals, certain communities of people, as well as society as a whole is determined by the historically developing system of social relations. This means that personality can only be understood or studied in the context of specific social conditions, specific historical era. Moreover, it should be noted that for an individual, society is not just external environment. The individual is constantly included in the system of social relations, which is mediated by many factors.

Petrovsky believes that the personality of a particular person can continue in other people, and with the death of the individual it does not completely die. And in the words “he lives in us even after death” there is neither mysticism nor pure metaphor, this is a statement of the fact of the ideal representation of the individual after his material disappearance.

Considering further the point of view of representatives of the Moscow psychological school on the problem of personality, it should be noted that in the concept of personality, in most cases, the authors include certain properties belonging to the individual, and this also means those properties that determine the uniqueness of the individual, his individuality. However, the concepts of “individual”, “personality” and “individuality” are not identical in content - each of them reveals a specific aspect of a person’s individual existence. Personality can be understood only in a system of stable interpersonal connections mediated by content, values, meaning joint activities each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are real, but supersensual in nature. They manifest themselves in specific individual properties and actions of people included in the team, but are not limited to them.

Just as the concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form unity, but not identity.

If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relations, they turn out to be insignificant for assessing personality and do not receive conditions for development, just as only individual traits that are most “involved” in the leading activity for a given social community act as personality traits. Individual characteristics people do not appear in any way until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system interpersonal relationships, the subject of which will be this person as an individual. Therefore, according to representatives of the Moscow psychological school, individuality is only one aspect of a person’s personality.

Thus, in the position of representatives of the Moscow psychological school, two main points can be traced. Firstly, the personality and its characteristics are compared with the level of social manifestation of the qualities and properties of a person. Secondly, personality is considered as a social product, in no way connected with biological determinants, and therefore, we can conclude that the social has a greater influence on the mental development of the individual.

The idea of the problem of personality, formed within the framework of the St. Petersburg psychological school, is most clearly presented in the works of B. G. Ananyev. First distinctive feature Ananyev’s approach to considering the problem of personality psychology is that, unlike representatives of the Moscow psychological school, who consider three levels of human organization “individual - personality - individuality,” he identifies the following levels: “individual - subject of activity - personality - individuality.” This is the main difference in approaches, which is largely due to different views on the relationship between the biological and the social and their influence on the process of human mental development.

According to Ananyev, personality is a social individual, object and subject historical process. Therefore, in the characteristics of a person, the social essence of a person is most fully revealed, i.e., the property of being a person is inherent in a person not as a biological being, but as a social one. In this case, a social being is understood as a person of a specific socio-historical era in the totality of his social relations. Consequently, the St. Petersburg psychological school, like the Moscow one, includes in the concept of “personality” social characteristics person. This is the unity of positions in Russian psychology regarding the problem of human personality. The difference in views between these schools is revealed when considering the structure of personality.

According to Ananyev, not all psychophysiological functions, mental processes and states are included in the personality structure. Of the many social roles, attitudes, and value orientations, only a few are included in the personality structure. At the same time, this structure may also include some properties of the individual, many times mediated by the social properties of the individual, but themselves related to the characteristics of the human body (for example, mobility or inertia of the nervous system). Consequently, as Ananyev believes, the personality structure includes the structure of the individual in the form of the most general and relevant complexes of organic properties for life and behavior.

Thus, the main difference between representatives of the two leading Russian psychological schools lies in the difference on the issue of the participation of biological determinants in the formation of personality. Ananyev emphasizes that he is quite close to the position of K.K. Platonov, who identified four substructures in the personality structure: 1) biologically determined personality characteristics; 2) features of its individual mental processes; 3) the level of her preparedness (personal experience) 4) socially determined personality qualities. At the same time, Ananyev notes that personality changes both in the process of human history and in the process of individual development. A person is born a biological being, and becomes a personality in the process of ontogenesis through the assimilation of the socio-historical experience of mankind.

In addition, Ananyev believes that all four main aspects of personality are closely related to each other. However, the dominant influence always remains with the social side of the individual - its worldview and orientation, needs and interests, ideals and aspirations, moral and aesthetic qualities.

Thus, representatives of the St. Petersburg school recognize the role of biological determinants in the mental development of the individual with the dominant role of social factors. It should be noted that disagreements on this issue determine certain differences and in views on the nature of individuality. Thus, Ananyev believes that individuality is always an individual with a complex natural properties, but not every individual is an individual. To do this, the individual must become a person.

Later, the famous Russian psychologist B.F. Lomov, exploring the problems of personality formation, tried to reveal the complexity and ambiguity of the relationship between the social and biological in personality. His views on this problem boiled down to the following main points. Firstly, when studying the development of an individual, one cannot limit oneself only to the analysis of individual mental functions and states. All mental functions must be considered in the context of personality formation and development. In this regard, the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social appears primarily as a problem of the relationship between the organism and the individual.

Secondly, it should be borne in mind that one of these concepts was formed within the biological sciences, and the other - within social sciences. However, both simultaneously relate to a person both as a representative of the species Homo sapiens and as a member of society. At the same time, each of these concepts reflects different systems human properties: in the concept of organism - the structure of the human individual as a biological system, and in the concept of personality - the inclusion of a person in the life of society.

Thirdly, as has been repeatedly noted, when studying the formation and development of personality, domestic psychology proceeds from the fact that personality is a social quality of an individual, in which a person appears as a member of human society. Outside of society, this quality of an individual does not exist, and therefore, without an analysis of the “individual-society” relationship, it cannot be understood. The objective basis of an individual’s personal properties is the system of social relations in which he lives and develops.

Fourthly, the formation and development of personality must be considered as its assimilation of social programs that have developed in a given society at a given historical stage. It must be borne in mind that this process is directed by society with the help of special social institutions, primarily the system of upbringing and education.

Based on this, we can draw the following conclusion: the factors that determine the nature of an individual’s development are systemic in nature and are highly dynamic, that is, at each stage of development they play a different role. However, they contain both social and biological determinants. An attempt to present these determinants as the sum of two parallel or interconnected series that determine the nature of an individual’s mental development is a very gross simplification that greatly distorts the essence of the matter. There is hardly any universal principle for organizing the relationship between the mental and the biological. These connections are multifaceted and multifaceted. The biological can act in relation to the mental as its certain mechanism, as a prerequisite for the development of the mental, as the content of mental reflection, as a factor influencing mental phenomena, as the cause of individual acts of behavior, as a condition for the emergence of mental phenomena, etc. Even more diverse and the connections between mental and social are multifaceted.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

General psychology: textbook for universities

Maklakov a g.. m general psychology textbook for universities St. Petersburg Petersburg with ill.. isbn..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

Among the eternal questions is the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in man.

Biological- This is a common origin, although not necessarily identical, between humans and animals. It is close, but ambiguous to nature - existing and developing in a person regardless of the influence of other people on him. All hereditary There is something biological in a person, but not everything biological is hereditary.

For example, personality traits in an adult that are the result of a brain injury he received at birth are biological, but not hereditary. Biology leaves its mark on a person’s personality.

Social- this is everything in a person that arose in him in the process of anthropogenesis and human history and arises in ontogenesis as a result of communication with other people. Socially does not completely coincide with what was acquired in personal experience, since not everything that is acquired by a person in the process of his individual life is social. At the same time, a person is social already at the moment of his birth.

So, for example, the ability to learn speech, socially acquired by humanity, is innate, although it will be revealed in a child only at a certain stage of maturation of his nervous system and will manifest itself to varying degrees and in different social conditions. And all other innate personality traits will also be with early age develop and socialize, although to varying degrees.

In psychology, the problem of the relationship between the social and the biological in personality appears under different names:

The relationship between environment and heredity;

The degree of “animality” and the degree of “humanity” in a person;

The role of “situation” and “disposition” (personality traits, past experience, inclinations) in explaining the causes of individual behavior;

Internal and external determination of personality development,

Objective and subjective factors of its development;

The relationship between the public and the individual in the actions of the individual, etc.

Supporters of ideas about the dominant role of “environment”, “situation”, “society”, “objective” and “external” determination of personality development, no matter how different their positions in the interpretation of all these concepts, find many arguments in favor of what a person represents is a product of the circumstances influencing him, from the analysis of which the general patterns of an individual’s life can be deduced. Who would deny the most common facts that a child’s behavior changes in the garden, school, on the sports ground, in the family.

No matter how harmful the “environment” may be, real talents make their way, their inclinations can germinate in any, even unfavorable external conditions. This is what representatives of the theory of “heredity” say in its traditional version. But who will deny that man, like any other Living being, has many common forms of behavior with animals: eats, drinks, sleeps, reproduces.

One of the experts in the field of studying the motivation of individual behavior H. Heckhausen identifies three parameters of individual individual action that are not easily explained using external “situational” or “environmental” factors.

First parameter is the degree to which a person’s actions correspond to the actions of other people. The more an action deviates from the typical actions of most people, the more likely it is that there are “internal” personal factors behind it - internal “dispositions” (predispositions to act). In the library hall, everyone, as a rule, sits at their seats, and one person, despite the puzzled looks of those around him, kneels on a chair and writes. This person tends to be non-conformist or has an individual, field-independent style of behavior.

Second parameter- the degree of correspondence of a person’s actions to his own actions in other situations occurring in the near future.

Third parameter individual action - the degree of its correspondence to actions that took place in the past in similar situations (stability over time). If, in a repeated similar situation, a person behaves differently, then there are grounds to explain such a change in his behavior by “internal”, “individual”, and not by “environmental”, “social” factors[i]. Similar series the stability of individual actions of a person, no matter how the “environment” changes around him, is used by representatives of the theory of personality traits in discussions with supporters of “situational” concepts of personality.

The scales on which the facts of the supporters of “environment” and “heredity” fall in any modifications of these approaches are constantly fluctuating. As a rule, these facts give room for opposing interpretations. So, in the Bakhov’s pedigree, in addition to J.S. Bach there were several dozen more musicians. For supporters of the concept of “heredity”, this is a vivid example of the transfer of musical abilities from one generation to another.

In the same facts, representatives of the concepts of “environment” see a socio-psychological mechanism that illustrates the role of traditions and the psychological climate in the Bach family.

The discussion between the two directions on the role of “heredity” and “environment” in criminal behavior has become particularly acute. The well-known theory of biological predisposition to crime C. Lombroso. However, he subsequently took into account social factors, although we interpret him only as a representative of the anthropological (or biological) theory of crime.

But if neither the situation in itself nor the personality in itself determines the majority human actions, then what determines them? The answer to this question is as follows: interaction between personality and situation, interaction and relationship between environment and heredity, between biological and social .

The theory of convergence of 2 factors (V. Stern) - equivalent, their simple sum.

The theory of confrontation of 2 factors (S. Freud) - confrontation, “Super-I”, and “It”. "Super-ego" - social norms, learned during the development of the subject under the pressure of the principle of reality (the real social environment with its norms and prohibitions), and “It” is the natural principle hidden in the depths of the body (the principle of pleasure or avoidance of displeasure).

Thus, if we prefer some extreme - either environment, or heredity, then we will not explain anything. After all, if the matter is in the person himself, i.e. in his biology, then you just need to count by parents, and if they are expected to have a dysfunctional person, then deprive them of the opportunity to have a child. Or interfere with human nature itself and polish it.

Therefore, it is the relationship and interaction of the biological and social that must be taken into account.

The biological is more significant at the level of a specific person, and not at the general level of society, much less, i.e. in a specific case it is necessary to analyze a specific action.

We say that Personality is a totality social qualities. But not a single quality of a person arises without natural inclinations, at the same time, not a single natural inclination manifests itself in an unchanged, formed form; it is always transformed, refracted through social experience (the level of intelligence is largely predetermined, etc.).

Personality has its own characteristics in the intellectual, emotional and volitional spheres. And in all these parameters, people differ (for example, people from the capital and from the provinces differ, because their starting conditions are far from equivalent).

Many social qualities are biologically predetermined (American article 1988. “Genes determine character”) - II groups of social qualities are identified, which are 50% genetically predetermined, and among them are:

Social activity;

Reaction to an unfavorable situation;

Aggressiveness;

Desire for success;

Self-control, etc.

But: all biological traits are always refracted through specific social conditions(example: differences in male and female crime,

Scheme No. 2 A model of the interaction of biological and social factors in the history of human development and the formation of his personality

Conclusion on the third question:

So, the social and biological in the human personality do not oppose each other, much less exclude one another, but are interconnected and interacting.

From one point of view (presented in the works of representatives of the St. Petersburg psychological school), individuality combines those biological and social characteristics of a person that make him different from other people, i.e., the concept of “individuality” from this position seems broader, than the concept of “personality”. From another point of view (among representatives of the Moscow psychological school), the concept of “individuality” is considered as the narrowest in the structure of human organization, uniting only a relatively small group of qualities. What these approaches have in common is that the concept of “personality” includes, first of all, the qualities of a person that manifest themselves at the social level during the formation of social relationships and connections of a person.

At the same time, there are a number of psychological concepts in which the personality is not considered as a subject of a system of social relations, but is presented as a holistic integrative formation, including all the characteristics of a person, including biological, mental and social.

The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person’s personality is one of the central problems of modern psychology. In the process of formation and development of psychological science, almost all possible connections between the concepts of “mental”, “social” and “biological” were considered. Mental development was interpreted as a completely spontaneous process, independent of either biological or social, and as derived only from biological or only from social development, or as a result of their parallel action on the individual, etc. Thus, several groups of concepts can be distinguished , who differently consider the relationship between the social, mental and biological.

From the standpoint of sociological concepts, it is argued that the mental development of an individual in a summary form reproduces the main stages of the process historical development society, primarily the development of its spiritual life and culture.

Considering the problem of interaction and mutual influence of biological and social in human mental development, three levels of human organization are distinguished: the level of biological organization, the social level and the level of mental organization. Moreover, the approach to studying the relationship between the components of this triad is formed from an understanding of the psychological essence of the concept of “personality”.

In the 60s XX century the question arose about the structuring of numerous personal qualities. Since the mid-1960s. Attempts began to be made to elucidate the general structure of personality. The approach of K.K. Platonov, who understood personality as a kind of biosocial hierarchical structure, is very characteristic in this direction. The scientist identified the following substructures in it: direction; experience (knowledge, abilities, skills); individual characteristics various forms reflections (sensation, perception, memory, thinking) and properties of temperament.

By the end of the 1970s. The concept of a systems approach, developed by A.N. Leontiev, began to develop. Personality, in his opinion, is a special type of psychological formation generated by a person’s life in society. The subordination of various activities creates the basis of personality, the formation of which occurs in the process of social development. The concept of “individual,” according to Leontiev, reflects, firstly, the integrity and indivisibility of a particular person as a separate individual of a given biological species and, secondly, the characteristics of a particular representative of the species that distinguish it from other representatives of this species.

The concepts of “individual” and “personality” are not identical. Personality is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society in the process of entering into relations that are social in nature. At the same time, personality and individuality, in turn, form unity, but not identity.

If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relationships, they turn out to be insignificant for assessing personality and do not receive conditions for development, just as only individual traits that are most “involved” in the leading activity for a given social community act as personality traits. Individual characteristics of a person do not appear in any way until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relationships, the subject of which is this person as a person. Therefore, we can say that individuality is only one aspect of a person’s personality.

General psychology: textbook for universities

What will we do with the received material:

Read also