Economy, society, world After graduating from school and entering Princeton University, Becker for a long time could not find golden mean between studying mathematics and the desire to do something useful for humanity. Among the subjects he chose at university was economics,

Moscow Psychological Society (MPO) was created on January 24, 1885 under Moscow University with the goal of uniting all scientific forces to develop ways to develop psychological research and disseminate psychological knowledge in Russia.

MPO arose during the period when the domestic psychological thought in Russia and in particular at Moscow University has not yet emerged as an independent field of scientific knowledge, but has developed as component philosophy - along with logic and history of philosophy and in connection with the fate of philosophy in Russia.
The MPO was dominated by philosophers - N.Ya. Grot, L.M. Lopatin, Vl. Soloviev, G.G. Shpet, I.A. Ilyin and other outstanding figures of Russian philosophy.

Professor at Moscow University, sociologist and lawyer, founder of the natural law school V.M. Khvostov included questions of free will in connection with the consideration of the phenomena of social life. Professor of Criminal Law D.A. Dril made a great contribution to the development of domestic legal psychology, he believed necessary knowledge psychology in practical work with juvenile delinquents. Research in the field natural sciences and in medicine they also demanded philosophical and psychological foundations. Professors at Moscow University, biologist K.F., turned to philosophy and psychology and contributed to their development. Roulier, physiologist I.M. Sechenov, naturalist and major historian of science V.I. Vernadsky, psychiatrists S.S. Korsakov, A.A. Tokarsky, V.P. Serbsky, P.B. Gannushkin, N.N. Bazhenov, S.A. Sukhanov.

All this encouraged the consolidation of forces of both people professionally involved in philosophy and scientists interested in problems of psychology in connection with their professional interests. The actual rapprochement of philosophy and sciences based on psychological issues and was the objective prerequisite and reason for their unification.

The creation of the Psychological Society became a form of their organizational unification. The society was created on the initiative of M.M. Troitsky and supported by 14 professors from all faculties of the university, who were its founders. At its first meeting on January 24, 1885, the founding members elected the Council of the Society. The founder of the Society, philosopher and psychologist Matvey Mikhailovich Troitsky, was elected Chairman. fellow chairman - Doctor of Medicine V.A. Legonin, secretary - lawyer N.A. Zverev, fellow secretary - anthropologist and geographer D.N. Anuchin. The place for meetings was determined - the new building of the university (now the building that houses the Faculty of Journalism), and the place for public lectures and reports - the old one (the building in which the Assembly Hall is located, and in its right wing - the Institute of Asian and African Countries). At the same meeting, the founding members proposed another 53 persons for election as full members of the Society.

They were elected at the next - public - meeting on March 14, 1885, and one of the new members N.A. Abrikosov- was then elected treasurer. Subsequently, the number of members of the Society began to grow rapidly and reached more than 200 people.

MPO was one of many scientific societies that arose and developed at the university, within its walls. Both the founders and most of the members of the MPO were professors at Moscow University. N.Ya. took the most active part in its work. Grot, L.M. Lopatin - both were chairmen of the Society at different times, as well as G.I. Chelpanov, Vl. Soloviev, S.S. Korsakov, V.A. Wagner, G.I. Rossolimo. They gave presentations on a variety of topics and participated in discussions on other reports.

When did the MPO start publishing its magazine? "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology" (since 1889), they acted in it not only as authors of articles, but also gave reviews of the latest literature on psychology and philosophy, and reviews of them. Their reviews were essentially short articles with a brief but very informative summary and analysis of the relevant publications. These are, for example, reviews by N.A. Berdyaev on the books by O. Weininger “Gender and Character” and W. James “The Variety of Religious Experience”, reviews by P.P. Blonsky and others.

Through the MPO, the university's scientists communicated with other scientific centers in Russia. Members of the MPO and the authors of its publications were philosophers, psychologists and psychiatrists from St. Petersburg - N.O. Lossky, A.I. Vvedensky, I.I. Lapshin, from Kazan University - V.N. Ivanovsky, Lviv University - Yu.L. Okhorovich, Yuryev University - V.F. Chizh.

The MPO had extensive connections with world science.

Many outstanding foreign philosophers and scientists were honorary members of the IPO. Among them are A. Bain, W. Wundt, G. Helmholtz, E. Dubois Raymond, T. Ribot, S. Richet, E. Zeller, W. Windelband, G. Spencer, W. James, G. Gefding, E. Titchener , E. Hartmann. Through them, materials about the work of the MPO were transmitted to foreign scientific journals, so that its activities became known to the world community of psychologists.

Members of the IPO participated in the organization and conduct of international psychological congresses, international congresses of psychiatrists and other international forums.

Detailed reports about them were published in the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology.”

In addition to the purely scientific, there was another very important side to the Society’s activities.

His activities influenced the spiritual life of Russia as a whole.
Communication between IGOs ​​and the general public was facilitated by holding public meetings, usually devoted to the most significant topics, activities prominent figures Society, in memory of outstanding thinkers of the past - J. Bruno, R. Descartes, etc. The topics of a number of its other meetings also included issues that worried not only specialists, but aroused sympathy and interest among the general public.

Here are some of these topics:
- what is hypnosis;
- what are the foundations of moral life and activity as opposed to immoral behavior;
- how do moral duty and happiness relate?
- how to understand determinism and free will in connection with issues of law, morality, and phenomena of social life;
- what is the meaning of life;
- what is the psychology of a woman;
- is it possible to talk about human progress;
- what are the national characteristics of Russian philosophical self-awareness, etc.

Speaking at the ceremonial (hundredth) meeting of the Society on February 21, 1893, N.Ya. Grot, as chairman of the MPO, said with good reason that it never “...was not given any other goals than to modestly and to the best of our ability contribute to the enlightenment of the homeland, the rise of the Russian spirit, the development of Russian thought and self-awareness.”

Connections with society were also facilitated by the fact that members of the IPO were not only outstanding philosophers and scientists, but also writers - L.N. Tolstoy, A.A. Fet, P.D. Boborykin, professor of the Moscow Conservatory A.N. Scriabin, cultural figures - V.N. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Yu.I. Aikhenwald and other famous public and cultural figures. In their speeches at meetings, they drew attention to vital problems that were important for Russian society, meeting its spiritual needs and attitudes, and directly appealed to the feelings and common sense of thinking people.

Public events included performances
L.N. Tolstoy about the concept of life and the moral tasks of man,
Vl. Solovyov about the essence of the true Christian ideal and about deviations from it in the activities of the church.

The Psychological Society enjoyed support from its wealthy members in the form of donations.

In December 1888, competing members of the IPO A.A. and N.A Abrikosovs spoke publishers of the project conceived by the Chairman of the Society N.Ya. Grotto of the journal "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology", having set the following conditions: the publication of the journal must be carried out under the editorship of N.Ya. Grotto and with the participation of the Psychological Society.

When the magazine no longer needed financial assistance, A.A. Abrikosov transferred the rights to its publication into the ownership of the Society and from 1893 to 1918 ( Last year publication of the magazine) the magazine was published under the stamp of the Psychological Society.

In the same 1888, full member of the Society D.A. Stolypin donated 2,000 rubles for the establishment of a prize at the Society for an essay on the philosophy of O. Comte and 1,000 rubles for the costs of publishing the magazine or other possible publications. The prize was established, and in 1891 it was awarded to the work of B.N. Chicherin "Positive philosophy and the unity of science." This fact is also known. A peasant from the Tambov province transferred his savings to the MPO fund and at the same time asked to be considered a member of it.

In general, we can rightfully say that the Moscow Psychological Society, together with other scientific societies of the university (with some of them, the MPS held joint meetings - for example, on February 10, 1885, a public joint meeting of the Society of Amateurs was held Russian literature and the Psychological Society in memory of J. Bruno), as well as museums organized at the university (such as the Museum of Fine Arts, founded in 1912 by Moscow University professor I. Tsvetaev, the Historical Museum - 1883, the Polytechnic - 1877, the Anthropological - 1879, etc. .), created a cultural environment around the university, contributing to the transformation of the university into a genuine center of Moscow philosophical education, cultural and spiritual life of Moscow.

In 1922, the Psychological Society, like other scientific societies, was closed.

http://rl-online.ru/articles/1-05/284.html
Moscow Psychological Society is 120 years old
Antonina Zhdan, Alexander Dontsov

I. E. Sirotkina*, R. Smith**

* Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Deputy Director of the Institute of History of Natural Sciences and Technology named after. S. I. Vavilova RAS, Moscow

** Doctor of Philosophy, honorary professor at Lancaster University, scientific consultant at the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology. SI. Vavilova RAS and associate employee of the Institute of Psychology RAS

A review of the literature on the “psychological society” is given and an attempt is made to define this phenomenon. By “psychological society” we mean not so much the institutional development of psychology or the increase in the number of psychologists, but rather the penetration of psychological views and practices into life modern man. The authors try to answer the question of what consequences - both for the individual and for society as a whole - come with the popularization of psychology and the assimilation of its categories and practices in everyday life.

Keywords: modernity/modernism, "psychological society", individualization, psychologization.

For psychology, the century that recently passed away was decisive. From a modest academic university discipline, as it was in the previous century, psychology has turned into a large-scale scientific and practical field of activity and has taken a dominant place in the culture of Western societies. IN modern world There is hardly a person who has not encountered psychologists in one way or another. Testing, psychotherapy, family counseling and career guidance for schoolchildren have entered the lives of many millions of people. Psychology began to claim to explain a person’s actions, guide his decisions, and advise him on the most intimate problems. All this gave rise to talk about modern Western society as “psychological” - relying on psychology in solving both the everyday problems of the individual and global social problems.

The term "psychological society" originates not from academic psychology, but from discussions of the modern Western way of life, where it was used alongside concepts such as "modernism", "liberalism" and "consumer society". There is no stable definition of this term in the literature, but the persistence with which it is used indicates the relevance of the topic. We are talking about the important place that psychology - as a system of knowledge, practices and social institutions - occupies in modern society. She did not acquire this place suddenly. Its expansion in the Western world began around the 1940s (some authors cite earlier dates as the 1920s), when a massive influx of psychologists began in areas such as medicine, the army, business, and education. There is no need to say that for the same reason the topic of “psychological society” in our country has become very relevant today.

But the “psychological society” is not only the institutionalization of psychology, the growth of the community of psychologists and the expansion of the scope of their activities. The word "psychology" has many meanings. This is and scientific knowledge, both a profession and an important dimension of human existence. The ambiguity of psychology reflects, in particular, the reflexive nature of human consciousness: in psychology, a person is at the same time both a subject and an object of knowledge. People who are the object of study by professional psychologists are themselves surrounded by psychological information, which they use in a certain way in their lives. Thus, modern society is characterized not only and not so much by a greater presence of psychologists than in the past, but by the spread of psychological views and practices in it. This is facilitated by the flow of books, magazines, radio and television programs, and computer programs, which popularize psychology and present it as an essential part of human self-knowledge, a necessary part of everyone’s everyday life. By assimilating these views and practices, modern man begins to think in psychological categories, to look at the world through “psychological

"sky glasses." To paraphrase, we can say that in the "psychological society" everyone is their own psychologist. Thus, we are talking not so much about increasing the number of psychologists, but about each person’s choice of lifestyle and identity. If people believe that "thinking", "acting", "hoping" are processes psychological, this cannot but affect the life of society as a whole.

Over the past half century, many studies have appeared on the topic of “psychological society”, touching on its various aspects. We have divided this literature into four groups:

- emergence and intensive development in the 20th century. psychology as a profession;

- social nature of psychological knowledge;

- individualization and psychologization as modern phenomena;

- the role of psychology as a practice, or technique, of public management.

Let's consider each of the identified aspects in more detail.

The first one mentioned and the most obvious one is the emergence and rapid spread of the profession of psychologist in the 20th century. In 1992, the American Psychological Association had thousands of members, and there were 20,000 registered psychologists in the Netherlands. In Russia, the number of psychologists has grown over last decades, is certainly very significant, although we do not know the specific figures. Research into how this growth occurred was carried out mainly on the basis of American psychology. This is not surprising, since in the United States psychology as a profession developed earlier and on a larger scale than in the rest of the Western world. From 1919 to 1939, the number of psychologists there increased 10-fold; After the Second World War, this growth accelerated markedly, reaching a quarter of a million in 1995. Not the least role was played by wars, which drew millions of soldiers into the attention of psychologists. In the years following the First and Second World Wars, the participation of psychologists in state and public programs for rehabilitation and social assistance to the population also raised the role of the profession and led to the opening of new vacancies. Among the works devoted to the development of psychology as a mass profession in the United States, one can name books by J. Burnham, J. Capshew, D. S. Napoli and E. Herman. As for Europe - especially France - research here is devoted mainly to the history of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. The example of the Netherlands, where the status of psychologists as social workers and experts received legislative recognition quite early, has been most well studied.

More interesting, however, is another aspect of discussions about the “psychological society” - the question of social nature psychological knowledge. Having begun to think about the knowledge they produce, psychologists were faced with the fact that this knowledge somehow affects the object, changes it. In other words, the process of cognition in psychology is different than, for example, in physics, where, as is traditionally believed, a scientist first studies certain natural objects empirically, then formulates a theory, and then applies the acquired knowledge in practice. Unlike physics, in psychology there are no “natural objects”: the subject of research is at the same time given to the psychologist and created by him. Two important epistemological conclusions follow from this: firstly, in psychology there is no sequence of stages of knowledge - “empirics-theory-practice” - which exists (or is believed to exist) in some other sciences. Secondly, since the object of psychology - man - is social by nature, then social and psychological knowledge itself. This means that all concepts, categories and models of psychology are historical, arise at a specific historical stage and in response to the demands of a certain society, and at a certain moment - for example, with the disappearance of a given society - they can cease to exist. This, of course, is characteristic not only of psychology, but also of all social sciences and humanities. The thesis about the social nature of psychological knowledge limits the ambitions of scientists and their claims to discover universal truths about man. Psychological knowledge is neither eternal nor universal, i.e. suitable for a person of any society and any era. Taking this into account, psychologists must abandon messianic illusions and not transfer their local diagnoses to “human nature in general,” since such nature is nothing more than a very vague abstraction.

In the history of psychology, a special direction has emerged - history of individual psychological categories and practices, the study of how they arose and acquired their modern form. One of the most influential in this area was and remains a book by the Canadian historian of psychology Kurt Danziger about the history of psychological experiment in three different cultures: French-, German- and English-speaking. And the categories that are most often considered in such studies are personality And intelligence. It is no coincidence that they are considered the most important: through them psychology is connected with education, politics and everyday life millions of people. It is around these categories - especially intelligence - that the debate about the growth of

whether hereditary or acquired, the so-called nature-and-nurture debates, in terms of emotional intensity, they are more similar to military actions than to a scientific discussion. This is not accidental, since each of the positions has unspoken prerequisites - radical left among its supporters nurture(upbringing) and conservative among supporters nature(nature). The scales here constantly fluctuate: if in the revolutionary 1960s and 1970s the point of view on the socio-cultural nature of intelligence was dominant, then in the 1980s that followed - a period of departure from left-radical politics - the opposite point of view begins to prevail .

These studies are complemented by work on historical psychology - studies of how people and their mentality have changed over the centuries, from antiquity to the present day. In addition, some researchers are convinced that not only psychological categories - emotions, memory, reason - have their own history, but also the concept itself. psychology. The human “I” was not always, as is the case today, perceived in psychological terms: there was a time when people thought in other, non-psychological categories. Man’s idea of ​​himself as a psychological being was not initially given by nature, but appeared at a certain stage of history. In other words, the psychological way of thinking characteristic of modern Western society is truly of recent origin. This means that both the everyday idea of ​​psychology and its formation as a scientific discipline are relatively recent acquisitions, not earlier than the 18th century.

Related to this is the following aspect of discussions about the “psychological society” - individualization and psychologization of modern social relations. These phenomena could be recorded using a simple survey. The question could be asked like this: “Do you agree that nowadays people use psychological concepts in relation to themselves and others more than in the past?” Of course, conducting our imaginary survey in practice is not easy. First we need to agree which ones exactly psychological concepts we mean, that we understand under psychology. Despite regularly repeated attempts to give unity to this science by connecting it with one single theory, we have to admit that instead of a unified psychology, there is currently a “fan” of psychological theories.

We can, however, assume that we would have been able to get an answer to the question posed above and that the majority of respondents would have had a positive answer. Evidence of this can be, for example, the fact that more and more people, faced with difficulties in the family or at work, turn to a psychologist for help. Those who watch television programs are unlikely to need such a survey at all. First in the West, and now here too, you can turn on the TV and see, for example, a talk show where a wife talks about how she discovered that her husband is a transsexual; To her impressions, sympathetic show participants add their own stories about their transgender children or about themselves in this capacity. Three-minute express consultations with a psychotherapist are broadcast on the radio, where clients’ painful addiction to shopping, their lack of potency, soul-corroding jealousy or inescapable grief are discussed. Glossy magazines and newspaper pages publish interviews in which movie stars, pop musicians and famous athletes talk about their eating habits, sexual inclinations, and toilet habits. Films and television series are full of stories told by participants and victims from family life: about conflicts between parents, child abuse, emotional shock, alcoholism. It is clear that we live in a world saturated to the limit with narratives about the personal, about ourselves, a discourse shaped by psychology.

As a rule, authors writing about such problems are critical of the phenomenon of “psychological society.” For the first time, the question of how our contemporaries and society as a whole are changing under the influence of psychology was posed in works on historical sociology and social criticism. Starting with M. Weber and G. Simmel, sociologists have focused their attention on individualization, a phenomenon characteristic of Western society of the 20th century. If previously the individual “I” or human identity was largely determined by the community, then the modern era is characterized by the destruction of communities and the liberation of the individual from an inherited and predetermined social role. This process is called "individualization". In humans modern society there is no prospect, with which many of our predecessors lived, of finding a stable refuge at the end of the road. “Being on the road,” writes the English sociologist Z. Bauman, “has become a permanent way of life for individuals who do not (now chronically) have a stable position in society.” And further: “The surrogate for such a refuge, or stable position - in other words, the surrogate for community, is “identity”.

The human “I” turns from a given into a task, the responsibility for the solution of which lies with the individual himself. Destruction of stable social

al structures forces individuals to care about their identity. In order to acquire it, everything is used, including psychology. The properties and characteristics that this science has ever attributed or ascribes to a person are used by him to describe himself and become the main features of individuality and identity. Having switched almost exclusively to individual psychological categories, people lose the ability to adequately understand the social - the meaning of social structures and institutions, the nature of political power, the social basis of judgments about truth. Researchers have called the replacement of the social understanding of the world with a psychological one “psychologization.” One of the most striking examples of the substitution of a social explanation for a psychological one is the explanation by the American researcher R. Herrnstein of the reasons for student unrest in American universities in 1968 not by the catastrophic war in Vietnam, but by teenage negativism.

Among the most authoritative works on this topic are the books by R. Sennett “The Fall of Social Man” (1977) and K. Lasch “The Culture of Narcissism” (1979). The authors characterize their contemporary generation as “me-generation” - an egocentric “I-generation”. They criticize the "psychological society" for replacing many people's participation in public life and politics. According to Lasch, “without hoping for a radical improvement in their lives, people begin to believe in psychological self-improvement, contact with their feelings, a healthy diet, ballet or belly dancing, Eastern wisdom, jogging in the morning, studying relationships between people and overcoming fears. Similar actions are harmless in themselves, but, raised to the level of a life program and presented as the truth of life, they lead away from politics."

Bauman's recently published work "Individualized Society" continues this tradition, although it deals with postmodern society (for us this distinction is not so important). In the modern era, people, according to Bauman, are concerned not so much with how to achieve their chosen identity and get others to recognize it, but with how to which one choose an identity and how to do it in time another choice if the previously chosen identity loses value or loses its attractiveness. And in this case, psychology, with its diversity of approaches and theories - and therefore, identity options - plays an important role.

Speaking about the emergence of a “psychological society”, one cannot fail to note the studies devoted to psychotherapy as a social phenomenon. There is a point of view that the function of a psychotherapist is close to the role that in the past was assigned to a priest, who helped to achieve enlightenment, purification, and healing of the soul (in our days, the opposite can be said: that priests perform a psychotherapeutic function). In other words, instead of seeking “salvation” in religious obedience, prayer or meditation, secular people, our contemporaries, turn to a psychotherapist in search of peace, love, freedom and strength. Therapy promises a person relief from stress, reconciliation with oneself, the achievement of depth and unity - everything that people used to look for primarily in God. This is a symptom general process secularization, the transformation of society from religious to purely secular. Now this topic is actively discussed - for example, in discussions about “spirituality” - since it is clear that the spiritual dimension, most likely, has not disappeared completely, but has been transformed. One of the most influential participants in this discussion was F. Rief, author of the books Freud: The Mind of a Moralist (1961) and The Triumph of Therapy (1966). Reef believes that the dominant type of Western culture by the middle of the 20th century became Psychological man, replacing in this role A moral person And Economic man. This revolution took place not without the participation of S. Freud. Once again, writes Rief, “history has produced a type specially adapted to the new period: the type of trained egoist, the private individual who leaves the arena of public life - in which he has not achieved success - to engage in the study of himself and his emotions. This introversion of interests must corresponded to the new discipline, and Freudian psychology, with its interpretation of politics, religion and culture in terms inner world the individual and his direct family experience, could not have been more suitable for this."

Freud, like no one before, managed to convince people that they were all sick - at least with neurosis. At the end of the 19th century, neurosis, or neurasthenia, became fashionable: even Hamlet was recognized as a neurasthenic. For clients with “shattered nerves,” overtired, and irritable, “nervous” clinics, sanatoriums and outpatient clinics that sprang up like mushrooms were intended, where they were treated with hypnosis and psychotherapy. The therapists themselves, however, believed that a complete cure for neurosis was impossible: according to Freud, therapy is eternal - while curing some diseases, it gives rise to others. His followers developed these ideas. In his work “The Way Out of a Sick Society,” E. Fromm also attributes illnesses—or even just the threat of getting sick—to the role of the engine of human existence: “All the passions and aspirations of man are

century is an attempt to “find an answer to the problem of one’s existence, or... avoid mental illness.” Like Freud, Fromm considers illness not an exceptional, but an ordinary, “normal” human condition. In his opinion, “the problem is not why people become mentally ill, but rather why most of them manage to avoid mental illness.”

All psychotherapists agreed with Freud that almost everyone needed their help, but not all were as pessimistic as psychoanalysts. For example, behavior therapists, from the moment they created their method, had no doubt that they would be able to rid humanity of those who annoy them. psychological problems. The German psychologist H. Eysenck, who worked in Great Britain, wrote: “Behavioral methods (behavioral therapy, behavior modification, treatment through conditioning) have shown themselves to be effective, fast and adequate. ... It is quite possible that in the near future we will be able to time to eliminate fears that lead to inaction, obsessive-compulsive behavior and many other serious neurotic symptoms... with the help of mobile clinics on wheels staffed by clinical psychologists. These problems of the so-called "minor" psychiatry cause a lot of pain and grief to people; the time has come to launch an attack on them commensurate with the damage they cause to people’s happiness" (quoted from:).

Thus, in the first third of the 20th century, the ideological ground was prepared for the emergence of psychotherapy and psychohygiene - mass events whose purpose was declared to be the prevention of mental health of the population. The Soviet Union adopted a government mental hygiene program in the early 1920s (the United States adopted a similar program in the 1960s, but did not implement it on the intended scale). The basic institution of this program was the psychoneurological dispensary that still exists in our country (its first name is “nervopsychiatric”), which combines outpatient treatment of patients with the promotion of a “healthy lifestyle.” A special staff of social workers was supposed to inspect residential buildings and places of work and register all those who were at risk of nervous or mental illness. The contingent of psychiatrists thus expanded significantly and theoretically covered the entire population of the country.

As a result of the emergence of such psychological practices as psychotherapy (at the individual level) and psychohygiene (at the level of the population as a whole), the way was opened to the creation of a “psychological society”.

The last group of studies influenced by M. Foucault is devoted to psychology as a practice of social control or management. This is not a traditional story, but, to use the scientist’s own term, genealogy psychology - history written backwards, from the present to the past. Comparing psychology with other management control tools, Foucault notes that, based on self-control or self-regulation, this tool is more liberal than direct administrative influence. But its effect is no less real and in Western society is sometimes even more effective than administrative-coercive control.

Foucault carefully analyzes the power relations that permeate all of society, from the level of public policy to the formation of human personality, or identity. In order to show how power relations operate at the most intimate, individual level, Foucault in his later works introduces the term gouvernementalite, which, for lack of a better translation, is translated into Russian as “controllability” or “governance” [ibid.]. This is a symbiosis of dominance techniques, i.e. power and the technique of constructing the subject, which, according to Foucault, arose in the era of modernism. Before this, people were subject to direct pressure from the authority of the ruler or sovereign, which often used violence; authority in these cases was imposed from the outside. As P. J. Proudhon, one of the most ardent critics of the society of administrative control, wrote in the middle of the 19th century, to become the object of someone’s control means “to find yourself under police surveillance, subject to searches, espionage; to be buried under a heap of laws, doctrines and sermons.” ; submit to control, evaluation, censorship, taxation, reforms, commands; follow orders, recommendations, registrations, licenses and patents; be under supervision and suffer punishment for every action, every deed" (quoted from:).

On the contrary, in the modern era, people are not subjects, but citizens of a state in which power operates in other ways - from within, through the consciousness of the people themselves. In liberal Western society, people are convinced that the interests of government and their own coincide and that it is in their own interests to obey government regulations. The authorities, in turn, stop using violence and come to the conclusion that The best way management - to inspire people that their personal happiness is possible only if they comply with public rules and government regulations. Thus, acting supposedly voluntarily - to achieve better life, welfare, self-improvement, - people maintain and renew relationships

authorities. To show how such a mentality is formed, Foucault conceived and wrote a “history of madness”, that is, a history of the practices by which in different eras they tried - “in their own interests” - to control the mentally ill by placing them in institutions, which differed little from prisons. From these works by Foucault on psychiatric control, the study of psychology as one of the techniques for managing people under Western liberalism began.

Followers of Foucault R. Castel, F. Castel and A. Lovell also focused on social function psychiatry. During the years when they wrote their book, the Western press was critical of the situation in the Soviet Union, where psychiatry was being used for political purposes to eliminate dissidents. The authors, however, saw in this use of psychiatry under dictatorships only an extreme expression of what also occurred in liberal states. In particular, they believed, psychiatry in the United States also acted as a tool of social control, only less rude and violent. Since most psychiatric institutions in the United States were not government-owned, placement in them was part of public self-government. In this sense, psychiatry there was similar to other institutions of civil society - charitable foundations, self-help groups, religious communities, groups psychological training and consulting, etc. All of them, according to the authors, performed one function, ensuring that members of these groups accepted the official values ​​of American society.

The English researcher N. Rose, another follower of Foucault, wrote a series of books in the genre, which he called history of the present(about modern Anglo-American society): "The Psychological Complex" (1985), "Management of the Soul" (1990) and "The Invention of Self" (1996). Rose agrees with Foucault that the roots of modern psychological activism go back to the early 19th century. That's when they were born modern practices management of society: schools, hospitals, prisons, orphanages, soldier barracks and shelters. Rose shows how, as a result of the need to classify and control the human masses, arose discourse about individual abilities and differences. Its creation was largely a matter of psychology. This process was mutual: by creating a new object of control - individual abilities - psychology declared itself as the science of individual behavior in society. The discourse of individual abilities became at the same time the way in which individuality or identity is defined, and the focus or point to which management practices are applied. By creating the concepts of intelligence, psychological development, adaptation and maladaptation, family relationships, group dynamics, etc., psychology thereby constituted subjectivity and intersubjectivity as potential objects of social control. The moment of birth of this discourse was at the same time the moment of recognition of psychology as a science. Thus, the creation of tests that underlie all modern techniques for managing individuality provided a powerful incentive for the development of the psychological profession.

A consequence of the emergence of psychological discourse about the individual was the strengthening of political individualism: the object of management and reform was now not society, but an individual. For example, according to C. Lombroso, an Italian psychiatrist late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, responsibility for a crime lies not with society, but with the criminal. He, according to Lombroso, commits a crime allegedly because he belongs to a special biologically fixed “criminal type.” Adapting to and coping with difficulties in a liberal state is required of individual; This is where the main attention of both the authorities and researchers is directed. At the same time, in such an individual-centered paradigm society as such remains beyond the scope of study and analysis.

Control of modern Western society is achieved by teaching its citizens the professional roles, the language in which they interpret their experiences, the norms to which these experiences relate, and the ways in which people can improve themselves. The personality of a modern person is quite rigidly determined by socially fixed techniques of identity, encouraging one to look for the meaning of human existence in individual self-realization, within personal biography. The ethics of subjectivity, according to Rose, is contained in these techniques, which are at the same time procedures of power. In Western society, people are controlled not through coercion, but through delicate insight into their intimate experiences, their ideas about freedom, happiness and the meaning of existence.

Rose brought to its logical conclusion Foucault's thesis that the connection between power and the individual cannot be interpreted as crude external pressure. This connection is internal, intimate, because The goal and result of management and control techniques is the constitution of “free” individuals. In one of their latest books"The Reign of Freedom" (1999), Rose argues that freedom is the ideal of social reformers

past - is possible only as internalized control. "Freedom is duty to be self-reliant and independent, to create your own identity, to choose." Playing with words, Rose writes: "To have an identity is to be identifiable" - to have an identity, or personality, means that the authorities can easily establish this “personality”.

So, as a result of the processes of individualization and psychologization that actively took place over the past century, the individual found himself focused on himself, on self-control techniques. The strengthening of the emphasis on self-control and self-management at the end of the 20th century coincided in a number of states with the collapse of attempts to build social life on the principles of collectivism and socialism. If you compare the work of Castel and Lovell, written in the 1970s, with Rose's book, published thirty years later, you can see a change in political orientation from radical left to conservative. If the generation of the sixties believed that social control could threaten individual freedom, then the next generation, whose views were formed in the much more conservative atmosphere of the 1980s, does not think of freedom as anything other than internalized social control. These changes are directly relevant to our topic: while researchers in the 1970s were critical of psychologization, seeing it as an escape from politics or, worse, a tool of political pressure, modern social theorists like Rose consider the “psychological society” not only inevitable, but also a direct benefit.

In conclusion, we might define "psychological society" as a characteristic of the modern era in which human identity and the meaning of life are defined primarily through psychological categories. The “psychological society” emerges at a certain historical stage, in the era of modernism. Like any other product of modernism, it claims to be the only reasonable and logical form of development. To someone who is not aware of the historical and transitory character of “psychological society,” it may seem like a universal feature, a permanent—and perhaps the best—way of existence for modern man. However, this is not the case. It is especially important for a psychologist, whose science has largely contributed to the emergence of the phenomenon, to know this. The task of the historian is to trace how the “psychological society” developed and create a critical distance in relation to it. We hope that our article has partially fulfilled this task.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bauman Z. Individualized society: Translation from English. M.: Logos, 2002.

2. Rose N. Psychology as a “social science” // Foreign psychology. 1993. T. 1. N 1. P. 39 - 46.

3. Sirotkina I. E. Psychopathology and politics: the formation of ideas and practices of mental hygiene in Russia // Questions of the history of natural science and technology. 2000. N 1 S. 154 - 177.

4. Fromm E. The problem of man in Western philosophy. M.: Progress, 1988.

5. Burnham J. Paths into American Culture: Psychology, Medicine, and Morals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988.

6. Carson J. Army alpha, army brass, and the search for army intelligence//Isis. 1993. V. 84. P. 278 - 309.

7. Capshew J. Psychologists on the March: Science, Practice and Professional Identity in America, 1923 - 1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

8. Castel R., Castel F., Lovell A. The Psychiatric Society. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1982.

9. Danzinger K. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

10. Danziger K. Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. L.: Sage, 1997.

11. Dehue T. Changing the Rules: Psychology in the Netherlands, 1900 - 1985. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

12. Foucault M. Technologies of the Self//Technologies of the Self: a Seminar with Michel Foucault/Ed. H. Martin Luther et al. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988. pp. 16 - 49.

13. Herman E. The Romance of American Psychology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

14. Lash C. Culture of Narcissism. N.Y.: Warner Books, 1979.

15. Napoli D.S. Architects of Adjustment: The History of the Psychological Profession in the United States. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1982.

16. Rieff P. Freud: The Mind of the Moralist. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961.

17. Rieff P. The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973.

18. Rose N. The Psychological Complex. L.: Routledge, 1985.

19. Rose N. Governing the Soul. The Shaping of the Private Self. L.: Routledge, 1990.

20. Rose N. Inventing Our Selves. Psychology, Power and Personality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

21. Rose N. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

22. Samelson F. Putting psychology on the map: ideology and intelligence testing //Psychology in Social Context/Ed. A. R. Buss. N.Y.: Irvington, 1979. P. 103 - 168.

23. Sennet R. The Fall of Public Man. L.: Faber & Faber, 1977.

24. Sokal M.(ed.). Psychological Testing and American Society. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.

Specifics of determination of social psychology.

Psychology of social changes in society.

Possibilities of regulatory influence on the psychology of society

In sociology society understood as a relatively stable system of social connections and relationships in a community of people, determined in the process of historical development of mankind, supported by the power of customs, traditions, laws, and social institutions etc., based on a certain method of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material and spiritual goods.

Society represents the unity of objective and subjective, material and spiritual, social existence and social consciousness. Objective - this is a certain territory, economy, acting individuals, social actions and interactions, social institutions, various government bodies. Subjective - everything that is connected with the spiritual, cultural and historical characteristics of society, life in it, public consciousness, social values ​​of the people, their aspirations, expectations, aspirations, public opinion, public sentiment, traditions, customs, etc.

The forces and patterns of this reality reveal themselves through the actions of people with consciousness. In the history of the development of knowledge about society, extremes have been fairly criticized: excessive “materialization” of the life of society (explaining everything and everyone by material conditions, the economy) and excessive “subjectivization” (explaining everything only by the state of the spiritual sphere of society), one of the varieties of which is “psychologization” (reducing everything to psychology). However, the latter does not mean that psychological factors can be underestimated.

Productive research into the problems of social psychology was carried out by social psychologists A.A. Bodalev, G.G. Diligensky, E.S. Kuzmin, B.D. Parygin, B.F. Porshnev, S.K. Roshchin, V.A. Sosnin, A.N. Sukhov and others. However, the scope of such studies is now disproportionate to the significance and complexity of the turbulent and contradictory social changes in the post-Soviet space, and the number of specialists included in them is unjustifiably small. Therefore, it is more correct to consider the judgments presented below as preliminary and insufficiently complete, although they provide grounds for discussion.

Psychology of society (social psychology)- a holistic, systemic set of socio-psychological phenomena, inherent in the population living in a certain territory, the organization of life activities in which is carried out by the state.

By its essence, nature, it is a subjective image of the world, life, society, existing among the population, characterizing it psychologically and formed in conditions of a common history and joint life activity. As a psychological phenomenon, this image includes not only cognitive components, but also axiological (value, evaluative), need-motivational (incentive) and behavioral-volitional (mastered and habitual methods of action). Therefore, the psychology of society is not only an understanding, a “picture of the environment,” but also subjective regulator life of the population and its socially significant activity.

In cognitive terms, social psychology is a specific, holistic, interconnected system of knowledge, ideas, views, feelings, value orientations, norms of behavior, motivations, needs, aspirations, behavioral habits, relationships and other things that have developed among a people, characterize their history, manifest themselves and affect on his modern life and in a certain way influencing his immediate future.

The psychology of society represents unity public consciousness And subconscious. The first is a set of socio-psychological phenomena that characterize what is realized by the people, which is expressed in the views, ideas, beliefs, public opinion of the people, as well as in the achievements of science, teachings, theories, ideology, law, doctrines, scientific literature, etc. The second - unconscious, not formed into clear judgments and justifications, but affecting the consciousness, attitude and behavior of people in society. The psychology of society combines elements of science and everyday life (empiricism), reliable and erroneous, conscious and unconscious.

The specificity of causality in the psychology of society is in its trinity : integrated influence objective living conditions of people, contacts between them, jointactivities. However, a single activity as such, which is the main determinant of the psychology of small groups, is absent in society. Her place is taken vital activity of the population in all its diversity, and the general features in it are determined mainly by the type of socio-economic structure of society and the real events of its history. Those that dominate the life of the population and those that prevailed in the past are acquiring an increased role in influencing it. social realities, type of social relations, economics, politics. Therefore, the main sources of difficulties in changing social psychology, which do not always contribute to the development of social life, are due to the difficulties of objective changes V the lives of citizens and historical experiences that coincide or do not coincide with real changes.

The only thing common to the entire population is contacts with the media and press. The development of the latter in modern conditions has acquired a total, systematic, long-term character of penetration into the immediate environment of almost all citizens, into every apartment. They have become important factors in the social environment and contacts with it.

The psychology of society is most fully represented all types of socio-psychological phenomena , and above all mass: motivational-need nature (social goals, needs, interests, values, aspirations, hopes and expectations, aspirations, intentions, attitudes, orientations), predominantly cognitive nature (public opinions on various issues of social life and state activities, public views, beliefs, ideas , perceptions, memory, beliefs, superstitions, prejudices, rumors), predominantly of an emotional nature (public moods, feelings, experiences, affects, panic), predominantly of a behavioral-volitional nature (social movements, actions, behavior, norms, customs, traditions, tastes , fashion) and relationships between large social communities, groups, citizens.

The psychology of society, as a most complex systemic socio-psychological reality, has hierarchical structure. This is expressed by the presence in it layers(strata, subsystems within whose boundaries various socio-psychological phenomena are detected and interact.

At first approach, they stand out two socio-psychological layers. First - system-forming, sustainable (in other terminology, “deep”). This layer includes, from the already mentioned socio-psychological phenomena, public interests, needs, beliefs, ideals, memory, beliefs, traditions, customs and others, more complex, which are discussed below.

Second socio-psychological layer system-dynamic. This is a layer of constantly emerging and disappearing manifestations of the psychology of society, caused by changes in the complex of reasons influencing it. It includes most of the above types of socio-psychological phenomena, especially clearly manifested in the emergence and changes of public opinion, moods, expectations, and decisions.

At the level of social psychology, a general psychological pattern is expressed: external causes act through internal conditions.

TO system-forming, basic The components of social psychology include the following.

Social consciousness - psychologically characterized by the self-identification of the population as a society, their awareness of their integrity and originality, their differences from the population of other states, the commonality of their life and destiny, the need to live together, their “mirror” - “We” (vision and assessment of themselves as if through the eyes of other peoples) , self-assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses, social interests and needs.

Public consciousness - meaningful understanding and attitude towards the surrounding world, primarily towards social reality, existence both in one’s society and in humanity. It is expressed in a system of basic concepts, the specifics of their meanings and meanings, criteria for understanding and evaluating what is happening, axiomatic judgments (including proverbs, sayings, parables), beliefs, social ideals, recognized norms of behavior, public opinion, ideology, scientific achievements, etc. .

Spiritual and psychological culture - a historically certain level (degree) of development of the spiritual forces and capabilities of the people, the system of spiritual values ​​dominant in it. Usually it includes a culture of values, relationships, norms of behavior, thinking, morality, education, language, national symbols (coats of arms, flags, anthems, traditions, customs, rituals), art culture, social, political, legal, etc. Precise measurement criteria there is no level of development. It is assessed by comparison with the achievements of modern human civilization, its development trends, and the level of culture of the peoples of other countries.

People's mentality - historically developed psychological mindset, way of thinking, assessments, spiritual attitudes, habitual social preferences and tastes. This is sometimes called "social (folk) character." It presents the folk uniqueness of the psychology of a given society.

Social and psychological climate in society - manifestation of social psychology as favorable or unfavorable for the life and activities of the population, its groups and citizens. It is most clearly expressed in satisfaction - dissatisfaction of people, groups, communities with life in society and the social changes and processes occurring in it, and the activities of the state apparatus. It manifests itself in public opinion and sentiment, in the socio-psychological well-being of citizens.

Social activity - the actual practice of behavior of the population, assessed from a social perspective and aimed at ensuring a balance of individual interests. Particular importance is attached to the mass activity of citizens and groups, proactively and voluntarily directed towards the creation of non-state public institutions, participation in their activities, independent of the state mechanism and aimed at improving life in society and the self-realization of citizens in it (this is what is now associated with the concept "civil society".

All the basic components of the psychology of society are interconnected, penetrate each other, and mutually determine the characteristics and systemic characteristics of each.

Social psychology does not represent a monolithic unity, and its characteristic features can be discussed only by its predominant features. The characteristics of the different social communities that form the main population groups discussed above confirm the diversity of social psychology, but do not exclude the presence in it of certain common system-forming and system-dynamic phenomena.

Studying and assessing the entire set of basic characteristics of the psychology of society will help to holistically understand and evaluate its state, much of what is happening in society, in communities and small groups, in the socialization of the individual citizens.

Society, like everything in the world, is subject to continuous changes in structure, relationships, norms, properties, condition, etc. These changes are called social. They influence the life of society and the people in it. One type of social change is socio-psychological, occurring in the psychology of society, groups, citizens. They can occur in all structural elements of the psychology of society and in it as a whole.

Sociocultural sociological theories assign a priority role to socio-psychological changes. Research by social psychologists has established that they naturally precede, accompany or result from objective ones, influencing them and their results.

All social changes, especially radical ones, inevitably affect the interests of society and people, change the conditions and plans of their lives, their fate, naturally giving rise to a whole ensemble of personal and group socio-psychological changes. At the level of social psychology, each of the changes in social life that has at least some significance for the population is reflected in socio-psychological reaction (change), acting, figuratively speaking, as a socio-psychological “response”, “echo”, “shadow” of it. Features of socio-psychological changes (reactions), their varieties are determined according to socially significant characteristics.

Scale(massiveness, prevalence among the population) of socio-psychological reactions is determined by the number of social communities and groups whose interests are affected by objective social changes. They can be national or local. Thus, the psychological response to information about a change in the structure of local government of a rural area and the introduction of a new tax from the entire population of the country, at least in scale, will, of course, not be the same.

Socially important sign - degree of generality socio-psychological reactions. It is found in the sameness or differences in psychological changes in groups and social communities caused by the same circumstances. The greater the social stratification of society, the more different the psychology of social communities and groups included in it, the less commonality of socio-psychological reactions. Differences in reactions reveal and activate social contradictions and tensions within society.

According to socio-psychological fullness(saturation) reaction can manifest itself in a change in one of the mass socio-psychological phenomena mentioned above, or in their entire complex.

Force socio-psychological reaction is expressed in its different scale, fullness and degree of expression. The stronger the reaction, the more tangible (psychologically “painful”) the interests of large and small groups of people are affected.

Social and psychological reactions differ in their depth. Most of them occur in the system-dynamic layer of the psychology of society and are in the nature of processes and states. They are dynamic, changeable, passing. For changes in a system-forming sphere, reasons that are more fundamental in strength, duration, and repeatability are needed.

The sign is also important consequences changes occurring in the psychology of society. They can be direct and collateral, foreseen and unforeseen, immediate and delayed.

By adequacy a specific socio-psychological reaction may correspond in all respects to the objective reason that caused it (be natural, natural, “organic,” justified), or it may not: excessively strong or weak, deliberately expressed or unreasonably hidden, etc. Objective changes, affecting, for example, the interests of the entire population, can cause protests from only part of it. This depends on the degree of understanding by the population of the ongoing objective changes, their approval or disapproval, the characteristics of social psychology, or on special efforts to restrain or, on the contrary, “inflate” reactions.

Not only research, but also simple observations of life around us reveal the saturation of its socio-psychological reactions, processes of socio-psychological changes in social psychology, its actual state - a consequence of these changes and their undoubted influence on events in society.

Special view socio-psychological changes advocated socio-psychological tension - increasing loads and energy expenditure to maintain the balance of the psychological system during internal and external changes. Socio-psychological tension is a universal reaction that accompanies and ensures all other changes. The more significant the goal, the greater the change, the more complex the conditions, the less prepared people are for change, the higher the tension. Therefore, it is incorrect to evaluate socio-psychological tension only negatively.

Socio-psychological stress is sometimes called group stress and evaluate it negatively. However, socio-psychological stresses have their own characteristics and are divided into subtypes (varieties), depending on which the nature of their influence on behavior, people’s lives and social changes is determined.

By system targeting socio-psychological stresses are characterized by those structures of socio-psychological reality that are undergoing changes. According to this criterion, they can be local and systemic (i.e., covering the entire psychology of society). Local ones are differentiated with greater accuracy: socio-psychological stress of mentality, public opinion, moods, ideals, values, traditions, etc.

Sign of inconsistency expresses the presence, location, nature of contradictions between ongoing changes and other systemic phenomena. Thus, socio-psychological tensions in society can arise due to different interests in changes between the government and the people, property and national communities, contradictions between the changes being implemented and the experience of the people, between promulgated promises and the real situation in society, etc.

Sign intensity- the degree of tension and the resulting expenditure of force. There are optimal socio-psychological stresses, increased, overstrains (high, extreme) and extreme (causing mass affects, dominance of feelings over the mind: socio-psychological breakdown, shock, panic, hysteria, explosion, aggression, turmoil). The intensity depends on the nature, degree and speed of the changes occurring. For example, changes affecting the main vital interests, values, traditions, mentality of the people, their main groups, are potentially “psychologically painful” and can cause significant tensions and conflicts, and changes in fashion - less. There is another type of tension associated with exhaustion of strength and called “psychological fatigue.” It contains the potential of two polar manifestations - mass affects and mass apathy, anomie (complete indifference to what is happening; “the people are silent,” but this is often more eloquent than externally expressed reactions).

With any socio-psychological changes, it is necessary to take into account the existing socio-psychological tension, its changes (increase or decrease) and assess how it will affect the results of the planned changes.

Research and historical facts, modern Russian reality confirm that social development of society occurs more successfully if Among the enabling changes is the corresponding development of the psychology of society. Victory will really come only when social innovations are organic, natural, if they matured and psychologically, those. correspond to the level of socio-psychological development of society, are expected, understood, approved, accepted and implemented by the people. The history of any tyrannies, dictatorships, cliques, oligarchies testifies that their strength and apparent steadfastness are illusory.

It makes sense to somehow include, in a system of measures aimed at ensuring development, regulatory influences on the psychology of society.

In relation to psychological reality, targeted regulation is more effective not by pressure, command, command, order, coercion, violence (although they are not excluded in appropriate cases, especially at the level of individual psychology), but - inducement, persuasion, stimulation, motivation, encouragement, assistance, influence. This psychologically softer(not causing internal protest, non-acceptance, resistance, opposition in people) ways and means. In addition, they are designed for practically continuous and long-lasting action. The effectiveness of psychological influences is explained by the fact that they are focused primarily on people’s positive experiences, while hard ones do not take into account feelings or are focused on fear, on the reaction of avoiding troubles. When it comes to the psychology of society, only soft forms, means and methods of regulation with the help of influences, creating favorable conditions, persuading masses of people mainly through experience are appropriate, and psychological and other violence is contraindicated.

To the number basic socio-psychological conditions, taking into account the specifics of socio-psychological regulation at the level of society and the basic patterns of its socio-psychological development, include the following.

1. Comprehensive and correct taking into account all the features of social psychology, changes occurring in it, promoting developmental socio-psychological changes V interests of each person, the entire population and society.

2. Social development can be successful if it corresponds to the basic, system-forming, stable, historically established features of social psychology,- the mentality of the people, value orientations, social habits, traditions, customs, memory of the people, “folk psychology”. Each of the cultures embodied the unique features of centuries-old lessons from the history of peoples: the American - five hundred years of brutal colonization, the African - long-term slavery, the Japanese - thousands of years of isolation from the world and self-development on the islands, the Russian - the extremes of feudal fragmentation and total centralization.

It is impossible to adjust the life of the masses to any social ideas, but ideas must be “derived” from the life, psychology, experience and memory of the people. This is exactly how all the “velvet revolutions” of modern times were carried out (in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.), which respected the national dignity and uniqueness of their people.

3. Social development-oriented measures can be successful if if they are timely, correspond to the achieved level of social development, culture of society, including its socio-psychological sphere.

Socio-psychological development, as an analysis of the historical experience of many peoples shows, proceeds through a slow and contradictory accumulation, increasing the share of those signs of psychology that are characteristic of a more perfect future. When the latter become predominant, a new level of socio-psychological development arises.

4. The process of social development of society should be in agreement with real dynamic socio-psychological phenomena in society

The current level of achievements of human civilization corresponds to measures to create in society social and psychological support systems his life and development.

Optimally it includes:

Large-scale and continuous study of the psychology of society in all its components, and especially public opinion, moods, social expectations, social assessments by the population of ongoing social changes;

Ensuring that the population understands state ideology, prospects for the development of society, and the practice of managing state and public structures;

Providing the activities of state and public structures with information about the state of psychology of society, large and small groups;

Participation of social psychologists in the preparation, consultation and examination of prepared measures aimed at implementing social development;

Anticipation of important social measures by socio-psychological forecasting of immediate and long-term consequences, the possibility of unexpected and side socio-psychological consequences;

Participation of social psychologists in preparing public opinion for planned significant social changes, excluding their non-acceptance by the population and members of specific groups;

Social and psychological support of social changes, bringing to the attention of the population positive information about the measures being implemented in all branches of government and management, achieving an adequate understanding of them, tracking the socio-psychological phenomena arising in the course of them among the population, carrying out additional socio-psychological work, preventing side negative social -psychological consequences;

Carrying out socio-psychological counseling and providing socio-psychological assistance to the population and citizens;

Identification of socio-psychological factors associated with the negative phenomena widespread among the population, in certain groups, and participation in localizing their spread and gradually overcoming it;

Organization of socio-psychological education, education, increasing the level of socio-psychological literacy of the population, government employees, managers and other categories of persons whose activities have a pronounced socio-psychological aspect.

The most significant feature of modern society - its instability - excludes its analysis by methods and means designed to analyze stable situations. The term “crisis” is increasingly used to characterize the period being experienced. In an emerging new type of society, its norms - pluralism of opinions, the admissibility of various economic solutions, human rights - are perceived quite difficult by many social groups. We can only outline those processes that the mass consciousness faces in a situation of instability and which require close socio-psychological attention. First of all, this is a global breakdown of established social stereotypes. Changing the value system is the second block of socio-psychological phenomena that require special attention from researchers. This concerns the question of the relationship between group (primarily class) and universal values. In the conditions of radical transformations, the “old” values ​​were largely destroyed, and the “new” ones were not accepted. The loss of guidelines regarding the hierarchy of values ​​gives rise to moral chaos. An identity crisis is another example of significant changes in mass consciousness in an era of change: older people experience a loss of identity, young people have difficulty defining their identity. The list of problems that give rise to a special – also unstable – state of mass consciousness in the era of radical transformations can be continued. Thus, social psychology is faced with a new social reality and must comprehend it. It is necessary to search for new fundamental approaches to the analysis of socio-psychological phenomena in a changing world, a new strategy for socio-psychological research.

Literature:

Literature:

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., 1998.

Aronson E. Social animal. Introduction to social psychology. / ed. 7.; lane from English - M.: Aspect Press, 1998. - 517 p.

Bendas T.V. Psychology of leadership: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009. - 448 p.

Berne. E. Games that people play. People who play games. M., 1999.

Bityanova M.R. Social psychology: science, practice and way of thinking. Tutorial. – M.: Publishing house “EXMO-Press”, 2001. – 576 p.

Borodkin F.M., Koryak N.M. Attention: conflict! – Novosibirsk: NSU, 1989.

Baron R., Byrne D., Johnson B. Social psychology. Key Ideas. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. - 512 p.

Introduction to Psychology. / Under general Ed. A.V. Petrovsky - M., Academy 1997.

Verderber R., Verderber K. Psychology of communication. – SPb.: PRIME EUROZNAK, 2003. – 320 p.

Gozman L.Ya. Psychology of emotional relationships. – M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1987. – 176s.

Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008. - 544 p.

Devyatkin A.A. The phenomenon of social attitudes in twentieth-century psychology. – Kaliningrad: Kaliningr. university,

Diligensky G. Socio-political psychology. – M.: Nauka, 1994. – 304 p.

Zhuravlev A.L., Sosnin V.A., Krasnikov M.A. Social psychology: Textbook. – M.: Forum; Infra-M, 2006. - 416 p.

Zankovsky A.N. Organizational psychology. – M.: Flint; MPSI, 2002. - 648 p.

Ilyin E. P. Psychology of communication and interpersonal relationships. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009. - 576 p.

Ilyin E. P. Psychology of communication and interpersonal relations. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009.

Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. – M.: Politizdat, 1967. - 383 p.

Korolev A. A. Ethnomentality: essence, structure, problems of formation. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. humanist University "Socium", 2011. - 68 p.

Krichevsky R. L., Dubovskaya E. M. Social psychology small group: Textbook for universities. – M.: Aspect Press, 2001.- 318 p.

Krysko V.G. Ethnic psychology: a textbook for universities. – M.: Publishing Center “Academy”, 2002. -320 p.

Labunskaya V. A. Human expression: communication and interpersonal cognition. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 1999. - 608 p.

Lionov P.F. 100 most popular communication tricks. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2011. – 176 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. / Transl. from English – St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. - 688 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. Intensive course. – St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. – 512 p.

Methods of social psychology. / Ed. E. S. Kuzmina, V. E. Semenova. - L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1977. – 175 p.

Nazaretyan A.P. Psychology of spontaneous mass behavior. Lectures. – M:. PER-SE, 2001. – 112 p.

Novikov V.V. Social Psychology. Phenomenon and science: Textbook. – M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2003. – 344 p.

Obozov N. N., Shchekin G. V. Psychology of working with people. Advice to the manager: Training manual. – K.: MAUP, 2004. – 228 p.

Orban-Lembrick L.E. Social psychology. – K.: Libid, 2004. – 576 p.

Parygin B. D. Social psychology: Textbook. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise, 2003. – 616 p.

Petrovsky A.V. Shpalinsky V.V. Social psychology of the collective. Textbook for pedagogical students. Inst. – M.: “Enlightenment”, 1978.

Political psychology. / Under the general editorship. A.A. Derkach, V.I. Zhukova, L.G. Laptev 2001. – 576 p.

Pochebut L. G. Meizhis I. A. Social psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. – 672 p.

PochebutL. G., ChikerV. A. Organizational social psychology: Textbook. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house “Rech”, 2002. – 298 p.

Psychology personality. Tutorial. / Ed. P. N. Ermakova, IN. A. Labunskaya. – M.: Eksmo, 2007 – 653 p.

Psychology. Textbook for humanitarian universities / Ed. V. N. Druzhinina. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. – 656 s.

Psychology. Textbook. / Ed. A.A. Krylova. – M.: Prospekt Publishing House, 2005 – 453 p.

Rudensky E.V. Social psychology: Course of lectures. – M.: Infra-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, 1997. – 224 p.

Sventsitsky A.L. Social psychology: Textbook. - M.: TK Velby LLC, Prospekt Publishing House, 2005. – 336 p.

Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: Stories, theories, research. In 2 parts. Part 1. – Vladivostok: Far Eastern University, 2001. – 145 p.

Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: Stories, theories, research. In 2 parts. Part 2. – Vladivostok: Far Eastern University, 2003. – 135 p.

Social psychology in the modern world. / Ed. G.M.Andreeva, A.I. Dontsova. – M.: Aspect Press. - 2002. – 336 p.

Social psychology of personality in questions and answers: Textbook. / Ed. V.A. Labunskaya. – M.: Gardariki, 1999 – 397 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities. / Ed. A.M. Stolyarenko. – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. – 543 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities. / Comp.: R.I. Mokshantsev, A.V. Mokshantseva. – Novosibirsk: Siberian Agreement; M.: INFRA-M, 2001. – 408 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities./ Ed. A.N. Sukhova, A.A. Derkach. – M.: Publishing house. Center Academy, 2001. – 600 p.

Social psychology: Reader: Textbook for university students. / Comp. E. P. Belinskaya, O. A. Tikhomandritskaya. – M.: Aspect Press, 2003. – 475 p.

Stefanenko T. G. Ethnopsychology. – M.: Institute of Psychology RAS; Academic project, 1999. – 320 p.

Harris R. Psychology of mass communications. – St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2003 – 448 p.

Cialdini R., Kenrick D., Neuberg S. Social psychology. Understand others to understand yourself! – St. Petersburg: PrimeEvroznak, 2002. – 256 p.

Cialdini R., Kenrick D., Neuberg S. Social psychology. Understand yourself to understand others! – St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. – 336 p.

Shevandrin N.I. Social psychology in education. – M.: Vlados, 1995. – 544 p.

Shestopal E.B. Political psychology. – M.: Infra-M, 2002. – 448 p.

Shibutani T. Social psychology. - Rostov n/d., 1998. – 521 p..

Yanchuk V.A. Introduction to modern social psychology: Textbook for universities. – Mn.: ASAR, 2005. – 800 p.