Emotional and rational in consciousness. Rationality and emotionality... What is more important? Three amazing, thought-provoking short stories
The dialectic of the spiritual content of humanistic culture and the person it creates should be associated primarily with the harmonization of such essential forces as the ability to think and the ability to feel (“rational” and “emotional”).
The problem is that the end of the 50s and the beginning of the 60s were marked by a very noticeable scientization of our culture, which resulted in the almost complete triumph of wretched forms of rationalism in all its spheres. This was expressed most clearly, perhaps, in architecture and household design. The dominance of straight lines, laconicism, reaching extreme rigorism, were designed for a person devoid of any emotions.
Among the reasons that gave rise to this cultural situation, one must name, firstly, the scientific and technological revolution, which turns the rationalization of all aspects of life into an objective law. In addition, it should be noted that there was an uncritical borrowing of some negative features of formal rationality with complete disregard for its positive aspects.
The protest against the illegal expansion of formal rationalism is very clearly expressed in the epigraph to the collection of poems by A. Voznesensky “Temptation”. Instead of the famous Cartesian aphorism “I think, therefore I exist,” which inspired the development of European culture of modern times, A. Voznesensky proclaims: “I feel, therefore I exist” 1 . Probably, a humanistic solution to this problem is possible according to the formula: “I think and feel, therefore I exist.”
The implementation of this principle requires, first of all, the further development of a new type of rationality, as discussed earlier. New rationality is impossible without and without new emotionality, which, using a well-known expression, can be defined as an “intelligent heart.” We are talking, therefore, not about emotionality in general - in this case, the ideal would be a medieval fanatic - but about emotionality, closely related to the new rationality through a system of humanistic values.
A developed emotional sphere turns out to be no less important than the intellectual one when anticipating the future, which is of great importance for the life of an individual in an increasingly complex world. The creative potential of the individual in general largely depends on it, since it helps the human spirit to free itself from the chains of simple ambiguity; it, like nothing else, determines the degree of brightness of human individuality. It follows that the cultivation of human emotionality and rationality has a direct impact on the development of other essential human powers.
Thus, we once again note the regularity of the anthropological structure of culture: each of the pairs of opposites that make up it is not juxtaposed with all other pairs, but contains them within itself, as in a chrysalis, while the imaginary juxtaposition can only be a consequence of abstraction.
1.6. Biological - social
Even more convincing of the existence of this pattern is consideration of the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in the anthropological structure of culture.
To begin with, we must make a reservation that we should distinguish between the general philosophical and philosophical-anthropological meaning of the concepts “biological” and “social”. In the first case, they mean certain levels of organization of matter; in the second, their content is much narrower, since they relate only to man.
Thus, the biological in a person is his physical substrate (body) and the elementary layer of the psyche. According to their origin, both can be structured into phylogenetic and ontogenetic. The social in a person is an ensemble of his personal properties, and therefore the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person can be formulated as a problem of the relationship between the organism and the personality.
The mechanism that connects these two principles together in a person to one degree or another, in one way or another, is culture, and therefore the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social is not only general philosophical and not only philosophical-anthropological, but also philosophical-cultural.
Functions of culture in the implementation of interactions between biological and social in humans are diverse. The most important of them constructive, i.e., the use of a biological substrate as an arsenal of starting elements. Of great importance in performing this function is the content of cultural values and norms that are the subject of development of the emerging personality.
The conditions and methods of education also play an equally important role. As experts emphasize, the distribution curve according to the size of inclinations is superimposed on the distribution curve according to the conditions of upbringing and training.
Culture also performs in relation to the biological in man selective function: it “sorts” the biological content in a person - some of the properties of this order are declared desirable - it evaluates them in the categories of good, beauty, others, on the contrary, are undesirable and accordingly evaluates them in the categories of evil, ugly, etc.
A humanistic culture must use an extremely broad criterion for the selection of human biological properties; this criterion is a harmoniously developed person.
In this regard, in a humanistic culture the meaning of repressive functions of culture, closely related to selective culture and playing a particularly large role in religious-type culture. It may consist, it seems, in strengthening the action of all other functions of culture, which should lead to the suppression or change in the nature of the action of biological properties that are undesirable, from the point of view of society.
In this regard, the function of socially acceptable sewer biological properties of humans, which have a dual focus. Thus, aggressiveness can be viewed as both good and evil, but it is more productive to approach it as a biological given. For example, zoology knows that in the animal world, males, as a rule, differ from females in being more aggressive. The psychology of gender notes that this difference, inherited from animals, and, of course, socially modified, is noticeably reflected in the difference between female and male character, and developmental psychology notes corresponding differences in the psychology of girls and boys. Age-related pedagogy should draw appropriate conclusions from this. At the same time, it turns out that if she follows the path of repression, punishment for boyish fights, cocky behavior, etc., the character of the future man is deformed. This means that there remains another way: channeling aggressiveness through sports, various games, competitions, etc.
One of the most important functions of culture is developing. In a narrower sense, it manifests itself in the development of a person’s natural talent. It is quite clear that the performance of this function by culture is mediated by a socio-psychological factor: not every government is interested in a nation of exclusively gifted citizens.
The developmental function of culture can be understood more broadly - as the enrichment of initial biological data. In a human-oriented society, this function of culture takes on special importance: society will be more dynamic and viable if each individual is given the opportunity to develop and realize their abilities to the maximum.
All that has been said fully applies to such a function of culture in relation to the biological in man as control its biological development - its pace, rhythm, duration of individual periods (childhood, youth, maturity, old age), the nature of their course and life expectancy in general. This function of culture is especially clearly manifested in solving the problem of old age. Here, not only the achievements of gerontology and geriatrics are important, but, perhaps, and first of all, moral factors, that is, moral norms and forms of attitude towards the elderly accepted in society. Humanistic morality contributes to a significant mitigation of the hardships associated with old age, and thereby pushes back its age limits due to the period of maturity. However, the moral consciousness of the individual himself is of great importance in solving the problem of old age. Thus, vigorous activity inspired by humanistic ideals and an optimistic outlook contribute to physical longevity, and, conversely, indifference to people or bitterness, envy, and the inability to break out of the vicious circle of loneliness have a destructive effect on physiological processes and reduce a person’s biological time.
It should, apparently, highlight stimulating the function of culture, expressed in cultivating the individual’s ability to exert himself. Such a turn in solving the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in man makes it possible to highlight new aspects in the question of the dialectic of his subject-object properties. In this case, the role of the object is its biological nature, and the role of the subject is its social essence.
Of great importance in relation to the biological component of the human being is also the function of culture, which can roughly be called defectological, i.e., correction of biological pathology. And here we should again talk not only about the achievements of the relevant sciences and health care practice, but also about the moral context of culture, which determines the directions of research and the nature of their use.
Closely related to the previous one compensatory a function of culture, the meaning of which is to use the means of culture to compensate for certain manifestations of human biological pathology. In this case, in addition to those aspects of culture that were discussed in connection with the defectological function, questions about the distribution of types of cultural activities become important. So, for example, the compensatory role of amateur art of the corresponding genres is great for persons affected by blindness, deafness, those who cannot speak, those who are deprived of movement, etc.
Apparently, there is reason to believe that the most important function of culture and the social principle as a whole in relation to the biological component of man is ennoblement initial, biological in nature moments in human activity ( eugenic function). It is impossible not to give credit to the adherents of sociobiology, one of the areas of Western science, for the fact that their work makes us think about the presence of biological roots of all aspects of human activity without exception. The point is, without stopping at this statement, to look for and find these roots in each individual case and, most importantly, to look for and find ways, forms, methods of growing on this basis a viable tree of truly human, and by no means animal, relationships . Thus, sociobiologists very impressively show the biological basis of altruism. In this regard, the thought arises about the responsibility of culture, designed to ennoble and humanly formalize this source of such relations between people as mutual assistance, mutual assistance, selflessness. Competitiveness, competition, a sense of mastery, a sense of community, etc. are also biological in their basis, and one must learn to build a harmonious edifice of human life not away from this foundation, but on it.
So, the harmonization of the biological and social in a person through the mechanisms of culture is simultaneously associated with the harmonization of other elements of the anthropological structure of culture - object and subject, emotional and rational, spiritual and physical, personal and social, individual and universal.
A detailed examination of the anthropological structure of humanistic culture allows us to clarify the methodological status of this concept. In fact, at all stages of the analysis, it was not about substrate units, but about the functions of culture in the development of the essential forces of man. These functions form a certain system, the content of which is the image of a person that is most adequate to the characteristics of a particular society.
In relation to actual culture, the concept of “anthropological structure” seems to have constructive possibilities: starting from the concept of man, we can draw conclusions about the proper state of the anthropological structure and then about the proper state of all other cultural structures derived from the anthropological one. Further along this path, the possibility opens up of correlating the results obtained with the real state of affairs and, on this basis, developing practical recommendations.
It is almost impossible to completely separate these two elements, because in the psyche they usually work together.
However, people differ in that some use predominantly rational thinking, while others use emotional, sensual thinking.
Here we will look at how these two types of thinking affect our lives.
1. Rational- here we include all the elements of the psyche that operate with logical information. Thoughts, ideas, conclusions, judgments. Implies logical or rational thinking.
Rational thinking is based on the logic of things. Rational - it is timeless, describes objects (physical and spiritual), uses them for thinking, but does not possess these “object-images”, because they are not saturated with an energy component or emotions.
Logical thinking can solve any problems in the future or past. It always thinks about another time, not about the present, because, from the point of view of logic, there is no point in thinking about the present moment. Emotions do not need this; emotion is always concentrated in the “here and now.” Rationality, in turn, seems to pull us out of the present moment. And if a person prefers “rationality” to emotions, then he is rarely in the present and cannot feel the reality of life. And emotion is a way of returning to one really existing time - the present.
Logical information always skims the surface of reality and cannot penetrate to the essence of things. It is feelings that reflect the truth of things and phenomena. Because feelings are a more serious and profound tool for understanding, awareness and orientation in this reality. The more sensually developed a person is, the better he understands reality. But certain, not “garbage”, feelings of a high hierarchical level (presence in the present, measure, balance, fullness of life, mysticism of life, infinity, etc.) also matter.
If the algorithms of logic, when we experience sadness, delay or intensify it, then our sadness will remain, turn into depression or intensify to melancholy. If the same algorithms reduce it, it will decrease. But, if you don’t involve rational thinking in the emotional process at all, then the emotion will go away completely through its expression.
The more rational thinking is devoid of feelings, the more freedom of thought it has. It can go in any direction, both for us and against us. Formal logic doesn’t care which direction it works. It does not take into account our uniqueness and individuality. Only certain laws of logic and clarity of the thought process are important to her. Only when we connect feelings to thinking, then a system of thinking appears regarding our model of the world, our individuality, subjectivity. Intuitive feelings help us correctly process information regarding us, our capabilities, and the capabilities of the environment. And logic is like a program that, depending on its purpose, will either help, destroy, or remain neutral. For example, algorithms of neurotic perception will worsen the quality of life. And perception algorithms relating to harmony improve it.
Rational thinking has much greater plasticity than emotions and feelings. This property is based on the independence of logic from our model of the world, subjective perception, and is limited only by the capabilities of our thinking, memory, and knowledge about nature. The same fact can be interpreted both for good and for bad, both in one’s defense and in one’s accusation. Logic is freer in its movement than feelings. There are certain advantages to this: the opportunity to look objectively, from the outside, without being limited by the framework of your perception and creative thinking. However, there are also disadvantages: you can easily wander away from the main direction of thinking, get confused, get stuck on something, and harm yourself due to the lack of a system of relativity of our Self.
Rational thinking is like a mercenary; it doesn’t care who it works for. Whoever gives him more feelings, it works for him. For example, if we are charged with anxiety, then the rational will diligently look for more and more new images of anxiety that do not even really exist, plunging us into an anxious world. If we replace anxiety with anger, then logic will work on anger and prove to us that we need to destroy all images of anxiety, and that they are actually not scary at all, etc.
"Ratio" always works for a specific goal, and not for quality. Whatever you order, it will give you. It follows a narrow path, unlike feelings. Ratio cannot capture a large amount of information at once. When you achieve the results of thinking, you become convinced that you are right due to the presence of logical evidence of the conclusion made. It’s like a trap of logic that does not take into account our internal subjective reality, the sensory part of our personality.
One of the properties of rationality is the fear of loss, the unknown, uncertainty, incompleteness, and lack of control. These types of fears are more common among rational people than among intuitive people, because... in the world of “rationality” everything should be clear, understandable, logical, and controlled.
Practice: If you let go of your mind, you can see the depth of what is happening now and what will happen next.
To fight the rational component means to try to pay attention to the factors of the sensory sphere and emotions, to inhibit abstract thinking due to its inferiority.
2. Emotions and feelings- these are the elements that are operated by emotional thinking and/or intuition.
We define ourselves as reasonable people, but in reality this is not entirely true. Emotions and feelings, invisible to our consciousness, strongly interfere with the processes of perception and behavior. They distort perception depending on the emotion we are experiencing at the moment.
Emotions and feelings are based on informal and subjective logic. They belong to the present more than to the future or the past. Feelings allow us to become a full-fledged owner of the object, the image about which they arise.
In other words, if an object is not saturated with feelings inside my psyche, then it has no meaning for me. The more an image or object in the psyche is saturated with emotions and feelings, the more meaning it has for me. For example, if a person’s correct values and behavior algorithms are not supported by appropriate emotions and feelings, then they will never be realized. A person can talk about them, teach others, but he will not be able to fulfill them in his life. Only emotions and feelings play a complex motivational role in the psyche.
Some emotions, such as anxiety, take us into the future and force us to think about the future; emotions of resentment, sadness, shame, guilt, contempt make us think about the past. But their meaning is to shape our attitude and behavior in the present towards the future or the past.
Interaction of logic and feelings.
All the main conflicts of people lie in the incorrect functioning of feelings and logic. A separate logic, even if it is contradictory, will not create a significant conflict in the psyche if it is devoid of emotional and sensory content.
Suffering, like joy, is a matter of feelings and emotions. We cannot experience any thoughts from any thoughts until emotions are connected to them. Therefore, thoughts themselves are like inanimate material in the psyche, devoid of vital energy, without emotions and feelings.
The joint work of logic and emotions can be clearly seen in the example of one of the mechanisms of psychological defenses - rationalization. A person himself does not understand how he automatically modifies the facts in the direction he needs, justifying himself, using formal logic, but taking into account his own subjective interests at the moment. For example, making excuses to others because of feelings of guilt, avoiding responsibility, and showing selfishness. Rationalization is the basis of double standards, when we believe that we can break a certain set of rules, but others cannot.
There is no unique recipe for what kind of person you need to be - sensual or rational. Both of these types of perception of reality are necessary for a person to live a full life and to perceive it more objectively. Each situation requires its own approach. Therefore, the proportions of feeling and logic may vary depending on the specific situation. You cannot rely only on intuition, as it can be wrong, especially if you have not specifically engaged in the development of sensory thinking.
The best solution is the one that takes into account both the rational and the emotional together, but in addition to this, it also takes into account the real state of affairs.
Around the world, Americans have a strong reputation for pragmatism. “The sound of the ax is the natural philosophy of America,” writes E. Rosenstock-Hüssy. “Not inspired writers, but cunning politicians, not geniuses, but “self-made people” - that’s what is needed” (Rosenstock-Huessy; quoted in: Pigalev. 1997:). Americans tend to feel self-conscious about all things intangible. “We do not trust what cannot be counted,” writes K. Storti (1990: 65). This is where a logical, rational approach to emotional problems and situations comes from.
American researchers quite often point to anti-intellectualism as a typical American trait. For a long time, Americans have viewed culture with suspicion and condescension. They always demanded that culture serve some useful purpose. "They wanted poetry that could be recited, music that could be sung, an education that would prepare them for life. Nowhere in the world had colleges multiplied and flourished so much. And nowhere had intellectuals been so despised and relegated to such a low position" (Commager: 10).
In Russia, on the contrary, the word pragmatist has a certain negative connotation, since pragmatism is perceived as the opposite of spirituality. Russians are by nature emotional and gravitate towards extremes. "The traditional structure of the Russian character<...>developed individuals prone to sudden mood swings from elation to depression" (Mead; cited in: Stephen, Abalakina-Paap 1996: 368). A. Lurie talks about the cult of sincerity and spontaneity, characteristic of Russian culture. He believes that Russians have a richer emotional palette than Americans and have the ability to convey more subtle shades of emotions (Lourie, Mikhalev 1989: 38).
The analytical mindset of Americans seems cold and lacking personality to Russians. Americans are characterized by measured moderation, stemming from a rational mindset. Emotions do not drive the actions of Americans to the same extent as Russians. “They believe that words alone are the vehicle of meaning and ignore the more subtle role of language in communication,” writes K. Storti. The Russian penchant for self-sacrifice, the love of suffering (according to Dostoevsky) attract and attract Americans as something exotic and difficult to understand. Americans themselves tend to base their actions on facts and expediency, while Russians are motivated by feelings and personal relationships. Russians and Americans often speak different languages: the voice of reason and the voice of emotion do not always merge together. Russians consider Americans to be too businesslike and not warm enough. Americans, for their part, perceive Russian behavior as illogical and irrational.
Russian emotionality is manifested in the language at all its levels (nuanced lexical meanings, abundance of emotional vocabulary; syntactic capabilities of the language, including free word order, which allows you to express the subtlest nuances of feelings, etc.), a high degree of explicitness of expressed emotions, as well as in the choice linguistic and paralinguistic means in the process of communication. S. G. Ter-Minasova notes Russian emotionality, realized through the possibility of choosing between pronouns You And You, the presence of a large number of diminutive suffixes, personification of the surrounding world through the category of gender. It also indicates a more frequent use of the exclamation mark than in English (Ter-Minasova, 2000: 151 – 159).
American pragmatism is manifested in the size and nature of speech messages, which tend towards brevity and specificity (both in oral and written messages, which, in particular, is facilitated by such new forms of communication as e-mail, where minimalism is taken to the extreme), efficiency even in personal situations (such as making appointments or planning events), some dry style in business discourse, and energetic and assertive communication strategies.
As J. Richmond notes, during negotiations, American businessmen prefer a stage-by-stage discussion of one point after another and systematic progress towards a final agreement, Russians are inclined to a more general conceptual approach without specifics. On the other hand, the emotionality of Russians demonstrates their interest in negotiating and establishing personal contacts, which are considered an important component of any communicative interaction (Richmond 1997: 152).
Spirit of cooperation and competition
A manifestation of psychological identity is also the way a person interacts with other people. Cultures differ in their specific gravity cooperation(joint activities to achieve a goal) and competitions(competitions in the process of achieving the same goal) as two forms of human interaction.
American individualism is traditionally associated with a competitive mindset. In American culture, it is common to move forward and up the corporate ladder more through competition than through cooperation with others. According to S. Armitage, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (a phrase from the US Constitution) is defined more as personal interest rather than the pursuit of the common good (Armitage). The principle by which Americans are brought up - the so-called. "success ethic": work, get ahead, succeed ( work hard, get ahead, be successful) is alien to Russians, who believe that it is immoral to achieve success at the expense of others (Richmond 1997: 33). An American idol is a self-made man. In addition to the lexeme already given above self-made man, the word has no equivalent in Russian achiever. In American culture, both of these concepts are key.
It would be unfair to say that Russian culture is not at all characterized by a desire for competition - a clear confirmation of the opposite is the long-term competition between the two superpowers - Russia and America. However, we believe that the proportion of competition in the American communication system is greater than in the Russian one, where the predominant form of communicative interaction is cooperation. In the USA, there are a number of reasons that stimulate a competitive spirit in communication: 1) competition as a result of the long-term development of market relations in the economy; 2) multiculturalism; 3) the wide scope of the movement of women, ethnic and sexual minorities for their rights; 4) blurring of boundaries in social relations between age groups, 5) features of the national character and historical development of discourse.
If, in connection with the above, we analyze the words team(team) And team, then we will observe a big difference between these concepts. Team– something permanent and homogeneous, united for long-term cooperation by unity of spirit and aspirations. Team- a group of individuals united to achieve a specific goal. The position of group ethics, deeply rooted in the Russian consciousness, is embodied in the Soviet formula: "don't break away from the team", is alien to Americans. Teamwork as a form of cooperation in America is based on a purely pragmatic approach.
Since intercultural communication is by definition a form of human interaction, a cooperative or competitive mindset can play a key role in how relationships develop between communicants from different linguistic cultures. A clear example of the intercultural discrepancy between Russians and Americans on this parameter is the nature of the relationships between students in the academic environment. Here is the opinion of an American researcher: "<…>Russian students work very effectively in groups. They try to prepare for classes based on their personal skills and interests, and thus contribute to the success of the entire group." In situations where Russians give each other tips or share cheat sheets with each other, American students prefer to remain silent. "Responsible for another is considered impolite, probably because each person is expected to be able to cope with difficulties on his own." According to the American value system, honesty in education consists of everyone doing their own work. "American students attach great importance to fairness, or more precisely to the principle equality. Everyone should be confident that he is doing no less and no more than others" (Baldwin, 2000).
Russians, for their part, do not approve of the behavior of American students who sit away from others and cover their notebooks with their hands. Although Russian excellent students, without much enthusiasm, allow lazy people to write off what they got as a result of considerable effort, they, as a rule, cannot refuse - it will be “uncomradely”, and those around them will condemn them. Therefore, when Russian schoolchildren or students come to the attention of an American teacher, a conflict arises between value systems and attitudes towards cooperation or competition.
Participants and witnesses of business negotiations between Russians and Americans note that the nature of the interaction between them is largely determined by different attitudes towards the concept success, which is formed on the basis of the attitudes described above. Americans perceive success as achieving specific short-term goals (a successful transaction, a project, making a profit from an investment), while the Russian understanding of success involves profitable long-term cooperation - a process, not an event. From the Russian point of view, successful transactions are natural components or even by-products of this kind of relationship. Americans trust the system, and Russians trust the people, so for Russians personal trust is a necessary condition for success. As a result, Americans strive for success more purposefully, and the communication behavior of Russians seems unbusinesslike and unprofessional to them. Russians often perceive American behavior as unceremonious and short-sighted (Jones).
Witty responses to interlocutors’ remarks, which are more like a dive than an exchange of opinions, are also considered forms of manifestation of competitiveness in communication; the desire to contrast the interlocutor’s statement with one’s own statement, comparable to it in volume and amount of information; an attempt to have the last word, etc.
Optimism and pessimism
The traditional parameters for contrasting Americans and Russians are also optimism/pessimism. Americans are considered "incorrigible optimists," they believe in the ability of the individual to "forge one's own destiny," try their best to be happy, and view happiness as an imperative. K. Storti in this regard quotes a poet who said: “We are the masters of our destiny and the captains of our souls” (Storti 1994: 80). He also makes an interesting observation: in American society it is considered the norm to be happy, while for Russians, a happy mood is the norm no more than sadness and depression, for both are an integral part of life (op. cit.: 35). In the USA, being unhappy is unnatural, abnormal and indecent - under any circumstances you must maintain the appearance of success and well-being and smile. For Russians, sadness is a normal state. This gives us pleasure. They sing songs and write poems about this.
N.A. Berdyaev explained the tendency of Russians to depression and melancholy: “Huge spaces were easy for the Russian people, but organizing these spaces into the greatest state in the world was not easy for them.”<…>All external activities of the Russian people went to the service of the state. And this left a bleak stamp on the life of the Russian people. Russians hardly know how to rejoice. Russian people do not have a creative play of forces. The Russian soul is suppressed by the vast Russian fields and the vast Russian snows<…>"(Berdyaev 1990b: 65).
Americans, unlike Russians, are not inclined to complain about fate and discuss their own and other people's problems in their free time from work. It is well known that the question: “How are you?” Americans under any circumstances answer: “Fine” or “OK”. As T. Rogozhnikova rightly asserts, “distancing from other people’s problems and revelations is a kind of self-defense and protection of one’s own living space<...>You simply have to answer with a smile that everything is OK with you. It’s indecent if you have problems: solve them yourself, don’t burden anyone, otherwise you’re just a loser” (Rogozhnikova: 315).
From the Russians, to the question: “How are you?” most likely to hear: “Normal” or “Slowly.” Here Russian superstition is manifested, the habit of downplaying one’s successes (“so as not to jinx it”) and dislike of self-praise. American optimism seems disingenuous and suspicious to Russians.
Confidence in the future is another important feature of the psychological portrait of Americans. In conjunction with this, they are not afraid to make plans even for the distant future. Russians are accustomed to living in a state of uncertainty, which has its reasons in the historical development of Russia, as well as the events of recent years. “What are we?<...>We have our own horse”, which “runs across unplowed, unsteady fields, where there are no plans, but there is speed of reactions and flexibility of the psyche” (Sokolova, Professionals for cooperation 1997: 323). Russian phraseology reflects a tendency towards fatalism and uncertainty about the future: maybe, maybe; grandmother said in two; God knows; how God puts it on your soul; what God will send; this is still written on the water with a pitchfork Americans prefer to act according to the principle: Where there's a will there's a way And God helps those who help themselves.
Western businessmen who come to collaborate with Russians or teach business seminars complain that they have the hardest time convincing the Russians to plan their activities. Russians claim that they are accustomed to living and working in difficult situations and are ready to quickly adapt to changing conditions. As a result, communication does not work out and deals fail. It is also difficult to collaborate in situations that require long-term planning. Russians send invitations to important events at the last minute, while Americans have other things planned for these dates six months ago. Cooperation on grants and projects is not easy. Russian teachers cannot get used to the fact that class schedules in American colleges and universities are drawn up six months before the start of the semester.
These psychological characteristics are also manifested in the choice of communication strategies. Americans lack Russian superstition, so their statements about the future are distinguished by confidence, as opposed to Russian caution and modality. A good illustration of this point is the following excerpt from the correspondence of an American and his Russian friend (congratulations on the eve of buying a car):
American: Congratulations on your imminent car purchase!
Russian: I think by now, after having known us so long, you are expected to know how superstitious we, Russians, are. Never, never congratulate us in advance. So please, take your congratulations back!
American: I take my congratulations back, but this superstition is another thing I cannot understand about you. For an expecting mother, understandable. But a car?
This difference is one of the most noticeable and clearly manifested in MC. In terms of communication, it lies in the fact that Russians are less concerned than Americans with the desire to avoid the unknown (the American term uncertainty avoidance is one of the important concepts of MC theory in the USA).
Tolerance and patience
Two key concepts that are directly related to communication are: patience And tolerance- are often mixed in Russian linguistic culture due to the fact that they are assigned to words with the same root. In English, the corresponding concepts are largely delimited at the level of the signifier: patience And tolerance. Word tolerance used in the Russian language rather to convey a foreign cultural phenomenon than a concept organically inherent in Russian linguistic culture.
Patience is traditionally perceived as one of the most striking features of the Russian national character and is manifested in the ability to meekly endure the difficulties that befall the Russian people. Americans, on the other hand, are considered more tolerant. The origins of this phenomenon lie in the peculiarities of the historical development of the United States and the polypheny of American cultural life. The large number of immigrants with their own cultural patterns, traditions, habits, religious beliefs, etc. required a certain level of tolerance in order for the people inhabiting the United States to live in peace and harmony.
However, the degree of American tolerance should not be exaggerated. In this sense, H. S. Commager is right, who notes that American tolerance in matters of religion and morality (especially in the twentieth century) is explained not so much by openness to the perception of new ideas, but by indifference. This is conformity rather than tolerance (Commager: 413 – 414).
Manifestations of patience and tolerance in MK are relative. Americans do not understand why Russians endure domestic disorder, violation of their rights as consumers, failure to comply with laws on the part of officials, vandalism, cheating, and violation of human rights. Russians, in turn, are puzzled why Americans, who have a high degree of tolerance towards sexual minorities or some manifestations of religious hatred, do not allow an alternative point of view on issues such as women's rights, politics (for example, Chechnya), the role of the United States in the world, etc.
The different levels of tolerance are manifested in the fact that during the negotiation process, Americans are much more likely than Russians to seek compromise and smooth out contradictions, while Russians are prone to emotions and extremes. On the other hand, being more impatient, Americans expect quick decisions and actions, while Russians tend to wait, checking the reliability of their partners and establishing closer, trusting relationships with them. There are many cases where the Americans, not waiting for quick results of negotiations with the Russians, abandoned the planned deal. When discussing sensitive issues at school and university, the American audience is more explosive than the Russian one.
Many authors also emphasize that one should not confuse the totalitarianism and authoritarianism of the Russian political system in certain periods of its history with intolerance as a property of the Russian national character. “Russians respect power, but are not afraid of it” – this is the conclusion reached by J. Richmond (Richmond 1997: 35).
This conclusion, however, should not be taken as an absolute. Because relationships between superiors and subordinates are more democratic in the United States, there tends to be a greater degree of tolerance between colleagues. Coming to teach in Russian schools, American teachers cannot accept an authoritarian tone in the relationship between the school principal and teachers and the teacher with students, which sometimes becomes the cause of intercultural conflicts.
Degree of openness
Speaking about openness, it should be emphasized that American and Russian openness are phenomena of different orders.
American openness should most likely be viewed as a communication strategy, and in this sense, Americans are distinguished by greater directness, explicitness in expressing information, and peremptoryness than Russians. This American trait is expressed by the adjective outspoken, which has no Russian equivalent.
For Russians, openness in communication means a willingness to reveal your personal world to your interlocutor. “Russians are the most sociable people in the world,” writes N. A. Berdyaev. Russians have no conventions, no distance, there is a need to often see people with whom they do not even have particularly close relationships, to wrench their souls, to plunge into someone else’s life<...>, lead endless quarrels about ideological issues.<...>Every truly Russian person is interested in the question of the meaning of life and seeks communication with others in the search for meaning" (Berdyaev 1990b: 471).
An interesting observation is made by A. Hart: “In some respects, Russians are freer and more open [than Americans]. At first, my friends and I thought that the Russians were quarreling and swearing; but suddenly, to our surprise, they began to smile. Later we realized that the postures and tones that we thought were aggressive were actually expressive" (Hart 1998). Americans are more open in expressing their own opinions, Russians - emotions.
American openness in communication is often perceived by Russians as tactless and peremptory. When conducting feedback surveys after seminars and other training courses, Americans focus on shortcomings and offer criticism. Such a reaction is often a shock for Russian teachers, since the Russian approach is, first of all, a desire to express gratitude to the teacher. Russians often limit themselves to verbal criticism, and record positive reactions or, in extreme cases, cautious recommendations in writing.
3.1.2 Social identity of a linguistic personality
A man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind.
At the intersection of what disciplines did neuroeconomics emerge?
Zubarev: Economic theory has been trying to model human behavior for several centuries. In classical economics, these were models of rational behavior, where a person tried to maximize his well-being. But the economic crises that became systemic in the 20th century showed that predictions based on such models are ineffective. As a result, such areas as behavioral and experimental economics emerged. Researchers have moved away from studying ideal models and began to study empirically observed behavior.
Relatively recently, methods have emerged in neurobiology that have made it possible to non-invasively study the activity of the human brain. A logical question arose: is it possible to use knowledge about how the brain works in order to build more advanced decision-making models? Thus, we can say that neuroeconomics is the neurobiology of decision making.
Shestakova: Just recently, if you asked an economist: “How do you like your wife?”, he would answer: “Compared to what?” There were no quantitative descriptions of consumer preference phenomena that would have predictive power. Therefore, economists used relative rather than absolute units: I love this product more than another. It turned out that neuroscience can offer a quantitative description of preferences: for example, such an economic criterion as subjective utility can be measured in absolute units - the frequency of neuron discharges.
“The famous American neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied patients who had suffered a stroke in the orbitofrontal cortex, an important part of the brain’s emotional system. After the injury, the behavior of such people became less emotional. It turned out that without emotions you do not become rational and smart. On the contrary, your behavior becomes irrational."
Can you talk about how strongly emotions influence decision making?
Shestakova: Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman introduced into economics the Platonic idea of two systems - rational and irrational - that are involved in decision-making. An irrational system is fast, a rational one is evolutionarily younger, more complex, and therefore slow. When, while walking through the forest, you see a branch that looks like a snake, you first automatically jump away and only then realize that the danger was false.
Zubarev: What is called emotions is an evolutionarily more ancient and extremely important mechanism, the main task of which is to ensure survival. If you are in danger, thinking for a long time about how to avoid it is not the most effective method. The more danger you perceive when making a decision, the less likely it is that your reaction can be called reasonable and balanced.
It is important to stipulate here that it is not entirely correct to contrast the rational with the emotional. From a biological point of view, this is a single system that learns and responds to changes in the external world. Without emotions, rational behavior would be impossible. The simplest example: if, having failed, we did not experience negative emotions, then we would constantly step on the same rake, without drawing any conclusions for ourselves.
Shestakova: The famous American neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied patients who suffered a stroke in the orbitofrontal cortex, an important part of the emotional system of the brain. After the injury, the behavior of such people became less emotional. It seemed that now they would be better able to make rational decisions. Nothing like this. Unable to assess the emotional reactions of others to their actions, these people began to make stupid mistakes: for example, they began to quarrel at home and at work, which indicates a delicate balance between the rational and emotional systems. Without emotions you do not become rational and intelligent. On the contrary, your behavior becomes irrational.
“A person may have a very calm temperament, belong to an extremely phlegmatic psychotype, but this does not mean that he will not experience emotions. Lack of emotion can sometimes be an advantage. You can suffer from autism, for example, and have a good career in the stock market, since your decisions will not be subject to general hysteria."
There is an experimental paradigm in which the relationship between the rational and the emotional is studied. Imagine a game of “Ultimatum”, when you and a friend are given money, and the one who starts can divide this money as he sees fit. If you give your opponent a smaller portion, he will naturally be indignant. He has the following dilemma: you can agree to take a smaller part or refuse the money altogether - in this case, both of you will receive nothing. From the point of view of classical rationality, it is surprising that many people chose the second and were left with nothing at all, despite the fact that this was not economically feasible.
Zubarev: Our main interest is the neurobiological basis of decision making in a social context. Higher forms of social behavior arose in the process of evolution when animals developed mechanisms that allowed them to inhibit aggressive reactions towards members of their own species - and, conversely, learn to cooperate, adopt skills and knowledge from each other. Complex types of social interactions are hardly possible while there is a risk of being eaten or killed. Just like rational thinking is hardly possible in a dangerous situation.
How does this compare to people who experience no emotions at all?
Shestakova: Emotional frigidity can be different. There are people who have damage to certain areas of the brain (for example, the amygdala, or special areas of the cortex), and they cannot perceive other people's emotional expression. They look at you and cannot tell whether you are surprised or scared, and at the same time they themselves sometimes cannot experience certain emotions. They can even be taught to recognize the emotional state of other people - for example, by the movement of facial muscles, but they will never be able to understand what it is like to experience these emotions.
Zubarev: A person can have a very calm temperament, belong to an extreme phlegmatic psychotype, but this does not mean that he will not experience emotions. Lack of emotion can sometimes be an advantage. You can suffer from autism, for example, and have a good career in the stock market, since your decisions will not be subject to general hysteria. But autism is a disorder of social emotions, the ability to understand each other’s emotions.
What are the challenges and benefits of the trend toward ever-increasing choice?
Zubarev: Here I will quote the outstanding St. Petersburg scientist Batuev: “In order to perform an action, you must first of all do nothing else.” Indeed, when you are in a situation of choice, you don’t do anything else. The more degrees of freedom you have, the less you actually live and act.
Are there any other examples of situations where a person understands that he has made the only right decision, but feels unbearably bad?
Zubarev: The most common example of such a situation is various moral dilemmas - for example, the “tram dilemma”. Imagine standing on a bridge and seeing a tram that has lost control and flying towards a crowd of five people. It is within your power to switch the lever and redirect the tram to adjacent tracks where one person is standing. On the one hand, this is, of course, murder. On the other hand, this is “simple arithmetic”, like Raskolnikov’s in “Crime and Punishment”. And many say they are ready to shift the lever. On the other hand, in a similar situation, when there is a very obese person standing with you on the bridge, who you can independently push under the tram, thereby saving the lives of the same five people on the tracks, then not everyone is ready to take such an action. From a rational point of view, the effect is the same, but from an emotional point of view there is a difference.
Tell us about your area of research - the neurobiology of social influence.
Zubarev: Social influence is how other people influence our actions, actions, decisions. From an evolutionary point of view, the strategy followed by the majority of individuals in a population is preferable to all other alternatives because it has proven its superiority. Following the majority can always be considered a rational decision. In this sense, “conformity” is the only correct strategy that allows survival, because deviation from the optimal strategy is punished in the course of natural selection.
It turns out that general tastes and ideas begin to influence my physiological reaction to different things?
Zubarev: That's just the point. If the color red is in fashion now, and everyone around you loves the color red, you, too, quite sincerely begin to love it. This is a biological process, it happens automatically. At the University of California, an experiment was conducted: students rated T-shirts and were given two other people's ratings - from another group of students and from a group of people convicted of sex crimes. It turns out that identification with one group or another actually influences your choices.
“Forgotten” memories sometimes suddenly resurface in our minds. Some older people begin to remember their childhood in great detail. While we are young, we can remember little from that time. And when connections formed later begin to gradually weaken, memories laid down in early childhood suddenly appear in memory, and it turns out that they were always there.”
Do such “imposed” sympathies have a temporary effect?
Shestakova: Human behavior is a plastic system, and it is constantly changing. Developed conditioned reflexes and associations do not disappear anywhere, they are only inhibited by new associations layered on top. For example, in the practice of treating drug addicts, it often happens that after full recovery they may still suddenly experience withdrawal symptoms. Neuroeconomic models have now emerged that explain the emergence of drug addiction in the process of conditioned reflex learning.
Zubarev: “Forgotten” memories sometimes suddenly emerge in our memory. Some older people begin to remember their childhood in great detail. While we are young, we can remember little from that time. And when connections formed later begin to gradually weaken, memories laid down in early childhood suddenly appear in memory, and it turns out that they were always there.
Is there a known percentage of people who did not succumb to the majority opinion?
Zubarev: It's hard to judge. The sample, which involves brain scanning, usually consists of 20-30 people. But, taking into account all similar experiments, we can say that 5-10% of the subjects were not influenced.
Shestakova: It also seems to me that these are the tails of a normal distribution. The psychology of leadership is also built on these “black sheep.” I'm not picking on Spartacus, but when everyone thinks the sun revolves around the Earth, there are people like Galileo who say, "Look, it's not like that at all."
Jonah Lehrer's book How We Make Decisions is one of the most famous works in the field of neuroeconomics. Its author believes that the ability to make free choices makes a person human
At the same time, there is a concept - wisdom of the crowd, the genius of the crowd. One famous English aristocrat, Francis Galton, discovered that when determining the weight of an ox by eye, the average opinion of eight hundred farmers would be more accurate than the conclusion of highly educated experts. So the opinion of the crowd is quite meaningful! If we talk about the evolutionary aspects of social influence, then from the point of view of survival, the opinion of the crowd is often more correct than the opinion of the individual. If you ask a large group of people to hit the center of a target, the more shots you fire, the better the target will become. So is the majority opinion. The spread will be large, but the average will be very close to the truth.
This automatic conformity is an effective strategy during the stage of natural selection, but it can also play a cruel joke and lead to unexpected consequences in modern society. In evolution, individuals who make bad decisions die, and if you see a behavior that the majority of the population exhibits, that is what you should stick to to increase your chances of survival. On the other hand, because of this, unfortunate lemmings sometimes die in whole flocks.
