Definition of instincts of social behavior. The history of the formation of socio-psychological thought The theory of instincts was proposed

The need to revise the theory of instincts The theory of basic needs, which we discussed in previous chapters, urgently requires a revision of the theory of instincts. This is necessary at least in order to be able to differentiate instincts into more basic and less basic, healthier and less healthy, more natural and less natural. Moreover, our theory of basic needs, like other similar theories (353, 160), inevitably raises a number of problems and questions that require immediate consideration and clarification. Among them, for example, is the need to abandon the principle of cultural relativity, to resolve the issue of the constitutional conditionality of values, the need to limit the jurisdiction of associative-instrumental learning, etc. There are other considerations, theoretical, clinical and experimental, that push us to re-evaluate certain provisions of the theory of instincts, and perhaps even to its complete revision. These considerations make me skeptical about the opinion, which has become especially widespread recently among psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists. What I'm talking about here is the undeservedly high valuation of personality traits such as plasticity, flexibility and adaptability, and the exaggerated emphasis on learning ability. It seems to me that a person is much more autonomous, much more self-governing than modern psychology assumes behind him, and this opinion is based on the following theoretical and experimental considerations: 1. Cannon’s concept of homeostasis (78), Freud’s death instinct (138), etc.; 2. Experiments to study appetite, food preferences and gastronomic tastes (492, 491); 3. Levy's experiments on the study of instincts (264–269), as well as his study of maternal overprotection (263) and affective hunger; 4. Discovered by psychoanalysts are the harmful consequences of early weaning of a child from the breast and persistent inculcation of toilet habits; 5. Observations that forced many teachers, educators and child psychologists to recognize the need to provide the child with greater freedom of choice; 6. The concept underlying Rogers therapy; 7. Numerous neurological and biological data cited by supporters of the theories of vitalism (112) and emergent evolution (46), modern embryologists (435) and holisticists such as Goldstein (160), data on cases of spontaneous recovery of the body after injury. These and a number of other studies, which I will quote below, strengthen my opinion that the body has a much greater margin of safety, a much greater ability for self-defense, self-development and self-government than we have previously thought. In addition, the results of recent studies once again convince us of the theoretical necessity of postulating a certain positive tendency towards growth or self-actualization inherent in the body itself, a tendency that is fundamentally different from the balancing, conservation processes of homeostasis and from reactions to external influences. Many thinkers and philosophers, some as diverse as Aristotle and Bergson, have in one form or another, with more or less directness, already attempted to postulate this tendency, the tendency towards growth or towards self-actualization. Psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and psychologists spoke about her. Goldstein and Buhler, Jung and Horney, Fromm, Rogers and many other scientists discussed it. However, the most powerful argument in favor of the need to convert to the theory of instincts is probably the experience of psychotherapy and especially the experience of psychoanalysis. The facts that appear before the psychoanalyst are inexorable, although not always obvious; The psychoanalyst is always faced with the task of differentiating the desires (needs, impulses) of the patient, the problem of classifying them as more basic or less basic. He is constantly faced with one obvious fact: the frustration of some needs leads to pathology, while the frustration of others does not cause pathological consequences. Or: the satisfaction of some needs increases the health of the individual, while the satisfaction of others does not cause such an effect. The psychoanalyst knows that there are needs that are terribly stubborn and willful. They will not be able to cope with persuasion, cajoling, punishment, or restrictions; they do not allow alternatives; each of them can be satisfied only by one single “satisfier” internally corresponding to it. These needs are extremely demanding, they force the individual to consciously and unconsciously look for opportunities to satisfy them. Each of these needs appears before a person as a stubborn, irresistible fact that defies logical explanation; a fact that must be taken for granted, as a starting point. It is very significant that almost all existing schools of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, clinical psychology, social and child therapy, despite fundamental differences on many issues, are forced to formulate one or another concept of instinct-like needs. The experience of psychotherapy forces us to turn to the specific characteristics of a person, to his constitution and heredity, forces us to refuse to consider his external, superficial, instrumental habits and skills. Whenever the therapist is faced with this dilemma, he chooses to analyze the individual's instinctive rather than conditioned responses, and this choice is the basic platform of psychotherapy. Such an urgent need for choice is unfortunate because, and we will return to this issue later, there are other, intermediate and more important alternatives that give us greater freedom of choice - in a word, the dilemma mentioned here is not the only possible dilemma. And yet today it is already obvious that the theory of instincts, especially in the forms in which it is presented by McDougall and Freud, needs to be revised in accordance with the new requirements put forward by the dynamic approach. The theory of instincts undoubtedly contains a number of important provisions that have not yet been properly assessed, but at the same time, the obvious fallacy of its main provisions overshadows the merits of others. The theory of instincts sees a person as a self-moving system; it is based on the fact that human behavior is determined not only by external, environmental factors, but also by a person’s own nature; it argues that human nature contains a ready-made system of ultimate goals and values ​​and that in the presence of favorable environmental influences, a person strives to avoid illness, and therefore wants exactly what he really needs (what is good for him). The theory of instincts is based on the fact that all people are a single biological species, and asserts that human behavior is determined by certain motives and goals inherent in the species as a whole; she draws our attention to the fact that in extreme conditions, when the body is completely left to itself, to its internal reserves, it shows miracles of biological efficiency and wisdom, and these facts are still waiting for their researchers. Errors in the theory of instincts I consider it necessary to immediately emphasize that many errors in the theory of instincts, even the most outrageous and deserving of sharp rebuff, are in no way inevitable or inherent in this theory as such, that these errors were shared not only by followers of the theory of instincts, but also by its critics. 1. The most glaring in the theory of instincts are semantic and logical errors. Instinctivists are rightly accused of inventing instincts ad hoc, resorting to the concept of instinct whenever they cannot explain specific behavior or determine its origins. But we, knowing about this error, having been warned about it, will, of course, be able to avoid hypostatization, that is, confusing a fact with a term, and will not build shaky syllogisms. We are much more sophisticated in semantics than instinctivists. 2. Today we have new data provided to us by ethnology, sociology and genetics, and they will allow us to avoid not only ethno- and classocentrism, but also simplified social Darwinism, which the early instinctivists were guilty of and which led them into a dead end. Now we can understand that the rejection that the ethnological naivety of the instinctivists met in scientific circles was too radical, too ardent. As a result, we got the other extreme - the theory of cultural relativism. This theory, widely accepted and influential over the past two decades, is now under severe criticism (148). Undoubtedly, the time has come to once again direct our efforts to the search for cross-cultural, general species characteristics, as the instinctivists did, and I think that we will be able to avoid both ethnocentrism and hypertrophied cultural relativism. So, for example, it seems obvious to me that instrumental behavior (means) is determined by cultural factors to a much greater extent than basic needs (goals). 3. Most anti-instinctivists of the 20s and 30s, such as Bernard, Watson, Kuo and others, criticizing the theory of instincts, said mainly that instincts cannot be described in terms of individual reactions caused by specific stimuli. In essence, they accused instinctivists of adhering to a behavioristic approach, and on the whole they were right - instincts really do not fit into the simplified scheme of behaviorism. However, today such criticism can no longer be considered satisfactory, because today both dynamic and humanistic psychology proceed from the fact that no more or less significant, integral characteristic of a person, no integral form of activity can be defined only in terms of “stimulus-response”. If we claim that any phenomenon must be analyzed in its entirety, this does not mean that we call for ignoring the properties of its components. We are not against considering reflexes, for example, in the context of classical animal instincts. But at the same time, we understand that a reflex is an exclusively motor act, while instinct, in addition to the motor act, includes a biologically determined impulse, expressive behavior, functional behavior, a goal object and affect. 4. Even from the point of view of formal logic, I cannot explain why we must constantly make a choice between absolute instinct, instinct complete in all its components, and non-instinct. Why don't we talk about residual instincts, about instinct-like aspects of drive, impulse, behavior, about the degree of instinct-likeness, about partial instincts? Many authors thoughtlessly used the term “instinct,” using it to describe needs, goals, abilities, behavior, perception, expressive acts, values, emotions as such and complex complexes of these phenomena. As a result, this concept has practically lost its meaning; Almost any of the human reactions known to us, as Marmor (289) and Bernard (47) rightly note, can be classified by one or another author as instinctive. Our main hypothesis is that of all the psychological components of human behavior, only motives or basic needs can be considered innate or biologically determined (if not entirely, then at least to a certain extent). Behavior itself, abilities, cognitive and affective needs, in our opinion, do not have a biological conditionality; these phenomena are either a product of learning or a way of expressing basic needs. (Of course, many of the inherent human abilities, for example, color vision, are largely determined or mediated by heredity, but this is not about them now). In other words, there is a certain hereditary component in the basic need, which we will understand as a kind of conative need, unrelated to internal, goal-setting behavior, or as a blind, undirected urge, like the Freudian impulses of the Id. (Below we will show that the sources of satisfaction of these needs are also biologically determined, innate in nature.) Purposeful (or functional) behavior arises as a result of learning. Proponents of the theory of instincts and their opponents think in terms of “all or nothing”; they talk only about instincts and non-instincts, instead of thinking about one or another degree of instinctuality of a particular psychological phenomenon, and this is their main mistake. And in fact, is it reasonable to assume that the entire complex set of human reactions is entirely determined by heredity alone or is not at all determined by it? None of the structures underlying any integral reactions, even the simplest structure underlying any integral reaction, can be determined only genetically. Even colored peas, experiments on which allowed Mendel to formulate the famous laws of distribution of hereditary factors, need oxygen, water and fertilizing. For that matter, the genes themselves do not exist in a vacuum, but surrounded by other genes. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that no human characteristic can be absolutely free from the influence of heredity, because man is a child of nature. Heredity is a prerequisite for all human behavior, every human act and every ability, that is, whatever a person does, he can do it only because he is a man, that he belongs to the species Homo, because he is the son of his parents. Such a scientifically untenable dichotomy led to a number of unpleasant consequences. One of them was the tendency, according to which any activity, if it showed at least some component of learning, began to be considered non-instinctive and, conversely, any activity in which at least some component of instinctive heredity was manifested. But as we already know, in most, if not all human characteristics, both determinants are easily detected, and therefore the debate itself between supporters of the theory of instincts and supporters of the theory of learning, the more it begins to resemble a dispute between the party of sharp-pointed and blunt-pointed. Instinctivism and anti-instinctivism are two sides of the same coin, two extremes, two opposite ends of a dichotomy. I am confident that we, knowing this dichotomy, will be able to avoid it. 5. The scientific paradigm of instinctivist theorists was animal instincts, and this became the cause of many errors, including their inability to discern unique, purely human instincts. However, the biggest misconception that naturally follows from the study of animal instincts was, perhaps, the axiom about the special power, about the immutability, uncontrollability and uncontrollability of instincts. But this axiom, which is only true in relation to worms, frogs and lemmings, is clearly unsuitable for explaining human behavior. Even recognizing that basic needs have a certain hereditary basis, we can make a bunch of mistakes if we determine the degree of instinctuality by eye, if we consider instinctive only behavioral acts, only those characteristics and needs that do not have an obvious connection with environmental factors or are particularly powerful, clearly exceeding the power of external determinants. Why don't we admit that there are needs that, despite their instinctoid nature, are easily repressed, which can be restrained, suppressed, modified, disguised by habits, cultural norms, feelings of guilt, etc. (as this seems to be the case with the need for love)? In a word, why don’t we admit the possibility of the existence of weak instincts? It was precisely this error, precisely this identification of instinct with something powerful and unchanging, that most likely became the reason for the sharp attacks on the culturalist theory of instincts. We understand that no ethnologist can even temporarily escape the idea of ​​the unique identity of each people, and therefore he will angrily reject our assumption and join the opinion of our opponents. But if we all treated with due respect both the cultural and biological heritage of man (as the author of this book does), if we viewed culture simply as a more powerful force compared to instinctual needs (as the author of this book does), then we would For a long time we have not seen anything paradoxical in the statement that our weak, fragile instinctual needs need protection from more stable and more powerful cultural influences. I will try to be even more paradoxical - in my opinion, in some sense, instinctual needs are in some sense stronger the same cultural influences, because they constantly remind themselves, demand satisfaction, and because their frustration leads to harmful pathological consequences. That is why I argue that they need protection and patronage. To make it completely clear, I will put forward another paradoxical statement. I think that revealing psychotherapy, depth therapy and insight therapy, which combine almost all known methods of therapy, except hypnosis and behavioral therapy, have one thing in common, they expose, restore and strengthen our weakened, lost instinctoid needs and tendencies, our suppressed animal self, pushed into the far corner, our subjective biology. In the most obvious form, in the most concrete way, only the organizers of so-called personal growth seminars set such a goal. These seminars, which are both psychotherapeutic and educational, require participants to spend an extremely large amount of personal energy, full dedication, incredible effort, patience, courage, they are very painful, they can last a lifetime and still not achieve their goal. Should you teach your dog, cat or bird how to be a dog, cat or bird? The answer is obvious. Their animal impulses declare themselves loudly, clearly and are recognized unmistakably, whereas human impulses are extremely weak, indistinct, confused, we do not hear what they whisper to us, and therefore must learn to listen and hear them. It is not surprising that the spontaneity, naturalness of behavior characteristic of representatives of the animal world , we more often notice self-actualized people and less often - neurotics and not very healthy people. I am ready to declare that the disease itself is nothing more than the loss of the animal principle. A clear identification with one’s biology, “animality” paradoxically brings a person closer to greater spirituality, to greater health, to greater prudence, to greater (organic) rationality. 6. The focus on studying animal instincts led to another, perhaps even more terrible mistake. For some incomprehensible, mysterious reasons for me, which probably only historians could explain, the idea that the animal nature is a bad principle has become established in Western civilization, that our primitive impulses are selfish, selfish, hostile, bad impulses.22 Theologians call is it original sin or the voice of the devil. Freudians call it id impulses; philosophers, economists, and teachers come up with their own names. Darwin was so convinced of the bad nature of instincts that he considered struggle and competition to be the main factor in the evolution of the animal world, and completely did not notice manifestations of cooperation, which, however, Kropotkin was easily able to discern. It is this way of looking at things that makes us identify the animal nature of man with predatory, evil animals such as wolves, tigers, wild boars, vultures, and snakes. It would seem, why don’t more cute animals come to mind, for example, deer, elephants, dogs, chimpanzees? Obviously, the above-mentioned tendency is most directly related to the fact that the animal nature is understood as bad, greedy, predatory. If it was so necessary to find a resemblance to man in the animal world, then why not choose an animal that really resembles man, for example, an ape? I maintain that the monkey as such is, in general, a much nicer and more pleasant animal than the wolf, hyena or worm, and that it also possesses many of the qualities that we traditionally classify as virtues. From the point of view of comparative psychology, we, to be honest, are more like a monkey than some kind of reptile, and therefore I will never agree with the fact that the animal nature of man is evil, predatory, bad (306). 7. On the question of the immutability or non-modifiability of hereditary traits, the following must be said. Even if we assume that there are such human traits that are determined only by heredity, only by genes, then they are also subject to change and, perhaps, even more easily than any others. A disease such as cancer is largely due to hereditary factors, and yet scientists do not give up trying to look for ways to prevent and treat this terrible disease. The same can be said about intelligence, or IQ. There is no doubt that to a certain extent intelligence is determined by heredity, but no one will dispute the fact that it can be developed with the help of educational and psychotherapeutic procedures. 8. We must allow for the possibility of greater variability in the field of instincts than instinctivist theorists allow. It is obvious that the need for knowledge and understanding is not found in all people. In intelligent people it appears as an urgent need, while in the weak-minded it is represented only in a rudimentary form or is absent altogether. The same is true with the maternal instinct. Levy's research (263) has revealed a very large variability in the expression of the maternal instinct, so much so that it can be said that some women do not have a maternal instinct at all. Specific talents or abilities that appear to be genetically determined, such as musical, mathematical, artistic abilities (411), are found in very few people. Unlike animal instincts, instinctoid impulses can disappear and atrophy. So, for example, a psychopath has no need for love, no need to love and be loved. The loss of this need, as we now know, is permanent and irreplaceable; psychopathy cannot be treated, at least not with the help of the psychotherapeutic techniques that we currently have at our disposal. Other examples can be given. A study of the effects of unemployment conducted in an Austrian village (119), as well as a number of other similar studies, showed that prolonged unemployment has not just a demoralizing, but even a destructive effect on a person, since it suppresses some of his needs. Once suppressed, these needs can fade away forever, they will not awaken again even if external conditions improve. Similar data were obtained from observations of former prisoners of Nazi concentration camps. One can also recall the observations of Bateson and Mead (34), who studied the culture of the Balineses. An adult Balinese cannot be called “loving” in our Western sense of the word, and he, apparently, does not feel the need for love at all. Balinese babies and children react to a lack of love with violent, inconsolable crying (this crying was captured by the researchers’ film camera), which means we can assume that the absence of “love impulses” in the adult Balinese is an acquired trait. 9. I have already said that as we climb the phylogenetic ladder, we discover that instincts and the ability to adapt, the ability to flexibly respond to changes in the environment begin to act as mutually exclusive phenomena. The more pronounced the ability to adapt, the less distinct the instincts. It was this pattern that became the cause of a very serious and even tragic (from the point of view of historical consequences) misconception - a misconception whose roots go back to antiquity, and whose essence boils down to the opposition of the impulsive principle to the rational. Few people think that both of these principles, both of these tendencies are instinctive in nature, that they are not antagonistic, but synergistic with each other, that they direct the development of the organism in the same direction. I believe that our need for knowledge and understanding can be as conative as our need for love and belonging. The traditional instinct/mind dichotomy is based on a misdefinition of instinct and a misdefinition of reason—definitions in which one is defined as the opposite of the other. But if we redefine these concepts in accordance with what we know today, we will find that they are not only not opposite to each other, but also not so different from one another. A healthy mind and a healthy impulse are directed towards the same goal; in a healthy person they in no way contradict each other (but in a patient they can be opposite, oppositional to each other). The scientific evidence we have indicates that it is essential for a child's mental health to feel secure, accepted, loved and respected. But this is exactly what the child wants (instinctively). It is in this sense, sensually and scientifically demonstrable, that we declare that instinctoid needs and rationality, reason are synergistic and not antagonistic to each other. Their apparent antagonism is nothing more than an artifact, and the reason for this lies in the fact that the subject of our study is, as a rule, sick people. If our hypothesis is confirmed, then we will be able to finally solve the eternal problem of humanity, and questions like: “What should a person be guided by?” instinct or reason? or: “Who is the head of the family—the husband or the wife?” will disappear by themselves, lose their relevance due to obvious ridiculousness. 10. Pastor (372) convincingly demonstrated to us, especially with his deep analysis of the theories of McDougall and Thorndike (I would add here the theory of Jung and, perhaps, the theory of Freud), that the theory of instincts gave rise to many conservative and even anti-democratic in their essence social, economic and political consequences caused by the identification of heredity with fate, with a merciless, inexorable fate. But this identification is wrong. A weak instinct can be revealed, expressed and satisfied only if the conditions predetermined by culture are favorable to it; bad conditions suppress and destroy instinct. For example, in our society it is not yet possible to satisfy weak hereditary needs, from which we can conclude that these conditions require significant improvement. However, the relationship discovered by Pastor (372) can in no way be considered either natural or inevitable; Based on this correlation, we can only once again state that in order to assess social phenomena, it is necessary to pay attention not to one, but at least to two continua of phenomena. The opposition expressed by the “liberalism-conservatism” continuum is already giving way to such pairs of continual antagonisms as “socialism-capitalism” and “ democracy-authoritarianism", and we can trace this trend even in the example of science. For example, today we can talk about the existence of such approaches to the study of society and man as exogenous-authoritarian-socialist, or exogenous-social-democratic, or exogenous-democratic-capitalist, etc. In any case, if we consider that the antagonism between a person and society, between personal and public interests is natural, inevitable and insurmountable, then this will be an avoidance of solving the problem, an unlawful attempt to ignore its very existence. The only reasonable justification for this point of view can be considered the fact that in a sick society and in a sick organism this antagonism really takes place. But even in this case, it is not inevitable, as Ruth Benedict brilliantly proved (40, 291, 312). And in a good society, at least in the societies that Benedict described, this antagonism is impossible. Under normal, healthy social conditions, personal and social interests in no way contradict each other; on the contrary, they coincide with each other, are synergistic with each other. The reason for the persistence of this false idea of ​​the dichotomy of the personal and the social is only that the subjects of our study so far have been mainly sick people and people living in poor social conditions. Naturally, among such people, among people living in such conditions, we inevitably discover a contradiction between personal and social interests, and our trouble is that we interpret it as natural, as biologically programmed. 11. One of the shortcomings of the instinct theory, like most other theories of motivation, was its inability to discover the dynamic interrelationship and hierarchical system that unites human instincts, or instinctual impulses. As long as we consider impulses as independent formations independent of each other, we will not be able to get closer to solving many pressing problems; we will constantly revolve in a vicious circle of pseudo-problems. In particular, this approach does not allow us to treat a person’s motivational life as a holistic, unitary phenomenon, and condemns us to compiling all kinds of lists and lists of motives. Our approach equips the researcher with the principle of value choice, the only reliable principle that allows us to consider one need as higher than another, or as more important or even more basic than another. The atomistic approach to motivational life, on the contrary, inevitably provokes us to reasoning about the death instinct, the desire for Nirvana, for eternal peace, for homeostasis, for balance, since the only thing that a need in itself is capable of, if it is considered in isolation from other needs, is it is to demand one’s own satisfaction, that is, one’s own destruction. But it is absolutely obvious to us that, having satisfied a need, a person does not find peace, much less happiness, because the place of the satisfied need is immediately taken by another need, which was not felt until now, weak and forgotten. Now she can finally make her claims known with all her might. There is no end to human desires. It makes no sense to dream of absolute, complete satisfaction. 12. It is not far from the thesis about the baseness of instinct to the assumption that the richest instinctual lives are lived by the mentally ill, neurotics, criminals, feeble-minded and desperate people. This assumption naturally follows from the doctrine according to which consciousness, reason, conscience and morality are external, outward, ostentatious phenomena, not characteristic of human nature, imposed on a person in the process of “cultivation”, necessary as a restraining factor of his deep nature, necessary in the same sense as shackles are necessary for the inveterate criminal. In the end, the role of civilization and all its institutions - schools, churches, courts and law enforcement agencies, designed to limit the base, unbridled nature of instincts - is formulated in full accordance with this false concept. This mistake is so serious, so tragic that we can put it on the same level as such misconceptions as belief in the chosenness of the supreme power, as blind conviction in the exclusive rightness of one or another religion, as the denial of evolution and the holy belief that the earth is a pancake lying on three pillars. All past and present wars, all manifestations of racial antagonism and religious intolerance that the press reports to us, are based on one doctrine or another, religious or philosophical, inspiring a person with disbelief in himself and in other people, degrading the nature of man and his capabilities. It is curious, but such an erroneous view of human nature is held not only by instinctivists, but also by their opponents. All the optimists who hope for a better future for man - environmental mentalists, humanists, Unitarians, liberals, radicals - all renounce the theory of instincts with horror, mistakenly believing that it is it that dooms humanity to irrationality, war, antagonism and the law of the jungle. Instinctivists, persistent in their delusion, do not want to abandon the principle of fatal inevitability. Most of them have long lost all optimism, although there are those who actively profess a pessimistic view of the future of humanity. An analogy can be drawn here with alcoholism. Some people slide into this abyss quickly, others slowly and gradually, but the result is the same. It is not surprising that Freud is often put on a par with Hitler, for their positions are largely similar, and there is nothing strange in the fact that such remarkable people as Thorndike and MacDougall, guided by the logic of base instinctuality, came to anti-democratic conclusions of the Hamiltonian kind. But in fact, it is enough just to stop considering instinctoid needs as obviously base or bad, it is enough to at least agree that they are neutral or even good, and then hundreds of pseudo-problems, over which we have been unsuccessfully racking our brains for many years, will disappear by themselves. If we accept this concept, then our attitude towards learning will radically change, it is even possible that we will abandon the very concept of “learning”, which obscenely brings together the processes of education and training. Every step that brings us closer to agreement with our heredity, with our instinctual needs, will mean recognition of the need to satisfy these needs and will reduce the likelihood of frustration. A child who is moderately deprived, that is, not yet fully cultivated, who has not yet parted with his healthy animal nature, tirelessly strives for admiration, security, autonomy and love, and does this, of course, in his own way, in a childish way. How do we meet his efforts? An experienced adult, as a rule, reacts to children’s antics with the words: “Yes, he’s showing off! “or: “He just wants to attract attention!”, and these words, this diagnosis automatically mean a refusal of attention and participation, an order not to give the child what he is looking for, not to notice him, not to admire him, not to applaud him. However, if we learn to reckon with these childhood calls for love, admiration and adoration, if we learn to treat these pleas as legitimate demands, as manifestations of a natural human right, if we respond to them with the same sympathy with which we treat his complaints about hunger , thirst, pain or cold, then we will stop dooming him to frustration, we will become a source for him to satisfy these needs. Such an educational regime will entail one single, but very important consequence - the relationship between parent and child will become more natural, spontaneous, cheerful, in them there will be more affection and love. Do not think that I am advocating total, absolute permissiveness. Pressure of inculturation, that is, education, discipline, the formation of social skills, preparation for future adult life, awareness of the needs and desires of other people, to some extent, of course, is necessary, but the process of education will cease to irritate us and the child only when he is surrounded by an atmosphere of affection, love and respect for each other. And, of course, there can be no question of any indulgence in neurotic needs, bad habits, drug addiction, fixations, the need for the familiar or any other non-instinctoid needs. Finally, we must not forget that short-term frustrations, life experiences, even tragedies and misfortunes can have beneficial and healing consequences.

William McDougall(1871-1938) - author of the theory of instincts, American psychologist (English by birth). In 1908, his book “Introduction to Social Psychology” was published.

Instinct - an inherited or congenital predisposition that determines in its owner the ways to educate and pay attention to a certain class of objects, to be emotionally aroused by specific qualities of these objects and to act in a very specific way or, at least, to experience an urge to such actions.

Functions of instincts:

urge,

Activity management.

McDougall tried to reduce all behavior to motivational factors. Any human behavior is purposeful and focused on achieving the intended goal state.

Instinct includes 3 components:

Cognitive component – a predisposition to selective perception of the surrounding world depending on specific states of the body (a hungry animal notices only food).

Emotional component – the core of instinct is a specific emotional state characteristic only of a given subject that accompanies each instinct.

Motor component – instrumental type activity, i.e. in ways to achieve the goal.

Over time, McDougall replaced the concept of instinct with the concept inclination.

Addiction – this is 1) disposition (predisposition); being actualized, the disposition gives rise to 2) an active tendency, desire, impulse, attraction to a certain goal; this tendency is desire.

Psychoanalytic theory of Sigmund Freud

Based on biodeterminism, i.e. at the heart of behavior everyone living beings lies the dynamics of drives.

Sigmund Freud(1856-1939) - Austrian psychologist, creator of psychoanalysis. In 1915, his work “Attraction and Their Fates” was published, where the theory of motivation was developed.

Freud gives the psyche the main function associated with the perception of internal stimuli. Needs generate the energy of irritation, which is subjectively experienced as traumatic and unpleasant. The subject tries to get rid of this energy or reduce it as much as possible, i.e. S. Freud's motivational theory is based on two principles:

1. Hedonic – any decrease in the level of accumulated irritation is accompanied by the experience of satisfaction, and any increase is accompanied by dissatisfaction.

2. Homeostatic - The higher the level of accumulated irritation (tension), the lower the balance of the body.

The motivational process is aimed at reducing the energy of attraction. Self ATTRACTION consists of elements:

TENSION – motor moment of drive – the sum of forces to which drive corresponds

GOAL – associated with satisfaction, which can only be achieved by eliminating the irritable state of the source of attraction

OBJECT OF ATTRACTION - something with the help or in which attraction can achieve its goal

SOURCE OF ATTRACTION - that somatic process in an organ or part of the body, the irritation from which is represented in the mental life of the subject as an attraction.

All mental life– this is the dynamics of conflicts, which are based on the needs of the “I” aimed at maintaining its existence.

The third theoretical premise of the modern science of human communication can be considered the theory of instincts of social behavior, which arose from the idea of ​​evolutionism of Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and G. Spencer (1820–1903).

At the center of this direction is the theory of W. McDougall (1871–1938), an English psychologist who has worked in the USA since 1920. The main theses of his theory are as follows.

1. Personality psychology plays a decisive role in the formation of social psychology.

2. The main reason for the social behavior of individuals is innate instincts. Instincts are understood as an innate psychophysiological predisposition to perceive external objects of a certain class, evoking emotions and a readiness to react in one way or another. In other words, the action of instinct presupposes the occurrence of an emotional reaction, motive or action. Moreover, each instinct corresponds to a very specific emotion. The researcher paid special attention to the herd instinct, which generates a sense of belonging and thereby underlies many social instincts.

This concept has undergone some evolution: by 1932, McDougall abandoned the term “instinct”, replacing it with the concept of “predisposition”. The number of the latter was increased from 11 to 18, but the essence of the doctrine did not change. Unconscious needs for food, sleep, sex, parental care, self-affirmation, comfort, etc. were still considered the main driving force of human behavior, the foundation of social life. However, gradually the American intellectual climate changed: scientists became disillusioned with the rather primitive idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe immutability of human nature, and the scales tipped in favor of the other extreme - the leading role of the environment.

Behaviorism

The new doctrine, called behaviorism, dates back to 1913 and is based on the experimental study of animals. Its founders are considered to be E. Thorndike (1874–1949) and J. Watson (1878–1958), who were strongly influenced by the works of the famous Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlova.

Behaviorism, the science of behavior, proposes a rejection of the direct study of consciousness, and instead, the study of human behavior according to the “stimulus-response” scheme, that is, external factors are brought to the fore. If their influence coincides with innate reflexes of a physiological nature, the “law of effect” comes into force: this behavioral reaction is reinforced. Consequently, by manipulating external stimuli, any desired forms of social behavior can be brought to automaticity. At the same time, not only the innate inclinations of the individual are ignored, but also the unique life experience, attitudes and beliefs. In other words, the focus of researchers is the connection between stimulus and response, but not their content. However, behaviorism has had a significant influence on sociology, anthropology and, most importantly, management.

In neobehaviorism (B. Skinner, N. Miller, D. Dollard, D. Homans, etc.), the traditional “stimulus-response” scheme is complicated by the introduction of intermediate variables. From the point of view of the problem of business communication, the theory of social exchange by D. Homans is of greatest interest, according to which the frequency and quality of reward (for example, gratitude) is directly proportional to the desire to help the source of a positive stimulus.

Freudianism

A special place in the history of social psychology is occupied by S. Freud (1856–1939), an Austrian doctor and psychologist. Freud lived in Vienna almost his entire life, combining teaching work with medical practice. A scientific internship in Paris in 1885 with the famous psychiatrist J. Charcot and a trip to give lectures to America in 1909 had a significant influence on the development of his teaching.

Western Europe at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. was characterized by social stability, lack of conflict, an excessively optimistic attitude towards civilization, boundless faith in the human mind and the possibilities of science, and the bourgeois hypocrisy of the Victorian era in the sphere of morality and moral relations. Under these conditions, the young and ambitious Freud, brought up on the ideas of natural science and hostile to “metaphysics,” began to study mental illness. At that time, physiological deviations were considered the cause of mental disorders. From Charcot, Freud became acquainted with the hypnotic practice of treating hysteria and began to study the deep layers of the human psyche.
He concluded that nervous diseases are caused by unconscious mental traumas, and connected these traumas with the sexual instinct, sexual experiences. Scientific Vienna did not accept Freud's discoveries, but a trip to the USA with lectures on psychoanalysis made a revolution in science.

Let us consider those provisions that are directly related to the patterns of human communication and behavior in society and, to one degree or another, have stood the test of time.

model of mental structure of personality, according to Freud, consists of three levels: “It”, “I”, “Super-Ego” (in Latin “Id”, “Ego”, “Super-Ego”).

Under " It ” refers to the deepest layer of the human psyche, inaccessible to consciousness, the initially irrational source of sexual energy, called libido. “It” obeys the principle of pleasure, constantly strives to realize itself and sometimes breaks into consciousness in the figurative form of dreams, in the form of slips and slips. Being a source of constant mental tension, “It” is socially dangerous, since the uncontrolled implementation by each individual of his instincts can lead to the death of human communication. In practice, this does not happen, since a “dam” in the form of our “I” stands in the way of forbidden sexual energy.

“I ”subjects to the principle of reality, is formed on the basis of individual experience and is designed to promote the self-preservation of the individual, its adaptation to the environment based on the containment and suppression of instincts.

“I”, in turn, is controlled by “ Super-ego ”, which refers to social prohibitions and values, moral and religious norms internalized by the individual. The “super-ego” is formed as a result of the child’s identification with the father, and acts as a source of guilt, remorse, and dissatisfaction with oneself. This leads to a paradoxical conclusion that there are no mentally normal people, everyone is neurotic, since everyone has an internal conflict, a stressful situation.

In this regard, the mechanisms proposed by Freud for relieving stress, in particular repression and sublimation, are of practical interest. Their essence can be illustrated as follows. Imagine a hermetically sealed steam boiler in which the pressure steadily increases. An explosion is inevitable. How to prevent it? Either strengthen the walls of the boiler as much as possible, or open the safety valve and release the steam. The first is repression, when unwanted feelings and desires are pushed into the area of ​​the unconscious, but even after displacement they continue to motivate the emotional state and behavior and remain a source of experiences. The second is sublimation: sexual energy is catalyzed, that is, transformed into external activity that does not contradict socially significant values, for example, artistic creativity.

Thus, based on the above, it can be stated that Social psychology illuminates the patterns of emergence, development and manifestation of socio-psychological phenomena. Socio-psychological phenomena arise and manifest themselves at different levels (macro-, meso-, micro-), in different spheres (state, economy, society, individual) and conditions (normal, complicated and extreme).

To understand and explain the science of socio-psychological phenomena in society, the scientific community has identified 3 approaches to the subject of social psychology:

The 1st defines that Social psychology is the science of “mass phenomena of the psyche”, which means various phenomena from the psychology of classes and communities to the study of morals, traditions, customs of groups, collectives, etc.;

2nd explores social psychology, meaning by this the study of social consciousness, through the study of the social psychology of the individual;

3rd attempt to synthesize the two previous approaches, studying mass mental processes and the position of the individual in the group.

The unit of analysis in social psychology is “interaction” as a result of which socio-psychological phenomena are formed. Essentially they are interaction effects. They act as a universal concept of social psychology, the unit of its analysis.

Questions for self-control

1. From what branches of knowledge did social psychology emerge as a science?

2. What can be identified as an object and subject of research in social psychology?

3. What do you know about national psychology and its significance for the practice of use in business communication?

4. What is the essence of crowd psychology? What are the features of crowd manipulation?

5. Tell us about the unconscious mechanisms of personality according to the teachings of S. Freud.

6. How are behaviorism and modern concepts of personnel management related?

Control test

1. Behaviorism is a doctrine

A) about human behavior based on the study of his life experience

B) about behavior caused by an external stimulus

C) about the behavior of a person guided by a conscious attitude to what is happening.

2. The conclusion that various forms of the social psyche are a qualitatively new formation, and not the average statistical sum of individual psyches, was first formulated:

A) in the psychology of peoples

B) in mass psychology

B) in crowd psychology

3. The significance of the psychology of peoples is that:

A) within the framework of this concept, the existence of a collective psyche and consciousness that is not reducible to individual consciousness is substantiated

B) this theory shows the existence of phenomena that are generated not by individual, but by collective consciousness

C) in likening oneself to another person

4.The direct creators of mass psychology were:

A) V. McDougal

B) M. Lazarus, G. Steinthal

B) G. Lebon, G. Steinthal

G) S. Siegele, G. Lebon

5. Functionalism as a direction in social psychology arose under the influence of:

A) K. Marx’s theory of surplus value

B) concepts of psychology of peoples and psychology of masses

IN) the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin and the theory of social Darwinism of G. Spencer

D) behaviorism

6. The frequency and quality of rewards (for example, gratitude) are directly proportional to the desire to provide help. The source of positive incentive refers to:

A) social exchange theories

B) neo-behaviourism

B) theories of mass psychology

7. The central idea of ​​behaviorism in social psychology is:

A) the idea of ​​the inevitability of influence

B) the idea of ​​punishment

IN) idea of ​​reinforcement

D) the idea of ​​measurement

8. Which of the following statements does not apply to the prescriptions described by E. Berne

A) “be perfect”

B) "hurry up"

B) "be strong"

D) “be yourself”

9. The concepts of mass psychology contain important socio-psychological patterns:

A) interactions between people in a crowd

B) the influence of mass culture on public and mass consciousness

B) relations between the masses and the elite

10. The concept of social influence was introduced into social psychology by:

A) J. Watson

B) Allport

B) Mac Dougall

A) Muzafer Sheriff

B) Kurt Lewin

B) Lion Festinger

11. Typical for an individual in a crowd:

A) impersonality

B) a sharp predominance of feelings, loss of intelligence
B) loss of personal responsibility

G) all of the above

12. “Psychology of Nations” as a theoretical school has developed:

A) in Germany

B) in France

B) in England

Lecture 2. PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR OF GROUPS

Topic 2.1. History of group research in social psychology

“Simple social contact generates a stimulation of instinct that increases the efficiency of each individual worker.” (K. Marx)

The life of most people passes in certain groups (growing up, socialization, training, acquiring skills, abilities, professions) for each of us is associated with joining more and more new groups. Belonging to a group is an indispensable condition for human existence and the preservation of mental health.

The theorists of mass psychology G. Tarde and G. Le Bon convincingly proved that the behavior and psyche of an individual individual and one who is in the mass, among other people, are very different. A gathering of two people already forms a mass. At the origins of the socio-psychological and actually sociological understanding of groups is the psychology of the masses.

Social psychology turned to the problem of group, mass behavior only several decades after mass psychology, in the 1930s. Initially, there was a tradition in social psychology that prescribed the study of social behavior at the level of action of individuals, rather than groups. Psychologists focused on personal perception, individual attitudes, actions, interpersonal interactions, etc.

Some psychologists argued that groups as carriers of a special psychology do not exist at all, that groups are some kind of fiction created by the imagination. Thus, in particular, Floyd Allport argued that a group is only a set of values, thoughts, habits shared by people, i.e. everything that is simultaneously present in the heads of several people. This point of view was called in the history of social psychology personalistic or purely psychological approach. N. Tritlett, W. McDougall, M. Sheriff, S. Asch, L. Festinger, J. Homans continued this tradition, but their approach was less radical.

In parallel with personalism, social psychology developed sociological tradition coming from E. Durkheim, V. Pareto, M. Weber, G. Tarde. Proponents of this approach argued that all social behavior cannot be adequately explained and understood if studied only at the level of individual behavior. Therefore, groups and group processes need to be studied in themselves, since the psychology of groups cannot be understood on the basis of individual psychology.

Active research on groups began in the 1930s. It was then that Kurt Lewin conducted the first laboratory studies of group processes (“group dynamics”) in the United States. In social psychology, thanks to Levin, concepts such as “group cohesion” and “type of leadership” appeared; he also formulated the first definition of a group (Shikherev P.N., 1999, p. 89).

In the 1950-60s There was an intensive convergence of the above-mentioned trends in social psychology - the personalist and sociological schools. The contradictions were gradually overcome. This unifying trend did not arise by chance. The problem of studying the patterns of group processes has acquired current practical significance. 75% of all small group research was funded by industry and military organizations. The interest of government agencies, businessmen and financiers in the study of groups was dictated by the need to improve methods of managing groups-organizations, and through them, individuals.

Number of publications concerning group problems in world literature from 1897 to 1959. amounted to 2112 items, but from 1959 to 1969. it increased by 2000, and from 1967 to 1972. for another 3400, 90% of all publications related to group research came from the United States. (Semechkin N.I., 2004, p. 292).

Group Definition

As social psychology developed, the denial of groups as carriers of a special psychology was overcome. But other problems remained. One of them is related to the definition of what a group is.

The diversity of groups of which we are members best confirms that groups are not fictions, not phantoms of consciousness, but active psychological subjects of social reality. The heterogeneity of groups makes it difficult to identify something common in them in order to define the group. Obviously, not every collection of people, even those gathered in one place, can be considered a group.

What makes a group a group? What is the most common characteristic of a group? E. Berne argues that this is a kind of awareness of belonging and non-belonging, i.e. "We" and "You". Australian social psychologist John Turner said essentially the same thing, arguing that group members should perceive themselves as “We” as opposed to “They” (Myers D., 1997).

But this is too general a criterion. It does not allow us to understand what, in fact, makes a certain set of individuals perceive themselves as “We”.

The most indisputable criterion for defining a group is that proposed by Kurt Lewin, who assumed that the essence of a group lies in the interdependence of its members. Therefore, a group is a “dynamic whole”, and a change in one part of it entails changes in any other part. Group cohesion is determined by the degree of interdependence and interaction of all parts and members of the group.

Most modern definitions of a group are derived from the formulation proposed by K. Levin. Group is an association formed of two or more people who interact with each other with a certain amount of activity.

Availability of structure;

Availability of organization;

Active interaction between group members;

Awareness of oneself as members of a group as a single whole, as “We”, in contrast to all other people who are perceived as “They”.

Thus, a group emerges whenever at least two people begin to interact with each other, fulfilling their roles and observing certain norms and rules.

A group appears when the interaction of people leads to the formation of a group structure. Moreover, it is not necessary that people be in close, direct interaction. They may be at a great distance from each other, rarely or perhaps never see each other, and yet form a group.

Joseph McGras believes that groups can differ in the degree to which group characteristics are expressed in them: the number of social interactions, the degree of influence of group members on each other, the number of group norms and rules, the presence of mutual obligations, etc. (McGrath, 1984)

All this will determine the degree of cohesion of the group and the longevity of its existence.

Band size

A group assumes the interdependence and interaction of its members, as a result of which they have common experiences, develop and establish emotional connections, and also form certain group roles. Groups differ from each other in many ways. They can vary in size, composition, i.e. by “appearance” - age, gender, ethnicity, social affiliation of its members. In addition, the groups differ from each other structurally.

Throughout the history of studying groups, researchers have tried to establish the optimal group size needed to solve certain problems. The problems solved by different groups differ significantly: the family group has one problem, and the sports group has another problem. Therefore, raising the question of the optimal group size is pointless: before talking about the size of the group, it is necessary to clarify which specific group we are talking about.

The question of group size is a completely pragmatic one. For example, how many people should an academic student group consist of so that each student and the group as a whole can make the most effective use of the university’s resources.

American social psychologists have traditionally dealt with the problem of the optimal size of two types of groups. Firstly, groups designed to solve intellectual problems (P. Slater - 5 people, A. Osborne - from 5 to 10); and, secondly, a jury (a compact jury of 6 people can quickly reach unanimity).

Thus, group size is not just a descriptive characteristic, it is an important factor influencing the course of intragroup processes: it is difficult for a large group to make a unanimous decision.

What should be the size of a group that works in extreme conditions (submarine, space, border outpost, etc.)? In short, all those places where people are in forced group isolation for a long time.

Often, isolation of relatively small groups due to various reasons (economic, psychological illiteracy, indifference, etc.) leads to conflicts, mental disorders and illnesses, suicides and murders among members of isolated groups. The famous polar explorer R. Amundsen called this phenomenon “expedition frenzy,” and another, no less famous traveler T. Heyerdahl called it “acute expedition fever.”

Family group size touches on another aspect of this problem. It is known that the traditional family consisted of several generations, which ensured its stability. The modern nuclear family (parents and children until adulthood) is small in number and therefore unstable.

Of course, in this case it is not only the size of the family group itself that is important, since it is a matter of family values ​​- i.e. attitudes towards family as a social value. However, the large size of the family group can be considered as a factor in the self-preservation of the family. (Matsumoto, 2002).

Thus, it is inappropriate to raise the question of the optimal group size in general, regardless of what kind of group it is. First, there is no single criterion for the success and effectiveness of all groups in all respects and under all conditions. Large groups can contribute to a decrease in the activity of their members and a deterioration in the psychological climate, but in a large group it is easier to find like-minded people. However, if in a small group a person always risks being left alone, then in a large group it is easier for him to find like-minded people. Secondly, the size of the group should be related to the complexity of the problem being solved. Some tasks can be accomplished alone, while others require the participation of many people. Third, the size of the group should depend on how structured the task is, e.g. to what extent it can be decomposed into subtasks.

In addition, when determining the size of a group, consideration must be given to its type, the circumstances in which it will operate, and the likely duration of its existence. (Semechkin N.I., 2004, p. 297).

Group structure. Role, role expectations and status

The structure of a group is a system of group roles, norms and relationships between group members. All these elements of the group structure can arise spontaneously, in the process of formation of the group, but can also be established by the organizers of the group. The structure of the group ensures the unity of group members and supports its functioning and vital activity. In addition, since each group has its own structural characteristics, the structure is an expression of the specificity of a particular group, its orientation, essence, stability and constancy.

Concerning roles, then it is associated with the performance of certain functions by a person occupying a certain social position.

Role Expectations- these are ideas about what a person playing a specific social role should do. Role division is a characteristic of group structure.

Small groups are divided into formal and informal. The main difference between them is that the former are created and organized purposefully, while the latter usually arise spontaneously. Depending on whether the group is formal or informal, role division occurs either spontaneously or purposefully.

In formal groups, roles are assigned and prescribed - for example, a formal leader is appointed. But in any formal group, spontaneous role distribution also occurs in parallel. Thus, along with the formal leader, an informal leader appears in the group, who has even greater influence.

When a group is just being formed, the roles of its members are not clearly defined, but then a rather ambiguous process of identifying certain roles occurs. For example, in any student group, “the comedian”, “the smartest”, “the dumbest”, “the fairest”, “the most cunning”, “sexy”, etc. are determined. group member. When the group has already formed and has been functioning for some time, then a certain place, usually not very prestigious, may be assigned in advance for a newcomer who has just joined the group.

In any social society, a certain system of subordination of authorities is always built, so people are characterized by a “struggle for status.” Because not all roles are equally respected and therefore have equal status. The degree of status depends on the age, level of education, gender, cultural background of the group members, the nature of its activities, focus, etc. (Maurice, 2002).

Sociologists J. Berger, S. Rosenholtz and J. Zelditch developed the theory of status characteristics. This theory explains how status differences arise. According to this theory, the basis for inequality of status is the differences that individuals have as members of a group. Any characteristic of a person that distinguishes him from others can become status. Various studies have found that such characteristics as abilities, military ranks and titles, assertiveness, demonstrated concern for group goals, etc. can be status-related. In general, researchers have found that in Western cultures people have a greater chance of obtaining high status men, whites, older people, as opposed to women, blacks and young people.

Control questions

1. How does a group differ from a random, or aggregate, gathering of people?

2. What elements make up the group structure?

3. What is the essence of the group, according to K. Levin?

4. Name the main characteristics of the group.

5. Is it right to raise the question of the optimal group size?

6. Why does team size become vital when the group is working under extreme conditions?

7. Why can the size of the group be considered as a factor in the self-preservation of the family?

Control test

1. Small group is

A) a small association of people connected by direct interaction.

B) a spontaneously arising accumulation of people in direct contact, characterized by the absence of a common goal.

C) a small association of people not connected by direct interaction.

2. Group pressure is

A) analysis of the influence of the organization on the socio-psychological structure and development of the team.

B) the process of influence of attitudes, norms, values ​​and behavior of group members on the opinions and behavior of the individual.

IN) changes in opinions, attitudes and behavior of individuals under the influence of others.

3. Social stereotype is

A) a relatively stable and simplified image of a social object - a group, person, event, phenomenon.

B) the tendency to overestimate the extent to which a person's behavior is influenced by internal, dispositional factors and to underestimate the role of situational factors.

C) an attitude that prevents adequate perception of a message or action.

4. Social perception is

A) perception, understanding and evaluation by people of social objects, primarily themselves, other people, social groups.

5. Sociometry - method

A) collecting information about objective or subjective facts from the words of the interviewee;

B) collecting information through direct, targeted and systematic perception and recording of socio-psychological phenomena;

IN) diagnostics of the socio-psychological structure of relationships in small groups

6. A situation in which the fact of the presence of another enhances the productivity of activity. called

A) social facilitation

B) social inhibition

B) risk shift

D) causal attribution

7. A situation in which the obviousness of the correct decision is sacrificed for the unanimity of the group

A) social facilitation

B) group polarization

B) risk shift

G) group thinking

8. Social status is

A) the position of the subject in the system of interpersonal relations that determine his duties, rights and privileges.

B) changes in the opinions, attitudes and behavior of individuals under the influence of others.

C) the process of forming a person’s attractiveness to the perceiver, which results in the formation of interpersonal relationships.

9. The projection mechanism is

A) an unconscious desire to have clear, consistent, ordered ideas about perceived persons.

B) endowing the cognizable object with exclusively positive qualities.

IN) transference of the mental characteristics of the subject of perception to cognizable people.

10. Social distance is

A) a combination of official and interpersonal relationships that determines the closeness of the communicating people, corresponding to the sociocultural norms of the communities to which they belong.

B) the optimal combination of psychological characteristics of partners that contribute to the optimization of their communication and activities.

C) a special area dealing with the norms of spatial and temporal organization of communication.

11. Conformism is

A) the process of influence of attitudes, norms, values ​​and behavior of group members on the opinions and behavior of the individual.

B) some contradiction between two or more attitudes.

IN) changing initially contradictory opinions, attitudes and behavior of individuals under the influence of others.

12. Interactive side of communication –

A) people’s perception, understanding and evaluation of social objects, primarily themselves, other people, and social groups.

B) is associated with identifying the specifics of information exchange between people as active subjects.

C) is associated with the direct organization of joint activities of people, their interaction.

13. The frequency and quality of rewards (for example, gratitude) are directly proportional to the desire to provide help. The source of positive incentive refers to:

A) social exchange theories

B) neo-behaviourism

1. Andreeva, G.M. Modern social psychology in the West / G.M. Andreeva, N.N. Bogomolova, L.A. Petrovskaya. – M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1978.

2. Wittels, F. Freud. His personality, teaching and school / F. Wittels. – L.: Ego, 1991.

3. Granovskaya, R.M. Elements of practical psychology / R.M. Granovskaya. – L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1984.

4. Kulmin, E.S. Social psychology / E.S. Culmin; Ed. V.E. Semenov. – L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1979.

5. Meskon, M. Fundamentals of management / M. Meskon, M. Albert, F. Heduori. – M.: Delo, 1992.

6. Plato. State / Plato // Works: In 3 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1971. - Vol. 3. Part 1.

7. Fedotov, G. Saints of Ancient Rus' / G. Fedotov. – M.: Moscow worker, 1990.

8. Franklin, B. Autobiography / B. Franklin. – M.: Moscow worker, 1988.

9. Freud, Z. “I” and “It” / Z. Freud // Works of different years. – Tbilisi, 1991.

10. Yaroshevsky, M.G. History of psychology / M.G. Yaroshevsky. – M.: Mysl, 1984.

Personalities

Aristotle

(384-322 BC)

Aristotle - ancient Greek scientist, philosopher,
was the first thinker to create a comprehensive system of philosophy that covered all spheres of human development: sociology, philosophy, politics, logic, physics. His most famous works are “Metaphysics”, “Physics”, “Politics”, “Poetics”.

Plato (Aristocles) (approximately 428 – 348 BC) –

ancient Greek philosopher.

Plato was born into a family with aristocratic roots. After meeting Socrates, he accepted his teaching. Then, in Plato’s biography, several trips took place: to Megartz, Cyrene, Egypt, Italy, Athens. It was in Athens that Plato founded his own academy.

Plato's philosophy received its greatest expression in the doctrine of knowledge, as well as in the political and legal direction. Plato's theory of knowledge is based on two ways of acquiring knowledge - through sensations (faith, assimilation) and the mind.

In his work “The State,” the philosopher describes a political utopia. Also in his biography, Plato considered various types of government, represented by timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. The next work, “Laws,” was also dedicated to the utopian state. It was possible to fully study the philosopher’s legacy only in the 15th century, when his works were translated from Greek.

Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939) –

neurologist, psychiatrist, psychologist.

Born May 6, 1856 in Freiberg, Czech Republic. Then, due to the persecution of Jews in Freud’s biography, he moved with his family to the city of Tysmenitsa, Ivano-Frankivsk region of Ukraine.

Freudian psychoanalysis is based on the study of previously experienced traumatic experiences. By analyzing the dream as a message, he found out the causes of the disease, thus allowing the patient to be cured.

Freud devoted several works to the study of psychology. His free association method represented the patient's uncontrolled flow of thoughts.

In 1938, in the biography of Sigmund Freud, another move took place: to London. Max Schur, at the request of Freud, who was suffering significant pain as a result of cancer, gave him an excessive dose of morphine. Freud died from it on September 23, 1939.

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818 - 1883) -

economist, philosopher, political journalist.

Born May 5, 1818 in Trier, Prussia.

Education in the biography of Marx was received at the Trier gymnasium. After graduating in 1835, Karl entered the University of Bonn, then the University of Berlin. In 1841, Karl Marx graduated from the university and defended his doctoral dissertation. At that time, he was keen on promoting atheistic, revolutionary ideas from the philosophy of Hegel.

In 1842-1843 he worked at a newspaper; after the newspaper closed, he became interested in political economy. After marrying Jenny Westaflen, he moved to Paris. Then in the biography of Karl Marx there is an acquaintance with Engels. After that, Marx lived in Brussels, Cologne, and London. In 1864 he founded the International Workers' Association.

Question No. 41. The problem of periodization of mental development.

In contrast to chronological age, which expresses the duration of an individual’s existence from the moment of his birth, the concept of psychological age denotes a qualitatively unique stage of ontogenetic development, determined by the laws of the formation of the organism, living conditions, training and upbringing and having a specific historical origin (that is, at different times age had different psychological content, for example, primary school age was distinguished with the introduction of universal primary education).

Age in psychology is a specific, relatively time-limited stage in the mental development of an individual and his development as a personality, characterized by a set of natural physiological and psychological changes that are not related to differences in individual characteristics.

The first attempt at a systematic analysis of the category of psychological age belongs to L.S. Vygotsky. He viewed age as a closed cycle with its own structure and dynamics.

Age structure includes (components of the development structure):

1.social development situation- the system of relations in which a child enters society; it determines which areas of social life he enters. It determines those forms and the path by which the child acquires new and new personality traits, drawing them from social reality as the main source of development, the path along which the social becomes individual. The social situation of development determines how the child navigates the system of social relations and what areas of social life he enters. According to Elkonin, this is a specific form of relationship that a child enters into with an adult in a given period.

2.leading type of activity- activity in which other types of activity arise and differentiate, basic mental processes are restructured and personality changes (Leontiev). The content and forms of leading activity depend on the specific historical conditions in which the child’s development takes place. Leontyev also described the mechanism of changing the leading type of activity, which manifests itself in the fact that in the course of development, the previous place occupied by the child in the world of human relations around him begins to be perceived by him as inappropriate to his capabilities, and he strives to change it. In accordance with this, his activities are being restructured.

3.central age neoplasms- at each age level there is a central new formation, as if leading the entire development process and characterizing the restructuring of the child’s entire personality on a new basis. Those. this is a new type of personality structure and its activity, those mental. and social changes that first arise at a given age level and that determine the child’s consciousness, his internal and external life, the entire course of his development. Around this neoplasm, all other particular neoplasms and developmental processes associated with neoplasms of previous ages are located and grouped. Vygotsky called those developmental processes that are more or less closely related to the main new formation the central lines of development. Vygotsky’s law of uneven child development is closely related to the concept of the main new developments of age: each side of the child’s psyche has its own optimal period of development - the sensitive period. In turn, the concept of sensitive periods is closely related to Vygotsky’s hypothesis about the systemic structure of consciousness: no cognitive function develops in isolation, the development of each function depends on what structure it is included in and what place it occupies in it.

4.age crises- turning points on the developmental curve that separate one age from another. Foreign psychologists, contemporaries of Vygotsky, viewed age-related crises either as growing pains or as a result of disruption of parent-child relationships. They believed that there could be a crisis-free, lytic development. Vygotsky viewed crisis as a normative phenomenon of the psyche, necessary for the progressive development of the individual. The essence of the crisis, according to Vygotsky, lies in resolving the contradiction between the previous social situation of development, on the one hand, and the new capabilities and needs of the child, on the other. As a result, an explosion of the previous social situation of development occurs, and a new social situation of development is formed on its ruins. This means that the transition to the next stage of age development has taken place. Vygotsky described the following age-related crises: the newborn crisis, the one-year crisis, the three-year crisis, the seven-year crisis, the thirteen-year crisis. Of course, the chronological boundaries of crises are quite arbitrary, which is explained by significant differences in individual, sociocultural and other parameters. The form, duration and severity of crises can vary markedly depending on the individual typological characteristics of the child, social conditions, characteristics of upbringing in the family, and the pedagogical system as a whole. Thus, for Vygotsky, age-related crises are the central mechanism of age dynamics. He derived the law of age dynamics, according to which the forces driving the development of a child at a particular age inevitably lead to the denial and destruction of the very basis of development of his age, with internal necessity determining the annulment of the social situation of development, the end of a given era of development and the transition to the next age steps.

Answering the second part of the question, we note that there are many different periodizations of mental development, both foreign and domestic authors. Almost all of these periodizations end with high school age; very few authors described the entire life cycle (primarily E. Erikson).

We will consider the periodizations of L.S. Vygotsky, as the creator of the doctrine of age, D.B. Elkonin, as a generally accepted concept in our country, D.I. Feldstein, Z. Freud, as the founder of psychoanalysis, a direction that is very popular in the world, E. Erikson, since it was he who first described the entire life cycle.

Age - this is a specific, relatively time-limited stage of mental development of an individual and his development as a person. Age is not related to the type of nervous system, temperament, or character. Specific socio-historical conditions, as well as upbringing, activity and communication, play a large role in determining age. Each age has its own specific developmental situations.

Vygotsky believed that when creating a periodization of mental development, it is necessary to take into account the dynamics of the transition from one age to another, when smooth “evolutionary” periods are replaced by “jumps.” During lytic periods, qualities accumulate, and during critical periods, their realization occurs. The problem of periodization of mental development is a problem of the laws and patterns of the change from one age period to another.

The generally accepted concept in our country is Elkonin’s concept, which is based on the idea of ​​changing the leading type of activity. Considering the structure of activity, Elkonin noted that human activity is two-faced, it contains human meaning, that is, the motivational-need side and the operational-technical side.

In the process of child development, the motivational-need side of the activity is first mastered, otherwise objective actions would not make sense, and then the operational-technical side is mastered. Then they alternate. Moreover, the motivational-need side develops in the “child-adult” system, and the development of the operational-technical side occurs in the “child-object” system.

Elkonin’s concept overcame an important drawback of foreign psychology: the opposition between the world of objects and the world of people.

Elkonin reconsidered the problem: the child and society” and renamed it “the child in society.” This changed the view on the relationship between “child and object” and “child and adult.” Ellko6nin began to consider these systems as “a child is a social object” (since for a child, socially developed actions with him come to the fore in the object) and “a child is a social adult” (since for a child an adult is, first of all, a bearer of certain types of social activities).

The child’s activity in the “child – social object” and “child – social adult” systems represents a single process in which the child’s personality is formed.

According to Elkonin, the crises of 3 and 11 years are crises of relationships, after which orientation in human relationships arises. And the crises of the 1st year and 7th year are crises of worldview that open up orientation in the world of things.

David Iosifovich Feldshtein developed the ideas of Vygotsky and Elkonin and created on their basis the concept of a pattern of level-by-level development of personality in ontogenesis. Its concept is based on the idea of ​​shifts in leading activities.

Feldstein considered the problem of personality development as a process of socialization, and he considered socialization not only as a process of appropriating socio-historical experience, but also as the formation of socially significant personality qualities.

According to this concept, a purposeful consideration as an object of research of the characteristics of the social development of children, the conditions for the formation of their social maturity and the analysis of its formation at different stages of modern childhood allowed the author to isolate two main types of actually existing positions of the child in relation to society: “I am in society.” and “me and society.”

The first position reflects the child’s desire to understand his Self - what am I? What can I do?; the second concerns awareness of oneself as a subject of social relations.

The formation of the position “I and society” is associated with the actualization of activities aimed at mastering the norms of human relationships, ensuring the implementation of the individualization process. The child strives to express himself, highlight his I, contrast himself to others, express his own position in relation to other people, having received from them recognition of his independence, taking an active place in various social relationships, where his I acts on an equal basis with others, which ensures his development a new level of self-awareness in society, socially responsible self-determination.

The subject-practical side of the activity, during which the child’s socialization occurs, is associated with the affirmation of the position “I am in society.”

In other words, the development of a certain position of the child in relation to people and things leads him to the possibility and necessity of realizing the accumulated social experience in such activities that most adequately correspond to the general level of mental and personal development. Thus, the position “I am in society” is especially actively developed during the periods of early childhood (from 1 to 3 years), primary school age (from 6 to 9 years old) and senior school age (from 15 to 17 years old), when subject-practical side of the activity. The position “I and society,” the roots of which go back to the infant’s orientation toward social contacts, is most actively formed in preschool (from 3 to 6 years) and adolescence (from 10 to 15 years) when the norms of human relationships are especially intensively absorbed.

Identification and disclosure of the characteristics of the child’s different positions in relation to society made it possible to identify two types of naturally occurring boundaries of the social development of the individual, designated by the author as intermediate and key.

The intermediate stage of development - the result of the accumulation of elements of socialization - individualization - refers to the child’s transition from one period of ontogenesis to another (at 1 year, 6 and 15 years). The nodal turning point represents qualitative shifts in social development, carried out through the development of personality; it is associated with a new stage of ontogenesis (at 3 years, 10 and 17 years).

In the social position that develops at the intermediate stage of development (“I am in society”), the developing personality’s need to integrate himself into society is realized. At the key turning point, when the social position “I and society” is formed, the child’s need to determine his place in society is realized.

Z. Freud, in accordance with his sexual theory of the psyche, reduces all stages of human mental development to stages of transformation and movement through different erogenous zones of libidinal energy. Erogenous zones are areas of the body that are sensitive to stimulation; when stimulated, they cause satisfaction of libidinal feelings. Each stage has its own libidinal zone, the stimulation of which creates libidinal pleasure. The movement of these zones creates a sequence of stages of mental development.

1. Oral stages (0 – 1 year) are characterized by the fact that the main source of pleasure, and therefore potential frustration, is focused on the area of ​​​​activity associated with feeding. At this stage, there are two phases: early and late, occupying the first and second years of life. It is characterized by two sequential libidinal actions - sucking and biting. The leading erogenous zone is the mouth. At the second stage, the “I” begins to emerge from “It”.

2. Anal stage (1 – 3 years) also consists of two phases. Libido is concentrated around the anus, which becomes the center of attention of the child, accustomed to neatness. The “Super-I” begins to form.

3.phallic stage (3 – 5 years) characterizes the highest level of child sexuality. The genital organs become the leading erogenous zone. Children's sexuality becomes objective, children begin to experience attachment to parents of the opposite sex (Oedipus complex). “Super-I” is formed.

4. latent stage (5 – 12 years) is characterized by a decrease in sexual interest, libido energy is transferred to the development of universal human experience, the establishment of friendly relationships with peers and adults.

5.genital stage (12 – 18 years) is characterized by the return of childhood sexual desires, now all former erogenous zones are united, and the teenager strives for one goal - normal sexual communication

E. Erikson considered the stages of personality development from the point of view of the tasks that society sets for a person, and which a person must solve. He considers each stage separately from each other. Each stage of the fuss. Regardless of the previous one, it does not determine the driving force of psycho-social. development and specific mechanisms, cat. connect the development of the individual and society. The social link of the social situation falls out of Erikson's periodization. Each stage of development is inherent in society's expectations. An individual may or may not justify them; he is either included in society or rejected. The concept has 2 concepts: group identity (focused on inclusion in the community) and ego-identity (integrity of the individual, sense of stability and self). Occurs throughout life and goes through a number of stages. For each stage, society puts forward its own task, and the development of the individual depends on the spirituality of society.

1.infancy (0-1) – formation of basic trust in the world / mistrust

2.early age (1-3) – autonomy / shame, doubt about one’s own independence, independence

3. preschool age games (3-6) – initiative / feeling of guilt and moral responsibility for one’s desires

4. school age or pre-teenage (6-12) – achievement (formation of hard work and ability to handle tools) / inferiority (as awareness of one’s own ineptitude)

5. adolescence or youth (13-18) – identity (the first integral awareness of oneself, one’s place in the world) / diffusion of identity (uncertainty in understanding one’s Self)

6.youth or early adulthood (20-25) – intimacy (searching for a life partner and establishing close friendships) / isolation

7.maturity or middle age (25-65) – creativity / stagnation

8. old age or late maturity (after 65) – integration (formation of a final, integral idea of ​​oneself and one’s life path)/ disappointment in life

Question No. 42. History of the formation of socio-psychological ideas.

The period in question dates back to the middle of the 19th century. By this time, significant progress could be observed in the development of a number of sciences, including those directly related to various processes of social life. Great development received linguistics. Its necessity was dictated by the processes that were taking place in Europe at that time: it was a time of rapid development of capitalism, multiplication of economic ties between countries, which gave rise to active migration of the population. The problem of linguistic communication and mutual influence of peoples and, accordingly, the problem of the connection of language with various components of the psychology of peoples have become acute. Linguistics was not able to solve these problems by its own means. In the same way, by this time significant facts had been accumulated in the field anthropology, ethnography and archeology, who needed the services of social psychology to interpret the accumulated facts. The English anthropologist E. Taylor completes his work on primitive culture, the American ethnographer and archaeologist L. Morgan studies the life of the Indians, the French sociologist and ethnographer Lévy-Bruhl studies the peculiarities of the thinking of primitive man. All of these studies required taking into account the psychological characteristics of certain ethnic groups, the connection of cultural products with traditions and rituals, etc. Successes, and at the same time difficulties, characterize the state criminology: the development of capitalist social relations gave rise to new forms of illegal behavior, and an explanation of the reasons determining it had to be sought not only in the sphere of social relations, but also taking into account the psychological characteristics of behavior.

This picture allowed the American social psychologist T. Shibutani to conclude that social psychology became independent partly because specialists in various fields of knowledge were not able to solve some of their problems (Shibutani, 1961).

Interest in socio-psychological knowledge in the field developed differently. sociology. Sociology itself emerged as an independent science only in the middle of the 19th century. (its founder is considered to be the French positivist philosopher Auguste Comte). Almost from the very beginning of its existence, sociology began to make attempts to explain a number of social facts through laws drawn from other areas of knowledge (Essays on the history of theoretical sociology of the 19th - early 20th centuries, 1994). Historically, the first form of such reductionism for sociology was biological reductionism, especially clearly manifested in the organic school (G. Spencer and others). However, the miscalculations of biological reduction forced us to turn to the laws of psychology as an explanatory model for social processes. The roots of social phenomena began to be sought in psychology, and outwardly this position seemed more advantageous: the appearance was created that, unlike biological reductionism, the specifics of social life were actually taken into account here. The fact of the presence of a psychological side in every social phenomenon was identified with the fact of determination by the psychological side of a social phenomenon. At first it was a reduction to individual psyche, as exemplified by the concept of the French sociologist G. Tarde. From his point of view, an elementary social fact lies not within one brain, which is the subject of intracerebral psychology, but in the contact of several minds, which should be studied by intermental psychology. The general model of the social was depicted as a relationship between two individuals, one of whom imitates the other.

When explanatory models of this kind clearly demonstrated their failure, sociologists proposed more complex forms of psychological reductionism. The laws of the social have now begun to be reduced to laws collective psyche. A special direction in the system of sociological knowledge is finally taking shape - the psychological direction in sociology. Its founder in the USA is L. Ward, but, perhaps, the ideas of this trend were formulated especially clearly in the works of F. Giddings. From his point of view, the primary social fact is not the consciousness of the individual, not the “national spirit,” but the so-called “consciousness of the race.” Hence, social fact is nothing other than social reason. Its study should be carried out by “social psychology”, or, what is the same, sociology. Here the idea of ​​“reduction” is taken to its logical conclusion.

Thus, in the development of the two sciences of psychology and sociology, a counter movement emerged, which should have ended in the formulation of problems that became the subject of the new science. These mutual aspirations were realized in the mid-19th century and gave birth to the first forms of socio-psychological knowledge proper. By the middle of the 19th century. There are three most significant theories: the psychology of peoples, the psychology of masses, the theory of social instincts. Behaviors.

Psychology of peoples (M. Lazarus, G. Steinthal, W. Wundt).

Psychology of peoples as one of the first forms of socio-psychological theories developed in the middle of the 19th century. in Germany. From the point of view of the criterion we have identified, the psychology of peoples offered a “collectivistic” solution to the question of the relationship between the individual and society: it allowed the substantial existence of a “supra-individual soul”, subordinate to the “supra-individual integrity”, which is the people (nation). The process of nation formation, which was carried out at that time in Europe, acquired a specific form in Germany due to the need to unite the fragmented feudal lands. This specificity was reflected in a number of theoretical constructions of German social science of that era. It also had a certain influence on the psychology of peoples. Its theoretical sources were: Hegel’s philosophical doctrine of the “national spirit” and Herbart’s idealistic psychology, which, in the words of M.G. Yaroshevsky, was “a hybrid of Leibnizian monadology and English associationism.” The psychology of peoples tried to combine these two approaches.

The direct creators of the theory of the psychology of peoples were the philosopher M. Lazarus (1824-1903) and the linguist G. Steinthal (1823-1893). In 1859, the journal “Psychology of Peoples and Linguistics” was founded, where their article “Introductory Discourses on the Psychology of Peoples” was published. It articulates the idea that the main force of history is the people, or the “spirit of the whole” (Allgeist), which expresses itself in art, religion, language, myths, customs, etc. Individual consciousness is only its product, a link in some psychic connection. The task of social psychology is “to understand psychologically the essence of the spirit of the people, to discover the laws according to which the spiritual activity of the people proceeds.”

Subsequently, the ideas of the psychology of peoples were developed in the views of W. Wundt (1832-1920). Wundt first formulated his ideas on this matter in 1863 in his “Lectures on the Soul of Man and Animals.” The idea received its main development in 1900 in the first volume of the ten-volume “Psychology of Peoples.” Already in his Lectures, based on a course given in Heidelberg, Wundt outlined the idea that psychology should consist of two parts: physiological psychology and the psychology of peoples. According to each part, Wundt wrote fundamental works, and it was the second part that was presented in “Psychology of Nations.” From Wundt's point of view, physiological psychology is an experimental discipline, but experiment is not suitable for studying higher mental processes - speech and thinking. Therefore, it is from this “point” that the psychology of peoples begins. It must use other methods, namely the analysis of cultural products: language (language represents the concepts with the help of which thinking is carried out and consciousness is determined); myths (in them one can find the original content of concepts and emotional attitudes towards certain phenomena); customs, traditions (it is easier to understand the behavior

This concept raised the fundamental question that there is something other than individual consciousness that characterizes the psychology of the group, and individual consciousness is to a certain extent determined by it.

Psychology of the masses (G. Tarde, G. Le Bon, S. Siegele).

Psychology of the masses represents another form of the first socio-psychological theories, because, according to the criterion proposed above, it provides a solution to the question of the relationship between the individual and society from an “individualistic” position. This theory was born in France in the second half of the 19th century. Its origins were laid in the concept of imitation by G. Tarde. From Tarde's point of view, social behavior has no other explanation than through the idea of ​​imitation. Official, intellectually oriented academic psychology tries to explain it, neglecting the affective elements, and therefore fails. The idea of ​​imitation takes into account irrational moments in social behavior, and therefore turns out to be more productive. It was these two ideas of Tarde - the role of irrational moments in social behavior and the role of imitation - that were adopted by the direct creators of mass psychology. These were the Italian lawyer S. Sigele (1868-1913) and the French sociologist G. Lebon (1841 - 1931). Siegele mainly relied on the study of criminal cases, in which he was attracted by the role of affective aspects. Le Bon, being a sociologist, paid primary attention to the problem of contrasting the masses and elites of society. In 1895, his main work “Psychology of Peoples and Masses” appeared, which sets out the essence of the concept.

From Le Bon's point of view, any accumulation of people is a “mass”, the main feature of which is the loss of the ability to observe. Typical features of human behavior in the masses are: depersonalization (which leads to the dominance of impulsive, instinctive reactions), a sharp predominance of the role of feelings over the intellect (which leads to susceptibility to various influences), a general loss of intelligence (which leads to the abandonment of logic), loss of personal responsibility (which leads to a lack of control over passions). The conclusion that follows from the description of this picture of human behavior in the mass is that the mass is always disordered and chaotic by nature, so it needs a “leader”, whose role can be played by the “elite”. These conclusions were made based on the consideration of isolated cases of manifestation of mass, namely its manifestation in a situation of panic. No other empirical evidence was provided, as a result of which panic turned out to be the only form of mass action, although later observations of this single form were extrapolated to any other mass actions.

A certain social coloring is clearly manifested in the psychology of the masses. The end of the 19th century, marked by numerous mass protests, forced the official ideology to look for means of justifying various actions directed against these mass protests. The assertion that the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century is becoming widespread. - this is the “era of the crowd”, when a person loses his individuality, obeys impulses, primitive instincts, and therefore easily succumbs to various irrational actions. The psychology of the masses was in line with these ideas, which allowed Le Bon to speak out against the revolutionary movement, interpreting it as an irrational movement of the masses.

As for the purely theoretical significance of mass psychology, it turned out to be twofold: on the one hand, the question was raised about the relationship between the individual and society, but, on the other hand, its solution was in no way justified. Formally, in this case, a certain primacy of the individual over society was recognized, but society itself was arbitrarily reduced to a crowd, and even on this “material” it looked very one-sided, since the “crowd” or “mass” itself was described only in one single situation of its behavior, panic situations. Although mass psychology did not have any serious significance for the future fate of social psychology, nevertheless, the problems developed within the framework of this concept are of great interest, including for the present time.

3. Theory of instincts of social behavior c. McDougall.

The third concept, which ranks among the first independent socio-psychological constructs, is the theory instincts of social behavior English psychologist V. McDougall(1871 - 1938), who moved to the USA in 1920 and subsequently worked there. McDougall's work "Introduction to Social Psychology" was published in 1908, and this year is considered the year of the final establishment of social psychology in independent existence (in the same year the sociologist's book was published in the USA E. Rossa“Social psychology”, and thus it is quite symbolic that both a psychologist and a sociologist in the same year published the first systematic course on the same discipline). This year, however, can only very conditionally be considered the beginning of a new era in social psychology, since back in 1897 J. Baldwin published “Studies in Social Psychology,” which could also claim to be the first systematic guide.

The main thesis of McDougall's theory is that innate instincts are recognized as the cause of social behavior. This idea is the implementation of a more general principle accepted by McDougall, namely the desire for a goal, which is characteristic of both animals and humans. It is this principle that is especially significant in McDougall's concept; in contrast to behaviorism (which interprets behavior as a simple reaction to an external stimulus), he called the psychology he created “target” or “hormic” (from the Greek word “gorme” - desire, desire, impulse). Gorme acts as an intuitive driving force that explains social behavior. In McDougall's terminology, gormé is “realized as instincts” (or later “inclinations”).

The repertoire of instincts in each person arises as a result of a certain psychophysical predisposition - the presence of hereditarily fixed channels for the discharge of nervous energy.

Instincts include affective (receptive), central (emotional) and afferent (motor) parts. Thus, everything that happens in the area of ​​consciousness is directly dependent on the unconscious principle. The internal expression of instincts is mainly emotions. The connection between instincts and emotions is systematic and definite. McDougall listed seven pairs of interconnected instincts and emotions: the instinct of fight and the corresponding anger and fear; flight instinct and sense of self-preservation; reproductive instinct and jealousy, female timidity; instinct of acquisition and sense of ownership; instinct of construction and sense of creation; herd instinct and sense of belonging. All social institutions are derived from instincts: family, trade, various social processes, primarily war. Partly because of this mention in McDougall’s theory, people were inclined to see the implementation of the Darwinian approach, although, as is known, being transferred mechanically to social phenomena, this approach lost any scientific significance.

Despite the enormous popularity of McDougall's ideas, their role in the history of science turned out to be very negative: the interpretation of social behavior from the point of view of some spontaneous striving for a goal legitimized the importance of irrational, unconscious drives as the driving force not only of the individual, but also of humanity. Therefore, as in general psychology, overcoming the ideas of the theory of instincts later served as an important milestone in the development of scientific social psychology.

Result: Thus, we can summarize what kind of theoretical baggage social psychology was left with after these first concepts were built. First of all, obviously, their positive significance lies in the fact that really important questions that need to be resolved were identified and clearly posed: about the relationship between the consciousness of the individual and the consciousness of the group, about the driving forces of social behavior, etc. It is also interesting that in the first socio-psychological theories, from the very beginning they tried to find approaches to solving the problems posed, as it were, from two sides: from the side of psychology and from the side of sociology. In the first case, it inevitably turned out that all solutions were proposed from the point of view of the individual, his psyche; the transition to the psychology of the group was not worked out with any precision. In the second case, they formally tried to go “from society,” but then “society” itself dissolved in psychology, which led to the psychologization of social relations. This meant that neither the “psychological” nor the “sociological” approaches themselves provide the right solutions if they are not interconnected. Finally, the first socio-psychological concepts turned out to be weak also because they were not based on any research practice, they were not based on research at all, but in the spirit of old philosophical constructions they were only “reasoning” about socio-psychological problems. However, an important thing was done, and social psychology was “declared” as an independent discipline with a right to exist. Now it needed to provide an experimental basis for it, since psychology by this time had already accumulated sufficient experience in using the experimental method. The next stage in the formation of the discipline could only become an experimental stage in its development.

Question No. 43. Psychology of large groups and mass phenomena.

The structure of large social groups.

Numerically large formations of people are divided into two types: randomly, spontaneously arising, fairly short-lived communities, which include the crowd, public, audience, and in the exact meaning of the word social groups, i.e. groups formed during the historical development of society, occupying a certain place in the system of social relations of each specific type of society and therefore long-term, stable in their existence. This second type should include, first of all, social classes, various ethnic groups (as their main variety is nations), professional groups, gender and age groups (from this point of view, for example, youth, women, elderly people, etc. .d.).

All large social groups identified in this way are characterized by some common features that distinguish these groups from small groups. In large groups there are specific regulators of social behavior that are not present in small groups. This - morals, customs And traditions. Their existence is due to the presence of specific social practices with which this group is associated, and the relative stability with which the historical forms of this practice are reproduced. Considered in unity, the features of the life position of such groups, together with specific regulators of behavior, provide such an important characteristic as Lifestyle groups. His research involves the study of special forms of communication, a special type of contact that develops between people. Within a certain lifestyle, they acquire special significance interests, values, needs. Not the least role in the psychological characteristics of these large groups is often played by the presence of a specific language. For ethnic groups, this is a self-evident characteristic; for other groups, “language” can act as a certain jargon, for example, characteristic of professional groups or an age group such as youth.

However, the common features characteristic of large groups cannot be absolute. Each type of these groups has its own uniqueness: it is impossible to line up a class, a nation, any profession and youth. The significance of each type of large group in the historical process is different, as are many of their features. Therefore, all “end-to-end” characteristics of large groups must be filled with specific content.

The structure of the psychology of a large social group includes a number of elements. In a broad sense, these are various mental properties, mental processes and mental states, just as the psyche of an individual person possesses these same elements. In domestic social psychology, a number of attempts have been made to more accurately determine the elements of this structure. Almost all researchers (G.G. Diligensky, A.I. Goryacheva, Yu.V. Bromley, etc.) identify two components in its content: 1) mental makeup as a more stable formation (which can include social or national character, morals, customs, traditions, tastes, etc.) and 2) the emotional sphere as a more mobile dynamic formation (which includes needs, interests, moods). Each of these elements should become the subject of special socio-psychological analysis.

Characteristics and types of spontaneous groups.

In the general classification of large social groups, it has already been said that there is a special variety of them, which in the strict sense of the word cannot be called a “group”. These are short-term associations of a large number of individuals, often with very different interests, but nevertheless gathered together for a specific reason and demonstrating some kind of joint action. The members of such a temporary association are representatives of various large organized groups: classes, nations, professions, ages, etc. Such a “group” can be organized to a certain extent by someone, but more often it arises spontaneously, does not necessarily clearly understand its goals, but nevertheless can be very active. Such education cannot in any way be considered a “subject of joint activity,” but its importance cannot be underestimated either. In modern societies, political and social decisions often depend on the actions of such groups. Among spontaneous groups in the socio-psychological literature, they most often distinguish crowd, mass, public. As noted above, the history of social psychology to a certain extent “began” precisely with the analysis of such groups (Le Bon, Tarde, etc.).

Crowd is formed on the street in response to a variety of events: a traffic accident, the capture of an offender, dissatisfaction with the actions of a government official or just a passing person. The duration of its existence is determined by the significance of the incident: the crowd of onlookers may disperse as soon as the element of entertainment is eliminated. In another case, especially when it is associated with an expression of dissatisfaction with some social phenomenon (they didn’t bring groceries to the store, refused to accept or give out money in the savings bank), the crowd can become more and more excited and move on to actions, for example, to move in the direction of some - institutions. At the same time, its emotional intensity can increase, giving rise to aggressive behavior of participants; elements of an organization can arise in the crowd if there is a person who can lead it. But even if such elements have arisen, they are very unstable: the crowd can easily sweep away the organization that has arisen. The elements remain the main background of crowd behavior, often leading to its aggressive forms.

Brown defined a crowd as "a cooperative, shoulder-to-shoulder, anonymous, casual, temporary, unorganized community." There are types of crowds depending on their degree of activity: active crowd (the crowd itself) and passive crowd (public and audiences). An active crowd is also classified depending on the dominant behavior of the participants: aggressive (rioting crowds, which are characterized by aggression towards people or objects); fleeing (form of behavior - panic); acquisitive (involvement in competition for a certain scarce object); expressive (onlookers).

Characteristics of a crowd: 1. Spiritual unity or “mental homogeneity”; 2. emotionality – meh emots. Infection works maximally; 3. irrationality. For the first time, Le Bon (French writer) studied the mechanisms of the emergence and characteristics of crowd behavior. He created a theory of crowd behavior - the theory of “contempt of the masses.” I highlighted the trail. basic features: 1. consciousness disappears. Personality and the “collective soul”; 2. occurrence spiritual unity of the crowd; 3. unconscious. character of behavior that is susceptible to logical influence. There are 3 levels of behavior: instinctive, impulsive and rational (volitional, conscious).

Weight usually described as a more stable formation with rather fuzzy boundaries. The mass may not necessarily act as a momentary formation, like a crowd; it can turn out to be much more organized when certain sections of the population quite consciously gather for the sake of some kind of action: manifestation, demonstration, rally. In this case, the role of the organizers is higher: they are usually not nominated directly at the moment of the start of action, but are known in advance as the leaders of those organized groups whose representatives took part in this mass action. In the actions of the masses, therefore, both the final goals and tactics of behavior are more clear and thought out. At the same time, like a crowd, the mass is quite heterogeneous; various interests can also coexist or collide, so its existence can be unstable.

Public represents another form of a spontaneous group, although the element of spontaneity here is less pronounced than, for example, in a crowd. An audience is also a short-term gathering of people to spend time together in connection with some kind of spectacle - on the stands of a stadium, in a large auditorium, on a square in front of a speaker while listening to an important message. In more confined spaces, such as lecture halls, the audience is often referred to as audience. The public always gathers for a common and specific purpose, so it is more manageable, in particular, it more closely follows the norms adopted in the chosen type of organization of spectacles. But the public remains a mass gathering of people, and the laws of mass apply within it. Here, too, an incident is enough for the public to become uncontrollable.

Groening suggested a trail. class of audience (or public): 1. non-public (people minimally included in the situation); 2. latent (people who notice their connections or interactions with other people, as well as with organizations in an actual situation); 3. conscious (people who understand that they depend on the influence of other people in the current situation, but do not express it); 4. active (people and cats are included in communication and organizational systems to correct the situation).

Psychological characteristics of the masses.

The masses as carriers of mass consciousness, according to B. A. Grushin’s definition, these are “situationally emerging (existing) social communities, probabilistic in nature, heterogeneous in composition and statistical in forms of expression (functioning)” (Grushin, 1987).

Main types of masses are distinguished by a number of leading characteristics. Accordingly, masses are divided into: 1) large and small; 2) stable (constantly functioning) and unstable (pulse); 3) grouped and ungrouped, ordered or disordered in space; 4) contact and non-contact (dispersed); 5) spontaneous, spontaneously arising, and specially organized; 6) socially homogeneous and heterogeneous. However, this is just a theoretical division.

Among mass qualities the most important are the following. Firstly, it is static - that is, the amorphousness of the mass, its irreducibility to an independent, systemic, structured integral formation (group), different from the elements that make up the mass. Secondly, this is its stochastic, probabilistic nature; there is openness, blurred boundaries, uncertainty in the composition of the mass in quantitative and qualitative terms. Thirdly, it is situational, the temporary nature of its existence. Finally, fourthly, there is pronounced heterogeneity in the composition of the mass.

Mass consciousness is a kind of extra-structural “archipelago” in the social-group structure of public consciousness; the formation is not stable, but, as it were, “floating” as part of a broader whole. Today this archipelago may include some islands, but tomorrow it will include completely different ones. This is a special kind of, as it were, “supergroup” consciousness.

1. The main difference between the masses and classically identified social groups, strata, classes and layers of society is the presence of a special, self-generating, unorganized and poorly structured mass consciousness. This is an everyday type of social consciousness that unites representatives of different classical groups by common experiences. Such experiences arise under special circumstances that unite members of different groups and are equally significant for them, and so significant that these experiences acquire a supra-group character.

2. Unlike classical groups, stable and structured, the masses act as temporary, functional communities, heterogeneous in composition, but united by the significance of the mental experiences of the people included in them. The commonality of experiences among the masses becomes more important than all the parameters of joining classical social groups. Masses are divided depending on their main features. The main features that distinguish masses from each other include their size, the stability of their existence over time, the degree of compactness of their presence in social space, the level of cohesion or dispersion, the predominance of factors of organization or spontaneity in the emergence of a mass.

3. The mass is always changeable and situational. Its psychology is determined by the scale of events that cause general mental experiences. Mass consciousness can spread, capturing more and more new people from different classical groups, or it can narrow, reducing the size of the mass. This dynamic size and variability of the boundaries of the mass makes it difficult to create a typology of mass consciousness. The only productive way out is considered to be the construction of complex, multidimensional, spherical models of mass consciousness. Only at the intersection of different coordinates can one identify different really existing types of mass consciousness.

4. The main psychological properties of mass consciousness include emotionality, infectiousness, mosaic, mobility and variability. Public opinion and mass sentiments stand out as the leading macroforms of mass consciousness.

Public opinion, propaganda.

Public opinion should be considered as a kind of collective product, but as such it is not some kind of unanimous opinion with which every individual who makes up the public agrees, and not necessarily the opinion of the majority. Public opinion always moves towards some kind of decision, even if it is sometimes not unanimous.

Universality of speech. The formation of public opinion occurs through the opening and acceptance of discussion. Arguments and counterarguments become the means by which it is framed. For this process of discussion to develop, it is essential for the public to have what has been called the universality of speech, i.e. to have some common language or the ability to agree on the meaning of some basic terms.

Interest groups. The public usually consists of interested groups and some more detached and disinterested body of individuals similar to the audience. A public-building issue is usually posed by competing interest groups. These interest groups have some immediate private concern about how to solve the problem, and therefore they try to win the support and loyalty of an external disinterested group. This puts the disinterested group, as Lipman noted, in the position of judge or arbiter. It is its disposition that usually determines which of the competing plans is most likely and most widely taken into account in the resulting action.

The role of public debate. It is clear that the quality of public opinion depends to a large extent on the effectiveness of public debate. In turn, this effectiveness depends on the availability and flexibility of mass communication mechanisms, such as the press, radio, and public meetings. The basis for their effective use is the possibility of free discussion.

Propaganda can be understood as a deliberately instigated and directed campaign to influence people to accept a given point of view, sentiment or value. Its peculiarity is that, in seeking to achieve this goal, it does not provide an impartial discussion of opposing views. The goal dominates, and the means are subordinated to this goal.

Thus, we see that the primary characteristic of propaganda is the attempt to achieve acceptance of a point of view not on the basis of its merits, but by appeal to some other motives. It is this feature that makes propaganda suspicious. In the sphere of public debate and public discussion, propaganda functions with the aim of forming opinions and judgments not on the basis of the merits of a given subject, but mainly by playing on emotional attitudes and feelings. Its goal is to impose a certain attitude or value that people begin to perceive as something natural, true and authentic and, thus, as something that is expressed spontaneously and without coercion.

Basic propaganda procedures. There are three main ways in which propaganda, as a rule, achieves its goal. 1. The first consists of simply falsifying facts and providing false information. People's judgments and opinions are obviously shaped by the data available to them. By manipulating facts, hiding some and distorting others, a propagandist can maximize the formation of a particular attitude. 2. The propagandist must strive to make people identify his views with their in-group attitudes, and opposing views with their out-group attitudes. It is the presence of this in-group/out-group entourage that explains the exceptional effectiveness of propaganda during the war. 3. Using emotional attitudes and prejudices that people already possess. His task in this case is to build an association between them and his propaganda mission. Thus, if he can connect his views with certain favorable attitudes that people already possess, these views will gain acceptance.

Gossip- these are special types of functioning of unreliable information or distortion of any information, giving it specific features, transmitted exclusively orally, as if informally and “in secret”. From a socio-psychological point of view, this is a massive phenomenon of interpersonal exchange of distorted, emotionally charged information. Rumors usually arise in the absence of complete and reliable information on an issue that is relevant to people. This is a specific type of interpersonal communication, during which a plot, to a certain extent reflecting real or fictitious events, becomes the property of a vast diffuse audience, the masses.

Gossip- false or true, verified or unverifiable, but always incomplete, biased, although plausible information about things and circumstances that can be considered personal, but have a wide social resonance because they relate to the closed aspects of the life of closed, elite social groups. Gossip performs six main socio-psychological functions: information-cognitive, affiliative-integrative, entertainment-game, projection-compensatory, the function of social control over the elite and the tactical function in social struggle.

Social movements, the problem of the leader and leaders.

Social movements are a special class of social phenomena. A social movement is a fairly organized unity of people who set themselves a specific goal, usually associated with some change in social reality. Social movements have different levels. The socio-psychological mechanisms of the emergence of mass movements are associated with situations in which some people cannot satisfy their needs. At the same time, both the needs (economic, political, cultural, etc.) and the reasons for their dissatisfaction can be different. Unmet needs cause dissatisfaction, frustration, and a switching of energy mobilized to satisfy the need to new tasks - the struggle against real or virtual obstacles. As a result, a state of emotional tension arises, anxiety, which, spreading, can acquire a social character. Widespread social anxiety manifests itself in discussions, informal discussions related to the search for ways to resolve a disturbing situation. This is the basis for the emergence of mass movements.

Whatever the level of a social movement, it exhibits several common characteristics. First of all, it is always based on a certain public opinion, which, as it were, prepares the social movement, although subsequently it itself is formed and strengthened as the movement develops. Secondly, any social movement has as its goal a change in the situation depending on its level: either in society as a whole, or in a region, or in any group. Thirdly, during the organization of the movement, its program is formulated, with varying degrees of elaboration and clarity. Fourthly, the movement is aware of the means that can be used to achieve goals, in particular whether violence is acceptable as one of the means. Finally, fifthly, every social movement is realized to one degree or another in various manifestations of mass behavior, including demonstrations, manifestations, rallies, congresses, etc.

From the point of view of social psychology, the following three questions are extremely important: mechanisms of joining the movement, the relationship between the opinions of the majority and the minority, and the characteristics of leaders.

In modern, predominantly sociological, literature, two theories have been proposed to explain the reasons for an individual’s joining a social movement. Relative deprivation theory states that a person feels the need to achieve a goal not in the case when he is absolutely deprived of some good, right, value, but in the case when he is relatively deprived of it. In other words, this need is formed by comparing one’s position (or the position of one’s group) with the position of others. Criticism rightly notes the simplification of the problem in this theory or, at least, the absolutization of a factor that may actually occur. Another theory is resource mobilization - emphasizes the more “psychological” reasons for joining the movement. It is argued here that a person is guided by the need to identify to a greater extent with the group, to feel part of it, thereby feeling his strength, and mobilizing resources. In this case, one can also make a reproach for one-sidedness and overestimation of only one of the factors.

The second problem concerns ratio of majority and minority positions in any mass movement, including social movement. This problem is one of the central ones in the concept of S. Muscovy.

The concept of S. Muscovy offers characteristics of the conditions under which a minority can count on influence in the movement. The main one is a consistent style of behavior. This means ensuring consistency in two “sections”: synchrony (unanimity of participants at any given moment) and diachrony (stability of the position and behavior of minority members over time). Only if such conditions are met, negotiations between the minority and the majority (and this is inevitable in any movement) can be successful. It is also necessary to study the style negotiations: the ability to reach a compromise, remove excessive categoricalness, readiness to move along the path of finding a productive solution.

The third problem that arises in a social movement is problem of the leader or leaders. It is clear that a leader of such a specific type of mass behavior must have special traits. Along with the fact that it must most fully express and defend the goals accepted by the participants, it must also, purely outwardly, appeal to a fairly large mass of people. The image of the leader of a social movement should be the subject of his daily attention. As a rule, the strength of the leader's position and authority largely ensures the success of the movement. These same qualities of a leader also contribute to keeping the movement within the accepted framework of behavior, which does not allow for easy changes in the chosen tactics and strategy of action (Yanitsky, 1991).

I would like to put things in order in this one of the most important and confusing scientific topics, and, of course, find out their role in nature and in human society, as part of nature; and also accurately determine their position in the general architecture of consciousness.
Unlike physics, where paradoxes are first discovered experimentally, and then a new theory is required, in the topic of consciousness the analytical approach can immediately reveal significant paradoxicalities regarding habitual judgments. And this is because there is a lot of baseless chatter on the topic of consciousness, which is quickly accepted as a scientific truth, and then gives rise to baseless judgments that become habitual. In this regard, in the topic of instincts, as a part of consciousness, many surprises will await us, called paradoxes in science, but not objective, as in physics, but anthropogenic. And one of these paradoxes is the ambiguity of the innateness of instincts. It may also seem paradoxical to consider a person’s instincts, moreover, with an emphasis on particular importance in this aspect, which many are not used to.
The analytical approach requires an underlying model and a rigorous theory. As the fundamental scientific tools, we will take the integration model of consciousness and the theories that are part of it, starting with the theory of the level organization of consciousness.
Yes, you heard right: theories included in the model, in the model of consciousness. Consciousness is a super complex object, therefore it occupies a special place in theoretical terms, and its model objectively requires many theories included in this model, which distinguishes this subject. In this sense, the phrase “theory of consciousness” is completely absurd, because the explanation of consciousness requires many theories, not just one. And the theory of instincts is one of these incoming theories, but not general and fundamental, but specific.

PLACE AND FORMATION OF INSTINCTS IN THE STRUCTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

According to the integration model of consciousness, instincts certainly belong to its first range, i.e. to reflexive-intuitive, consisting of the following levels:

1. signal
2. definitely reflexive
3. reactive
4.conditioned reflex
5. effective
6. associative
7. impressive
8. intuitive
9. presentational

This range covers images from neural signals to representations. The other two ranges are not given here due to their irrelevance to this topic. Let us only note that the second range extends from ideas to personalities, and the third from personalities to ethnicity.
In the above range, as in all three, odd numbers correspond to figurative levels, and even numbers correspond to connecting levels. Instincts in their primary manifestation belong to the level of reactions that are formed on the basis of combining signals with the help of an unconditioned reflex, i.e. unconditional reflex connections. Simply put, instincts are the figurative product of an unconditioned reflex. Why?
Any type of image or any image level of consciousness can manifest itself in three different phases: the thinking phase, the behavioral phase, and the perceiving phase, as described in the integration model of consciousness. In the phase of behavior, an unconditional reflex product manifests itself as a reaction, in the phase of perception - as an urge, and in the phase of thinking - as an instinct, but not the whole instinct, but its primary stage. At this primary stage, any instinct manifests itself primitively, and is difficult to distinguish from what we call a reflex, except perhaps by some prolongation, which is generally characteristic of the phase of thinking at any of the figurative levels. The instinct acquires a much greater extension in time and participation in difficult life circumstances in the second and third stages of its formation, i.e. with the participation of a conditioned reflex and a combination reflex, but only in all three phases: thinking, behavior and perception.
So, regarding the conditioned reflex, i.e. its product: both actions, desires, and drives are subject to the presence of instinct. And regarding the combination reflex, i.e. its product: actions, experiences, and impressions, the presence of instinct is also quite obvious.
From this it is clear that instincts influence our desires, experiences, impressions, drives... which corresponds to intuitive empirical truth and is unlikely to raise doubts in anyone.
After the conditioned reflex stage, instincts are further formed at the associative stage. Thus, instincts force us to experience their third stage of formation and choose a series of actions based on this. By the way, we are impressed by what is more consistent with our instincts
In order to understand more clearly the principle of operation of instincts, we need to answer three questions:

1. What is the ambiguity of innateness?
2. Why are the same instincts RELATIVELY the same in different individuals of the same species?
3. How do instincts influence our most complex life manifestations?

WHAT IS THE ambiguity of innate instincts?

Firstly, if we keep in mind the primary stage of instinct formation, then this is similar to the triggering of an unconditioned reflex, as we are too accustomed to say. In fact, a certain set of unconditioned reflex connections connect a certain set of neural signals into a single reaction. Due to the composite essence of the reaction, they occur in our country every time with some variety and originality, if we take a closer look at this problem. We sneeze differently every time, although according to the same pattern, we pull our hand away from the hot thing differently, orgasm occurs differently. All this cannot be ignored, and this indicates the clearly composite nature of the unconditioned reflex, or rather the formation of its reaction. More evidence can be read in the integration model of consciousness. Instinct, as an image similar to reaction, but not in the phase of behavior, but in the phase of thinking, has a similar composite character.
There is already a factor other than innate. And, if we take into account that there are also stages that depend on conditioned and combinational reflexes, then the innateness of instincts appears even more ambiguous. The most paradoxical thing is that we can neither deny their innateness completely nor fully recognize it. There is certainly an innately dependent component here, but there is also a variable-situational one, there is a trained one, as well as a hereditary one. Those. There is also a guarantee of the sameness of instincts in animals of the same species (including humans), but there is also an originality in each of them.

WHY ARE THE INSTINCTS RELATIVELY THE SAME?

In all animals, including humans, instincts can be considered relatively the same within the same species. Here the reader will have two questions: firstly, why does a person?; and secondly, why are they the same if the author spoke about originality within one species, and even for the same person (animal) in different situations it can manifest itself somewhat differently?
It must be said that this work on instincts was started for the sake of human instincts, since this topic is extremely relevant due to its complexity.
Well, in different ways, it’s like, for example, you won’t find two identical trees. Let's just say that instincts within a species are relatively the same, since everything is relative.
Predetermination, of course, exists, since there is an innate component, and it creates the biochemical and physiological prerequisites for sameness, but there is another mysterious component, usually little taken into account, this is the aspect of developmental parallelism, ensured by the presence of the same internal foundations and the same conditions of formation . And, it must be said, the phenomenon of parallelism can even be very clear, often sometimes even leading to the false idea of ​​complete predeterminedness, although in fact the predeterminedness is only apparent.
Those. in parallel, in different people, independently of each other, instincts can develop as if in the same direction. Then they will be similar at first glance, and distinguishable only at a glance with artistic attention. Again, as in the example with trees: we note the similarity of these trees by species, but the artist will distinguish them by the composition of branches and other things.
And, as we see in life, instincts really develop somewhat differently in people of different classes, different civilizations, different eras, different nationalities and simply different psychotypes. Those. on the one hand we will observe small differences, and on the other - global similarities. And the main meaning here lies simply in the conditions of the formation environment in which the individual (individual) grows, develops and is educated. And the entire voluminous social set of individuals will develop in parallel conditions. Each of these environments will develop its own instinctive parallelisms, but there will also be universal parallelisms. And this is one of the reasons why instincts (especially human ones) have not been clearly described and characterized. And this is precisely the contribution of conditioned and combined reflexes to the individual development of instincts. Since representatives of the same social environment will have the same conditioned and combinational reflexes (rather similar in many ways), then the instincts in their complex phase of development will be formed almost identically.
If we take an example from a completely different area, from biology, then tissue similarities, as well as the similarities of organs, sometimes greatly confused the evolutionists of the past in relation to some species of animals, when the relationship of origin only seemed, but in some cases turned out to be false, because animals with similar organs could even belong to different evolutionary branches. So the eye of an octopus and the eye of a mammal have many similarities. So, when scientifically studying systematicity in the broad sense of the word, one cannot discount these parallelisms. And with regard to the development of instincts in people, the same thing happens, i.e. on a similar basis, under similar conditions, similar instincts develop, although they might not be very similar if these people were in different developmental conditions. But, it must be said that when a professional selects a puppy for his professional needs, he looks specifically at the uniqueness of the instinctive accents in the same litter, although, of course, the general set of instincts is certainly the same.

DUE TO WHAT DO INSTINCTS INFLUENCE THE MOST COMPLEX MANIFESTATIONS OF OUR LIFE?

But a complete genetic determination cannot take place in relation to instincts, because it is unconditionally easy to imagine only a biochemical determination, since it is determined genetically quite clearly, but it is impossible to genetically determine the reaction to the shape of the body, the nature of the voice and its intonation, as well as to others life manifestations of the same order of complexity. And, if we take sexual instincts as an example due to their simpler consideration, then it becomes obvious that mental reactions to the forms of the female body are a product of not only an unconditional reflex, but also a conditioned and combined one, because the reaction to pheromones is gradually coupled and with the shape of the body, and with the character of the voice and with the type of behavior, as well as with many other manifestations, when we see, for example, that an object of the opposite sex is, as they say, flirting with us, and we instinctively react to him (the object). This can only be set indirectly with the participation of more complex reflexes and with the participation of the law of parallelism. Those. In this subsequent development of instinct in our psyche, and in the psyche of other animals too, in addition to the unconditional, two more reflexes are involved: conditioned and combinational. The fact that it comes to the associative is evidenced by the fact that there is an obvious connection to complex forms and to dynamic processes, which are inaccessible to the conditioned reflex, not to mention the unconditioned one, to which only direct natural smells and immediate tactility are available. And this dependence of instincts on higher reflexes raises instincts to the level of so-called spirituality, if these instincts receive encouragement.
And it must be said that these reinforcing rewards act differently at the stages of conditioned and associative reflexes. The conditioned reflex always operates primitively, and the light of the light bulb just before feeding directly “accustoms” it to react to external influences according to the food-lamp-saliva scheme in Pavlovian style. Thus, a conditioned reflex in a person can reinforce an instinct regarding the shape of the body. But, as for ritual behavior, flirtatiousness and similar complex phenomena, this is already a clear influence of the combination reflex. In some isolated tribes, you can probably even today find very artificial changes in body shape and positive reactions to them among fellow tribesmen, unlike us, people of another civilization. And their rituals of mating behavior, as a manifestation of the combination reflex, may also be different.
But instincts, as we have already said, can also influence the so-called spiritual aspects of a person, if we do not take humanists into account and look from a natural point of view, for example, at the functions of conscience, which are inherited and cannot in any way be educated in some individuals. And others, you see, almost don’t need to be educated, i.e. they don’t even need to read out the list of commandments, because they won’t do these bad things anyway.
The beast also exhibits qualities close to the so-called human spirituality when it does not touch other people’s cubs, and sometimes saves them from starvation; when he feels gratitude, for example, to a person and contacts him. We are talking about the instincts of a social group, complex instincts, instincts that regulate social behavior in packs and in society (where there is not much difference). The culture of behavior in a pack of wolves and in human society does not differ as much as humanists believe, and this is because even the culture in the notorious human society is also determined by instincts, as by some simple directive messages. Of course, culture and conscience are by no means reduced to instincts alone, but are largely predetermined by them, initiated, without which they would not work, as happens in some human individuals with corresponding genetic defects.