Name: Social Psychology.
The textbook is a systematic course in social psychology.
Fundamental problems are outlined (communication, social psychology of groups, social psychology of personality). The subject of social psychology, historical milestones of its development, methodology and research methods are characterized. The problem of the discrepancy between the principle of social determination of psychological phenomena and direct "service" to a certain political regime is clearly posed. The same idea is served by a brief review of modern theoretical orientations in foreign social psychology.
Intended for students of higher educational institutions.
This edition was undertaken eight years after the last publication of the textbook. At least two circumstances required significant changes.
First of all, these are significant changes in the subject of research itself, i.e. in the socio-psychological characteristics of society itself and, accordingly, in the relations of society and the individual. Social psychology, as is well known, solves the problems proposed by society, and not "in general" by society, but by a given specific type of society. The collapse of the USSR and the emergence of Russia as an independent state offered social psychology a number of new problems that required a certain understanding of the new reality. Thus, the definition of social relations existing in the country as socialist relations and, consequently, the description of the specific attributes of this type of relations has lost its meaning. This should also include the problem of defining social psychology as "Soviet social psychology" in connection with the radical change in the nature of the society in which it was created. Secondly, the changes relate to the addressee to whom the textbook is addressed. The first two editions were definitely addressed to students of psychological faculties and departments of universities, since at that time social psychology as a subject was studied precisely in these departments. The changes that have taken place in society, one of their results in the spiritual sphere, have been a rapid growth of interest in social psychology, not only among representatives of other academic professions, but also among business practitioners, managers, and financiers. In addition, practical social psychology has also gained significant development, which is mastering not only such traditional areas as education, health care, the army, the law enforcement system, but also offers a wide system of specific means and forms of socio-psychological influence. It is difficult to meet the needs of all these diverse groups of readers. The textbook is still preserved as a textbook intended for higher educational institutions, although the professional guidelines in this edition are somewhat shifted: the material is adapted to be perceived not only by psychologists, but also by sociology students, economists, representatives of technical disciplines, i.e. almost everyone who studies this subject in universities.
Table of contents:
FOREWORD
Section I
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1. Place of social psychology in the system of scientific knowledge
Chapter 2. The history of the formation of socio-psychological ideas
Chapter 3. Methodological problems of socio-psychological research
Section II
PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION
Chapter 4. Public Relations and Interpersonal Relations
Chapter 5. Communication as an exchange of information (communicative side of communication)
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Section III
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GROUP
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10. Spontaneous groups and mass movements
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Section IV
SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH OF PERSONALITY
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Section V
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION
Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Social psychology - Andreeva - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.
Download doc
Below you can buy this book at the best discounted price with delivery throughout Russia.
Section I Introduction
Chapter 1. Place of social psychology in the system of scientific knowledge
Chapter 2. The history of the formation of socio-psychological ideas
Chapter 3. Methodological problems of socio-psychological research
Section II. Patterns of communication and interaction
Chapter 4. Public Relations and Interpersonal Relations
Chapter 5. Communication as an exchange of information (communicative side of communication)
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Section III. Social psychology of groups
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10. Spontaneous groups and mass movements
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Section IV. Socio-psychological problems of personality research
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Section V. Practical Applications of Social Psychology
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Instead of a conclusion
Andreeva Galina Mikhailovna
Born in 1924 (June 13) in Kazan, a leading specialist in the field of social psychology, graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov (1950), has been teaching at Moscow State University since 1953, Doctor of Philosophy (since 1966), Professor (1968), Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation (1984), Academician of the Russian Academy of Education (since 1993), Honored Professor of Moscow State University ( 1996) Member of the Scientific Council “Psychology of the Nuclear Age”, Boston University, USA (since 1972), member of the Russian Society of Sociologists (since 1968), member of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (since 1972). - Russian Psychological Society (since 1994), awarded with government awards (Order of the Red Star, Order of the Patriotic War 2nd class, medal "For Military Merit", medal "For Victory in the Second World War", 9 more commemorative medals, Order of Friendship of Peoples ”).
In 1972, she created the Department of Social Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University and until 1989 she was in charge of it. The creation of this department largely contributed to the formation of social psychology as a scientific and educational discipline in the country's universities: the course program was developed, the country's first university textbook "Social Psychology" was written (M., 1980), awarded the Lomonosov Prize (1984), translated into nine foreign languages and is currently in its 5th edition.
The topic of her doctoral dissertation was “Methodological Problems of Empirical Social Research” (1966). The area of her scientific interests moved in subsequent years from philosophy and sociology to the problems of social perception, cognitive social psychology. She proposed a theoretical scheme for a systematic study of this area (On the construction of a theoretical scheme for the study of perception // Problems of Psychology, 1977, No. 2). At the Department of Social Psychology under the leadership of Andreeva G.M. Numerous studies have been carried out on this issue, which is reflected in a number of collective monographs (1978; 1981; 1984), in which she acted as an editor and author.
Her concept - the study of socio-perceptual processes in real social groups - served as the basis for many PhD theses. With separate research results, in particular, on the problems of social attribution Andreeva G.M. repeatedly spoke at scientific congresses and conferences; in 1975 she was elected a member of the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology. In the 1990s, the results of many years of research were summarized in the special course “Psychology of Social Cognition” developed by her, on the basis of which a textbook was written (Andreeva, 1997). She prepared 48 candidates of sciences and 9 doctors of sciences.
Total Andreeva G.M. published more than 160 works (including 12 monographs and textbooks, individual, as well as in co-authorship or under her editorship), including many in foreign editions, partly based on materials from international joint research (Finland, Germany, Czech Republic).
Main works: Lectures on the methodology of concrete social research (ed.). M., 1972; Modern social psychology abroad (co-author). M., 1978; Social Psychology. Textbook for universities. M., 1980 (subsequent editions: 1988,1994, 1996, 1997); Actual problems of social psychology. M., 1988; Communication and optimization of joint activities (co-author Ya. Yanoushek). M., 1987; Social psychology and social practice (co-authored colleagues from the GDR). M., 1978; Russians and Germans. The old image of the enemy gives way to new hopes. It has language. Bonn, 1990 (co-authors - colleagues from Germany); Psychology of social cognition. M., 1997.
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION (r1.pdf - 366K)
- Chapter 1. Place of social psychology in the system of scientific knowledge
Chapter 2. The history of the formation of socio-psychological ideas
Chapter 3. Methodological problems of socio-psychological research
- Chapter 4. Public Relations and Interpersonal Relations
Chapter 5. Communication as an exchange of information (communicative side of communication)
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10. Spontaneous groups and mass movements
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
The article comprehensively examines the question of the relationship between social cognition and social
problems. A brief excursion into the history of the study of social problems in the social
psychology in our country and abroad. The essence of the ideas of W. Wundt, K. Levin, A.
Tashfel, P.A. Sorokina, V.M. Bekhtereva, L.S. Vygotsky and others concerning the tasks of social
psychology.
The modern perspectives of social cognition in the study of social problems are outlined.
The methodology of the psychology of social cognition can be used both to explain
individual elements of emerging problems, and to understand the process as a whole. Is being told
about the formation of a new specific branch of social psychology, which has designated itself as
psychology of social cognition, about its tasks and possibilities, about the development of study methods
social problems in today's conditions by the theory of social representations of S. Moskovisi.
The undoubted relevance of the study of social problems today is shown. The author notes
that an urgent need to address significant (global) problems in society arises
always in a period of radical change, social transformation and, from this point of view, a period
reforms in Russia is a situation that calls for the need to study the essence of social
problems.
Social psychology, according to the author, is able to contribute to the clarification of a new
changes in society, and then - in the designation of ways to master the new situation. In that
case, it can be considered that an element of the new role of social psychology in society becomes
development of "taste" for the perception of social problems, readiness and motivation for this kind
activities.
The status of social problems in the subject of social psychology
At first glance, raising the question of the relationship between social cognition and social problems may seem meaningless, because the answer is obvious: social cognition, by definition, studies social problems. However, this first light presentation does not capture all the subtleties of scientific discourse on the subject. In different periods, in different foreshortenings and methodological approaches, it is easy to detect a multitude of various difficulties, starting with the difficulties of defining the initial concepts: what is meant by "social problems", equally, as well as by "social knowledge" ...
To answer these questions, it is inevitable to turn to some features of the interpretation of the very subject of social psychology as a special scientific discipline. In particular, it is necessary to consider how social problems are treated within its framework. After that, it is possible to find out what role in the knowledge of these problems is played by a variant of modern cognitive science called "social cognition" (social cognition).
The study of social problems in social psychology has a dramatic history. To a large extent, this is explained by the peculiarities of the emergence of social psychology as a "marginal" science, which has both psychology and sociology as its "parents". The controversy over the subject of social psychology in this regard occupies many pages in the scientific literature (Andreeva, 2002). According to K. Graumann, even the names of Plato and Aristotle symbolize two traditions of social thought, “which in our time are designated as socio-centered and individually-centered approaches. The first emphasizes the decisive role of social structures (systems, institutions, groups) in the behavior of the individual. The second, on the contrary, explains social systems through the properties and functions of the individual (Graumann, 2004, pp. 4-5). As part of the discussion about whether social psychology should focus primarily on the position of the individual in the group or on the psychological characteristics of the group, the question arises of the place of social problems in the subject of social psychology. In principle, the issue was resolved long ago in favor of the need for simultaneous attention to both of these sides of the problem, but its second side is still the basis for ongoing disputes. What does it mean: psychological characteristics of groups? The answer here is ambiguous.
First of all, which groups do you mean: small or large, or both? It is known that in different periods of the development of social psychology, the issue was resolved in different ways. In the 60s of the twentieth century, during the period of the emergence of the first socio-psychological theories, emphasis was placed on the need to study the psychology of large social groups. W. Wundt writes about this in his "Psychology of Peoples". For him, this is the study of the psychology of peoples, which is a special part of the entire scientific discipline of psychology. Later, during the period of formation of social psychology into an independent field of knowledge, which occurred after the First World War in the USA, small groups fell into the focus of research, this corresponds to the general orientation of science towards empirical research. Large group problems were more often seen as features of collective behavior (Lindzey and Aronson, 1959), i.e. the question shifted towards a slightly different problem.
At the same time, a tradition of taking into account real social problems was born. The choice of these problems, due to a number of circumstances characteristic of America in those years (in particular, the orientation towards the philosophy of pragmatism and positivism), was quite specific: these were problems of a particular, local nature, mainly aimed at solving equally particular, local problems. Thus, an inevitable gap arose between such landmarks of research as large groups and the social problems of society. These two blocks practically did not touch each other. In addition, the question of what should be considered a social problem was not raised at all?
In addition, starting from the mid-thirties of the twentieth century in the same place, in the United States, simultaneously with the general crisis of the empirical trend after such global economic and political events as the Great Depression and World War II, "acute social problems literally overwhelmed the supporters of rigorous science in their laboratories" ( Graumann, 2004, p. 15). Under the influence of the aggravation of real social problems, a special organization has arisen, called "The Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues" (1936), which recently celebrated its seventieth anniversary and is currently publishing the journal "Social Issues". To a large extent, its creation was due to the futility of the growing trend towards the accumulation of a mass of facts revealed in empirical studies and not receiving a satisfactory theoretical generalization. The works of K. Levin, who moved to the USA and attached great importance to social psychology in the fight against fascism, also played an important role here. The principle of action research proclaimed by Lewin (Lewin, 1946) contributed a lot to the emerging change in the focus of research, as well as P. Sorokin’s sharp criticism of “numberology” and “quantophrenia” as symbols of primitive empiricism (Sorokin, 1956) .
Simultaneously with the changes in the one-sided research strategy in social psychology in the United States, a new orientation of social psychology in Europe was gaining momentum. Established in 1965, the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology (now renamed the European Association for Social Psychology) proclaimed new principles for social psychological research (The Social Context of Social Psychology, 1972). Along with criticism of the methodological foundations of American social psychology, she formulated a kind of "set" of the provisions of the European approach. The key word was the term "social context", which in many respects predetermined a significant turn of the entire problematics of the discipline. The requirement to take into account the social context in each study implied a return to the study of not only large groups, but also real (global) social problems. In the works of S. Moscovici and A. Taschfel, this idea was formulated quite clearly.
S. Moskovichi, returning to the dual status of social psychology, insisted on strengthening its sociological component, which he designated as the sociologization of the discipline (Andreeva, 1954). It involves obtaining "... answers to the questions that society puts before us" (Moskovichi, 1954, p. 218). The author draws on left-wing youth movements in Europe and America criticizing the fact that social psychology there "quietly ignores" the problems of social inequality, political violence, wars, economic backwardness and racial conflicts. According to Moscovici, this means that "we are comfortably settled within the 'establishment'", i.e. preferred to see in social psychology the development not of a "science of movement" but of a "science of order" (Ibid., p. 212). This is evidenced by the fact that, despite the fact that “social and political ideologies play such an important role in human affairs,” we show so “little interest in their influence on social behavior and in revealing the nature of conflicts” (Ibid., S. 216). Social psychology has become an "uninteresting" science because the fundamental problems of man and society are lost in clusters of fragmented "fields of study" and methods.
One of the means of correcting the situation, according to Moscovici, is to strengthen the role of theoretical analysis in the structure of social psychology. He proposes to consider socio-psychological processes from a sociological point of view, namely: the study of social processes occurring in society as a whole, on a fairly large scale, when socio-psychological mechanisms are subordinated to the cultural and social context of behavior, their social "outline". Moscovici's ideas have become widespread in the scientific literature, and the approach he proposed has become a kind of banner of the European tradition in social psychology.
Similar views were expressed by another author of The Context of Social Psychology, A. Teshfel. His critique of existing social psychology is aimed at "experimenting in a vacuum" (Tajfel, 1972). Its meaning lies in the fact that in most modern socio-psychological research, the experiment remains "manipulative research in the laboratory." As for theories, for the most part socio-psychological theories are theories about individual or interpersonal behavior, when it all boils down to the fact that social behavior is an adaptation of the general mechanisms of behavior to the conditions generated by the fact that it is performed in the environment of other people. . “Therefore, despite the clear wording in textbooks indicating that social psychology is a science of social behavior, that behavior is determined by social factors and “depends” on the social context, in practice, due to an incorrect understanding of the social factors themselves and the very essence of determination, social psychology considers social behavior in a pre-social or even anti-social perspective” (Tashfel, 1954, p. 244).
Agreeing with Moscovici's thesis, Taschfel believes that the problem is in the quality of socio-psychological theories, and specifically, in the fact that in them the transition from individual behavior to social behavior occurs without taking into account the qualitative specifics of the group: “The current situation proceeds from the fact that the individual is a unit analysis (highlighted by me - G.A). He reacts to others, others react to him, and nothing new happens” (Ibid., pp. 244-245). The real task of social psychology is to take into account the obvious connection "between the psychological functioning of the individual and a wide range of social processes and events" (highlighted by me - G.A.) (Tajfel, 1981, P. 7).
As another principled position, Taschfel proposes a revision of the concept of "social change". A broader interpretation of this concept by Tashfel has been repeatedly considered in Russian socio-psychological literature (for example, Andreeva, Bogomolova, Petrovskaya, 2002). Here it is necessary to emphasize the idea that change is a fundamental characteristic of social behavior: change entails a change in the social environment, "by changing himself, the individual changes the social environment, by changing it, he changes himself." A person is always faced with the need to choose a new line of behavior, and therefore, according to Taschfel, “social behavior can be predicted under conditions of stability, but it is impossible to do so under conditions of change” (Ibid., p. 246). Despite the possible discussion about the very interpretation of the essence of social change, the productivity of the very approach that links the study of social problems of society with the problem of social change is undeniable.
In a review article by K. Graumann (Graumann, 2004), devoted to the differences between the American and European traditions of social psychology, special emphasis is placed on the fact that under the conditions of the new, interactionist paradigm of social psychology (Gergen, 1994), the question is inevitably reproduced: “What is social? And the answers given by a number of prominent researchers boil down to the fact that this is an activity in the course of which interacting individuals create (or “construct”) a common reality for them. This is what allows psychologists “to give the phenomenon of collective reality a socio-psychological meaning (Graumann, 2004, p. 21). This is how, in a peculiar circuitous way, the meaning of social psychology and the need for its study of large-scale social problems are connected. It is interesting to note that such an interpretation of social psychology was quite typical of Soviet social psychology, which was reviving in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
On the one hand, this was due to the tradition of attitudes towards social psychology that had developed in our country back in the pre-revolutionary years. In general, the development of socio-psychological ideas in pre-revolutionary Russia was carried out mainly not in the depths of psychology as such, but within the framework of a wider range of social disciplines included in the general social context. These problems are beginning to be actively developed in journalism in connection with the ideological struggle of those years. An example is the work of the ideologue of populism N.K. Mikhailovsky "The Hero and the Crowd", in which he insisted on the need to "analyze the mechanisms of change in the mental state and behavior of large social groups", directly linking this issue with the emerging social psychology (Mikhailovsky, 1896).
On the other hand, within the framework of the scientific discipline, the emerging social psychology in our country clearly gravitated toward the “sociological” version. It is no coincidence that one of the first and systematic uses of the term "collective (social) psychology" was proposed in the work of M.M. Kovalevsky "Sociology", which is a course of lectures delivered at the St. Petersburg Psychoneurological Institute. Numerous appeals to socio-psychological problems are also contained in the works of P.A. Sorokin, whose publications and teaching activities (course of sociology) clearly showed an interest in the real problems of society (Sorokin, 1956).
As for the “psychological” variant of social psychology, here from the very beginning a fundamentally different approach was outlined, in which the connection with socio-political and simply social problems was traced much weaker. Nevertheless, socio-psychological problems were also presented “within” psychology, and interest in the real problems of society was indicated in it. First of all, this concerns the position of V.M. Bekhterev. In his two works "Objective Psychology" (1907-1912) and "Suggestion and Its Role in Public Life" (1908), the scientist raised a number of fundamental questions that later became significant for understanding the subject of social psychology. In the first book - the question of the "volume" of future science ("the mental life of not only individuals, but also "groups of persons", crowds, societies, peoples"), in the second - about the influence of communication on social processes, the dependence of personality development on the organization of various types of teams. There is no direct mention of "social problems" here, but the whole structure of reasoning implies the need to take them into account as an obligatory component of the subject of social psychology (subsequently, this problem was discussed in more detail within the framework of "collective reflexology"). Thus, the two blocks of social psychology emerging in Russia were, to one degree or another, aimed at developing significant problems of society.
In the discussion about the fate of social psychology in the new society that began after the October Revolution (Andreeva, 2010), two accents remained in understanding the subject of this science - on the personality in a group and on the psychological characteristics of groups. The second emphasis was especially pronounced during the second discussion, which took place in the late 1950s and early 1960s, where its priority was recognized mainly by participants with professional training in sociology (in contrast to the position of professional psychologists). A special situation arose during the so-called "break" in the development of social psychology in the USSR (that is, between the first and second discussions), when this branch of psychology was practically deprived of the status of an independent discipline. Meanwhile, within the framework of the so-called "social psychology" it was the second side of the subject that was given some attention, turned to the problems of large groups and, consequently, significant social problems. To a large extent, this was due to ideological reasons: “their” social psychology was seen as purely “bourgeois” and empirical, and therefore divorced from the real problems of society, while “ours” was aimed at these problems, since their solution contributed to the formation of a new society. . In the domestic literature of the 40s-50s of the last century, social problems, of course, were present (and sometimes dominated). Confirmation of this can be found in a number of works popular at that time and later: in the psychological theory of the collective (Makarenko, 1963; Zaluzhny, 1930), in studies on psychotechnics by I.N. Shpilrein, S.G. Gellerstein, A.K. Gasteva and others (Budilova, 1972). After the second discussion, when social psychology was restored in its rights, a certain interest in social problems was preserved, as evidenced by the popular works of the first years of the "second birth" of social psychology in the USSR (Problems of social ..., 1965; Kuzmin, 1967; Parygin, 1971 and others).
A special place is occupied by the position of L.S. Vygotsky, in which two “methodological” points related to the discussion of social psychology can be singled out: the doctrine of higher mental functions and direct considerations about the subject of social psychology. The hypotheses put forward in the first case about the indirect nature of human mental functions and about the origin of internal mental processes from activity, originally “interpsychic”, provided the basis for a fundamental solution of socio-psychological problems proper. If the mechanism of the development of the psyche is the mechanism of assimilation of socio-historical forms of activity, it is logical to include in the "apparatus" of science the analysis of the content of these forms. In the second case, Vygotsky, arguing with Wundt, distinguishes between the subject matter of “social” (“psyche of an individual”) and “collective” psychology” and defines the latter as “personal psychology under conditions of collective manifestation (for example, troops, churches)” (Vygotsky, 1987 pp. 20). If we ignore the specific language characteristic of the era of the creation of the work, the focus on real social situations becomes obvious.
The general conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of a brief excursion into the history of foreign and domestic social psychology is that there is undoubtedly an “immanent” involvement of the study of acute social problems in the fabric of this discipline. But another thing is just as obvious: such involvement manifests itself only in certain periods of the history of this science, namely, in periods of radical social transformations, i.e. when there is a special "request" from the society. Therefore, today's interest in the study of the socio-psychological aspects of social problems in Russia is quite natural.
Prospects for social cognition in the study of social problems
The period of transformations of Russian society at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries causes an aggravation of a whole range of social problems: unemployment, corruption, crime, interethnic relations, demographic problems, ecology, and much more. The whole range of these problems is the field of close attention of sociologists. It is no coincidence that in recent years there has been a sharp increase in the number of works in this field of knowledge (Social transformations., 2005; Zaslavskaya, 2000; Levada, 2000; Lapin, 2000; Zdravomyslov, 2000; Naumova, 2000). However, it cannot be said that the study of the problems that have arisen is carried out just as lively in social psychology, despite the presence of first, often successful, steps. Here it is appropriate to recall a number of studies conducted, in particular, at the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University. On the basis of these studies, one can construct a refutation of the position that social psychology has "turned its back" on real social problems. In fact, the focus on this issue remains. Any study containing a reference to the social context or to the social determinism of this or that phenomenon can be regarded as an appeal to a social problem. But, it's about something else. For almost every social problem today, it is not only appropriate and necessary, but also a systemic socio-psychological analysis is possible, the result of which will be not just mentioning the significance or prevalence of a particular phenomenon in social reality, but also considering it in a broader social context, identifying the problem in which the phenomenon under study is included.
Confidence in the possibility of such an approach is justified by the fact that in the last fifty years social psychology itself has developed such new ideas and principles that make it possible to approach the study of social problems with new tools and at a fundamentally new level. The rapid development of the ideas of cognitive psychology in the 70s of the twentieth century led to the formation of a specific area of social psychology, which designated itself as the psychology of social cognition (English version - Social Cognition). In a polemic with the general ideas of cognitive psychology, she declared her specificity, generated by the specificity of the object of knowledge, which is social reality. Its most important differences from cognitive psychology are that:
the appeal was made not to knowledge in general, but exclusively to social knowledge;
knowledge was carried out not by the researcher, but by an ordinary member of society;
at the same time, the process of cognition was interpreted as a process of constructing social reality.
This approach is based on the idea of the sociologist A. Schutz, whose concept “can be considered as a systematic description of the structures of the social world, as it is seen by the acting individual, as it appears to him in the course of his activity, i.e. in essence, it is a systematic description of the creation of this world through its understanding” (Ionin, 1998, p. 73).
A natural logical step in describing the essence of Social Cognition is a more detailed appeal, on the one hand, to the analysis of the methodology developed within this area, and, on the other hand, to the problems that are typical for research in this area. In both cases, more clearly than in the general understanding of the subject of social psychology, the possibility and need for a close study of social reality, i.e. the entire repertoire of real social problems. The assertion made at the beginning of the article about the seeming banality of the thesis that the connection between social psychology and social problems is obvious, becomes even more important when it comes to the "connection" of social cognition and social problems. What other subject of study can social cognition have if not the knowledge of the whole complex of problems that characterize social reality? Here, a new methodology of analysis, which arose along with a new paradigm in social psychology, comes to the fore.
K. Gergen's social constructionism, which arose within the framework of the general orientation of modern social science towards postmodernism, is a variant of the new paradigm (K. Gergen, 1994, 1996; Yakimova, 1994; Andreeva, 2005). The specific development of this paradigm has been successfully implemented in a number of concepts of European authors, in the development of their views, outlined in the mentioned program work ‘‘The Context of Social Psychology’’. Essentially, all "European" modifications of social constructionism (the theory of social representations by S. Moscovici, the theory of social identity by A. Taschfel, the ethogenic theory by R. Harre) can be considered as modern tools for studying social problems.
Thanks to the emergence of these tools, the old "application" of social psychology to study such problems is gaining new opportunities (Andreeva, 2005). Let us turn to the logic of Gergen, expressed by him in a number of “hypotheses”: since the starting point of all knowledge is the doubt that the surrounding world is something taken for granted, its explanation can only be a convention; its comprehension is the result of the joint activity of people and their relations. Therefore, the words used to designate these relations make sense only in the context of these relations; different forms of understanding the world depend on the nature of social processes, and the rule "what to count with what" is due to the nature of social changes; this means that descriptions and explanations of the world constitute forms of social action and are thus included in social activity (Gergen, 1994). The proposed scheme essentially contains the idea of constructing the world, and it can be assumed that the construction of social problems is also an integral part of this process.
A special place in the development of methods for studying social problems in today's conditions is occupied by the theory of social representations by S. Moskovichi (Dontsov, Emelyanova, 1987; Shikhirev, 1999; Andreeva, 2005; Yakimova, 1999; Emelyanova, 2006, etc.). In the context of the issue under consideration here, the theory of social representations is interesting in that it was within its framework that a method of studying the psychology of large social groups arose, which also acts as an approach to the analysis of social problems. The essence of this method is quite simple: the relationship between social representation and the group is revealed. Thus, the influence of a group on a social representation is determined by the degree of fixation by the group of certain aspects of a perceived phenomenon, by the acceptance or rejection of this or that information about it, by the frequency of using a certain social representation. At the same time, the influence of social representation on the group is manifested in the fact that with the help of its various interpretations, it is possible to manipulate the facts of social life, as well as contribute to the formation of a group (social) identity (Andreeva, 2005).
Empirical verification of the productivity of such a methodology is presented in a number of studies carried out in Russian social psychology. This is, first of all, the work of TP. Emelyanova, dedicated to social representation as a subject of study of social transformations in Russian society (Emelyanova, 2006). Here, not only the methodology of studying social problems with the help of the theory of social representations is successfully applied, but also a picture of the real social problems of modern Russia is widely presented. "Antinomy "democracy - authoritarianism" in the mirror of social ideas"; "Antinomy" oligarchy - state regulation of the economy "and its development in social ideas"; “The antinomy of the “national - the world” in social representations” - even this simple list of sections of the mentioned work speaks of the problematization of the author's research. Perhaps the designation of a social phenomenon as a problem through an indication of an existing antinomy (or in some cases, an “opposition”) is generally a godsend (Ibid., p. 319). Antinomy arises in the conditions of changes taking place in society, therefore the study of social problems organically includes the study of social changes.
Regardless of the new paradigm and new methodology, under the influence of social practice, social problems are increasingly becoming the subject of research by social psychologists. But, of course, the “breakthrough” is still only being indicated. Its relevance today is beyond doubt. As it has been repeatedly in the history of science, an urgent need to address significant (global) problems in society always arises in a period of radical changes, social transformations. From this point of view, the period of reforms in Russia is a situation that calls for the need to study the essence of social problems arising against the background of social changes in order to understand their practical significance and possible forecasting.
The conclusion that the actualization of the study of social problems in the social psychology of Russia today is a challenge of the times becomes obvious. There is a real social situation that requires a certain answer from science and the availability of a means, a tool that allows this answer to be provided. I repeat that the first steps towards mastering the social psychology of the "shouting" problems of modern Russian society have already been made (Andreeva, 2010). Perhaps now it is necessary to formulate more precisely the principle of the scale of the selection of problems under study and the socio-psychological arsenal of methods for studying them. This task is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. It requires the revival of the skills that once existed or are implicitly manifested today to “handle” the subject under discussion, while demonstrating all the possibilities of new methodological findings.
As an example, one can turn to one of the most common social problems that Russian reality is facing today, namely: to building a civil society - a special non-state sphere of social life. Civil society is traditionally interpreted as a set of social relations, social interactions between people and the institutions they form, which independently, without state intervention, perform the functions of self-organization and self-government. The main subject of this sphere is “the social personality of a person as a valuable and responsible citizen, and as such recognized by the state” (Gudkov, Dubov, Zorkaya, 2005). Building this type of society is indeed a problem due to the scale of the process itself and its characteristics in the historical conditions of Russia's development.
There is a complex dynamic social object, which includes many objective and subjective characteristics and therefore "worthy" of being investigated by a whole range of disciplines, including social psychology, equipped with the achievements of the psychology of social cognition. When studying civil society in this vein, there are all conditions for ensuring a genuine “problematic” approach: interrelation, inconsistency, dynamism of the combination of various elements of the whole, their existence in conditions of radical social changes. Civil society institutions are public, non-governmental organizations, associations, unions, societies, movements, self-government bodies, and today social networks, the Internet blogosphere. The subject of the emerging new reality is present and more and more definitely declares itself - an interested, responsible subject of social relations - a citizen capable of the transformations necessary for Russia. Traditionally, the role of such a subject is attributed to the middle class, the specifics of the formation of which in Russia is the subject of special analysis (The middle class in the modern ..., 1999). Since the sprouts of civil society can appear only with the activity of citizens and their ability to unite and self-organize, the main mechanism for its creation is a discourse, during which an increasing number of subjects are constantly involved in a discussion, a dialogue about what is happening in society. The theory of discourse and its role in the life of society is a fairly developed area of various social sciences, including social psychology (Harre 1998; Habermas, 1985; Shikhirev, 1999; Yakimova, 1999). Claiming communication as a key point in explaining social life, Harre believes that it is in the course of discourse that its participants, discussing the content of the categories by which objects and phenomena of the social world are designated, are included in the discussion of the problems of this world, that is, social problems become the subject of social interaction. .
The specificity of Russia lies in the fact that there are no established traditions of the culture of social interaction, although its sprouts are manifesting themselves more and more clearly. At different periods, the Taganka Theater and the student theater of Moscow State University could be attributed to them, later - the "soldiers' mothers" association, movements against the monetization of benefits, defrauded real estate investors, against infill development in the capital, in defense of the Khimki forest, etc. An increase of this kind social activity manifested itself in the rallies at the end of 2011. The actual side of these processes is studied in sufficient detail by sociology and political science. In what way can this problem be posed and investigated in social psychology?
It is obvious that the formation of civil society in Russia is going with great difficulties, which makes the process problematic. An analysis of the difficulties that arise leads to the conclusion that the main factors of this problem are socio-psychological factors. The methodology of the psychology of social cognition can be used both to explain the individual elements of emerging problems, and to understand the process as a whole. Let us name some areas of possible analysis in this particular case using the conceptual apparatus of the psychology of social cognition.
The most important obstacle to the formation of civil society in Russia, according to G.G. Diligensky, is “a state-mentalistic mentality, people’s disbelief in the possibility of independent collective protection of their rights and interests, a fatalistic idea of the invincibility of power” (Diligensky, 1998). This indicates the presence in society of a certain negative social consensus, which developed during the existence of the USSR and retains its influence to this day. Its characteristic features are both the level of distrust towards power structures, and the attitude towards various kinds of protest movements and, more generally, towards collective actions. An analysis of the social consensus that exists in society at each specific stage of its development is one of the developments in the psychology of social cognition (Andreeva, 2005), which is relevant in the study of the named social problem.
The social attitudes of Russians towards their readiness to participate in civic initiatives, the structure and hierarchy of values that determine them, is another area of the psychology of social cognition that acts as a factor in building a civil society. The problematic nature of this area is expressed in the discussion about the relationship between the traditional social values of the Russian population and the values of civil society. The practical "refraction" of this area is the study of political and legal culture, the motivation of the civic activity of the masses, as well as an understanding of the standards of civic responsibility and the skills of combining civic activity and traditional forms of political activity. Only under the condition of understanding and acceptance of respect for the law, such a combination gives a real impetus to the development of civil society.
The social identity of a person, one of the priority topics of modern psychology of social cognition, also acts as a fragment of an explanatory model for building a civil society. It is no coincidence that in studies of the modern middle class in Russia, one of the main criteria for its selection is the criterion of self-identification (Tikhonova, 1999). Moreover, the very idea of the social structure of society is built by the members of this society on the basis of "their awareness of their own social identity, depends on the characteristics of intergroup perception" (Shirkov, 1997). And in this case, this fragment contributes to the construction of a systemic image of the studied type of society. If we add to this (as revealed in a number of studies (Belinskaya, 2005)) that decision-making about one's own identity has to be carried out in a situation of uncertainty, then for understanding such a problem as “civil society”, the value of the named fragment can hardly be overestimated.
Finally, social ideas about civil society, the totality of which contributes to the construction of the Image of the world, accepted by the mass consciousness. It is with the help of social representations characteristic of various social groups that the real world is constructed, in which the social activity of citizens is realized. Construction is understood as bringing information about the world into a system, organizing this information into coherent structures in order to comprehend its meaning (Andreeva, 2002, p. 182). It is appropriate in this case to recall the words of A.N. Leontiev about the significance of the Image of the World in the real social activity of individuals, about how, in the process of their activity, individuals build an image of the world in which they live, act, which they themselves remake and partially create., and about how the image of the world functions, mediating their activities in the objectively real world” (Leontiev, 1979). The foregoing can be considered as a kind of model for building a civil society.
An important element of such a model is media coverage of the process. The solution of social problems in the modern world largely depends on how these problems are presented in the media system. As has been repeatedly proven, this dependence is twofold: on the one hand, the media orient a person in the world, create the impression of belonging to him, on the other hand, they initiate a person to take certain actions to change the existing situation, thereby fulfilling their role in recreating or constructing the world. . There is no need to supply this thesis with illustrations from the field of building civil society in Russia at the present time.
This example does not in any way claim to be called a model in the exact sense of the word. The only goal is the need for reflection on the significance of the issues raised. Even a cursory review of the elements of the psychology of social cognition, which was presented here, indicates that they contain a whole set of methodological techniques for studying one of the most complex social problems facing the country today. Therefore, the statement about the possibility of new approaches, presented today by the psychology of social cognition, allows us to return to the question of “readiness” for the revival of the significance of “social problems” and the tradition of their study. Given the nature of the era, the rapid pace of development of society in the period of radical social transformations, it is appropriate to repeat once again that the importance of such problems increases at turning points in history and therefore their solution becomes an urgent task. Accordingly, the need for their study turns into an equally urgent task of social psychology.
The approach proposed in the theory of social constructionism provides clear guidelines regarding the professional tasks of social psychology. The idea of J. Habermas about the need to “smell the problem” earlier than others is now turning into direct recommendations for researchers. Gergen considers one of the requirements of the new paradigm to be the rejection of socio-psychological science from such its cornerstone as forecasting and the transition to an unprecedented role "as a catalyst for social receptivity and sensitivity" (Gergen, 1994. P. 49). The justification for this new role is due to the complication of the social world, in connection with which a person is forced to comprehend a wider range of problems, compare their solutions in different types of societies, which “expands the range of alternative actions, leading to the modification or gradual disappearance of behavioral models” (Ibid, P. 34). Perhaps social psychology is able to contribute to the clarification of the new configuration of society, and then to the designation of ways to master the new situation. Then we can consider that the development of a "taste" for the perception of social problems, readiness and motivation for this kind of activity becomes an element of the new role of social psychology in society.
Such a perspective implies a whole range of tasks facing professional researchers in developing a strategy for "recognizing" and studying social problems. This should be a special area of activity for professionals in the conditions of a new look at a specific section of social psychology.
Notes
It is hardly necessary to recall again the corresponding discussions in the USSR in the twenties and late fifties of the last century (see Andreeva, 2002).
Later, in the theory of social representations created by Moscovici, concrete examples of the implementation of this kind of research are given.
It is no coincidence that since 2010 a new journal Social Psychology and Society began to appear in Russia, one of the purposes of which is to focus on the study of social problems [Andreeva, 2010].
The complex of these works is presented in the collective monograph of the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University "Social Psychology in the Modern World" [Andreeva, Dontsov, 2002].
Literature:
Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition. - M.: Aspect Press. 2005.Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Foreign social psychology of the twentieth century. - M. : Aspect Press, 2002.
Andreeva G.M. Social psychology: a new journal and new problems // Social psychology and society. - 2010. - No. 1. - S. 4-8.
Afanas'eva A.I., Likhanova A.B. Metamorphoses of the mass consciousness of Russians: a round table // SOCIS. - 2009. - No. 5. . - S. 24-30.
Belinskaya E.P. Man in a Changing World - A Socio-Psychological Perspective . - M. : Prometheus, 2005.
Bekhterev V.M. Suggestion in public life. - St. Petersburg. : 1908.
Bekhterev V.M. Public psychology. - St. Petersburg. : 1903.
Budilova E.A. Socio-psychological ideas in Russian science . - M. : Nauka, 1983.
Vygotsky L.S. History of the development of higher mental functions // Collection. op. in 6 vols. T. 3. - M .: Pedagogy, 1983.
Gergen K. The social constructionist movement in contemporary psychology // Social psychology: self-reflection of marginality. - M. : INION RAN, 1995.
Graumann K. Historical introduction to social psychology // Introduction to social psychology. European approach / ed. M. Houston, W. Strebe. - M. : UNITI, 2004.
Gudkov L.D., Dubov B.I., Zorkaya N.A. Post-Soviet man and civil society. - M.: Moscow School of Political Studies, 2008.
Diligensky G.G. The formation of civil society: cultural and psychological problems // Civil society in Russia: structures and consciousness. - M.: 1998.
Dontsov A.I., Emelyanova T.P. To concept of social representations in French psychology. - M. : Publishing House of Moscow State University 1987.
Emelyanova T.P. Construction of social representations in the conditions of transformation of the Russian society. - M. : Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006.
Zhavoronkov A.V. Russian society. Consumption, communications and decision making (1967-2004). - M.: SPb. : Top, 2007.
Zaluzhny A.S. Children's team and methods of its study . - M.: 1930.
Zaslavskaya T.I. Modern Russian society. - M.: 2004.
Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology in Russia // Sociology of the Russian crisis. - M.: Science. 1999.
Ionin L.G. Sociology of culture. - M.: Logos. 1998.
Kuzmin E.S., Semenov V.E. Social Psychology. - Leningrad: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1979.
Lapin N.I. Ways of Russia: socio-cultural transformations. - M.: 2000.
Levada Yu.A. From opinions to understanding. Sociological essays. 1993-2000. - M.: Moscow School of Political Studies, 2000.
Leontiev A.N. The psychology of the image // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Series 14. Psychology. - 1979. No. 2. S. 3-13.
Milyukova I.A. Formation of a new political system and problems of civil society // Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis. - M. : Flinta, 2005.
Muscovites S. Society and theory in social psychology // Social Psychology. - M. : Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1984.
Naumova N.F. Life strategy of a person in a transitional society // Sociological journal. - 1995. - No. 2. . - S. 4-13.
Novikov V.V. Social Psychology. - M.: Publishing House of Institute of Psychotherapy, 2003.
Parygin B.D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory . - M. : Thought, 1971.
Problems of social psychology / ed. V.N. Kolbanovsky, B. F. Porshnev. - M., 1965.
Social psychology in the modern world / ed. G.M. Andreeva, A.I. Dontsov. - M. : Aspect Press, 2002.
Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis / ed. V.A. Yadov. - M. : FLINTA, 2005.
Stefanenko T.G. About the Russian mentality. Constants and transformation // Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis. - M. : Flinta, 2005.
Tikhonova N.E. Criteria for singling out the middle class in modern Russian society and the grounds for self-identification of respondents with the middle class // Middle class in modern Russian society / ed. M.K. Gorshkova, N.E. Tikhonova, A.Yu. Chepurenko. - M. : RNISiNP ROSSPEN, 1999.
Tashfel A. Experiments in a vacuum // Social Psychology. - M. : MGU, 1984.
Habermas Y. Be the first to feel important // Emergency ration. - 2006. - No. 3. - [Electronic resource]. - Access mode:http :// aig . cs . man. ac. uk/publications/papers/srp-phd. pdf- Date of access: 05/10/2012.
Shirkov Yu.E. The stratification of society given to us in sensations: a model // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Ser. 14. Psychology. - 1997. - No. 4. - S. 51-67.
Shikhirev P.N. Modern social psychology. - M.: Academic project, 1999.
Shushpanova I.S. Civil society in the sociological dimension // SOCIS. - 2008. -№11-S.59-63.
Yakimova E.V. Social construction of reality: socio-psychological approaches. -M.: INION RAN, 1999.
Gergen K. Realities and Relationships // Soundings in Social Construction - N.Y., 1994.
Harre R. The Ethogenic Approach: Theory and Practice // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. - N.Y. . - 1977. - V.10. - R 284 -314.
Lewin K. Action Research and Minority Problems // J. Soc. Issues. - 1946. - No. 2 (4). - R 34-46.
Lindzey G, Aronson E. (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading. - N.Y., 1968.
Sorokin P.A. Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences. - Chicago, 1956.
Tajfel H., Israel J. The Context of Social Psychology. A Critical Assessment. - N.Y., London, 1972.To cite an article:
Andreeva G.M. Social cognition and social problems // National Psychological Journal - 2013. - No. 1 (9) - pp. 39–49.
Andreeva G.M. (2013). Social cognition and social problems. National Psychological Journal, 1(9),39–49
Social Psychology. Andreeva G.M.
or 
M.: Aspect Press, 2001. - 384 p.
The textbook is a systematic course in social psychology.
Fundamental problems are outlined (communication, social psychology of groups, social psychology of personality). The subject of social psychology, historical milestones of its development, methodology and research methods are characterized. The problem of the discrepancy between the principle of social determination of psychological phenomena and direct "service" to a certain political regime is clearly posed. The same idea is served by a brief review of modern theoretical orientations in foreign social psychology.
Intended for students of higher educational institutions.
Format: doc/zip
The size: 385 Kb
/ Download file
Format: html/zip
The size: 434 Kb
/ Download file
Table of contents:
FOREWORD
Section I
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1. Place of social psychology in the system of scientific knowledge
Chapter 2. The history of the formation of socio-psychological ideas
Chapter 3. Methodological problems of socio-psychological research
Section II
PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION
Chapter 4. Public Relations and Interpersonal Relations
Chapter 5. Communication as an exchange of information (communicative side of communication)
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Section III
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GROUP
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10. Spontaneous groups and mass movements
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Section IV
SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH OF PERSONALITY
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Section V
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION
