13.3. Man and culture. Culture and personality formation
The central figure of culture is man, for culture is the world of man. Culture is the development of the spiritual and practical abilities and potentials of a person and their embodiment in the individual development of people. Through the inclusion of a person in the world of culture, the content of which is the person himself in all the richness of his abilities, needs and forms of existence, both the self-determination of the personality and its development are realized. What are the main points of this cultivation? The question is complex, since these strongholds are unique in their specific content, depending on historical conditions.
The most important moment in this process is the formation of a developed self-consciousness, i.e. the ability to adequately assess not only one's place in society, but also one's interests and goals, the ability to plan one's own life path, to a realistic assessment of various life situations, readiness to implement a rational choice of a line of behavior and responsibility for this choice, and finally, the ability to soberly assess one's behavior and actions.
The task of forming a developed self-consciousness is extremely difficult, especially considering that a reliable core of self-consciousness can and should be a worldview as a kind of general orienting principle that helps not only to understand various specific situations, but also to plan and model one's future.
The construction of a meaningful and flexible perspective, which is a set of the most important value orientations, occupies a special place in the self-consciousness of the individual, in its self-determination, and along with this characterizes the level of the individual's culture. The inability to construct, develop such a perspective is most often due to the blurring of the self-consciousness of the individual, the lack of a reliable worldview core in it.
Such inability often entails crisis phenomena in human development, which find their expression in criminal behavior, in moods of extreme hopelessness, in various forms of maladaptation.
The resolution of the actual human problems of being on the paths of cultural development and self-improvement requires the development of clear worldview guidelines. This is all the more important if one considers that man is not only an acting, but also a self-changing being, both the subject and the result of his activity.
Education occupies an important place in the formation of a personality, however, the concepts of education and culture do not completely coincide. Education most often means the possession of a significant stock of knowledge, the erudition of a person. At the same time, it does not include a number of such important personality characteristics as moral, aesthetic, environmental culture, communication culture, etc. And without moral foundations, education itself can turn out to be simply dangerous, and a mind developed by education, not supported by a culture of feelings and a strong-willed sphere, is either fruitless or one-sided and even flawed in its orientations.
That is why the fusion of education and upbringing, the combination of a developed intellect and moral principles in education, and the strengthening of humanitarian training in the system of all educational institutions from school to academy are so important.
The next landmarks in the formation of personality culture are spirituality and intelligence. The concept of spirituality in our philosophy until recently was considered as something appropriate only within the limits of idealism and religion. Now the one-sidedness and inferiority of such an interpretation of the concept of spirituality and its role in the life of every person is becoming clear. What is spirituality? The main meaning of spirituality is to be human, i.e. be humane towards other people. Truth and conscience, justice and freedom, morality and humanism are the core of spirituality. The antipode of human spirituality is cynicism, characterized by a contemptuous attitude to the culture of society, to its spiritual moral values. Since a person is a rather complex phenomenon, within the framework of the problem of interest to us, internal and external culture can be distinguished. Relying on the latter, a person usually presents himself to others. However, this very impression can be misleading. Sometimes a cynic who despises the norms of human morality can hide behind outwardly refined manners. At the same time, a person who does not boast of his cultural behavior can have a rich spiritual world and a deep inner culture.
The economic difficulties experienced by our society could not but leave an imprint on the spiritual world of man. Conformism, contempt for laws and moral values, indifference and cruelty - all these are the fruits of indifference to the moral foundation of society, which led to the widespread lack of spirituality.
The conditions for overcoming these moral and spiritual deformations are in a healthy economy, in a democratic political system. Of no less importance in this process is the wide familiarization with world culture, the understanding of new layers of domestic artistic culture, including the Russian abroad, the understanding of culture as a single multifaceted process of the spiritual life of society.
Let us now turn to the concept of "intelligence", which is closely related to the concept of spirituality, although it does not coincide with it. Immediately make a reservation that intelligence and intelligentsia are diverse concepts. The first includes certain socio-cultural qualities of a person. The second speaks of his social status, received a special education. In our opinion, intelligence implies a high level of general cultural development, moral reliability and culture, honesty and truthfulness, selflessness, a developed sense of duty and responsibility, loyalty to one’s word, a highly developed sense of tact, and, finally, that complex fusion of personality traits that is called decency. This set of characteristics, of course, is not complete, but the main ones are listed.
In the formation of a culture of personality, a large place is given to the culture of communication. Communication is one of the most important areas of human life. This is the most important channel for transmitting culture to the new generation. The lack of communication between the child and adults affects his development. Fast pace modern life, the development of means of communication, the structure of the settlement of residents of large cities often lead to forced isolation of a person. Helplines, interest clubs, sports sections - all these organizations and institutions play a very important positive role in consolidating people, creating a sphere of informal communication, which is so important for a person’s creative and reproductive activity, and maintaining a stable mental structure of a person.
The value and effectiveness of communication in all its forms - official, informal, communication in the family, etc. - to a decisive extent depend on the observance of the elementary requirements of the culture of communication. First of all, this is a respectful attitude towards the one with whom you communicate, the lack of desire to rise above him, and even more so to put pressure on him with your authority, to demonstrate your superiority. It is the ability to listen without interrupting your opponent's reasoning. The art of dialogue must be learned, this is especially important today in the conditions of a multi-party system and pluralism of opinions. In such an environment, the ability to prove and justify one's position in strict accordance with the strict requirements of logic and to refute one's opponents with just as logical reason, without rude attacks, acquires special value.
The movement towards a humane democratic social system is simply unthinkable without decisive shifts in the entire structure of culture, for the progress of culture is one of essential characteristics social progress in general. This is all the more important if one considers that the deepening of scientific and technological revolution means both an increase in the requirements for the level of culture of each person, and at the same time the creation of the necessary conditions for this.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Culture and personality
Introduction
An individual (from Latin individuum - indivisible) is a single representative of the human race, a single person, regardless of his real anthropological and social characteristics.
Individuality is a peculiar combination of natural and social in a person.
Enculturation is the process of mastering by a person - a member of a particular society - the main features and content of the culture of his society, mentality, cultural patterns and stereotypes in behavior and thinking.
Personality - a human individual in the aspect of his social qualities, formed in the process of historically specific activities and social relations.
Socialization (lat. sosialis - public) - the process of assimilation and active reproduction by an individual of social experience, a system of social ties and relationships in his own experience; it is an indispensable part of socio-cultural life and a universal factor in the formation and development of the individual as a subject of society and culture. In the process and as a result of socialization, a person acquires the qualities, values, beliefs, socially approved forms of behavior necessary for him to live normally in society, correct interaction with their sociocultural environment.
1. The problem of personality
One of the central problems of cultural studies is the problem of personality.
Traditionally, a person is understood as “a human individual in the aspect of his social qualities that are formed in the process of historically specific activities and social relations, it is a dynamic, relatively stable complete system intellectual, socio-cultural and moral-volitional qualities of a person, expressed in the individual characteristics of his consciousness and activity.
In its original meaning, the word "personality" meant a mask, a role played by an actor in the Greek theater. In Russia, the word "mask" was used. In many languages there is an expression "to lose face", which means the loss of one's place and status in a certain hierarchy. In both Eastern and Western thinking, the preservation of one's "face", i.e. personality is a necessary component of human dignity, without which our civilization would lose the right to be called human. At the end of the 20th century, this became a real problem for hundreds of millions of people, due to the severity of social conflicts and global problems of mankind, which can wipe a person off the face of the earth.
The concept of personality should be distinguished from the concepts of "individual" (a single representative of the human race) and "individuality" (a set of features that distinguish this individual from all others).
A person can be considered a person when he is able to independently make decisions and bear responsibility for them to society. It is obvious that the term “personality” cannot be applied to a newborn child, although all people are born as individuals and as individualities. The latter is understood as the fact that in each newborn child, his entire prehistory is imprinted in a unique and inimitable way.
So, the personality is a single whole, the individual features of which complicated way intertwined. Moreover, the same trait can acquire a different meaning in the context of others and be expressed differently in different individuals.
Some scientists doubt that a stable set of qualities is constantly inherent in personality. Studies show that only a few of the people do not change their psychological portrait, keep it throughout their lives. But most people still tend to change at different age stages.
2. Culture and personality
The first serious scientific studies of the relationship between personality and culture began in the 1930s. twentieth century, several different approaches aimed at reflecting the specifics of the interaction between culture and personality, and a number of methods have been developed to study the nature of these relationships. The earliest attempts at which these relationships became the subject of scientific study were made by ethnographers who considered human psychology from the point of view of the interests of their scientific discipline. Ethnographers and psychologists, carried away by this issue, created a scientific school, which they called “culture and personality”.
One of the founders of the school, the American ethnopsychologist M. Mead, and her colleagues began to study the customs, rituals, and beliefs of people belonging to different cultures in order to identify the features of their personality structure. Recognizing the role of innate biological factors in the formation of personality, the researchers came to the conclusion that culture still has a decisive influence on it. Personality is formed under the influence of forces operating in a characteristic cultural environment, and is the result of learning and mastering key psychological mechanisms functioning in culture due to the participation of the individual in conditions typical of a particular culture. Scientists of this direction suggested that each culture is characterized by dominant type personalities - the basic personality.
According to R. Linton, the basic personality is a special type of human integration into the cultural environment. This type includes the features of the socialization of members of a given culture and their individual and personal characteristics.
This is a system of the main life guidelines, aspirations and tendencies given by nature, around which entire hierarchies of various motivations are created during life.
According to the definition of A. Kardiner, the basic personality is a technique of reflection, a security system (i.e. a lifestyle through which a person receives protection, respect, support, approval), feelings that motivate consistency (i.e. a sense of shame or guilt) and relation to the supernatural. The basic structure of the personality, passed down from generation to generation through education, to some extent determines the fate of the people. For example, the peaceful nature of the Zuni tribe, according to Kardiner, is due to the strong feeling shame. This feeling is the result of a tough family upbringing: children are entirely dependent on the mood of their parents, they are punished for the slightest offense, etc. As they grow older, the fear of punishment transforms into a fear of not succeeding in society, which is accompanied by a sense of shame for their actions that are not approved by society. Linton attributed the aggressiveness and militancy of the natives from the Tanala tribe to the repressive nature of the culture. The leader and the tribal elite suppressed any manifestation of independence, severely persecuting those who violated the established norms and rules of behavior.
Interestingly, a change in social organization inevitably leads to a change in the basic type of personality. This happens when new labor technologies are introduced, contacts with neighboring tribes expand, intertribal marriages take place, and so on.
Later, the concept of a basic personality was supplemented with the concept of a modal personality - the most common type of personality found in culture, identified empirically.
Observational data, biographical information, and the results of psychological tests helped scientists to identify a modal personality in a particular people. Projective tests were especially popular, the main essence of which was as follows: interpreting vague images, a person involuntarily reveals his inner world. For example, the Rorschach test (interpretation of bizarre inkblots), the incomplete sentence test, and the thematic apperception test (TAT).
E. Wallas, using this test, conducted one of the earliest studies of modal personality in the Tuscarora American Indian community. Wallas worked with 70 adults. He identified the following characteristic features of the Indians: unconscious dependence on others; fear of being rejected by fellow tribesmen; compensatory desire to become hyper-independent, aggressive, self-sufficient; inability to realistically assess the environment, susceptibility to stereotypes. The data obtained by Wallas did not lend itself to an unambiguous explanation. The test, not free from the influence of the culture in which it appeared, could only be reliable for Europeans and Americans.
In the second half of the 20th century, a cross-cultural approach dominates in defining personality. Within the framework of this approach, personality acts as an independent and not culturally determined phenomenon and, accordingly, as a dependent variable in experimental cultural studies. The independent variables in this case will be two (or more) different cultures that are compared with each other in terms of parameters corresponding to the studied personality traits or dimensions.
Unlike the ethnographic approach, the cross-cultural approach interprets personality as a universal ethical category, a phenomenon that should be given equal scale and importance in any culture under consideration. This is an expression of traits that are universal and manifest regardless of culture, the source of which is, on the one hand, in biological innate factors that serve the purposes of evolution, and therefore are a function of adaptation processes, and on the basis of which a genetic predisposition to the manifestation of certain personality traits is formed; and, on the other hand, in probably existing culturally independent principles and learning mechanisms, under the influence of which the personality is formed.
In addition to searching for universal aspects of the human personality, revealing culturally specific personality traits and characteristics, representatives of the cross-cultural psychological approach consider such a concept as a culturally specific indigenous personality. An indigenous personality is understood as a set of personality traits and characteristics inherent exclusively in a particular culture under consideration.
Another approach to understanding the nature of the relationship between culture and personality, which has become widespread in recent years, is known as cultural psychology. This approach is characterized by the consideration of culture and personality not as separate phenomena, but as unified system elements of which mutually condition and develop each other.
The cultural-psychological approach is based on the assumption that the mechanisms of personality formation are not only influenced by culture, but are completely determined by it. At the same time, this approach assumes that a set of individuals acting in concert forms a culture. Therefore, it is necessary to consider such phenomena as personality and culture as a dynamic and interdependent system, none of whose sides can be reduced to the other. Supporters of this approach believe that the behavior of the individual cannot be explained by the mechanical use of established categories and measurable indicators; it is necessary, first of all, to find out whether these categories, characteristics and dimensions carry any meaning within the framework of the culture under study and how they manifest themselves in the conditions of this culture.
Within the framework of the cultural-psychological approach, it has been established that since the existence of two identical cultures is impossible, individuals who are carriers of these cultures must also have fundamental differences, since culture and personality mutually determine each other within the corresponding cultural environment.
Social psychologists, first of all, single out the relationship and place of a person in society. According to them, personality is a set of social roles of a person, his relationships with other people. It is known that without communication it is impossible to become a person. This is evidenced by well-known examples of Mowgli children, as well as children who are deaf-blind and mute from birth. Until special methods of teaching them were created, they did not become personalities and rational beings in general, although they had a completely normal brain.
For behavioral psychologists, personality is identical to his experience, which is understood as the totality of everything that he has learned, receiving this or that reaction of others to his actions. Actually, the consequences of this learning determine the subsequent actions of a person and his needs.
For psychologists of the humanistic direction, the personality is mainly the "Self", free choice. In their opinion, what a person will be in the end result depends on himself, despite the unconditional influence of experience and relationships with others.
Therefore, a person is, first of all, a set of decisions, choices that a person has made throughout his life.
One of the most striking figures of the humanistic approach to man is A. Maslow. He proposed his model of personality, focusing on the needs that healthy people have. A. Maslow formulated a hierarchical-step idea of needs:
1) physiological (vital: in breathing, drinking, food, warmth, etc.);
2) security needs;
3) needs for love, affection and belonging to a particular social group;
4) the need for respect and recognition;
5) the need for self-actualization, which is the highest level of the hierarchy of motives (self-development, self-improvement and influence on others).
A. Maslow considers self-actualization, the tendency to realize one's potential abilities and their continuous improvement, to be the highest kind of needs. It is a need for creativity and beauty.
In addition, A. Maslow, studying the behavior and fate of successful people (A. Einstein, D. Roosevelt, D. Carnegie, etc.), concluded that successful people reach the highest level of the hierarchy, gave a description of the personal characteristics of these self-actualizing people, among which he especially singled out independence, creativity, philosophical worldview, democracy in communication, productivity, self-respect and respect for others; benevolence and tolerance; interest in the environment; the desire to understand yourself.
Subsequently, he modified his model of motivation based on the idea of a qualitative difference between two classes of needs: need needs and development needs.
Analyzing culture through the prism of basic human needs, he considered the starting point of his research to be a comprehensively developed personality striving for perfection. He considered the measure of the perfection of culture to be its ability to satisfy human needs and create conditions for the realization of the potential abilities of the individual. A person must become what he can be - this is the goal of A. Maslow's "positive psychoanalysis". The subject of study by A. Maslow is creativity, love, play, the highest values of being, an ecstatic state, higher states consciousness and their significance in the functioning of cultures. In general, the humanistic concept of culture and man is a general cultural theory, in the center of which developing person with his inner world, full of experiences, thoughts, feelings and aspirations.
Need-motivational theories explain the selectivity of the attraction of elements of the environment, depending on the needs of the individual and her motivations, the means of satisfying needs through social attitudes - attitudes. This theory is closest to the sociological understanding of personality, since it considers it as a charged particle that enters into a complex selective interaction with others. It answers the question why people invent roles and how it turns out that different people's social games turn out to be quite typical.
There are other theories of personality, the subject of which is its specificity and typology. For example, R. Dahrendorf, one of the representatives of the conflictological trend in modern sociology, using Aristotle's term homo politicus (a person participating in public life, in management, as opposed to an animal or a slave), developed his own modern typology personalities.
Noting that personality is a product of the development of culture, social conditions, he uses the term homo sociologicus, highlighting its typical types:
1) homo faber - in traditional society"working man": a peasant, a warrior, a politician - a person who carries a burden (endowed with an important social function);
2) homo consumer - a modern consumer, a personality formed by a mass society;
3) homo universalis - a person capable of doing different types activities, in the concept of K. Marx - changing all kinds of activities;
4) homo soveticus - a person dependent on the state.
D. Risman, a sociologist from the United States, based on the specifics of capitalism, developed in the 60s. 20th century concept of "one-dimensional man". Under the influence of propaganda, absorbing information social stereotypes, a person forms simplified schemes of a black-and-white vision of problems (in Russia this is, for example, “ simple people and "new Russians", "communists" and "democrats"). Modern society makes people, as it were, one-dimensional, perceiving what is happening in the plane of primitive alternatives and confrontations, i.e. individuals with a simplified social perception and a rough apparatus of interpretation.
Researchers such as T. Adorno, K. Horney and other neo-Marxists and neo-Freudians came to paradoxical conclusions in their works: the “normal” personality of modern society is a neurotic. The systems of communities with their generally established invariable values have long been destroyed, today everything social roles a person is forced to “play roles” in a new system of values, preferences and stereotypes (at home, at work, on vacation, etc. one has to change roles and social “masks” all the time). At the same time, his Super Ego (super-I, normative personality structure, conscience, morality, significant tradition, ideas about what should be) becomes indefinitely plural, blurred.
Other researchers (I.S. Kon, M. Kohn and others) argue that modern man rejects any role. He becomes an "actor" capable of frequent social transformations and plays many roles without taking them seriously. The one who gets used to the role becomes neurotic, because he cannot respond to the transforming demands put forward by the diverse environment of the many communities in which he is structurally and culturally inscribed.
Manifestations of modern life are diverse, people are forced to rotate in different areas, each of which has its own attitudes, and a person in order to keep up with the times? they need to match.
Researchers pay special attention to the interaction, the relationship of the elements that make up any social mechanism. The mechanism of formation of a holistic personality is also based on the interaction, mutual transformation of the processes of development of society and personality. The essential basis for understanding this interaction and the social mechanism for the formation of an individual as a person as a whole is the pattern of interdependence of relations between society and the individual the following kind: man is a microcosm of the history of society. It is clear that in the most general case, a person is a microcosm of the Universe, of which society is a part in its dynamics.
This pattern is clearly revealed in the so-called fractal comprehension of the phenomena of the world around us.
The language of fractals captures such a fundamental property of real phenomena as self-similarity: small-scale structures repeat the shape of large-scale ones. So, in the case of a fiord or a cardiogram, self-similarity consists in infinitely whimsical bends, and in the case of blood vessels, frosty patterns, or the functioning of marketing, in infinitely diverse branches. This property was anticipated by G.V. Leibniz, who wrote in his Monadology: “... In our part of matter there is a whole world of creations, living beings, animals, entelechies, souls... Any part of matter can be imagined like a garden, full of plants, and a pond full of fish. But every branch of a plant, every member of an animal, every drop of its juices is again the same garden or the same pond. Hence the metaphysics he built, in which the monad is a microcosm of the universe in miniature. And although science, carried away by the concept of atomism, did not follow Leibniz, now it is again forced to turn to his ideas. We can say that the synthesis of monadology and atomism is adequate to reality.
The French mathematician B. Mandelbrot managed to formalize self-similarity by introducing the concept of "fractal" (from Latin fractus - broken). A fractal is a non-linear structure that retains self-similarity with an unlimited change in scale (we have before us an example of mathematical idealization). The key here is the preserved property of non-linearity. It is essential that the fractal has a fractional, in the limit irrational dimension, due to which it is a way to organize the interaction of spaces of different nature and dimensions (neural networks, individuals in their interaction, etc. are also fractals). Fractals are not just a branch of mathematics, but also "a way to take a different look at our old world."
According to the fractal approach, which is gaining more and more strong positions in modern science, individuals, like monads, interact with each other according to the type of resonance, and society forms a set of these monads, just as the Universe contains many monads. Consequently, a person - a microcosm of society - carries a potential set of I (personalities). This idea has a long history, although it is clearly expressed already in Jung's teaching about the archetypes of the collective unconscious.
The first models of the unconscious are already visible in the works of A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, E. Hartmann, Schellingian physicians and vitalist biologists. Schopenhauer's unified world will in Nietzsche was stratified into many separate volitional aspirations, between which there is a struggle for power. According to K. Jung, a battle is being played out on the field of the psyche between energy-charged complexes, and the conscious self is the strongest among them. Subsequently, Jung ranked complexes as bundles of associations with the personal, unconscious, and the characteristics of special "personalities" remained with the archetypes of the collective unconscious. AT depth psychology Jung also included Bergson's understanding of intellect and instinct and L. Levy-Bruhl's ideas about primitive thinking as a world of "collective ideas" and "mystical participation".
According to Jung, the unconscious is multi-layered: the first layer is the personal unconscious; it rests on a second, innate and deeper layer, the collective unconscious. The latter is of a universal nature, for it includes "contents and patterns of behavior that are cum grano salis everywhere and in all individuals the same." And if the personal unconscious contains mostly emotionally colored complexes, then those in the collective unconscious are archetypes or an explanatory description of the Platonic "eidos". That is why, according to Jung, mythology, religion, alchemy, astrology, and not laboratory research and psychotherapeutic practice.
So, analyzing phenomena, culture and personality, most scientists came to the conclusion that they are inextricably linked.
3. Socialization and inculturation
First of all, culture forms a certain type of personality. Historical traditions, norms and values, patterns of behavior characteristic of a particular society, specific geographical location, dominant economic models - all the richness of the existence of a given culture - this is an incomplete list of factors that influence the formation of personality in a culture. Often common features spiritual image of people living in these specific historical conditions, one way or another are manifested in the individual characteristics of the psyche and life experience personality.
On the other hand, the individual can be considered the creator of culture. Without a personality, renewal and continuity of cultural processes, reproduction and dissemination of elements of culture is impossible. A person does not just adapt to culture, but creates his own microcosm.
But in order for a person to be in society, he needs to be able to adapt to the surrounding society, otherwise he is doomed to a steady inability to get along with others, isolation, misanthropy, and loneliness. To do this, a person from early childhood learns the accepted manners of behavior and patterns of thinking, thereby being included in the world. This entry into the world is carried out in the form of assimilation by the individual of the necessary amount of knowledge, norms, values, behavioral skills that allow him to be a full member of society.
The process of mastering the norms of social life and culture by an individual is usually denoted by the terms "socialization" and "inculturation". They are quite often used as synonyms, since both concepts reflect the process of assimilation of the cultural values of a society and largely coincide with each other in content (if we consider the term culture in broad sense: as any biologically non-inherited activity fixed in the material or spiritual products of culture).
Nevertheless, most scientists understand culture as an exclusively human way of being, which separates a person and all other living beings of our planet, considering it rational to distinguish between these terms, noting the specifics of each of them.
The term inculturation is understood as the gradual involvement of a person in culture, the gradual development of skills, manners, norms of behavior, forms of thinking and emotional life that are characteristic of a certain type of culture, for a certain historical period. The supporters of this point of view consider socialization as a two-way process, which includes, on the one hand, the assimilation of social experience by the individual by entering the social environment, into the system of social ties, and on the other hand, the active reproduction of this system by the individual in his activity, the process of developing a person of social norms and rules of public life for the development of an active, full-fledged member of society, for the formation of a cultural personality.
Receiving information about various aspects of social life in everyday practice, a person is formed as a person, socially and culturally adequate to society. Thus, there is a harmonious entry of the individual into the social environment, the assimilation of the system of socio-cultural values of society, which allows him to successfully exist as a full-fledged citizen.
It has been scientifically proven that in every society its own personality traits come to the fore, the formation and development of which occurs, as a rule, through their purposeful education, i.e. transmission of norms, rules and types of behavior from the older generation to the younger. The culture of each nation has developed its own ways of transferring social experience to the younger generation.
So, for example, we can distinguish two styles of raising children that are opposite in nature - Japanese and English.
If we consider the upbringing in Japan from the point of view of a European person, then we can assume that Japanese children are incredibly pampered. In the first years of life, nothing is forbidden to them, thereby not giving a reason for crying and tears. Adults do not react at all to the bad behavior of children, as if not noticing it. The first restrictions begin in school years, but even then they are introduced gradually. Only from the age of 6-7, a Japanese child begins to suppress spontaneous impulses in himself, learns to behave appropriately, respect elders; honor duty and be devoted to the family. With age, the restriction of behavior increases significantly, but even then the educator more often seeks to use methods of encouragement rather than punishment. To educate there means not to scold for the bad deeds committed, but, anticipating the bad, to teach the right behavior. Even with an obvious violation of the rules of decency, the teacher avoids direct condemnation so as not to put the child in a humiliating position. Japanese children are not blamed, but are taught specific behavioral skills, in every possible way instilling in them the confidence that they are able to learn to manage themselves if they make the appropriate efforts for this. Japanese parenting traditions proceed from the fact that excessive pressure on the child's psyche can lead to the opposite result.
And the process of education in England is built in a completely opposite way. The British believe that excessive manifestation parental love and tenderness harms the child's character. In their opinion, pampering children means spoiling them. The traditions of English upbringing require that children be treated with restraint, even coldly. A child who commits a misdemeanor will be severely punished. From childhood, the British are taught to be independent and responsible for their actions. They become adults early, they do not need to be specially prepared for adulthood. Already at the age of 16-17, having received a school leaving certificate, children get a job, some of them leave their parents' house and live separately.
The process of inculturation begins from the moment of birth, i.e. from the acquisition by the child of the first skills of behavior and the development of speech, and continues throughout life. This process includes the formation of such basic human skills as, for example, types of communication with other people, forms of control over one's own behavior and emotions, ways of satisfying needs, evaluative attitude to various phenomena the surrounding world. The end result of the process of inculturation is the cultural competence of a person in the language, values, traditions, customs of his cultural environment.
The founder of the study of the process of inculturation, the American cultural anthropologist M. Herskovitz, especially emphasized in his writings that the processes of socialization and inculturation take place simultaneously and without entering into culture a person cannot exist as a member of society. At the same time, he singled out two stages of inculturation, the unity of which at the group level ensures the normal functioning and development of culture.
1) primary, which covers the childhood and adolescence, when a person first masters the most necessary universally significant sociocultural norms;
2) secondary, in which an already adult person masters new knowledge, skills, social roles, etc. during his life. (for example, immigrants adapting to new conditions).
At the first stage, children for the first time master the most common, vital elements of their culture, acquire the skills necessary for a normal socio-cultural life. Its main content is upbringing and education, it notes the prevalence of the role of an adult in relations related to the transmission of cultural experience, up to the use of mechanisms for forcing a child to constantly perform certain stereotypical forms of activity. For this period, in any culture, there are special adaptations that minimize the degree of risk when children use the acquired knowledge and skills in their daily practice. A striking and illustrative example of this kind is the phenomenon of play.
Game forms are a universal means of inculturation of the individual, since they perform several functions at once:
v training, which consists in the development of such skills as memory, attention, perception of information of various modalities;
v communicative, focused on uniting a disparate community of people into a team and establishing interpersonal emotional contacts;
v entertaining, expressed in the creation of a favorable atmosphere in the process of communication;
v relaxation, involving the removal emotional stress caused by stress on the nervous system in various spheres of life;
v developing, consisting in the harmonious development of the mental and physiological qualities of a person;
v educational, aimed at the assimilation of socially significant norms and principles of behavior in specific life situations.
As you know, small children play alone, not paying attention to other people. They are characterized by solitary independent play. They then copy the behavior of adults and other children without coming into contact with them. This is the so-called parallel game. At the age of about three years, children learn to coordinate their behavior with the behavior of other children, playing in accordance with their desires, they take into account the desires of other participants in the game. This is called a joint game. From the age of four, children can already play together, coordinating their actions with the actions of others.
Not the last role in the process of primary inculturation is played by the mastery of labor skills and the upbringing of a value attitude to work and the development of the ability to learn, as a result, the child, on the basis of his early childhood experience acquires socially obligatory general cultural knowledge and skills. During this period, their acquisition and practical development become leading in the way of life and the development of his personality. It can be said that at this time the preconditions for the transformation of a child into an adult capable of adequate participation in socio-cultural life are taking shape.
The secondary stage of inculturation concerns adults, since a person's entry into culture does not end with his coming of age. Its main features are due to the individual's right to independence within the limits established in a given society. He begins to combine the acquired knowledge and skills to solve vital problems, his ability to make decisions that can have significant consequences for himself and for others expands, he gains the right to participate in interactions, the results of which can be cultural changes. Moreover, the individual in all these situations himself must control the degree of individual risk when choosing decisions and actions.
During this period, inculturation is fragmentary and manifests itself in the form of mastery of some elements of culture that have emerged recently. Usually such elements are some inventions and discoveries that significantly change a person's life, or new ideas borrowed from other cultures.
During this period, the main efforts of a person are directed to vocational training. The necessary knowledge and skills are mainly acquired in secondary and higher educational institutions. At this stage, it is also of great importance that young people master their new, adult status in the family, expand the circle of their social contacts, realize their new position, and accumulate their own life experience.
Thus, the first level of inculturation ensures the stability of culture, since the transmission by adults and the repetition by the younger generation of existing cultural standards control the free penetration into life together people random and new components. The second level of enculturation gives members of society the opportunity to take responsibility for experimenting in culture, for making changes to it at various scales. In general, the interaction of inculturation processes at these two levels contributes to the normal functioning and formation of both the personality and the cultural environment.
mechanism of inculturation. Each person throughout his life is forced to master many social roles, since the processes of socialization and inculturation continue throughout life. These social roles force a person to adhere to many cultural norms, rules and stereotypes of behavior. Before old age a person changes his views on life, habits, tastes, rules of conduct, roles, etc. All these changes occur under the direct influence of his sociocultural environment, outside of which inculturation is impossible.
In modern studies of the process of inculturation, the concept of “cultural transmission” is increasingly used, which means the mechanism for transmitting sociocultural information of a group to its new members or generations. There are usually three ways of cultural transmission, i.e. transmission of cultural information, necessary for a person to master:
vertical transmission, during which cultural information, values, skills, etc. passed from parents to children;
horizontal transmission, in which the development of cultural experience and traditions is carried out through communication with peers;
indirect transmission, according to which the individual receives the necessary socio-cultural information by learning from adult relatives, neighbors, teachers around him, as well as in specialized inculturation institutions (schools, universities).
Naturally, different stages of a person's life path are accompanied by different ways cultural transmission. So, for example, in early childhood(up to three years) the family plays a leading role in inculturation, especially the mother's care for her child. Since the human child, in order to survive and prepare for independent living, it needs the care of other people who will feed, clothe and love it (unlike other mammals, which quickly master the basic skills necessary for survival). Therefore, the relationship of the infant with parents, brothers, sisters, relatives are decisive in early period inculturation.
For the age of 3 to 15 years, the inculturation of a child is characterized by such factors as communication with peers, school, contacts with earlier strangers. At this time, children learn to work with objects in order to achieve some practical result. They get acquainted with signs and symbols, and later with concepts, learn to create abstractions and perfect images. Based on the feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, they develop an emotional sphere. Thus, gradually the society and culture surrounding the child become for him the only possible world of existence, with which he fully identifies himself.
Along with these methods of cultural transmission, the process of inculturation develops in direct relationship with its psychological forms, which include imitation, identification, feelings of shame and guilt.
For the development of a comprehensive, harmonious personality, it is necessary to form it in all spheres of life: economics, politics, law, morality, artistic creativity, etc., which are closely interconnected.
One of the main roles in the development and education of the individual is played, as already noted, by the family and household sphere and the specialized field of training and education of the younger generations. At the same time, being one of the branches of spiritual production, it has a relatively independent meaning. Undoubtedly, under the influence of new values of post-industrial or information society family and marriage relations also change and, accordingly, this leads to the formation of a new type of personality.
Relations society - personality are characterized by the penetration of the totality of society's relations into the internal structure of the personality with the corresponding subjective transformations and, accordingly, the reverse impact of the personality on society. This is a single process of creating their new relationships, which become the basis for the further development of the individual and society. The foundation for the formation of new relations is the formation of a qualitatively different creative objective activity of the individual and its manifestation in social relations.
Economic relations act as the foundation on which the personality is formed. Technical-production and production-economic relations in the conditions of scientific and technological progress, computerization and informatization of society imply a change in the role and place of the individual in the technological process and production in general. For holistic development personality, it is necessary to change the process of production so that the individual comes out of it. In order for an employee to become close to the technological process, it is necessary first of all to change his work, namely, to increase the share of creativity in the life of both the individual and society.
The formation of a holistic, comprehensive development of the individual is impossible without the enrichment of his spiritual world. The spiritual needs of the individual are a way of the existence of spiritual wealth, which means a wide education of a person, his knowledge of the achievements of science and culture. It is traditionally believed that the center of spiritual wealth is the worldview. It includes: understanding of the universe, society and human thinking; awareness by the individual of his place in society and meaning own life; orientation to a certain ideal; interpretation of moral norms and values that have been established and are being established in society.
Due to the powerful effect of mass communication today everything big role in the formation of a holistic personality acquires art. It captures thousands of years of social experience and knowledge about the world and, by its inner nature, makes it possible to comprehend this world.
The significance of art is increasing due to the fact that day by day man creates new forms. The artist offers new ways of seeing the world around him; mastering the world of works of art, a person begins to see reality through the eyes of an artist. Art does not at all reflect, like a mirror, the real world: it connects the inner world of the individual with the diverse world of the inexhaustible Universe and seeks to reveal the secrets of existence associated with the search for meaning and human life and the Universe itself. In this regard, art is very close to religion; indeed, both of these phenomena are almost identical in many of their functions and effects on the psyche of the individual.
Art is an essential part of the social mechanism for the formation of a personality, either by developing integrity and a desire for creativity in it, or by causing a desire to destroy the world and oneself.
culture socialization spiritual
Bibliography
1. Lukov V.A.: Theories of youth. - M.: Kanon+, 2012
2. Sazonova L.I.: Memory of culture. - M.: Manuscript monuments of Ancient Russia, 2012
3. auto-stat. ON THE. Krivich; under total editor: V.A. Rabosha and others: Cultural expertise. - St. Petersburg: Asterion, 2011
4. Drach G.V. Culturology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2011
5. Inglehart R. Modernization, cultural change and democracy. - M.: New publishing house, 2011
6. Institute of Philosophy RAS; ed. I.A. Gerasimova; rec.: P.I. Babochkin, A.A. Voronin: Freedom and creativity. - M.: Alfa-M, 2011
7. Moscow graduate School social and economic sciences, Interdisciplinary Academic Center for Social Sciences (Intercenter); under total editor: M.G. Pugacheva, V.S. Vakhstein: Ways of Russia; The future as culture: forecasts, representations, scenarios. - M.: New Literary Review, 2011
8. Golovko Zh.S.: Modern language construction in Eastern Slavia. - Kharkov: Fact, 2010
9. Zapesotsky A.S. The theory of culture of Academician V.S. Stepin. - SPb.: SPbGUP, 2010
10. Zapesotsky A.S. The theory of culture of Academician V.S. Stepin. - SPb.: SPbGUP, 2010
11. coll. author: G.V. Drach, O.M. Stompel, L.A. Stompel, V.K. Korolev: Culturology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010
12. Congress of the Petersburg Intelligentsia, St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions: Media as a factor in the transformation of Russian culture. - SPb.: SPbGUP, 2010.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
Culturological problems of personality socialization. The way of life and the meaning of life of the individual. The concept of moral culture of man and society. Morality and beauty as system-forming features of culture. The meaning of history as the basis of the spiritual life of the personality of society.
test, added 01/19/2011
Correlation of personality, its freedom and culture. Personality in Freud's theory. E. Fromm's humanistic approach to understanding personality. Culture and personality in the theory of A. Schweitzer. The cultural dimension of human development. The influence of culture on individual freedom.
abstract, added 12/19/2012
The essence of personality in different cultures, types, dynamics, mechanisms of socialization; the influence of modernization on the formation of personality. Baroque - style European culture XVII-XVIII centuries, the center of which was Italy. The activities of the Wanderers in the XIX century.
test, added 09/22/2011
Formation of national culture. Genesis of mass culture. Universality of mass media. Enrichment and development of the spiritual world of man. Global funds dissemination of basic cultural products. The evolution of social ideals.
abstract, added 01/30/2012
Personality as an object and subject of culture. Components of personality culture, the process of its moral formation. Culture of ethical thinking and moral feelings, deed and etiquette. Prerequisites for the formation of aesthetic taste, levels of needs.
abstract, added 07/29/2009
Structure and composition of modern cultural knowledge. Culture as a qualitative characteristic of human life. Russia's place in world culture. Cultural and spiritual dimension of the individual and society. The role of culture in the socialization of the individual.
course of lectures, added 11/15/2010
The concept of inculturation as one of the universal processes of cultural genesis of planetary civilization. A formative experiment on cultural self-determination as an integral part of the socialization and inculturation of youth at the premiere of the Center for Slavic Culture.
thesis, added 08/24/2011
The spiritual life of society as a kind of comprehension and aesthetic exploration of the world. Formation of spiritual culture on the basis of humanistic values of art, morality, philosophy, religion. Spiritual culture of the individual, the influence of science and education on its development.
abstract, added 11/19/2014
Distortion of the Russian language and speech in the process of communication on the Internet. logically clear figurative speech as an indicator of mental development. Formation of personality culture through language acquisition. Levels speech culture, a model of its formation.
presentation, added 12/13/2011
Personality as an independent entity, separated from culture. Culture is a condition for the existence of a person. The reverse influence of personality on culture. Antique culture and personality. Love in the early Greek culture. The concept of love, corresponding to the understanding of Plato.
Culture and personality
Culture and personality are interconnected. On the one hand, culture forms one or another type of personality, on the other hand, personality recreates, changes, discovers new things in culture.
Personality- This driving force and the creator of culture, as well as the main goal of its formation.
When considering the question of the relationship between culture and man, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "man", "individual", "personality".
The concept of "man" denotes the general properties of the human race, and "personality" - a single representative of this race, the individual. But at the same time, the concept of "personality" is not synonymous with the concept of "individual". Not every individual is a person: a person is born an individual, becomes a person (or does not become) due to objective and subjective conditions.
The concept of "individual" characterizes the distinctive features of each particular person, the concept of "personality" denotes the spiritual image of the individual, formed by culture in the specific social environment of his life (in interaction with his innate anatomical, physiological and psychological qualities).
Therefore, when considering the problem of interaction between culture and personality, of particular interest is not only the process of identifying the role of a person as a creator of culture and the role of culture as a creator of a person, but also the study of personality qualities that culture forms in it - intellect, spirituality, freedom, creativity.
Culture in these areas most clearly reveals the content of the individual.
Regulators of personal aspirations and actions of the individual are cultural values.
Following value patterns testifies to a certain cultural stability of society. A person, turning to cultural values, enriches the spiritual world of his personality.
The value system that influences the formation of personality regulates the desire and aspiration of a person, his actions and actions, determines the principles of his social choice. Thus, the individual is at the center of culture, at the intersection of the mechanisms of reproduction, storage and renewal of the cultural world.
The personality itself as a value, in fact, provides a common spiritual beginning of culture. Being a product of personality, culture, in turn, humanizes social life, smooths out animal instincts in people.
Culture allows a person to become an intellectual, spiritual, moral, creative personality.
Culture forms the inner world of a person, reveals the content of his personality.
The destruction of culture negatively affects the personality of a person, leads him to degradation.
Culture and society
Understanding society and its relationship with culture is best achieved from a systematic analysis of being.
Human society- this is a real and concrete environment for the functioning and development of culture.
Society and culture actively interact with each other. Society makes certain demands on culture, culture, in turn, affects the life of society and the direction of its development.
For a long time, the relationship between society and culture was built in such a way that society was the dominant side. The nature of culture directly depended on the social system that governed it (imperatively, repressively, or liberally, but no less decisively).
Many researchers believe that culture arose primarily under the influence of social needs.
It is society that creates opportunities for the use of cultural values, contributes to the processes of reproduction of culture. outside public forms life, these features in the development of culture would be impossible.
In the XX century. the correlation of forces between the two sides of the socio-cultural sphere has changed radically: now social relations have become dependent on the state of material and spiritual culture. The determining factor in the fate of mankind today is not the structure of society, but the degree of development of culture: having reached a certain level, it entailed a radical reorganization of society, the entire system of social management, opened a new path to establishing positive social interactions - dialogue.
Its goal is not only the exchange of social information between representatives of different societies and cultures, but also the achievement of their unity.
In the interaction of society and culture, there is not only a close connection, there are also differences. Society and culture differ in ways of influencing a person and adapting a person to them.
Society- this is a system of relations and ways of objectively influencing a person that is not filled with social requirements.
Forms social regulation accepted as certain rules necessary for existence in society. But in order to meet social requirements, cultural prerequisites are necessary, which depend on the degree of development of the cultural world of a person.
In the interaction of society and culture, the following situation is also possible: society can be less dynamic and open than culture. Society can then reject the values offered by culture. The opposite situation is also possible, when social changes can outpace cultural development. But the most optimally balanced change in society and culture.
Much as a reaction against the biological explanations that have long dominated psychologists and psychiatrists, anthropologists have emphasized the importance of the cultural matrix in which personality development takes place. They argued that many of the generalizations formulated by psychologists apply only to Western culture, and demanded that the theory of socialization take into account the diversity of cultures around the world. Some have defended the study of cultural "determinants" of personality, others have written about cultural "conditioning", others have gone so far as to argue that personality is merely an individual copy of culture. While such claims made many necessary adjustments to blind biological determinism, they were also misleading.
If a person is a product of culture, the distribution of personality types should not be the same. In every culture, certain patterns of behavior are approved while others are condemned. If personality is the product of childhood experiences, there must be corresponding differences in the personalities of people in different societies, for each of them is characterized by in a special way childcare. Most notable in this type of approach is the attempt to draw a "modal personality structure" for each culture. People of one society are said to be friendly and tolerant, while people of another society are dominated by suspicion and hostility, or hard work and practicality. Similar attempts have been made to isolate typical members of certain classes and ethnic groups. It is not always clear, however, whether the modal personality is the type that is most common in a given society, the type that is essential to the survival of that culture, or the type that is most in line with the prevailing institutions and mores.
On the basis of several "national character" studies, attempts have been made to explain the emergence of particular political institutions among Americans, British, Germans, Japanese, and Russians in connection with inclinations derived from childhood experiences typical of these peoples. The rise of anti-Semitism, Nazism, and other social movements have been explained in terms of typical patterns of motivation that seem to be characteristic of a significant proportion of certain populations2. This type of research has generated numerous objections, and a fierce controversy is still going on.
Since the syndromes mental illness, apparently easier to define than other personality types, attempts have been made to trace class and cultural differences with mental illness. In some societies, personality disorders may be less likely due to lax parenting; in others, because of the harsh treatment to which children are subjected, such disorders are more likely to occur. Such claims are difficult to verify because the observations were not always made by experienced psychiatrists and the facts are therefore incomparable.
Because people with different cultural background ideas about a person's place in the Universe and about themselves are different, delusional ideas are not the same, but no one has proven that any clinical syndrome is found in different societies in different proportions. Paranoid, the Menimoni Indians are afraid of witches or snakes, while the paranoids of our society are afraid of radio stations or FBI agents. But attributing malevolent motives to imaginary personifications and taking defensive measures against them is a common pattern. Lambo's comparative study of paranoid psychoses also speaks of this.
Lin explored 3 Chinese communities in Formosa - rural area, small town and a quarter of a large city - and studied 19,931 people. He found 214 cases of abnormalities. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of different syndromes in these three areas. The facts did not support the opinion of the famous anthropologist that among the Chinese, manic-depressive psychoses predominate over schizophrenia. The actual prevalence of various disorders does not differ significantly from what is known about the situation in other parts of the world. The symptoms differ from culture to culture, but the structure of these psychoses and probably their etiology are the same. If this were not so, it would be impossible to recognize them.
Some critics of modern industrial societies point to their complexity and internal inconsistency as a source of tension. They argue that schizophrenia is more common in mass societies than in simpler and more stable primitive societies, where the social status of each individual is clearly defined. However, the study of several communities of the Hatterites - a religious sect inhabiting rural areas Dakota, Montana and adjacent Canadian provinces - as if refutes this opinion. This tight-knit, almost autonomous group maintained its identity for more than 100 years and enjoyed a well-ordered way of life that differed sharply from the American one. Although there was great cohesion and coherence here, and career aspirations and lines were clearly defined, which is supposedly the ideal from the point of view of psychiatrists - the prevalence of mental disorders did not differ significantly from the corresponding rates in other parts of the country7. Apparently, a simple and uncomplicated lifestyle does not necessarily create immunity against mental illness.
The relationship between class position and mental illness is shed light on a study conducted in New Haven, in which about 98% of those who were undergoing treatment at that time were studied. Taking into account the occupation, education and area of residence, the researchers determined the index of the class position of each and found significant differences in the proportion of patients in groups. The most privileged classes, whose share in the population exceeded 11.4%, gave only 8% of patients; the lower classes, comprising 18.4% of the population, represented 38.2% of patients. It was found that different types of diseases are not equally common. In the upper classes, most patients were classified as neurotics; in the lower classes, 91.6% were diagnosed as psychotic. It must be borne in mind, of course, that many of the poor, who were troubled by neurotic symptoms, could not afford to seek medical help. A careful study of fifty patients in the same sample showed that, in the lower class, victims of schizophrenia come from families characterized by disorganization, parental neglect, and lack of guidance; Patients from middle-class families suffer more from internal restlessness about their inability to achieve high goals, formed under the influence of mothers and insufficient respect for their fathers9. These facts point to the importance of class differences in personality development, but this conclusion is contradicted by the results of other studies. In a study of 1,462 rural children in Wisconsin, for example, no significant relationship was found between social status and personality.
In connection with attempts to explain the supposed differences in the distribution of personality types, there is a growing interest in the comparative study of the practice of child education. Anthropologists are now doing more detailed research into the upbringing of young children than they have done in the past. There have also been a number of studies of class differences in the upbringing of children. A survey of 200 lower- and middle-class Chicago mothers about breastfeeding, horn-feeding, and toilet training found that middle-class parents are more strict in teaching their offspring to eat cleanly and regularly, and ensure that children learn different responsibilities at an early age. On the whole, the Negroes are less demanding, but the same differences are found among the Negroes. A study of 379 mothers in suburban Boston in 1952 found that working-class mothers were more strict, motivated by tangible rewards, and punished by physical rather than moral punishment. Since both studies generally gave similar results, the idea arose that the seemingly contradictory particulars may be due to changes in views on children's education that have occurred over a decade. Considering changes in the American economic system Since the last century, Miller and Swanson have proposed to distinguish between two types of families - "entrepreneurial", consisting of people who work in small enterprises with relatively simple separation labor, and "bureaucratic", represented by people employed in large corporations. They found that in Type One families, middle-class mothers insisted on an active, action-oriented approach to life, instilling confidence in children. own forces while lower-class mothers were less demanding; in "bureaucratic" families, however, it proved impossible to detect significant class differences. A survey of several hundred mothers by other researchers found that working-class parents focused on qualities that ensured respectability, while middle-class parents focused on internalizing standards of behavior. Most researchers agree that there are class differences in the practice of child rearing, but they hold different views on the nature of these differences.
That the practice of children's upbringing determines the development of personality is still not conclusively proven. A study of 162 children from rural Wisconsin communities, using an elegant system of tests and scales, was accompanied by a survey of parents about how these children were brought up.
Comparing the scores of fitness and personality traits of children who experienced various educational techniques, the researchers found no significant differences. Then signs such as the duration of breastfeeding, the age of toilet training, etc., were grouped into two groups - approved in psychoanalysis and not approved. There was no impressive correlation between loose parenting and favorable personality development; in fact, some coefficients were even negative. This suggests that the methods of education, as such, may not be as important as the feelings directed at the child. In fact, all of this research has focused more on what parents do than how they do it. The style of parental behavior towards the child was often mentioned, but it was not the subject of effective study.
Although the question of the different distribution of personality types has not yet been resolved, it is likely that all personality types can be found in all societies. If this were not the case, stories translated from one language to another would be incomprehensible. Of course, those who share a common culture are characterized by similar patterns of behavior, but a distinction must be made between the façade of conventional behavior and what the individual is disposed to do in reality. Personality should be defined in terms of its potential actions, not overt behavior. It manifests itself in spontaneous propensities for action, which are often restrained.
There are many concepts of personality, but most psychiatrists and psychologists use this term to refer to a particular style of behavior that characterizes a given individual, which the best way illustrated by his characteristic ways of dealing with people. This concept refers to something unique. Although most meanings are learned through participation in organized groups, they appear in each individual in a particular combination. It is difficult to imagine how one could explain the formation of something individual from the point of view of culture - conventional patterns, apparently, are followed by everyone in the group. If personality is a product of culture, everyone who shares a common cultural heritage should be like the rest. However, it is precisely the fact that each person is not like the others that needs to be explained.
The widespread use of research in the area of "culture and personality" is quite surprising given the questionable evidence on which such work is based. In many studies of the practice of child rearing, the correlation coefficients are very low, and the facts presented in various works are contradictory. Many of the claims that are made about different groups only seem plausible when people are viewed from a very long distance. The literate members of the studied primitive tribes were amazed at what was said about them; many Americans were surprised by Gorer's publication of their national character, just as Japanese scholars were unimpressed by the studies of Ruth Benedict and Gorer. Because the concepts of "modal personality" and "national character" are so tenuous, generalizations based on them are dangerous. The political theorist who claims that people in a particular country are more receptive to communism because they are toilet trained in a particular way is walking on very thin ice, if there is any ice under it at all. The national character, despite the scientific forms of its study, is in many respects similar to a respectable ethnic stereotype, acceptable primarily to those who are not familiar enough with the people in question.
Federal Agency for Education and Science
Higher professional education
Tula State University
Department of Sociology and Political Science
Course work
on the topic: "The influence of culture on the development of personality"
Completed by: student gr.720871
Pugaeva Olesya Sergeevna
Tula 2008
Introduction
1. Sociological analysis cultural phenomena
1.1 The concept of culture
1.2 Functions and forms of culture
1.3 Culture as a systemic education
2. The role of culture in human life
2.1 Forms of manifestation of culture in human life
2.2 Personal socialization
2.3 Culture as one of essential methods personality socialization
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
The word "culture" comes from the Latin word cultura, which means to cultivate, or cultivate the soil. In the Middle Ages, this word began to denote a progressive method of cultivating grain, thus the term agriculture or the art of farming arose. But in the 18th and 19th centuries it began to be used in relation to people, therefore, if a person was distinguished by the elegance of manners and erudition, he was considered “cultured”. Then this term was applied mainly to aristocrats in order to separate them from the "uncivilized" common people. The German word Kultur also meant a high level of civilization. In our life today, the word "culture" is still associated with the opera house, excellent literature, good education. The modern scientific definition of culture has discarded the aristocratic shades of this concept. It symbolizes the beliefs, values, and expressions (used in literature and art) that are common to a group; they serve to streamline the experience and regulate the behavior of the members of that group. The beliefs and attitudes of a subgroup are often referred to as a subculture. The assimilation of culture is carried out with the help of teaching. Culture is created, culture is taught. Because it is not purchased biologically each generation reproduces it and passes it on to the next generation. This process is the basis of socialization. As a result of the assimilation of values, beliefs, norms, rules and ideals, the formation of the child's personality and the regulation of his behavior take place. If the process of socialization were to stop on a massive scale, it would lead to the death of culture.
Culture forms the personalities of the members of society, thereby it largely regulates their behavior.
How important culture is for the functioning of the individual and society can be judged by the behavior of people who are not covered by socialization. The uncontrolled, or infantile, behavior of the so-called children of the jungle, who were completely deprived of human contact, indicates that without socialization, people are not able to adopt an orderly way of life, master the language and learn how to earn a livelihood. As a result of observing several “creatures that showed no interest in what was happening around, who rhythmically swayed back and forth like wild animals in a zoo,” an eighteenth-century Swedish naturalist. Carl Linnaeus concluded that they are representatives of a special species. Subsequently, scientists realized that these wild children did not have the development of personality, which requires communication with people. This communication would stimulate the development of their abilities and the formation of their "human" personalities. By this example, we proved the relevance of the given topic.
Target This work is to prove that culture really affects the development of the individual and society as a whole. To achieve this goal in term paper the following tasks :
· conduct a complete sociological analysis of the phenomenon of culture;
identify the various elements and components of culture;
determine how culture affects the socialization of the individual.
1. Sociological analysis of the phenomenon of culture
1.1 The concept of culture
Modern understanding The word culture has four main meanings: 1) the general process of intellectual, spiritual, aesthetic development; 2) the state of society based on law, order, morality, coincides with the word "civilization"; 3) features of the way of life of any society, group of people, historical period; 4) forms and products of intellectual, and above all artistic activity, such as music, literature, painting, theater, cinema, television.
Culture is also studied by other sciences, for example, ethnography, history, anthropology, but sociology has its own specific aspect of research in culture. What is the specificity of the sociological analysis of culture, which is characteristic of the sociology of culture? Feature sociology of culture lies in the fact that it discovers and analyzes the patterns of sociocultural changes, studies the processes of the functioning of culture in connection with social structures and institutions.
From the point of view of sociology, culture is a social fact. It covers all ideas, ideas, worldviews, beliefs, beliefs that are actively shared by people, or are passively recognized and affect social behavior. Culture does not just passively “accompany” social phenomena which flow, as it were, outside and apart from culture, objectively and independently of it. The specificity of culture lies in the fact that it represents in the minds of members of society all and any facts that mean something specifically for a given group, a given society. At the same time, at each stage of the life of society, the development of culture is associated with a struggle of ideas, with their discussion and active support, or passive recognition of one of them as objectively correct. Turning to the analysis of the essence of culture, it is necessary to take into account, firstly, that culture is what distinguishes man from animals, culture is a characteristic of human society; secondly, culture is not biologically inherited, but involves learning.
Due to the complexity, multi-layered, multi-faceted, multi-faceted concept of culture, there are several hundred of its definitions. We will use one of them: culture is a system of values, ideas about the world and rules of behavior common to people connected by a certain way of life.
1.2 Functions and forms of culture
Culture performs diverse and responsible social functions. First of all, according to N. Smelser, it structures social life, that is, it does the same thing as genetically programmed behavior in the life of animals. Culture is transmitted from one generation to another in the process of socialization. Because culture is not biologically transmitted, each generation reproduces it and passes it on to the next generation. This process is the basis of socialization. The child learns the values, beliefs, norms, rules and ideals of society, the personality of the child is formed. Personality formation is an important function of culture.
Another equally important function of culture is the regulation of individual behavior. If there were no norms, rules, human behavior would become practically uncontrollable, chaotic and meaningless. How important culture is for the life of a person and society can be judged if we recall once again the human cubs described in the scientific literature, which, by chance, turned out to be completely deprived of communication with people and were “brought up” in a herd of animals, in the jungle. When they were found - after five or seven years and again came to people, these children of the jungle could not master the human language, they were unable to learn an orderly way of life, to live among people. These wild children did not have the development of personality, which requires communication with people. The spiritual and moral function of culture is closely connected with socialization. It identifies, systematizes, addresses, reproduces, preserves, develops and transmits Eternal values in society - goodness, beauty, truth. Values exist as an integral system. The set of values generally accepted in a particular social group, country, expressing their special vision of social reality, is called mentality. There are political, economic, aesthetic and other values. The dominant type of values are moral values, which represent the preferred options for relationships between people, their connections with each other and society. Culture also has a communicative function, which makes it possible to consolidate the connection between the individual and society, to see the connection of times, to establish the connection of progressive traditions, to establish mutual influence (mutual exchange), to select the most necessary and expedient for replication. You can also name such aspects of the purpose of culture as being a tool for the development of social activity, citizenship.
The complexity of understanding the phenomenon of culture also lies in the fact that in any culture there are its different layers, branches, sections.
In most European societies by the beginning of the 20th century. there are two forms of culture. Elite culture - fine art, classical music and literature - was created and perceived by the elite.
Folk culture, which included fairy tales, folklore, songs and myths, belonged to the poor. The products of each of these cultures were intended for a specific audience, and this tradition was rarely broken. With the advent of the mass media (radio, mass print media, television, gramophone records, tape recorders), the distinction between high and low folk culture. This is how a mass culture emerged, which is not associated with religious or class subcultures. The media and popular culture are inextricably linked. A culture becomes "mass" when its products are standardized and distributed to the general public.
In all societies, there are many subgroups with different cultural values and traditions. The system of norms and values that distinguish a group from the majority of society is called a subculture.
A subculture is shaped by factors such as social class, ethnicity, religion, and location.
The values of the subculture influence the formation of the personality of the members of the group.
The term "subculture" does not mean that this or that group opposes the culture that dominates the society. However, in many cases, the majority of society treats the subculture with disapproval or distrust. This problem can arise even in relation to respected subcultures of doctors or the military. But sometimes the group actively seeks to develop norms or values that are in conflict with core aspects of the dominant culture. On the basis of such norms and values, a counterculture is formed. A well-known counterculture in Western society is Bohemia, and the most striking example in it is the hippies of the 60s.
Counterculture values can be the cause of long-term and irresolvable conflicts in society. However, sometimes they penetrate the mainstream culture itself. Long hair, ingenuity in language and dress, drug use, characteristic of hippies, are widespread in American society where, as is often the case, mainly through the media, these values have become less provocative and therefore attractive to the counterculture and therefore less threatening to the mainstream culture.
1.3 Culture as a systemic education
From the point of view of sociology, two main parts can be distinguished in culture - cultural statics and cultural dynamics. The first describes culture at rest, the second - in a state of movement. Cultural static is internal structure culture, i.e., the totality of the basic elements of culture. Cultural dynamics includes those means, mechanisms and processes that describe the transformation of culture, its change. Culture is born, spreads, collapses, is preserved, many different metamorphoses take place with it. Culture is a complex formation, which is a multilateral and multifaceted system, all parts, all elements, all structural characteristics of this system constantly interact, are in endless connections and relationships with each other, constantly move one into another, permeate all spheres of society. If we imagine human culture as a complex system that was created by numerous previous generations of people, then individual elements (features) of culture can be attributed to either material or non-material types. The totality of the material elements of culture constitutes a special form of culture - material culture, which includes all objects, all objects that are created by human hands. These are machine tools, machines, power plants, buildings, temples, books, airfields, cultivated fields, clothing, and so on.
The totality of non-material elements of culture forms a spiritual culture. The spiritual culture includes norms, rules, samples, standards, laws, values, rituals, symbols, myths, knowledge, ideas, customs, traditions, language, literature, art. Spiritual culture exists in our minds not only as an idea of the norms of behavior, but also as a song, a fairy tale, an epic, a joke, a proverb, folk wisdom, a national color of life, mentality. In cultural statics, elements are delimited in time and space. Geographic area, within which different cultures have similarities in their main features, is called a cultural area. At the same time, the boundaries of the cultural area may not coincide with the state or with the framework of a given society.
Part of the material and spiritual culture created by past generations, which has stood the test of time and is passed on to the next generations as something valuable and revered, constitutes the cultural heritage. Cultural heritage plays extremely important role during periods of crises and instability, acting as a factor in uniting the nation, a means of unification. Every people, country, even some groups of society have their own culture, in which there may be a lot of features that do not coincide with a particular culture. There are many different cultures on earth. Nevertheless, sociologists identify common features common to all cultures - cultural universals.
More than a few dozen cultural universals are confidently named; elements of culture that are inherent in all cultures, regardless of geographical location, historical time and social structure of society. In cultural universals, it is possible to single out elements of culture that are connected in one way or another with the physical health of a person. This is age features, sports, games, dancing, cleanliness, prohibition of incest, midwifery, handling of pregnant women, postpartum care, weaning the baby,
Cultural universals also include universal norms of morality: respect for elders, discrimination between good and evil, mercy, the obligation to come to the aid of the weak, in distress, respect for nature and all living things, caring for babies and raising children, the custom of giving gifts, moral norms , culture of behavior.
A separate very important group is made up of cultural universals associated with the organization of the life of individuals: cooperation of labor and division of labor, communal organization, cooking, solemn festivities, traditions, making fire, taboos on writing, games, greetings, hospitality, household, hygiene, the prohibition of incest. , government, police, punitive sanctions, law, property rights, inheritance, kinship groups, kinship nomenclature, language, magic, marriage, family obligations, mealtimes (breakfast, lunch, dinner), medicine, decency in the administration of natural necessities, mourning, number, personal name, propitiation of supernatural forces, customs associated with the onset of puberty, religious rituals, settlement rules, sexual restrictions, status differentiation, tool making, trade, visiting.
Cultural universals include special group, which reflects views on the world and spiritual culture: the doctrine of the world, time, calendar, the doctrine of the soul, mythology, divination, superstition, religion and various beliefs, belief in miraculous healings, interpretation of dreams, prophecy, observation of the weather, education, artistic creativity, folk crafts, folklore, folk songs, fairy tales, tales, legends, jokes.
Why do cultural universals arise? This is due to the fact that people, in whatever part of the world they live, are physically the same, they have the same biological needs and face common problems that life conditions pose for them.
Every culture has standards of "correct" behavior. In order to live in a society, people must be able to communicate and cooperate with each other, which means that they must have an idea of how to act correctly in order to be understood and achieve concerted action. Therefore, society creates certain patterns of behavior, a system of norms - samples of correct or appropriate behavior. A cultural norm is a system of behavioral expectations, a way of how people should act. A normative culture is a system of social norms or standards of behavior that members of a society follow more or less exactly.
At the same time, the norms go through several stages in their development: they arise, receive approval and distribution in society, grow old, become synonymous with routine and inertia, and they are replaced by others that are more consistent with the changed conditions of life.
Some norms are not difficult to replace, for example, etiquette norms. Etiquette is the rules of courtesy, the rules of courtesy, which differ in every society and even in every class. Etiquette norms we can easily bypass. So, if a guest invites you to a table on which there is only a fork near the plate, and there is no knife, you can do without a knife. But there are norms that are extremely difficult to change, because these rules regulate spheres of human activity that are important for society. These are state laws, religious traditions, etc. Let us consider the main types of norms in order of increasing their social significance.
Customs are a traditionally established order of behavior, a set of workable patterns, standards that allow members of a society to interact in the best possible way both with the environment and with each other. These are not individual, but collective habits, ways of life of the people, elements of everyday, everyday culture. New generations adopt customs through unconscious imitation or conscious learning. With childhood a person is surrounded by many elements of everyday culture, since he constantly sees these rules in front of him, they become the only possible and acceptable ones for him. The child learns them and, becoming an adult, treats them as self-evident phenomena, without thinking about their origin.
Every people, even in the most primitive societies, has many customs. So, Slavic and western peoples they eat the second with a fork, taking it for granted to use a fork if they served a patty with rice, and the Chinese use special sticks for this purpose. The customs of hospitality, the celebration of Christmas, respect for elders and others are mass patterns of behavior approved by society, which are recommended to be followed. If people break customs, it causes public disapproval, censure, condemnation.
If habits and customs are passed from one generation to another, they become traditions. Originally, the word meant "tradition". Hoisting the national flag at a holiday, singing the national anthem during the celebration of the winner at the competition, meeting fellow soldiers on victory day, honoring labor veterans, etc. can become traditional.
In addition, each person has many individual habits: doing gymnastics and taking a shower in the evening, skiing on weekends, etc. Habits have developed as a result of repeated repetition, they express both the cultural level of a given person and his spiritual needs. , and level historical development the society in which he lives. So, the Russian nobility was characterized by the habit of organizing dog hunting, playing cards, having a home theater, and so on.
Most habits are neither approved nor condemned by others. But there are also so-called bad habits(talking loudly, biting your nails, eating with noise and champing, unceremoniously looking at a passenger on the bus and then aloud making comments about his appearance, etc.), they indicate bad manners.
Manners refer to etiquette, or rules of politeness. If habits are formed spontaneously, under the influence of living conditions, then good manners must be cultivated. In Soviet times, etiquette was not taught either at school or at the university, considering all this to be bourgeois nonsense, “harmful” to the people. No etiquette in officially approved programs universities and schools today. Therefore, rude manners have become the norm everywhere. Suffice it to say about the vulgar, disgusting manners of our so-called pop stars, which are replicated by television and perceived by millions of fans as a standard of behavior and a role model.
Is it possible to learn on your own good manners? Of course, for this you need to read books on etiquette, reflect on your behavior, apply the rules to yourself, which are described in publications. The everyday manners of a well-mannered person are to make sure that your presence does not create inconvenience to anyone, be helpful, polite, give way to elders, give a coat to a girl in the wardrobe, do not talk loudly or gesticulate, do not be gloomy and irritable, have clean shoes, ironed trousers, a neat haircut - all this and some other habits can be quickly learned, and then communication with you will be easy and pleasant, which, by the way, will help you in life. A variety of customs are ceremony and ritual. A ceremony is a series of actions that have a symbolic meaning and are dedicated to the celebration of some important event for the group. For example, the ceremony of inauguration of the President of Russia, the ceremony (enthronement) of the enthronement of a newly elected pope or patriarch.
A ritual is a custom-made and strictly established procedure for doing something, which is designed to dramatize this event, to arouse reverent awe in the viewer. For example, ritual dances of shamans in the process of witchcraft, ritual dances of the tribe before the hunt. Moral norms are different from customs and habits.
If I do not brush my teeth, then I harm myself, if I do not know how to use a knife for eating, some will not notice my bad manners, while others will notice, but will not tell about it. But if a friend quit in a difficult moment, if a person borrowed money and promised to give it back, but does not give it back. In these cases, we are dealing with rules that affect vital interests people are important to the well-being of the group or society. Moral or moral standards determine the relationship of people to each other based on the distinction between good and evil. People fulfill moral norms based on their own conscience, public opinion and the traditions of society.
Morals are mass patterns of action that are especially protected and highly revered by society. Mores reflect moral values society. Every society has its own mores, or morals. Nevertheless, respect for elders, honesty, nobility, caring for parents, the ability to come to the aid of the weak, etc. in many societies it is the norm, and insulting elders, mockery of the disabled, the desire to offend the weak is considered immoral.
A special form of mores is taboo. Taboo is an absolute prohibition of any action. In modern society, incest, cannibalism, desecration of graves or insulting the feeling of patriotism are taboo.
The set of rules of conduct associated with the concept of dignity of the individual constitutes the so-called code of honor.
If norms and customs begin to play a particularly important role in the life of society, then they become institutionalized and social institution. These are economic institutions, banks, the army, etc. The norms and rules of conduct here are specially developed and drawn up in codes of conduct and are strictly observed.
Some of the norms are so important for the life of society that they are formalized as laws; the law is guarded by the state represented by its special power structures, such as the police, the court, the prosecutor's office, and the prison.
As a systemic education, culture and its norms are accepted by all members of society; it is the dominant, universal, dominating culture. But in every society, certain groups of people stand out who do not accept the dominant culture, but form their own norms that differ from generally accepted patterns and even challenge it. This is the counterculture. The counterculture is in conflict with the mainstream culture. Prison customs, bandit standards, hippie groups are clear examples of counterculture.
There may be other, less aggressive cultural norms in society that are not shared by all members of the society. Differences in people associated with age, nationality, occupation, gender, characteristics of the geographical environment, profession, lead to the emergence of specific cultural patterns that make up the subculture; "life of immigrants", "life of northerners", " army life”, “Bohemia”, “life in a communal apartment”, “life in a hostel” are examples of the life of an individual within a certain subculture.
2. The role of culture in human life
2.1 Forms of manifestation of culture in human life
Culture plays a very controversial role in human life. On the one hand, it helps to consolidate the most valuable and useful patterns of behavior and pass them on to subsequent generations, as well as to other groups. Culture elevates a person above the animal world, creating a spiritual world, it promotes human communication. On the other hand, culture is capable of moral standards to consolidate injustice and superstition, inhuman behavior. In addition, everything created within the framework of culture to conquer nature can be used to destroy people. Therefore, it is important to study individual manifestations of culture in order to be able to reduce the tension in the interaction of a person with the culture generated by him.
Ethnocentrism. There is a well-known truth that for every person earth's axis passes through the center of his home town or village. The American sociologist William Summer called ethnocentrism a view of society in which a certain group is considered central, and all other groups are measured and correlated with it.
Without a doubt, we admit that monogamous marriages are better than polygamous ones; that young people should choose partners themselves and that this is the best way to form married couples; that our art is the most humane and noble, while the art of another culture is defiant and tasteless. Ethnocentrism makes our culture the standard against which we measure all other cultures: in our opinion, they will be good or bad, high or low, right or wrong, but always in relation to our own culture. This is manifested in such positive expressions as "chosen people", "true teaching", "super race", and in negative ones - "backward peoples", "primitive culture", "rude art".
To some extent, ethnocentrism is inherent in all societies, and even backward peoples in some way feel superior to everyone else. They, for example, may consider the culture of highly developed countries stupid and absurd. Not only societies, but most social groups (if not all) in a society are ethnocentric. Numerous studies of organizations conducted by sociologists different countries, show that people tend to overestimate their own organizations while underestimating all others. Ethnocentrism is a universal human reaction affecting all groups in society and almost all individuals. True, there may be exceptions to this issue, for example: anti-Semitic Jews, revolutionary aristocrats, Negroes who oppose Negroes on the elimination of racism. It is obvious, however, that such phenomena can already be considered forms of deviant behavior.
A natural question arises: is ethnocentrism a negative or a positive phenomenon in the life of society? It is difficult to answer this question clearly and unambiguously. Let's try to determine the positive and negative aspects in such a complex cultural phenomenon as ethnocentrism. First of all, it should be noted that groups in which there are clearly expressed manifestations of ethnocentrism, as a rule, are more viable than groups that are completely tolerant of other cultures or subcultures. Ethnocentrism unites the group, justifies sacrifice and martyrdom in the name of its well-being; without it, the manifestation of patriotism is impossible. Ethnocentrism - necessary condition appearance national consciousness and even ordinary group loyalty. Of course, extreme manifestations of ethnocentrism are also possible, such as nationalism, contempt for the cultures of other societies. However, in most cases ethnocentrism appears in more tolerant forms, and its main message is that I prefer my customs, although I admit that some customs and mores of other cultures may be better in some ways. So, we encounter the phenomenon of ethnocentrism almost daily when we compare ourselves with people of a different gender, age, representatives of other organizations or other regions, in all cases where there are differences in the cultural patterns of representatives of social groups. Every time we put ourselves at the center of culture and consider its other manifestations, as if trying them on ourselves.
Ethnocentrism can be artificially reinforced in any group in order to oppose other groups in conflict interaction. The mere mention of a danger, for example, to the existence of an organization, unites its members, increases the level of group loyalty and ethnocentrism. Periods of tension in relations between nations or nationalities are always accompanied by an increase in the intensity of ethnocentric propaganda. Perhaps this is due to the preparation of the members of the group for the struggle, for the coming hardships and sacrifices.
Speaking about the significant role that ethnocentrism plays in the processes of group integration, in rallying group members around certain cultural patterns, one should also note its conservative role, Negative influence for the development of culture. Indeed, if our culture is the best in the world, then why do we need to improve, change, and even more so borrow from other cultures? Experience shows that such a point of view can significantly slow down the development processes that take place in a society with a very high level of ethnocentrism. An example is the experience of our country, when the high level of ethnocentrism in the pre-war period became a serious brake on the development of culture. Ethnocentrism can also be a tool against changes in the internal structure of society. Thus, privileged groups consider their society to be the best and fairest and seek to instill this in other groups, thereby raising the level of ethnocentrism. Also in Ancient Rome among the representatives of the poor, the opinion was cultivated that, despite poverty, they were still citizens of a great empire and therefore higher than other peoples. This opinion was specially created by the privileged strata of Roman society.
Cultural relativism. If members of one social group will consider the cultural customs and norms of other social groups only from the point of view of ethnocentrism, then it is very difficult to come to understanding and interaction. Therefore, there is an approach to other cultures that softens the effect of ethnocentrism and allows finding ways for cooperation and mutual enrichment of cultures of different groups. One such approach is cultural relativism. Its basis is the assertion that members of one social group cannot understand the motives and values of other groups if they analyze these motives and values in the light of their own culture. In order to achieve understanding, to understand another culture, you need to connect it specific features with the situation and the peculiarities of its development. Each cultural element must be related to the characteristics of the culture of which it is a part. The value and meaning of this element can only be considered in the context of a particular culture. Warm clothes are good in the Arctic, but ridiculous in the tropics. The same can be said about other, more complex cultural elements and the complexes they constitute. Cultural complexes concerning female beauty and the role of women in society are different in different cultures. It is only important to approach these differences not from the point of view of the dominance of "our" culture, but from the point of view of cultural relativism, i.e. recognizing for other cultures the possibilities of interpretations of cultural patterns that differ from “ours” and realizing the reasons for such modifications. This point of view, of course, is not ethnocentric, but helps the rapprochement and development of different cultures.
It is necessary to understand the basic position of cultural relativism, according to which certain elements of a particular cultural system are correct and generally accepted because they have proven themselves well in this particular system; others are considered wrong and unnecessary because their application would give rise to painful and conflicting consequences only in a given social group or only in a given society. The most rational way of development and perception of culture in society is a combination of features of both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, when an individual, feeling pride in the culture of his group or society and expressing adherence to the main examples of this culture, is at the same time able to understand other cultures, the behavior of members other social groups, recognizing their right to exist.
2.2 Personal socialization
Personality is one of those phenomena that are rarely interpreted in the same way by two different authors. All definitions of personality are somehow conditioned by two opposing views on its development. From the point of view of some, each personality is formed and develops in accordance with its innate qualities and abilities, while the social environment plays a very insignificant role. Representatives of another point of view completely reject the innate internal traits and abilities of the individual, believing that the individual is a product that is completely formed in the course of social experience.
Methods of socialization of the individual in each culture are different. Turning to the history of culture, we will see that each society had its own idea of education. Socrates believed that to educate a person means to help him "become a worthy citizen", while in Sparta the goal of education was considered to be the education of a strong brave warrior. According to Epicurus, the main thing is independence from the outside world, “serenity”. In modern times, Rousseau, trying to combine civic motives and spiritual purity in education, finally came to the conclusion that moral and political education are incompatible. "Study of human condition” leads Rousseau to the conviction that it is possible to educate either “a person for himself”, or a citizen who lives “for others”. In the first case, he will be in conflict with public institutions, in the second - with his own nature, so you have to choose one of the two - to educate either a person or a citizen, because you cannot create both at the same time. Two centuries after Rousseau, existentialism, for its part, will develop his ideas about loneliness, about “Others” who are opposed to the “I”, about a society where a person is in the slavery of norms, where everyone lives as it is customary to live.
Today, experts continue to argue about which factor is the main one for the process of personality formation. Apparently, all of them in a complex carry out the socialization of the individual, the education of a person as a representative of a given society, culture, social group. In accordance with modern concepts, the interaction of such factors as physical traits human, Environment, individual experience and culture, creates a unique personality. To this should be added the role of self-education, that is, the individual's own efforts based on an internal decision, one's own needs and requests, ambition, and a strong-willed beginning - to form certain skills, abilities, and abilities in oneself. As practice shows, self-education is the most powerful tool in achieving a person's professional skills, career, material well-being.
In our analysis, of course, we must take into account both the biological characteristics of the individual and his social experience. At the same time, practice shows that the social factors of personality formation are more significant. The definition of personality given by V. Yadov seems satisfactory: “Personality is the integrity of a person’s social properties, a product of social development and the inclusion of an individual in a system social relations through activity and communication. According to this view, personality develops from a biological organism solely through various types social cultural experience.
2.3 Culture as one of the most important methods of personality socialization
First of all, it should be noted that a certain cultural experience is common to all mankind and does not depend on what stage of development this or that society is at. Thus, each child receives nourishment from older children, learns to communicate through language, gains experience in the application of punishment and reward, and also masters some of the other most common cultural patterns. At the same time, each society provides practically all its members with some special experience, special cultural patterns, which other societies cannot offer. From the social experience that is common to all members of a given society, a characteristic personality configuration arises that is typical for many members of a given society. For example, a person who has been formed in the conditions of a Muslim culture will have different features than a person brought up in a Christian country.
The American researcher C. Dubois called a person who has features common to a given society “modal” (from the term “mode” taken from statistics, denoting a value that occurs most often in a series or series of object parameters). Under the modal personality, Duboys understood the most common type of personality, which has some features inherent in the culture of society as a whole. Thus, in every society one can find such personalities who embody the average generally accepted traits. They talk about modal personalities when they mention "average" Americans, Englishmen, or "true" Russians. The modal personality embodies all those general cultural values that society instills in its members in the course of cultural experience. These values are contained to a greater or lesser extent in every individual in a given society.
In other words, every society develops one or more basic personality types that fit the culture of that society. Such personal patterns are assimilated, as a rule, from childhood. Among the Plains Indians of South America, the socially approved personality type for an adult male was a strong, self-confident, combative person. He was admired, his behavior was rewarded, and boys always aspired to be like such men.
What can be a socially approved personality type for our society? Perhaps this is a sociable personality, i.e. easily making social contacts, ready for cooperation and at the same time possessing some aggressive traits (that is, able to stand up for herself) and a practical mind. Many of these traits develop secretly, within us, and we feel uncomfortable if these traits are missing. Therefore, we teach our children to say "thank you" and "please" to elders, teach them not to be shy of an adult environment, to be able to stand up for themselves.
However, in complex societies it is very difficult to find a generally accepted type of personality due to the presence in them a large number subcultures. Our society has many structural divisions: regions, nationalities, occupations, age categories, etc. Each of these divisions tends to create its own subculture with certain personal patterns. These patterns are mixed with personality patterns inherent in individual individuals, and mixed personality types are created. To study the personality types of various subcultures, one should study each structural unit separately, and then take into account the influence of personality patterns of the dominant culture.
Conclusion
Summing up, it should be emphasized once again that culture is an integral part of human life. Culture organizes human life. In human life, culture to a large extent performs the same function that genetically programmed behavior performs in the life of animals.
Culture is a complex formation, which is a multilateral and multifaceted system, all parts, all elements, all structural characteristics of this system constantly interact, are in endless connections and relationships with each other, constantly move one into another, permeate all spheres of society.
Among the many different definitions of this concept, the most common is the following: culture is a system of values, ideas about the world and rules of behavior common to people associated with a certain way of life.
Culture is transmitted from one generation to another in the process of socialization. The formation and development of personality is largely due to culture. It would not be an exaggeration to define culture as a measure of what is human in a person. Culture gives a person a sense of belonging to a community, brings up control over his behavior, determines the style of practical life. At the same time, culture is a decisive way of social interactions, integration of individuals into society.
List of used literature
1. Vitani I.N. Society. Culture. Sociology / I.N. Vitani - M., 1984 - pp. 9-15.
2. Dobrenkov V.I. Sociology./V.I. Dobrenkov, Yu.G. Volkov and others - M.: Thought, 2000 - p.52.
3. Ionin L.G. Sociology of culture: the path to the new millennium: Proc. allowance for university students. - 3rd ed., recut. and add./L.G. Ionin - M.: Logos, 2000 - p.19-24.
4. Kogan L. K. Sociology of culture. Yekaterinburg, 1992 - p.11-12.
5. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality / I.S.Kon - M., 1967 - p.113-116.
6. Leontiev A.N. On the theory of personality development / A.N. Leontiev - M., 1982 - p. 402.
7. Minyushev F.I. Sociology of culture: Tutorial for universities F.I. Minyushev - M.: Academic project, 2004 - p. 34-38.
8. Sokolov E.V. Culture and Personality / E.V. Sokolov - L., 1972 - p.51.
9. Yadov V.A. attitude towards work and value orientations personalities // Sociology in the USSR in 2 vols. - V.2 Zdravosmyslov A.G., Yadov V.A. - M., -1996-p.71.
10. Forms of knowledge and society: the essence and concept of sociology of culture // Sociological Journal, No. 1-2, 1999//
