What rules of conduct are accepted in society. Norms of human behavior in society

etiquette, norms of behavior, interaction of people, competent socio-cultural space

Annotation:

One of the basic principles of life in modern secular society is the maintenance of normal relations between people and the desire to avoid conflicts. In turn, respect and attention can be earned only with respect for courtesy and restraint. But in life you often have to deal with rudeness, harshness, disrespect for another person. The reason for this is that very often the basics are ignored. etiquette culture, which is part of a general secular culture, the foundations of which are attention and respect for others.

Article text:

A person throughout his life is in the socio-cultural space, where the rules of behavior play one of the main roles. These rules are called etiquette.

Etiquette (French - etiquette) is a set of rules of conduct adopted in society, establishing the order of secular behavior, which enables people without special efforts use ready-made forms of decent behavior and generally accepted politeness for cultural communication among themselves on various levels structures of society, in the light, while in the process of communication it is worthy to take into account the interests of others in their behavior.

The word etiquette itself has been used since the time of Louis XIV, at whose receptions guests were given cards listing the rules of conduct required of them. These cards are "labels" and gave the name to etiquette. In French, this word has two meanings: a label and a set of rules, a conditional order of conduct.

Understanding etiquette as a system of established mutual expectations, approved “models” and rules of secular communication between people, it should be recognized, however, that real norms of behavior and ideas about “what should be done” change significantly over time. What was previously considered indecent may become generally accepted, and vice versa. Behavior that is unacceptable in one place and under one circumstance may be appropriate in another place and under other circumstances.

Of course, various peoples make their own corrections and additions to etiquette, due to the specifics of the historical development of their culture. Therefore, etiquette also reflects a specific system of national signs-symbols of communication, positive traditions, customs, rituals, rituals that correspond to the historically determined conditions of life and the moral and aesthetic needs of people.

Consideration of all aspects of etiquette is not possible, since etiquette passes through all areas of a person's public and private life. In turn, we will focus on its most important norms such as tact, politeness, and sensitivity. Let's touch on such a thing as "inequality". Let's analyze the levels of behavior, the internal and external culture of a person. Let's highlight the rules of telephone communication. last position was not chosen by chance, since the phone occupies this moment leading place in communication, sometimes replacing interpersonal, and sometimes even intergroup communication.

One of the basic principles of life in a modern secular society is the maintenance of normal relations between people and the desire to avoid conflicts. In turn, respect and attention can be earned only with respect for courtesy and restraint. But in life you often have to deal with rudeness, harshness, disrespect for another person. The reason for this is that very often the basics of etiquette culture are ignored, which is part of the general secular culture, the foundations of which are attention and respect for others.

In this regard, one of the most necessary norms and foundations of etiquette is politeness, which is manifested in many specific rules of conduct: in greeting, in addressing a person, in the ability to remember his name and patronymic, important dates his life. True politeness is certainly benevolent, since it is one of the manifestations of sincere, disinterested benevolence towards people with whom one has to communicate.

Other important human qualities on which the rules of etiquette are based are tact and sensitivity. They imply attention, deep respect for those with whom we communicate, the desire and ability to understand them, to feel what can give them pleasure, joy, or, conversely, cause irritation, annoyance, resentment. Tact, sensitivity are manifested in a sense of proportion that should be observed in conversation, in personal and official relationships, in the ability to feel the boundary beyond which words and deeds can cause undeserved resentment, grief, pain in a person.

In addition to the basic principles of etiquette: politeness, tact, modesty, there are also general rules secular behaviour. These include, for example, the "inequality" of people in the field of etiquette, expressed, in particular, in the form of advantages that have:

women before men
older before younger
the sick before the healthy,
superior to subordinates.

The norms of etiquette - in contrast to the norms of morality - are conditional, they are in the nature of an unwritten agreement about what is generally accepted in people's behavior and what is not. The convention of etiquette in each case can be explained. Aimed at uniting people, it offers generally accepted forms, stereotypes of behavior, symbols of the manifestation of thoughts and feelings, which make it easier for people to understand each other.

At the same time, etiquette can also be considered as an aesthetic form of manifestation of moral, secular culture, since it simultaneously has direct relationship and to morality, to the moral character of a person and to the aesthetic aspects of his behavior. Beautiful manners, beautiful behavior, beautiful gestures, poses, facial expressions, smile, look, i.e. what speaks about a person, his feelings and thoughts without words; speech addressed to elders, peers, younger at a meeting and parting, in anger and joy; the manner of moving, eating, wearing clothes and jewelry, celebrating sad and joyful events, receiving guests - a person should give all these types of communication not only a moral, but also an aesthetic character.

In any case, etiquette is an integral part of the structure of the socio-cultural matrix and represents significant part modern secular behavior, although, of course, not all human behavior in general. In fact, it implies only the generally accepted rules and manners of human behavior in society in the places stipulated for this, where one can observe outside actions of individuals, in which they manifest themselves like a kind of pre-learned game of the intellect.

Based on current lifestyle modern man, his public relations and activities, it is easy to list all those conventions of secular behavior that are initially associated with generally recognized etiquette and determine its corresponding ethical and aesthetic norms. All of them should be studied and repeated, be well known to all citizens of the country. These norms apply to almost all aspects of life and everyday life, as well as areas social activities a person, causing his behavior in the family, at a party, at school, at work, and in public places, on the roads, when he is a pedestrian and when he is a car driver, in hotels, in parks, on the beach, on an airplane, at an airport, in public toilet, etc. etc.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in most public places, citizens need only a simple knowledge of good manners and the ability to behave with restraint, culture and politeness, without attracting attention from other people and thereby not preventing them from being in your society.

At the same time, there are also such public places where knowledge of etiquette alone is not enough for citizens. Other basic fragments of the socio-cultural matrix considered above (ethical, aesthetic, civic, value, environmental, etc.) should be used to one degree or another, as well as the ability to feel the system of balance of interests and, above all, to have the ability to take into account the interests of others. put them above your own.

For this, more serious norms and laws of conduct are applied, arising from the rights, duties and interests of citizens, civil servants, and entrepreneurs. Without knowledge of the relevant fragments of the socio-cultural matrix, individuals cannot be named, certified by status or admitted to the corresponding cells of social activity or government positions. And the higher the social place of the individual's activity in the structure public relations, the greater the requirements, in addition to knowledge of etiquette, should be made to his behavior, the more his behavior should be determined by the duties of this individual to other members of society, society in understanding their specific interests, the interests of society as a whole - national interests.

Based on this, it can be argued that the culture of human behavior consists of two parts: internal and external.

Internal culture is the knowledge, skills, feelings and abilities that underlie the fundamental fragments of the individual socio-cultural matrix of a person, acquired through his upbringing, education, development of consciousness and intelligence, professional training, signs good results what should be his virtue, knowledge of the interests of others, diligence and high morality.

External culture is a lifestyle and behavior patterns that are manifested in everyday life and in social activities during direct contacts, communication with other people, with objects. environment. External culture, as a rule, is a direct product of internal culture of a person is closely related to it, although there are some nuances.

Thus, individual manifestations of external culture may not reflect the internal culture of the individual or even contradict it. This happens in cases of painful manifestations of the psyche, as well as in cases of behavioral "mimicry", when an ill-mannered individual tries to impersonate a well-bred one. However, with a longer observation of it, these contradictions are easily detected. Therefore, a truly cultured and efficient person can be such only thanks to his diligent upbringing. And, on the contrary, the external manifestations of the bad manners of the individual testify to his inner void, which means immorality, the complete absence of an elementary internal culture.

External culture is not always completely dependent on the internal one and sometimes for some time can hide the lack of the latter. Good knowledge the rules of etiquette and their observance can mitigate the lack of a high internal culture, a developed consciousness and intellect, although not for long.

External culture is called differently: the culture of behavior, etiquette, good manners, rules of good manners, good manners, culture ... This suggests that, depending on the specific task, people focus on one side of external culture: most often either on knowledge of the rules of behavior and their observance or on the degree of taste, tact, skill in mastering foreign culture.

External culture consists of two "parts": that which comes from the elements of social socio-cultural matrices ( different instructions, statutes, generally accepted rules, decency, etiquette) and what comes from the upbringing and enlightenment of a secular person (manners, delicacy, tact, taste, sense of humor, conscientiousness, etc.).

There are rules of conduct of different levels and content:
1) the level of universal rules adopted in modern secular society, incl. among well-bred people - the intelligentsia;
2) the level of national regulations or regulations adopted in a given country;
3) the level of rules adopted in a given locality (in a village, city, region);
4) the level of rules adopted in a particular non-secular social stratum (among the inhabitants, among adherents of a particular religious denomination or sect, among corrupt high-ranking officials, in the beau monde, among oligarchs and other individuals with ultra-high incomes, etc. .).
5) the level of secular rules adopted in one or another professional community or public organization medical workers, lawyers, police officers, military, among actors, civil servants, members of a particular party ...)
6) the level of secular rules adopted in a particular institution (educational, medical, state, commercial ...)

Speaking about the external manifestations of ethical or aesthetic fragments of the socio-cultural matrix of individuals, it should be noted that here, too, one can observe a wide variety of types of behavior: both delicacy and rudeness, and good and bad manners, and good and bad taste.

In situations where a person does not know certain rules of conduct adopted in this society, but he has certain skills of upbringing and knowledge of the basics of etiquette, he can to some extent compensate for his ignorance with flair, intuition, based on innate or acquired delicacy, tact, taste.

Between rules and internal regulators of behavior there are very complicated relationship. They are opposite - internal and external, typical and individual, although at the same time they can "work" in one direction. Normal relationships between people are generally a delicate matter that is easily torn if people treat each other rudely, especially now in the age of constant stress and increased mental stress.

The ability to listen to the interlocutor is an indispensable requirement speech etiquette. This, of course, does not mean that one should sit silently. But it's tactless to interrupt another. When talking together, you also need to be able to listen, It happens that you have to be silent when you feel that your words can inflame passions. Do not start a heated argument in defense of your opinion. Such disputes spoil the mood of those present.

If a person wants to improve, to be better, to be worthy of love, kindness, wants to be respected, then he must take care of himself, his words-actions, cleanse himself, not give himself rest in this. After all, it is known that good breeding is an outward expression of the inner delicacy of the soul, which consists in general benevolence and attention to all people.

Politeness doesn't necessarily mean really respectful attitude to a person, just as rudeness does not necessarily mean a truly disrespectful attitude towards a person. A person can be rude due to the fact that he rotated in a rough environment, did not see other patterns of behavior.

Thus, politeness is a moral quality that characterizes the behavior of a person for whom respect for people has become a daily norm of behavior and a habitual way of dealing with others.

An important aspect of etiquette is the concept of good manners, which requires study and exercise; it must, so to speak, become second nature to us. Indeed, much that is called good tone and refined taste, there is an inborn delicacy, and therefore the assertion is true that a person can learn everything and learn everything, but not delicacy. But delicacy is not everything, and natural taste needs to be improved. Good examples and personal efforts contribute to this.

In addition, in etiquette there is such a thing as decency. This is the least conspicuous of all the concepts of etiquette, but the most revered.

So, only the one who embarrasses the least number of people has good manners. After all, each person, as a rule, lives in society, i.e. among other people. Therefore, his every act, every desire, every statement is reflected in these people. For this reason, there must be a boundary between what he wants to say or do, and what is possible, what will be pleasant or unpleasant to others. In this regard, he needs to make a self-assessment every time, whether any of his statements or actions will cause harm, cause inconvenience or trouble. Every time he must act in such a way that the people around him feel good.

To the basics of etiquette, known to everyone since childhood, there are three magic words: please, thank you, sorry (sorry).

Every request must be accompanied by the word "please".

For any service or help, you need to thank, say “thank you”.

For any trouble caused to another, you need to apologize or ask for forgiveness.

These magic words you need to learn to speak without thinking, automatically. The absence of these words in appropriate situations or their non-automatic, unnatural use means either impoliteness, rudeness, or a declaration of hostility.

There are no “little things” in etiquette, more precisely, it all consists of “little things” strung on a single rod of politeness, attention to people. Etiquette begins with a certain order and rules of greetings, addresses, introductions and acquaintances.

Given the "inequality" in etiquette, it should be borne in mind that the young are obliged to be the first to greet the elders, those who enter are present, those who are late are waiting, etc. At official receptions, first of all, the hostess and the owner are greeted, after them the ladies, first the older ones, then the young ones, then the older and older men, and then the rest of the guests. The hostess of the house should shake hands with all invited guests.

It should be remembered that the handshake accepted in our country and in the West at a meeting and when introducing a man and a woman in Muslim countries completely inappropriate: Islam does not accept even the simple contact of people of different sexes who are not related by blood ties. It is not customary to shake hands among the peoples of Southeast Asia.

Of great importance when greetings is the manner of holding. You should look directly at the person you greet with a smile. When addressing a stranger, unfamiliar person or official always say "you". The form of address "you" expresses a closer relationship with a person. When referring to "you", many formalities that testify to an external, detached form of politeness disappear.

No less complex are the etiquette rules of dating. The first step to establishing an acquaintance is introduction. When introducing themselves or introducing someone, they usually call the surname, first name, patronymic, sometimes - the position or title. If you are on official or personal affairs visit an institution or an official, then before starting a business conversation, you should introduce yourself and, if available, give your “visiting card”. Representation is also necessary if you are contacting a stranger on any issue.

Ethics is an integral attribute of modern etiquette. telephone conversations. Its most important points include the following:
1) You should always introduce yourself when you call if you are not familiar or unfamiliar with the addressee or if you rarely call this addressee. It should also be taken into account that telephone communication can be poor, i.e. your voice is barely audible or distorted, and therefore even a good friend may not immediately figure out who he is talking to.
2) It is almost always necessary to ask whether a person is busy or not and how much time he has for a telephone conversation. Unceremonious is the behavior of the caller, who immediately, without the necessary clarification of the boundaries of the conversation, begins to conduct this conversation.
3) If you get a call, and you are very busy and cannot talk, then, as a rule, the burden of a second call is not on the one who called, but on you. There can be two exceptions here:
- if the caller does not have a phone;
- if for some reason it is difficult to call the person who called you. It is impolite to force the caller to call you back because you are busy. When you do this, you unwittingly make it clear that you value-respect him less than yourself.
4) When they call on the phone and ask not you, but another person, it is impolite to ask “who is this?” or "who's talking?" First, it is indecent to answer a question with a question. Secondly, with your question, you can put the person who asks in an uncomfortable position. The questioner is not always disposed to introduce himself to an outsider who picks up the phone. His right is to remain incognito to strangers. Asking "Who's talking?" voluntarily or involuntarily "climbs into the soul" of the caller. On the other hand, asking "who is speaking?" voluntarily or involuntarily, "penetrates into the soul" and the one who is directly called, since the addressee may also want to keep the secret of his relationship with the caller. (So parents sometimes act in their desire to control every step of their adult children, which limits their right to privacy. Excessive control and excessive guardianship on the part of parents leads to the fact that adult children either remain infantile, dependent or alienated from their parents.) in the absence of the addressee, you need to ask not “who is speaking?”, but “what to send to the addressee?”
5) In a telephone conversation should prevail, for rare exception, business or telegraphic style. Talking around and around is inappropriate. It is necessary, if possible, to immediately formulate the questions for which you are calling, and do not be shy to ask the same interlocutor if he is “carried away” by a conversation on extraneous topics. You need to ask the interlocutor to move to the subject of a telephone conversation tactfully, without rude interruption of his speech. In principle, non-business conversations on the phone are also acceptable, but only after it turns out that both parties have the desire and time to conduct such conversations.
6) Keep in mind that telephone communication not as complete as face-to-face communication. Therefore, the requirements for the conversation as a whole are more stringent, i.e. you need to be more careful and prudent. A word spoken on the phone and a word spoken face to face can be evaluated in different and even opposite ways.

In a telephone conversation, you need to speak less emotionally, joke more carefully, try to avoid harsh words and expressions.

Two more concepts of etiquette that should be noted are commitment and accuracy. An optional person is very inconvenient for others, although he can be nice, courteous, etc. Such a person cannot be relied upon, cannot be counted on. Let him not be offended if they cease to respect him and avoid communication with him. “Accuracy is the courtesy of kings,” says the saying. He is not a king who is not obligatory, who behaves carelessly in relation to his own obligation.

→

What is etiquette, why it was invented and why a culture of behavior is needed - these questions can often be heard from a naughty child whom parents are trying to calm down. Or from teenagers, when they begin a period of a kind of rebellion against established norms, rules and requirements. And, to be honest, many adults sometimes complain about the framework for the rules of conduct. What is all this for? Why can't you behave the way you want at this moment? Let's find out!

Etiquette

The word "etiquette" is borrowed from French . It means the manner of behavior, the rules of behavior and courtesy accepted in society.

But why do society have rules of etiquette? - you ask. And then, what exactly etiquette gives people the opportunity to use a ready-made order of behavior in a given situation:

AT home environment;
In public places;
At work or service;
Away;
During business communication;
At official receptions and ceremonies.

Behavioral norms for a given situation created and adopted over many years, even centuries. The first rules of human behavior among their own kind appeared in ancient times. Even then, people began to try to adhere to certain customs in order to peacefully coexist with each other.

Unfortunately, today many principles of etiquette have become obsolete, obsolete. But what's wrong with, for example, if young people give up their seats in transport to older people? Or that a man will open the door and politely let the lady go first? What is going on with people if simple rules polite communication suddenly become irrelevant? And when should you start following them?

From an early age

It is from infancy that behavioral habits begin to form, with which the individual can then spend his whole life. The culture of communication is laid down for the child from his very birth, and the kid will take the behavior of adults - his parents as a basis. Therefore, it is foolish to require children to adhere to some kind of framework in communication, if we ourselves do not comply with these frameworks. No wonder they say that it is necessary to educate not children, but start with yourself.

As was customary with our grandparents:

Children addressed all adults as "you", even their own parents;
From childhood, kids were taught that it was impossible to interrupt the conversation of adults;
From childhood, the child was taught that old age must be respected, etc.

During adolescence

What's going on now c: children feel permissiveness, they try to be on a par with adults and even take the liberty of deciding something for adults. And it’s not worth mentioning the behavior of young people in public places: there are cases when public transport it is young people who will ride sitting, and elderly citizens, mothers with babies and pregnant women will “hang out” while standing. And an attempt to make a remark is fraught with a stream foul language, which the youths will joyfully dump on the one who "dared" to call them to order.

It is unlikely that all these people think about the fact that they will not always be young, strong and healthy, and the time will come when they will have to listen to nasty things from the same young and “advanced” fellow citizens.

By and large, young people are not to blame in such situations.- they just were not explained in due time how to behave correctly.

We often strive so hard to protect our children from everything that we put them above all other people:

It is we ourselves who set an example of behavior when we try to seat our already grown-up child in a chair in public transport and do not explain to him that sometimes a comfortable seat needs to be given up to those who are more in need: pregnant women, the elderly or people with disabilities;
It is we who react to an unpleasant remark either with a stream of negativity on the head of the “educator”, or we pretend that this does not concern us;
It is we who, by our example, show our children that our desires are a priority.

But we forget that our children will still need to learn how to live in society and put up with the people around them.

Adults

And then the kids grow up. And now they are beginning to wonder why the rules of behavior in society are needed: after all, they are already adults, they can do whatever they want. And it starts:

One likes to listen to music at night: well, what, this is his apartment, he "has the right." And he prefers not to think about the fact that he grossly violates the rights of neighbors to silence. Did they come to comment? Ugliness! More will be taught here!
Others need to be refurbished. And he wants to do it on weekends, early in the morning, or late on weekdays. What? Negotiate with neighbors? Here's another! And what if someone there gets up early in the morning, and what if he wakes up someone's child, etc.
And the third, taking high position, completely forgets how to politely communicate with others - rudeness and tyranny has become almost an integral part of communication with subordinates.

And where is the culture of communication, tact, understanding that there are also people around?

Conclusion

You can list the rules and norms of behavior that used to be long and boring. You can justify the current lack of culture among people by saying that the world has changed - and the rules also need to be changed. Why you need to know the rules of conduct that were relevant a hundred years ago? Because all these norms teach us to respect each other: to speak correctly and tactfully, not to use obscene language, to be kinder to others, more compassionate.

It is etiquette that instills in us the first concepts of mutual assistance, the ability to keep given word, to treat with care those who are weaker than us, to appreciate their parents and respect each other.

Etiquette is not archaic rules for the behavior of people in society. Etiquette is reasonably built communication of decent, tactful and cultured people in a civilized society. So let's always remember this.

Etiquette - the rules of behavior of people in society, which determine what can and cannot be done in certain situations. Knowledge of etiquette helps to make a good impression on people and build effective communication. This knowledge is especially useful when attending ceremonial events.

Many of us, getting into an expensive restaurant or being present at an important business meeting, feel uncomfortable. This is due to the fact that we do not know exactly how to behave correctly. Basic rules of etiquette will allow you not to fall face down in the dirt in any situation.

Rules of conduct in society

Never visit without calling. And if you are visited without warning, you can afford to be in a dressing gown and curlers.

©DepositPhotos
If you accepted the invitation, be punctual - you should not say the famous: "I may be a little late." Come on time. More than half an hour can be late only very important person or a star: they are not known to be late, but delayed.

©DepositPhotos
It is always better to come to visit or to a party with a gift. It doesn't have to be expensive. Win-win options are wine and desserts. If there are small children in the house, bring something for them too.
The format of greetings at the entrance - kisses, hugs, handshakes or other signs of respect - is determined by older guests. Whoever you are - director, academician, old woman or a student, entering the room, say hello first.
They act at the table usual rules. Eat at the same pace as everyone else.
Certain uncomfortable topics of conversation are best avoided. It is believed that it is impossible to talk about salary, politics, health, religion. Good topics for casual conversation: sports, weather, cooking, pets, art, science, travel, and the like.

©DepositPhotos
Place a napkin on your knees while eating, and then to the left of the plate. In turn, leave the cutlery on the plate, and not on the table.

©DepositPhotos
Do not put your smartphone on the table in public places. By doing so, you show how important role this gadget is playing in your life and how uninteresting you are in the conversation taking place nearby. It is better not to use the phone at all during dinner.

Always turn on silent mode or turn off your phone at the theater, library, cinema, lectures. If you need to make or receive a call, move two or three meters to the side so as not to interfere with the conversation of friends.

When receiving guests, make sure that the size of the table matches the number of visitors. The tablecloth must be impeccable.
Dishes must be from the same set. It is worth picking up all the plates and other items according to the material and colors.
If the menu has 2 types of dishes and 2 fundamentally different wines, put an extra glass for each guest. Don't forget about water glasses.
If someone came to you for the first time, first show the guest where you can wash your hands and clean yourself up, and then invite them into the living room.
If there are strangers among the guests, they should definitely be introduced to each other. When meeting, they introduce: a man - a woman, younger in age and position - older, who came later - already present. In this case, the person to whom you introduce the stranger is mentioned first, and the one you represent is the second.
The fair sex is not recommended to check or apply makeup during a conversation or at the table, and men are not recommended to comb their hair, touch their hair or beard.
Don't forget to give thanks! Say thank you to the owner and, if possible, to others with whom you spoke, for interesting conversation. The host should thank all the guests, mentioning that it was their arrival that made this event special.

Nothing costs us so cheaply and is valued so dearly as politeness. Rules of etiquette quite simple and based on common sense. You show courtesy to another person, he shows it to you. That way everyone wins.

What is ethics? Which ones to take into account, and which ones seem outdated to us? The rules by which human society lives and the culture of behavior are inextricably linked. In our time, these concepts also matter. welcome guests and members of any company. As social beings, we strive to be accepted favorably by society, so we are forced to meet special criteria, even if deep down we don’t really want to do this. How to introduce yourself and get to know each other? From the very moment we meet, we follow the simple rules of behavior in modern society: a man always introduces himself first, starting a business conversation, introduces himself the person who makes contact first. But there are exceptions - if, for example, a woman is a student and a man is a teacher, then the woman greets first. In business, it plays a certain role - the first to appear are junior in rank. You do not need to identify yourself in public places - transport, shops, theater and when you ask a question to a stranger. It is always necessary to greet a familiar person in a public place. Close people can be greeted loudly, hardly familiar - with a simple nod of the head.

How to talk on the phone correctly?

Phones have firmly entered our lives at a new level. However, we will not talk about the phones themselves, and not about the ability to talk to you at any time. the right person but about the conversation itself. It is important to know for sure - are you interfering with the interlocutor at the moment, are you distracting him? Often, educated people, out of politeness, listen to the flow of our thoughts simply because they cannot ethically ask at the very beginning - did you interfere, do not tear you away from an important matter? If in response you hear “Sorry, I’m busy,” do not be offended or impose a conversation. If you are talking with a person, and they call you at this time, you should postpone the call until the end of the conversation, or apologize to the interlocutor and interrupt the conversation. If you are constantly called during the conversation, you should postpone the conversation. AT working time must answer immediately after the first signal. If you suddenly made a mistake, do not ask “What is your number?”, But call the number you are calling and ask if you got it right.

being late

Rules of human behavior in society command us to follow French proverb: "Accuracy - the politeness of kings". Popular French wisdom says that coming to a meeting on time is the most striking manifestation of good breeding. This is especially true of joint trips to the cinema or theater, to a concert. Other people plan their time, they won't forgive you if you waste their time and make them wait. It is unacceptable to be late for or for an appointment by appointment for a specific time. What to do if you are late? If this is a trip to a cultural and entertainment institution, you should stay close to the entrance so as not to attract attention and not create noise. If you are late for an appointment, call and be sure to notify those waiting. international etiquette Each country has its own rules of human behavior in society. If you are in a foreign country, familiarize yourself with its customs so as not to inadvertently offend the inhabitants. Show interest in local culture, respect traditions and rituals. For example, in Spain, an invitation to a guest for breakfast is considered a purely symbolic courtesy, and you should not agree to this. No need to accept the invitation a second time. But on the third one, we can agree. If you are offered a meal together on the train, in Europe it is not customary to agree - you should simply refuse. But neighbors also need to be invited - they will definitely refuse. In Germany, when talking, indicate the title. If you don’t know him, it’s mono to call a person “doctor”, this is not a binding to a certain profession, but just a way to show respect. In England great attention given to table manners. All of the above are not laws and requirements, but only helpful tips and recommendations to help you orient yourself in public life.

Surname (*):

First and middle name (*):

Series and passport number (*):

Date of birth (DD.MM.YYYY) (*):

example: 04/07/1975

Email (*):

Address of residence (street/house/apartment) (*):

City, region, region (*):

Code of Conduct

In modern societies, there are no clearly defined boundaries between people (as was the case in ancient India). For this reason, it is believed that morality and norms of behavior should be are the same for all people.

Deviations from this rule, of course, are noticed and recognized by everyone, but are considered something undesirable, which could be avoided if people were better. In fact, the norms and rules of behavior of people acting in different areas ah activity, must differ, or people will not be able to behave adequately. Moreover, these norms are not yet fully compatible with each other.

This is not even about morality and ethics, but about something much more primitive - that is, about what people generally expect from each other. No one, as a rule, thinks that all people will behave highly morally towards him. But everyone expects the behavior of others to at least reasonable. It may be good or bad, but not meaningless. In this case, the person is said to be behaving "normally".

So normal behavior is behavior that is expected. In this case, norm is a set of social expectations about the behavior of people in a particular area of activity.

The rules apply to all aspects of behavior (for example, there are norms of cooperation, but there are also norms of conflict).

Definition of Normal Behavior

In general, normal behavior in any area of activity can be considered any behavior that does not destroy social relations, forming this area of activity.

So, in any society, damage or unauthorized use of someone else's property is considered a violation of the norms of behavior, since such behavior violates (and thereby destroys) relationships property, accepted in this society. At the same time, the same actions in relation to members of other societies are sometimes regarded as normal and permissible, since they do not violate social relations in given society.

Of course, such a definition may be too broad: in any particular society, there are many duties and prohibitions that have been formed due to rather random circumstances. But everything necessary norms, which take place in any society, are the same, because they are equally motivated. The totality of such norms constitutes what is sometimes called "natural law".

It should be noted that norms of behavior are not necessarily consistent with each other. It often happens that behavior that does not violate social relations in one area (and in this sense is normal) violates them in another area. Contradictions between norms of behavior can be called social contradictions. Apparently, they (to one degree or another) took place in all societies known to us.

Values

value we will call the unity of the norms of behavior adopted in a certain field of activity. Or, in another way: value is something that cannot be contradicted by any of the norms of this sphere.

Values are usually not so much understood as experienced people - as something that causes easily recognizable emotions. The most salient property of values from this point of view is that they are aspirations: people want social relations to be consistent with these values, and do not want the opposite.

This does not mean that values are something incomprehensible. On the contrary, all of them can be described in a rational way, which will be done below.

Digression: individualism and collectivism

In what follows, we will use the words "individualist values" and "collectivist values". In the sphere of power and the sphere of communal relations, human behavior is collectivist and in the sphere of property and cultural sphere - individualistic. Accordingly, a person whose behavior is more related to the first two areas of activity can be called a "collectivist", and in the opposite case, an "individualist". In addition, "collectivism" and "individualism" are called emotional attitude to your own behavior.

Here, "collectivism" is understood not so much as an attachment to the society of other people, but rather the fact that in some situations a person in general takes into account other people, puts his behavior depending on them behavior. This behavior may be morally reprehensible, but it continues to be collectivist as long as it focused on other people.

Individualism, in turn, does not at all imply misanthropy, hatred or contempt for others. A person may think to himself that he loves people, and really love them, but this does not prevent him from remaining an individualist. Individualism is understood here as a behavior in which a person does not take into account behavior of others, does not consider it necessary to think about them and in general does not bind his behavior with someone else, but acts on the basis of some of his own considerations. This does not mean that he ignores the opinions of other people, does not listen to any advice, etc. An individualist is ready to listen to someone else's opinion - but only if it is justified by something impersonal, such as logic. But this means that he "listens" not to another person, but to his logic. Someone else's opinion becomes significant for him only in this case. He can act according to someone else's opinion and for other reasons - for example, because he is forced to do so. But even in this case, he considers force, not with people. He can carefully observe the conventions and rules of decency, but only because he does not want trouble. All this does not prevent him from being an individualist.

On the other hand, the collectivist can be far more uncomfortable and unpleasant person. There are many varieties of "bad collectivism", which can be an example of any communal apartment. But when we see a person doing something only because to other people (or to another person) it will be Nice(or unpleasant), we encounter collectivist behavior. The individualist in all cases will consider this nonsense, since he really no matter to others.

Core Values

There are only five core values, four of which correspond to areas of activity, and one - to activities in general. Accordingly, four values are associated with the norms of behavior in each of the spheres, and one - with a necessary condition for any activity in general.

Sphere of communal relations: justice

In the realm of communal behavior, relationships between people are of paramount importance. It should be recalled that the main relations in the sphere of communal relations symmetrical. The concept of justice is reduced to the requirement that symmetrical relations between people be equisymmetrical, that is, that all people could take an equal part in common affairs. At the same time, since relationships, not actions, are fair or unfair, justice is rather equality. opportunities act, but by no means identity results actions.

The idea of justice is not equivalent to the idea of "equality" in the sense of "sameness". “Sameness”, of course, satisfies the criterion of symmetry, but is its simplest case, something like a “trivial solution” in mathematics, moreover, it is unrealizable and undesirable for people themselves, even remaining within the framework of purely communal relations. On closer examination of the very idea of justice, it takes the wording "to each his own" and boils down to the idea that all relations in society should have their own reverse side, the action must be equal to the reaction, and so on and so forth. Of course, property relations and the authorities are perceived from this point of view as something unjust in itself (and as a source of all kinds of injustices), and quite rightly, since these relations are inherently asymmetrical.

The idea of justice makes sense only in relation to many people, to the collective. It is based on comparison of people. The concept of justice regarding one person is meaningless. (Robinson on his island, while he was alone, simply did not have the opportunity to do right or unfair). On the other hand, this idea is not something "positive". Justice has no content. Justice does not require that "everyone should be fine." She demands that everyone be in some sense equally good or equally bad- more often even the latter, since it is easier to arrange. The main thing is that it be everyone and equally(i.e. symmetrical). What exactly will be the same for everyone - not so important.

When it comes to the "idea of justice", one might get the impression that one is discussing theories or concepts as to what justice is. There really are such theories, there are quite a lot of them and they interpret this issue in very different ways. But we are not talking about theories, but about the facts of behavior. AT this case justice can be defined as follows: justice is what people are waiting from communal relations, from the behavior of other people in this area. These expectations are caused not by reflections on good and evil, but by the properties of the communal relations themselves.

The idea of justice is that all relations between people would be symmetrical - directly or "in the end".

One more thing. It has been said that the idea of justice is empty. This is not an attempt to condemn the idea itself. We do not condemn the very existence of society - and the idea of justice is a natural consequence of its existence. In addition, society really needs it, although it may not be sufficient for its normal functioning. Justice, in order for it to make sense, you need something else fill.

This idea is meaningless for this reason. The very concept of "symmetry" is rather vague. This is especially true for complex forms of symmetry - when not "everyone is the same", but "one compensates for the other." Let's take a family for example. If the husband himself earns money, prepares food and washes the dishes himself, generally does everything himself, and the wife only lives on his means and uses him as a free servant, no one will call this a fair state of affairs. But let's say she is sitting with a baby. It is intuitively clear that "one is worth the other", and the situation seems to be more fair.

In real life, the question "what's worth what" is fundamental problem, moreover, the problem of justice. This also applies to prices in the most direct, monetary sense of the word. Everyone understands that there is a concept of "fair price". By the way, the concept is not from the realm of property - completely fair prices would make " economic life"completely impossible.

The situation in which relations between people are in most cases fair can be called differently, but the reverse situation in most cases is called inequality(although it's not a very accurate word).

Ownership: benefit

It is quite obvious that the relation of possession is asymmetric, more precisely, antisymmetric, that is, it excludes symmetry. The difference between the owner and everyone else is very great: he can do with his property what everyone else is not entitled to do.

The sphere of property also has its own norms of relations, and, accordingly, its own value. You can call it an idea. benefit. If communal relations are to be fair, then the ownership relationship must be useful for those who join them (primarily for the owner).

Again, remember that we are not talking about theories. Let's take the most primitive understanding of benefit - the benefit that everyone wants for himself. It boils down to "It's better than it was before.""Best" usually means multiplication wealth, health, possessions in general.

So the idea benefit is that property relations should promote multiplication objects of property (both material and any other), and not damage or destruction of them.

A peculiar variant of such a value as utility is good. Kindness can be defined as "benefit to another." "Do good" means "do something useful for another person", "give him something" or "do something for him". (By the way, the very word "good" in many languages originally meant "property", which has been preserved in Russian everyday speech to this day) However, the word "good" has some additional values, which will be discussed below.

Of course, the benefits can be desired and yourself and others. We only note that in itself the benefit (and, accordingly, good) nothing to do with fairness- primarily because it does not involve comparison with other people. Here a person compares himself (or another) with yourself the same (or with him), and not with others. The idea of good, moreover, is not an idea superiority over others. A person who wants well for himself does not want to feel better than others, namely, to make him feel better than he was before, or what is now. A person compares his position not with other people (he may not even think about them), but with his own past (or present) position.

This is especially noticeable when the benefits are brought not to themselves, but to another - say, to their child or beloved woman. In such cases, good is done despite on whether it's fair or not. "I gave my beloved a mink coat because I wanted to see her happy," says the thief who stole the item. Did he do good? Objectively speaking, yes. Her he certainly wanted to "do good", no matter at whose expense. In a less dramatic situation, the father, wanting to help his son, arranges for him to prestigious university"by pull", although in relation to all other applicants this is extremely unfair. He just doesn't think about them.

It should be noted that the idea of utility is not only asymmetric, but also asynchronous. She assumes comparison of two different points in time(past and present, or present and future). "To do something good" always means "to do something better than It was".

Utility is no more meaningful idea than justice. As already mentioned, to wish good (for oneself or another) means to wish possession something that doesn't exist right now. "Better" is understood here in this sense. But ideas about what exactly should have and is it worth it to have it in general, in the very idea of utility no. These ideas must come from somewhere else. On the household level it's simple: "better" for yourself means "how do I I want to", or "as I think useful to yourself", and for the other, a mixture of "like to him want "(according to my ideas) and" how he will be better"(Again, according to my ideas). These ideas may be wrong in both cases. Let's imagine two situations. In the first, the parents forbade the child to eat chocolate, because he had a skin rash from chocolate. Loving grandmother secretly gives her grandson a chocolate candy, because her grandson begged her for it. Did the grandmother do good? Yes, according to her ideas. Let's take another, opposite case. The daughter wants to get married, but the mother forbids her because she thinks young man the wrong couple. The mother then says: "I am doing this for your own good." Moreover, she really thinks so. Is she doing good? Yes, according to your ideas. Is she right in her views? And if so, in what sense?

The norms of behavior arise when the empty concepts of utility and justice begin to be filled with something. The public (but empty) idea of justice and the individual (but again empty) idea of utility must turn into a set of ideas about what's worth(fairness) and what has value(benefit). These perceptions vary from society to society and are largely historically determined.

A society in which most of the relationships between people useful, usually considers himself prosperous(or at least striving for prosperity). In the opposite situation, relationships between people become destructive, or exhausting society as a whole.

Authority: Dominance

A separate problem is combination benefit and justice. As has already been said, what is useful is not necessarily just, and justice in itself is not connected with usefulness.

Furthermore, protozoa forms of benefit and justice simply deny each other. There is nothing fairer (and less rewarding) than a large graveyard. But the ultimate wish for good (“let everything be as you want”), if it came true, would lead to extreme injustice (after all, Nero and Caligula just “did what they wanted”, and one should not think that others on their place would not want something like that).

Nevertheless, there is a value that somehow brings together utility and justice. It is interesting that it is not similar to either one or the other. It's an idea superiority dominant in the sphere of power relations.

Its dual nature is closely related to the dual nature of power - as possession topics part which the possessor himself is, that is, the relationship PS . If a justice- social value benefit- individualistic superiority in some way is both. Recall the definition of justice - "let everyone will be equally", and the definition of benefit (or good) -" let to me(or someone) will better".

Excellence can be defined as follows: "let to me(or someone) will be better than everyone the rest", which usually sounds like "I better(stronger, more powerful, more significant) than others."

Incompatibility justice and superiority has always worried people who are trying to come to some kind of consistent life position. With a more or less consistent consideration of the issue, each time it turned out that the desire for superiority is absurd and meaningless, if this desire is measured by criteria of utility or justice. In this place, whole philosophical systems arose and scientific theories, hypotheses were composed about the "instinct of power", about the "will to power", allegedly innate for man and in general for all living beings. Lev Gumilyov in his books called the same phenomenon "passionarity" and defined it as something opposite"healthy instincts" of a person, including the survival instinct. Long before this, Nietzsche distinguished between the "will to live", based on the instinct of self-preservation, and the "will to power", which (and only it!) can inspire action. against this instinct.

The idea of superiority most strongly expresses the very essence of the force that unites people. This is not surprising, since it is power relations and power behavior that implement both components of this force ( PS). This is where it shows up most clearly. "Leader first brings people together around myself", they speak of domineering behavior. But this also means that at his disposal is some amount of force that connects people together, some energy that is usually dispersed in society. This is usually caused by the fact that in the society itself this force remains less. Great leaders and emperors usually arise in eras of social chaos and disorder, when the power that united people in society seems to be weakening. But in fact, it cannot disappear anywhere - it simply passes into a free state, and it turns out to be possible to take possession of it. The desire to have power is the desire to have this power at your disposal, nothing else. This is superiority. In the limit, one can wish for superiority not over some specific people but over society as a whole.

Superiority is as empty an idea as the first two. It does not contain any indication of how and in the name of what one person seeks to rise above all the others, why he tries to unite them and where he will lead them. Specific types of superiority vary widely across cultures.

* By the way, this is "better" as a rule does not look like it only heavy

Comment. Kindness as a manifestation of superiority

One of the traditional problems associated with human behavior, is the "problem of charity." It is easy to explain by pragmatic reasons a person's propensity to harm others (it's just that in many situations it benefits the one who does it: to take bread from the hungry in order to eat it yourself). Harder to explain not so much rare cases the exact opposite behavior (give your bread to the hungry), especially if you don’t have to wait for gratitude.

However, there is one good reason for giving to charity, and that is to achieve and demonstrate one's own superiority. In this sense, the Indian potlatch is a pure expression of such goodness-superiority, when handed out wealth“directly” are exchanged for prestige.

Sphere of culture: freedom

Finally, there is something opposite to the idea of superiority. It's an idea freedom, emerging in the field of culture. It arises from the corresponding behavior of people and is reduced to the idea independence from the relations of participation, ownership and especially power.

Fifth value: life

Social relations are possible only if there are people who enter into them. Therefore, Existence participants in social relations can also be defined as a special value.

It should be noted that life is the same public value, like everyone else, more precisely - their condition. Life as a value should not be confused with the "self-preservation instinct", and even more so reduce the former to the latter. Nor is it the ultimate value, "by definition" more valuable than all the others. People can sacrifice their own (and even more so someone else's) life for the sake of realizing some other value.

Other values

There are no other values associated with the behavior of people in society. Of course, such concepts as truth, beauty, etc., can also be called values, since they are normative objects. But it is not social values; they cannot be considered all together.

Digression: The Origin of Values

All four core values are subhuman origin. They are generated by society, not by people - and a semblance of society already exists in pack animals.

This does not mean that a dog or a rat has some concept, say about justice (or some other value), but they sometimes demonstrate behavior, which can be considered fair, and with good reason. The wolf, dragging food to his she-wolf, instead of eating it himself, makes her good. What he thinks at the same time and whether he thinks at all is not essential here. The same wolf fighting with another wolf will not kill the opponent after he has turned his tail. Kill the one who gave up and retreated not fair. As regards the desire to superiority here, probably, it is not even necessary to give examples. Most of The time that animals are not looking for food is spent trying to establish, as zoologists call it, "the order of pecking." Equally obvious is the desire to independence(to freedom) - enough to try to lock wild beast in a cell to be sure.

The hierarchy of values and relations between the spheres of behavior in animals are biologically set and depend on the species. good example can serve as "cat" and "dog" behavior. All cats are more or less individualists, dogs can form huge packs with a very complex hierarchy within them. One cannot say that the tiger consciously "professes" some "values". He behaves in a certain way, without thinking about what his actions are called. Nevertheless, his behavior fits perfectly into a certain classification, the same one that fits the behavior of a person.

Relationships between values

All five values are trying to be realized in one society. In practice, there is always friction between them, since it is usually difficult to achieve the realization of all values \u200b\u200bat once.

Particularly acute conflicts arise between opposing values. A classic example is the conflict between the ideas of justice and superiority. The very existence of power clearly contradicts the idea of justice - and, on the other hand, power is necessary in order for there to be at least some justice in society. The idea of superiority and the idea of justice must somehow be combined. The simplest is the combination according to the scheme: "justice for myself, superiority over others." These kinds of societies need something external, some kind of enemy to overcome. This somehow justifies the existence of power and law enforcement agencies.

There are many other, much more complex and sophisticated options for solving the same problems. This applies both to society as a whole and to its parts, up to any (however small) stable association of people. In any team, in any organization, in general, everywhere and everywhere, people have to somehow solve all the same problems.

Hierarchy of values

One of the simplest and most widely used ways to order values is to establish a hierarchy. This means that some values are considered "more important" than others. As a rule, as a result, a kind of scale is built up, where one value comes first, then another follows, and so on. Accordingly, some areas of activity are beginning to be considered more important than others.

At the same time, the majority of the most essential features, dividing society into so-called "classes" or "strata", are usually associated precisely with the dominant values. A society in which one sphere of behavior dominates will support predominantly those norms of behavior that are characteristic of this dominant sphere. The way it is. This gives rise to a kind of hierarchy of norms of behavior: despite the fact that everyone recognizes the necessity and inevitability of different ways of behavior, one of them begins to be considered the best, most worthy, and the rest - more or less base and vile. Because the estimate is some idea, then it can be imposed even on those who themselves behave differently and even can't afford oneself to perform actions approved by this idea.

In this case, the leading value can be any of the above. Which of them will become the main one in each case depends on historical reasons. This is not to say that one option has fundamental advantages over others. The division of people into "noble" and "vile" in paramilitary societies obsessed with the idea of superiority is no better and no worse than the division into "rich" and "poor" where it is customary to "make good", and this, in turn, is not better and no worse than closed communities, divided into "us" and "them" (where the best is recognized as a quiet life and good relations with neighbors), or "free" and "not free". In the most primitive case (when life is recognized as the dominant value), society is divided simply into the strong ("healthy") and the weak.

It would seem that in this state of affairs there can be only five types of social structure. Actually it is not. Even if the first and main value has already been determined, it is very important what kind of behavior will be recognized. second by importance. Third the place is also worth something, although it is no longer as important as the first two. Only when all four the steps of the pedestal are occupied, we can talk about the type of this society. For example, in the Middle Ages mentioned above, the second most important values were religious ideas, supported by the then intellectuals. This determined the specific medieval world. If the second place of honor belonged to values from another sphere, we would have a completely different society.

In addition, it is essential distance between recognized values. It is not constant: as the importance of different areas of behavior increases or decreases, it changes like the distance between horses on a racetrack. It happens that two "social ideals" go, so to speak, corps to corps, and sometimes one so much overtakes all the others that, against the background of its success, the differences between them seem insignificant. In this respect, the history of the rise of bourgeois ethics (that is, the imposition everything society as a model) is quite remarkable. For example, in the "heroic period" of the initial accumulation of the second main value after wealth was superiority. When the time of the sharks of capitalism and the concentration of capital passed and the time of the "consumer society" came, the sphere of communal relations moved to the second place in the hierarchical list.

Norms of relations within the fields of activity

Within the spheres of activity (that is, between people who behave in the same way) there are some norms of relations. As a rule, they are much more stable and definite than between people whose main interests are in various fields activities.

Norms of relations include norms of cooperation and norms of conflict. In any field of activity, both always happen. Moreover, the norms of conflict tend to be more clearly defined, since there are always more conflicts.

Conflict behavior

Conflict is a situation in which some people consciously and purposefully try to bring damage others. The word "damage" is not synonymous with the expression "unpleasant experience". Whether a person experiences or not, and what exactly he experiences, is psychology. Damage is deprivation, which comes down to the fact that the victim is deprived of some opportunities.

The four types of damage that can be caused to a person in their respective areas of activity are as follows. Firstly, a person can be deprived of his property, or the right to independently engage in some business. All this can be expressed in words "take away".

Secondly, a person can be deprived of the opportunity to participate in some joint activities, that is, to be a member of some collective or community. This can be expressed in the word "isolate", or, more simply, "kick out".

Further, a person can be deprived of the achieved superiority, which is perceived as humiliation. Finally, he can be put in such conditions that he will have to do something that he previously could not do - which is loss of freedom.

It is necessary to distinguish between damage and the means of causing it. For example, murder is separate view damage, but strong remedy applying such. It always pursues one of the goals mentioned above - for example, to take possession of a person's property, or to remove him from society ("remove").

Ownership conflict

Obviously, in the sphere of property relations, the main cause of conflict is the intention take away. This is due to the fact that “natural” conflicts in this area impersonal These are conflicts of interest, not people. The most acceptable type of conflict in the sphere of property (the "normal state of affairs") is considered to be competition.

Free competition is impersonal - opponents do not fight each other personally and directly. They may not even be aware of each other's existence or not be interested in it. In fact, this is the struggle of one result with another. It's like running sports. Runners - each in his own lane, and can't interfere with each other pushing or tripping. They are isolated from each other. They are judged by a third party. After all, it is possible to compete not even with another runner, but with a “result” that could have been achieved a year ago; it doesn't change things.

Competition is a situation where competitors cannot interfere with each other directly. To blow up someone else's plant is no longer competition, but a criminally punishable act. In short, the basic rule of competition is this: a person can do whatever they want with their property(including hurting the interests of other people), but cannot violate the property rights of others.

Conflict in the sphere of communal relations

If in the sphere of property there are conflicts of interest, and not people, then in the sphere of communal relations people can interfere each other, tripping and grabbing the legs, and this is considered normal. If we continue sports comparisons, then it no longer resembles running, but wrestling.

In the sphere of communal relations, too, there are rules for dealing with conflicts. First of all, it must be borne in mind that in this area it is generally not customary to achieve something, to achieve, and so on. Achievement- This is a concept from the spheres of power and property. The sphere of communal relations is the sphere symmetrical relations. From all that has been said, it follows that the most acceptable reason for a conflict in the sphere of communal relations is not so much the intention to get something or do something yourself, but rather do not let another get it or do it. This may be a desire to besiege, not to allow, not to give, not to let in, not to allow, or - if all of the above did not help - at least to take revenge.

Conflicts in the sphere of communal relations, therefore, lead to the fact that people interfere each other to do certain things.

The conflict in the sphere of communal relations is usually aimed at put in place a person who stands out - it is not so important in which direction he stands out. A person who mistreats others, gains something for himself at the expense of others, deceives them, does not keep his word, and in general violates justice in any way, very quickly causes a corresponding reaction from others, even those who personally are not affected in any way. This reaction may be understood people differently. In cases where a person is distinguished by a violation moral standards accepted in a given society, such a reaction is called "moral indignation" and is recognized as acceptable and correct. But exactly the same reaction arises in general on everything that stands out, even in better side. Talented, smart, strong, capable person causes exactly the same dislike and desire to put in place in the sphere of communal relations. People try to explain their behavior to themselves in different ways, for example, by attributing some vices to a prominent person (most often arrogance), or by explaining their dislike with envy, or in some other way. Really it's just normal reaction within a given sphere to a phenomenon that violates its harmony. Note that in those moments when people begin to act in other areas, the attitude changes dramatically - until the relationship again passes into the social sphere, where everything starts all over again.

Emotions like "let neither me nor him get it", "I'll burn my hut, if only to set fire to the neighbor's mansions", etc., etc. is the reverse side of such good human qualities as the desire for justice and readiness to go to sacrifice for her. By the standards of the sphere of communal relations, high growth and good health may seem as unfair as stolen money or criminal connections. And people will behave in relation to an innocent, tall, healthy man, as well as to an obvious swindler, that is, to dislike and in every possible way strive to humiliate, spoil, do dirty tricks - in general, with something compensate obvious asymmetry. In the extreme case - if there are absolutely no excuses for such behavior - this will manifest itself in the fact that the person who stands out will not forgive the fact that they will forgive and excuse not standing out.

These properties of the sphere of communal relations have long evoked an ambivalent attitude. From the time of hoary antiquity, angry words were spoken about the "baseness of the crowd", hating everything high. But from the same time, it was this very crowd (this time respectfully called people) was considered a source and standard of moral norms and was opposed to the "corrupt" nobility, "jaded" owners and "conceited" intellectuals. All these nonsensical arguments are connected with the use of words like people or crowd. Saying these words, no one thinks about what he actually says. What is, for example, people? All residents of this country? Obviously not - otherwise the government, rich people, and local intellectual luminaries will fall into the “people”. Then what? Everyone who does not belong to the above categories of people? Seems Yes. But then the boundaries of the concept of "people" coincide with the boundaries of the sphere of communal relations, and denotes the totality of people who (by their behavior) mainly belong to this sphere (something like the Shudra caste in Ancient India). But this is not at all what they mean when they speak of the people as nation.

Conflict in the sphere of power

The rules for conducting conflict in the sphere of power relations are, as always, something like the sum of the first and second rules. In this area of behavior, the normal way to conduct a conflict can be considered a demonstration of one's superiority: do what others don't. It is also considered acceptable to do what the same person does not allow others to do.

It is typical for conflicts in this area that both competition and the creation of obstacles to other people's activities take place in them.

The conflict in the sphere of power relations is closely related to the demonstration of one's superiority. If in the sphere of communal relations "to be different from everyone else" is bad (such people are taken for fools or criminals), then in the sphere of power it is bad to be ordinary, "like everyone else" and not more significant others. There are no restrictions on the demonstration of superiority here, only one thing is important - superiority must be genuine.

It is interesting that the same people, ardently advocating for justice in his environment and intolerant stand out, internally convinced that leaders and in general "power" should consist of outstanding individuals whose terms of reference should be very large(up to dictatorial), and here the sense of justice for some reason is silent. In the head of such a person there arises a vague image of a society consisting of a people who have nothing but camaraderie and good relations, and cohorts of leaders who have nothing but power.

Behind this lies an intuition about a society in which there are only two spheres, namely, the spheres of power and communal relations, in the absence of property relations, as well as people free from society, for example, intellectuals. In modern sociological literature, such a set of ideas is called "manifestation of authoritarian consciousness." In fact, this is a completely normal way of perceiving society, although too radical and incomplete. It is difficult to prove that such a society must necessarily be "worse" (or "better") than another equally radical and incomplete version, according to which only proprietors and intellectuals should remain in the society, and everything else should shrink to a minimum or disappear.

Cultural conflict

It remains to consider conflicts in the sphere of culture. If the rule of conducting a conflict in the sphere of power relations turned out to be a kind of sum of rules from the sphere of property relations and the sphere of communal relations, then in the spiritual sphere this rule is obtained, so to speak, by subtraction, or mutual negation of these rules. In the event of a conflict in the sphere of culture, the only acceptable form of conflict is refusal to do what others do. In the case of a person, he says something like this: "You do what you want, but I I won't do this" (listen to the interlocutor, obey orders, etc., etc.). Of course, he can be answered in the same way. Then a kind of competition in "disobedience" unfolds.

Notes:

And complete darkness, and too bright light does not allow you to see anything. Similarly, a “too clear” understanding of something does not allow us to distinguish anything.

See above for simple steps.

At the same time, one should not confuse value judgments (such as the above) with ethical ones (which will be discussed in detail below).

This formulation is available, for example, in Plato ("State", 433a-b). However, the interpretation given by Plato to this principle is erroneous: he considered justice as a situation where everyone minds his own business and does not interfere in other people's affairs (433d), that is, as stable property relations ( ^PS but not P^S). I must say that this is Plato's mistake.

famous slogan French Revolution"Liberty, equality, brotherhood or death!" demonstrates this, albeit in an absurd way. Death is indeed something quite fair, since it comes the same way for everyone. (By the way, the existence of immortal people would seem to other people the height of injustice - if, of course, immortals would live in the same society with mortals).

If this is not entirely true, it is not entirely his property (as anyone renting a thing can easily sense).

By the way, it's "better" as a rule does not look like it to "better" in terms of utility. Very often it looks like "worse". In order to gain superiority over others, people indulge in such enterprises that they would never agree to, if they want their own benefit (and only her). The life of a man striving for excellence heavy and the more he has achieved, the harder this life is, as a rule.

The term was formed as a result of observations of pigeons. The strongest pigeon has the right to peck everyone, but no one dares to peck him. Only the leader can peck at the next in importance, but he takes revenge on those who are weaker - and so on to the very bottom.

For example, medieval Europe was a hierarchically organized structure in which the main value was recognized superiority, understood as the possession of power and authority. Accordingly, the most remarkable and admirable was the behavior of a knight, a warrior. In the bourgeois Europe of the New Time, wealth becomes the main value (at first, as usual, property, later money), and the businessman becomes a role model.

"The main thing is victory, but we must not forget about the salvation of the soul."

There are one hundred and twenty options hierarchy of values. It is difficult to say whether all of them are realizable. It is most likely possible to pick up historical examples for many options.

When these two meanings of the word "people" are confused, confusion arises. The classic example of this misunderstanding is the endless talk about innate properties Russian people. If you listen to them, then the Russian people are characterized by a heightened sense of justice, a willingness to defend it, high morality - and, on the other hand, lack of initiative, envy of someone else's success, the desire to "divide everything", leveling, etc., etc. But after all, all of the above are properties of human behavior in the sphere of communal relations, and nothing more. The fact that all this is attributed specifically to the Russians means only that in life given people social sphere plays big role. This, in turn, is not connected with the people themselves, their history, geography or anything else, but simply with the state of affairs that takes place in real moment. By the way, as soon as the sphere of communal relations loses some ground (say, the influence of the sphere of property or the sphere of power increases), the behavior of the same people changes, moreover instantly. At the same time, the behavior of just those people changes the most. from which it was least expected. The reason for this is simple: the most predictable are precisely those people who follow the rules of behavior in each area, so to speak, automatically, without thinking. But as soon as they find themselves in a different sphere of behavior, they just as automatically begin to behave as there received.

Despite the fact that disobedience is a seemingly purely negative thing, it can be expressed explicitly, demonstratively. For example, everyone observes the norms of politeness regarding a certain person, but someone does not greet him and does not shake hands. This behavior looks very eloquent.

Portal for the student. Self-training