Asmolov A.G. Psychology of Personality. M., 2001. S. 31-178, 291-345
- Belinskaya E. P., Tikhomandritskaya O. A. Social psychology of personality. M., 2003. S.7-78
- Bityanova M. R. Social psychology. M., 2001. S.387-391
- Kolesnikov V.N. Lectures on the psychology of individuality. M., 1996. S. 7-182
- Maykov V., Kozlov V. Transpersonal psychology. M., 2004. S.69-239
- Parygin B.D. Social Psychology. SPb., 1999. S.126-179
- Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Psychology of human development. M., 2000. S.72-113, 117-143
- Khjell L., Ziegler D. Personality Theories. SPb., 1999. pp.25-51, 110-133, 163-206, 216-235, 248-260, 280-291, 315-322, 334-353, 379-392, 416-420, 481-501, 514-520, 533-547
- Shadrikov V.D. Origin of humanity. M., 2001. S. 17-146, 227-252
Additional literature:
1. Introduction to social psychology / Ed. Huston M., Strebe V. M., 2004. S.24-43
2. Craig G. Psychology of development. SPb., 2000. S.14-35
3. Novikov V.V. Social Psychology. M., 2003. S.108-122
4. Psychology of self-consciousness. Samara / Ed. Raigorodsky D.Ya. 2000. S.7-44
5. Social psychology of personality in questions and answers. M., 2000. S.14-33
6. Social psychology of personality in the works of domestic psychologists. Reader. SPb., 2000. S.70-76
7. Sushkov I.R. Psychology of relationships. Yekaterinburg, 1999. S.135-147
8. Personality theories in Western European and American psychology / Ed. Raigorodsky D.Ya. Samara, 1996. S.16-478
Section II. Socio-psychological aspects of the socialization of the individual
Topic: Human dependence on the social environment
Tasks:
During the course, students:
- consider the mechanisms of human dependence on society
Learn to differentiate the positive and negative aspects of addiction in the regulation of the social behavior of the individual
Gain the skills to participate in a group discussion
Working process: students complete reports on the topics proposed below. This is followed by a group discussion-discussion on the material presented.
Topics of reports
1. Social needs and social motivation
2. Conformism and individualism.
3. Escape from freedom
4. Socialization: main areas of research
5. Social impact
Main literature:
1. Abramova G.S. Age-related psychology. Yekaterinburg, 2002. S.42-328
2. Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition. M., 2005. S.180-220, 256-276
3. Asmolov A.G. Psychology of Personality. M., 2001. S.345-365, 391-404
4. Belinskaya E. P., Tikhomandritskaya O. A. Social psychology of personality. M., 2003. S.98-135, 194-209
5. Berezina T.N. Multidimensional psyche. The inner world of the individual. M., 2001. S.10-154
6. Spiritual crisis / Ed. Grof S., Grof K. M., 2000. S.19-233
7. Zimbardo F., Leippe M. Social impact. SPb., 2000
- Ilyin E.P. Motivation and motives. SPb., 2000. S.89-109, 115-183
9. Nemov R.S. General foundations of psychology. M., 1994. S.284-285, 390-427
10. Pines E., Maslach K Workshop on social psychology. SPb., 2000. S.46-105, 140-240, 282-484
11. Psychology of personality in the works of domestic psychologists. Reader. SPb., 2000. S.237-307, 365-448
- Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Psychology of human development. M., 2000. S.122-196
Additional literature:
1. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Life strategy. M., 1991
2. Baron R., Byrne D., Johnson B. Social psychology. SPb., 2003. S.261-397
3. Introduction to social psychology / Ed. Huston M., Strebe V. M., 2004. S.275-428
6. Muzdybaev K. Psychology of responsibility. L., 1983
7. Orlov A.B. Personality and essence // Questions of psychology,
1995. №2
8. Parygin B.D. Social Psychology. SPb., 1999. S.126-225
9. Psychology of self-consciousness. Samara / Ed. Raigorodsky D.Ya. 2000. S.123-242
10. Social psychology of personality in questions and answers. M., 2000. S.82-84
11. Sushkov I.R. Psychology of relationships. Yekaterinburg, 1999. S.177-196, 282-292
12. Taylor Sh., Piplo L., Sears D. Social psychology. SPb., 2004. S.316-346, 540-614
Khjell L., Ziegler D. Personality Theories. SPb., 1999. pp.410-421
a:2:(s:4:"TEXT";s:1708:"The article comprehensively examines the question of the relationship between social cognition and social
problems. A brief excursion into the history of the study of social problems in the social
psychology in our country and abroad. The essence of the ideas of W. Wundt, K. Levin, A.
Tashfel, P.A. Sorokina, V.M. Bekhtereva, L.S. Vygotsky and others concerning the tasks of social
psychology.
The modern perspectives of social cognition in the study of social problems are outlined.
The methodology of the psychology of social cognition can be used both to explain
individual elements of emerging problems, and to understand the process as a whole. Is being told
about the formation of a new specific branch of social psychology, which has designated itself as
psychology of social cognition, about its tasks and possibilities, about the development of study methods
social problems in today's conditions by the theory of social representations of S. Moskovisi.
The undoubted relevance of the study of social problems today is shown. The author notes
that an urgent need to address significant (global) problems in society arises
always in a period of radical change, social transformation and, from this point of view, a period
reforms in Russia is a situation that calls for the need to study the essence of social
problems.
Social psychology, according to the author, is able to contribute to the clarification of a new
changes in society, and then - in the designation of ways to master the new situation. In that
case, it can be considered that an element of the new role of social psychology in society becomes
development of "taste" for the perception of social problems, readiness and motivation for this kind
activities.
The status of social problems in the subject of social psychology
At first glance, raising the question of the relationship between social cognition and social problems may seem meaningless, because the answer is obvious: social cognition, by definition, studies social problems. However, this first light presentation does not capture all the subtleties of scientific discourse on the subject. In different periods, in different foreshortenings and methodological approaches, it is easy to detect a multitude of various difficulties, starting with the difficulties of defining the initial concepts: what is meant by "social problems", equally, as well as by "social knowledge" ...
To answer these questions, it is inevitable to turn to some features of the interpretation of the very subject of social psychology as a special scientific discipline. In particular, it is necessary to consider how social problems are treated within its framework. After that, one can find out what role in the knowledge of these problems is played by a variant of modern cognitive science called "social cognition" (social cognition).
The study of social problems in social psychology has a dramatic history. To a large extent, this is explained by the peculiarities of the emergence of social psychology as a "marginal" science, which has both psychology and sociology as its "parents". The controversy over the subject of social psychology in this regard occupies many pages in the scientific literature (Andreeva, 2002). According to K. Graumann, even the names of Plato and Aristotle symbolize two traditions of social thought, “which in our time are designated as socio-centered and individually-centered approaches. The first emphasizes the decisive role of social structures (systems, institutions, groups) in the behavior of the individual. The second, on the contrary, explains social systems through the properties and functions of the individual (Graumann, 2004, pp. 4-5). As part of the discussion about whether social psychology should focus primarily on the position of the individual in the group or on the psychological characteristics of the group, the question arises of the place of social problems in the subject of social psychology. In principle, the issue was resolved long ago in favor of the need for simultaneous attention to both of these sides of the problem, but its second side is still the basis for ongoing disputes. What does it mean: psychological characteristics of groups? The answer here is ambiguous.
First of all, which groups do you mean: small or large, or both? It is known that in different periods of the development of social psychology, the issue was resolved in different ways. In the 60s of the twentieth century, during the period of the emergence of the first socio-psychological theories, emphasis was placed on the need to study the psychology of large social groups. W. Wundt writes about this in his "Psychology of Peoples". For him, this is the study of the psychology of peoples, which is a special part of the entire scientific discipline of psychology. Later, during the period of formation of social psychology into an independent field of knowledge, which occurred after the First World War in the USA, small groups fell into the focus of research, this corresponds to the general orientation of science towards empirical research. Large group problems were more often seen as features of collective behavior (Lindzey and Aronson, 1959), i.e. the question shifted towards a slightly different problem.
At the same time, a tradition of taking into account real social problems was born. The choice of these problems, due to a number of circumstances characteristic of America in those years (in particular, the orientation towards the philosophy of pragmatism and positivism), was quite specific: these were problems of a particular, local nature, mainly aimed at solving equally particular, local problems. Thus, an inevitable gap arose between such landmarks of research as large groups and the social problems of society. These two blocks practically did not touch each other. In addition, the question of what should be considered a social problem was not raised at all?
In addition, starting from the mid-thirties of the twentieth century in the same place, in the USA, simultaneously with the general crisis of the empirical trend after such global economic and political events as the Great Depression and World War II, "acute social problems literally overwhelmed the supporters of rigorous science in their laboratories" ( Graumann, 2004, p. 15). Under the influence of the aggravation of real social problems, a special organization has arisen, called "The Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues" (1936), which recently celebrated its seventieth anniversary and is currently publishing the journal "Social Issues". To a large extent, its creation was due to the futility of the growing trend towards the accumulation of a mass of facts revealed in empirical studies and not receiving a satisfactory theoretical generalization. The works of K. Levin, who moved to the USA and attached great importance to social psychology in the fight against fascism, also played an important role here. The principle of action research proclaimed by Lewin (Lewin, 1946) contributed a lot to the emerging change in the focus of research, as well as P. Sorokin’s sharp criticism of “numberology” and “quantophrenia” as symbols of primitive empiricism (Sorokin, 1956) .
Simultaneously with the changes in the one-sided research strategy in social psychology in the United States, a new orientation of social psychology in Europe was gaining momentum. Established in 1965, the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology (now renamed the European Association for Social Psychology) proclaimed new principles for social psychological research (The Social Context of Social Psychology, 1972). Along with criticism of the methodological foundations of American social psychology, she formulated a kind of "code" of provisions of the European approach. The key word was the term "social context", which in many respects predetermined a significant turn of the entire problematics of the discipline. The requirement to take into account the social context in each study implied a return to the study of not only large groups, but also real (global) social problems. In the works of S. Moscovici and A. Taschfel, this idea was formulated quite clearly.
S. Moskovichi, returning to the dual status of social psychology, insisted on strengthening its sociological component, which he designated as the sociologization of the discipline (Andreeva, 1954). It involves obtaining "... answers to the questions that society puts before us" (Moskovichi, 1954, p. 218). The author draws on left-wing youth movements in Europe and America criticizing the fact that social psychology there "quietly ignores" the problems of social inequality, political violence, wars, economic backwardness and racial conflicts. According to Moscovici, this means that "we are comfortably settled within the 'establishment'", i.e. preferred to see in social psychology the development not of a "science of movement" but of a "science of order" (Ibid., p. 212). This is evidenced by the fact that, despite the fact that “social and political ideologies play such an important role in human affairs,” we show so “little interest in their influence on social behavior and in revealing the nature of conflicts” (Ibid., S. 216). Social psychology has become an "uninteresting" science because the fundamental problems of man and society are lost in clusters of fragmented "fields of study" and methods.
One of the means of correcting the situation, according to Moscovici, is to strengthen the role of theoretical analysis in the structure of social psychology. He proposes to consider socio-psychological processes from a sociological point of view, namely: the study of social processes occurring in society as a whole, on a fairly large scale, when socio-psychological mechanisms are subordinated to the cultural and social context of behavior, their social "outline". Moscovici's ideas have become widespread in the scientific literature, and the approach he proposed has become a kind of banner of the European tradition in social psychology.
Similar views were expressed by another author of The Context of Social Psychology, A. Teshfel. His critique of existing social psychology is aimed at "experimenting in a vacuum" (Tajfel, 1972). Its meaning lies in the fact that in most modern socio-psychological research, the experiment remains "manipulative research in the laboratory." As for theories, for the most part socio-psychological theories are theories about individual or interpersonal behavior, when it all boils down to the fact that social behavior is an adaptation of the general mechanisms of behavior to the conditions generated by the fact that it is performed in the environment of other people. . “Therefore, despite the clear wording in textbooks indicating that social psychology is a science of social behavior, that behavior is determined by social factors and “depends” on the social context, in practice, due to an incorrect understanding of the social factors themselves and the very essence of determination, social psychology considers social behavior in a pre-social or even anti-social perspective” (Tashfel, 1954, p. 244).
Agreeing with Moscovici's thesis, Taschfel believes that the problem is in the quality of socio-psychological theories, and specifically, in the fact that in them the transition from individual behavior to social behavior occurs without taking into account the qualitative specifics of the group: “The current situation proceeds from the fact that the individual is a unit analysis (highlighted by me - G.A). He reacts to others, others react to him, and nothing new happens” (Ibid., pp. 244-245). The real task of social psychology is to take into account the obvious connection "between the psychological functioning of the individual and a wide range of social processes and events" (highlighted by me - G.A.) (Tajfel, 1981, P. 7).
As another principled position, Taschfel proposes a revision of the concept of "social change". A broader interpretation of this concept by Tashfel has been repeatedly considered in Russian socio-psychological literature (for example, Andreeva, Bogomolova, Petrovskaya, 2002). Here it is necessary to emphasize the idea that change is a fundamental characteristic of social behavior: change entails a change in the social environment, "by changing himself, the individual changes the social environment, by changing it, he changes himself." A person is always faced with the need to choose a new line of behavior, and therefore, according to Taschfel, “social behavior can be predicted under conditions of stability, but it is impossible to do so under conditions of change” (Ibid., p. 246). Despite the possible discussion about the very interpretation of the essence of social change, the productivity of the very approach that links the study of the social problems of society with the problem of social change is undeniable.
In a review article by K. Graumann (Graumann, 2004), devoted to the differences between the American and European traditions of social psychology, special emphasis is placed on the fact that under the conditions of the new, interactionist paradigm of social psychology (Gergen, 1994), the question is inevitably reproduced: “What is social? And the answers given by a number of prominent researchers boil down to the fact that this is an activity in the course of which interacting individuals create (or “construct”) a reality common to them. This is what allows psychologists “to give the phenomenon of collective reality a socio-psychological meaning (Graumann, 2004, p. 21). This is how, in a peculiar circuitous way, the meaning of social psychology and the need for its study of large-scale social problems are connected. It is interesting to note that such an interpretation of social psychology was quite typical of the resurgent Soviet social psychology in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
On the one hand, this was due to the tradition of attitudes towards social psychology that had developed in our country back in the pre-revolutionary years. In general, the development of socio-psychological ideas in pre-revolutionary Russia was carried out mainly not in the depths of psychology as such, but within the framework of a wider range of social disciplines included in the general social context. These problems are beginning to be actively developed in journalism in connection with the ideological struggle of those years. An example is the work of the ideologue of populism N.K. Mikhailovsky "The Hero and the Crowd", in which he insisted on the need to "analyze the mechanisms of change in the mental state and behavior of large social groups", directly linking this issue with the emerging social psychology (Mikhailovsky, 1896).
On the other hand, within the framework of the scientific discipline, the emerging social psychology in our country clearly gravitated toward the “sociological” version. It is no coincidence that one of the first and systematic uses of the term "collective (social) psychology" was proposed in the work of M.M. Kovalevsky "Sociology", which is a course of lectures delivered at the St. Petersburg Psychoneurological Institute. Numerous appeals to socio-psychological problems are also contained in the works of P.A. Sorokin, whose publications and teaching activities (course of sociology) clearly showed an interest in the real problems of society (Sorokin, 1956).
As for the “psychological” variant of social psychology, here from the very beginning a fundamentally different approach was outlined, in which the connection with socio-political and simply social problems was traced much weaker. Nevertheless, socio-psychological problems were also presented “within” psychology, and interest in the real problems of society was indicated in it. First of all, this concerns the position of V.M. Bekhterev. In his two works "Objective Psychology" (1907-1912) and "Suggestion and Its Role in Public Life" (1908), the scientist raised a number of fundamental questions that later became significant for understanding the subject of social psychology. In the first book - the question of the "volume" of future science ("the mental life of not only individuals, but also "groups of persons", crowds, societies, peoples"), in the second - about the influence of communication on social processes, the dependence of personality development on the organization of various types of teams. There is no direct mention of "social problems" here, but the whole structure of reasoning implies the need to take them into account as an obligatory component of the subject of social psychology (subsequently, this problem was discussed in more detail within the framework of "collective reflexology"). Thus, the two blocks of social psychology emerging in Russia were, to one degree or another, aimed at developing significant problems of society.
In the discussion about the fate of social psychology in the new society that began after the October Revolution (Andreeva, 2010), two accents remained in understanding the subject of this science - on the personality in a group and on the psychological characteristics of groups. The second emphasis was especially pronounced during the second discussion, which took place in the late 1950s and early 1960s, where its priority was recognized mainly by participants with professional training in sociology (in contrast to the position of professional psychologists). A special situation arose during the so-called "break" in the development of social psychology in the USSR (that is, between the first and second discussions), when this branch of psychology was practically deprived of the status of an independent discipline. Meanwhile, within the framework of the so-called "social psychology", it was the second side of the subject that was given some attention, turned to the problems of large groups and, consequently, significant social problems. To a large extent, this was due to ideological reasons: “their” social psychology was seen as purely “bourgeois” and empirical, and therefore divorced from the real problems of society, while “ours” was aimed at these problems, since their solution contributed to the formation of a new society. . In the domestic literature of the 40s-50s of the last century, social problems, of course, were present (and sometimes dominated). Confirmation of this can be found in a number of works popular at that time and later: in the psychological theory of the collective (Makarenko, 1963; Zaluzhny, 1930), in studies on psychotechnics by I.N. Shpilrein, S.G. Gellerstein, A.K. Gasteva and others (Budilova, 1972). After the second discussion, when social psychology was restored in its rights, a certain interest in social problems was preserved, as evidenced by the popular works of the first years of the "second birth" of social psychology in the USSR (Problems of social ..., 1965; Kuzmin, 1967; Parygin, 1971 and others).
A special place is occupied by the position of L.S. Vygotsky, in which two “methodological” points related to the discussion of social psychology can be singled out: the doctrine of higher mental functions and direct considerations about the subject of social psychology. The hypotheses put forward in the first case about the indirect nature of human mental functions and about the origin of internal mental processes from activity, originally “interpsychic”, provided the basis for a fundamental solution of socio-psychological problems proper. If the mechanism of the development of the psyche is the mechanism of assimilation of socio-historical forms of activity, it is logical to include in the "apparatus" of science the analysis of the content of these forms. In the second case, Vygotsky, arguing with Wundt, distinguishes between the subject matter of “social” (“psyche of an individual”) and “collective” psychology” and defines the latter as “personal psychology under conditions of collective manifestation (for example, troops, churches)” (Vygotsky, 1987 pp. 20). If we ignore the specific language characteristic of the era of the creation of the work, the focus on real social situations becomes obvious.
The general conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of a brief excursion into the history of foreign and domestic social psychology is that there is undoubtedly an “immanent” involvement of the study of acute social problems in the fabric of this discipline. But another thing is just as obvious: such involvement manifests itself only in certain periods of the history of this science, namely, in periods of radical social transformations, i.e. when there is a special "request" from the society. Therefore, today's interest in the study of the socio-psychological aspects of social problems in Russia is quite natural.
Prospects for social cognition in the study of social problems
The period of transformations of Russian society at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries causes an aggravation of a whole range of social problems: unemployment, corruption, crime, interethnic relations, demographic problems, ecology, and much more. The whole range of these problems is the field of close attention of sociologists. It is no coincidence that in recent years there has been a sharp increase in the number of works in this field of knowledge (Social transformations., 2005; Zaslavskaya, 2000; Levada, 2000; Lapin, 2000; Zdravomyslov, 2000; Naumova, 2000). However, it cannot be said that the study of the problems that have arisen is carried out just as lively in social psychology, despite the presence of first, often successful, steps. Here it is appropriate to recall a number of studies conducted, in particular, at the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University. On the basis of these studies, one can construct a refutation of the position that social psychology has "turned its back" on real social problems. In fact, the focus on this issue remains. Any study containing a reference to the social context or to the social determinism of this or that phenomenon can be regarded as an appeal to a social problem. But, it's about something else. For almost every social problem today, it is not only appropriate and necessary, but also possible, a systemic socio-psychological analysis, the result of which will not only be a mention of the significance or prevalence of a particular phenomenon in social reality, but also its consideration in a broader social context, identification the problem in which the phenomenon under study is included.
Confidence in the possibility of such an approach is justified by the fact that in the last fifty years social psychology itself has developed such new ideas and principles that make it possible to approach the study of social problems with new tools and at a fundamentally new level. The rapid development of the ideas of cognitive psychology in the 70s of the twentieth century led to the formation of a specific area of social psychology, which designated itself as the psychology of social cognition (English version - Social Cognition). In a polemic with the general ideas of cognitive psychology, she declared her specificity, generated by the specificity of the object of knowledge, which is social reality. Its most important differences from cognitive psychology are that:
the appeal was made not to knowledge in general, but exclusively to social knowledge;
knowledge was carried out not by the researcher, but by an ordinary member of society;
at the same time, the process of cognition was interpreted as a process of constructing social reality.
This approach is based on the idea of the sociologist A. Schutz, whose concept “can be considered as a systematic description of the structures of the social world, as it is seen by the acting individual, as it appears to him in the course of his activity, i.e. in essence, it is a systematic description of the creation of this world through its understanding” (Ionin, 1998, p. 73).
A natural logical step in describing the essence of Social Cognition is a more detailed appeal, on the one hand, to the analysis of the methodology developed within this area, and, on the other hand, to the problems that are typical for research in this area. In both cases, more clearly than in the general understanding of the subject of social psychology, the possibility and need for a close study of social reality, i.e. the entire repertoire of real social problems. The assertion made at the beginning of the article about the seeming banality of the thesis that the connection between social psychology and social problems is obvious, becomes even more important when it comes to the "connection" of social cognition and social problems. What other subject of study can social cognition have if not the knowledge of the whole complex of problems that characterize social reality? Here, a new methodology of analysis, which arose along with a new paradigm in social psychology, comes to the fore.
As a variant of the new paradigm, the social constructionism of K. Gergen, which arose within the framework of the general orientation of modern social science towards postmodernism (K. Gergen, 1994, 1996; Yakimova, 1994; Andreeva, 2005), stands out as a variant of the new paradigm. The specific development of this paradigm has been successfully implemented in a number of concepts of European authors, in the development of their views, outlined in the mentioned program work ‘‘The Context of Social Psychology’’. Essentially, all "European" modifications of social constructionism (the theory of social representations by S. Moscovici, the theory of social identity by A. Taschfel, the ethogenic theory by R. Harre) can be considered as modern tools for studying social problems.
Thanks to the emergence of these tools, the old "application" of social psychology to study such problems is gaining new opportunities (Andreeva, 2005). Let us turn to the logic of Gergen, expressed by him in a number of “hypotheses”: since the starting point of all knowledge is the doubt that the surrounding world is something taken for granted, its explanation can only be a convention; its comprehension is the result of the joint activity of people and their relations. Therefore, the words used to designate these relations make sense only in the context of these relations; different forms of understanding the world depend on the nature of social processes, and the rule "what to count with what" is due to the nature of social changes; this means that descriptions and explanations of the world constitute forms of social action and are thus included in social activity (Gergen, 1994). The proposed scheme essentially contains the idea of constructing the world, and it can be assumed that the construction of social problems is also an integral part of this process.
A special place in the development of methods for studying social problems in today's conditions is occupied by the theory of social representations by S. Moskovichi (Dontsov, Emelyanova, 1987; Shikhirev, 1999; Andreeva, 2005; Yakimova, 1999; Emelyanova, 2006, etc.). In the context of the issue under consideration here, the theory of social representations is interesting in that it was within its framework that a method of studying the psychology of large social groups arose, which also acts as an approach to the analysis of social problems. The essence of this method is quite simple: the relationship between social representation and the group is revealed. Thus, the influence of a group on a social representation is determined by the degree of fixation by the group of certain aspects of a perceived phenomenon, by the acceptance or rejection of this or that information about it, by the frequency of using a certain social representation. At the same time, the influence of social representation on the group is manifested in the fact that with the help of its various interpretations, it is possible to manipulate the facts of social life, as well as contribute to the formation of a group (social) identity (Andreeva, 2005).
Empirical verification of the productivity of such a methodology is presented in a number of studies carried out in Russian social psychology. This is, first of all, the work of TP. Emelyanova, dedicated to social representation as a subject of study of social transformations in Russian society (Emelyanova, 2006). Here, not only the methodology of studying social problems with the help of the theory of social representations is successfully applied, but also a picture of the real social problems of modern Russia is widely presented. "Antinomy "democracy - authoritarianism" in the mirror of social ideas"; "Antinomy" oligarchy - state regulation of the economy "and its development in social ideas"; “The antinomy of the “national - the world” in social representations” - even this simple list of sections of the mentioned work speaks of the problematization of the author's research. Perhaps the designation of a social phenomenon as a problem through an indication of an existing antinomy (or in some cases, an "opposition") is generally a godsend (Ibid., p. 319). Antinomy arises in the conditions of changes taking place in society, therefore the study of social problems organically includes the study of social changes.
Regardless of the new paradigm and new methodology, under the influence of social practice, social problems are increasingly becoming the subject of research by social psychologists. But, of course, the “breakthrough” is still only being indicated. Its relevance today is beyond doubt. As it has been repeatedly in the history of science, an urgent need to address significant (global) problems in society always arises in a period of radical changes, social transformations. From this point of view, the period of reforms in Russia is a situation that calls for the need to study the essence of social problems arising against the background of social changes in order to understand their practical significance and possible forecasting.
The conclusion that the actualization of the study of social problems in the social psychology of Russia today is a challenge of the times becomes obvious. There is a real social situation that requires a certain answer from science and the availability of a means, a tool that allows this answer to be provided. I repeat that the first steps towards mastering the social psychology of the "flashy" problems of modern Russian society have already been taken (Andreeva, 2010). Perhaps now it is necessary to formulate more precisely the principle of the scale of the selection of the problems under study and the socio-psychological arsenal of methods for studying them. This task is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. It requires the revival of the skills that once existed or are implicitly manifested today to “handle” the subject under discussion, while demonstrating all the possibilities of new methodological findings.
As an example, one can turn to one of the most common social problems that Russian reality is facing today, namely: to building a civil society - a special non-state sphere of social life. Civil society is traditionally interpreted as a set of social relations, social interactions between people and the institutions they form, which independently, without state intervention, perform the functions of self-organization and self-government. The main subject of this sphere is “the social personality of a person as a valuable and responsible citizen, and as such recognized by the state” (Gudkov, Dubov, Zorkaya, 2005). Building this type of society is indeed a problem due to the scale of the process itself and its characteristics in the historical conditions of Russia's development.
There is a complex dynamic social object, which includes many objective and subjective characteristics and therefore "worthy" of being investigated by a whole range of disciplines, including social psychology, equipped with the achievements of the psychology of social cognition. When studying civil society in this vein, there are all conditions for ensuring a genuine “problematic” approach: interrelation, inconsistency, dynamism of the combination of various elements of the whole, their existence in conditions of radical social changes. Civil society institutions are public, non-governmental organizations, associations, unions, societies, movements, self-government bodies, and today social networks, the Internet blogosphere. The subject of the emerging new reality is present and more and more definitely declares itself - an interested, responsible subject of social relations - a citizen capable of the transformations necessary for Russia. Traditionally, the role of such a subject is attributed to the middle class, the specifics of the formation of which in Russia is the subject of special analysis (The middle class in the modern ..., 1999). Since the sprouts of civil society can appear only with the activity of citizens and their ability to unite and self-organize, the main mechanism for its creation is a discourse, during which an increasing number of subjects are constantly involved in a discussion, a dialogue about what is happening in society. The theory of discourse and its role in the life of society is a fairly developed area of various social sciences, including social psychology (Harre 1998; Habermas, 1985; Shikhirev, 1999; Yakimova, 1999). Claiming communication as a key point in explaining social life, Harre believes that it is in the course of discourse that its participants, discussing the content of the categories by which objects and phenomena of the social world are designated, are included in the discussion of the problems of this world, that is, social problems become the subject of social interaction. .
The specificity of Russia lies in the fact that there are no established traditions of the culture of social interaction, although its sprouts are manifesting themselves more and more clearly. At different periods, the Taganka Theater and the student theater of Moscow State University could be attributed to them, later - the "soldiers' mothers" association, movements against the monetization of benefits, defrauded real estate investors, against infill development in the capital, in defense of the Khimki forest, etc. An increase of this kind social activity manifested itself in the rallies at the end of 2011. The actual side of these processes is studied in sufficient detail by sociology and political science. In what way can this problem be posed and investigated in social psychology?
It is obvious that the formation of civil society in Russia is going with great difficulties, which makes the process problematic. An analysis of the difficulties that arise leads to the conclusion that the main factors of this problem are socio-psychological factors. The methodology of the psychology of social cognition can be used both to explain the individual elements of emerging problems, and to understand the process as a whole. Let us name some areas of possible analysis in this particular case using the conceptual apparatus of the psychology of social cognition.
The most important obstacle to the formation of civil society in Russia, according to G.G. Diligensky, is “a state-mentalistic mentality, people’s disbelief in the possibility of independent collective protection of their rights and interests, a fatalistic idea of the invincibility of power” (Diligensky, 1998). This indicates the presence in society of a certain negative social consensus, which developed during the existence of the USSR and retains its influence to this day. Its characteristic features are both the level of distrust towards power structures, and the attitude towards various kinds of protest movements and, more generally, towards collective actions. An analysis of the social consensus that exists in a society at each specific stage of its development is one of the developments in the psychology of social cognition (Andreeva, 2005), which is relevant in the study of this social problem.
The social attitudes of Russians towards their readiness to participate in civic initiatives, the structure and hierarchy of values that determine them, is another area of the psychology of social cognition that acts as a factor in building a civil society. The problematic nature of this area is expressed in the discussion about the relationship between the traditional social values of the Russian population and the values of civil society. The practical "refraction" of this area is the study of political and legal culture, the motivation of the civic activity of the masses, as well as an understanding of the standards of civic responsibility and the skills of combining civic activity and traditional forms of political activity. Only under the condition of understanding and acceptance of respect for the law, such a combination gives a real impetus to the development of civil society.
The social identity of a person, one of the priority topics of modern psychology of social cognition, also acts as a fragment of an explanatory model for building a civil society. It is no coincidence that in studies of the modern middle class in Russia, one of the main criteria for its selection is the criterion of self-identification (Tikhonova, 1999). Moreover, the very idea of the social structure of society is built by the members of this society on the basis of "their awareness of their own social identity, depends on the characteristics of intergroup perception" (Shirkov, 1997). And in this case, this fragment contributes to the construction of a systemic image of the studied type of society. If we add to this (as revealed in a number of studies (Belinskaya, 2005)) that decision-making about one's own identity has to be carried out in a situation of uncertainty, then for understanding such a problem as “civil society”, the value of the named fragment can hardly be overestimated.
Finally, social ideas about civil society, the totality of which contributes to the construction of the Image of the world, accepted by the mass consciousness. It is with the help of social representations characteristic of various social groups that the real world is constructed, in which the social activity of citizens is realized. Construction is understood as bringing information about the world into the system, organizing this information into coherent structures in order to comprehend its meaning (Andreeva, 2002, p. 182). It is appropriate in this case to recall the words of A.N. Leontiev about the significance of the Image of the World in the real social activity of individuals, about how, in the process of their activity, individuals build an image of the world in which they live, act, which they themselves remake and partially create., and about how the image of the world functions, mediating their activities in the objectively real world” (Leontiev, 1979). The foregoing can be considered as a kind of model for building a civil society.
An important element of such a model is media coverage of the process. The solution of social problems in the modern world largely depends on how these problems are presented in the media system. As has been repeatedly proven, this dependence is twofold: on the one hand, the media orient a person in the world, create the impression of belonging to him, on the other hand, they initiate a person to take certain actions to change the existing situation, thereby fulfilling their role in recreating or constructing the world. . There is no need to supply this thesis with illustrations from the field of building civil society in Russia at the present time.
This example does not in any way claim to be called a model in the exact sense of the word. The only goal is the need for reflection on the significance of the issues raised. Even a cursory review of the elements of the psychology of social cognition, which was presented here, indicates that they contain a whole set of methodological techniques for studying one of the most complex social problems facing the country today. Therefore, the statement about the possibility of new approaches, presented today by the psychology of social cognition, allows us to return to the question of “readiness” for the revival of the significance of “social problems” and the tradition of their study. Given the nature of the era, the rapid pace of development of society in the period of radical social transformations, it is appropriate to repeat once again that the importance of such problems increases at turning points in history and therefore their solution becomes an urgent task. Accordingly, the need for their study turns into an equally urgent task of social psychology.
The approach proposed in the theory of social constructionism provides clear guidelines regarding the professional tasks of social psychology. The idea of J. Habermas about the need to “smell the problem” earlier than others is now turning into direct recommendations for researchers. Gergen considers one of the requirements of the new paradigm to be the rejection of socio-psychological science from such its cornerstone as forecasting and the transition to an unprecedented role "as a catalyst for social receptivity and sensitivity" (Gergen, 1994. P. 49). The justification for this new role is due to the complication of the social world, in connection with which a person is forced to comprehend a wider range of problems, compare their solutions in different types of societies, which “expands the range of alternative actions, leading to the modification or gradual disappearance of behavioral models” (Ibid, P. 34). Perhaps social psychology is able to contribute to the clarification of the new configuration of society, and then to the designation of ways to master the new situation. Then we can consider that the development of a "taste" for the perception of social problems, readiness and motivation for this kind of activity becomes an element of the new role of social psychology in society.
Such a perspective implies a whole range of tasks facing professional researchers in developing a strategy for "recognizing" and studying social problems. This should be a special area of activity for professionals in the conditions of a new look at a specific section of social psychology.
Notes
It is hardly necessary to recall again the corresponding discussions in the USSR in the twenties and late fifties of the last century (see Andreeva, 2002).
Later, in the theory of social representations created by Moscovici, concrete examples of the implementation of this kind of research are given.
It is no coincidence that since 2010 a new journal Social Psychology and Society began to appear in Russia, one of the purposes of which is to focus on the study of social problems [Andreeva, 2010].
The complex of these works is presented in the collective monograph of the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University "Social Psychology in the Modern World" [Andreeva, Dontsov, 2002].
Literature:
Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition. - M.: Aspect Press. 2005.Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Foreign social psychology of the twentieth century. - M. : Aspect Press, 2002.
Andreeva G.M. Social psychology: a new journal and new problems // Social psychology and society. - 2010. - No. 1. - S. 4-8.
Afanas'eva A.I., Likhanova A.B. Metamorphoses of the mass consciousness of Russians: a round table // SOCIS. - 2009. - No. 5. . - S. 24-30.
Belinskaya E.P. Man in a Changing World - A Socio-Psychological Perspective . - M. : Prometheus, 2005.
Bekhterev V.M. Suggestion in public life. - St. Petersburg. : 1908.
Bekhterev V.M. Public psychology. - St. Petersburg. : 1903.
Budilova E.A. Socio-psychological ideas in Russian science . - M. : Nauka, 1983.
Vygotsky L.S. History of the development of higher mental functions // Collection. op. in 6 vols. T. 3. - M .: Pedagogy, 1983.
Gergen K. The social constructionist movement in contemporary psychology // Social psychology: self-reflection of marginality. - M. : INION RAN, 1995.
Graumann K. Historical introduction to social psychology // Introduction to social psychology. European approach / ed. M. Houston, W. Strebe. - M. : UNITI, 2004.
Gudkov L.D., Dubov B.I., Zorkaya N.A. Post-Soviet man and civil society. - M.: Moscow School of Political Studies, 2008.
Diligensky G.G. The formation of civil society: cultural and psychological problems // Civil society in Russia: structures and consciousness. - M.: 1998.
Dontsov A.I., Emelyanova T.P. To concept of social representations in French psychology. - M. : Publishing House of Moscow State University 1987.
Emelyanova T.P. Construction of social representations in the conditions of transformation of the Russian society. - M. : Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006.
Zhavoronkov A.V. Russian society. Consumption, communications and decision making (1967-2004). - M.: SPb. : Top, 2007.
Zaluzhny A.S. Children's team and methods of its study . - M.: 1930.
Zaslavskaya T.I. Modern Russian society. - M.: 2004.
Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology in Russia // Sociology of the Russian crisis. - M.: Science. 1999.
Ionin L.G. Sociology of culture. - M.: Logos. 1998.
Kuzmin E.S., Semenov V.E. Social Psychology. - Leningrad: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1979.
Lapin N.I. Ways of Russia: socio-cultural transformations. - M.: 2000.
Levada Yu.A. From opinions to understanding. Sociological essays. 1993-2000. - M.: Moscow School of Political Studies, 2000.
Leontiev A.N. The psychology of the image // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Series 14. Psychology. - 1979. No. 2. S. 3-13.
Milyukova I.A. Formation of a new political system and problems of civil society // Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis. - M. : Flinta, 2005.
Muscovites S. Society and theory in social psychology // Social Psychology. - M. : Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1984.
Naumova N.F. Life strategy of a person in a transitional society // Sociological journal. - 1995. - No. 2. . - S. 4-13.
Novikov V.V. Social Psychology. - M.: Publishing House of Institute of Psychotherapy, 2003.
Parygin B.D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory . - M. : Thought, 1971.
Problems of social psychology / ed. V.N. Kolbanovsky, B. F. Porshnev. - M., 1965.
Social psychology in the modern world / ed. G.M. Andreeva, A.I. Dontsov. - M. : Aspect Press, 2002.
Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis / ed. V.A. Yadov. - M. : FLINTA, 2005.
Stefanenko T.G. About the Russian mentality. Constants and transformation // Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis. - M. : Flinta, 2005.
Tikhonova N.E. Criteria for singling out the middle class in modern Russian society and the grounds for self-identification of respondents with the middle class // Middle class in modern Russian society / ed. M.K. Gorshkova, N.E. Tikhonova, A.Yu. Chepurenko. - M. : RNISiNP ROSSPEN, 1999.
Tashfel A. Experiments in a vacuum // Social Psychology. - M. : MGU, 1984.
Habermas Y. Be the first to feel important // Emergency ration. - 2006. - No. 3. - [Electronic resource]. - Access mode:http :// aig . cs . man. ac. uk/publications/papers/srp-phd. pdf- Date of access: 05/10/2012.
Shirkov Yu.E. The stratification of society given to us in sensations: a model // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - Ser. 14. Psychology. - 1997. - No. 4. - S. 51-67.
Shikhirev P.N. Modern social psychology. - M.: Academic project, 1999.
Shushpanova I.S. Civil society in the sociological dimension // SOCIS. - 2008. -№11-S.59-63.
Yakimova E.V. Social construction of reality: socio-psychological approaches. -M.: INION RAN, 1999.
Gergen K. Realities and Relationships // Soundings in Social Construction - N.Y., 1994.
Harre R. The Ethogenic Approach: Theory and Practice // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. - N.Y. . - 1977. - V.10. - R 284 -314.
Lewin K. Action Research and Minority Problems // J. Soc. Issues. - 1946. - No. 2 (4). - R 34-46.
Lindzey G, Aronson E. (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading. - N.Y., 1968.
Sorokin P.A. Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology and Related Sciences. - Chicago, 1956.
Tajfel H., Israel J. The Context of Social Psychology. A Critical Assessment. - N.Y., London, 1972.To cite an article:
Andreeva G.M. Social cognition and social problems // National Psychological Journal - 2013. - No. 1 (9) - pp. 39–49.
Andreeva G.M. (2013). Social cognition and social problems. National Psychological Journal, 1(9),39–49
Andreeva G.M. Social psychology: vectors of a new paradigm
As vectors of a new paradigm in social psychology, the article considers: strengthening the role of the social context in research, emphasis on the analysis of social changes, specific aspects of the psychology of social cognition (the specifics of the process of social categorization), the problem of personal identity in the context of globalization.
Keywords: social context, social changes, the role of language in the new conditions of social reality, personal identity, globalization
The discussion about a new paradigm in social psychology spans more than a decade. Practically since the 60s of the last century, that is, simultaneously with the first statements of the crisis of discipline, ideas have appeared to search for a new paradigm as a promising way to overcome this crisis. Initially, the proposals were not too radical. Without an appeal to the term "paradigm" in the work of S. Asch, a set of critical statements about existing research essentially formed into a program for constructing a fundamentally different approach in social psychology. The question was raised more radically in the works of V. McGuire, where it was already about the shortcomings of the "old" and "new" paradigms within traditional approaches (namely, the limitations of their "creative" and "critical" components, that is, the type of hypotheses and the type of experiment). As for the demand for an "even newer paradigm", its contours were sketched rather cursorily (replacing theoretically relevant hypotheses socially relevant, and a laboratory experiment an experiment in the field) . It was still premature to judge the content characteristics of the new paradigm, although the fundamental vector of its construction became obvious - innovation , the result of which should be a change in the very face of science.
It should be immediately noted that the proposed outline of new searches was due to significant changes in social reality, associated, in particular, with the movement of the "new left" and their program of intrascientific methodological reflection. The consequence of this was McGuire's provisions that even in purely experimental studies of social psychology one should not be limited to the question of "how to do research", but one should decide the question "what purposes does it serve", that is, moral problems should sound in it, including including the problem of the social psychologist's responsibility for using the results of his research. In a sense, these were the first sketches of the new status of social psychology in society, which later became one of the "dimensions" of the new paradigm.
A significant stage in its search is the situation that developed after the Second World War, in particular, in connection with the revival of socio-psychological thought in Europe. This issue is widely covered in the literature [Andreeva, Bogomolova, Petrovskaya, 2002; Graumann, 2004; Shikhirev, 2002], therefore it is only important to note here such a milestone as the creation in 1966 of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology (EAESP) .
Calls for a more radical transformation of the theoretical and methodological foundations of socio-psychological knowledge began to be heard precisely in the works of European social psychologists. Perhaps the most fundamental argument was proposed by S. Moscovici, who called for the “sociologization” of socio-psychological knowledge, meaning not only the strengthening of the role of the “social context” in research, but also the need to analyze the studied phenomena on a wider scale - the scale of society as a whole. : “Social psychology needs to be updated so that it becomes a real science of such social phenomena that are the basis the functioning of society, about essential processes of activity in it.
Another significant idea of the European manifesto of 1972 is A. Teschfel's call to consider the problem of social psychology as the main problem social change, more precisely: the relationship between Man and Social change: “Changing himself, the individual changes the social environment; by changing it, he changes himself. Tashfel connects the universal nature of understanding change with the problem of a person's choice of a line of behavior: it is possible to predict behavior under conditions of stability, but it is impossible to do so under conditions of change.
Consequently, the program of social psychology is indicated quite clearly: it should deal with the interaction of social change and choice, that is, explore what aspects of social change are revealed in the perception of the individual as an alternative to his behavior, what is the relationship between cognitive and motivational processes, what ultimately determines the choices of those or other patterns of behavior.
In these fundamental statements of the founders of the European approach, in essence, the main vectors of both the construction of a new paradigm in social psychology and its subsequent development are outlined: social context and social change. According to K. Graumann, the contradictions between American and European traditions can ultimately be reduced to two points: “understanding the role of the sociocultural context” and interest in the problem of “social construction of social reality” [Graumann, 2004, p. 20]. There are other options for designating the main vectors of the new paradigm. However, it is natural that the discussion around these and other proposals gave rise to a new round of more concrete developments regarding what the social psychology of the 21st century should become.
The totality of these proposals turned out to be set out in the most complete volume, however, in the American concept social constructionism K. Gergen, which is a socio-psychological version of postmodernism, which was developed in the system of humanitarian knowledge at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century [Andreeva, 2002; 2005; Yakimova, 1999; Shikhirev, 1999; Emelyanova, 2006]. It is important to outline several general lines along which more specific characteristics of individual elements of the new paradigm were developed within the framework of this concept and "next to it", which can claim to determine its "vectors". Their range is quite large, the relative significance is different, and the very definition of "vector" is very conditional, although it can be used to characterize the new paradigm.
Construction of the social world
Postmodernism, which acted as a "common denominator" of the search for a new paradigm in science, demonstrated all the main directions of the movement of social sciences from positivist methodological foundations towards humanitarian knowledge based on a non-classical idea of science. One of the main theses is that the past realistic epistemology placed excessive emphasis on the need for theory to correspond to the real world, while the task is for theories to begin to “generate new forms of behavior” [Gergen, 1995]. The indicated movement is characteristic of the entire social science of the era of postmodernism, and the task is only to identify the specifics of its manifestation in each specific area. It was in social psychology (“the virus of postmodernism penetrated into social psychology” [Yakimova, 1995]) that such a specific form of it as social constructionism. The creation of the concept dates back to the 70s of the last century and was expressed, according to P.N. Shikhirev, “in the fall of the authority of the rigidly scientistic paradigm of psychological social psychology and in the revival of the sociological branch of American social psychology - symbolic interactionism” [Shikhirev, 1999, p. 189].
The new epistemology (often called by Gergen " social epistemology") is based on other principles and, accordingly, puts forward new tasks. The first is going beyond the S-O (subject-object) dualism typical of psychology and basing itself on an alternative empirical science. But overcoming this dualism means a greater “admission” of the interpretative principle into cognition, and therefore, for social psychology, it is inevitable to approach those disciplines that are guided by interpretation as the basis of knowledge. Hence the well-known position of Gergen that social psychology is essentially story,[Andreeva, 2002; Shikhirev, 1999; Yakimov, 1995], which forces, in particular, to differentiate social phenomena according to their "historical stability" [Gergen, 1995, p. 49]. This is a new twist on the idea of including social context in research.
The second task is to unite exogenous and endogenous concepts of knowledge. For Gergen, the first goes back to the philosophy of Locke, Hume, Mills, who believe that the source of knowledge is the real world, and the second is based on the ideas of Spinoza, Kant, Nietzsche, who accept the conditioning of knowledge by the internal processes of the subject. As for social psychology, for Gergen the first concept is identified with behaviorism, and the second with cognitivism. Social psychology, neither in the behaviorist nor in the cognitivist paradigm, grasps the meaning of the social situation in which the process of human cognition of the world around is carried out, and therefore loses momentum. construction of this world. In particular, despite a number of findings of cognitivism, the understanding of knowledge as a mental representation within the limits of the individual human mind also remains unsurpassed in it. Therefore, in this case, it is also necessary to combine the proposed principles with the idea of interpreting knowledge as product of the joint activity of people. At this point, cognitivism acquires features social cognitivism and approaches the ideas of constructionism, although the discussion about the relationship between these two currents is still acute [Yakimova 1999; Emelyanova, 2001].
The main idea of social constructionism - pedaling the need for a greater inclusion of social context in socio-psychological research - is deployed by Gergen in the formulation of the widely known five hypotheses. Their summary is as follows:
1) the starting point of all knowledge is the doubt that the surrounding world is something taken for granted and therefore its explanation can only be convention;
2) its comprehension becomes the result of the joint activity of people, their relations, and the words used to refer to social processes make sense only in the context of these relations;
3) the prevalence of various forms of understanding the world depends on the nature of social processes, and the rule "what to count with what" is due to the nature of social changes;
4) this means that descriptions and explanations of the world constitute the forms of social action and are thus included in social activity.
It is these provisions that give grounds to consider social psychology history: she has no reason to claim a description universal patterns, since they are all tied to current historical circumstances. The new paradigm instructs the social psychologist to deal with explanations and systematization of contemporary social phenomena.
As can be seen, a variant of the construction of social psychology has been proposed, which is focused on completely new postulates and therefore really clearly demonstrates one of the vectors of the new paradigm. Characteristically, the rationale for the need to transform social psychology is based on a significant change in the entire structure of the social sciences in the conditions of the modern world. The argument in this case is the limitation of traditional social psychology to its narrow context. Western, mainly American, individualistic, culture. In connection with the advancement of other cultures to the forefront of world development at the end of the 20th century, this idea was deeply developed not only in social psychology [Stefanenko, 2002], but also in ethnopsychology [Triandis, 2007]. The problem is discussed with particular urgency in connection with the processes of globalization, since it becomes obvious that the construction of the social world requires an expansion of the range of subjects of the cognitive process. One way or another, this idea turns out to be closely connected with the idea of social change.
social change
In itself, the integration of the category of "social change" into social science was first carried out in sociology. At the turn of the century, P. Sztompka called the problem of social change one of the central problems of sociology of the 20th century and suggested considering it as an indicator of a new paradigm that replaced the paradigm of "correspondence". The importance of the category "social change" is due, according to the author, to the fact that social reality in general "is not a static state, but a dynamic process, it going on but not exist, it consists of events, not of objects” [Sztompka, 1996, p. 266].
The appeal to the idea of social change in social psychology took place much later; in it for a long time there was a tradition of analyzing a fairly stable situation, where a certain inviolability of the laws of social behavior dominated. The first step in a new direction was, and in this case, made by European researchers. In the cited work of A. Taschfel, the new approach sounded especially clear, being expressed in the era of the "student revolution", when the critical position towards social psychology was reinforced precisely by the latter's inability not only to predict, but also to satisfactorily explain the events that occurred. It was the radicalism of social transformations in the world at the turn of the century that made us turn to the problem of social change in social psychology in full.
In contrast to the sociological approach, the focus of interest here is on the problem perception by an ordinary member of society of the changes taking place in society and the development of a strategy of behavior in accordance with this perception: the logic of the process is that there is no other adequate choice of behavior, except for the ability to equally adequately assess the essence of the changes taking place in society. Naturally, in this case, too, the problem appears in conjunction with the idea of constructing the social world, with the construction of its adequate image. In a situation of rapid change, the process of social categorization is modified, and the individual is forced to carry out "rapid categorization" based on heuristics, which includes a significant proportion of emotional and motivational components [Fiedler, Bless, 2004]. Thus, it is the “linkage” of the process of constructing the social world and social changes that acts as a subject of special analysis in social psychology.
There are at least two aspects to this analysis. On the one hand, this is a discussion of fundamentally new tasks in relationships social psychology and society, on the other hand, more specific problems of new regions science and new ways their research.
In general terms, the new nature of the relationship between social psychology and society is described in the approaches we analyzed: greater consideration social context[Moskovichi, 1972], change of functions forecasting behavior function as a "catalyst of social receptivity and sensitivity". Both are due to the new nature of social reality, its complication, the need for an ordinary member of society to comprehend an ever wider range of problems. This requires a greater awareness of a person about important life circumstances for him in order to expand the range of his alternative actions, to offer new models of behavior. This will correspond to the new role of social psychology in changing world, in particular, involves the development of a whole range of new problems social adaptation, human-environment interactions, more precisely: interactions changed human and modified environment.
The other side of the issue is the change (enrichment) of the research arsenal of social psychology as its most important professional task. This question rests on the old problem - the relationship between fundamental and applied levels in socio-psychological knowledge. Despite the "antiquity" of this problem, the discussion about this ratio has been going on for almost a century, that is, the entire period of the "independent" existence of the discipline. Today, at the forefront of discussion is the question of the ratio applied and practical social psychology. Evaluation of the features of applied research is well known [Andreeva, 2008; Shikhirev, 1999]. As for social intervention(social intervention), as a special type of activity of a social psychologist, then the question, despite the presence of a solid tradition of discussion, practically starting with K. Levin's idea of action research, acquires new facets in the new paradigm.
First of all, this is the question of whether, in principle, the nature of the relationship between social psychology and society changes in a period of radical social change? Apparently, in general terms, it should be answered in the affirmative. The complication of the social world, the processes of globalization require a person to have a larger range of problems, to compare their solutions in different types of societies, as a result of which it is necessary to expand the range of "alternative actions, leading to the modification or gradual disappearance of previous behavioral models" . As for the more specific aspects of practical psychology, in this case we are talking about improving the tools that provide "intervention", its adaptation to the conditions of the changing world. with the new social reality [Andreeva, 2005]. This includes a focus on quality research methods [Melnikova, 2007], and reflection on such a traditional method as questioning, since the content of the categories used largely depends on the content of new social realities. From this point of view, it is logical to appeal to the problems of social cognition.
New Emphasis in Social Cognition
The two designated vectors brought to life the actualization of a special direction in social psychology - social cognition (social cognition), and the emphasis on the development of this area can also be considered one of the vectors of the new paradigm. Despite the antiquity and interdisciplinary nature of the problem (studies of social cognition are characteristic of both philosophy and sociology, especially within sociology of knowledge), in social psychology, specific facets of the approach are indicated. The focus of interest here is the knowledge of the social world by an ordinary member of society, a non-professional, knowledge them social reality as reality one's own life .
The appeal to this variant of the approach is again connected with the changes in society at the turn of the century: the rapid pace of social processes, the emergence of new forms of social institutions, the development of the media with particular perseverance require from an ordinary member of society a sufficient degree of understanding of what is happening around him. One can navigate in a new, complex world only by being able to more or less adequately interpret the observed facts, because without this it is easy to lose the meaning of both what is happening and one's place in it. In other words, the task is to reveal the mechanisms by which a person realizes himself as a part of the reality in which he lives and acts, as well as the totality of those factors that determine these processes. But this will be the study of how a person builds an image of the social world, that is, constructs it, moreover, in the context of social changes. Therefore, the "flourishing" of a certain field of knowledge in itself becomes one of the vectors of the new paradigm of science.
The development of this branch of psychology is associated with the general success of cognitive psychology in the second half of the 20th century. The use of the successes of cognitive psychology in socio-psychological research at first led to reproaches against the latter for being the subject again (in this case social) knowledge remains individual, and new requirements both to strengthen the role of the social context and to take into account social changes remain unfulfilled. Therefore, a significant place in modern constructions of social cognition is given just to accents that allow interpreting this area of knowledge itself precisely as vector new paradigm.
There are several such accents. First of all, the idea of inclusion communications into the cognitive process. Knowledge about society must be shared among participants in the cognitive process, that is, its results are common to members of a particular community or group, shared by them, because otherwise no interactions would be possible. This idea is based on two postulates: 1) in the behavior of all people there is a predictable series of similarities based on ideas about the general human nature acquired in experience; 2) there are also a number of undoubted differences in the behavior of individual individuals or certain types of them. Therefore, there can never be two identical opinions even about one person, not to mention some more complex social objects. This is especially true for social cognition, because, in addition to the individual experience of a person, it also includes the experience of the group to which he belongs, and the entire experience of culture. Since people must somehow understand each other, or at least understand what is at stake, they inevitably exist in some common cognitive space, that is, share - perhaps within certain limits - the meaning of certain objects they know. The means of “separability” of meanings is communication, when the image of the social world is developed jointly, which implies a constant exchange of information.
The second emphasis is related to the specifics of social categorization. A number of specific features of the categorization of social objects (vagueness and fuzziness of the boundaries of social categories, the dependence of the categorization process on the “interest” of the subject in it, etc.) creates additional difficulty in understanding the social world for an ordinary person. These difficulties are multiplied by the situation of social instability, which is often the result of social changes. Mass consciousness has long learned to deal with these difficulties, which was noted in theories of cognitive correspondence within the framework of the concept " psycho-logic» , the logic of an "ordinary" ordinary person. In the modern version, that is, within the framework of the psychology of social cognition, the principle is modified into the idea heuristic- simplified decision-making rules used in everyday life for making judgments for which there is not enough information, that is, also facilitating the process of social categorization. The use of heuristics is an inevitable companion of the cognition of social reality under conditions of uncertainty, helping the individual somehow streamline and “understand” the world around him in his own way, build his image. Appeal to heuristics is an example of "quick categorization", which, according to A. Tashfel, is necessary in a situation of radical social changes, when one has to make categorical decisions, not keeping up with objective changes in objects and events. Consequently, the emphasis on the analysis of social categorization in relation to the peculiarities of the social and cultural context in which this process is carried out can be considered a truly specific vector of the new paradigm.
At the same time, it is important to take into account one more circumstance: in modern studies of social cognition, the social determinants of the process of social categorization are supplemented by the study of its “emotional accompaniment”. The problem of the correlation of emotions and cognitions in the cognition of the social world [Andreeva, 2005] became the topic of a special conference and many subsequent publications. The central idea in them is the idea that both cognitive and emotional components are included in the construction of the image of the social world “on an equal footing”. It can be considered that here a significant enrichment of the new approach is presented not only to social cognition, but to the whole problematic of social psychology in general. Thus, the entire subject area of social cognition claims its rights to interpret it as one of the vectors of the new paradigm.
"Turn to Language"
The expression "turn to the language" in the subtitle belongs to Agostinos and Walker and is interpreted as a significant change in the role of language in social psychology, denoting, undoubtedly, another vector of the new paradigm. Although the problem of language is quite traditional for psychology in general and for social psychology in particular, and is supported by a solid research base, increased attention to it today is an obvious fact. On the one hand, this is a logical consequence of all the considered approaches, that is, it is organically connected with the idea of constructing the world, and with the problem of radical changes in society, and with more specific developments in the psychology of social cognition. On the other hand, the problem has its own content and - if you like - its own history, including the specifics in today's conditions. On the whole, the popular expression introduced demonstrates one of the directions of the movement of psychology from the standards of an experimental discipline, largely oriented towards natural science knowledge, to the humanitarian pole.
Historically, the role of language in social psychology is known to have been explored in connection with the study of communicative processes. According to a number of researchers, within the framework of this problem, discrepancies were found in the American and European approaches. Thus, a review by Kroger and Wood (1992) states: “Our goal is to show that language as a subject of study disappeared from social psychology during the period of the prevalence of behaviorism in it, and therefore the description of social psychology as devoid of language is not a caricature, but a relevant description of this science. » [Moskovichi, 2007, p. 491]. This does not mean that language literally disappeared from communication studies. Rather, the point is that in the communicative process, as a rule, the forms of presenting information, the structures of the communicative act were analyzed, but no attention was paid to the social nature of the participants in communication, and therefore the dialogue was not studied as a social space in which information is exchanged. A prominent researcher of the problem of language in European social psychology, I. Markova, notes that the disadvantage of this approach lies precisely in not taking into account the fact that “dialogical communication is a fundamental characteristic of people as social beings” .
In contrast to the "formalized" analysis of the role of language in the communicative process, characteristic of the behaviorist approach, the European tradition from the very beginning emphasized the intersubjective nature of the communicative act and the meaning of language. in the context. In a special study by G. Giles "Language in Social Psychology", the problem of "language in context" appears as one of the main ones. Insisting on the thesis that language does not exist in a vacuum, it is always conceptualized, Giles names a number of components that "determine" or "influence the forms of functioning of language" (the temporal and spatial conditions in which the dialogue unfolds, the settings of the communicator, the type of situation, certain expectations of partners). In a broader sense, one might say that the context is set by a combination of factors, both personal (motivation, intention of communication partners) and social (a specific situation, the field of interpersonal and - most importantly - social relations). This allows us to conclude: “... language does not just deliver information. Partners use language to relate to each other and to their relationship. They also use language to refer to other people…” .
The most detailed concept of dialogue at one time was presented by M.M. Bakhtin, who put the idea of dialogue at the basis of all his works in this area: in the language"; “The individual “lives in the world of the words of the Other, and by studying the words of the Other, he also studies the world of the Other” [Bakhtin, 1979, p. 143]. It is in this non-psychological work that the essence of socio-psychological approach to the analysis of the communicative process, as it is presented today in the European tradition and in search of a new paradigm. Many researchers are developing this idea further. So. I. Markova proposes to complicate the formula of the dialogue, characterized as "I - Other" and designate it as "I - Other - Object", that is, to enter into the formula triad. Other authors, following Bakhtin, use the terms "third party", "third person", "virtual others", "other others", emphasizing the complex nature of the communicative process, when I and the Other are not necessarily physically, but at least symbolically co-present with someone and something third, also speaking from a certain position [Bakhtin, 1979, p. 133].
Such an interpretation of the communicative act makes it obvious that there is a “turn to language” in the new paradigm of social psychology. Language appears here not just as a means of communication, but as the most important means of social cognition, and an element in the construction of the social world with a special emphasis on the changes taking place in it. The development of such an understanding of language is characteristic of Gergen's social constructionism, S. Moskovichi's theory of social representations, and R. Harre's discourse analysis [Andreeva, Bogomolova, Petrovskaya, 2002]. In various forms, in all these concepts, there is an idea that that language is given a special role as a participant in the process of constructing the world, in a certain sense - its "creator". Specifically, these searches are reflected in the increasingly attention-grabbing narrativeapproach, where a special methodology for the study of personality has been developed - the analysis of its "telling" about itself [Shikhirev, 1999; Kutuzova, 2005], which gives a more complete picture of the personality than that obtained with the help of personality tests: the variants of such “tellings” in different social situations correspond to the construction of the image of the personality as an element of the social world.
Personality in the labyrinths of globalization
The latter circumstance allows us to connect the presentation of the enumerated "vectors" of the new paradigm with another extremely important consideration, namely, with a whole range of new approaches to the study of personality. If the new paradigm in social psychology proceeds, among other things, from the new social situation that has developed in society at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries, then it is logical to trace the influence of this factor on the interpretation of the problem of "personality in a changed world", which requires answers to such questions: what aspects of social changes form the image of the social world, what is the nature of the interaction of social, motivational and cognitive processes, what factors determine the search for a strategy of social behavior of an individual in conditions of social instability, as a possible result of social transformations. In this case, several different sections can be distinguished.
As the most general - uncertainty situation in which the person has to act. Despite the lack of a single definition of the concept, there is a more or less agreed idea of including such characteristics as novelty, complexity and inconsistency of the situation in the “uncertainty”. The latter are set by the objective “course” of social changes: both their pace, and their multidirectionality, and the processes of globalization in all its manifestations (economy, political decisions, culture), the emergence of social instability as a result. “In fact, the existence of a person in the conditions of social changes can be equated to its functioning in a situation of uncertainty, when the main task becomes to establish the meaning and significance of this situation for oneself personally with minimal reliance on social predestinations and with the actualization of the entire personal resource” [Belinskaya, 2002, p. fifty].
For social psychology, of course, the most important thing is perception individual, mass consciousness of the situation of uncertainty, since it is on this that the development of a strategy of behavior depends. The "status" of a person in a situation of uncertainty dictates many different manifestations. One of them, significant for constructing the image of the social world, is the connection of problems uncertainty public organization and social identity personality.
Uncertainty manifests itself primarily in the fact that new social groups are emerging, the nature of which is not yet known, new rates and patterns of time change are being identified, and finally, special habitats are emerging (new types of settlements, forms of transport links between them). Making decisions in such conditions is a difficult task for an ordinary person, important for his practical existence. The decision largely depends on how his social identity will be formed. It is no coincidence that when discussing this problem in scientific discourse, the term transferred from medicine is often used. injury. According to P. Sztompka, social trauma- this is primarily a cultural trauma, since for an ordinary person the foundations of symbols, meanings and meanings of social reality are crumbling, the rules of social actions accumulated by previous life experience are depreciated [Shtompka, 1996]. The situation becomes similar to that described in modern ethnopsychology as culture shock. The definition of culture shock given by T.G. Stefanenko, introduced by K. Oberg, includes not only the feeling of loss of friends and status, rejection, surprise and discomfort when realizing the differences between cultures, but also confusion in value orientations, social and personal identity [Stefanenko, 2006 ].
Naturally, in this case, the individual faces the question of choosing an affiliation group, which will be of decisive importance for him. The situation is further complicated by the fact that these issues have to be resolved under conditions of uncertainty generated, in particular, by the process globalization. At the same time, at least two directions of identity formation manifest themselves. On the one hand, the harmonization of value systems mastered by each individual representing different cultures, which can conditionally be called the "horizontal" direction of identity formation. On the other hand, the expansion of ideas about a kind of "hierarchy" of identities is the attribution of a personality not only to traditional social groups, mastered by time frames, habitual habitats, but also to a global society. This can be called the "vertical" direction of identity formation [Andreeva, 2008]. In this, the second case, the degree of uncertainty for decision-making is even higher, which is associated with such a side of globalization as the ratio of global and local processes and the social groups behind them: bureaucratic elites, more committed to the global market, international organizations, and local elites, oriented for the development of the national economy. Different directions in the formation of a person's social identity contribute not only to complicating the understanding of one's position in society, but also to a general deterioration in social wellbeing, which is naturally reinforced by the objective difficulties of material existence. The personality truly finds itself in the “labyrinth” of new realities, and its construction of both its own image and the image of the social world as a whole is also the subject of analysis in the new paradigm of social psychology and one of its vectors.
Literature
Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2005.
Andreeva G.M. Personality in Search of Identity in the Global World // Dialogue of Cultures and Partnership of Civilizations: VIII International Likhachev Scientific Readings. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise, 2008.
Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Foreign social psychology of the twentieth century. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2002.
Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art, 1979.
Belinskaya E.P. Man in a changing world. Moscow: Prometheus, 2005.
BergerP., Lukman T. Social construction of reality. Moscow: Aspect Press, 1995.
GergenTo. Movement of social constructionism in modern psychology // Social psychology: self-reflection of marginality: reader. Moscow: Inion, 1995.
GraumannTO. Historical introduction to social psychology // Introduction to social psychology. European approach: per. from English. / ed. M. Huston, V. Strebe. Moscow: Unity, 2004.
Emelyanova T.P. Construction of social representations in the conditions of transformation of the Russian society. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005.
Kutuzova D.A. Narrative work with couples… and much more // Postnonclassical psychology. Social constructionism and narrative approach. 2005. No. 1(2).
Melnikova O.T. Focus groups: methodology, methods, models. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2007.
Muscovites S. Social psychology: Per. from English. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007.
Pokrovsky N.E. Globalization processes and a possible scenario of their impact on Russian society // Social transformations in Russia: theories, practices, comparative analysis / ed. V.A.Yadova. Moscow: Flinta, 2005.
StefanenkoT.G. Ethnopsychology. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2006.
TriandisG. Culture and social behavior. Moscow: Forum, 2007.
FidlerK., Bless G. Social cognition // Introduction to social psychology. European approach: per. from English. / ed. M. Huston, V. Strebe. Moscow: Unity, 2004.
ShikhirevP.N. Modern social psychology. Moscow: Academic project, 1999.
SztompkaP. Sociology of social change. Moscow: Aspect Press, 1996.
Yakimova E.V. Social construction of reality: socio-psychological approaches. Moscow: Inion, 1995.
Affect and cognitive. The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. New York, 1982.
Ash S. Perspective on social psychology // Koch S. (Ed.). Psychology: a study of a science. New York, 1959.
AugustinosM., Walker J. social cognition. An integral introduction. London, 1995.
CrosseleyM. Introducing narrative psychology. Buckigham: Open University Press, 2000.
Fiske S, Taylor Sh. social cognition. 2nd ed. New York, 1994.
Giles H. Language and social psychology. Bradacedvard Arnold, 1982.
GergenK. Realities and relationships: Sounding in social construction. Cambridge; London, 1994.
Markova I. Dialogicality and social representation. The dynamics of mind. Cambridge, 2003.
Mcguire W. Social psychology // Dodwell E. (Ed.). New horizons in psychology. London, 1972.
TajfelH., Fraser K. Introducing social psychology. London, 1978.
The Context of Social Psychology. A critical assessment / ed. by H.Tajfel, J.Israel. New York; London, 1972.
TverskyA., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases // Science. 1974 Vol. 25.
Andreeva Galina Mikhailovna.
Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov, st. Mokhovaya, 11/5, 125009 Moscow, Russia.
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view.
Andreeva G.M. Social psychology: vectors of a new paradigm [Electronic resource] // Psychological research: electron. scientific magazine 2009. N 1(3)..mm.yyyy).
- Next >
It is important to note that one of the relatively new areas of application of socialpsychology - the scope of scientific activity. Material published on http: // site
In the complex system of modern scienceorganization of research and their management constantly require the solution of issues, associated with the psychological mechanisms and patterns of the ϶ᴛᴏ system. The importance of collective forms of activity is growing, and ϶ᴛᴏ to a large extentbreaks the stable stereotype of scientific creativity as the creativity of individualoutstanding personalities, since the production of knowledge will be the result ofthe work of many people in research "combines". In ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙ and with the given the type of the initial social cell for the production of scientific knowledge: if earlier a scientific school acted as such a cell, now it is rather a research team. In such a team, an extremely high integration of its members arises, more and more often collective products are born. scientific creativity: group projects, group decisions, group expertise, etc. The subject of research work becomes a small group.
This poses a number of new applied problems, primarily the identificationfeatures of the scientific team in comparison with other types of laborteams, improving the socio-psychological climate in it,methods of management, increasing the efficiency of its activities, etc.
The main problem here is to identify the specifics of this type ofactivities as "collective scientific activity". It is worth saying that for traditional psychology, this type of activity contains an obvious contradiction: thisactivity will be both collaborative and creative, while intraditional psychology creative (and, ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙno, scientific) activity has always been treated as an individual. Although science has longinsists that in modern conditions it is important to analyze not onlypersonality of a scientist, but also the nature of communication in the scientific community, the traditionalapproach remains unsurpassed: the subject of creativity is still consideredpersonality (in this case, the personality of a scientist), and its microenvironment, incl.communication, acts exclusively as a condition of the creative act. The task of socialpsychology - to understand the nature of joint creative activity and give itpsychological description.
The approach to solving these issues is contained in the "program-roleapproach" to the study of science, developed in the domestic socialpsychology M.G. Yaroshevsky (Problems of leading a scientific team, 1982) It is important to note that one of the main ideas of the ϶ᴛᴏth concept is that in any scientific the team identifies the main scientific roles: "generator", "critic", "erudite" and etc. The role profile of each employee is drawn, which will be very specific, i.e. the contribution of each employee to the overall activity is significantly differs from the contribution of each other. This difference is more obvious than, for example, the difference in the contributions of workers in a production team, where they perform more or less similar functions.
It should be noted that the question of whether anyscientific role is associated with such a contribution, which can be attributed to a trulycreative activity? For ϶ᴛᴏ it is extremely important not only carefulpsychological description of each scientific role, but also a detailed analysis of motivation each scientist, since an effective combination of scientific roles implies a high motivation of each member of the scientific team. Last but not least there will also be a study of the specifics of the very process of communication between scientists, in particular, the psychological readiness of each researcher to accept, process and store a variety of information.
The ambiguity of the contributions of different employees makes the criteria implicitassessment of their effectiveness, and ϶ᴛᴏ can lead to inadequate representation of employees about their success and give rise to a special kind of conflicts on ϶ᴛᴏ,characteristic of scientific teams. In such conflicts, it is sometimes difficult to isolate the business side and the interpersonal side. Head of scientificteam must be able to resolve such conflicts in order to ensurehigh efficiency of the department led by him. However,and his own position in the team is specific: it remains debatablethe question of whether the head of the scientific team must necessarily combine inyourself the functions of an administrator and an idea generator, or they can be separatedbetween different people? This question also arises before the practical social psychology.
The ideas of the program-role approach are widely used in research on applied level, carried out directly in scientific institutions:institutes, laboratories, higher educational institutions (Belkin, Emelyanov, Ivanov, 1987) On the basis of such research, the social psychologist can three types of activities. The first activity is primarilydevelopment of recommendations based on the diagnosis of specific situations in each team (for example, on how to highlight the optimal stages of the implementation of the research program, so that they would be clear to the members of the scientificteam, how to build a system of scientific roles in a team and outline role profile of each employee, how to regulate interpersonal relationships in general and interpersonal conflicts in particular, etc.) These recommendations addressed mainly to the leaders of scientific teams.
The second type of activity of a social psychologist is ϶ᴛᴏ consultingJob. In this case, advice can be given to both managers and ordinary members of the team, contributing in the latter case to awareness of the situation inteam, her own role in it and thereby increasing the feelingjob satisfaction.
Finally, the third type of work - ϶ᴛᴏ direct training of managersscientific teams management methods in that part, which is connected withknowledge of socio-psychological mechanisms of communication and interaction. Such learning is organized in various forms, starting with traditional lectures and ending with socio-psychological training. Research of a similar nature Unfortunately, they are practically discontinued at the present time due to a sharp deterioration in the funding of science from the state. More dramatic issues, such as the problem of "brain drain", excite the scientific community. But all ϶ᴛᴏ does not remove the fundamental need for practical efforts psychologists in the field of science management and optimization of scientific creativity.
Galina Mikhailovna Andreeva, an outstanding scientist and teacher, Doctor of Philosophy, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, full member of the Russian Academy of Education, Honored Professor of Moscow University, Professor of the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov and the founder of this department.
Galina Mikhailovna was born on June 13, 1924 in Kazan in a family of doctors, her father was a professor and head of the department of psychiatry at the Kazan Medical Institute, and her mother was a neuropathologist at the city hospital. After graduating with honors from school in June 1941, Galina Andreeva volunteered for the front. Until June 1945, she was in the army as part of the Bryansk, II Baltic and Leningrad fronts, having gone from a radio operator to the head of a radio station and an on-duty front communications center. She was awarded military awards - the Order of the Red Star and the Order of the Patriotic War of the 2nd degree, medals "For Military Merit", "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945".
After demobilization in the summer of 1945, G.M. Andreeva entered the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, and since that time her whole life has been connected with Moscow University. After graduating from graduate school in 1953 and defending her Ph.D. thesis, she taught at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. Galina Mikhailovna belongs to the first generation of Russian sociologists who shaped the face of Russian sociological science. In 1965, G.M. Andreeva defended her doctoral dissertation, the content of which is reflected in her first book "Modern Bourgeois Empirical Sociology" (1965), and in 1969 she organized the Department of Methods of Concrete Social Research at the Faculty of Philosophy - the first university sociological department in the country. The textbook "Lectures on the Methods of Concrete Social Research", edited by G.M. Andreeva in 1972, became a reference book for students who conducted empirical research in sociology, and later in social psychology.
In 1972, at the invitation of the founder and first dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University A.N. Leontiev, Galina Mikhailovna created the Department of Social Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology, which she headed until 1989 The first works of the department, published under the editorship of Galina Mikhailovna, are “Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology” (1977), “Interpersonal perception in a group” (1981), “Methods for researching interpersonal perception” (1984). From her pen came out the first textbooks on social psychology for students: "Modern social psychology in the West (theoretical directions)" (co-authored with N.N. Bogomolova and L.A. Petrovskaya, 1978) and "Social psychology" ( first edition - 1980).
The textbook of G.M. Andreeva "Social Psychology" became the first university textbook on social psychology, was awarded the Lomonosov Prize, went through five editions in our country (1980, 1988, 1994, 1998, 2004, the last edition to date came out in 2014), released in the form of an audiobook (2008), and also translated into many languages of the world (English, Arabic, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Spanish, Kyrgyz, Chinese, Lithuanian, French and Czech). A series of 15 of her lectures on social psychology has been released on DVD (2008). In 2012, the educational and methodological complex "Social Psychology", prepared by G.M. Andreeva with colleagues, took the 1st place in the Competition of psychological publications within the framework of the 5th Congress of the Russian Psychological Society in the nomination "The best educational and methodological complex".
The third textbook written by G.M.Andreeva - "Psychology of Social Cognition" (came out in three editions - 1997, 2000, 2005) - contains a comprehension of a new subject field for the domestic socio-psychological tradition.
She has published more than 250 scientific papers. The generalizing volume of scientific works of G.M. Andreeva “Social cognition: problems and prospects” was published in the series “Psychologists of the Fatherland. Selected Psychological Works (1999). For the 30th anniversary of the Department of Social Psychology, Galina Mikhailovna and her colleagues prepared a textbook "Social Psychology in the Modern World" (2002). The principal articles written by G. M. Andreeva in the 2000s are collected in her book “Social Psychology Today: Searches and Reflections” (2009).
Throughout the years of its existence, the Department of Social Psychology, thanks primarily to the efforts and position of Galina Mikhailovna, has been integrated into the world scientific community. The products of international scientific cooperation are books edited by G.M. Andreeva and J. Yanoushek "Communication and activity" (in Czech, Prague, 1981) and "Communication and optimization of joint activity" (M., 1987), prepared by teams of departments of social psychology of Moscow State University and Charles University in Prague. Joint research projects and publications with Canadian psychologists (1970s), German psychologists (1970s - 1990s), Finnish psychologists (from the 1990s to the present) were carried out under the guidance and with the leading personal participation of Galina Mikhailovna . Professor Andreeva has lectured at universities in England, Sweden, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, USA and Italy.
G.M.Andreeva is a full member of the Russian Academy of Education (1993). Member of the Academic Council of Moscow State University (2001 - 2014). She was awarded the titles "Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation" (1984), "Honorary Doctor of the University of Helsinki" (2000). Laureate of the M.V. Lomonosov for scientific work (1984) and for pedagogical work (2001). She was awarded the Pitirim Sorokin Silver Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences "For Contribution to Science" (2008) and the medal "For Contribution to the Development of Military Psychology" by the Society of Law Enforcement Psychologists (2008). Member of the Russian Society of Sociologists and the Russian Psychological Society. Member of the European Association for Social Psychology. She was awarded the Order of Friendship (1999) and the Order of Honor (2004).
Until now, G.M. Andreeva was a member of the Dissertation Council for the defense of doctoral and master's theses at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov; Chairman of the editorial board of the journal "Social Psychology and Society", created in 2010 with her active participation; member of the editorial board of the journal "Questions of Psychology"; member of the editorial boards of the journals “Bulletin of Moscow University. Series XIV. Psychology” and “Psychological Research. Electronic journal".
