Topic 2.2.: Social psychology of personality.

Lecture plan:

1. The concept of personality in social psychology
2. Personality socialization
3. Mechanisms of social behavior

Almost 150 years ago, the philosopher O. Comte surprisingly accurately identified the main complexity of the problem of man, emphasizing that he is not only something more than a biological being, but also more than a “clot of culture”. In other words, a person has become a bearer of some new, unknown qualities, so there is a need for the emergence of a special science of his study and understanding. Psychology was supposed to become such a science, designed to carry out a creative synthesis of biological and sociological knowledge about human nature.

So, different sciences study different personality aspects:

o general psychology studies the entire set of human properties, including biologically determined ones, which determine the socially significant behavior and activity of the individual.

o for sociology the personality appears in a “deindividualized, depersonalized form”, as a representative of a certain social group, as only an element of the social system, as the bearer of a particular social role.

o social Psychology considers the personality primarily in the context of all the various social ties and inclusion in various social groups, both at the macro and micro levels. At the same time, the emphasis is on the processes of interaction and mutual influence of the individual and those groups and relationships in which he is included.

Specificity social psychology of personality connected, firstly, with research patterns and causes of individual behavior in the context of a real group. The focus of the social psychology of personality is the relationship of a person with the people around him, which influence the continuous process of the formation of his personality.

Secondly, the social psychology of personality highlights a specific aspect of the consideration of problems traditional for social psychology small group: leadership problems, emotional ties between group members, their conformism or independence, their adoption of role positions. This aspect involves the analysis of individual socio-psychological qualities of the individual.

Thirdly, the social psychology of personality deals with socialization issues- assimilation and reproduction by the individual of the norms, values ​​and customs of his society. At the same time, it is important through which groups and in what way the socialization of a given individual is carried out, on which the features or, possibly, the pathology of the course of this process depend. The results of socialization are manifested in the activities, communication and self-awareness (including social identity) of a person.

Fourth, the social psychology of the individual pays special attention to the origin and implementation of the social attitudes of the individual (attitudes) - that is, the willingness to behave in one way or another in certain situations related to communication.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Basic job data

• Introduction
• The basic concept and essence of personality in social psychology
• Conclusion
• Glossary
• List of sources used

Introduction

Personality as one of the basic categories of psychological science is the main stage in human society. Man, as a super-complex being, lives in an infinitely complex world, or rather in a great variety of worlds, from which the outstanding social psychologist Jürgen Habermas proposed to single out the following worlds as the main worlds. This is the outside world; social world ("our world" - a world in which other people exist together with me); inner world ("my world", my individuality, the uniqueness of only "mine" life path).

The very inclusion of a person in the social world is formed on his awareness and development of the system of “subject-object” relations existing in this world. From the present point of view, the subjective psychological relationship of the individual to the world around him forms his main awareness as a person. After all, the existence of a person in the social and external world is his activity. In activity, the personality is realized, formed, expressed, tries to stand out. It is difficult to find any such field of activity in which psychological knowledge and methods are not used so closely, and are not associated with any need to take into account the integrity of the individual as a subject and at the same time an object of psychological influence, influence. In psychological practice, it is impossible to "work" with any one part of the personality, a separate process, without affecting the entire personality as a whole, without changing anything in the strategy of its relations, in motives and experiences.

The complexity and diversity of the phenomenon of personality leads to the fact that in the field of personality psychology there are different theories that describe personality, nothing more than an integrated whole and at the same time explain the differences between people. In the numerous and rather diverse specific subjects of social psychology, there is some inconsistency of hypotheses about what place the problem of personality should take in this not simple science. But the emphasis was placed precisely on the personality, on its socially meaningful characteristics, as well as on the formation of specific qualities in it as a result of social influence, and so on. At the same time, some other position in the dispute was based on the personality, which is by no means the main object of study for social psychology, therefore the very "idea" of implementing this special branch of psychological knowledge is to explore the "psychology of the group." With such an argument, it was most assumed, although it was not always openly emphasized, that the personality itself appears in this situation as a subject of study in general psychology, and the difference between social psychology and general psychology is carried out in a different focus of interest.

AT modern age in our society, interest in the problems of some possibilities of the individual's personality is so great that almost all social sciences turn to this object of study: the problem of personality is at the center of both philosophical and sociological-psychological knowledge; Ethics, pedagogy, and genetics deal with it, as it is of interest to a wide range of sciences.

Thus, all the above information gives me the opportunity to name the topic that I have chosen for term paper certainly relevant, because the need to study personality is very important in our time. It is within the boundaries of social psychology that the assimilation of personality and social influences (through any of the systems of its activity) is clarified and explained. On the other hand, how does it realize and express its social essence (through what specific types of joint activities). The given topic is of undoubted interest both for psychologists and for psychiatrists, teachers, philosophers, sociologists.

The object of this study, in my opinion, may be some psychological patterns in the behavior, activities and interactions of people, which are due to their growing into social groups, which determines the specifics and specifics of social psychology as a science.

The subject of study is the personality of a person in the totality of absolutely all his psychological properties and qualities.

The purpose of my work is to study the concept, structure and formation of personality from the point of view of a variety of approaches. Also, the identification of socio-psychological problems that are caused by the direct inclusion of the individual in his activities. And, finally, consideration of the cultural-anthropological interpretation of personality.

This goal accomplished the following tasks:

1. Research and conditional analysis of scientific and methodological literature;

2. Specifics of key structures, properties and concepts;

3. The study of the patterns of personality development within social psychology.

4. The study of semantic socio-psychological problems of the individual.

In the process course research the following methods were used:

1. Theoretical, which is the study of literary sources on a given problem.

2.Comparative analysis of these approaches to the problem of personality.

The structure of the course study includes an introduction, two chapters and a conclusion.

During the course research, there were no complex obstacles to the performance of the work.

The basic concept and essence of personality in social psychology

The idea of ​​personality and its components within the framework of socio-psychological knowledge.

The concept of "personality" refers to most of the most vague and rather controversial concepts in psychological science. How many theories of personality exist, so many definitions and opinions of psychologists on this matter. I present in this paper several definitions of personality that have been given by leading experts in the field of social psychology.

So, B.G. Ananiev noted that "a person is, first of all, a contemporary of a certain era, and this determines many of its socio-psychological properties." Among such sets, he attributed, first of all, the belonging of a person to a particular class, group, nationality, profession, and other parameters. A.V. Petrovsky characterized the personality in the strategy of interpersonal relations; in this regard, he expressed the following aspects of personality - intra-individual (reflects the properties inherent in a particular subject); interindividual (considers the features of the relationship of the individual with other people); meta-individual (describes the direct influence of a person on other people). L.I. Antsyferova in her reasoning defines personality "as a way of being a person in society, in specific historical conditions, it is an individual form of existence and development of social ties and relations."

However, all psychologists agree with the statement that a person is not born, but becomes, and for this a person must make considerable efforts. First, he will have to master speech, and then, with its direct help, many motor, intellectual, sociocultural skills. Personality is considered by scientists as the result of the socialization of an individual who has mastered the traditions and system of value orientations developed a long time ago, on early stages, humanity. The more a person was able to perceive, understand and assimilate information and experience in the process of socialization, the more developed personality he is in the future.

The general interest of many sciences in the problem of personality under study is very important, since it can be solved only by the joint efforts of all scientific disciplines that are relevant to the matter. Only the compatibility of these efforts determines an integrated approach to the study of personality, and it is possible only with sufficient exact definition search areas for each of the disciplines involved in solving the problem.

Differences in the interpretation of the concept of personality also concern other aspects of the problem, but, perhaps, most of all, ideas about the structure and essence of personality. Psychologists have offered several reasonable explanations for the ways in which personality can be characterized. Each of them corresponds to a certain idea of ​​the essence of personality. Least of all agreement exists on the issue of a dispute in the "inclusion" or "non-inclusion" of individual psychological characteristics in the personality. The answer to this question is different for most different authors hypotheses. As rightly noted by I.S. Kon, the ambiguity of the concept of personality usually leads to understanding one under the personality of a certain subject of activity in the integrity of his individual properties and his social roles. Others present this ambiguity in a slightly different way: personality "as a social property of an individual, as a set of socially significant features integrated in him, formed in the direct and indirect interaction of this person with other people and making him, in turn, the subject of labor, cognition and communication" Asmolov A.G. Personality as a subject psychological analysis. M., 1988 - 24 p. .

Although the second approach is often seen more as a sociological one. It is also present within general psychology as one of the poles of the discussion. The dispute here takes place precisely on the question of the obligation of the individual in psychology, and whether it should be considered mainly in this second meaning or in the strategy of this science, the main thing is the combination based in the personality (and not just in "man") of socially significant features and individual properties. person.

In the process of writing work and studying articles in search of information, in one of the generalizing works on personality psychology, which provide knowledge of the first approach, it was proposed to distinguish three formations in personality: mental processes, mental states and mental properties. Within the framework of an integrative approach to personality, the set of characteristics and parameters taken into account is significantly expanded. In a special way, the question of the structure of personality was mastered by K.K. Platonov, who singled out several different substructures in the personality structure, the list of which he could vary, and in the latest edition it consisted of four substructures or levels:

1) biologically explained substructure. It includes: temperament, sexual, age, a little less pathological properties of the psyche;

2) psychological substructure. It includes the individual properties of individual mental processes of the individual, which later became the properties of the personality (memory, emotions, sensations, perception, feelings, will);

3) social experience (this includes knowledge, skills, abilities and habits acquired by a person in the process of socialization);

4) the substructure of the purposefulness of the personality (inside which, in turn, there is a special interconnected (in the form of a certain hierarchy) series of the following substructures: inclinations, desires, interests, ideals, inclinations, stereotypes, an individual picture of the world, beliefs) (according to Platonov).

According to K.K. Platonov, these substructures differ in " specific gravity"social and biological contents. It is by the choice of such substructures that general psychology differs from social psychology as a subject of analysis. So, if general psychology focuses on the first three substructures, then social psychology, in turn, according to this scheme, analyzes mainly the fourth substructure , since the social determination of personality in social science is represented precisely at the level of this substructure.Now the only thing left for general psychology is to analyze such characteristics as gender, age, temperament (which is reduced mainly to a biological substructure) and the properties of specific mental processes, such as as memory, various emotions, experiences, thinking (which, as a rule, is reduced to a substructure of individual psychological traits. In a certain sense, social experience also belongs here. Personal psychology proper in general psychology is simply not represented in such a scheme.

A fundamentally different approach to the issue was proposed by another research psychologist A.N. Leontiev. Before proceeding to his characterization of the structure of the personality, he begins to formulate some general premises for a thorough consideration of the personality in psychology. Their essence is reduced to the consideration of the individual in inseparable connection with the activity. The principle of activity in this case is consistently carried out in order to set the entire theoretical scheme for the study of personality. main idea research lies in the fact that "a person's personality is in no sense pre-existing in relation to his activity, like his consciousness, it is generated by it."

Although formally this intricate scheme does not contain a sufficient list of personality structure items, in essence such a system is presented as a structure of traits of characteristics derived from the characteristics of activity. The idea of ​​social determination is carried out in this case most consistently; personality, firstly, cannot be interpreted as an integration of just biosomatic and psychophysiological characteristics. One can, of course, begin to argue that what is presented here is far from a general psychological, namely a socio-psychological approach to the individual, as, by the way, opponents sometimes try to assert in various discussions.

However, if we turn to the very essence of this whole concept, to understanding the subject of A.N. Leontiev, it becomes obvious that the approach of general psychology to the problem of personality, which is fundamentally different from traditional concepts, is outlined. And the question of a special approach to the problem of social psychology has yet to be solved by research scientists.

The main difficulties of expressing a specific socio-psychological circle of vision are only just beginning. It would be quite easy to single out a number of his problems if the whole area of ​​the social determination of the personality were left to his lot. But such an approach would be appropriate (and, indeed, it is by far not the last place) only in those structures of psychology where often only an initial consideration and explanation of the personality is allowed outside of its social ties.

Social psychology in such a structure begins at the point where one begins to analyze these same social connections. With the consistent implementation and study of ideas formulated by well-known psychologists-researchers L.S. Vygotsky, S.L. Rubinstein, A.N. Leontiev, such an approach in this situation is simply inappropriate. All sections of psychological science consider the personality as given in the initial position in the system of social connections and relations, then determined by them, and, moreover, acting precisely as an active subject of activity.

In fact, such social psychological problems personality and begin to be decided on this basis.

The specifics of the socio-psychological problems of personality

So, what range of possibilities can be revealed to social psychology in this widest area? The answer to this question is rather briskly discussed in the specialized literature. In the works of B.D. Parygin's model of personality, which should take, and indeed takes place in the system of social psychology, involves the combination of the following two approaches: sociological and general psychological. Although this idea itself does not raise any objections from opponents, the description of each of the synthesized approaches is presented in a rather controversial way. Thus, the sociological approach is characterized in such a way that in it the individual is considered directly as an object of social relations; general psychological approach - the case that here the emphasis is placed only "on the general mechanisms of the mental activity of the individual." The task of social psychology is "to reveal the entire structural complexity of the personality, which is both an object and a subject of social relations ...". It is unlikely that both a sociologist and a psychologist will be able to agree with such a breakdown of tasks: in most variants of disputes, both in sociology and in general psychology, they accept the thesis that a person acts both as an object and as a subject of the historical process; this idea cannot be embodied only in the socio-psychological approach to the individual, and cannot be refuted in any way. In relation to sociology and psychology, which accept the idea of ​​social determination of the individual, this statement is absolutely inapplicable.

In particular, an objection is expressed in the analysis of the personality model that is prescribed in general psychology. This is noted when the general psychological approach "is limited, as a rule, to the integration of only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters of the personality structure."

The socio-psychological approach in this case "is characterized by the superimposition of the biosomatic and social programs on each other."

As noted earlier, the tradition of cultural and historical conditioning of the human psyche, which was laid down by the psychologist L.S. Vygotsky, is directed directly opposite to this statement: not only the personality, but also individual specific mental processes are considered here as parameters determined by social factors. Moreover, it cannot be argued that in this case only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters are taken into account when modeling a personality. The personality, as it is represented in the whole frame of reference, cannot be declared outside of its social characteristics and principles. Therefore, the general psychological setting of personality problems cannot in any way differ from the socio-psychological approach on the basis proposed by Vygotsky.

It is possible to approach the definition of the specifics of the socio-psychological approach in the most descriptive way, that is, on the basis of the main type of research practice, simply try to list the tasks to be solved, and this path will be fully justified.

So, some psychologists-researchers note that the basis of socio-psychological knowledge and understanding of personality is the "characteristic social type personality as a specific education, a product of social circumstances, its structure, the totality of the role functions of the personality, their influence on social life ... "Kovalev A.G. Psychology of personality. M., 1970-211 p.

The difference between the socio-psychological approach and the sociological approach is not grasped sharply enough in this case. Obviously, this is precisely why the characterization of the socio-psychological approach is often supplemented by a long list of tasks for studying personality.

The list consists of: social determination of the mental make-up of the individual; social motivation of behavior and activity of the individual in different socio-historical and socio-psychological conditions; class, national and other personality traits; patterns of formation, expression of social activity or passivity, ways and means of increasing or decreasing this activity; problems of internal inconsistency of the personality and ways to overcome it; self-education of the individual and other items. The list is endless.

And each of these tasks in itself seems to be a very important point, but it will not be possible to catch a specific principle in the proposed list, just as it is not possible to answer the question, what is the very specificity of the study of personality in social psychology?

Nor does it resolve the issue by appealing to the assumption that in social psychology the personality must be explored and studied in communication and agreement with other personalities, although such an argument is also sometimes expressed. But I believe that it should be rejected because, in principle, and in general psychology, there is too much research into personality in communication.

When determining the specific specifics of the socio-psychological approach to the study of personality, it may be worth relying on the assumption that was put forward at the very beginning of the definition of the subject of social psychology, as well as on the understanding of personality, which was once proposed by A.N. Leontiev Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975-186 p. .

At this stage, it is possible to formulate a definite answer to the question posed. Social psychology, as a rule, does not investigate in a special way the question of the social conditioning of the personality, but not because this question does not seem important to it, but because it is solved not only by sociology, but by the whole psychological science and especially general psychology.

Social psychology, using the definition of personality, finds out how and in which specific groups a personality, on the one hand, acquires an understanding of social influences, through which of the systems of its activity; on the other hand, how and in what specific groups does it carry out its social structure through what specific types of joint activities it goes through.

The difference between this approach and the sociological one lies not only in the fact that it is not particularly important for social psychology how socially typical traits are presented in a person. This is because it mainly expresses how these socio-typical traits were formed, and why, under some conditions of personality formation, they manifested themselves to the fullest, while in others some difficulties arose and other, unplanned, social-typical traits appeared in spite of belonging to a particular social group.

For this, to a greater extent than in sociological analysis, the emphasis is generally placed on the microenvironment of personality formation, although this does not mean a complete rejection of the study and understanding of the macroenvironment of its formation. To a greater extent than in the sociological approach, here such regulators of the behavior and activity of the individual as the most integral system of interpersonal relations are used in the calculation. Within it, along with their activity mediation, their emotional regulation is also being studied and further research is being carried out.

It can also be said that for social psychology, the main guiding landmark in the study of personality is interaction, the relationship of an individual with a group, and this is not just a person in a group, but precisely the result that is obtained from the relationship of an individual with a particular group. On the basis of such differences in the socio-psychological approach from the sociological and general psychological one, one can try to isolate the problems of personality in social psychology.

The most important thing in the problem of social psychology is the selection from the mass of parameters of those laws that govern the behavior and activities of an individual who is necessarily included in any particular social group of people. But often such a problematic is completely unthinkable and unacceptable by psychologists as a separate, "independent" object of research undertaken outside the group's research. Therefore, in order to try this task, it is necessary, in essence, to return to all those problems that were solved for a certain group, that is, to "repeat" the problems considered and described above. But try to look at them a little from the other side - from the side of the individual, and not from the side of the group. Then it will be a completely different conversation, for example, the problem of leadership will be seen, but with such a shade, which is associated by its own will with the personal characteristics of leadership as a group phenomenon. Or, for example, the problem of the motivation of the individual when participating in some kind of collective activity will begin to stand out (where the formation and installation of this motivation will be investigated in connection with the type of joint activity, the level of development of the group).

It is also possible to single out the problem of attraction, which will now be considered from the point of view of characterizing some features of the more emotional sphere of the personality; traits that manifest themselves in a special way when perceived by another person. In other words, the specifically socio-psychological consideration of the problems of the individual from various points of view is a completely different side of the consideration of the problems of the group.

But along with this problem, there is still whole line the most specialized problems that are to some lesser extent affected by a thorough analysis of groups and which, no less, are also included in the concept of "social psychology of the individual." And, if the main focus of personality analysis in social psychology lies in its interaction with the group, then it is obvious that, first of all, it is necessary to identify the option through which groups society influences the personality. For this, the most important is the study or observation of a certain specific life path of a person, those cells of the micro- and macroenvironment through which the path of its development passed.

Speaking in the traditional, though slightly less understandable language of social psychology for people who are not privy to psychological secrets, this is the problem of socialization. Despite the possibility of expressing sociological and general psychological principles in this problem, this is the most specific problem of the social psychology of the individual.

This is another socio-psychological problem, which is closely related to the study of personality. Again, in the traditional language of social psychology, this problem may be the problem of the so-called social attitude.

Therefore, even today it is necessary to recognize as "legitimate" among the problems of personality research not only the main problems - the problems of socialization and social attitudes - but, for example, also take into account the analysis of the so-called socio-psychological qualities of the personality.

The study of the socio-psychological problem of personality

In order to begin to overcome the dyadic scheme prevailing in psychology, one must first of all try to isolate that so-called "middle link" that indirectly interferes with the subject's connection with the real world. Therefore, it is necessary to start with a direct analysis of the activity, its general structure and the study of the state of the problem. However, it immediately becomes clear that the definition of activity, of course, is necessary, and includes the concept of its object, that activity, by its very nature, constitutes objectivity.

But the situation with the concept of the subject of activity is quite another matter. Initially, that is, even before some of the most important moments that form the very process of activity are clarified, the subject remains, as it were, outside the scope of his research. It acts or is expressed only as a prerequisite for activity, one of its conditions.

Only a further analysis of the movement of activity and the forms of mental reflection generated by it will show the need to introduce the concept of a specific, definite subject, of personality as an internal case of activity. The category of activity is now comprehended in its actual fullness, as embracing all both poles - both the pole of the object and the pole of the subject.

The study of personality as an object of activity and its product is a special, although not separate, psychological component of the problem. And this problem is one of the most difficult in social psychology. Serious difficulties arise in the way of research even when trying to find out what kind of reality is described in scientific psychology by the term "personality".

Personality itself is not only the subject of psychology, but also the subject of philosophical, socio-historical knowledge. Finally, at a certain stage of the level of analysis, the personality appears from the side of all its natural and biological features as an object directly of anthropology, somatology, and even human genetics. Intuitively, we can imagine, and are quite well aware of, what the differences here are. But nevertheless, in the psychological theories of personality, gross confusions and unjustified oppositions of these approaches to the study of personality constantly arise.

Only a few general provisions about the personality are perceived, with certain reservations, by all authors of psychological knowledge and provisions. One of them is that a person is a kind of unique unity, a kind of integrity. Another position lies in the sufficient recognition of the personality of the role of the highest integrating authority that controls mental processes (James called the personality the so-called "master" of mental functions, G. Allport - "the determinant of behavior and thoughts") Psychology of a developing personality. M., 1987-242 p.

However, attempts at any further interpretation of these provisions began to lead in psychology to a number of false and incorrect ideas, hypotheses that mystify the problem of personality.

First of all, it was an idea that contrasted "personal psychology" in psychology that studies specific determining processes, for example, mental functions. One of the attempts to somehow overcome this opposition was expressed in the requirement to make personality "the starting point for explaining any mental phenomena", "the center from which alone it is possible to solve all the problems of psychology", so that the need for a special section of psychology - the psychology of personality - disappears. . One can agree with this logical requirement - but only if one tries to see in it only the expression of a very general thought, which is somehow abstracted from the specific tasks and methods of psychological research.

Despite all the persuasiveness of the old psychological aphorism that "thinking is not thinking, but man", this requirement is methodologically naive for one simple reason. And this reason is that the subject, prior to the analytical study of his highest life values ​​and expressions, inevitably appears either as an abstract, "not filled" integrity, or as a metapsychological "I", which has dispositions or goals originally embedded in it. The latter, as we know from experience, is regulated by all personalistic theories. At the same time, it is very indifferent whether a person is considered from a biologizing or organic position, or as a purely spiritual principle, or, finally, as a kind of "psychophysiological neutrality."

However, this requirement of a "personal approach" in psychology is sometimes understood in such a sense that in the study of some individual psychological processes, the researcher's attention should, first of all, be concentrated on purely individual characteristics. But this does not solve the problem at all, since “before our eyes” we cannot judge which of these features characterize a person and which do not. And are they within the scope psychological characteristics personality, such as the speed of a person's reactions, the amount of his memory, or his ability to type on a typewriter? (See Appendix 1)

One way to get around this rather sensitive issue of psychological theory is to refer to the concept of personality as a person in his empirical totality. Thus, the psychology of personality turns into a special kind of anthropology, which includes all options - from the study of the characteristics of metabolic processes to the study of individual differences in individual mental functions.

Of course, representing an integrated approach to a person is not only possible, but even necessary. Moreover, a comprehensive study of a person, or rather the “human factor”, has now acquired paramount importance, but it is precisely this circumstance that makes the psychological problem of the individual as special. After all, no other structure of knowledge about a total object gives us so much of its real understanding, if it lacks only one of its essential specific characteristics. So it is with the study of man itself. A psychological study of him as a person cannot at all be compensated for by some complex of morphological, physiological, or separately functional-psychological data compared with each other. After all, dissolving in them, it ultimately turns out to be reduced either to biological, or to abstract sociological, or culturological ideas about a person.

The real "stumbling block" in the study of personality is still the question of comparing general and differential psychology. The majority of authors-psychologists choose the differential-psychological direction. This direction originates from Galton and Spearman; at first it was limited to the study of only mental faculties, but later it embraced the study of personality as a whole. Already Spearman began to extend the idea of ​​factors to the characteristics of the will and affectivity, highlighting, along with the general factor "g", the factor "s". Further steps were taken by the research psychologist Cattell, who, in turn, proposed a multidimensional and hierarchical model of personality factors, among which are considered such as emotional stability, expansiveness, self-confidence.

The method of research that is being developed in this direction is carried out, as is known, in the study of statistical relationships between individual personality traits, such as, for example, its properties, abilities or behaviors, revealed by testing them. The established correlations between them serve as a kind of basis for deriving hypothetical factors and the so-called "superfactors" that determine these relationships.

Such, for example, are the factors of introversion and neuroticism, which, according to Eysenck, form the top of the factorial hierarchical structure, which he identifies with the psychological type of personality.

So, behind the concept of personality is a certain "general", integral, which is distinguished through certain procedures of statistical processing of quantitatively expressed features, selected according to the same statistical criteria. Therefore, despite the fact that empirical data lie on the basis of the characterization of this "general", it still remains, in its essence, metapsychological, not in need of psychological explanation and deep understanding. If attempts to explain it begin to be made, then they go along the line of searching for the corresponding morphophysiological correlates (types of higher nervous activity Pavlov, Kretschmer-Sheldon constitutions, Eysenck variables), which brings back to organic theories.

The empiricism characteristic of this trend, as a rule, cannot give scientists more. The study of correlations and factor analysis often deal only with variations in characteristics, which are distinguished only insofar as they are expressed in individual or group differences accessible to measurement. Relevant quantitative data: whether they relate to the speed of reaction, to the structure of the skeleton, to the features of the vegetative sphere, or to the nature of the images produced by the subjects when looking at ink spots - all these options are processed completely without regard to the question of how the measured features are related to some features more or less characterizing the human personality.

The above, of course, does not mean at all that the use of this method of correlations in personality psychology is generally impossible. Here we are talking about a slightly different case. It is about the fact that the method of correlation of an empirical set of individual properties in itself is a set still insufficient for the psychological disclosure of personality, because the isolation and special expression of these properties needs clear grounds that cannot be somehow extracted from them themselves.

The task of finding these very foundations is generated when we begin to abandon the understanding of personality as a kind of integrity, unity, covering the totality of all the characteristics of a person - "from political views to the digestion of food." From the so-called fact of the multiplicity of properties and characteristics of a person, it should not at all be determined that the psychological theory of personality must strive precisely for their global coverage. This happens because a person as an empirical integrity expresses his properties in all forms of interaction in which he is involved in one way or another. For example, when a person falls from the window of a multi-storey building, he will certainly discover the properties inherent in him precisely as a physical body that has mass, volume and other parameters. It is possible that, having hit the pavement, he will receive numerous injuries or even die; and in this assumption its properties will also appear, namely, the properties of its morphology. But none of the psychologists, however, would even think of including such properties in the characterization of his personality, no matter how statistically reliable the connections between body weight or individual features skeleton and, say, memory for numbers.

When in everyday life we ​​begin to give any characteristic of a person’s personality, we without much hesitation include such “general” features in it, such as, for example, willpower (“strong personality”, “weak person”); general attitude towards people ("benevolent", "indifferent") and so on. But usually we do not even think of including such features as, for example, the shape of the eyes or the ability to count on the accounts. When we do this, we do not use any reasonable criterion for distinguishing between "personal" and "non-personal" features.

If we follow the path of a kind of search and comparison of individual psychological and other features, then such a criterion cannot be found in any criteria at all. The thing is that the same features of a person can stand in a different relationship directly to his personality. In one version of the characteristic, they act as indifferent, in the other, the same features are essentially included in its characteristic, perhaps even as the main parameters. The latter circumstance makes it especially obvious that, due to widely held views, no empirical differential research is able to provide a solution to any psychological problem of personality. On the contrary, this differential study itself is possible only on the basis of a general psychological theory of personality. In fact, this is exactly what happens: behind any differential psychological study of a certain person - testological (taking place in the form of training, test) or clinical - there always lies an explicitly or implicitly expressed, general theoretical concept.

The theory of determining two factors of personality formation in social psychology.

Despite the apparent diversity, diversity and even a certain mutual intransigence of modern psychological theories of personality, most of them retain feature for pre-Marxist and extra-Marxist psychology - a dyadic scheme of analysis, the failure of which was discussed earlier. Now this scheme appears, as it were, in a new guise: in the genus of the so-called "theory of two factors in the formation of personality", heredity and environment. Whatever feature, characteristic feature of a person we take, it is explained according to this theory. On the one hand, the influence of heredity, which are inherent in the genotype by instincts, abilities or some other categories, and on the other hand, the influence and influence of the external environment on it (natural and social - language, culture, learning, etc.). From the point of view of common sense and a sober mind, another explanation, in fact, is impossible, and it is impossible to imagine. However, more ordinary common sense, according to the witty remark of the psychologist-researcher Engels, "the respectable companion in household life experiences the most amazing adventures as soon as he ventures into the open space of research."

The seeming, at first glance, acute insurmountability of the theory of two factors leads to disputes, mainly around the question of the importance of each of these factors. In this discussion, some insist that the main determinant of personality is heredity and that the external environment, social influences only determine the possibilities and forms of manifestation of the desired program with which a person is born. Others in this dispute deduce key features personality traits directly from features social environment, from the so-called "socio-cultural matrices". However, for all their differences in ideological and political sense expressed views, all of them in one way or another retain the position of a dual determination of personality, because simply ignoring one of the factors in question would mean going against the empirically provable impact of both, and this is fraught.

Views on some correlations of biological and social factors as on the simplicity of their crossing or dividing the human psyche into coexisting endosphere and exosphere have already given way to more and more complex ideas. They arise for the most part in connection with the movement of analysis. It seemed to turn the other way around: the main problem was the inner essence of the personality itself, which form its levels, their correlations.

Thus, in particular, the idea of ​​the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious that characterizes the personality, developed by the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud, begins to emerge. The "libido" expressed by him is not only a bioenergetic source of activity, but also a special essence in the personality - "it" (id), which in turn opposes "I" (ego) and "super-ego" (super-ego) . And the genetic and functional connections between these entities, instances, carried out through special mechanisms (repression, censorship, symbolization, sublimation), and create the forming structure of the personality.

In this case, there is absolutely no need to go into any criticism of Freudianism, the views of such psychologists as Adler, Jung and their modern successors. After all, it is quite clear that their views not only do not overcome, but, on the contrary, even sharpen this theory of two factors, turning the very idea of ​​their convergence in the sense of V. Stern or D. Dewey into the idea of ​​a kind of confrontation between them.

There was also another direction parallel to the direction of convergence. It developed an approach to the individual from the other side of its internal implementation, and the approach is presented by some cultural and anthropological concepts. The starting points for them were ethnological data, which showed that the existing psychological characteristics are determined by rather sharp differences not in human nature, but in human culture. This, accordingly, system and structure of personality is here nothing else than an individualized system of culture, in which a person is included in the process of his direct "acculturization".

At the same time, it must be said that many observations are being made in this regard, starting with the well-known works of M. Mead, which showed, for example, that even such a stable phenomenon as a psychological crisis in adolescence is not explained by the onset of puberty, because in some cultures this crisis does not exist at all. Arguments are also drawn from some surveys and tests of individuals who are suddenly transferred to a new cultural environment, and, finally, from experimental studies of such special phenomena as the influence of objects prevailing in a given culture.

Conclusion

So, I tried to understand and explore the personality as a psychological neoplasm, which is formed directly in the life relations of the individual, as a result of a certain transformation of his activity.

But for this it is necessary from the very threshold to discard ideas and initial assumptions about the personality as a product of the combined influence of different forces, one of which is hidden, like a cat in a poke, "behind the surface of the skin" of a person, and the other lies completely, it would seem, in another, in the external environment. And this always happens, no matter how we interpret this force - as the force of the impact of stimulus situations, cultural matrices or social "expectations".

After all, none of these developments is directly derived from the spectrum, which is only its necessary prerequisites, no matter how detailed we describe them. The Marxist dialectical method itself requires an approach such that it is necessary to go further and investigate development as a process of so-called "self-movement", that is, to investigate its internal driving relations, contradictions and mutual transitions, so that its premises of position appear both in it his own moments.

Such an approach necessarily leads to a proposition about the socio-historical essence of personality.

This indisputable position indicates only the different systemic qualities displayed by a person, and still does not say anything about the essence of his personality, about what generates it. And this is precisely the scientific task.

Also, this assumption makes it possible to understand a certain meaning that a person first arises, is born precisely in such a society, that a person enters, wedged into history (as a child enters into life) only as an individual endowed with certain specific natural properties and abilities, and that he becomes a personality only in the process of socialization, as a subject of social relations.

In other words, social psychology makes it clear that, unlike the individual, a person's personality is by no means a pre-existing premise in relation to his activity, like his consciousness, it is generated by it.

Both research and study of the process of birth and transformation, differentiation of a person's personality in his activity, taking place in specific social conditions of the external environment and society, is the key to its truly scientific psychological understanding.

Glossary

List of sources used

psychology social personality anthropological

1. Ananiev B.G. Man as an object of knowledge. L., 1968.-214 p. [Electronic resource]

2. Asmolov A.G. Personality as a subject of psychological analysis. M., 1988 - 124 p.

3. Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. M., 1967-243s.

4. Kovalev A.G. Psychology of Personality. M., 1970-211 p.

5. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975-186 p.

6. Parygin B.Ya. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. M., 1971.

7. Platonov K.K. Socio-psychological aspect of the problem of personality in the history of Soviet psychology // Social psychology of personality. M., 1979-86 p.

8. Bodalev A.A. Psychology of interpersonal relations//Questions of psychology. 1993. No. 2. S.86-91.

9. Bozhovich L.I. Problems of personality formation. M.; Voronezh, 1995

10. Khjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality. St. Petersburg, 1997.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The specificity of the study of personality and its socio-psychological qualities in social psychology. Analysis of the problems of personality socialization and its socio-psychological competence. The study of the internal inconsistency of the personality and ways to overcome it.

term paper, added 12/20/2015


The idea of ​​personality and its components within the framework of socio-psychological knowledge, the specificity of socio-psychological issues. The study of personality as a subject of activity and its product, features of cultural and anthropological interpretation.

term paper, added 02/07/2011


The study of personality in social psychology. Formation and development of psychological and sociological concepts of personality. The main contradictions of the social psychology of personality. Mechanisms of social regulation of personality behavior, institutions of socialization.

term paper, added 05/15/2015


Psychodynamic direction in the social psychology of personality. Consideration of the mechanisms of mental protection. The main position of the theory of individual psychology A. Adler. Complex, systemic, subjective and activity approaches to the study of personality.

term paper, added 02/26/2012


The concept of personality in social psychology. Problems and methods of socio-psychological research of personality. The dependence of the child's personal self-esteem on his social status. Methodology for studying self-assessment of personality traits T. Dembo - S. Rubinshtein.

term paper, added 06/15/2017


Subjective psychological relationship of the individual to the world around him. The essence of the concept of "personality" in social psychology. Its structure and substructures. Views on the socio-psychological problems of the individual among representatives of different schools and trends.

abstract, added 04/24/2014


Features of the preparation of the experiment in practical psychology. Using the methodology of questioning and testing, the method of observation. Characteristics and specificity of methods for diagnosing personality psychology used in the practice of social psychology.

test, added 12/25/2011


Stages of personality formation as a conscious subject. Formation of relationships between individuals and other people. The concept of I in psychology, the characteristics and function of self-consciousness in the formation of personality. Tasks and role of psychology in human life.

test, added 06/17/2012


History of the development of social psychology in the USSR. Problems of social psychology. The development of socio-psychological thought in late XIX- early XX centuries. Formation and development of social psychology. The subject of genetic (age) social psychology.

abstract, added 06/07/2012


Influence of changes in the social situation on the process of formation of psychology in Russia. The main stages and the role of the intelligentsia in the development of psychology. Psychological schools in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The specificity of the approach to the problem of personality in Russian psychology.

Social psychology Melnikova Nadezhda Anatolyevna

3. The concept and structure of personality

Personality- this is a conscious and active person who has the opportunity to choose one or another way of life.

Socio-psychological characteristics of personality

In the process of interaction and communication, personalities mutually influence each other, as a result of which a commonality in views, social attitudes and other types of relationships is formed.

A personality is a specific person who is a representative of a certain state, society and group, aware of his attitude to the people around him and social reality, included in all relations of this reality, engaged in a peculiar type of activity and endowed with specific individual and socio-psychological characteristics.

The development of personality is determined by various factors: the peculiarity of the physiology of higher nervous activity, anatomical and physiological features, environment and society, field of activity.

The most important factors in the formation of personality are the natural and geographical environment and society.

macro environment society in the aggregate of all its manifestations. Microenvironment- group, microgroup, family, etc.

Socially useful activity forms the most important qualities of a person.

The socio-psychological characteristics of a person have an internal structure that includes certain aspects.

Psychological side personality reflects the specifics of the functioning of its mental processes.

mental processes- mental phenomena that provide the primary reflection and awareness of the personality of the influences of the surrounding reality.

Worldview side reflects its socially significant qualities, allowing it to occupy a worthy place in society.

Socio-psychological side reflects the basic qualities and characteristics that allow an individual to play certain roles in society.

The concept of the layered structure of the personality (I. Hoffman, D. Brown, etc.) has become widespread: the outer layer is ideals, the inner layer is instinctive drives. L. Klages suggested system:

1) matter;

2) structure;

3) driving forces.

L. Rubinstein considers personality in three planes, such as:

2) abilities;

3) temperament and character.

After J. Mead Interactionists distinguish three main components in the structure of personality: I, me, self.

Their interpretation:

1) I(literally - "I") - this is an impulsive, active, creative, driving principle of the personality;

2)me(literally - "me", that is, how others should see me) - this is a reflexive normative "I";

3) self("selfhood" of a person, personality, personal "I") - a combination of impulsive and reflexive "I", their active interaction.