Social behavior: essence, main features, types. Social behavior

Social behavior - the totality of actions and actions of individuals and their groups, their specific direction and sequence, affecting the interests of other individuals and communities. Behavior reveals the social qualities of a person, the characteristics of his upbringing, cultural level, temperament, his needs, and beliefs. It is where his attitude towards the surrounding natural and social reality, towards other people and towards himself is formed and realized. In sociology, it is customary to distinguish two forms of behavior - normative and non-normative. Social behavior is regulated by a system of rules, norms and sanctions, united by the process of social control.

Developing as a person, a person also changes the forms of his behavior. Therefore, it is an indicator of individual and personal development.

There is a wide variety of definitions of this term. Thus, according to K. Levin, it is a function of the individual in relation to his social environment. M.A. Robert and F. Tilman offer a target approach in defining this concept: “an individual’s behavior is a reaction aimed at changing the situation in order to satisfy his needs.” R.N. Harré introduces a normative connotation into the interpretation of the term: “behavior is a sequence of episodes, complete fragments, regulated certain rules and plans." The interactionist concept characterizes social behavior as an adaptation to the conditions of the social environment. Behavior is manifested through participation in a large collective process in which a person is involved. Moreover, both the personality itself and its behavior are a product of interaction with society.

What actions of an individual can be classified as social behavior?

Any actions performed by a person can have two sides: one and the same action can be both an act and an operation. Take, for example, the process of eating food. The very sequence of actions performed in this case reflects the purely technical side of the matter. Another question is how a person does it. There is already an element of behavior here. This manifests itself mainly when other persons are involved in the process. Even simple automatic actions under these conditions become socially oriented.

The purpose of most everyday actions performed by a person is to satisfy simple physiological needs. EAT. Penkov distinguishes three types of individual actions:

  • a) actions-operations;
  • b) purely individual actions, not socially oriented;
  • c) social behavior itself, that is, a system of actions - actions, regulated by the system social norms. Social behavior is considered by the author as “such an action - an act that contains the moment of the individual’s relationship to the interests of the community.” Indeed, a person does not dare to carry out some actions at all if someone is nearby (for example, undressing or picking his nose). The mere presence of other persons, therefore, significantly changes the nature of a person's actions, turning them into social behavior.

According to V. Vichev, social behavior as a whole is a network of actions that differ from ordinary actions not only in their orientation toward other persons, but also in the presence of subjective factors, or motives, at their basis. In this case, the motive is considered as a conscious need, as goal setting and the choice of appropriate tactics for future action. Social behavior therefore appears to be a system of motivated actions that involve not just the satisfaction of a certain need, but also a certain moral goal, not always associated with the usefulness of the action performed for the individual himself.

Of course, there is a difference between the behavior of an individual in small and in large groups.

However, in both cases, the actions performed by the individual depend on the expected reactions. In addition, each element of behavior is individual and unique.

Behavior is characterized by social competence, which demonstrates how well the subject controls the situation, understands the essence of what is happening, knows the “rules of the game,” feels social differences, distances, boundaries.

In the social behavior of a subject, four levels can be distinguished:

  • 1) the subject’s reaction to the current situation or events;
  • 2) habitual actions or deeds that express the subject’s stable attitude towards other subjects;
  • 3) a purposeful sequence of social actions and behaviors to achieve more distant goals by the subject;
  • 4) implementation of strategic life goals.

Summarizing all of the above, we can define social behavior as a system of individually formed reactions to the influence of the surrounding social environment, which determine the method of adaptation to it. Social behavior reveals preferences, motives, attitudes, capabilities and abilities of acting (interacting) social subjects (individual and collective level).

The social behavior of an individual (group) may depend on many factors, including: the individual emotional and psychological qualities of the subject and the subject’s personal (group) interest in current events.

Main types of social behavior:

  • 1. Adequate and inappropriate behavior. Adequate behavior - consistent with the requirements of the situation and people's expectations. As a type of social behavior, adequate behavior within oneself is divided into:
    • a) conformal behavior;
    • b) responsible behavior;
    • c) helping behavior;
    • d) correct behavior;
    • e) syntonic behavior.

Types of inappropriate behavior:

  • a) victim behavior;
  • b) deviant behavior;
  • c) delinquent behavior;
  • d) demonstrative behavior;
  • e) conflict behavior;
  • e) erroneous behavior.
  • 2. Right and wrong.

Correct - corresponding to accepted norms and rules, erroneous - not corresponding to norms and rules due to accidental error or ignorance.

3. Syntonic and conflict behavior.

social action behavior deviance

Social action is “an action of a person (regardless of whether it is external or internal, reduced to non-interference or patient acceptance), which, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, correlates with the action of other people or is oriented towards it.” The concept of social action was first introduced into scientific circulation by the German sociologist Max Weber. Max Weber developed the first classification of types of social action, based on the degree of rationality of individuals' behavior. So, they were allocated:

  • · purposeful,
  • · value-rational,
  • · traditional,
  • · affective.

For T. Parsons, the problems of social action are associated with the identification of the following features:

  • · normativity (depends on generally accepted values ​​and norms).
  • · voluntariness (that is, connection with the will of the subject, ensuring some independence from the environment)
  • · presence of sign regulation mechanisms.

Any social action is a system in which the following elements can be distinguished:

It is necessary to distinguish between the following two concepts: “behavior” and “action”. If behavior is the body’s response to internal or external stimuli (it can be reflexive, unconscious or intentional, conscious), then action is only some types of behavior. Social actions are always intentional sets of actions. They are associated with the choice of means and are aimed at achieving a specific goal - changing the behavior, attitudes or opinions of other individuals or groups, which would satisfy certain needs and interests of those influencing. Therefore, the final success largely depends on the correct choice of means and method of action. Social action, like any other behavior, can be (according to Weber):

  • 1. goal-oriented, if it is based on the expectation of a certain behavior of objects in the external world and other people and the use of this expectation as “conditions” or “means” to achieve one’s rationally set and thoughtful goal,
  • 2. value-rational, based on faith in the unconditional - aesthetic, religious or any other - self-sufficient value of a certain behavior as such, regardless of what it leads to;
  • 3. affective, primarily emotional, that is, caused by affects or emotional state individual;
  • 4. traditional; that is, based on long-term habit.

Wherein:

  • 1. Purely traditional action, like purely reactive imitation, is on the very border, and often even beyond the limit, of what can be called “meaningfully” oriented action. After all, often this is only an automatic reaction to habitual irritation in the direction of a once learned attitude. Much of the habitual everyday behavior of people is close this type, which occupies a certain place in the systematization of behavior not only as a borderline case, but also because loyalty to a habit can be realized here in different ways and in varying degrees(more on this below). In some cases, this type approaches type No. 2.
  • 2. Purely affective action is also on the border and often beyond the limit of what is “meaningful”, consciously oriented; it may be an unimpeded response to a completely unusual stimulus. If an action driven by affect finds expression in conscious emotional release, we speak of sublimation. In this case, this type is almost always close to “value rationalization”, or to goal-directed behavior, or to both.
  • 3. The value-rational orientation of action differs from affective behavior in the conscious determination of its orientation and consistently planned orientation towards it. Their common property is that the meaning for them is not in achieving any external goal, but in behavior itself, which is definite in nature. An individual acts under the influence of affect if he seeks to immediately satisfy his need for revenge, pleasure, devotion, blissful contemplation, or to relieve the tension of any other affects, no matter how base or refined they may be. A purely value-rational act is one who, regardless of possible consequences, follows his beliefs about duty, dignity, beauty, religious destiny, piety or the importance of a “subject” of any kind. A value-rational action (within the framework of our terminology) is always subordinated to “commandments” or “demands”, in obedience to which a given individual sees his duty. Only to the extent that human action is oriented towards them - which is quite rare and to a very varying, mostly very insignificant extent - can we talk about value-rational action. As will become clear from the further presentation, the significance of the latter is so serious that it allows us to distinguish it into a special type of action, although no attempt is made here to give an exhaustive classification of the types of human action in any sense.
  • 4. The individual whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and side results of his actions acts purposefully, who rationally considers the relationship of the means to the goal and side results and, finally, the relationship of various possible goals to each other, that is, he acts, in any case, not affective (primarily not emotional) and not traditional. The choice between competing and colliding goals and consequences can, in turn, be value-rationally oriented - then behavior is goal-oriented only by its means. The individual can also include competing and clashing goals - without a value-rational orientation on "commandments" and "demands" - simply as given subjective needs on a scale according to the degree of their consciously weighed necessity, and then orient his behavior in such a way that these needs, as far as possible satisfied in in the prescribed manner(the principle of “marginal utility”). The value-rational orientation of action can, therefore, be in different relationships with the goal-rational orientation. From a goal-rational point of view, value rationality is always irrational, and the more irrational, the more it absolutizes the value on which behavior is oriented, because the less it takes into account the consequences of the actions performed, the more unconditional for it is the self-sufficient value of behavior as such (purity of belief. beauty, absolute goodness, absolute fulfillment of one's duty). However, the absolute purposeful rationality of action is also essentially only a borderline case.
  • 5. Action, especially social action, is very rarely focused only on one or another type of rationality. This classification itself, of course, does not exhaust the types of action orientations; they are conceptually pure types created for sociological research, to which real behavior more or less approximates or - which is much more common - of which it consists. For us, only the result of the study can serve as proof of their feasibility.

Social action is a certain system of actions, means and methods, using which an individual or social group seeks to change the behavior, views or opinions of other individuals or groups. The basis of social action is contacts; without them, the desire to provoke certain reactions of an individual or group or change their behavior cannot arise. So, social actions are those actions whose goal is to cause a change in the behavior, attitudes and aspirations of individuals or communities. M. Weber already emphasized that not all people’s actions represent social actions, since achieving not every goal involves focusing on other people. On this occasion, in his work “Basic sociological concepts" he wrote: "Social action (including non-interference or patient acceptance) can be oriented towards the past, present or expected future behavior of others. It can be revenge for past grievances, protection from danger in the present, or measures to protect against impending danger in the future. “Others” can be individuals, acquaintances, or an indefinite number of completely strangers" Thus, according to M. Weber, social action is a synthesis of two necessary points:

  • · subjective motivation for the action of an individual or group;
  • · orientation to the behavior (past, present or expected future) of others.

Any social action is a system in which the following elements can be distinguished:

  • · subject of action, influencing individual or community of people;
  • · the object of the action, the individual or community at whom the action is directed;
  • · means (instruments of action) and methods of action with the help of which the necessary change is carried out;
  • · the result of an action is the response of the individual or community at whom the action was directed.

Social action according to Habermas. Habermas was developing his own theory of communicative action, which is in many ways a continuation of the work of Max Weber. As part of his theory, Habermas identified 4 ideal types of social action:

  • 1. Strategic Action- an action aimed at achieving selfish goals, taking into account the behavior of one or more individuals. This action is partially rational, because a person chooses the most effective way to achieve his own goal. People in this case are viewed as means or obstacles to achieving selfish goals.
  • 2. Regulatory action- This is mutually beneficial behavior based on the norms and values ​​that are shared in a given group. Participants in this action can pursue their selfish goals, but this will be possible only if they comply with accepted standards. The rationality of this action lies in the fact that people need to calculate the objective consequences of their actions from the point of view of accepted norms.
  • 3. Dramatic action- the action of creating an image, which is based on a person’s self-expression. In other words, it is the act of presenting oneself to others. A person in this action reveals his individuality.
  • 4. Communicative action- action in agreement with other participants to achieve a common goal. In the types of action described above, subjects can move towards a common goal, but the pursuit of a common goal is only a means to achieve their individual, egoistic goals. In the case of communicative action, the basis is precisely the achievement of a common goal, while the achievement of egoistic goals in this case fades into the background.

Social behavior(English) Social behavior) - behavior expressed in the totality of actions and actions of an individual or group in society and depending on socio-economic factors and prevailing norms.

The study of human social behavior is carried out by such a relatively young scientific discipline as social psychology. Social behavior is also inherent in many social animals (for example, primates, bees), which are studied by ethologists, zoopsychologists and other specialists. Social behavior in animals is defined by Nicholas Tinbergen as the interaction between individuals of the same species, specifically emphasizing that not all group activity will be social. So, for example, the flight of animals from a forest fire is not “social behavior”, it is a reaction caused by the instinct of self-preservation.

The biological value of the social behavior of animals is that it allows them to solve adaptive problems that are impossible for an individual individual.

Social behavior is also defined as a qualitative characteristic of social action and interaction. For example, 450 deputies simultaneously participate in work State Duma, i.e., they are engaged in political activities. However, the behavior of these political subjects is ambiguous: some are dozing in their parliamentary chairs, others are shouting something from their seats, others are rushing to the microphone installed on the podium, and others are starting a fight with their colleagues.

Participants in mass events also behave differently. Thus, some demonstrators peacefully march along the declared route, others seek to organize unrest, and others provoke bloody clashes. All these differences in the actions of subjects of social interaction fall under the definition of “social behavior”. In other words, all the described actors are engaged in political activity or participate in a mass event, but their behavior is different. Consequently, social behavior is the way a social actor manifests his preferences, motives, attitudes, capabilities and abilities in social action or interaction.

The social behavior of an individual (group) can depend on many factors. Let's list some of them:

  • · individual emotional and psychological qualities of the subject of social interaction. For example, the behavior of V.V. Zhirinovsky is characterized by emotional intensity, unpredictability, shockingness; V.V. Putin - prudence, balance in words and actions, external calm;
  • · personal (group) interest of the subject in current events. For example, a deputy intensively lobbies for a bill that interests him, although he is quite passive when discussing other issues;
  • · adaptive behavior, i.e. behavior associated with the need to adapt to objective living conditions. For example, it is difficult to imagine a daredevil who, in a crowd glorifying a political leader (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong), would shout slogans denouncing this leader;
  • · situational behavior, i.e. behavior determined by actually existing conditions, when a social subject in his actions is forced to take into account the emerging situation;
  • behavior based on moral principles and moral values actor. For example, Jan Hus, J. Bruno and many other great thinkers could not give up their principles and became victims of the Inquisition;
  • · the actor’s competence in a particular political situation or political action. The essence of “competence” is how well the subject controls the situation, understands the essence of what is happening, knows the “rules of the game” and is able to use them adequately; behavior caused by various types of manipulation. For example, through lies, deception, and populist promises, people are forced to behave in one way or another. Thus, a presidential candidate (governors, deputies) in his election program promises, if elected, to fulfill certain orders of his voters, but, having become president, he does not even think of fulfilling his promise;
  • · violent coercion to a certain type of behavior. Such methods of influencing behavior are usually characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. For example, under the communist regime in the USSR, people were forced to participate in mass political actions (subbotniks, rallies, elections, demonstrations) and at the same time behave in a certain way.

The nature of behavior is influenced by the motivation and degree of involvement of the actor in a particular event or process. For example, for some, participation in political events is a random episode, for others, politics is a profession, for others it is a calling and the meaning of life, for others it is a way to earn a living. Mass behavior can be determined by the socio-psychological properties of the crowd, when individual motivation is suppressed and dissolved in the not entirely conscious (sometimes spontaneous) actions of the crowd.

Four levels of a subject’s social behavior can be distinguished:

  • 1) the subject’s reaction to the current situation, to certain successive events;
  • 2) habitual actions or actions, acting as elements of behavior in which the subject’s stable attitude towards other subjects is expressed;
  • 3) a purposeful sequence of social actions and actions in one or another sphere of life in order for the subject to achieve more distant goals (for example, entering a university, obtaining a profession, creating and settling a family, etc.);
  • 4) implementation of strategic life goals.

The concept of “behavior” came to sociology from psychology. The meaning of the term “behavior” is different, different from the meaning of such traditional philosophical concepts as action and activity. If action is understood as a rationally justified act that has a clear goal, strategy, and is carried out using specific conscious methods and means, then behavior is solely the reaction of a living being to external and internal changes. It is this reaction that can be both conscious and unconscious. Thus, purely emotional reactions - laughter, crying - will also be behavior.

Social behavior -϶ᴛᴏ a set of human behavioral processes associated with the satisfaction of physical and social needs and arising as a reaction to the surrounding social environment. The subject of social behavior can be an individual or a group.

If we abstract from purely psychological factors and think at the social level, then the behavior of an individual is determined primarily by socialization. The minimum of innate instincts that a person possesses as a biological being is the same for all people. Behavioral differences depend on qualities acquired during the process of socialization and, to some extent, on congenital and acquired psychological individual characteristics.

Except for the above, the social behavior of individuals is regulated by the social structure, in particular the role structure of society.

Social norm of behavior— ϶ᴛᴏ such behavior which completely conforms to status expectations. Thanks to the existence of status expectations, society can predict the actions of an individual in advance with sufficient probability, and the individual himself can coordinate this behavior with the ideal model or model accepted by society. Social behavior that meets status expectations is defined by the American sociologist R. Linton as social role. It is this interpretation of social behavior that is closest to functionalism, since it explains behavior as a phenomenon determined by social structure. R. Merton introduced the category of “role complex” - a system of role expectations determined by a given status, as well as the concept of role conflict that arises when the role expectations of the statuses occupied by a subject are incompatible and cannot be realized in any single socially acceptable behavior.

The functionalist understanding of social behavior was subjected to fierce criticism from, first of all, representatives of social behaviorism, who believed that it was necessary to build the study of behavioral processes on the basis of the achievements of modern psychology. The extent to which the psychological aspects were really overlooked by the role interpretation of the command follows from the fact that N. Cameron tried to substantiate the idea of ​​the role determination of mental disorders, believing that mental illness is an incorrect performance of their social roles and the result of the patient’s inability to perform them as ϶ᴛᴏ is needed by society. Behaviorists argued that in the time of E. Durkheim, the successes of psychology were insignificant and therefore the functionality of the expiring paradigm met the requirements of the time, but in the 20th century, when psychology reached a high level of development, its data cannot be ignored when considering human behavior.

Forms of human social behavior

People behave differently in one or another social situation, in one or another social environment. For example, some demonstrators peacefully march along the declared route, others seek to organize unrest, and still others provoke mass clashes. These various actions of social interaction actors can be defined as social behavior. Hence, social behavior -϶ᴛᴏ the form and method of manifestation by social actors of their preferences and attitudes, capabilities and abilities in social action or interaction. Therefore, social behavior can be considered as a qualitative characteristic of social action and interaction.

In sociology, social behavior is interpreted as: o behavior expressed in the totality of actions and actions of an individual or group in society and depending on socio-economic factors and prevailing norms; o external manifestation of activity, a form of transformation of activity into real actions in relation to socially significant objects; o a person’s adaptation to the social conditions of his existence.

To achieve life goals and when implementing individual tasks, a person can use two types of social behavior - natural and ritual, the differences between which are fundamental.

"Natural" behavior, individually significant and egocentric, is always aimed at achieving individual goals and is adequate to these goals. Therefore, the individual does not face the question of the goals and means of social behavior: the goal can and should be achieved by any means. The “natural” behavior of an individual is not socially regulated, therefore it is traditionally immoral or “unceremonious.” Such social behavior is “natural”, natural in nature, since it is aimed at ensuring organic needs. In society, “natural” egocentric behavior is “forbidden”, therefore it is always based on social conventions and mutual concessions on the part of all individuals.

Ritual behavior(“ceremonious”) - individually unnatural behavior; It is thanks to this behavior that society exists and reproduces. Ritual in all its variety of forms - from dataket to ceremony - permeates all social life so deeply that people do not notice that they live in a field of ritual interactions. Ritual social behavior will be a means of ensuring the stability of the social system, and the individual who implements various forms of such behavior participates in ensuring the social stability of social structures and interactions. Thanks to ritual behavior, a person achieves social well-being, constantly being convinced of the inviolability of his social status and maintaining the usual set of social roles.

Society is interested in ensuring that the social behavior of individuals is of a ritual nature, but society cannot abolish “natural” egocentric social behavior, which, being adequate in goals and unscrupulous in means, always turns out to be more beneficial for the individual than “ritual” behavior. Therefore, society strives to transform forms of “natural” social behavior into various forms of ritual social behavior, incl. through socialization mechanisms using social support, control and punishment.

Such forms of social behavior as:

  • cooperative behavior, which includes all forms of altruistic behavior - helping each other during natural disasters and technological disasters, helping young children and the elderly, helping subsequent generations through the transfer of knowledge and experience;
  • parental behavior - the behavior of parents towards their offspring.

Aggressive behavior is presented in all its manifestations, both group and individual - from verbal insults of another person to mass extermination during wars.

Human Behavior Concepts

Human behavior is studied in many areas of psychology - in behaviorism, psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology, etc. Note that the term “behavior” is one of the key ones in existential philosophy and is used in the study of a person’s relationship to the world. The methodological capabilities of this concept are due to the fact that it allows us to identify unconscious stable structures of personality or human existence in the world. Among the psychological concepts of human behavior that have had a great influence on sociology and social psychology, we should mention, first of all, the psychoanalytic directions developed by 3. Freud, C. G. Jung, A. Adler.

Freud's ideas are based on the fact that an individual’s behavior is formed as a result of a complex interaction between the levels of his personality. Freud identifies three such levels: the lowest level is formed by unconscious impulses and drives determined by innate biological needs and complexes formed under the influence of the individual history of the subject. Freud calls this level It is important to understand - it (Id), in order to show its separation from the conscious self of the individual, which forms the second level of his psyche. The conscious self contains rational goal setting and responsibility for actions. Highest level constitutes the Super-ego - what we would call the result of socialization. This is a set of social norms and values ​​internalized by the individual, exerting internal pressure on him in order to displace from consciousness unwanted (forbidden) impulses and drives for society and prevent them from being realized. According to Freud, the personality of any person is an ongoing struggle. It is important to understand that it is also the Super-Ego, which undermines the psyche and leads to neuroses. Individual behavior is entirely conditioned by this struggle and is completely explained by it, since it represents only its symbolic reflection. Such symbols can be dream images, slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue, obsessive states and fears.

Concept of C. G. Jung expands and modifies Freud's teachings, including in the sphere of the unconscious not only individual complexes and drives, but also the collective unconscious - the level of key images - archetypes - common to all people and nations. Archetypes record archaic fears and value concepts, the interaction of which determines the behavior and attitude of an individual. Archetypal images appear in the basic narratives - folk tales and legends, mythology, epic - of historically specific societies. The social regulatory role of such narratives in traditional societies is very great. It is worth noting that they contain ideal models of behavior that form role expectations. For example, a male warrior should behave like Achilles or Hector, a wife like Penelope, etc. Regular recitations (ritual reproductions) of archetytic narratives constantly remind members of society of these ideal models of behavior.

Adler's psychoanalytic concept It is based on an unconscious will to power, which, in his opinion, will be an innate personality structure and determines behavior.
It is worth noting that it is especially strong among those who, for one reason or another, suffer from an inferiority complex. In an effort to compensate for this inferiority, they are able to achieve great success.

Further splitting of the psychoanalytic direction led to the emergence of many schools, disciplinary terms occupying a borderline position between psychology, social philosophy, and sociology. Let us dwell in detail on the work of E. Fromm.

Fromm's positions - a representative of neo-Freudianism in psychology and the Frankfurt School in sociology - can be more accurately defined as Freilo-Marxism, since along with the influence of Freud he was no less strongly influenced social philosophy Marx. The uniqueness of neo-Freudianism in comparison with orthodox Freudianism is due to the fact that, strictly speaking, neo-Freudianism is rather sociology, while Freud, of course, will be a pure psychologist. If Freud explains the behavior of an individual by complexes and impulses hidden in the individual unconscious, in short, by internal biopsychic factors, then for Fromm and Freilo-Marxism in general, the behavior of an individual is determined by the surrounding social environment. In this way, he is similar to Marx, who explained the social behavior of individuals ultimately by their class origin. It is important to note that, however, with all this, Fromm strives to find a place for the psychological in social processes. According to the Freudian tradition, turning to the unconscious, he introduces the term “social unconscious,” meaning mental experience that is common to all members of a given society, but for most of them does not reach the level of consciousness, because it is displaced by a special social mechanism of its nature, belonging not to the individual, but to society. Thanks to this mechanism of repression, society maintains a stable existence. The mechanism of social repression contains language, the logic of everyday thinking, a system of social prohibitions and taboos. The structures of language and thinking are formed under the influence of society and act as a weapon of social pressure on the individual’s psyche. For example, coarse, anti-aesthetic, ridiculous abbreviations and abbreviations of “newspeak” from Orwell’s dystopia actively distort the consciousness of the people who use them. To one degree or another, the monstrous logic of formulas like: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most democratic form authorities".

The main component of the mechanism of social repression is social taboos, which act like Freudian censorship. That in the social experience of individuals that threatens the preservation of the existing society, if realized, is not allowed into consciousness with the help of a “social filter.” Society manipulates the consciousness of its members, introducing ideological clichés, which, due to frequent use, become inaccessible to critical analysis, withholding certain information, exerting direct pressure and causing fear of social isolation. Therefore, everything that contradicts socially approved ideological clichés is excluded from consciousness.

These kinds of taboos, ideologemes, logical and linguistic experiments form, according to Fromm, the “social character” of a person. People belonging to the same society, against their will, are, as it were, marked with the seal of a “common incubator”. For example, we unmistakably recognize foreigners on the street, even if we don’t hear their speech, by their behavior, appearance, attitude towards each other; They are people from another society, and when they find themselves in a mass environment that is alien to them, they stand out sharply from it due to their similarities with each other. Social character -϶ᴛᴏ style of behavior brought up by society and unconscious by the individual - from social to everyday. For example, Soviet and former Soviet people are distinguished by collectivism and responsiveness, social passivity and undemandingness, submission to power, personified in the person of the “leader,” a developed fear of being different from everyone else, and gullibility.

Fromm directed his criticism against modern capitalist society, although he also paid a lot of attention to describing the social character generated by totalitarian societies. Like Freud, he developed a program for restoring individuals' undistorted social behavior through awareness of what had been repressed. “By transforming the unconscious into consciousness, we thereby transform the simple concept of the universality of man into the vital reality of such universality. This is nothing more than the practical implementation of humanism.” The process of derepression - the liberation of socially oppressed consciousness - consists in eliminating the fear of awareness of the forbidden, developing the ability to critical thinking, humanization of social life in general.

A different interpretation is offered by behaviorism (B. Skinner, J. Homans), which considers behavior as a system of reactions to various stimuli.

Skinner's concept in essence it will be biologizing, since in it the differences between the behavior of humans and animals are completely removed. Skinner distinguishes three types of behavior: unconditioned reflex, conditioned reflex and operant. The first two types of reactions are caused by exposure to specific stimuli, and operant reactions are a form of adaptation of the organism to the environment. It is worth noting that they are active and voluntary. The body, as if by trial and error, finds the most acceptable method of adaptation, and if successful, the find is consolidated in the form of a stable reaction. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that the main factor in the formation of behavior is reinforcement, and learning turns into “guiding the desired reaction.”

In Skinner's concept, a person appears as a being whose entire inner life is geared towards reactions to external circumstances. Changes in reinforcement mechanically cause changes in behavior. Thinking, higher mental functions human, all culture, morality, art are transformed into a complex system of reinforcements designed to evoke certain behavioral reactions. This leads to the conclusion that it is possible to manipulate people’s behavior through a carefully developed “technology of behavior.” With this term, Skinner refers to the purposeful manipulative control of some groups of people over others, associated with the establishment of an optimal reinforcement regime for certain social goals.

The ideas of behaviorism in sociology were developed by J. and J. Baldwin, J. Homans.

Concept by J. IJ. Baldwin is based on the concept of reinforcement, borrowed from psychological behaviorism. Reinforcement in the social sense is a reward, the value of which is determined by subjective needs. For example, for a hungry person, food acts as a reinforcer, but if the person is full, it will not be a reinforcer.

The effectiveness of reward depends on the degree of deprivation in a given individual. Subdeprivation is understood as the deprivation of something for which an individual feels a constant need. To the extent that a subject is deprived in any respect, his behavior depends on this reinforcement. So-called generalized reinforcers (for example, money), which act on all individuals without exception, do not depend on deprivation due to the fact that they concentrate access to many types of reinforcers at once.

Reinforcers are divided into positive and negative. Positive reinforcers are everything that is perceived by the subject as a reward. For example, if a certain contact with the environment brings a reward, there is a high probability that the subject will strive to repeat the experience. Negative reinforcers are factors that determine behavior through the refusal of some experience. For example, if a subject denies himself some pleasure and saves money on it, and subsequently benefits from this saving, then this experience can serve as a negative reinforcer and the subject will begin to act the same way always.

The effect of punishment is the opposite of reinforcement. Punishment is an experience that causes a desire not to repeat it again. Punishment can also be positive or negative, but here everything is reversed compared to reinforcement. Positive punishment is punishment using a suppressive stimulus, such as a blow. Negative punishment influences behavior through the deprivation of something valuable. For example, depriving a child of sweets at lunch is a typical negative punishment.

The formation of operant reactions is probabilistic in nature. It is important to note that unambiguity is characteristic of reactions of the simplest level, for example, a child cries, demanding the attention of his parents, because parents always approach him in such cases. Adult reactions are much more complex. For example, a person selling newspapers in train carriages does not find a buyer in every carriage, but he knows from experience that a buyer will eventually be found, and this forces him to persistently walk from carriage to carriage. In the last decade, obtaining the same probabilistic character has taken on wages at some Russian enterprises, but nevertheless people continue to go to work, hoping to get it.

Homans' behaviorist concept of exchange appeared in the middle of the 20th century. It is worth saying that while polemicizing with representatives of many areas of sociology, Homans argued that a sociological explanation of behavior must necessarily be based on a psychological approach. The interpretation of historical facts should also be based on a psychological approach. Homans motivates by the fact that behavior is always individual, while sociology operates with categories applicable to groups and societies, therefore the study of behavior will be the prerogative of psychology, and sociology in this matter should follow it.

According to Homans, when studying behavioral reactions, one should abstract from the nature of the factors that caused these reactions: they are caused by the influence of the surrounding physical environment or other people. Social behavior is simply the exchange of activities that have some social value between people. Homans believes that social behavior can be interpreted using Skinner's behavioral paradigm, if supplemented with the idea of ​​the mutual nature of stimulation in relationships between people. Relations between individuals always represent a mutually beneficial exchange of activities, services, in short, the mutual use of reinforcements.

Note that Homans briefly formulated the theory of exchange in several postulates:

  • postulate of success - those actions that most often meet with social approval are most likely to be reproduced;
  • incentive postulate - similar incentives associated with reward are likely to cause similar behavior;
  • postulate of value - the probability of reproducing an action depends on how valuable the result of that action seems to a person;
  • postulate of deprivation - the more regularly a person’s action is rewarded, the less he values ​​subsequent rewards;
  • the double postulate of aggression-approval - the absence of an expected reward or unexpected punishment makes it likely aggressive behavior, and unexpected reward or the absence of expected punishment leads to an increase in the value of the rewarded action and makes it more likely to be reproduced.

Do not forget that the most important concepts of exchange theory will be:

  • the cost of behavior is what this or that action costs an individual - the negative consequences caused by past actions. In everyday terms, this is retribution for the past;
  • benefit - occurs when the quality and size of the reward exceed the price that the action costs.

Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that the exchange theory depicts human social behavior as a rational search for benefit. This concept seems simplistic, and it is not surprising that it has attracted criticism from a variety of sociological directions. For example, Parsons, who defended the fundamental difference between the mechanisms of behavior of humans and animals, criticized Homans for the inability of his theory to provide an explanation of social facts on the basis of psychological mechanisms.

In this place exchange theory I. Blau made an attempt at a unique synthesis of social behaviorism and sociologism. Realizing the limitations of a purely behaviorist interpretation of social behavior, he set the goal of moving from the level of psychology to explaining on this basis the existence of social structures as a special reality, independent of psychology. Blau's concept is an enriched theory of exchange, in which four successive stages of transition from individual exchange to social structures are identified: 1) the stage of interpersonal exchange; 2) level of power-status differentiation; 3) stage of legitimation and organization; 4) stage of opposition and change.

Blau shows that starting from the level of interpersonal exchange, exchange may not always be equal. In cases where individuals cannot offer each other sufficient rewards, the social ties formed between them tend to disintegrate. In such situations, attempts arise to strengthen disintegrating ties in other ways - through coercion, through the search for another source of reward, through subordinating oneself to the exchange partner in the order of generalized credit. The last path means a transition to the stage of status differentiation, when a group of people capable of providing the required reward becomes more privileged in terms of status than other groups. Subsequently, the situation is legitimized and consolidated and opposition groups are identified. By analyzing complex social structures, Blau goes far beyond the behavioral paradigm. It is worth noting that he argues that the complex structures of society are organized around social values ​​and norms, which serve as a kind of mediating link between individuals in the process of social exchange. Thanks to this link, it is possible to exchange rewards not only between individuals, but also between an individual and a group. For example, considering the phenomenon of organized charity, Blau determines what distinguishes charity as a social institution from simple help from a rich individual to a poorer one. The difference is that organized charity is a socially oriented behavior, which is based on the desire of a wealthy individual to conform to the norms of the wealthy class and share social values; through norms and values, an exchange relationship is established between the sacrificing individual and the social group to which he belongs.

Blau identifies four categories of social values ​​on the basis of which exchange is possible:

  • particularistic values ​​that unite individuals based on interpersonal relationships;
  • universalist values, which act as a yardstick for assessing individual merits;
  • legitimate authority is a value system that provides power and privileges to a certain category of people compared to all others:
  • oppositional values ​​are ideas about the need for social change that allow the opposition to exist at the level of social facts, and not just at the level of interpersonal relations of individual oppositionists.

It can be said that Blau's exchange theory is a compromise option that combines elements of Homans' theory and sociology in the interpretation of reward exchange.

J. Mead's role concept is a symbolic interactionist approach to the study of social behavior. Its name is reminiscent of the functionalist approach: it is also called role-playing. Mead considers role behavior as the activity of individuals interacting with each other in freely accepted and played roles. According to Mead, the role interaction of individuals requires them to be able to put themselves in the place of another, to evaluate themselves from the position of another.

Synthesis of exchange theory with symbolic interactionism P. Zingelman also tried to implement it. Symbolic interactionism has a number of intersections with social behaviorism and exchange theories. Both of these concepts place emphasis on the active interaction of individuals and consider this subject from a microsociological perspective. According to Zingelman, interpersonal exchange relationships require the ability to put oneself in the position of another in order to better understand his needs and desires. Therefore, he believes that there are grounds for merging both directions into one. At the same time, social behaviorists were critical of the emergence of a new theory.

Personal behavior- these are externally observable actions, actions of individuals, their certain sequence, one way or another affecting the interests of other people, their groups, and the whole society. Human behavior acquires social meaning and becomes personal when it is involved in communication with other people. Every manifestation of human behavior is fundamentally social.

Social behavior- external manifestation of activity in which a person’s specific position and attitude are revealed. This is a form of transforming activity into real actions in relation to socially significant objects. The mechanisms of self-regulation of an individual’s social behavior are social attitudes (dispositions), formed as a result of the interaction of incentives and motives in specific environmental conditions.

Social setting- this is a value attitude towards social object, psychologically expressed in readiness for a positive or negative reaction to it. According to the American sociologist J. Herbert, a social attitude includes everything that we like, our like or dislike towards ourselves and others. It arises from the ability to see the world and ourselves as others see it, and as is customary in a given social community.

We constantly change our social attitudes depending on the attitudes of other people. But the question is, who are these others? Firstly, these are those who we like, for whom we feel sympathy. Secondly, these are those who are next to us, but a little higher than us in prestige. The power of influence on our attitudes is inversely proportional to social distance, which refers to the perception of differences in social status by participants in social interaction.

Types of social behavior:

Mass social behavior is a way of life and actions of a large number of people, which has a significant impact on social life and the stability of society. The subjects of mass social behavior usually include the masses, the crowd, the public and individuals, as well as their micro-unifications (family, microgroups, circles of interpersonal communication).

Deviant behavior- this is a historically emerging social phenomenon, expressed in relatively common, mass forms of human activity that do not correspond to officially established and actually established norms.

The presence or absence of social order in it depends on the social behavior of members of society.

Social order- this is a system that includes individuals, the relationships between them, habits and customs that operate unnoticed and contribute to the performance of various types of activities necessary for the successful functioning of this system.

While documenting certain deviations from the social order in society, one cannot fail to note that in general the social system is functioning: millions of people go to work, city transport works, etc. What makes a social system function? This is social control, i.e. a method of self-regulation of a system that ensures the orderly interaction of its constituent elements through normative (including legal) regulation.

Social control can be formal or informal. Formal control is exercised by organizations. For this purpose, special bodies are created and rules are developed. For example, criminal law. At the level public organization These agencies include law enforcement agencies.

Informal control- this is a type of pressure characteristic of small groups, manifested in the forms of ostracism (psychological expulsion), criticism or ridicule that discourage deviant behavior. There are four main types of informal control: social rewards, punishment, persuasion and revaluation of norms. Social rewards are expressed in smiles, approving glances, and other signs of approval. Punishment manifests itself in the form of a dissatisfied look, a sharp critical statement, a threat of physical harm or physical impact. Persuasion is also one of the ways to prevent deviant behavior. Finally, re-evaluating norms is more complex type informal social control, in which behavior considered deviant can be assessed as normal.

Human behavior (behavior), which is formed, develops and manifests itself in the conditions of social life, and therefore has a socially determined character. P. as such is a set of externally observable actions and actions of individuals and their groups, their specific direction and sequence, one way or another affecting the interests of other people, social groups, social communities, or the entire society. P. reveals the social qualities of a person, the characteristics of his upbringing, cultural level, temperament, character, his needs, beliefs, views, tastes; his attitude to the surrounding natural and social reality, to other people and to himself is formed and realized.

Sociology studies and interprets psychology primarily in terms of activity, communication, reward, value, and need. A person feels the need to communicate and collaborate with other people; he wants to be loved, respected, fairly assessed and rewarded for his actions. In their P., people interact with each other, evaluate each other, and strive to influence their communication partners.

Microsociology searches for reasons and establishes the characteristics of human psychology in the interaction between an individual and other people, primarily in small groups - family, labor collective, peer group, etc. Macrosociology studies psychology primarily in the processes of interaction between large-scale social communities—ethnic groups, nations, states, social institutions, etc. However, in a specific social context of interaction, elements of both of these levels of sociological analysis of behavior are often combined. For example, everyday behavior and interaction between family members is carried out at the micro level. At the same time, the family as a specific social community is a social institution studied at the macro level, since it is associated with a system of social interactions between classes and layers of society, with the market work force, with the system of social policy, with education, healthcare, culture.

Within the framework of microsociological and psychological analysis of psychology, the behaviorist approach has gained the greatest popularity (the most prominent representatives are E. Thorndike, D. Watson, K. Lashley, B. Skinner, and others). Its initial premise is the recognition of the mutual influence of behavior (behaviour) of a person and the events occurring in his environment, the connection of actions with what happens before and after them, as well as the influence of unforeseen circumstances on behavior. Here the concept of probability is widely used to describe the connection between the studied proposition and its prerequisites and consequences. It is believed that P. is based on three various forms ah human reactions to the environment. They are: 1) emotional, or affective, based on feelings and emotions; 2) competent, or cognitive, based on knowledge and reflection; 3) direct open response according to the mechanism: stimulus - response.

Knowledge of the peculiarities of the action of each link of this three-component structure, believes B. Skinner, makes it possible to make a person’s behavior predictable, since these links represent the socio-psychological mechanisms of the influence of the social environment on behavioral acts. It is this approach, he writes, that makes it possible to understand that “a person is responsible for his behavior not only in the sense that he can be condemned or punished if he behaves badly, but also in the sense that he can trust and admire her achievements." This approach reveals the decisive “selective role of the environment in the formation and maintenance of an individual’s behavior, and this makes it possible to model a person’s behavior under certain conditions, that is, to develop and apply in practice a technology of behavior.”

In the theoretical part of behaviorist research, P. focuses on the recognition that external variables, i.e. behavioral reactions, determined and controlled by the influence of the social environment, take priority over intrapersonal processes - thoughts, feelings and affects. Behaviorists give priority to identifying the resources of the individual and his environment that are capable of achieving the desired results. Analysis focuses on specific types P. in a real life situation - in a family, in a classroom, a subway car, a train compartment, etc. - and its functions, organically related to environmental factors, which are studied by changes observed before and after the implementation of the action. In its applied spectrum, behaviorist research has proven itself in the development of methods for managing the behavior of students in the classroom, improving the abilities of individuals who are lagging behind in development, as well as in treating attacks of depression, anxiety, anger, etc. Behaviorists believe that symbolic processes - imitation, indirect assimilation and anticipating consequences are essential components of the social learning process.

Much attention to the research of P.S. devoted to the sociological theory of exchange, one of the main authors of which is the American sociologist and social psychologist J. Homans. Homans considers the initial unit of sociological analysis to be “elementary social P.”, i.e. direct exchange of behavioral acts between two, three, etc. individuals. Describing social exchange as a universal exchange, he formulates four principles of interindividual interaction. The first of them says: the more often and more a certain type of P. is rewarded, the more willingly and often it is repeated by individuals - be it in business, sports or fishing. According to the second principle, if the reward for certain types of rewards depends on certain conditions, a person strives to recreate these conditions. In accordance with the third principle, when the reward for a certain P. is large, a person is ready to expend more effort to obtain it. And finally, the fourth principle states: when a person’s needs are close to saturation, he is less willing to make efforts to satisfy them.

Thus, in the Homansian concept of P.S. and the interaction of individuals appears as a system of exchanges of behavioral acts, through which “they sanction each other, that is, one rewards or punishes the actions of the other.” Such a system is indeed often implemented in the interactions of people with each other, in particular in the field of business. But in general, human behavior is more multifaceted than exchange theory suggests. In area research activities, artistic creativity, in relationships of friendship, love, etc. P. of people is by no means reduced to balancing costs and rewards, for all this and much more in human life does not have a value character determined by the exchange of goods and services for other goods and services.

A significant contribution to the sociological study of the symbolism of people was made by the theory of symbolic interaction, developed mainly in the works of the American sociologists C. Cooley and J. Mead.

C. Cooley introduced into sociology the distinction between primary groups (this term itself was introduced into sociology by him) and secondary social institutions. Primary groups (family, group of peers, neighborhood, local community), he believed, are the main social cells in which the formation of personality and its socialization take place, and the personality of individuals is characterized by close intimate, personal, informal connections and interactions. “Primary groups,” he noted, “are primary in the sense that they give the individual the earliest and most complete experience of social unity, and also in the sense that they do not change to the same extent as more difficult relationships, but form a relatively unchanging source from which these latter are constantly born." Cooley proposed the specific term “mirror self,” according to which in the process of P., especially in interaction with others, people look at themselves as if from the outside, through the eyes of another person, i.e. “look at themselves in the mirror.” In behavioral acts, people serve as unique mirrors for each other, so our self-image largely depends on our relationships with other individuals.

J. Mead advanced the behavioral analysis of social interaction proposed by C. Cooley much further. He denied that people's behavior is a passive reaction to reward and punishment, and viewed human actions as a behavior system based on communication. According to him, a person reacts not only to the actions of other people, but also to their intentions. He guesses the meaning of another person's action before responding to it. But to do this, Mead says, you need to put yourself in the shoes of your interlocutor or partner, “accept the role of the other.” When we attach meaning to something, it becomes a symbol, i.e. a concept, assessment, action or object in our interaction with other people symbolizes or expresses the meaning of another action, another object or concept. A raised hand can symbolize a greeting, a request to stop a car, or an intention to strike another person. Only by understanding the meaning of this gesture, its meaning, can we react to it correctly: shake the hand of another person, stop the car, dodge a blow or strike back.

So, in order for our P. to become adequate to the situation, we must acquire certain skills and abilities, first of all, learn to understand and use symbols. Based on this, Mead identified two main components of behavioral interaction in people in the process of their socialization: mind (opinion) and self. To become ourselves, i.e. to socialize as individuals, and learn to interact correctly with other people, we must learn to understand symbols and be able to use symbols in our P. Through long experience of observing the reactions of others to what we do, we gain not only the concept of who we are we imagine, but we gain the ability to put ourselves in the place of another.

Mead noted that unless children are able to “take the role of another,” they cannot participate effectively in most games. To learn to play ball, for example in football, a child must put himself “in all the roles involved in the game and perform his actions in harmony with others.” When you walk past a soccer field where small children are playing, notice how they try to crowd around the ball. Every child wants to get the ball and no one wants to pass it to another or receive a pass. Children need time to learn to take on the role of another - to understand that when Tom receives the ball, I will accept the pass, and George will run to the other side of the field, and I will pass the ball to him, etc., that only in this case it will work real game. Therefore, each child participating in the game must know what every other player is going to do in order to fulfill his or her own role. He must take on all these roles. The game itself is organized so that “the attitudes of one individual cause the corresponding attitudes of another.”

According to Mead's concept, we develop ourselves and our personality through interaction with others, but we will not become skilled in interaction until we develop ourselves. We are moving from a process of interacting with each other to a model of repeated interactions with certain groups of people. Thanks to this, each of us adapts our actions, our P. to the expectations and actions of other people in accordance with their meanings for us. Based on the fact that human behavior in interaction with other people is a continuous dialogue, during which people observe and comprehend each other’s intentions through understanding symbols, one of J. Mead’s students and followers, G. Bloomer, named the sociological concept under consideration in 1969 P. symbolic interactionism.

Serious attention to the sociological analysis of P.S. paid by P. Sorokin, T. Parsons, R. Merton, R. Dahrendorf and others famous sociologists. P. Sorokin, in particular, compared human society with a rough sea, in which individual people, like waves, act on those around their peers with their actions, exchange with them ideas, artistic images, volitional impulses, etc. It is impossible to imagine the everyday life of people, he believed, without a mutual exchange of feelings. The life of each of us is a continuous process of interaction between us and other people on the basis of friendship, love, compassion, enmity, hatred, etc. Without this, there is no P. neither in commerce, nor in economics, nor in science, nor in charity, nor in any other field of activity.

T. Parsons studied the behavior of people as the interaction of social subjects connected by a “system of mutual expectations” in the sense that their actions are focused on certain expectations of their partner. As a result of social interaction, Parsons emphasized, a specific structure of “need dispositions of the actor (actor) and others included in the system of social interaction with him” develops. A person’s personality is influenced by formative interaction not only by the system of expectations of his interaction partners, but also by the norms and cultural values ​​that prevail in society. It is “the most general cultural patterns,” appearing in the form of ideas, ideals, values, etc., that, according to Parsons, give consistency to the norms of P. assigned to role statuses, more precisely, to “types of roles in the social system.” If we take this fundamental thesis into account, it will become clear why Parsons preferred the term “action” to the term “P.”: after all, as a social theorist, he was primarily interested in “not the physical eventfulness of behavior in itself, but its pattern, the meaningful products of action ( physical, cultural, etc.), from simple tools to works of art, as well as the mechanisms and processes that control this pattern."

If we move from these typical samples to a more specific level of sociological analysis, then two main components stand out in Parsons' concept. These are, firstly, the behavioral acts themselves performed by a person in a certain situation when interacting with other people, and, secondly, the situational environment in which behavior is performed and on which it depends. If we talk about the first of them, its most significant aspects are the biological organism, acting as biological characteristics, constituting the species difference of homo sapiens, as well as the cultural systems in which a person is included and thanks to which he gains social experience and realizes it in his P. It is the cultural system that creates institutionalized samples of P., thereby providing a criterion for the correctness or incorrectness of certain actions individual. From this angle, Parsons analyzes the trends in the development of the youth subculture, in accordance with the prescriptions of which the values ​​and norms dominant in society are not clearer indicators of the proper behavior of young people or lose their significance for them. The central place in regulating youth behavior in such a social situation is no longer played by the family or school, but by the “peer group.” Youth subcultures, according to Parsons, perform both positive and destructive functions. On the one hand, they subvert traditional values, separating young people from family and adults, and on the other, they are a means of transforming old value systems, establishing new values ​​that provide the individual with social support in his personal life and interaction with peers for a long time - from the moment "dropping out" from the parents' family and before creating one's own. The intertwining of these two functions gives rise to internal (between different youth groups) and external (with the adult social environment) conflicts among young people.

So, already in the concept of T. Parsons, much attention is paid to clarifying the significance of “role statuses” in the personal life of individuals. However, the meaning of a social role as a normatively approved way of acting, obligatory for an individual and, as a result, becoming a decisive characteristic of his personality, was studied in more detail in the so-called role theory, developed by R. Linton, A. Radcliffe-Brown and other sociologists. According to Linton, the concept of role refers to such situations of social interaction when certain stereotypes of social behavior are reproduced regularly and over a long period of time. Each individual can act in interaction with other individuals in a variety of roles. For example, one and the same person can simultaneously be the governor of Texas, a member of the Republican Party, a father of a family, a golfer, etc., while performing different situations various roles. Therefore, the social role, taken separately, is only a separate component of the holistic personality of a person. The totality of such roles acts as a dynamic aspect of social status, i.e. position occupied by an individual in social structure society. Society, through its normative system, imposes certain social roles on the individual, but their acceptance, fulfillment or rejection largely depend on his personal choice, on his social position, and this contradictory interaction (of society’s norms and personal orientations) always leaves an imprint on the real P. person.

Both Parson's theory of social action and role theory come close to the problem of normativity and non-normativity (anti-normativity) of P.S. In both the first and second cases, P. is considered primarily as normatively regulated on the basis of generally accepted norms of P. However, there are often cases when certain individuals in their P. consciously or unconsciously deviate from the norms prescribed by society, ignore them, or deliberately violate them. Those types of P. that correspond to generally accepted norms in society are usually characterized as “normal”; those that diverge from them to one degree or another are called deviant (from the norms) or deviant P. . The latter is understood not only as an offense, but also as any offense that violates the rules and norms prevailing in a given society. Deviation has extremely many faces. Its various manifestations include alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, racketeering, corruption, counterfeiting banknotes, treason, murder, suicide, and much, much more. Can we consider that this entire vast and diverse area of ​​social psychology has something in common? Yes, you can, what they have in common is that all these and many other forms of P. deviate from accepted norms in society, violate these norms, or simply reject them. This is where their non-normativity or anti-normativity manifests itself.

So, deviant behavior is determined by the compliance or non-compliance of certain actions with social norms and expectations. However, the criteria for defining P. as deviant are ambiguous and often cause disagreements and disputes. There is a rather complex problem regarding what is considered deviant behavior, and the boundary between the norm and deviation from it can be quite blurred, moving first in one direction or the other, depending on the position of the one who evaluates this or that behavioral act. From the point of view of religion or morality, a deviant act is the personification of evil, from the point of view of medicine - a disease, and from the point of view of law - a violation of the law, lawlessness.

Both the norms themselves and the behavior that deviates from them are not homogeneous, but differ significantly in their social significance. If moral norms, customs, traditions, and community rules existing in society are violated, then these violations are called asocial behavior (antisocial actions). These forms of P. are characterized by a small degree of social danger, which it is advisable to call social harmfulness. If not only moral, but also legal norms are violated, then we are dealing with illegal crime, which includes hooliganism, theft and other crimes.

Depending, firstly, on the degree of harm caused to the interests of the individual, social group, society as a whole, and, secondly, from the type of norms being violated, we can distinguish the following main types of deviant P.

1. Destructive behavior that causes harm only to the individual and does not correspond to generally accepted social and moral norms - hoarding, conformism, masochism, etc.

2. Asocial behavior that causes harm to the individual and social communities (family, group of friends, neighbors, etc.) and manifests itself in alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide, etc.

3. Illegal crime, which represents a violation of both moral and legal norms and is expressed in robbery, murder and other crimes.

Developing the main provisions of the sociological theory of anomie, R. Merton emphasized that the main reason for deviant P. is the conflict between the cultural system, cultural goals dictated by society, on the one hand, and socially approved means of achieving them. In his opinion, modern American society on a huge scale creates in people of very different social status such a contradiction between the aspirations instilled in them by the dominant culture and legally achievable ones that this leads to a sharp decrease in the effectiveness of social norms and institutions regulating the behavior of people, and ultimately ultimately - to the denial of the authority of norms and to all kinds of deviations from them.

Since people are social creatures, the most important things in their life are different kinds collective P. The most serious attention to the sociological analysis of collective P. was paid by such famous sociologists as E. Durkheim, M. Weber, K. Marx, T. Parsons, G. Blumer, and others.

K. Marx, in particular, emphasized that “one of natural conditions production (i.e., activity aimed at producing objects necessary for life) for a living individual is his belonging to any naturally formed group: tribes, etc. His own productive existence is possible only under this condition." Only in collective psychology, he believed, is language formed as a means of communication between people, and the very individuality of each member of the collective is formed. Moreover, K. Marx argued, "only in a collective does an individual receives the means that give him the opportunity to fully develop his inclinations, and, therefore, only in a team is personal freedom possible.”

T. Parsons, attaching great importance to the individual P. of a person, nevertheless emphasized that this P. consists not only of reactions to certain stimuli of a social situation, but also from the totality of a certain P. of other individuals included in the system of some collective organization. Therefore, “individuals perform societally important functions in the collective as its members.” And from this it follows that “the functioning of a collective organization is connected, first of all, with the real achievement of goals in the interests of the social system.” Embodying his interests and needs in the individual P., the individual in the social system is included in the complex and multifaceted network of the collective P. and “produces some services in a certain context of the collective organization. As a result of a long evolutionary process in modern societies, these services are institutionalized mainly in the form of a professional role within the specifics of a functioning team or bureaucratic organization."

Summarizing the numerous and varied sociological studies of collective psychology, G. Blumer considered it necessary to even separate the study of this phenomenon into a separate section of sociology. In his opinion, such a high status should be given to this phenomenon because “the researcher of collective behavior strives to understand the conditions for the emergence of a new social system, since its appearance is equivalent to the emergence of new forms of collective behavior.”

From the point of view of this particular approach, “almost any group activity,” argued G. Blumer, “can be thought of as collective behavior. Group activity means that individuals act together in a certain way, that there is a certain division of labor between them, and that there is a certain mutual adaptation of various lines of individual behavior. In this sense, group activity is a collective endeavor." Noting the extremely wide prevalence of various forms of collective P., he argues that when a sociologist studies customs, legends, gaming traditions, mores, institutions and social organization, he deals with social rules and social determinants through which collective P is organized. Especially important, according to G. Blumer (and here he completely agrees with K. Marx), have social movements that should be considered as “collective enterprises aimed at establishing a new order of life.” Having characterized various types of social movements, including religious, reformist, nationalist, and revolutionary, he especially emphasizes that “when studying collective behavior, we touch upon the process of building a particular social system.” It is these features that determine the role of various types of collective P. in the formation of society, in the emergence of a new social system, and, consequently, more highly developed social systems.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓