Forms of social behavior of people. Behavior in sociology

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 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, and 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 the preferences, motives, attitudes, capabilities and abilities of the actors (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 not appropriate 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 - appropriate accepted standards and rules, erroneous - does not comply with the norms and rules due to accidental error or ignorance.

3. Syntonic and conflict behavior.

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 conditions. external environment.

Social setting- this is a value attitude towards a 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 difference social status participants social interaction.

Types of social behavior:

Mass social behavior is a way of life and actions of a large number of people that has a significant impact on social life and 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 of a public organization, such bodies include law enforcement.

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.

The problem of regulating the social behavior of an individual is one of the socio-psychological problems that reflect the crisis state of modern Russian society, a change in its functional state, the destruction of the system of higher, transpersonal values ​​that determine the meaning of social and personal existence. The problem of regulating social behavior is associated with a person’s loss of previous social identifications and social roles, which were the primary basis for behavioral orientation. Mismatch in the value world of the individual, transformation of norms and ideals leads to disruption of the regulation of relations in society and increased irresponsibility of the individual for his social actions.

Currently in social psychology There is an increasing interest in the problems of social behavior of the individual, the system of its regulation in connection with the uniqueness of the human personality, its actions and deeds. The tendency of researchers to consider problems associated with the study of the processes of self-organization and self-determination of the individual in the sphere of their social practice is becoming more noticeable.

In foreign studies, the problems of social behavior have established traditions. The representative of functionalism, W. James, reveals behavior as a function of consciousness in the survival of the organism. The founders of behaviorism B. Skinner and J. Watson proclaim behavior to be the subject of study in psychology. They define behavior as a system of externally registered reactions with the help of which an individual adapts to environmental stimuli.

Having abandoned the understanding of the linear determination of social behavior, this category was studied in more detail by E. C. Tolman (variable “I” - “individuality”), A. Bandura (imitation in social learning), D. Rotter (locus control), R. Martens, G. Tarde, G. Lsbon (the principle of imitation and mental contagion), D. Homane (direct contact between individuals), etc. In the works of Western scientists, a complex system of determinants of social behavior is revealed and constructed active methods behavioral training, which provide the opportunity to carry out training, therapy and correction of social behavior.

There is a wide variety of definitions of the concept of “social behavior”. In the "field theory" K. Lewin considers social behavior as a function of the individual acting in relation to his social environment, and he identifies true or false needs as motives for behavior. In the target approach (M.A. Robert, F. Tilman), social behavior is understood as “a reaction aimed at changing the situation in order to satisfy one’s needs.” In interactionism (J. Mead, G. Blumer) it is revealed that social behavior manifests itself through participation in a large collective process in which a person is involved and is based on interpretations significant characters, carrying social information. The personality and its behavior in this case are a product of interaction with society.

The study of the problem of social behavior in domestic research for a long time was based on the activity approach, which was developed in psychological schools S. L. Rubinstein and A. N. Leontyev. In the activity approach, personality is considered as a condition and product of activity. For a holistic understanding of the individual in the system of his social connections and relationships, the concept of “behavior” began to be used in domestic psychology only since the 80s. XX century Domestic psychologists consider needs (A.V. Petrovsky), feelings, interests, ideals, worldview (S.L. Rubinstein), and attitudes (A.G. Asmolov) as motivating forces of social behavior.

In the psychological dictionary, social behavior is defined as 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 source of behavior is needs, which act as a form of connection between a person and the social environment of his life. In this interaction, a person appears as an individual, in all the diversity of his social connections.

The signs of social behavior are its social conditioning, conscious, collective, active, goal-setting, voluntary and creative nature. In domestic psychology, the concept of behavior is considered in relation to the concepts of “activity”, “activity”, as well as “social activity”, “ social activities". The common generic basis of activity and behavior is activity.

The specificity of the species is that objective, practical activity determines the subject-object connections of a person with the environment, behavior - the subject-subject connection of the individual with the social environment. Behavior acts as a form of existence of a person who is a representative of a particular group, the uniqueness of whose behavior lies in the fact that it is social behavior.

Social behavior is an integral and dominant form of behavior and personality manifestation. All other types of activity in a certain way and to a certain extent depend on it, are conditioned by it. Social behavior includes a person’s actions in relation to society, other people and objective world, adjustable social norms morality and law. The subject of social behavior is the individual and the social group.

Social behavior is a system of socially determined actions by language and other sign-semantic formations, through which an individual or a social group participates in social relations and interacts with the social environment.

The structure of social behavior includes the following elements: behavioral act, action, deed, deed, which carry their own semantic load, specific psychological content and, in the aggregate, make up a holistic, purposeful social behavior of the individual.

Behavioral act represents a single manifestation of behavior, an element that reproduces the main links of its structure. The structure of a behavioral act can be considered from the perspective of the concept of functional systems by P.K. Anokhin. Studying the physiological structure of a behavioral act, P.K. Anokhin came to the conclusion that it was necessary to distinguish between two types of functional systems. Functional systems of the first type, using various mechanisms, automatically compensate for emerging shifts in the internal environment.

Functional systems of the second type provide an adaptive effect by going beyond the body through communication with the outside world, through changes in behavior, and underlie various behavioral acts, various types of behavior. According to P.K. Anokhin, the architectonics of functional systems that determine purposeful behavioral acts varying degrees complexity, consists of successively replacing stages:

  • – afferent synthesis,
  • - decision-making,
  • – acceptor results of action,
  • – efferent synthesis,
  • – formation of action,
  • – assessment of the achieved result.

As we see, the structure of a behavioral act presents the main characteristics of behavior, such as purposefulness and the active role of the subject in organizing behavior.

Social Actions occupy a central place in social behavior. M. Weber in the theory of social action revealed its main features: the presence of subjective meaning possible options behavior, the subject’s conscious orientation towards the response of others and its expectation. Social actions are aimed at changing the behavior and attitudes of other people, satisfying the needs and interests of those influencing and depend on the choice effective means and methods for their implementation.

M. Weber distinguished goal-rational, value-rational, affective and traditional action, depending on the degree of participation of conscious, rational elements in it.

Purposeful action is based on the expectation of certain behavior of other persons and the use of it to achieve the individual’s goals. M. Weber believes that 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..., i.e. acts not emotionally and not on the basis of tradition or habit, but on the basis of an analysis of a reasonable combination of personal and social goals.

Most common in real life value-rational actions. They are based on a belief in the value of behavior, regardless of the consequences to which it may lead (principles or a sense of duty aimed at moral satisfaction). According to M. Weber, they are subject to “commandments” or “requirements”, obedience to which is the duty of every person. When implementing value-based and rational actions, the influencer fundamentally adheres to and fully relies on the values ​​and norms accepted in society, even to the detriment of his personal goals.

A traditional action is a habitual action that is performed primarily without reflection, on the basis of social patterns of behavior, habits and norms deeply internalized by individuals.

Affective action is an action caused by feelings, emotions, committed in a state of relatively short-term but intense emotional state, which arose in response to the desire for immediate satisfaction of a thirst for revenge, passion or attraction.

According to M. Weber, traditional and affective actions are not social in the full sense, since they are most often realized outside of awareness and comprehension, they are distinguished by a low degree of participation of conscious, rational elements.

Social actions have social significance. They are based on the clash of interests and needs of the social forces of society, in connection with which social actions act as a form and method of resolving social problems and contradictions. They differ in the types of social problems they solve (social, economic, development of spiritual life). The subjects of these actions are individuals and social groups acting in a certain situation and having socially determined motivation, intentions and relationships.

The psychological characteristics of social actions are determined by motivation, the attitude towards the “I” as the source and subject of actions, the relationship between the meaning and significance of actions, rational and irrational, conscious and unconscious in their motivation, as well as the subjective meaning of the actions performed by a person.

The socio-psychological characteristics of social action are correlated with such phenomena as the perception of the social action of the immediate environment; its role in motivating social action; the individual’s awareness of belonging to a certain group as a motivating factor; the role of the reference group; mechanisms of social control of an individual’s social actions.

Deed is a personal form of behavior in which independent choice goals and methods of behavior, often contrary to generally accepted rules. Actions are not automatisms, reflexes, ballistic movements, actions - impulsive, habitual, heteronomic (carried out according to orders, service instructions, external requirements, according to a prescribed role).

An act includes a creative act of choosing goals and means of behavior, which sometimes comes into conflict with the established, habitual, routine. An act acts as a personally meaningful, personally constructed and personally implemented behavior (action or inaction) aimed at resolving the conflict. According to M. According to M. Bakhtin, an act has such mandatory properties as axiology (non-technical), responsibility, uniqueness, and eventfulness. The act arises due to the formation of self-awareness in adolescence (L. S. Vygotsky).

An act as the basic unit of social behavior is characterized by the presence internal plan action, which represents a consciously developed intention, a forecast of the expected result and its consequences. An act can be expressed: by action or inaction; position expressed in words; an attitude towards something, formalized in the form of a gesture, a look, a tone of speech, a semantic subtext; action aimed at overcoming physical obstacles and searching for truth.

When evaluating an action, you need to take into account the system social norms accepted in this society. The moral meaning of the action is important for the action; the action itself should be considered as a way of carrying out the action in a specific situation. Actions are included in the system of moral relations of society, and through them - in the system of all social relations.

Act is a set of actions. In an act as an element of a person’s social behavior, activity is realized that has high social significance and effectiveness. The subject himself bears responsibility for socially significant results, even if it goes beyond his intentions. The responsibility of an individual is expressed in his ability to foresee the social and psychological consequences of his own activity and is based on socio-historical criteria for their assessment.

The purpose of an individual’s social behavior is to transform the world around him, to bring about social changes in society, socio-psychological phenomena in a group, and personal transformations of a person. The result of social behavior is the formation and development of interactions and relationships of the individual with other people and various communities. The variety of forms of social connections and relationships of an individual as a social and multifaceted phenomenon determines the types of his social behavior.

The basis for the socio-psychological classification of types of social behavior are the following criteria:

  • 1) spheres of existence– nature, society, people (production, labor, socio-political, religious, cultural, everyday, leisure, family);
  • 2) social structure of society(class behavior of social layers and strata; ethnic behavior, socio-professional, sex-role, gender, family, reproductive, etc.);
  • 3) urbanization process(ecological, migration);
  • 4) system of social relations(production behavior (labor, professional), economic behavior (consumer behavior, distribution behavior, exchange behavior, entrepreneurial, investment, etc.); socio-political behavior (political activity, behavior towards authorities, bureaucratic behavior, electoral behavior and etc.); legal behavior(law-abiding, illegal, deviant, deviant, criminal); moral behavior (ethical, moral, immoral, immoral behavior, etc.); religious behavior);
  • 5) subject of social behavior (social behavior, mass, group, collective, cooperative, corporate, professional, ethnic, family, individual and personal behavior);
  • 6) activity-passivity of personality(passive, adaptive, conformal, adaptive, stereotypical, standard, active, aggressive, consumer, production, creative, innovative, prosocial, procreative, behavior to help other people, behavior to assign responsibility or attribution behavior);
  • 7) way of expression(verbal, non-verbal, demonstration, role-playing, communicative, real, expected behavior, indicative, instinctive, reasonable, tactful, contact);
  • 8) implementation time(impulsive, variable, long-term).

Main the subject of social behavior is the individual, since in the diverse forms and types of social behavior the socio-psychological and personal aspects predominate. Researchers note that the system-forming quality of social behavior is normativity, therefore all types of social behavior are varieties of normative, prescribed behavior.


The problem of regulating social behavior is associated with the loss of an individual’s previous social identification, which is the primary basis for behavioral orientation. The system of higher, transpersonal, humanistic values ​​that determined the meaning of social and personal existence has collapsed, as a result of which there is a devaluation of the human life. A person has “lost himself” in a socially practical sense; he begins to play first one social role, then another, and often life itself seems meaningless to him. Thus, the mismatch of his value world, the displacement of norms and ideals, legal and illegal, due and existing leads to a disruption in the regulation of relations in society and the individual’s irresponsibility for his social actions.

In light of the above, it is clear how important research is now that shows what the social behavior of a modern person is, due to what features it is “little” controllable, and what principles the system should meet

its regulation. Comprehensive answers to these questions cannot be given without a philosophical analysis of the social behavior of an individual, which makes it possible to reveal the content and semantic aspect of the phenomenon under consideration. The result of such an analysis may be the discovery of new opportunities for managing social processes, diagnosing and describing them.

The relevance of the theoretical understanding of social behavior is also determined by the increase in the scientific literature of studies according to the anthropocentric paradigm of social cognition and management. The tendency to consider certain management problems in connection with the uniqueness and inimitability of the human personality, as well as an appeal to the reasons for its actions and deeds, is becoming increasingly noticeable in the works of scientists. Particular attention is drawn to issues related to the study of the processes of self-organization and self-determination of a person in the sphere of his social practice according to his life meanings. These management studies require further deeper philosophical understanding.

Philosophical study of social behavior is also necessary for assessing the characteristics of existence modern man, his personal status, as well as the conditions for the formation of the activity of each person as a real subject of social interaction, which is important, since the life of society as a whole can either combine or conflict with the passivity of specific people and the infantilism of their behavior. This aspect of the study of social behavior involves solving the issue of harmony and disharmony in the relationship between the individual and society.

So, the need to study the social behavior of an individual is determined by the needs of the development of both philosophical social knowledge and management science, their integration, on the basis of which

their mutual enrichment and solution of issues of the social future of man and society is possible. A philosophical understanding of the social behavior of an individual allows us to determine the tasks and means of social management to solve current problems of both management theory and the development of a democratic society as a whole.

The degree of scientific development of the problem. The problem of social behavior of an individual is not new to the social sciences and humanities. In the works of a number of scientists belonging to various areas of psychology, sociology, cultural studies, law, and ethics, attempts were made to understand this phenomenon. To date, the scientific literature has accumulated a large volume of theoretical and practical research determination and motivation of social behavior.

Thus, in psychology, social behavior was considered by behaviorists (J. Watson, E. Thorndike, B. Skinner), who presented an empirical approach to behavior as an external manifestation of mental activity in the form of the body’s reactions to environmental stimuli. Under the influence of criticism, the followers of behaviorists abandoned the thesis of the linear determination of behavior. In the works of such Western scientists as W. M. Dowgall, J. G. Mead, E. Mayo, E. Tolman, D. Homans, T. Shibutani, a complex system of determinants of social behavior is considered and active methods of behavioral training are constructed that allow training, therapy, correction of social behavior. We can say that Western psychologists focus on the study of individual components of the system of determination of social behavior: the unconscious (for example, Z. Freud); innate instincts (M. Dowgall); cognitive sphere (J. Piaget); the principle of imitation, mental infection (G. Tarde, G. Le Bon); direct contact between individuals (D. Homans).

In Russian psychology, the activity approach to the study of social behavior predominates, represented by the research of the psychological schools of S. L. Rubinstein and A. N. Leontyev. The formation of these schools was facilitated by the work of L.S. Vygotsky, his concept of cultural history as the development of a system of signs that serve to control human behavior. Domestic psychologists focus their attention on the analysis of needs (A.V. Petrovsky), feelings, interests, ideals, worldview (S.L. Rubinstein), attitudes (A.G. Asmolov) as motivating forces of social behavior.

Sociology studies the social behavior of a person as a representative of large social groups, a subject of social interaction. The sociological paradigm of social behavior is rooted in the traditions of American sociology, which developed within the framework of a positive social orientation, which began to take shape in the 20s, and already in the 50s - 60s. Most Western sociologists were guided by it in both theoretical and empirical research. Social behavior is considered in the logic of social action, the theory of which was developed by M. Weber, F. Znaniecki, R. McIver, G. Becker, V. Pareto, T. Parsons, J. Habermas. The works of J. Fourastier are interesting, in which the author emphasizes the complexity of modern management and focuses on the lack of balance between social and biological principles in human behavior.

Modern domestic sociologists B.C. Afanasyev, A.G. Zdravomyslov, G.V. Osipov, Zh. T. Toshchenko, S.F. Frolov, V.M. Shepel, V.A. Poisons view social behavior as the social actions of individuals or social groups. Purposeful behavior of an individual is analyzed in the works of E.M. Korzhevoy, N.F. Naumo-

howl. Social behavior in the aspect of its deviation from norms is the subject of research by Ya.I. Gilinsky, N.V. Kudryavtseva.

Recognizing the thoroughness of all of the above studies, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that in the field of studying the social behavior of an individual there remain such unresolved issues as the relationship between various determinants of social behavior, the classification of its regulators, the principles of managing individual behavior in the context of a post-industrial society, socio-anthropological mechanisms for maintaining balance in society, processes of self-organization through changes in human behavior in relation to transforming social positions and normative boundaries, etc.

As for the science of social management itself, it should be noted that at the moment it is in the process of formation, despite the fact that the problems of social management attracted attention at all stages of the development of human society, and they were given a leading place in the system of views of such outstanding thinkers such as Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, N. Machiavelli, G. Hegel.

Modern control theorists are guided, as a rule, by the mechanistic ideas of behaviorism, according to which the result of external control action is an unambiguous, linear, predictable consequence of the efforts made, which corresponds to the scheme: control action - the desired result.

Today, a new synergetic management theory is being formed that studies the processes of self-organization in natural, social, and cognitive systems. Its founders are G. Haken and I. Prigogine. According to them, management loses the character of blind intervention by trial and error, dangerous actions against the system’s own tendencies and

is built on the basis of an awareness of what is generally possible in a given environment. Scientists talk about the need to coordinate management impacts with the internal logic of development of the management object. The formation of this type of management, which presupposes the correspondence of the manager and the managed not only in functional, structural, informational terms, but also in terms of content and semantics, requires a new philosophical vision of the social behavior of the individual.

Despite the fact that human activity in the social world has always been the focus of attention of philosophers, the problem of social behavior of the individual has not been fully reflected in social philosophy. Social behavior is studied as a secondary phenomenon as a reconstruction of impulses from the external environment or the internal world of the individual, as a derivative of something, for example, “practical reason” (I. Kant), social character (E. Fromm).

Pragmatic philosophers (W. James, J. Dewey, J. Mead, C. Pierce) tried to develop a new approach to the study of social behavior in the aspect of human adaptation to the social world. Pragmatism has a pronounced anti-cognitive character, which, in our opinion, limits the scope of the study of social behavior.

An attempt to bridge the gap between the spheres of consciousness and action was made by the Russian philosopher M. Bakhtin. The entire philosophy of this thinker is focused on man, his actions as acts of being.

In the works of M. Heidegger, behavior is defined as a fundamental element of being.

Among modern studies of social behavior, noteworthy is the attempt to implement a synthesis of the ontological ideas of M. Bakhtin and M. Heidegger, undertaken by A.K. Shevchenko in his work “Culture. Story. Personality."

At the same time, there is no concept of social behavior that reveals the unified internal logic of an individual’s actions and actions in social philosophy.

The subject of this study is the content-semantic aspect of an individual’s social behavior.

The purpose of the dissertation research is to understand the essence of an individual’s social behavior and determine the basic principles of its regulation in modern conditions. To achieve this goal, the following tasks are set:

Consider the methodological foundations of the analysis of social behavior in the humanities;

Analyze social behavior in the logic of the category of being;

Explore acts of social behavior: action and deed;

Identify historical trends in changes in social forms of behavior and its regulation;

Determine the basic principles of managing social behavior.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is the work of domestic and foreign scientists - social scientists on problems of social behavior and social management. The dissertation work uses the results of scientific research by anthropologists, cultural scientists, psychologists, sociologists, as well as materials from periodicals reflecting the problems of managing social behavior. The author follows the methodological principles of modern phenomenology, which considers various samples of human experience in their real concretization, and carries out a synthesis of general theoretical and specific historical approaches to solving the identified problem.

Scientific novelty is determined by the absence in Russian social philosophy of studies of human social behavior in the aspect of the personal foundations of his actions and actions in social space, an attempt of which is made in this work.

The author proposes a new approach to the consideration of social behavior as a process of an individual realizing his capabilities to “be” in the space of interpersonal relationships. At the same time, social behavior seems to be not simply derived from the social environment or the ideal sphere of the individual, his consciousness, but a social phenomenon that has its own specific space and its own logic of existence.

Scientific novelty is revealed in the provisions submitted for defense:

1) Social behavior of a person is an updated way of being, expressed in actions and deeds;

2) Social behavior is characterized by duality: on the one hand, a person’s actions are determined from the outside and correspond to the logic of causality and necessity, and on the other, actions are determined by the individual himself, his freedom. This duality explains the complexity of managing social behavior;

management, combining targeted organizing influence with self-organization.

The theoretical and practical significance of the work lies in the development of an ontological approach to the study of social behavior of an individual.

The provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research can be used for further research in the field of social relations and processes, in the practice of social management, as well as in the development of various aspects of social policy.

Problems of social behavior as the fundamental basis of human social existence can become the subject of study and teaching in the framework of training courses in social philosophy, sociology and social psychology.

Approbation of work. The main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research were discussed at annual university conferences from 1998 to 2001. and at meetings of the Department of Philosophy and Social Psychology of VolGASA. The main ideas of the work are presented in four scientific articles.

Chapter 1. Features of philosophical analysis of social behavior

1.1. Social behavior as a subject of study in the humanities

In order to identify the features of the socio-philosophical aspect of the study of social behavior, we will consider approaches to the study of this phenomenon in modern humanitarian knowledge. Several such approaches can be distinguished, differentiated by those disciplines that include social behavior in the field of their research: psychological and socio-psychological, sociological, cultural, pedagogical, legal, etc.

In psychology, behavior is studied as the interaction inherent in living beings with a certain environment, mediated by their external (motor) and internal (mental) activity. In the psychological study of human behavior, the processes of motivation come to the fore, without knowledge of which it is not possible to regulate it. It is about how a person models behavior based on needs and situation. Psychologists include the facts of human social behavior as actions and actions of an individual that have a public or social meaning and are associated with moral standards of behavior, interpersonal relationships, and self-esteem. When speaking about social behavior as socially determined, psychologists refer to it as activity. From their point of view, human behavior is always set by society and has the characteristics of conscious, collective, goal-setting, voluntary and creative activity. At the level of socially determined human activity, the term

“behavior” also means a person’s actions in relation to society, other people and the objective world, considered from the perspective of their regulation by social norms of morality and law.

In social psychology, social behavior is studied as the behavior of a representative of a particular social group. For example, T. Shibutani explains the specifics of the socio-psychological approach to the analysis of social behavior, saying that a social psychologist views people as members of groups. This does not deny the fact that humans are biological beings, nor that behavior is an organic process. However, interest is concentrated on those particular features of human behavior that, apparently, should be absent if people lived in isolation from each other. Social psychology studies the ways and mechanisms of pressure exerted by a group on a person and making his actions conform to the norms accepted in the group. For example, such phenomena as social imitation are studied (an individual repeating those actions that others perform, for example, crowd behavior - “doing like everyone else”), social dependence (approval or disapproval of a person’s behavior by other people), information dependence (a person acts on based on available information). Social psychologists consider different kinds social behavior, for example, role-playing, organized and mass behavior of an individual, as well as forms of ritual, altruistic, cooperative, creative, stereotypical, conventional, demonstrative behavior. A separate area of ​​study is behavior that leads a person to disaster, called destructive: addictive, antisocial, suicidal, conformist, narcissistic, fanatical, autistic.

Sociologists study primarily external factors that determine social behavior. It should be noted that M. Weber believed that the task of the sociological study of social behavior is to analyze the subjectively assumed, implied meaning of human actions. Weber proceeded from the neo-Kantian premise, according to which every human act appears meaningful only in relation to values, in the light of which both the norms of human behavior and their individual goals are articulated. However, during the subsequent development of the problems of axiology in Western (especially American) sociology, this connection gradually disappeared from the field of view of researchers of social behavior, who did not consider values ​​in their own way. internal specifics, which distinguishes them from norms, on the contrary, appeared, as a rule, only within the framework of the phrase “values ​​and norms,” where norms are considered in close connection with social sanctions. Values ​​have come to be defined as the rules of behavior by which society maintains, regulates and distributes appropriate types of actions among its members. In this context, a person with his goals, aspirations, and values ​​is considered as a consequence of social processes, and not as their cause. For example, T. Parsons, for whom the development of Weber’s theory of social action played a decisive role in the formation of his own sociological structure, decisively transformed its basic concepts. He studies social behavior in the aspect of general cultural values, patterns, norms and mandatory requirements for human behavior.

Today in sociology the prevailing approach is to consider social behavior in the aspect of social institutions (a system of institutions, laws, norms) that introduce order into human behavior, ensuring its certainty and predictability. Agree-

But in this approach, society, through institutions, determines the forms of social behavior, thereby freeing a person from the need to make essentially important decisions anew every time. Institutions guarantee the usual reliability of fundamental life orientations, social behavior is freed from excessive reflection: in their mutual relationships, people are able to automatically follow the same form of behavior.

Thus, for a sociologist the subject of study is institutional, i.e. stable, repeating, empirically recorded, typical, normatively mediated and organizationally ordered forms of strategic consciousness and behavior of the individual.

Sociologists consider the main components of social behavior to be needs, motivation, expectations (expectations), goals, means, conditions and norms.

The following spheres of society are proposed as the basis for the sociological classification of types of social behavior: political, economic, private consumer, legal, cultural. According to social orientation, prosocial and antisocial behavior are distinguished, etc.

Culturologists consider social behavior in its inextricable connection with culture. For example, E.A. Orlova believes that “culture, by definition, is understood as a derivative of joint human activity.” Researchers such as K. Kuhn, D. Bidney, R. Linton define culture as learned behavior. Behavior is considered a function of hidden semiotic structures, and culture, understood as language, is structured in the form of “rules of behavior” (D. Silverman), “symbols” (A. Pettigrew), “meanings” (K. Weick), “individual codes” "(M. Lowy). B.C. Stepin writes that the “body” of culture consists of supra-biological programs of behavior, communication and human activity.

In cultural studies, cultural norms that determine the social behavior of an individual are analyzed, as well as symbolic programs of behavior, the systemic totality of which mediates the interaction of people and their living conditions, depriving the latter of their effect. direct action, creating a social environment. Thus, cultural scientists, like sociologists, focus on external, determining factors of social behavior.

In pedagogy, the moral aspect determines the specifics of the study of social behavior. The essential meaning of social behavior is revealed at the intersection of such processes as a person’s awareness of himself as a member of society, a subject of interaction with other people, with groups; conscious implementation of the norms of social existence accepted by a given society; making personal efforts to introduce social values ​​(their development and creation); implementation of family, leisure, work, cognitive functions based on humanism and spirituality. Social behavior is presented as a culture of human self-realization in society, and is assessed from a moral point of view. Therefore, the leading element of behavior is the “right action” (A.S. Makarenko).

In legal sciences, the category of social behavior is considered from an applied aspect (in terms of its use as a theoretical and legal tool for assessing the realities of antisocial behavior). One group of legal scholars operates with the terms “social”, “socio-legal”, “legal” behavior as complementary, while the other prefers to use only the term “legal behavior” in legal sciences. The following provision is of fundamental importance here: the right

Everything in general is a type of social. Hence, in particular, the point of view on “socio-legal” as a tautology, an attempt to renounce the social conditioning of individual behavior and recognition of the need to explain it from the position of compliance or non-compliance with legal norms. Recognizing and emphasizing the organic connection between the unity of the legal and the social, I would like to point out the impossibility of both their complete confusion and rupture. Not every social behavior can have legal significance, but only that which, in addition to social significance, has legal characteristics: controllability by consciousness, legal consequences, circulation in the legal sphere, etc. When considering social behavior in jurisprudence, the social side is not absolutized; on the contrary, the normative-legal aspect of behavior is emphasized, therefore social behavior appears as legal or illegal within the framework of normative reflection and assessment of the severity of a social property or, in other words, the social danger of behavior. The essence of socially dangerous behavior is social and is rooted in the method of action, its intensity and focus on the corresponding object and the harm caused. Antisocial behavior arises when an individual realizes his interests as contrary to the interests of society and the presence of a will that gives actions three main impulses: the desire for one’s own good (selfishness), or the desire for someone else’s grief (malice), or the desire for someone else’s good (compassion). Therefore, legal behavior is built according to the same pattern as moral behavior: decision - responsibility - guilt. Although human behavior is regulated by law, it has motives rooted in human nature, which means that law and morality are inseparable. Thus, social behavior in legal sciences is studied in the context of social norms and is limited by the framework of one social property of behavior - social danger.

Yadov on dispositional regulation social behavior personalitiesReport >> Sociology

About dispositional regulation social behavior personalities. The dispositional concept is very fruitful in this regard. personalities, the author of which... based on the highest social needs personalities(the need for inclusion in this social environment in a wide...

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. The person feels the need to communicate and joint activities with other people, he wants to be loved, respected, fairly valued 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 system 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 on behavior. unforeseen circumstances. 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 different forms of human reaction to 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 the field of research, 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 complex relationships, but form relatively the unchanging source from which these latter are constantly born." Cooley proposed the specific term “mirror self,” according to which in the process of reflection, 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 roiling sea, in which individual people, like waves, act on those around them with their actions, exchanging ideas, artistic images, volitional impulses, etc. with them. 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 homo sapiens, as well as cultural systems in which a person is included and thanks to which he gains social experience and implements it in his P. It is the cultural system that creates institutionalized patterns of P., thereby providing a criterion for the correctness or incorrectness of certain actions of an 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, tearing young people away from family and adults, and on the other, they are a means of transforming old ones. value systems, affirmation of new values ​​that provide the individual with social support in his personal life and interaction with peers for a long time - from the moment of “dropping out” of the parents’ family until the creation of their 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. the position occupied by an individual in the social structure of society. Society, through the normative system operating within it, imposes on the individual certain social roles, but their acceptance, fulfillment, or rejection largely depend on his personal choice, on his social position, and this contradictory interaction (society norms and personal orientations) always leaves an imprint on a person’s real life.

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 violated moral standards, customs, traditions, and community rules existing in society, then these violations are called asocial P. (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 P., representing a violation of both moral and legal norms and expressed in robberies, murders 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 beings, various types of collective behavior are of utmost importance in their life. The most serious attention to the sociological analysis of collective behavior was paid to such famous sociologists as E. Durkheim, M. Weber, K. Marx, T. Parsons, G. Bloomer and etc.

K. Marx, in particular, emphasized that “one of the natural conditions of production (i.e., activity aimed at producing objects necessary for life) for a living individual is his belonging to some naturally formed group: tribes, etc. "His own productive existence is possible only under this condition." Only in collective P., 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 receive the means that give him the opportunity for the comprehensive development of his inclinations, and, therefore, only in a collective 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 the functioning team or bureaucratic organization."

Summarizing the many and varied sociological research collective P., 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 play, he argues that when a sociologist studies customs, legends, gaming traditions, mores, institutions, and social organization, he is dealing with social rules and social determinants through which collective play is organized. Of particular importance , 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, therefore, more highly developed social systems.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓