Rules of behavior in society. Modern etiquette for women

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

Annotation:

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

Article text:

Throughout his life, a person is in a sociocultural space where rules of behavior play one of the main roles. These rules are called etiquette.

Etiquette (French - etiquette) is a set of rules of behavior accepted in society, establishing the order of secular behavior, which allows people, without much effort, to use ready-made forms of decent behavior and generally accepted politeness for cultural communication among themselves at various levels of the structure of society, in light, while in the process of communication it is worthy to take into account the interests of others in one’s behavior.

The word etiquette itself has been used since the time of Louis XIV, at whose receptions guests were given cards listing the rules of behavior required of them. These cards are “labels” and give the etiquette its name. In French, this word has two meanings: a label and a set of rules, a conventional order of behavior.

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

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

It is not possible to consider all aspects of etiquette, since etiquette passes through all spheres of a person’s public and personal life. In turn, we will focus on its most important norms such as tact, politeness, and sensitivity. Let's touch on such a concept as “inequality”. Let's analyze the levels of behavior, internal and external culture of a person. Let's highlight the rules of telephone communication. The last position was not chosen by chance, since the phone takes up this moment leading place in communication, sometimes replacing interpersonal and sometimes even intergroup communication.

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

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

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

women before men,
elders before younger ones,
the sick before the healthy,
boss before subordinates.

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

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

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

Based on the established lifestyle of a modern person, his social connections and activities, it is not difficult to list all those conventions of secular behavior that are initially associated with generally accepted etiquette and determine its corresponding ethical and aesthetic norms. All of them must be studied and repeated, and be well known to all citizens of the country. These norms apply to almost all aspects of life and everyday life, as well as areas social activities a person, determining his behavior in the family, at a party, at school, at work, in public places, on the roads, when he is a pedestrian and when he is a driver, in hotels, in parks, on the beach, on an airplane, at the airport, in public toilet, etc. and so on.

It should be borne in mind that in most public places, citizens only need a simple knowledge of good manners and the ability to behave with restraint, culture and politeness, without attracting the attention of other people and thereby not interfering with their presence in your company.

At the same time, there are also public places where knowledge of etiquette alone is not enough for citizens. There, to one degree or another, other basic fragments of the sociocultural matrix that we discussed above (ethical, aesthetic, civil, value, environmental, etc.) must be used, as well as the ability to feel the system of balancing interests and, above all, have the ability to take into account the interests of others , put them above your own.

For this purpose, more serious norms and laws of behavior are applied, arising from the rights, responsibilities and interests of citizens, civil servants, and entrepreneurs. Without knowledge of the relevant fragments of the sociocultural matrix, individuals cannot be named, status certified or admitted to the corresponding cells of social activity or government positions. And the higher the social place of an individual’s activity in the structure of social relations, the greater the demands, in addition to knowledge of etiquette, should be placed on his behavior, the more his behavior should be determined by the responsibilities of this individual to other members of society, society in understanding their specific interests, the interests of society as a whole – national interests.

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

Internal culture is the knowledge, skills, feelings and abilities that underlie the fundamental fragments of a person’s individual sociocultural matrix, acquired through his upbringing, education, development of consciousness and intellect, professional training, signs of good results of which should be his virtue, knowledge of the interests of others, hard work and high morality.

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

Thus, individual manifestations of external culture may not reflect the internal culture of an individual or even contradict it. This happens in cases of painful manifestations of the psyche, as well as in cases of behavioral “mimicry”, when an ill-mannered individual tries to pass himself off as a well-bred one. However, with longer observation of him, these contradictions are easily detected. Therefore, a truly cultured and efficient person can only be such thanks to his diligent upbringing. And, on the contrary, external manifestations of an individual’s bad manners indicate his internal emptiness, and therefore immorality, the complete absence of elementary internal culture.

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

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

External culture consists of two “parts”: that which comes from the elements of public sociocultural matrices ( different instructions, statutes, generally accepted rules, decency, etiquette) and what comes from the education and enlightenment of a secular person (manners, delicacy, tact, taste, sense of humor, conscientiousness, etc.).

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

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

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

Between rules and internal regulators of behavior there are very difficult relationships. They are opposites - internal and external, typical and individual, although at the same time they can “work” in the same direction. Normal relationships between people are generally a delicate matter that easily breaks if people treat each other rudely, especially now in an age of constant stress and increased mental stress.

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

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

Politeness does not necessarily mean truly treating a person with respect, just as rudeness does not necessarily mean truly treating a person with disrespect. A person can be rude due to the fact that he moved in a rude environment and did not see other patterns of behavior.

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

An important aspect of etiquette is the concept of good manners, which requires study and practice; it must, so to speak, become second nature to us. True, much that is called good form and refined taste is innate delicacy, and therefore the statement is true that a person can assimilate and learn everything, but not delicacy. But delicacy is not everything, and innate taste requires improvement. Good examples and your own efforts contribute to this.

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

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

The basics of etiquette, known to everyone since childhood, are three magic words: please, thank you, excuse me (sorry).

Every request must be accompanied by the word “please”.

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

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

You need to learn to say these magic words without thinking, automatically. The absence of these words in appropriate situations or their non-automatic, unnatural use means either impoliteness, rudeness, or an announcement and demonstration of hostility.

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

Considering the “inequality” in etiquette, it should be borne in mind that the young are obliged to greet the elders first, those entering - those present, those who are late - those waiting, etc. At official receptions, the hostess and host are greeted first, followed by the ladies, first the older ones, then the younger ones, then the older and senior men, and then the rest of the guests. The lady of the house must shake hands with all invited guests.

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

Demeanor is of great importance when greeting. You should look directly at the person you are greeting with a smile. When addressing a stranger, unfamiliar person or official, you should always say “You”. The form of address “you” expresses a closer relationship with a person. When addressed as “you,” many formalities that indicate an external, detached form of politeness disappear.

Dating etiquette rules are no less complex. The first step to making connections is introduction. When introducing yourself or introducing someone, you usually give your last name, first name, patronymic, and sometimes your position or title. If you are visiting an institution for business or personal reasons or executive, then before starting a business conversation, you should introduce yourself and, if available, hand over your “business card.” An introduction is also necessary if you are addressing a stranger on any issue.

An integral attribute of modern etiquette is the ethics of telephone conversations. Its most important points include the following:
1) You should always introduce yourself when you call if you are unfamiliar or unfamiliar with the recipient or if you rarely call this recipient. It should also be taken into account that telephone communication may be poor, i.e. your voice is barely audible or distorted, and therefore even a good friend may not immediately understand who he is talking to.
2) You almost always need to ask whether a person is busy or not and how much time he has for a telephone conversation. The behavior of a caller who immediately begins to conduct this conversation without the necessary clarification of the boundaries of the conversation is unceremonious.
3) If you get a call and you are very busy and cannot talk, then, as a rule, the burden of calling back is not on the person who called, but on you. There may be two exceptions here:
- if the caller does not have a telephone;
- if for some reason it is difficult to call the person who called you. It is impolite to force the caller to call you back again because you are busy. When you do this, you involuntarily make it clear that you value and respect him less than yourself.
4) When they call on the phone and ask not you, but another person, it is impolite to ask “who is this?” or “Who’s speaking?” Firstly, it is indecent to answer a question with a question. Secondly, with your question you can put the one asking in an awkward position. The questioner is not always inclined to introduce himself to a stranger who picks up the phone. His right is to remain incognito to outsiders. Asking “who speaks?” willingly or unwillingly “gets into the soul” of the caller. On the other hand, asking “who is speaking?” voluntarily or involuntarily, it “gets into the soul” of the person who is being called directly, since the addressee may also want to keep the secret of his relationship with the caller. (Parents sometimes do this in their desire to control every step of their adult children, thereby limiting their right to personal life. Excessive control and excessive guardianship on the part of parents lead to the fact that adult children either remain infantile, dependent, or are alienated from their parents.) In If the addressee is absent, you need to ask not “who is speaking?”, but “what should I convey to the addressee?”
5) In a telephone conversation, business or telegraphic style should prevail, with rare exceptions. Talking around the bush is inappropriate. If possible, you should immediately formulate the questions for which you are calling, and do not hesitate to ask the interlocutor about the same if he is “carried away” by the conversation on unrelated topics. You need to tactfully ask your interlocutor to move on to the subject of the telephone conversation, without rudely interrupting his speech. In principle, non-business conversations on the phone are also acceptable, but only after it becomes clear that both parties have the desire and time to conduct such conversations.
6) It must be borne in mind that telephone communication is not as complete as face-to-face communication. Therefore, the requirements for conversation in general are more stringent, i.e. you need to behave more carefully, prudently. A word spoken over the phone and a word spoken face to face can be evaluated differently and even in opposite ways.

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

Two more etiquette concepts that cannot be ignored are commitment and precision. An unobligatory person is very inconvenient for others, although he can be nice, courteous, etc. You cannot rely on such a person, you cannot count on him. Let him not be offended if they stop respecting him and avoid communicating with him. “Precision is the courtesy of kings,” says the saying. He is not a king who is not obligated, who behaves carelessly in relation to his own obligation.

→ Code of Conduct

In modern societies there are no clearly defined boundaries between people (as there were in Ancient India). For this reason, it is believed that morals and standards of behavior should be are the same for all people.

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

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

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

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

Definition of normal behavior

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

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

Of course, such a definition may be too broad: in any given society there are many obligations and prohibitions that have arisen due to rather random circumstances. But that's it necessary standards, taking place in any society, are the same, since they are equally motivated. The totality of such norms constitutes what is sometimes called “natural law.”

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

Values

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

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

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

Digression: individualism and collectivism

In the following discussion we will use the words “individualistic values” and “collectivist values.” In the sphere of power and the sphere of communal relations, human behavior is collectivist, and in the sphere of property and cultural sphere - individualistic. Accordingly, a person whose behavior is more related to the first two areas of activity can be called a “collectivist,” and in the opposite case, an “individualist.” In addition, “collectivism” and “individualism” refer to the emotional attitude towards one’s own behavior.

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

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

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

Core Values

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

Sphere of communal relations: justice

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

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

The idea of justice only makes sense in relation to many people, to the collective. It is based on comparison of people. The concept of justice is relative one person doesn't make sense. (Robinson, on his island, while he was alone, simply did not have the opportunity to act justly or unfairly). On the other hand, this idea is not something “positive”. Justice doesn't have its own content. Justice does not require that “everyone has a good time.” She demands that everyone be in some sense equally good or equally bad- often even the latter, since it is easier to arrange. The main thing is that it is everyone And the same(that is, symmetrically). What exactly it will be the same for everyone - not so important.

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

The idea of justice is that all relationships between people should be symmetrical - directly or “in the end.”

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

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

IN real life the question of “what is worth what” is a fundamental problem, and precisely the problem of justice. This also applies to prices in the most literal, monetary sense of the word. Everyone understands that there is a concept of “fair price”. By the way, this concept is not from the sphere of property - completely fair prices would make “economic life” completely impossible.

A situation in which relations between people are in most cases fair can be called by different names, but the reverse situation in most cases is called inequality(although this is not a very accurate word).

Scope of ownership: benefit

It is quite obvious that the relation of possession is asymmetrical, or more precisely, antisymmetrical, that is, it excludes symmetry. The difference between the owner and everyone else is very great: he can do with his property what everyone else has no right to do.

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

Again, let us remind you that we are not talking about theories. Let's take the most primitive understanding of benefit - the benefit that everyone wants for themselves. It comes down to "It's better than it was before." By "best" we usually mean multiplication wealth, health, and possessions in general.

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

A unique variant of such value as benefit is good. Good can be defined as “benefit to another.” "Do good" means "do something" useful for another person”, “to give him something” or “to do something for him”. (By the way, the word “good” itself in many languages originally meant “property”, which has remained in Russian everyday speech to this day) However, the word “good” also has some additional meanings, which will be discussed below.

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

This is especially noticeable when they benefit not themselves, but others - say, their child or the woman they love. In such cases good is done despite whether it's fair or not. "I gave my beloved mink coat, because he wanted to see her happy,” says the thief who stole this thing. Did he do good? Objectively speaking, yes. To her he certainly wanted to “do good,” no matter at whose expense. In a less dramatic situation, the father, wanting to help his son, arranges for him to prestigious university“through connections,” although this is extremely unfair for everyone else who applies. He just doesn't think about them.

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

Benefit is no more meaningful idea than justice. As has already been said, to wish good (for oneself or another) means to wish possession something that doesn't exist now. “Better” is understood here in this sense. But the idea of What exactly should have and is it worth it to have it in general, in the very idea of benefit No. These ideas must come from somewhere else. At the everyday level, everything is simple: “better” for yourself means “how do I I want to", or "as I think useful for yourself", and for the other - a mixture of "like to him want" (according to my ideas) and "how does he will be better"(again, according to my ideas). These ideas may be incorrect in both cases. Let's imagine two situations. In the first, the parents forbade the child to eat chocolate because chocolate gave him a rash on his skin. A loving grandmother secretly gives it to his grandson chocolate candy, because her grandson begged it from her. Did grandma do good? Yes, according to my ideas. Let's take another, opposite case. The daughter wants to get married, but her mother forbids her to do so because she thinks young man inappropriate pairing. The mother says: “I’m doing this for your own good.” Moreover, she really thinks so. Is she doing good? Yes, according to my ideas. Is she right in her ideas? And if so, in what sense?

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

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

Power Sphere: Superiority

A separate problem is combination benefit and justice. As has already been said, what is useful is not necessarily fair, and justice in itself is not related to benefit.

Moreover, protozoa forms of benefit and justice simply deny each other. There is nothing more fair (and less useful) than a large cemetery. But the ultimate wish for good (“let everything be as you want”), if it were realized, would lead to extreme injustice (after all, Nero and Caligula “did what they wanted,” and one should not think that others are on their they wouldn’t want something like that here).

Nevertheless, there is a value that in some way brings utility and justice together. Interestingly, she is not like either one or the other. This is an idea superiority, dominant in the sphere of power relations.

Its dual nature is closely related to the dual nature of power - how possession those part what the possessor himself is, that is, the relationship PS . If justice- social value, and benefit- individualistic, then superiority in some way it is both. Let us recall the definition of justice - “let everyone will the same", and the definition of benefit (or good) is "let to me(or someone) will better".

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

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

The idea of superiority most powerfully expresses the very essence of the force that binds people together. This is not surprising, since it is power relations and power behavior that realize both components of this force ( P S). This is where it shows up most clearly. "The leader is first and foremost brings people together around myself", they talk about imperious behavior. But this also means that he has at his disposal a certain amount of force that connects people together, a certain amount of energy that is usually scattered in society. This is usually caused by the fact that in the society itself this force remains less. Great leaders and emperors usually arise in times of social chaos and disorder, when the force that held people together in society seems to be weakening. But in fact, it cannot disappear anywhere - it simply goes into a free state, and it turns out to be possible to take possession of it. The desire to have power is the desire to have this power at one's disposal, nothing else. This is excellence. In the extreme, one can wish for superiority not over any specific people, but over society as a whole.

Superiority is as empty an idea as the first two. There is no indication in it of how and in the name of what one person seeks to rise above all the others, why he is trying to unite them and where he will lead them. Specific types of superiority in different cultures differ especially strongly.

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

Comment. Goodness as a manifestation of superiority

One of the traditional problems associated with human behavior is the “charity problem.” It is easy to explain by pragmatic reasons a person’s tendency to harm his neighbor (it’s just that in many situations it benefits the one who does it: take away bread from a hungry person in order to eat it himself). It is more difficult to explain the not so rare cases of the exact opposite behavior (giving your bread to the hungry), especially if you cannot expect gratitude.

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

Sphere of culture: freedom

Finally, there is something opposite to the idea of superiority. This is an idea freedom, arising in the cultural sphere. It arises from the corresponding behavior of people and comes down to the idea independence from relations of participation, property and especially power.

Fifth value: life

Social relations are possible only if there are people entering into them. Therefore itself existence participants in social relations can also be defined as a special value.

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

Other values

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

Digression: the origin of values

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

This does not mean that a dog or a rat has any concept, say, about justice (or some other value), but they sometimes demonstrate behavior, which can be considered fair, and with good reason. A wolf carrying food to his she-wolf, instead of eating it himself, makes her good. What he thinks and whether he thinks at all is not important here. The same wolf fighting another wolf will not kill the opponent after he has tucked his tail between his legs. Kill the one who gave up and retreated, not fair. As for the desire to superiority, here, probably, there is no need to even give examples. Animals spend most of their time free from searching for food establishing what zoologists call a “pecking order.” Equally obvious is the desire to independence(freedom) - just try locking a wild animal in a cage to be convinced of this.

The hierarchy of values and relationships between the spheres of behavior in animals are biologically determined and depend on the species. A good example would be "cat" and "dog" behavior. All cats are more or less individualists; canines can form huge packs with a very complex hierarchy within them. It cannot be said that the tiger consciously “professes” some “values.” He behaves in a certain way without thinking about what his actions are called. Nevertheless, his behavior fits well into a certain classification, the same one into which human behavior fits.

Relationships between values

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

Particularly acute conflicts arise between opposing values. A classic example is the conflict between the ideas of justice and superiority. The very existence of power clearly contradicts the idea of justice - and, on the other hand, power is necessary for there to be at least some kind of justice in society. The idea of superiority and the idea of justice must somehow be combined. The simplest is the combination according to the scheme: “fairness for myself, superiority over others." This kind of society needs something external, some enemies that can be surpassed. This somehow justifies the existence of power and security structures.

There are many other, much more complex and sophisticated solutions to the same problems. This applies to both society as a whole and its parts, up to any (no matter how small) stable association of people. In any team, in any organization, in general, everywhere, people have to somehow solve all the same problems.

Hierarchy of values

One of the simplest and most common ways to organize values is to establish a hierarchy. This means that some values are considered “more important” than others. As a rule, the result is a kind of scale, where one value comes out on top, followed by another, and so on. Accordingly, some areas of activity begin to be considered more important than others.

Moreover, most of the most significant features that divide society into so-called “classes” or “strata” are usually associated precisely with the dominant values. A society in which one area of behavior dominates will primarily support those norms of behavior that are characteristic of this dominant sphere. The way it is. In this case, a kind of hierarchy of behavioral norms: despite the fact that everyone recognizes the necessity and inevitability different ways behavior, one of them begins to be considered the best, the most worthy, and the rest - more or less base and vile. Since evaluation is some idea, then it can be imposed even on those who themselves behave differently and even can't afford to perform actions approved by this idea.

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

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

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

Norms of relations within spheres of activity

Within spheres of activity (that is, between people behaving in the same way) there are some norms of relationships. As a rule, they are much more stable and definite than between people whose main interests are in different areas of activity.

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

Conflict behavior

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

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

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

Further, a person can be deprived of the achieved superiority, which is perceived as humiliation. Finally, he can be placed in conditions where he will have to do something that he might not have done before - which is loss of freedom.

It is necessary to distinguish between damage and the means of causing it. For example, murder is not separate species damage, but an extremely powerful means of causing it. It always pursues one of the goals mentioned above - for example, to take possession of a person's property, or to remove him from society ("remove").

Property conflict

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

Free competition is impersonal - opponents do not fight each other personally and directly. They may not even know or care about each other's existence. In fact, it's a fight of one result with another. This is reminiscent of running sports. The runners are each on their own track, and can't interfere with each other push or trip. They are isolated from each other. They are judged by a third party. After all, it is possible to compete not even with another runner, but with a “result” that could have been achieved a year ago; it doesn't change things.

Competition is a situation where competitors cannot interfere with each other directly. Blowing up someone else's plant is no longer competition, but a criminal offense. In short, the basic rule of competition is: a person can do whatever he wants with his property(including hurting the interests of other people), but cannot violate the property rights of others.

Conflict in the sphere of communal relations

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

The sphere of communal relations also has its own norms for managing conflicts. First of all, you need to keep in mind that in this area it is generally not customary to achieve something, achieve something, and so on. Achievement is a concept from the spheres of power and property. The sphere of communal relations is the sphere symmetrical relationships. From all that has been said, it follows that the most acceptable reason for conflict in the sphere of communal relations is not so much the intention to get something or do something yourself, but do not let someone else get it or do it. This may be a desire to besiege, not to allow, not to give, not to let, not to allow, or - if all of the above did not help - at least to take revenge.

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

Conflict in the sphere of communal relations is usually aimed at put in place a person who stands out - and it is not so important in which direction he stands out. A person who treats others poorly, gains something for himself at the expense of others, deceives them, does not keep his word, and generally violates justice in any way, very quickly evokes a corresponding reaction from those around him, even those who are not personally affected by this. This reaction may be understood people in different ways. In cases where a person stands out for violating the moral norms accepted in a given society, such a reaction is called “moral indignation” and is recognized as acceptable and correct. But exactly the same reaction arises in general on everything that stands out, even in better side. A talented, intelligent, strong, capable person in the sphere of social relations evokes exactly the same hostility and desire to put them in their place. People try to explain their behavior to themselves in different ways, for example, by attributing some vices to the person who stands out (most often arrogance), or by explaining their hostility with envy, or in some other way. In fact, this is simply a normal reaction within a given sphere to a phenomenon that violates its harmony. Note that at those moments when people begin to act in other areas, the attitude changes dramatically - until the relationship again moves into the social sphere, where everything starts all over again.

Emotions like “let neither me nor him get it”, “I’ll burn down my hut just to set fire to the neighbors’ mansions”, etc., etc., are the flip side of such good human qualities as the desire for justice and readiness to go to great lengths. sacrifices for her. By the standards of the sphere of communal relations, high growth and good health may seem as unfair as stolen money or criminal connections. And people will behave in relation to an innocent tall fellow in the same way as to an obvious swindler, that is, to dislike and in every possible way strive to humiliate, spoil, do dirty tricks - in general, something compensate obvious asymmetry. In extreme cases - if there are absolutely no excusable reasons for such behavior - this will manifest itself in the fact that the person who stands out they won't forgive that they will forgive and excuse the one who does not stand out.

These properties of the sphere of communal relations have caused an ambivalent attitude towards them since ancient times. Since hoary antiquity, angry words have been uttered about the “baseness of the crowd” that hates everything high. But from that same time on, it was this same crowd (this time respectfully called by the people) was considered the source and standard of moral norms and was opposed to the “corrupt” nobility, “bored” owners and “arrogant” intellectuals. All these meaningless arguments are associated with the use of words like people or crowd. When pronouncing these words, no one thinks about what he is actually talking about. What is, for example, people? All residents of a given country? Obviously not - otherwise the “people” includes the government, rich people, and local intellectual luminaries. Then what? Everyone who does not belong to the above categories of people? Seems Yes. But then the boundaries of the concept “people” coincide with the boundaries of the sphere of communal relations, and denotes a set of people who belong (in their behavior) mainly to this sphere (something like the Shudra caste in Ancient India). But this is not at all what they mean when they talk about the people as nation.

Conflict in the sphere of power

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

It is typical for conflicts in this area that they involve both competition and the creation of obstacles to the activities of others.

Conflict in the sphere of power relations is closely related to the demonstration of one’s superiority. If in the sphere of communal relations “being different from everyone else” is bad (such people are taken for fools or criminals), then in the sphere of power it is bad to be ordinary, “like everyone else,” and not more significantly others. There are no restrictions on demonstrating superiority; only one thing is important - superiority must be genuine.

It is interesting that the same people who passionately advocate for justice in his environment and not tolerant stand out, are internally convinced that leaders and “power” in general should consist of outstanding individuals whose terms of reference should be very big(even dictatorial), and here the sense of justice is somehow silent. In the head of such a person there appears a vague image of a society consisting of a people who have nothing but camaraderie and good relations, and cohorts of leaders who have nothing but power.

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

Conflict in the cultural sphere

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

Notes:

Both complete darkness and too bright light do not allow you to see anything. Likewise, a “too clear” understanding of something does not allow one to distinguish anything.

See above for simple steps.

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

This formulation is found, for example, in Plato (“The Republic”, 433a-b). However, Plato’s interpretation of this principle is erroneous: he viewed justice as a situation where everyone minds his own business and does not interfere in other people’s affairs (433d), that is, as stable property relations ( ^PS but not P^S). It must be said that this is Plato's mistake.

The famous slogan of the French Revolution is “Liberty, equality, fraternity or death!” demonstrates this, albeit in an absurd form. Death is indeed something quite fair, since it occurs equally for everyone. (By the way, the existence of immortal people would seem to other people to be the height of injustice - if, of course, immortals lived in the same society with mortals).

If this is not entirely true, it is not entirely his property (which can be easily felt by anyone renting a thing).

By the way, this is “better”, as a rule, does not look like to “better” in terms of benefits. Very often it looks like “worse”. In order to achieve superiority over others, people embark on undertakings that they would never agree to if they wanted to benefit themselves (and only her). The life of a man striving for excellence heavy and the more he achieved, the harder this life, as a rule, is.

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

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

“The main thing is victory, but we must not forget about saving the soul.”

In total one hundred and twenty can be distinguished possible options hierarchy of values. It is difficult to say whether all of them are feasible. It is most likely possible to select historical examples for many options.

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

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

in contrast to the original ones, these are norms of direct regulation of people’s behavior and social relations. They indicate the mutual rights and responsibilities of subjects, the conditions for the implementation of these rights and responsibilities, the types and extent of the state’s reaction in relation to offenders.
A specific feature of a directly regulatory legal norm is its representative-binding nature, according to which it establishes mutual subjective rights and legal obligations for participants in social relations (subjects) protected and guaranteed by the state. As a result of such a targeted regulatory influence of a norm - a rule of behavior on a particular actual social relationship, the latter acquires the character of a legal one, and its participants become subjects of this legal relationship.
In norms - rules of behavior, the original legal norms receive logical development and detail.
Norms - rules of behavior - have been thoroughly studied in legal science. Until recently, the definition of a legal norm and its theory as a whole focused exclusively on norms - rules of behavior, leaving out of sight many other types of normative instructions related to the original, starting norms.
In the legal literature, norms - rules of behavior are sometimes divided, taking into account their purpose, into regulatory and protective. Without objecting in principle to such a division, which emphasizes the functional orientation of the relevant norms, we note, following some other authors, the conventionality of this classification, since protection is one of the methods of regulation, as a result of which the same norm can simultaneously be called both regulatory and protective.
General and special norms. They differ in the degree of generality and scope. General norms are regulations that, as a rule, cover all legal institutions of a particular industry (criminal law norms on probation, deferment of execution of a sentence, civil law norms on limitation of actions, etc.). These norms are grouped into the general part of the industry and regulate generic objects. In contrast, special norms are regulations that relate to the basic institutions of a particular branch of law and regulate any specific type of generic social relations, taking into account their inherent characteristics. Special norms detail general regulations, adjust the temporal and spatial conditions of their implementation, methods of legal influence on individual behavior. Thus, they ensure the smooth and consistent implementation of general rules of law. Special rules in their totality form a special part of a particular branch of law. An example of special rules are: rules of purchase and sale, donation, contract, capital construction and other transactions in civil law; norms providing for liability for hooliganism, robbery, theft and other crimes in criminal law, etc.
2. On the subject of legal regulation (by branch of law)." norms of state, administrative, financial, land, civil, labor, criminal and other industries Russian law. The qualitative homogeneity and relative autonomy of certain social relations determine the peculiarity and certain isolation of the legal norms governing them, which in their totality constitute the branch of law.
Industry standards are divided into substantive and procedural.

general concepts

Norms of human behavior in society are a rather multifaceted concept that reflects the forms of interaction of an individual with the world around him.

A person as a social unit must be guided by the rules and customs established in a particular society. Each specific situation has its own set of rules, which, however, are not fixed. Thus, actions that are acceptable in one society are categorically unacceptable in another. On the other side - social norms Personal behavior can change depending on the situation and time.

For example, imagine that you met with old friends with whom you have been friends for many years. You can allow yourself to be free, to wear what you think is necessary, not to be shy about expressions containing profanity, cheeky gestures and bad habits. Friends are used to you and perceive all your actions as the norm. Now imagine that you come to work for a large corporation and plan to achieve considerable career success here. Your image, actions and gestures in this situation will be radically different from the previous situation: appearance complies with the dress code, speech takes on a business-like tone, bad habits are veiled as much as possible. But after a year or two you go with your employees to a long-planned corporate party. In this situation, you can allow yourself to show a part of your true self. After all, despite the fact that the composition of society has not changed, the situation has changed, and too restrained behavior may be perceived by others as distrust or hostility on your part.

If norms of behavior can be mobile, then the fundamental principles that determine behavioral manners and outlook on life must have clearer boundaries.

Components of social norms

Lifestyle and behavior are dictated by a combination of external and internal factors, which were influenced by both the surrounding society and the person himself.
The system of behavioral norms includes the following concepts:

1. Social norms- indicate the necessary model of behavior in a particular society.

2. Habits- this is a set of personal behavioral models for a particular situation, consolidated as a result of repeated repetition.

There are positive, neutral and bad habits. Positive habits are perceived with approval by society (greeting when meeting, using polite words), neutral habits often do not cause any reactions (drinking tea without sugar, keeping a diary), bad habits indicate bad manners and characterize a person from a negative side (smoking, slurping, talking with a mouth full, loud burping).

3. Manners- forms of behavior based on habits. They characterize a person’s upbringing and his belonging to a certain social stratum. A well-mannered person knows how to dress elegantly, knows how to clearly formulate his thoughts and express them in a form understandable to the interlocutor.

4. Etiquette- a set of norms of behavior (politeness, tact, tolerance), relevant for the highest social strata.

5. Social values- this is the standard of ideas approved by the majority of social units: goodness, justice, patriotism.

6. Principles- these are especially important and unshakable beliefs that a person creates for himself. These are a kind of boundaries set for self-control. For example, for one person, family is the highest value, and he will never allow himself to be betrayed. For another, fidelity is not included in the list of principles; he can repeat betrayal repeatedly without remorse.

Religion as a lever for controlling human behavior

Despite the achievements of science, progressive thinking and modern views on life, religion still remains one of important factors in the formation of norms of individual behavior.

The priority importance of religion for a person is due to several factors:

1.Help from above. Sooner or later, every person faces troubles that become a real test for his will. Bankruptcy, loss of property, divorce, serious illness or death of a loved one... It is in such situations that people most often remember the presence of an invisible force in the sky. Their faith may be fickle, but at such moments they need someone to whom they can shift some of the responsibility, from whom they can expect help, even if illusory.

2. Setting up principles. It is religion that often becomes a dogmatic guide pointing to behavior. The Bible's commandments are against murder, robbery, and adultery, and some people take these principles personally.

3. Search for the meaning of life. Another reason for turning to religion is the search for answers to eternal questions.

Behavior patterns

Every action performed by a person is determined by a corresponding motive, which, in turn, dictates the order of reproducible actions.

All actions are divided into two categories:

1. Automatic- these are actions that are based on innate and acquired reflexes and skills that do not require mental awareness and are performed inertia. These include the ability to chew, breathe, walk upright, read, and speak their native language.

2. Conscious- these are more complex actions or a combination of them that require the use of human intellectual capabilities. This model behavior is based on the choice of one or another pattern of action in an unfamiliar situation.

For example, you are angry with a person and want to express your indignation to him, insult and humiliate him. But you understand that your desire is temporary and is connected not only with this person, but also with your bad mood and general failures. If you succumb to aggression, you will most likely lose contact with the person forever. It is consciousness that decides what to do in this situation, evaluating all the pros and cons. In addition, the predominance of the logical or emotional component in the character plays an important role.

Youth behavior

Youth is the perspective of the nation. Therefore, it is very important how exactly the younger generation will be raised.

The norms of human behavior in society call on young people to:

Be active participants in society;
- set life goals and strive to achieve them;
- diversify your personality;
- exercise;
- get a decent education;
- lead healthy image life without smoking and drinking alcohol;
- do not use profanity and rude expressions in conversation;
- treat the older generation with respect;
- create a value system for yourself and stick to it;
- know and follow the rules of etiquette.

But in modern world The behavior of young people in society often differs from established norms and is deviant in nature.

Thus, some young people aged 14 to 20 believe that smoking and drinking alcohol is fashionable, and attending lectures at the institute is an activity for cramming. They prefer discos to books, are rude in their statements and have promiscuous sex.

This behavior is most often formed under the influence of the company and requires immediate intervention from parents.

Interaction of youth with the older generation

The problem of interaction between different generations will always be relevant. on which one age group was brought up, by the time another grows up, it partially loses its relevance. Consequently, misunderstandings and disagreements arise.

Among the main causes of conflicts are incompatibility of interests, different, immoral behavior of one of the parties, lack of a culture of communication, struggle for superiority, and unwillingness to concede.

Nevertheless, the values and norms of behavior instilled in us from childhood say that the younger generation should yield to their elders in any situation, even if such a decision seems unfair. In addition, it is necessary to adhere to a certain pattern of behavior. When communicating, you need to use a respectful form of address - “you”, and also avoid slang. Ridiculing and making fun of elders is not allowed. And refusal to help is considered bad manners.

Standards of conduct between spouses

To build a stable house, you need to lay a solid foundation and build the walls brick by brick. So in family relationships - love is the foundation, behavior is the building blocks.

Married life is not only about joyful moments, it is also about disappointment, irritation and resentment. In order to get through all the unpleasant moments with dignity and maintain the integrity of the marriage, you need to follow a few simple rules:

Treat your partner as an equal;
- appreciate his personal qualities;
- support in any endeavors and do not ridicule failures;
- discuss important points and make decisions together;
- do not resort to insults and insults;
- do not allow yourself to be assaulted;
- be faithful to your spouse.

Business Etiquette

If the general norms of human behavior in society can vary depending on the situation, then business etiquette is a set of behavioral models that have the most defined edge.

There are 5 rules of etiquette in the business world:

1. Punctuality. Arrive at all important meetings on time, this will show that you are organized.

2. Competence. Be knowledgeable about what you're talking about. Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to give false information.

3. Speech. Learn to speak competently and clearly. Even the most successful idea, presented in clumsy and uncertain language, is doomed to failure.

4. Appearance speaks about your taste and status, so in your wardrobe, in addition to jeans and T-shirts, you must have a suit for an important meeting.

5. Interaction. Listen to the opinions of others and do not trust your idea to the first person you meet.

Compliance with these rules is very important, as it reflects the level of professionalism and seriousness of the approach to the matter.

Deviant behavior: deviation from the norm

Rules and norms of human behavior cannot always be expressed according to regulated standards. Some behavior patterns may deviate significantly from the norm. This manner is defined as deviant. It can have both positive and negative traits.

A striking example of opposite deviants are terrorists and national heroes. The actions of both of them deviate from the behavior of the “average masses”, but are perceived by society differently.

Thus, general norms of behavior can be placed on one axis, and deviant deviations at different poles.

Forms of abnormal behavior in society

Norms of human behavior in society, expressed as deviant, have four distinct forms:

Crime. IN last years this figure increased by 17%. In many ways, crime is due to the transition to market relations and high level competition, unemployment and low standard of living, as well as psychological disorders. In addition, corruption in the legal and judicial-executive sectors is of no small importance, which allows, if you have enough wealth, to avoid responsibility for violating the law.
Alcoholism. Alcohol is an integral part of holiday feasts and ordinary friendly meetings. It is consumed to celebrate something, relieve pain, or simply relieve stress. People are accustomed to the fact that alcohol has become a part of their lives, and are not aware of its harmful effects on the individual and on society as a whole. According to statistics, 70% of crimes are committed while intoxicated, and drunk drivers are to blame for more than 20% of fatal accidents.

Addiction. Dependence on a psychotropic substance, which depletes the body and leads to its degradation. Unfortunately, despite the official prohibition of narcotic drugs, every tenth teenager has tried one or more types of drugs.
Suicide. Suicide is the deliberate desire to take one's own life because of problems that seem insoluble. According to world statistics, suicide is most common in highly developed countries, where there is high competition both in the business sphere and on the personal front. Age group Those most at risk are teenagers from 14 to 18 years old and people of retirement age.

Sanctions for non-compliance

Rules and norms of behavior are regulated by approved state laws and unspoken rules of society.

Sanctions for deviant behavior vary depending on the severity of the violation.

For example, murder or robbery falls under the article of violation of the criminal code, therefore, is punishable by imprisonment. Provocation or fight are administrative violations. As a punishment for the misdemeanor, the violator will be asked to pay a fine or perform civil work. Violations associated with habits (not washing dishes, not cutting nails, being late for work) important meeting, lied), will cause social disapproval and further ignorance or contempt.

Unfortunately, we are not always taught this at school. But many people are interested in the rules of behavior among friends and in the company of unfamiliar people. How to make a culture of etiquette a part of your life and become a welcome member of any company?

Norms and rules of behavior in society apply to all forms of human interaction with the outside world. Well mannered behavior implies that a person reacts correctly to any events and does not respond with outbursts of anger to negativity.

The formation of personality begins in childhood, therefore most of Responsibility for upbringing lies with the parents. It is adults who must instill in the child love for loved ones, respect for others and, naturally, the rules of good manners. And you need to do this not only with words, but also with your own example.

The next stage of personality development is self-education. Persistent and purposeful movement along this path builds character, allows you to consciously develop the most valuable human qualities and learn the rules of behavior accepted in society. There should be no excuses here, because today there are all the necessary resources for self-education - a wide network of libraries, theaters, television, the Internet. The main thing is not to absorb the entire flow of information, but to learn to select the most valuable grains of truth.

To develop a culture of behavior, focus on aesthetic self-education. It develops a sense of beauty, teaches you to correctly understand and perceive the beauty of nature and art, and enjoy communication in a positive way. But it’s worth making a reservation: simply knowing and applying the rules of behavior accepted in our society is not enough. Lies and pretense are unacceptable here - in the heart of a truly educated person there is only place for natural politeness, sensitivity and tact.

Listen first, then speak. Do not interrupt your interlocutor - you will have time to express your point of view later.

Basic norms and rules of behavior in society

Kindness and consideration for others are the most important rules of social behavior. But the list of good manners is quite extensive. Let's consider the main ones:

Think not about yourself, but about others. People around us prioritize sensitivity over selfishness.
Show hospitality and friendliness. If you invite guests, treat them as your closest people.
Be polite in your interactions. Always say greetings and farewells, thank for gifts and services provided not only in word, but also in deed. A letter of gratitude, although it seems like a relic of the past, will be appropriate and pleasant for the recipient.
Avoid bragging. Let others judge you by your actions.
Listen first, then speak. Do not interrupt your interlocutor - you will have time to express your point of view later.
Don't point your finger at people or stare with piercing eyes. This confuses them, especially disabled people.
Don't violate someone else's personal space - for example, don't get too close to people you don't know and don't wear stuffy perfume. Never smoke in public without asking permission from your interlocutors, especially in the presence of non-smokers - no one likes it.
Avoid criticism and complaints. A person with good manners tries not to offend people with negative statements and does not complain about fate.
Stay calm in all situations. Anger not only leads to unnecessary conflicts with others, but also brings dissonance into your own inner world. Control your speech so as not to raise your voice, even if you start to get nervous.
Be punctual. Being late shows that you don't know how to plan your day and don't value other people's time.
Keep your word. An unfulfilled promise can lead to real tragedy in the life of the person you hope for.
Repay your debts on time. Failure to comply with this rule often becomes the reason not only for the cessation of friendship and good relationships, but also for serious enmity.

In business, it is not enough to just be a well-mannered person, but by following the rules of business etiquette, you will achieve success much faster.

Correct behavior in the company of business people

In the business environment, as well as in social life, there is a certain etiquette. It largely repeats the basic rules of behavior of people in society, but it also has its own nuances. Knowing the norms of business etiquette, you will receive recognition in the world successful people, you can quickly build a career or promote your own company to a leading market position. Of course, in business it is not enough to just be a well-mannered person, but by following the rules of business etiquette, you will achieve success much faster.

Punctuality. One of the fundamental tenets of the business world is “time is money.” You can negotiate brilliantly, present presentations charismatically, manage staff professionally, but... “stealing” someone else’s time by being constantly late negates the entire effect of positive qualities. An unpunctual person does not inspire trust and respect and is unlikely to find permanent partners among successful large companies. Correct behavior among business people requires clear planning of the working day and complete control over the course of events.
Dress code. Appearance - business card a person that tells about his character and inner world more than any words. A provocative appearance shows protest against the laws and foundations of society, and this is not accepted in the business world. But a strict business suit, neat hairstyle and harmoniously selected accessories indicate that a person is ready to obey universal rules and work in a single team.
Grammatically correct speech. Muttering under your breath or using slang words will ruin even the most correct appearance. If you do not have the innate gift of expressing thoughts clearly, work in this direction. Speech to the point, without unnecessary lyrical digressions, will help you find a common language with colleagues and clients and will be a good help for moving up the career ladder.
Maintaining trade secrets. In life they don’t like talkers and gossips, and in the business world they don’t like disloyal employees. Disclosure of company secrets can not only cause dismissal, but also cause difficulties with subsequent employment - the spy immediately ends up on the secret “black list” of unreliable employees.

Respect. A professional must show courtesy to his partners, clients and colleagues. The ability to listen to other people's arguments without argument or criticism and to discuss disagreements in a constructive and positive way is an invaluable quality of a business person.
Mutual assistance. You need to help your colleagues in word and deed, especially those who have recently worked with you. In most cases, good comes back to us a hundredfold.
Responsibility. Everyone knows that at work you need to work. However, many employees waste work time chatting and personal matters. This is direct irresponsibility in relation to the common cause. It’s not so bad if it only affects the idlers themselves. But the failure of an important project can leave the company without profit and employees without wages.
Telephone etiquette. Business meeting over the phone require a special approach, because at a distance it is impossible to establish visual and emotional contact with the interlocutor. To leave a positive opinion about yourself, do not interrupt your interlocutor, speak clearly and clearly, ask questions only to the point. If we talk about telephone etiquette within the company, then try to avoid personal calls during working hours - they distract the attention of other employees and position you as a frivolous talkative person.

It is perhaps impossible to list all the rules and norms of human behavior in society and at work. To be considered a well-mannered person, do not forget the basics of etiquette and show people the same attitude that you want for yourself.