etiquette, norms of behavior, interaction of people, competent socio-cultural space
Annotation:One of the basic principles of life in a modern secular society is the maintenance of normal relations between people and the desire to avoid conflicts. In turn, respect and attention can be earned only with respect for courtesy and restraint. But in life you often have to deal with rudeness, harshness, 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:
A person throughout his life is in the socio-cultural space, where the rules of behavior play one of the main roles. These rules are called etiquette.
Etiquette (French - etiquette) is a set of rules of conduct adopted in society, establishing the order of secular behavior, which enables people to effortlessly 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 their 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 conduct required of them. These cards are "labels" and gave the name to etiquette. In French, this word has two meanings: a label and a set of rules, a conditional order of conduct.
Understanding etiquette as a system of established mutual expectations, approved “models” and rules of secular communication between people, it should be recognized, however, that the real norms of behavior and ideas about “what should be done” 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 one circumstance may be appropriate in another place and under other circumstances.
Of course, various peoples make their own corrections 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, rituals, rituals that correspond to the historically determined conditions of life and the moral and aesthetic needs of people.
Consideration of all aspects of etiquette is not possible, since etiquette passes through all areas of a person's public and private life. In turn, we will focus on its most important norms such as tact, politeness, and sensitivity. Let's touch on such a thing as "inequality". Let's analyze the levels of behavior, the 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 telephone currently occupies a leading position in communication, sometimes replacing interpersonal, and sometimes even intergroup communication.
One of the basic principles of life in a modern secular society is the maintenance of normal relations between people and the desire to avoid conflicts. In turn, respect and attention can be earned only with respect for courtesy and restraint. But in life you often have to deal with rudeness, harshness, 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.
In this regard, one of the most necessary norms and foundations of etiquette is politeness, which is manifested in many specific rules of conduct: 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 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, resentment. Tact, sensitivity are manifested in a sense of proportion that should be observed in conversation, in personal and official relationships, in the ability to feel the boundary beyond which words and deeds can cause undeserved resentment, grief, pain in a person.
In addition to the basic principles of etiquette: politeness, tact, modesty, there are also general rules of secular 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
- older before younger
- the sick before the healthy,
- superior to subordinates.
The norms of etiquette - in contrast to the norms of morality - are conditional, they are in the nature of an unwritten agreement about what is generally accepted in people's behavior and what is not. The convention of etiquette in each case can be explained. Aimed at uniting people, it offers generally accepted forms, stereotypes of behavior, symbols of the manifestation of thoughts and feelings, which 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 simultaneously 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, postures, facial expressions, smile, look, i.e. what speaks about a person, his feelings and thoughts without words; speech addressed to elders, peers, younger at a meeting and parting, in anger and joy; the manner of moving, eating, wearing clothes and jewelry, celebrating sad and joyful events, receiving guests - a person should give all these types of communication not only a moral, but also an aesthetic character.
In any case, etiquette is an integral fragment of the structure of the socio-cultural matrix and is a significant part of modern secular behavior, although, of course, not all human behavior in general. In fact, it implies only the generally accepted rules and manners of human behavior in society in the places determined for this, where one can observe the external side of the actions of individuals, in which they manifest themselves like a kind of pre-learned game of the intellect.
Based on the current lifestyle of a modern person, his social relations and activities, it is easy to list all those conventions of secular behavior that are initially associated with generally recognized etiquette and determine its corresponding ethical and aesthetic norms. All of them should be studied and repeated, be well known to all citizens of the country. These norms apply to almost all aspects of life and life, as well as areas of human social activity, causing his behavior in the family, at a party, at school, at work, and 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 an airport, in a public toilet, etc. and so on.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in most public places, citizens need only a simple knowledge of good manners and the ability to behave with restraint, culture and politeness, without attracting attention from other people and thereby not preventing them from being in your society.
At the same time, there are also such public places where knowledge of etiquette alone is not enough for citizens. Other basic fragments of the socio-cultural matrix considered above (ethical, aesthetic, civic, value, environmental, etc.) should be used to some extent, as well as the ability to feel the system of balance of interests and, above all, to have the ability to take into account the interests of others put them above your own.
For this, more serious norms and laws of conduct are applied, arising from the rights, duties and interests of citizens, civil servants, and entrepreneurs. Without knowledge of the relevant fragments of the socio-cultural matrix, individuals cannot be named, certified by status 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 requirements, in addition to knowledge of etiquette, should be imposed on his behavior, the more his behavior should be determined by the duties 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 the individual socio-cultural matrix of a person, acquired through his upbringing, education, development of consciousness and intellect, professional training, the signs of good results of which should be his virtue, knowledge of the interests of others, diligence and high morals.
External culture is a lifestyle and behavior patterns that are manifested in everyday life and in social activities during direct contacts, communication with other people, with environmental objects. External culture, as a rule, is a direct product of a person's internal culture, is closely related to it, although there are some nuances.
So, individual manifestations of external culture may not reflect the internal culture of the 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 impersonate a well-bred one. However, with a longer observation of it, these contradictions are easily detected. Therefore, a truly cultured and efficient person can be such only thanks to his diligent upbringing. And, on the contrary, the outward manifestations of an individual's bad manners testify to his inner emptiness, which means immorality, the complete absence of an elementary inner culture.
External culture is not always completely dependent on the internal one and sometimes for some time can hide the lack of the latter. A good knowledge of the rules of etiquette and their observance can mitigate the lack of a 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 side of the external culture: most often either knowledge of the rules of conduct and their observance, or on the degree of taste, tact, skill in mastering external culture.
External culture consists of two “parts”: that which comes from the elements of social sociocultural matrices (various instructions, charters, generally accepted rules, decency, etiquette) and that which comes from the upbringing and enlightenment of a secular person (manners, delicacy, tact, taste , sense of humor, conscientiousness, etc.).
There are rules of conduct of different levels and content:
1) the level of universal rules adopted in modern secular society, incl. among well-bred people - the intelligentsia;
2) the level of national regulations or regulations adopted in a given country;
3) the level of rules adopted in a given locality (in a village, city, region);
4) the level of rules adopted in a particular non-secular social stratum (among the inhabitants, among adherents of a particular religious denomination or sect, among corrupt high-ranking officials, in the beau monde, among oligarchs and other individuals with ultra-high incomes, etc. .).
5) the level of secular rules adopted in a particular professional community or public organization (medical workers, lawyers, policemen, military, among actors, civil servants, members of a particular party ...)
6) the level of secular rules adopted in a particular institution (educational, medical, state, 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: both delicacy and rudeness, and good and bad manners, and good and bad taste.
In situations where a person does not know certain rules of conduct adopted in a given society, but he has certain skills of upbringing and knowledge of the basics of etiquette, he can to some extent compensate for his ignorance with flair, intuition, based on innate or acquired delicacy, tact, taste.
There are very complex relationships between rules and internal regulators of behavior. They are opposite - internal and external, typical and individual, although at the same time they can "work" in one direction. Normal relationships between people are generally a delicate matter that is easily torn if people treat each other rudely, especially now in the age of constant stress and increased mental stress.
The ability to listen to the interlocutor is an indispensable requirement of speech etiquette. This, of course, does not mean that one should sit silently. But it's tactless to interrupt another. When talking together, you also need to be able to listen, It happens that you have to be silent when you feel that your words can inflame passions. Do not start a heated argument in defense of your opinion. Such disputes 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-actions, cleanse himself, not give himself rest in this. After all, it is known that good breeding is an outward expression of the inner delicacy of the soul, which consists in general benevolence and attention to all people.
Politeness does not necessarily mean really respectful treatment of a person, just as rudeness does not necessarily mean really disrespectful treatment of a person. A person can be rude due to the fact that he rotated in a rough environment, 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 a daily norm of behavior and a habitual way of dealing with others.
An important aspect of etiquette is the concept of good manners, which requires study and exercise; it must, so to speak, become second nature to us. True, much that is called good tone and refined taste is an inborn delicacy, and therefore it is true that a person can assimilate everything and learn everything, but not delicacy. But delicacy is not everything, and natural taste needs to be improved. Good examples and personal efforts contribute to this.
In addition, in etiquette there is such a thing as decency. This is the least conspicuous of all the concepts of etiquette, but the most revered.
So, only the one who embarrasses the least number of people has good manners. After all, each person, as a rule, lives in society, i.e. among other people. Therefore, his every act, every desire, every statement is reflected in 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, whether any of his statements or actions will cause harm, cause inconvenience or trouble. Every time he must act in such a way that the people around him feel good.
To the basics of etiquette, known to everyone since childhood, there are three magic words: please, thank you, sorry (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.
These magic words need to be learned to speak without thinking, automatically. The absence of these words in appropriate situations or their non-automatic, unnatural use means either impoliteness, rudeness, or a declaration of hostility.
There are no “little things” in etiquette, more precisely, it all consists of “little things” strung on a single rod of politeness, attention to people. Etiquette begins with a certain order and rules of greetings, addresses, introductions and acquaintances.
Given the "inequality" in etiquette, it should be borne in mind that the young are obliged to be the first to greet the elders, those who enter are present, those who are late are waiting, etc. At official receptions, first of all, the hostess and the owner are greeted, after them the ladies, first the older ones, then the young ones, then the older and older men, and then the rest of the guests. The mistress of the house must shake hands with all invited guests.
It should be remembered that the handshake accepted in our country and in the West at a meeting and when introducing a man and a woman in Muslim countries is completely inappropriate: Islam does not accept even a simple contact between people of different sexes who are not related by blood ties. It is not customary to shake hands among the peoples of Southeast Asia.
Of great importance when greetings is the manner of holding. You should look directly at the person you greet 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 referring to "you", many formalities that testify to an external, detached form of politeness disappear.
No less complex are the etiquette rules of dating. The first step to establishing an acquaintance is introduction. When introducing themselves or introducing someone, they usually call the surname, first name, patronymic, sometimes - the position or title. If you are visiting an institution or official on official or personal business, then before starting a business conversation, you should introduce yourself and, if available, give your “visiting card”. Representation is also necessary if you are addressing a stranger by what or question.
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 not familiar or unfamiliar with the addressee or if you rarely call this addressee. It should also be taken into account that telephone communication can be poor, i.e. your voice is barely audible or distorted, and therefore even a good friend may not immediately figure out who he is talking to.
2) It is almost always necessary to ask whether a person is busy or not and how much time he has for a telephone conversation. Unceremonious is the behavior of the caller, who immediately, without the necessary clarification of the boundaries of the conversation, begins to conduct this conversation.
3) If you get a call, and you are very busy and cannot talk, then, as a rule, the burden of a second call is not on the one who called, but on you. There can be two exceptions here:
- if the caller does not have a phone;
- 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 because you are busy. When you do this, you unwittingly make it clear that you value-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 talking?" First, it is indecent to answer a question with a question. Secondly, with your question, you can put the person who asks in an uncomfortable position. The questioner is not always disposed to introduce himself to an outsider who picks up the phone. His right is to remain incognito to strangers. Asking "Who's talking?" voluntarily or involuntarily "climbs into the soul" of the caller. On the other hand, asking "who is speaking?" voluntarily or involuntarily, "penetrates into the soul" and the one who is directly called, since the addressee may also want to keep the secret of his relationship with the caller. (So parents sometimes act in their desire to control every step of their adult children, which limits their right to privacy. Excessive control and excessive guardianship on the part of parents leads to the fact that adult children either remain infantile, dependent or alienated from their parents.) in the absence of the addressee, you need to ask not “who is speaking?”, but “what to send to the addressee?”
5) In a telephone conversation, business or telegraphic style should prevail, with rare exceptions. Talking around and around is inappropriate. It is necessary, if possible, to immediately formulate the questions for which you are calling, and do not be shy to ask the same interlocutor if he is “carried away” by a conversation on extraneous topics. You need to ask the interlocutor to move to the subject of a telephone conversation tactfully, without rude interruption of his speech. In principle, non-business conversations on the phone are also acceptable, but only after it turns out that both parties have the desire and time to conduct such conversations.
6) It must be kept in mind that telephone communication is not as complete as face-to-face communication. Therefore, the requirements for the conversation as a whole are more stringent, i.e. you need to be more careful and prudent. A word spoken on the phone and a word spoken face to face can be evaluated in different and even opposite ways.
In a telephone conversation, you need to speak less emotionally, joke more carefully, try to avoid harsh words and expressions.
Two more concepts of etiquette that should be noted are commitment and accuracy. An optional person is very inconvenient for others, although he can be nice, courteous, etc. Such a person cannot be relied upon, cannot be counted on. Let him not be offended if they cease to respect him and avoid communication with him. “Accuracy is the courtesy of kings,” says the saying. He is not a king who is not obligatory, who behaves carelessly in relation to his own obligation.
→In a broad sense, the culture of behavior unites all spheres of external and internal culture of a person: relationships in a team, with other people, attitude to work, to the environment, behavior in public places, everyday life, organization of free time, hygiene, style, aesthetics of facial expressions and pantomime, speech culture...
In a narrower sense, the culture of behavior is an integral part of the general culture, acts as an external manifestation of the spiritual wealth of the individual, his inner world. In this sense, it is characterized as a set of forms of everyday human behavior. is only one component of the culture of behavior and includes specific rules, for example: forms of address, greetings, farewells ...
It is considered a purely external form of "humanizing" a person, ennobling his natural instincts, passions, affects. Etiquette, as a rule, has a national flavor, is of a specific historical nature, and to a certain extent is socially conditioned. The concept of etiquette is multi-vector: official, educational, military, family, festive, professional, diplomatic etiquette.
Culture can be described as the ability of a person to shape his behavior, communication with others, environment and attitude to life with the help of the spirit. The purpose and purpose of culture is the beauty or harmony of everything that exists. Beauty is a ray of light from heaven, a reflection of the being of a person and her main desire, it is a place where truth and kindness meet, where humanity is brought up: through God - to neighbors.
A cultural personality is one that harmonizes dignity and values in itself. Light, joy, gratitude, beauty are the eternal sources with which it is thoroughly saturated. If any of this is missing, then instead of art it will create a fake, instead of truth - half-truth, instead of kindness - pretense, instead of freedom - slavery of passion. “A person who has no culture does not understand art, is untidy and does not know how to dress, decorates his house tastelessly and casually speaks and works. He is only interested in superficial things, such as sports, politics, entertainment. Such people consider themselves very important, they are easily offended, they lack grace, they tend to explode over trifles, they want to become rich and try to establish ties with the rich and famous. They are rude and annoying. These are naive complex people. Their main symptom is lack of content.
A cultured person is modest and truthful. He appreciates the other, mercifully, generously treats his weaknesses, complexes and limitations. The German writer Erich Maria Remarque wrote: “Tact is an unwritten agreement not to notice the mistakes of others and not to correct them.” The depth of culture can only be reached through donations, self-denial and search. Cultural heights are reached through contemplative prayer, which is true communion with the Creator, the source of beauty and harmony.
Impeccable manners take time, a certain amount of training, i.e. knowing the rules should become a good habit. In a habit, this or that action is automated, carried out without special efforts, stress, reflections. The value of a constant habit lies in the fact that it frees the human mind from unnecessary troubles and releases internal energy for the implementation and resolution of important matters. The more often we repeat the learned forms of behavior, and the more they become perfect, the behavior is natural, unconstrained. That is, a habit is a second nature that requires constant exercise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
The culture of human behavior in society is the upbringing of a child. It passes through the influence of the national culture, the carriers of which are the people around the child. Adults would like to see the child as they are, so education is a process of assimilation.
The culture of human behavior in society comes down to shaping the personality of the child and adapting him to life in this society, as a result of which the child comprehends the culture in which he is placed, and learns to act without violating the generally accepted rules of behavior.
We all seem to have a good idea of the culture of human behavior in society. What is behind the words culture of behavior? Nevertheless, it is useful to turn to the scientific definition of the concept. This is where the Dictionary of Ethics will help us. The culture of behavior is a set of forms of everyday human behavior (at work, in everyday life, in communication with other people), in which the moral and aesthetic norms of this behavior find external expression.
The culture of human behavior in society, how concretely the requirements of morality are implemented in behavior, what is the external appearance of human behavior, to what extent these norms organically, naturally and naturally merged with his way of life, became everyday rules of life. For example, the requirement of respect for people is expressed in the form of rules of courtesy, delicacy, tact, courtesy, the ability to save other people's time, etc.
The culture of behavior includes all areas of external and internal culture of a person. Such as etiquette, rules for dealing with people and behavior in public places; culture of life, including the nature of personal needs and interests, the relationship of people outside of work.
And also, the organization of personal time, hygiene, aesthetic tastes in the choice of consumer goods (the ability to dress, decorate a home). And such as the aesthetic properties of human facial expressions and pantomime, facial expressions and body movements (grace). The culture of speech is especially distinguished - the ability to competently, clearly and beautifully express one's thoughts without resorting to vulgar expressions.
The culture of behavior is seen as a generally accepted form of outward expression of true humanity. Here, the culture of behavior of a person to a certain extent characterizes his spiritual and moral-aesthetic appearance, shows how deeply and organically he assimilated the cultural heritage of mankind, made it his own property.
It turns out that the culture of human behavior in society is the whole person, in the totality of not only external manifestations, but also internal qualities. And this means that each of us is responsible for our own culture of behavior for the people around us, and especially for those who are growing, for those who are coming to replace them.
*****************************************************************************************
Morality and culture of behavior
Ethics, morality, morality
Ethics is one of the oldest and most fascinating areas of human knowledge. The term "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek word "ethos" (ethos), meaning the actions and deeds of a person, subject to himself, having various degrees of perfection and suggesting the moral choice of the individual. Initially, back in the time of Homer, ethos is a dwelling, a permanent residence. Aristotle interpreted ethos as the virtues of the human character (as opposed to the virtues of the mind). Hence the derivative of ethos - ethos-ny (ethicos - related to temperament, temperament) and ethics - a science that studies the virtues of a human character (courage, moderation, wisdom, justice). To this day, the term "ethos" is used when it is necessary to single out the universal moral foundations that manifest themselves in historical situations that threaten the existence of world civilization itself. And at the same time, from ancient times, ethos (the ethos of the primary elements in Empedocles, the ethos of man in Heraclitus) expressed the important observation that the customs and characters of people arise in the process of their living together.
In ancient Roman culture, the word "morality" denoted a wide range of phenomena and properties of human life: temper, custom, character, behavior, law, fashion prescription, etc. Subsequently, another word was formed from this word - moralis (literally, referring to character, customs ) and later (already in the 4th century AD) the term moralitas (morality). Therefore, in terms of etymological content, the ancient Greek ethica and Latin moralitas coincide.
At present, the word "ethics", having retained its original meaning, denotes a philosophical science, and morality refers to those real phenomena and properties of a person that are studied by this science. So, the main spheres of morality are the culture of behavior, family and household morality, labor morality. In turn, the structure of ethics as a science expresses its historically fixed functions: defining the boundaries of morality in the system of human activity, theoretical substantiation of morality (its genesis, essence, social role), as well as a critical value assessment of morals (normative ethics).
The Russian fundamental principle of moral themes is the word "nature" (character, passion, will, disposition towards something good or vicious). For the first time, "morality" is mentioned in the "Dictionary of the Russian Academy" as "conformity of free deeds with the law." It also gives an interpretation of moralizing “a part of wisdom (philosophy. - I.K.), containing instructions, rules that guide a virtuous life, curbing passions and fulfilling the duties and positions of a person.”
Among the many definitions of morality, one should single out one that is directly related to the issue under consideration, namely: morality belongs to the world of culture, enters into human nature (changeable, self-created) and is a public (non-natural) relationship between individuals.
So, ethics is the science of morality (morality). But since morality is socio-historically conditioned, we should talk about historical changes in the subject matter of ethics. Ethics itself originated in the process of transition from primitive society to early civilizations. Consequently, ethical knowledge was not a product of human civilization, but a product of even more ancient, primitive communal relations. In this case, we mean, rather, normative ethics, and not ethics as a philosophical science. During the period under review, morality began to stand apart as a special, relatively independent form of social consciousness. Individual moral consciousness expressed the reflection of moral norms that opposed the real mores of ancient Greek society. Some of these norms attributed to the seven wise men can be cited: “Honor the elders” (Chilo), “Hurry to please your parents” (Thales), “Prefer old laws, but fresh food” (Periander), “Measure is the best” (Cleobulus) , “Willfulness should be extinguished sooner than a fire” (Heraclitus), etc. Ethics is born as concrete historical value orientations (in relation to a particular historical era) are given an abstract, universal form that expresses the needs of the functioning of early class civilizations.
It should be noted that morality is studied not only by ethics, but also by pedagogy, psychology, sociology, and a number of other sciences. However, only for ethics, morality is the only object of study, giving it a worldview interpretation and normative guidelines. Questions about what is the source of morality (in human nature, space or social relations) and whether the moral ideal is achievable, are transformed into the third question, perhaps the main one for ethics: how and for what to live, what to strive for, what to do?
In the history of ethics, the evolution of the object of study can be traced as follows. Antique ethics is characterized as a doctrine of virtues, a virtuous (perfect) personality. Here, virtue is identified with some specific bearer of it (the same hero of myths) and is associated primarily with such moral qualities as courage, moderation, wisdom, justice, generosity, etc.
The humanists of the Italian Renaissance supplemented these virtues with another one, in which the traditions of ancient and medieval culture were combined - the virtue of philanthropy. K. Salutati (1331-1406) called this virtue humanitas; it combines the interpretation of humanitas as education, instruction in the noble arts, coming from Cicero and Aulus Gellius, and the attitude towards humanitas as a set of natural human properties in the Middle Ages. Humanitas, according to Salutati, is that virtue "which is also commonly called benevolence." The head of the Florentine Academy M. Ficino (1433-1499) defined humanitas as the main moral property. Under the influence of humanitas as the virtue of philanthropy, he believed, people become inherent in the desire for unity. The more a person loves his equals, the more he expresses the essence of the race and proves that he is a man. And vice versa, if a person is cruel, if he moves away from the essence of the family and from communication with his own kind, then he is a person only in name.
The Christian ethics of the Middle Ages focused on the study of morality as an objective, impersonal phenomenon. Criteria for distinguishing between good and evil were taken out of the personality. From the point of view of Christian ethics, God is the absolute source of morality. In it, a person finds the reason, foundation and purpose of his being. Moral norms are elevated into a world law, following which a person who is god-like in essence, but hopelessly sinful in the social and natural dimension, is able to overcome the gap between his purpose (to be like God) and everyday life. To the virtues mentioned above, Christian ethics adds three more new ones - faith (in God), hope (in his mercy) and love (in God).
In the ethics of modern times, one of the most ancient normative requirements, expressing the universal content of morality, received a new sound. At the end of the XVIII century. this requirement is called the "golden rule", which is formed as follows: "act towards others as you would like them to act towards you." I. Kant gave a stricter expression of this rule, presenting it in the form of the so-called categorical imperative. And here we should pay attention to the fact that in this way Kant sets an important humanistic dominant to morality: “Do so,” he writes in the Critique of Practical Reason, “so that you always treat humanity both in your own person and in the person of any other but as an end and would never treat it only as a means. According to Kant, the categorical imperative is a universal obligatory principle that all people should be guided by, regardless of their origin, position, etc.
Having traced the evolution of the object of ethics, it is necessary to indicate three functions of ethics: it describes morality, explains morality, and teaches morality. According to these three functions, ethics is divided into empirical-descriptive, philosophical-theoretical and normative parts.
Here it is necessary to note some differences between morality and morality, although at the level of everyday consciousness these concepts are recognized as synonyms. On this occasion, there are several points of view that do not exclude, but, on the contrary, complement each other, revealing some nuances. If morality is understood as a form of social consciousness, then practical actions of a person, customs, mores are related to morality. In a slightly different way, morality acts as a regulator of human behavior through strictly fixed norms, external psychological influence and control, or public opinion. If we correlate morality with morality thus understood, it is the sphere of moral freedom of the individual, when universal and social imperatives coincide with internal motives. Morality turns out to be an area of self-activity and creativity of a person, an internal attitude to do good.
One more interpretation of morality and morality should be pointed out. The first is an expression of humanity (humanity) in an ideal, complete form, the second fixes a historically specific measure of morality. In the Russian language, the moral, noted V. I. Dal, is that which is opposite to the bodily, carnal. Moral - relating to one half of the spiritual life; opposite to the mental, but constituting a spiritual principle in common with it. To mental V. I. Dal refers truth and falsehood, and to moral - good and evil. A moral person is a good-natured, virtuous, well-behaved, in agreement with conscience, with the laws of truth, with the dignity of a person, with the duty of an honest and pure-hearted citizen. V. G. Belinsky raised the human striving for perfection and the achievement of bliss in accordance with duty to the rank of “the basic law of morality”.
The moral culture of a person is a characteristic of the moral development of a person, which reflects the degree of mastering the moral experience of society, the ability to consistently implement values, norms and principles in behavior and relationships with other people, readiness for constant self-improvement. A person accumulates in his mind and behavior the achievements of the moral culture of society. The task of forming the moral culture of the individual is to achieve the optimal combination of traditions and innovations, to combine the specific experience of the individual and the entire wealth of public morality. The elements of the moral culture of the individual are the culture of ethical thinking (“the ability of moral judgment”, the ability to use ethical knowledge and distinguish between good and evil), the culture of feelings (a benevolent attitude towards people, an interested and sincere empathy for their sorrows and joys), a culture of behavior and etiquette.
Moral progress in the world of culture of human relations
The moral culture of the individual is a product of the development of human relations and, therefore, is conditioned by social progress. In this regard, discussions about moral progress have been going on for a long time. Is it an illusion or reality? There is no single answer to this question yet. We are interested in the very question of moral progress and possible answers to it in connection with the question of how moral progress is revealed in the world of the culture of human relations, where the values of material and spiritual culture, their creation and development are objectified (and deobjectified). .
Obviously, moral progress is one of the aspects of the socio-historical progress of mankind. Equally, we should talk about economic, scientific, technical and other types of progress, and each of them has its own specifics, relative independence and its own criteria.
The criterion of moral progress reveals the prospects for the normative-value improvement of a person. The origins of this kind of human improvement (both in practical educational and scientific and ethical terms) lie in the famous thesis of Protagoras "Man is the measure of all things." From this position, at least three judgments followed. First, in human existence, the establishment of culture (primarily customs, mores) is fundamentally different from the laws of nature. Thus, a kind of cultural layer was singled out in man, irreducible to his natural being. And this layer is subject to formation, upbringing. Secondly, this cultural layer, "second nature", appears as the result of the activity, creativity of the person himself. The world of culture is a product of the activity of man himself. And, thirdly, and most importantly: the cultural content of the human individual depends on his relations with other individuals. And therefore, not in itself the individual is the bearer of culture (but within it, first of all, morality): both culture and morality are outside his body, in the society in which he lives, in relations with other individuals. Thus, the ancient tradition of understanding the moral person was transformed into the criteria of moral progress, which was a reflection of the development of man's dominance over the elemental forces of nature, over his social relations, over his own spiritual world, over himself.
Moral progress acts as a complex, multifaceted process of establishing humanistic principles in the consciousness and activity of a person as a creator of history. In this regard, it is appropriate to mention that K. Marx singled out three qualitative types of social relations in history, in connection with which we can talk about the steps of moral progress and the establishment of the principles of humanism in the culture of human relations. “Relations of personal dependence (initially quite primitive,” writes K. Marx in the Economic Manuscripts of 1857-1858, “are those first forms of society in which the productivity of people develops only in an insignificant amount and in isolated points. Personal independence based on material dependence is the second major form in which for the first time a system of general social metabolism, universal relations, all-round needs and universal potencies is formed. Free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on the transformation of their collective, social productivity into their social property, is the third step. The second step creates the conditions for the third. These three major forms of social relations between individuals, which are rooted in the corresponding mode of production, also correspond to certain historical types of morality that characterize the direction of its progress.
Personal dependence - personal independence (based on material dependence) - free individuality (based on the universal development of individuals) - this is the logic of the historical process, which is refracted in the criteria of moral progress and the development of moral culture.
Considering the ethical nature of culture, A. Schweitzer also raised the question of "ethical progress". The essence of culture, he believed, is twofold. Culture is the domination of man over the forces of nature and the domination of his mind over human convictions and thoughts. A. Schweitzer believed that the dominance of reason over the way of thinking of a person is more important than the dominance of man over nature. Only this will give us "a guarantee that people and entire nations do not use against each other the force that nature makes available to them, that they will not be drawn into a struggle for existence, much more terrible than that which man had to wage in a civilized state" . One can, of course, disagree with the thinker’s statement that “ethical progress is essential and undoubted, and material progress is less essential and less undoubted in the development of culture”, but this judgment looks more like a reaction to significant “achievements of the spirit in the material sphere." In other words, scientific and technological progress since the last century, as A. Schweitzer believes, was associated with the fact that “the forces of ethical progress have dried up”, and “a culture that develops only the material side without a corresponding spiritual progress is like a ship that, having lost steering, loses maneuverability and rushes uncontrollably towards disaster.
In fact, A. Schweitzer expresses, albeit in a slightly different aspect, the idea that a certain ensemble of abstract requirements of moral consciousness, as if hovering in the air, sets quite definite moral relations and turns into a moral culture specific for a certain historical era ( antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, etc.), and for a particular society. Hence the conclusion is drawn about the greater significance of moral progress than material progress.
The presence of a valuable moment in moral progress creates significant difficulties for understanding the development of morality as a real, empirically fixed process of replacing some mores and moral principles with others - new, more perfect, more humane, etc. It can be argued with a sufficient degree of confidence that moral progress does not directly depend on on the level of development of productive forces, material progress or economic basis. At one or another historical stage in the development of material and spiritual culture, the criterion of moral progress is the level of development and freedom of the individual. This level is characterized by the degree of participation of not only a handful of "chosen ones", but the largest possible part of humanity both in the creation and in the development of material and spiritual culture.
Culture of conduct and professional ethics
Let's take a closer look at things that seem obvious. Above, we have already spoken more than once about the culture of human relations. In this case, we will talk about it in relation to human behavior. After all, each of us in one way or another “behaves”, performs some actions, actions in relation to the world around us and, above all, in relation to people. Behavior manifests features of a person’s character, his temperament, views, tastes, habits, emotions, feelings, etc.
Each person has a so-called common, characteristic tone of his usual mood. In this sense, we characterize this or that person: "a cheerful person", "a gloomy person", "a frivolous person", etc., although in each of these cases situations of deviation in personal mood in one direction or another are not excluded. A stable mood, its general background, inherent in a particular individual, extends to others, which is of fundamental importance, say, when recruiting so-called small professional groups (a detachment of astronauts, a submarine crew). In other cases, this happens, as a rule, spontaneously, without any preliminary socio-psychological studies. If the behavior of individual members of the team prevents it from folding into an integral social organism, then we are talking about a difficult moral and psychological climate in the team.
There are two types of behavior - verbal (verbal) and real. Verbal behavior is our statements, judgments, opinions, evidence. The behavior expressed in the word largely determines the culture of relations between people, the power of the word is enormous (the poet E. Yevtushenko expressed it this way: “With a word you can detect, with a word you can save, with a word you can lead regiments behind you”). Behavior already at the verbal level can be life-affirming or depriving human existence of meaning. (Recall, for example, Aesop's judgment on language in Figueiredo's The Fox and the Grapes.)
It has already been said above that the emergence of thinking, will and language was the main prerequisite for cultural genesis at the turn of the transition from habilis to neoanthropes. Since that time, i.e., since the completion of the biological evolution of man, the word has become the regulator of behavior, relationships transmitted in oral and written creativity. Not without reason, one of the elements of the "seven arts" of the training programs of antiquity and the Middle Ages was rhetoric, the science of oratory (and, more broadly, of fiction in general), which remained a part of humanitarian education until the 19th century.
The main sections of classical rhetoric, which reveal various aspects of verbal behavior, are: 1) finding, i.e., systematizing the content of speeches and the evidence used in them; 2) arrangement, i.e., the division of speech into an introduction, presentation, development (proof of one's view and refutation of the contrary) and conclusion; 3) verbal expression, i.e. the doctrine of the selection of words, their combination, as well as the simple, medium and high style of speech; 4) memorization; 5) pronunciation.
You can cite a great many wise sayings, proverbs, individual statements about the power of the word, the language of communication, which is clothed in the language of the culture of a historical era or any ethnic group throughout the duration of its existence.
Real behavior is our practical actions, actions performed in accordance with certain rules, moral principles. In this case, we are talking about the coincidence of ethical knowledge and moral behavior, which indicates a high moral culture of the individual. Another situation is hypocrisy, discrepancy between words and deeds, etc. When comparing the behavior of a person with accepted norms, moral values, it is customary to talk about “normal” or “deviating”, deviant behavior. Therefore, in order to understand a person, the meaning of his actions, the nature of behavior, it is necessary to penetrate into the motives by which he is guided in a given situation. Only by clarifying the motives, one can correctly judge the actions, the real behavior of a person in relation to the reality surrounding him, and above all to other people, to himself.
The culture of behavior is also revealed in how a person is able to understand himself, evaluate his actions and their motives. M. M. Prishvin subtly noted that if we always judge ourselves, we judge with prejudice: either more in the direction of guilt, or in the direction of justification. This inevitable fluctuation in one direction or another is called conscience, moral self-control.
Often in everyday speech we talk about "cultural behavior of a person" and about "the behavior of a cultured person".
Cultural behavior is the behavior of a person in accordance with the norms that a given society has developed and adheres to. It includes certain manners, generally accepted ways of communicating, dealing with others. Cultural behavior implies correct and beautiful behavior at the table, a polite and helpful attitude towards elders, women, the ability to behave in society (both familiar and unfamiliar), adherence to professional ethics, etc.
The rules of behavior can change over time, and so does the manner of behavior. These rules in their totality represent the etiquette that regulates the external manifestations of human relationships. Etiquette refers to the external culture of a person and society. It includes those of its requirements that take on the character of a more or less strictly regulated ceremonial and in the observance of which a certain form of behavior is of particular importance. Etiquette in modern conditions (unlike traditional societies, where it was reduced to a strictly canonized ritual), becomes more free and natural, acquires the meaning of everyday benevolent and respectful attitude towards all people, regardless of their position and social status. Attention to the external form of culture is manifested here only in so far as it reflects ideas about beauty in the behavior and appearance of a person. Then we say that any actions and motives of human activity have both ethical and aesthetic meaning (value) and therefore can be evaluated, on the one hand, as beautiful or ugly, on the other, as good or evil. The main thing here is precisely the behavior that can be, should be cultural.
However, the cultural behavior of a person is part of the problem of the culture of human relations. Another part of it is the behavior of a cultured person. In this case, the emphasis is on a person - what is he, cultural or uncultured? In what sense should we talk about a cultured person? Obviously, this is a person whose knowledge of ethical principles, moral norms accepted in a given society, has turned into an inner conviction, has resulted in a moral feeling. The criterion of culture, upbringing is the correlation of an act as a manifestation of a moral feeling with the interests of another person. Therefore, more extensive than the scope of etiquette is the culture of feelings, which is formed in the process of human communication with nature, in labor activity, in interpersonal contacts when defining monuments of material and spiritual culture.
So, the culture of ethical thinking, the culture of feelings, the culture of behavior, etiquette in their totality form an integral system of the moral culture of the individual. Each of these elements is directly embodied in professional ethics. In this case, they mean, as a rule, the specific requirements of morality associated with the characteristics of various professions.
Professional ethics are, firstly, codes of conduct that prescribe a certain type of moral relationship between people employed in any one area of professional activity, and secondly, certain ways of substantiating these codes, an interpretation of the cultural and humanistic purpose of a particular profession. So, let's say, the concept of a lawyer's professional duty includes a special, sometimes even punctual and pedantic commitment to the spirit and letter of the law, observance of the principle of equality of all before the law. Military-statutory collectives are characterized by greater clarity, even rigidity of relations, more unambiguous adherence to the statutory requirements and orders of superiors than other types of collectives, and at the same time they are characterized by a higher degree of mutual assistance, mutual assistance. All this is dictated by the nature of the activities of military statutory teams, increased requirements and emergency situations that arise in the course of performing official duties.
http://www.xserver.ru/user/niklp/
The totality of forms of everyday human behavior in which the moral and aesthetic norms of this behavior find external expression.
If moral norms determine the content of actions, prescribe what exactly people should do, then the culture of behavior reveals how exactly the requirements of morality are implemented in behavior, what is the appearance of a person’s behavior, to what extent these norms organically, naturally and naturally merged with his way of life. have become daily rules of life. For example, the requirement of respect for people in relation to everyday behavior is expressed in the rules of courtesy, delicacy, tact, courtesy, the ability to save other people's time, etc.
From the point of view of the culture of behavior, fidelity to the obligations assumed means accuracy in fulfilling promises and returning borrowed money, timeliness and accuracy in the implementation of an agreement, etc. Honesty in the form of its manifestation coincides with directness and sincerity.
In broad terms, the concept of "culture of behavior" includes all areas of external and internal culture of a person: etiquette, rules for treating people and behavior in public places, everyday culture, including the nature of personal needs and interests, relationships between people outside of work, organization of personal time, hygiene , aesthetic tastes in the choice of consumer goods (the ability to dress, decorate a home), the aesthetic properties of facial expressions and pantomimes inherent in a person, facial expressions and body movements (grace). They especially emphasize the culture of speech, the ability to competently, clearly and beautifully express their thoughts without resorting to vulgar expressions. In a certain sense, the culture of behavior can be attributed to the culture of work, the ability to properly organize working time and place, to find appropriate methods and operations to achieve the most useful results and obtain high quality products. In a person there must be an organic unity of aesthetic and ethical, spiritual and external. In class societies, the manner of behaving, dressing, and having a refined aesthetic taste served as an external sign of belonging to the "higher circle", while at the same time, external culture often did not correspond to the internal appearance of a person. Politeness and general observance of certain rules in a society based on the principles of selfishness often concealed behind them mutual indifference and alienation, an indifferent or even dismissive and hostile attitude towards people. Therefore, etiquette, taking mainly the character of a purely external ritual, was not based on a truly humane attitude towards people. This is the formal understanding of the culture of behavior.
In a socialist society, it is regarded as a generally accepted form of outward expression of true humanity.
Etiquette is expressed in a complex system of detailed rules of courtesy, clearly classifies the rules for dealing with representatives of various classes and estates, with officials in accordance with their rank (who should be addressed properly, who should be titled as), rules of conduct in various circles (court etiquette , diplomatic etiquette, "high society" etiquette, etc.). In a socialist society, etiquette is greatly simplified, becomes incomparably freer and more natural, acquires the meaning of an everyday benevolent and respectful attitude towards all people, regardless of their position and social position.
Courteous treatment of a woman, respectful attitude towards elders, forms of address and greetings, rules of conversation, behavior at the table, treatment of guests, compliance with the requirements for a person’s dress in various circumstances - all these laws of decency embody the general ideas about the dignity of a person, simple demands of convenience and ease in human relationships. Attention to the external form is manifested here only insofar as it reflects the idea of beauty in the behavior and appearance of a person. In general, etiquette under socialism coincides with the general requirements of courtesy: it is ultimately based on the principles of socialist humanism. As for the ritual forms of etiquette, they are preserved mainly only in the sphere of diplomatic relations (compliance with the so-called diplomatic protocol). But they also reflect a fundamentally new thing in people's relations - they provide for equal treatment of representatives of different countries.
Every day, hourly, we show our upbringing (or bad manners). In the subway, in a trolleybus, at a meeting, at work… Publications on these topics in newspapers meet with a sharp response from readers. In Sovetskaya Rossiya, an article titled “You don’t look very good…” evoked a lot of responses. And it was about whether it is worth talking to a person about the deterioration of his appearance, about his painful appearance, about delicacy, whether we know how to spare the feelings of another. Two completely different attitudes towards manifestations of rudeness and lack of culture are interesting. One says: “I try not to go to cafes even on business trips. We sit down at a table - and immediately you feel humiliated ... "The other says:" And someone's rudeness, tactlessness cannot hurt or humiliate me. Why should I feel humiliated if someone discovers a lack of culture? It's embarrassing for him, that's all. Moreover, somehow I was pushed aside by a respectable man in the theater, and I quietly, so that others would not hear, whispered to him: “My dear, is it possible to drop your dignity like that?”
One can envy a man who knows how to control himself so well, but it would be better to try to imitate him. Delicate people can take the pose of offended, suffering. But isn't it better to try your presence to change the atmosphere for the better.
A lot depends on our reaction to someone's bad behavior. You can rudely pull up a slow-witted youth who does not give way to an elderly person, or you can say the same thing to him quietly, without getting excited.
It is easy to be well-mannered, polite with people like you, much more difficult with people of the opposite nature.
Many books have been written about the culture of behavior; this is a very broad, historically developing concept. You can use books on these topics. And here we will resort to another genre in our alphabet: aphorisms.
Let's take some of the sayings of great thinkers, teachers, writers:
... Any extreme is not good; everything good and useful, taken to an extreme, can become and even, beyond a certain limit, necessarily becomes evil and harm. V. I. Lenin
A person's shortcomings are, as it were, a continuation of his merits. But if the merits continue longer than necessary, are found not when it is necessary, and not where it is necessary, then they are shortcomings. V. I. Lenin
The concept of culture is very broad - from washing the face to the highest heights of human thought. M. I. Kalinin
One must be clear mentally, clean morally and tidy physically. A. P. Chekhov
Everything should be beautiful in a person: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts. Behavior is a mirror in which everyone shows his appearance. I. Goethe
Only by actions do we judge internal movements, thoughts, actions, other feelings. K. Helvetius
Only by the actions of people can society judge their virtue. K. Helvetius
The actions of wise people are dictated by the mind, less smart people - by experience, the most ignorant - by necessity, animals - by nature. Cicero
In any of our smallest, most insignificant, most inconspicuous actions, our whole character is already reflected: a fool enters, and leaves, and sits down, and gets up, and is silent, and moves differently than an intelligent person. J. La Bruyère
Manners reveal mores, just as a dress reveals the waist.F. Bacon
To free oneself from the observance of the rules of decency does not mean to seek means for the free manifestation of one's shortcomings? C. Montesquieu
Social depravity takes on the color of the social environment in which it develops.O. Balzac
Whenever you really want to do something, stop and think: is what you want to do good. L. N. Tolstoy
Without considering the act, be indecisive; after considering, be decisive. L. N. Tolstoy
Every action you take reflects on other people; do not forget that there is a person next to you. V. A. Sukhomlinsky
When a person tries to bring his virtues to their extreme limits, vices begin to surround him. B. Pascal
Own moral uncleanliness is a sign of contempt for oneself. Apuleius
One of the most common and leading to the greatest disasters of temptations is the temptation to say: "Everyone does it."L. N. Tolstoy
He who has many vices has many masters. F. Petrarch
Attitude towards a person largely depends on his behavior among others. It is no coincidence that the vast majority have a negative attitude towards boors, or arrogant personalities. Cultural people, on the contrary, are desirable in any society.
There are generally accepted norms of decency and rules of conduct, the observance of which is the key to successful communication. All these norms and rules can be combined under one term - the culture of human behavior.
Culture of behavior and personality
The concept of cultural behavior and ethics has existed for many centuries, and in our time has not lost its relevance. This concept includes the rules of behavior in society, the actions and forms of communication of people, which are based on morality, as well as the internal and external culture of a person. The norms of behavior are the determining factor in the correctness or incorrectness of a person's actions in society. First of all, the main factor of cultural behavior is upbringing, i.e. a person's willingness to comply with the norms of behavior, his goodwill and tact in relation to others. Ethics and culture of behavior is a kind of standard, a system of rules accepted in society. Etiquette is designed to serve people for everyday communication, being a set of polite intonations of colloquial speech.
The culture of communication and behavior is an ambiguous concept. Etiquette can always be realized in communication, but not all communication can be recognized as etiquette. Communication is much more than etiquette. In any cultural communication, partners can differ in gender, age, nationality, social status, as well as the degree of acquaintance and kinship. The culture of behavior is built according to these criteria. For example, the younger is obliged to listen to the elder, and not to interrupt him, and a man in the presence of a woman does not have the right to be rude. To some extent, ethics is a system of cultural containment to ensure a positive way of communication between unequal partners. The culture of behavior is almost always designed for two addressees - a partner and an audience. Thus, its rules and norms are distributed in two directions at once.
Rules of the culture of behavior
Rules and norms of cultural behavior begin long before two people have the opportunity to get to know each other. In most cases, people entering into communication remain unfamiliar with each other. But this does not prevent them from being polite and tactful.
The basic rules and norms of a culture of behavior are brought up in a person from childhood. However, if for some reason you have not been instilled with them, or you have forgotten some of them, follow the simplified and basic version of how to become a cultured person:
These simple rules will not only facilitate relationships with people, but also help you become a cultured person in the face of others, which is a rarity today.
