Abstract: Abstract Subject-subject relations in the educational process.

Subject-subject relationship.

Introduction.

The social changes taking place in modern society have again actualized the problem of subject-subject relationships. Interpersonal disunity, the growth of individualistic consciousness, the violation of the mechanism of identification with one's people and culture leads to the fact that our modern society is not an integrating principle that can unite many personalities. In the system of interpersonal contacts, the category of "significant other" is lost; the position, feelings, worldview of an individual person are not important and require attention and understanding. Meanwhile, a person's desire for interpersonal relationships is considered in psychology as one of the basic ones, based on three needs - inclusion, control and affect. According to the theory of W. Schutz, these needs develop in childhood in interaction with adults, primarily with parents. So the development of the need for inclusion depends on how much the child was included in the family; the need for control depends on whether the emphasis in the parent-child relationship was on freedom or control; the need for affect depends on the extent to which the child has been emotionally accepted or rejected by his immediate environment. If these needs are not met during childhood, the individual feels insignificant, incompetent, and unlovable.

In the context of this issue, we consider it appropriate in this work to analyze the concepts of "subject" and "relationship" from a philosophical and psychological point of view and trace the transformation of these concepts into modern ideas about subject-subject relations in pedagogy.

Philosophical and psychological meanings of the concepts "subject" and "relationship".

The concept of "Subject"

Many social and humanitarian branches of knowledge consider a person not only as an object, but also as a subject of knowledge.

The classical philosophical definition of the concept of “subject” is as follows: the subject is “the carrier of objective-practical activity and cognition, the source of activity directed at the object.” If we consider this concept from the point of view of interpersonal interaction, the source of activity and orientation of the subject will also be the subject with its activity and orientation. For modern philosophy, the subject is “first of all, a specific bodily individual, existing in space and time, included in a certain culture, having a biography, being in communicative and other relationships with other people. Directly internally in relation to the individual, the subject appears as I. In relation to other people, he acts as "another." In relation to physical things and objects of culture, the subject acts as a source of knowledge and transformation. The subject exists only in the unity of the Self, interpersonal (intersubjective) relationships and cognitive and real activity.

The category of the subject is one of the central ones in philosophy. Aristotle, G. Hegel, N. A. Berdyaev represented a person as a free, active subject cognizing reality. Many thinkers emphasized the creative role of the subject, saw the ultimate task in the domination of man over nature, in new discoveries and inventions, in the knowledge and improvement of the surrounding reality.

In psychology, the foundations of the subjective approach were laid by S. L. Rubinshtein. In his work “Fundamentals of General Psychology”, he connects the personal development of a person with his subjectivity, defining it as independent activity and conscious self-regulation.

Currently, the study of the subjectivity of the personality is becoming a priority in psychological science. The understanding of the subject is associated with the attitude of a person towards himself as a doer, with the endowment of the human individual with the qualities of being independent, active, capable, skillful in the implementation of special human forms of life activity, primarily subject-practical activity.

According to V. I. Slobodchikov, subjectivity is that category in psychology that expresses the essence of the inner world of a person. The author highlights such subjective characteristics of a person as self-regulation and creative transformation of the surrounding reality and notes that the subjectivity of a person, in its original basis, is associated with the ability of an individual to turn his own life activity into an object of practical transformation.

Another researcher of the "psychology of the subject" was A. V. Brushlinsky.

In his opinion, a person can be considered as a subject at the highest level of activity, integrity, autonomy: "The most important of all the qualities of a person is to be a subject, i.e. the creator of one's history, the arbiter of one's life path. This means to initiate and carry out initially practical activities, communication , behavior, cognition, contemplation and other types of specifically human activity (creative, moral, free) and achieve the necessary results.

The concept of "Relationship"

The category "relationship" is one of the most general and abstract. This concept is used in philosophy, mathematics, sociologists, linguists, psychologists and other sciences. Thus, Aristotle, G. Hegel, I. Kant, K. Marx, L. Feuerbach and others touched upon the philosophical problem of relations in their works.

Attitude is one of the main logical and philosophical categories, reflecting the way of being and cognition. It is in this or close to this sense that the term "Relationship" was introduced into philosophy by Aristotle.

The concept of relation arises as a result of comparing any two objects according to a chosen or given attribute. There are many different bases of comparison (in particular, the base of comparison can be any relationship, which leads to the concept of a kind of hierarchy of relations). Accordingly, there are many different relationships: “The ratio is either the ratio of the double to the half, the triple to the third part, and in general the multiple to the multiple, superior to the superior, then the ratio of the heating to the heated, the cutting to the cut and in general acting to the suffering; further, the ratio of the measuring to measure, the knower to knowledge and the feeling to sensory perception," etc.

Some philosophers, such as Leibniz, considered the concept of "relationship" to be purely ideal, outside of subjects. However, the reality of relations can be understood in another way, namely in the sense that if the basis of comparison is not arbitrary (if it is rooted in the compared objects themselves), then the relation as a result of comparison on a given basis is also not arbitrary, but implies the existence of a basis. Here, speaking of the existence of any relations, of course, one does not have to imply that it "in fact is outside the subjects" that are members of the relations.

The category "psychological relations" is one of the concepts in psychology. Unlike other sciences, psychology necessarily includes in its content a subjective meaning, which implies a person's connection with the world, other people, society, and himself. Since these connections are not considered outside of social relations, the analysis of the category "psychological relations" is carried out within the framework of all other relations of a person with reality.

S.L. Rubinshtein wrote: “Relationship to another person, to people is the main fabric of human life, its core. The “heart” of a person is all woven from his human relations with other people; what it is worth is entirely determined by what human relations, a person strives, what kind of relationship to people, to another person he is able to establish.Psychological analysis of human life, aimed at revealing relationships with other people, is the core of a truly life psychology.

Considering a person from the position of relations, we are talking about his connections with the surrounding reality.

The concept of "subjective relations of a person" includes how a person relates to certain events and phenomena of the world in which he lives. In this case, the term "relationship" implies not only and not so much the objective connection of the individual with his environment, but, above all, his subjective position in this environment. "Attitude" here includes evaluation, expresses the partiality of the individual.

Subjective relations act as a kind of "backbone" of the subjective world of the individual. In the broadest sense of the word, the subjectivity of relations means that they belong to a person as a subject. They are formed and developed in the process of accumulation and integration of the entire life experience of the individual. They characterize the life position of the individual in society.

Subject-subject relations in education.

Turning to the issue of considering the problem of subject-subject relations, it should be noted that from the standpoint of modern science, it is most often considered in the context of the educational process. In the teacher's encyclopedic dictionary we find the following definition: “Subject-subject relationship is a type of relationship that develops in the educational process of an educational institution, consisting in creating a parity participation of students and educators in the organization and implementation of joint activities. These are the relationships that form the so-called "pedagogy of cooperation" and "pedagogy of non-violence". This is what we call "dialogue learning". This happens when the student's personality is subjectified, which is possible by the following means:

a) delegating to students a number of teaching, including didactic powers;

b) recognition and enforcement of the rights of the child and his parents in relation to school and learning;

c) development of children's self-government both in the educational and extracurricular process;

d) increasing the trust in children on the part of teachers, respect for their dignity and honor; education in children of spiritual and moral qualities;

f) creation in an educational institution of a way of life that corresponds to and develops the cultural traditions of the people from which the children come.

All this is the way and means of implementing the principles of democratization, natural conformity and cultural conformity of national education. In the practice of educational institutions, both types of relations, subject-object and subject-subject, should be reasonably combined, with the leading role of the second type.

Undoubtedly, the problem that arises when considering the issue of subject-subject relations in the educational process has philosophical, social and psychological aspects. At present, the problem of relations between participants in the educational process is dealt with by many scientists (A.Yu. Gordin, V.V. Gorshkova, Ya.L. Kolominsky, SV. Kondratieva, N.Yu. Popikova, G.I. Shchukina, N.E. Shchurkova, etc.) This is not surprising, because the period of study, most often, falls on the age when the most active development and formation of a person's personality takes place. In the educational process, the effectiveness of the formation of personal qualities and character of a person, his temperament, attitude to study, work and the subject being studied depend on the relationship that develops between the teacher, students and parents of students. And although the significance and relevance of this problem is recognized and supported by many scientists, in practice, the conscious formation of relations between the subjects of the educational process is not implemented enough.

Our work aimed only once again to actualize the problem of subject-subject relations and emphasize its complexity and multidimensionality.

Bibliography.

1. Aristotle, op. according to the book: "Beginnings of Euclid", book. 1–6. - M.–L. 1950.

2. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. In 30 vols. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov, 3rd ed. 1976.

3. Brushlinsky, A.V. Psychology of the subject / A.V. Brushlinsky. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2003.

4. New philosophical encyclopedia. In 4 vols. - M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001.

5. Fundamentals of spiritual culture (encyclopedic dictionary of a teacher). - Yekaterinburg. V.S. Bezrukov. 2000.

6. Rubinshtein S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.

7. Slobodchikov V. I., Isaev E. I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human psychology: An introduction to the psychology of subjectivity. Textbook for universities. - M .: School-Press, 1995.

8. Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970.

9. http://dic.academic.ru/

Subject-subject relations are the basis of universal human unity as a collective subject

Introduction

I love my dog, said the fool.
The more I get to know a person, the more
I love him, said the dog.
The more I know, the more I love
the man spoke.
Jean Marsenac

"This is my commandment, yes
love one another as I have loved you.
There is no more love like
if a man lay down his life for his friends."
In. 15:12-13

The current state of Russian society, its position in the modern world, the internal contradictions and conflicts that are present in it, socio-economic and partly political instability necessarily provoke destructive social dynamics. The essence of this process lies in the fact that the so-called “civil society”, which is the goal of a democratic state, has not yet been formed at this turn of historical time and is in a certain chaotic state, in a state of unconscious movement and throwing, when the internal personal position does not find its expression in direct conscious, purposeful activity for the transformation and self-development of oneself and society as a whole. This does not happen either because that necessary qualitatively high degree of trust and understanding is not established between people.
Interpersonal disunity, the growth of individualistic (egocentric) consciousness, the violation of the mechanism of identification with one's people and culture leads to the fact that our modern society is not an integrating principle that unites many personalities, B.S. Bratus wrote the following on this subject: “Our data also show that deviations, neurological development of the personality are closely related to the egocentric orientation of a person, while the most favorable conditions for personality development are created by the opposite egocentric prosocial orientation.” In the system of interpersonal contacts, the category of “significant other” is lost, the position, feelings, worldview of an individual are not important and require attention and understanding, as a result, general activity, orientation are not formed, there are no motives that would lead to the formation of a person’s personal position as a citizen of his Motherland, as an integral part of his people.
Civil society as a collective subject is possible only if interpersonal disunity and separation are overcome, the subject-object interaction between people is replaced, where a person appears to us only as a certain set of functions and is considered from the point of view of usefulness or uselessness for us, to subject-subject relations, where each person, expressing himself as a personality, will see another person as a personality and will not only take from him, but also give something in return, where the process of co-development will take place.
Thus, this problem is relevant today and, on this basis, we have determined the topic of our study “Subject-subject relations are the basis of universal unity as a collective subject”.
Purpose: To determine the role of subject-subject relations in the unity of society, the formation of a collective subject.
Object: Man in the system of interpersonal relations.
Subject: The sphere of subject-subject relations.
Tasks:
1. On the basis of theoretical sources, give a definition of subject-subject relations, as well as analyze scientific and methodological concepts related to the formation and formation of subject-subject relations between people. 2. Determine the role of society in the formation and development of subject-subject relations, offer the most effective methods and techniques for their development. 3. Give guidelines for the formation and development of subject-subject relations.
Methods for researching a group:
1. Sociometric method for identifying relationships in the team.
2. The study of the psychological climate of the team.
Based on the data obtained, it is proposed to turn to the client-centered and group-centered therapy of K. Rogers for the development of subject-subject (trusting and sincere) relationships within the team.
Theoretical significance: the importance of subject-subject relations between people in a changing and globalizing world is analyzed, summarized and substantiated, since such relations will help the further positive development of humanity in general and personality in particular.
This problem today is not sufficiently studied, there is no generally accepted system of concepts expressing subject-subject relations in the global sense, there are various philosophical and psychological approaches to this problem. The study of this problem and related problems was carried out by such psychologists and philosophers as: S.L. Rubinstein, V.V. Davydov, K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, A.V. Brushlinsky, I.V. Vachkov, V.E. Kemerov, A. Karmin, V.I. Vernadsky, S.Z. Goncharov, V.A. Petrovsky, S.L. Frank and others

Chapter I. The concept of "civil society"

Before proceeding to the consideration of the stated topic, it is necessary to get acquainted in general terms with society in its specific expression, for this we propose to analyze the modern Russian civil society and identify on its basis common features (positive and negative aspects) for society, humanity as a whole. Thus, civil society in our study will act as a model, a private expression of global society as a collective entity.
So what is civil society? What features should it have, and what should it not? Let's consider the following definition given by M.N. Marchenko.
“Civil society is a society of equal people who freely show their personality, creative initiative, a society of equal opportunities, freed from unnecessary prohibitions and meticulous administrative regulation.
Legislative recognition of the legal equality of people on the basis of granting them rights and freedoms is the main feature and basis of civil society.
Any state is organized as a vertical system leading a single center, a hierarchy of state bodies and officials connected by relations of subordination and state discipline. This system is maintained at the expense of society (taxes, fees, state loans). The constant and main goal of the state, its justification and legitimation, the protection of society and its management.
Unlike the state, civil society is a system of diverse connections and relations of citizens, their associations, unions based on equality and personal initiative, including in the independence of obtaining a livelihood.
The nature of civil society corresponds to the principle of legality as strict compliance with the law of the activities of the state and its bodies.
As can be seen from the above definition of civil society and its characteristics, it is legally regulated and subordinate to a certain system of legislative law. Each individual, endowed with freedoms and rights, is at the same time limited by them, that is, he bears a certain responsibility (administrative, criminal) for his actions and deeds. Consequently, the management of society is carried out by forming in each of its members a certain norm of behavior and interaction with each other. Behavioral stability and predictability is achieved through external influence on a person and is kept to some extent by the fear of being punished or condemned. N. Berdyaev argued that: “A believer and an atheist, a conservative and a revolutionary are equally forced to recognize the truths of mathematics, logic or physics. Similarly, legal general obligatoriness exists for an elementary, lower form of community. There is no need for catholicity, community of spirit in order to recognize a minimum of law in relation to each other.
Thus, we can come to the following conclusion: civil society, presented to the state as an object of influence, is subordinate to it and develops in accordance with the requirements that the state requires of it (subject-object relation). Any deviation from the established norms leads to a certain external influence, punishment (here, to some extent, the behavioral theory with its stimulus-response formula can be traced). Intra-public relations are also regulated by law, and participants in public relations are also subject to external threats of punishment. Consequently, the behavior and actions of today's society are externally regulated due to the operation of legislative norms, regulation is not carried out by the internal relationship of a person to a person, is based not on morality, but on punishment, external influence on a person.
These and other moments, in turn, prevent the processes that were mentioned at the beginning of the definition of civil society: free manifestation of one's personality, creative initiative, equality of people. What kind of equality can we talk about in a society where a person is considered as an object, functional utility and significance. With such an interpretation of civil society, more functionally developed and less functionally developed people will inevitably be present. Building relationships only according to external manifestations and characteristics, without taking into account and not relying on internal qualities, personality traits, its individuality and significance, is a false building of relationships, which is mechanistic and simplified, a character that is structurally and functionally reduced to the level of an anthill, where everyone performs his own work with no concern for one's neighbor, this is a reductionist approach to understanding society.
It is quite obvious that this level of development of interpersonal interaction is far from the ideal of civil society and cannot be considered the basis, the foundation of its construction. Only overcoming the understanding of another person as an object, as a function by another person can radically change the current situation and allow creating the true foundation of civil society, people united by a common goal, people deeply understanding each other and striving to help each other.
S.Z. Goncharov, in turn, believes: “The stake on the development of civil society implies, in the sociocultural aspect, precisely the subjective qualities of individuals and collectives. People unite for a common cause in two ways - in the form of an institution or a corporation. In the first case, the association is established "from top to bottom" - by the state. The corporation is formed “from the bottom up” by the free will of people (cooperative, etc.) and consists of active authorized and equal figures.” Here the idea is expressed that civil society, as such, cannot be formed and exist forcibly, under pressure, established from above, if so, then civil society turns into a fiction, in fact being a means to achieve political goals. Free will should be the driving factor in bringing people together for the sake of common goals and interests.
Further S.Z. Goncharov offers that understanding of civil society, which, in the light of the problem we are discussing, is more appropriate and expedient: “We understand civil society, following A.S. Panarin, a set of non-political relations (economic, spiritual, moral, religious, cultural) of citizens and their associations, based on the principles of self-activity, distrust and autonomy in relation to the state. Thus: “Civil society is a set of corporations, that is, non-political associations that construct themselves “from below”, set and solve problems themselves. In such self-production, subjective qualities are important.
But if the principle of the institution is an end in itself, then it is able to repay - according to S.Z. Goncharov - initiative and nullify the initiative of individuals. If we strive only for corporatism, then this will lead to anarchy and loss of control. The solution to this problem S.Z. Goncharov sees in the combination of these principles in a common cause. We also believe that involvement in common activities will provide the necessary conditions for the manifestation of the subject's personal powers, as well as his unity with other personalities.
Thus, it is necessary to avoid the absolutization of subjectivity on a personal level, as this leads to individualization, an egocentric position, a variety of values ​​without their unity, individual freedom without the unity of persons. Absolutization of subjectivity at the level of social institutions should also be avoided, since in this case: “Subjective functions are monopolized by one or another social institution, and persons turn into performers. Their subjective functions die off. Society is polarized into "subjects" and "objects", into "leaders" and "followers".
Kemerov V.E. also distinguishes two different models of society.
The first model includes a society that does not depend on the existence of human individuals. People seem to fill the "rooms", but they do not seem to affect their change and reproduction. People here are taken into account as raw materials, the energy of society, its attendants. "In practice, this means that the structures and institutions of society absorb the life and activities of people, social forms are presented as the natural environment of people's lives, and people themselves as a natural force adapted to this environment."
The second model of society is characterized by the interaction of human individuals, it is carried out not behind their backs, not over their heads: "it arises and reproduces in their joint and individual life, it is alive as long as people reproduce it with their interdependent being." Here, society is not understood as a thing-like system and a quasi-natural structure.
“The concept of a society “standing” above people and reductionist methodology turned out to be closely related; society is alienated from individuals (both in a theoretical and practical sense) due to the fact that its structures reduce their reproduction of the deindividualized forces of people, leaving their differences, their features, their originality outside the limits of sociality. Thus, in fact, a double ontology of society is created: 1) the ontology of structures and 2) the ontology of people - hence the various dualisms: structural and agent, object and subject, social and humanitarian.

The general definition of the concept of "subject" is as follows: the subject is a source of purposeful activity, a carrier of subject-practical activity, evaluation and cognition.
What are the characteristics of the subject? To understand this concept, we present these characteristics according to S.L. Rubinshtein presented in a generalized form by I.A. Zimnaya and select from them those that are associated with the problem we are considering.
“Firstly, the category of the subject is always juxtaposed with the category of the object. S.L. Rubinstein captures two interrelated aspects: 1) being as an objective reality, as an object of human awareness; 2) a person as a subject, as a cognizer, discovering being, realizing its self-consciousness.
Secondly, the cognizing subject, or the subject of scientific cognition, is a social subject who is aware of the being cognized by him in socio-historically established forms.
Thirdly, a social subject can exist and be realized both in the activity and in the being of a particular individual.
Fourthly, each specific subject is determined through its relation to another.
Fifthly, each "I", representing both the individual and the universal, is a collective subject.
In turn, J. Piaget considered activity as one of the leading characteristics of the subject. He rightly emphasizes that just as the object is not “given” to the subject in a finished form, but is recreated by the latter in the structure of knowledge, how to “build” it for itself, so the subject is “not given” to itself with all its internal structures; organizing an object for itself, the subject also constructs its own operations, i.e. makes itself a reality for itself."
According to A.V. Brushlinsky, “the subject is a person, people at the highest level of activity, which is individual for everyone, at the level of integrity and autonomy; for the subject, the surrounding reality is not only a system of stimuli, but an object of action and cognition, the subject is a broader concept than a person. The subject is the unity of all its qualities - natural, social, public, individual. Personality is a less broad definition of the human individual and denotes the social properties of a person.
The main characteristic of the subject is "a person's experience of himself as a sovereign source of activity, capable of deliberately carrying out changes in the surrounding world and himself within certain limits."
From the above, it is clear that the object is that which opposes the subject, to which the objective practical, evaluative and cognitive activity of the subject is directed.

Chapter III. Subject and object in interpersonal relations

When transferring the concepts of “subject” and “object” to the categories of communication and interaction between people, we necessarily approach the essence of the problem we are considering. When another person begins to act as an object, he takes over all the characteristics of the object as such, in particular, his opposition to the subject of perception or cognition. This is where the ethical problem of human relationships comes up. From this position, we perceive another person as an object of our knowledge or a certain activity. This, in turn, is a prerequisite for the formation of the principle of one's activity in relation to it - influencing it, using it as a certain function, a means to achieve one's own goals.
But it is necessary to understand that this position as a subject-object is, in turn, the first step in separating the subject from the surrounding world, the formation of one's own consciousness, one's own "I". The subjective cognition of another subject as an object precedes the subjective cognition of oneself as an object, and only after that does the subjective cognition of another subject as a subject appear at the highest level of interpersonal cognition. At a higher level of self-consciousness, this opposition, which is necessary at the first stage of self-determination in the world, must be overcome in favor of subject-subject relations, where the other person acts not so much as an object of influence, but as the role of “other me”, and we are significant for ourselves, therefore, the idea of ​​a “significant other” must be formed. The interaction of people can be effective only if its participants are mutually significant. Indifference and blindness to the individual characteristics and needs of the partner, ignoring his inner world, assessments, positions distort the results of mutual influence, slow down, and sometimes even paralyze the interaction itself.
In his work, I.I. Bulychev says that “the concept of a subject-subject relationship means the existence of a direct connection between individuals or human communities. These connections are, in essence, spiritual-emotional. The bearers of subject-subject relations are individuals and human communities. Singling out, thus, as a subject-subject relationship not only specific individuals, but also peoples, ethnic groups, it is possible to introduce the concept of a collective subject, which includes the entire set of existing subjects. For example, V.V. Davydov's concept of a collective subject turns out to be necessary and initial in the theory of mental development, the main provisions of which he sets out, based on the approach of A.N. Leontiev to this problem. And although A.N. Leontiev himself did not use the term "collective subject", V.V. Davydov believed that all the prerequisites for the introduction of this category were created in his works. Thus, as V.V. Davydov, the problem of the relationship between the concepts of individual and collective subjects permeates the fabric of all psychological knowledge. Outside of its meaningful analysis, none of the main categories of psychology - "activity", "consciousness", "personality" can be theoretically built.
Own "I" is allocated in the process of selection of subject and object, when a person begins to feel like a separate being in society, in the world. But, being generated by this society, a person is not completely separated from it, he builds certain relationships with him, he is already a member of certain communities and, in the course of his life, enters new ones (interest circles, parties, associations, etc.) . For example: acting as a student, my "I" is united in the study of the subject with other "I" - subjects of knowledge. The totality of the sets of "I" forms a single subject under the condition of a joint focus on the subject of knowledge, activity. The collective subject does not arise by the mechanical combination of many "Selves". It arises in the process of a single focus of subjects on a specific goal, which they jointly realize at this stage, individual subjects realize their unity, a polysubject, we-concept is formed. The integral, most general category of the collective subject is the whole of humanity as a whole, and the object for it is the entire reality surrounding it, which is known by this collective subject through science, practical activity, which is the achievement of all mankind and belongs equally to each individual subject. Consequently, this also removes the opposition of one subject to another, it is impossible to oppose one subject to another subject, without thus opposing the subject to itself, dividing the indivisible into parts.
And the further we rise up the steps of generalization of subjects in a single goal-setting (science is a scientific subject; a nation is a set of subjects of one nationality; humanity in relation to the Universe will be a single human “I”), the more we will be united, the more it will be affirmed, expressed one "I". And the concrete “I”, reflecting partially the general “I”, in which it lives and some part of the general universal humanity can, therefore, be an original single being in the composition of an original, but multiple “I”, where each of its elements necessarily influence each other. friend.
Only in human consciousness is it possible to single out an object, but in his own consciousness it is possible to overcome this opposition of oneself to another. Thus, even if we take into account that the subject always presupposes the object, and the object always presupposes the subject, we are able by the effort of our consciousness to discern the mysterious and hidden subjectivity of another person behind the external facade of objectivity and through this deep knowledge of the other person to know ourselves more deeply. . And further I.I. Bulychev says that: “To describe the subject-subject nature of human communication, the term “dialogical” is usually used. Indeed, communication is a kind of dialogue on an equal footing, or the interaction of two equivalent subjects. We only note that this dialogue between two people remains subject-object in content, i.e. somewhat asymmetric. For one of the people plays a leading and more active role, while the second is less active. But even in a situation of complete intellectual and emotional balance, communication, if it does not want to turn into a dialogue of the deaf, involves the alternating activity of one of the subjects: one speaks - the other listens, then they change places, therefore, the second speaks - the first listens. . But in this case, during the dialogue, it is necessary to emphasize the following, the selection of the subject as an object implies implicitly the mutual consent of the communicators, their attunement to each other. Initially, they are presented as a subject-subject system, and only if necessary, a subject-object system is distinguished, but it is precisely due to the first. G.M. Andreeva says that: “Each participant in the communicative process also assumes activity in his partner, he cannot consider him as a kind of object. The other participant also appears as a subject, and hence it follows that, when sending information to him, it is necessary to focus on him, i.e. analyze his motives, goals, attitudes, “appeal” to him, according to V.N. Myasishchev. Schematically, communication can be depicted as an intersubjective process (S-S), or "subject-subject relation". But in this case, it must be assumed that in response to the information sent, new information will be received coming from another partner. This type of communication is a dialogue, as a result of which there is a mutual enrichment of its participants.
I.I. Bulychev also singles out the object-object relation: “the object-object form of social communication characterizes, first of all, the relations of technical systems. Various components of the latter are increasingly interacting with each other without the direct participation of a person. A similar nature of interaction is inherent in robotic (“unmanned”) production today. It is here that subjectless activity is possible within certain limits. Probably, the relationship of a person to a person or social communities can, to a certain extent, be considered as object-object if they are unemotional, material-defined nature (such, in particular, are the social relations of several people who are unconscious in a carriage ambulance, or between sleeping in a tent and the surrounding nature). These relationships are, for the most part, material. A person is a participant not only in subject-subject, but also partly in object-object relations, but with different sides. The subject-subject relationship presupposes, first of all, the interconnection and emotional-spiritual interaction of people. On the contrary, the object-object relation uses, first of all, the bodily-physical properties of a person: the strength of his arms, legs, etc. When a person realizes not so much his intellectual as bodily abilities (for example, the muscular strength of his own body), he acts as an object rather than a subject of production and other activities. Thus, for truly subject-subject relations, a mutual orientation of one subject to another is necessary, colored emotionally and involving interaction, interpenetration, and not a simple effect of the subject on the object. On a spiritual level, this is expressed in mutual enrichment, co-development, for example, with ideas. If I have an idea and my interlocutor has an idea, then each of us has one idea, but in the process of communication, focusing on each other, we exchange ideas, therefore, each of us already has two ideas as a result of the exchange, but when two ideas collide, when they interact, a third idea inevitably arises. This way of acquiring ideas, their struggle or “community”, the formation of ideas is also the transformation of the “core” of a person, a change in his worldview, the formation of a new being in a person and interconnections with the outside world. And even the subject-object relation of a scientist to the subject of study is necessarily determined by the subject-subject relationship with colleagues in the "scientific workshop", with all the heritage of science.
I. Vachkov and I. Grinshpun, in turn, single out a polysubject from the collective subject as its substructure. This is caused, first of all, by the fact that, despite the common belonging of people to a collective subject, different relations develop between them, and sometimes, in fact, such relations are not visible at all. Therefore, the concept of a polysubject is intended: "to reflect a really existing special level of interaction between subjects, on which the process of a unified development of the internal contents of subjects that are in subject-subject relations unfolds."
If a collective subject is often understood as any set of people, then: “a polysubject in the first approximation can be defined as such a level of a collective subject that has the ability to be a subject, and the people included in it are intentionally capable of building subject-subject relationships, and are united by a common creative activity, the general process of development and the ability to realize the system of relations within the polysubject. Thus, our relation to each other in the system of a collective subject does not imply proper subject-subject relations. “The manifestation of subjectivity by people who are part of a collective subject, who are centered on themselves and aimed at using other people for their own purposes, refer to the level of an atomic collective subject and are described in terms of subject-object interaction.”
When considering our problem, an important place is occupied by interaction not only within a single group of people, but also between groups: “in other words, polysubject interaction is characterized by reliance on subject-subject relations in a situation of creating links with other polysubjects”.
“So, polysubject interaction is such a form of direct interaction of subjects with each other, which is capable of generating their mutual conditioning and a special kind of community - a polysubject, understood as a holistic dynamic psychological formation, reflecting the phenomenon of unity of development of the internal contents of real subjects in subject-subject relations and united by joint creative activity, and manifested in the ability for activity, efficiency, integration, the ability to transform the surrounding world and oneself, the ability to act as an integral subject in relation to the process of self-development and in relation to other polysubjects.
The authors of this approach believe that the product of the self-consciousness of a polysubject is the "We-concept" formed in the process of its activity and development. Thus, there are two poles here that interact with each other, this is the pole of an individual and his "I-concept" and the pole of a polysubject, as a "We-concept". The relationships in this system are formed as follows: “I” goes to “We”, and then returns to “I”, thus, absorption by the collective of the subject is excluded and a wide interaction of subjects within the polysubject is established.
Also, the authors of this concept propose to distinguish three levels of communication, thanks to which it is possible to judge whether a given group of people is a polysubject:
1. Integrative connection - substructures are united by a single direction.
2. Non-integrative connection - non-antagonistic contradictions.
3. Disintegrative connection - antagonistic contradictions (zero stage of development of the polysubject).
Thus, one does not have to give up one's own "I" in favor of the collective one, one only needs to correctly understand one's "I" and one's place in the system of interpersonal relations. This deep understanding was expressed in his works by S.L. Rubinstein, what did he mean by "I" and its relationships with other people.
S.L. Rubinstein believed that: “our “I” is a universality inherent in everyone, i.e. to each "I", which has as its object a particular, my "I". The "I" as a universality cannot be separated from the particular, concrete "I" and turned into a special reality; into this generality, some particular meaning must necessarily be substituted. These particular meanings include the "I" as a universality, but since it includes every particular "I", none of them can be defined only through its relation to this universality, each of the particular, concrete "I" can only be determined through their attitude towards others. They mutually presuppose each other. There is therefore no priority of one "I" (for example, mine) over others, so that the existence of another "I" would become more problematic, doubtful, than the existence of my "I". They are all "I", and each is mine for someone.
Further, Rubinstein goes on to say that in the relationship of subjects there is no fundamental privilege of some particular "I". “My relation to the other presupposes the relation of the other to me: “I” is just as different for the one whom I first designate as another, and the same “I” as “I”! "I" and the other: he is "other" for "me", as well as "I" for him; for himself he is as much "I" as he is "I". It cannot be reduced to the position of the "other", it is only its position, determined on the basis of me, and not its essence. We understand a priori that our subjectivity is no less objective than the object to which our attention is directed. And from this it becomes clear why we should not deny the subjectivity of another person. Denying the subjectivity of another person, we thereby “stick out” our own “I”, not realizing that, regardless of other people as subjects (and not just as objects), our subjectivity would be a fiction, since no separate “I "is impossible without the "I" of another person.
Here is the truth that is so important for our reasoning - the position of the “other” does not define its essence as “other”, this position is present only in our heads and must be overcome by correlating my own inner world with the world of another person.
Another important point is our self-determination, becoming through relation to another "I". The relation of the other "I" to my "I" acts as a condition of my existence. Each "I" in so far as it is also the universality of the "I" is a collective subject, a community of subjects, a community of individuals. This "I" is really "we". The subject of science is humanity, the subject of speech is, together with the individual, the people (his language). This statement confirms the above idea about the unity of subjects, about the category of a collective subject.
The problem of the unity of mankind, not only in the genetic plan, but also in the intellectual and spiritual plane, worried not only psychologists and philosophers, so in his works the outstanding domestic naturalist V.I. Vernadsky, who developed the doctrine of the biosphere and noosphere, wrote: “In the last millennia, there has been an intensive growth in the influence of one specific living substance - civilized humanity - on changing the biosphere. Under the influence of scientific thought and human labor, the biosphere passes into a new state - the noosphere. He further says: “Just as the reproduction of organisms is manifested in the pressure of living matter in the biosphere, so the course of the geological manifestation of scientific thought presses the tools it creates on the inert environment of the biosphere that holds it back, creating the noosphere, the kingdom of the mind.” It is very important to note in this statement that the noosphere is a sphere of the mind that unites all of humanity as a whole, but the mind itself cannot exist without regard to its owner, so scientific thinking as a universal human phenomenon, the mind in this general understanding, belongs to a single, generalized subject. “For the first time, a person really understood that he is an inhabitant of the planet and can – should – think and act in a new aspect, not only in the aspect of an individual, family or clan, states or their unions, but also in a planetary aspect.”
The modern Russian philosopher A. Karmine speaks about the information society, which, in his opinion, begins on the threshold of the third millennium and understands the following: “The information society is the result of a combination of two processes: on the one hand, the development of a post-industrial society, which, according to Daniel Bell , differs in that information becomes the main object of human activity in it; and on the other hand, the process of globalization, during which this society is established on a global scale. In other words, the information society is a globalizing post-industrial society. “According to Lotman, culture in this sense is the “collective intellect of society”, which, like the individual intellect of a person, generates, stores and uses information to solve various problems (but social information, that is, contained not only in the head of an individual, but in a multitude of cultural "texts" created with the help of signs and sign systems).
In general, agreeing with the ideas of V.I. Vrnadsky, A. Karimn comes to the understanding that at this stage of development, humanity becomes united not only in terms of anthropology (as a biological species), but also in terms of social, uniting into an integral global social system. “Humanity becomes the subject of a historical process that, guided by its collective intellect, can set goals for itself and act to achieve them as an integral organism.”
Further, digressing from philosophical ideas, returning to the psychological ground, it is necessary to turn our attention to the categories of the conscious and the unconscious, or rather, to consciousness as a social phenomenon, therefore, collective and to the unconscious as collective.
If we take for analysis the consciousness of a separate, specific individual (subject, carrier of consciousness), then with the necessity through analysis we will come to the understanding that the individual consciousness in the genetic plan is secondary, derived from the consciousness of the collective, public, that is, the consciousness of that group, nation , the culture in which he happened to be born and brought up. Consequently, ontogenetic development, the formation of consciousness occurs and is determined by the development and formation of social consciousness in the process of phylogenesis. Speech plays a decisive role in the formation of individual consciousness: “Thanks to speech, the individual consciousness of each person, not limited to personal experience, one’s own observations, is nourished and enriched by the results of social experience: observations and knowledge of all people or can become the property of everyone thanks to speech.”
If we talk about the collective unconscious, then this concept was introduced into psychology by the Swiss psychologist and psychotherapist K.G. Jung. He believed that the collective unconscious is not the direct property of the individual, that it is not formed in him in the process of ontogenetic development. The collective unconscious is represented in the human psyche by archetypes - they are the mental sediments of countless experiences of this type that occur in a number of generations of the human race. It is these experiences of humanity that are assimilated in our psyche, regardless of our experience, thus the collective unconscious differs from the personal unconscious.
“Jung postulates that the child's psyche already stores a structure that determines both the channels of all future development and the ways of interacting with the environment. Although we develop in different ways and become unique individuals, the collective unconscious is common to all and therefore united.
All of the above tells us about the unity of people at the level of consciousness and the unconscious, here the decisive argument in favor of this position is the belonging, relation of consciousness and the unconscious to a specific subject, the bearer of these categories: there is no consciousness without regard to its subject, by analogy, there is no unconscious without the person to whom it belongs. We come to the conclusion that individual consciousness and the archetypes of the unconscious are not our own "conquests" (if this were the case, then the children of "Mowgli" would not exist and they could be considered subjects of purposeful, conscious activity), but are derived from consciousness and the unconscious in a collective aspect. But to whom, in this case, does the collective consciousness and the collective unconscious belong? The answer is natural - to collective humanity, a collective subject. It is he who is the bearer of both the collective unconscious and consciousness, as the general knowledge of the group, culture, nation, humanity.
"I" denotes an individual, but it denotes every individual. Everyone says "I", but at the same time this "I" refers to a different person each time. So, "I" designates an individual, but it itself has not a single, not a particular meaning, referring to one single "I", but a universal one. "I" is a general formula. Each specific single individual is a particular meaning of this common "I". Separate, in particular my "I" can be defined only through its relationship with other "I".
Well-known domestic psychologist I.S. Cohn expressed this idea in the following way: “A man differs from an animal, in particular, in that he separates himself as an agent from the process and results of his activity. However, he can "grab" this "selfhood" of his only through its objectification in the products of his labor and his relationships with other people. Hence - the inevitable multiplicity of "images of I". But these images must be somehow ordered. For the successful functioning of the personality, its objective activity and its communication must necessarily have, in addition to objective expediency, some kind of subjective, personal meaning, be experienced as a certain aspect of the "I".
I.I. Bulychev emphasizes: “The subject-subject form of the relationship ensures the preservation of a person as a subject, while the object-object relationship assumes the stable functioning of things, the objective environment.
We are faced with the fact that certain social communities treat other people not as equal subjects, but as typical objects: animals, machines or things (such is the attitude of the exploiters to the exploited, of some nations or political systems to others, one sex to the other as inferior, unequal, underdeveloped subjects, whose will can, therefore, be suppressed, whose freedom can be limited, whose self-consciousness can be paralyzed, on which other values ​​can be imposed). Thus, the possibilities of some individuals and social communities as subjects are limited by other subjects, as a result of which the relation of the latter to the former acquires the character of a subject-object”. And if only the subject-object relationship between people is affirmed, then the subject will be destroyed for another subject and the absence of intersubjective communication will lead to the objectification of the subject itself, the world of people will turn into a set of objects where morality, spiritual value, true love and feelings are lost. Ultimately, another person may appear before us in the form of an enemy, even N. Berdyaev said that: “The enemy is a being that is most turned into an object, that is, the most existentially disunited. It is only possible to fight with an object, you cannot fight with a subject.
“Therefore, the relationship between bureaucratic managers and managed ones,” writes further I.I. Bulychev, - being in form a typically human intersubjective connection, in content they act as a subject-object, because one of the parties appropriates all the functions of the subject, while the second is often equated with an ordinary object among other objects. It also traces the idea of ​​the relationship within the collective subject, the formation or unformedness of the polysubject, the result of which should be "we-concept". The Russian philosopher Semyon Ludwigovich Frank wrote: “We” is a certain primary category of personal human, and therefore social existence ... And even what is our own, individual creativity, what expresses the last depth and originality of our individual “I” is taken not from a closed and isolated narrow sphere of a solitary "I", but from a spiritual depth in which we are merged with others in some final unity.
As for the self-expression of the subject, then it is necessarily connected with public life, with society. This aspect was generalized by Petrovsky A.V. and Yaroshevsky M.G., they expressed the idea that: “imprinting, continuing himself in other members of society, a person strengthens his existence. Providing through active participation in the activity of his "otherness" in other people, the individual actively forms the content of his need for personalization (the process, as a result of which the subject receives an ideal representation in the life of other people and can act in public life as a person). The individual's need to be a personality becomes a condition for the formation of other people's ability to see in him a personality that is vital for maintaining unity, community, continuity, transferring the methods and results of activities and, most importantly, establishing trust in each other, without which it is difficult to hope for success. common cause."
It is necessary to focus on this particular aspect, only on condition that each person sees in another person, another equal subject, trust him, joint activities are possible, which are more likely to achieve their goal.
“The public need for personalization is clear. Otherwise, the trusting relationship between people disappears and becomes unthinkable, the relationship between generations, where the educated person absorbs not only the knowledge that is transmitted to him, but also the personality of the transmitter.
The “social need” to be a person is obviously realized in the desire of the subject to be ideally represented in other people, to live in them, which involves the search for active means of continuing oneself in another person.
Realizing the need to "be a person" and transferring himself into another, the individual carries out this "transportation" in a specific activity carried out in specific social communities. Experimental studies confirm the hypothesis that the optimal conditions for the personalization of an individual exist in a group of a higher level of development, where the personalization of each acts as a condition for the personalization of all (it is in such groups that we can observe true subject-subject relations, where a separate member of the group is important to everyone else and is significant for every other member - this is where true co-development takes place). In corporate-type groups, on the other hand, everyone tends to be personalized at the expense of depersonalizing others (it is this tendency that prevails in our society today and leads to the fact that ultimately personalization of the few, and association in a group of a higher order seems difficult).
V.A. Petrovsky also drew attention to subject-subject relations, opposing them to an egocentric position, he believes that if those who enter into communication take an egocentric position, then this attitude itself reveals its failure, and in addition, in a tendency, such a position contains the insurmountable evil of self-loss, turning individuality into nothing in communication, pushing the other (others) to some form of exploitation of the first (the position of indulgence in education, self-denial in love, reducing oneself to the role of an instrument in partner communication, etc.). the activity of the "other" must be recognized as organically included in the process of development of the first; but in this case, the idea of ​​self-movement of a developing personality, and, consequently, the very possibility of its development, seems doubtful). The answer lies in the fact that a person has his being in another person, - "exists" in him, and through his ideal representation and continuation in another person develops as a person. Development, therefore, takes place “in the inner space of the personality,” as E.V. Ilyenkov, but this is the space of his connections with other people (inter-individual, not intra-individual "space of life").
Activity is the main way, the only effective way to be a person; a person by his activity continues himself in other people. A produced object is, on the one hand, an object of activity, and on the other hand, a means by which a person asserts himself in social life, because this object is produced for other people. Relations between people are mediated by this subject, communication is created as a production of the common.
We believe that the problem of our today's society lies precisely in the fact that there is no that very single goal of activity that would subordinate all the private activities of individual subjects to itself, thereby posing the problem of unawareness by individuals of their involvement in the category of a collective subject. The fragmentation of goal-setting is inherent not only to societies as a whole, but also to individual individuals, which makes interpersonal interaction difficult. This, in turn, leads to the instability of the entire system of civil society and society in the global sense. A person should form: “not just responsibility for oneself, but responsibility for oneself in a common cause, responsibility for this common cause and for other people in the sense of self-actualization, which implies, first of all, the actualization of oneself in others and for others, going beyond oneself when the “I” does not dissolve at all in the system of interconnections of people in society, but, on the contrary, acquires and manifests in them the forces of its action.

Chapter IV. Subject-subject relation as a moral relation

As we have already found out, the subject-subject relationship is a higher form of interaction than the subject-object relationship. But the subject-subject relationship reaches the highest level precisely in relation to love for another person, and this is already the axiological side of the problem we are considering, this is the level of moral attitude towards another person. This problem was raised in the works of S.L. Rubinstein, N. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank, what did they mean by a moral attitude, by a relationship of love to another person?
In order to unite with another person, no matter how it is called: personalization, subject-subject relationship, a person must perform an act of transcendence in relation to “another significant” person, that is, an act of going beyond the limits of his own “I”, beyond the limits of his subjective world, to meet a different subjectivity. When two subjects meet, their enrichment and personal development take place.
Transcendental (from the Latin "transcendere" - to transgress) - is understood as going beyond the limits of human consciousness.
For a better understanding of what “transcendental” is, let us turn to its interpretation by the Russian philosopher S.L. Frank. He singles out two moments in transcending: transcending "in-out" and transcending "in-in", which are complementary. An example of this is love in human life. Love, he notes, is the awareness of the true reality of someone else's soul, its infinite, inexhaustible depth of being. In it, the lover, surrendering selflessly and selflessly to the beloved, transfers - without ceasing to be himself - the center of his being into the beloved, abides in the beloved, just as the beloved in the loving; I lose myself in you, and it is there that I find myself, enriched by the you that has come to me and has been given to me. The one who gives and squanders, precisely because of this, becomes an acquirer. In every true relationship of love, the beloved "you" seems to us of infinite value. My closed self-existence disappears from my gaze and is obscured by my being for the other and in the other. But being in the other, in the "you" still remains together with that being in the form "I am", the being "I" and even appears to me as some kind of true being of the "I" acquired for the first time - namely, a being enriched through the possession of "you ". I am “enriched”, “deepened”, for the first time I begin to be truly authentic in the sense of an experientially conscious inner being. This is the miracle and mystery of love, which, for all its incomprehensibility for "reason" (ie transrationality), is nevertheless self-evident to direct living experience. When a relationship breaks up with a loved one or the death of a loved one, we are aware of a radical change in our own inner being. V.A. Petrovsky also speaks of the transcendental subject.
B.S. Bratus writes: “The central, meaning-forming characteristic of a person is his way of relating to another person. This idea is present in many psychologists, but in S.L. Rubinshtein it was expressed with particular brightness and depth: “... the first of the first conditions of human life is another person. Relation to other people is the basic fabric of human life ...
Psychological analysis of human life, aimed at revealing the relationship of a person to other people, is the core of a truly life psychology. Here, at the same time, is the area of ​​the "junction" of psychology with ethics.
S.L. Rubinstein believed that a moral attitude towards a person is a loving attitude towards him. Love, by his definition, acts as a statement of human existence. Only through his relationship to another person does a person exist as a person. A person acquires his true human existence, because in the love of another person for him, he begins to exist for another person. To be loved, according to Rubinstein, means to be the most existing of everything and everyone.
In these positions, the seal of indifference to the “other” is removed and true penetration appears, a connection with the world of another person, where, giving him a part of himself and acquiring a part of his essence, a person truly “expands” and “deepens”, enriches this interpenetration.
Further, Rubinstein continues and says that: “a person must exist for another not as an object of knowledge, but as a condition of life, human existence. Love in its “ontological” content is a process of singling out from the interweaving of dependencies, goals and means of a special, unique being of a given person.
The insight and knowledge of the essence of another person occurs, according to Rubinstein, through those human relationships that the lover enters into.
It is necessary to love a person not for this or that act, which has met with the approval or censure of other people, which may be accidental, but for himself, for his true essence, and not for his merits (appearance, character, wealth, i.e. not for its functions). This can be called unconditional love, i.e. a love in which we value a person as a person, without imposing any conditions on the relationship that the other must fulfill in order to be loved. One person asserts another as a unique individual. However, he may not approve of the beliefs or behavior of this person.
“Not to turn a person into a mask is the first commandment of ethics, to affirm the existence of a person in the fullness of his being. For those who do not love in the course of life, a person appears primarily in his function, which, according to it, is used for its intended purpose as a means. (This is exactly what personalization is due to the depersonalization of others; possession of a person, for example, sexual satisfaction as a means, etc.).
Also, when posing this question, the problem of love for the near and the far pops up; it is expressed by Rubinstein as follows. “The opposition between love for the near and the far is very ambiguous. It means, firstly, the distinction between love for concrete people and abstract love for people in general. This is nothing else than the ideal of disguised and frank indifference, dryness, callousness and cruelty towards all people with whom a person really comes into contact and whom he could really help. Secondly, love for one’s neighbor is attachment to one’s relatives, to the one with whom one has become accustomed, this is an expanded egoism that is obscured by proximity to another, removes the question of justification, of the values ​​of ethical criteria. This is love for the neighbor, opposed to love for the distant, for the ideal, love for a person, which does not care what the beloved is, what business he gives himself to.
Rubinstein sees the removal of this opposition in seeing in the near and bringing to life a distant person, the ideal of man, but not in its abstract, but in its concrete refraction. Here the concreteness of the personal and the universal are combined, the public appears in a concrete-personal refraction and incarnation.
The secret of love and its ability to unite people was well understood by the Russian religious philosopher N.A. Berdyaev. He wrote: “The secret of love is the secret of personality, penetration into the one and only face of another person. Only the lover sees the face of the beloved. For the unloving, the human face is always distorted and closed. Only through love can one see the beauty of a human face. Love is not the affirmation of identity, the revelation of the same foundation in me and in the other. If "I" and "you" are one and the same, then my love for you is only my love for myself. There is no one and the other. The one who loves and his love always presupposes his other, the exit from himself to the other, the secret of the union of two that have an original reality.
But what does love mean? How can this rather abstract concept be concretized? What elements can be distinguished in the feeling itself so that it can be called love? At first glance, the following elements become quite obvious, thanks to which the concept of love is saturated with specific content and meaning? We distinguish five such elements: sincerity, empathy, attentiveness, mutual respect, mutual support.
Sincerity. The quality that we have called "sincerity" means that each of the subjects must be open and honest about himself. He will not pretend that he is not who he really is, and hide behind a mask and pretend that he “did not understand” or “did not hear” something.
Empathy. Empathy is the ability to identify with another person and thus understand their feelings. A person with this ability sees every event, both from his own point of view and from the point of view of another person. He is able to reflect on the feelings of another person and perceive them correctly. In doing so, he must evaluate the feelings of the other not as if he himself were in his place, but as if he were that very “other” in this situation. Empathy is expressed not only in compassion for another person, but also in compassion for another person (the second is sometimes much more difficult).
Attentiveness. Here we want to emphasize that a person brings his whole self to meet another. He listens attentively, perceives what a person addresses to him, and answers readily. He concentrates and focuses on another subject, tries to "penetrate" him. Two people can talk, treat each other, but not listen to what the other says, and not take note of what the other person is.
Mutual respect. The meeting of people should be "on an equal footing", regardless of any real or imagined difference in social status, achievements, merit, etc. Each looks at the other as a person, not as an object to be used to their advantage. He does not speak to others "from top to bottom" and does not impose his opinions or his will on another.
Mutual support. A person must create a climate in which it is easy for another to be. He encourages the other person. He seeks understanding and avoids value judgments. Treat him unconditionally, accept him for who he is.

Conclusion

So, we have considered this problem from different points of view: psychological, ethical and philosophical. What conclusions can we draw from the foregoing, what should be a truly civil society, where a person is a citizen not only by belonging to a particular state, but to humanity as a whole? We present our conclusion in the form of small theses:
- it is necessary to overcome the subject-object relations and affirm the subject-subject relations, where the person will find his true expression, understanding and acceptance, will be a "significant other";
- the relation of the other "I" to my "I" should act as a condition for my existence, each "I", since it is the universality of the "I", is a collective subject, therefore, there is no priority of one "I" over another;
- for the successful functioning of the personality, its objective activity and its communication must necessarily have, in addition to objective expediency, some subjective, personal meaning, be experienced as a certain aspect of the "I";
- it is necessary to establish trust in each other and form an integrative public goal, an idea that would unite and unite the subjects of private activities;
- you can not turn a person into a mask, but you need to affirm the existence of a person in the fullness of his being;
- the human "I" does not dissolve at all in the system of interconnections of people in society, but, on the contrary, acquires and manifests in it the forces of its action;
- the formation and development of the ability to see in the near and bring to life a distant person, the ideal of a person, but not in its abstract, but in its concrete refraction;
- the formation of polysubjective interaction between people, we-concepts, as a factor of awareness of one's responsibility for oneself and another person;
- the process of personalization of the subject must be carried out with necessity, where he would receive an ideal representation in the life of other people and could act in public life as a person.
A true society, a unity of people, must necessarily include a given subject-subject type of relationship in its structure, and only on such a foundation will it be able to exist as such. The realization of these relations depends on each of us as subjects of social, purposeful activity, on a special way of manifestation of our essential forces, our life in its human understanding. As well as from the activities of governing state bodies, the education system and other social institutions. But, one way or another, activity should come from ourselves, be carried out in us and thereby transform us and the people around us, as already mentioned, the principle of co-development should be implemented and no one should stand aside when solving this problem.

Bibliography

1. Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Philosophy. Textbook. - M. "Prospect", 1999. - 576 p.
2. Andreeva G.M. Social psychology: Textbook for higher educational institutions / G.M. Andreeva. – M.: Aspect Press, 2002. – 364 p.
3. Antsyferova L.I. Psychology of personality formation and development // Psychology of personality in the works of domestic psychologists. - St. Petersburg, 2002. - S. 207-213.
4. Berdyaev N.A. The dialectic of the divine and the human. - M .: LLC "Publishing House AST"; Kharkov: "Folio", 2003. - 620 p.
5. Bratus B.S. On the problem of man in psychology / B.S. Bratus // Questions of psychology. - 1997. - No. 5. - S. 71-79.
6. Brushlinsky A.V. Psychology of the subject and his activities // Modern psychology. Reference Guide / Ed. V.N. Druzhinin. - M.: Infra-M, 1999. - S. 330-346.
7. Bulychev I.I. Fundamentals of philosophy, set out by the method of a universal logical algorithm. – Publishing House of the Tambov State University named after V.I. G.R. Derzhavina, 1999. - 289 p.
8. Vernadsky V.I. Biosphere and noosphere. – M.: Iris-press, 2004. – 576 p.
9. Vachkov I.V., Grinshpun I.B. Polysubject interaction of teachers and students // Development of personality. - 2002. - No. 3. – pp. 147-162
10. Goncharov S.Z. Creativity of subjectivity categorical analysis / S.Z. Goncharov // World of Psychology. - 2005. - No. 1. – pp. 76-84
11. Zimnyaya I.A. Pedagogical psychology: Textbook for universities. – M.: Logos, 2004. – 384 p.
12. Karmin A. Philosophy of culture in the information society: problems and prospects // Questions of Philosophy. - 2006. - No. 2. - S. 52-60.
13. Kemerov V.E. The Changing Role of Social Philosophy and Anti-Reductionist Strategies // Questions of Philosophy. - 2006. - No. 2. - S. 61-78.
14. Kon I.S. In search of myself. - http://sexology.narod.ru
15. Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. Fundamentals of theoretical psychology. – M.: INFRA-M, 1999. – 528 p.
16. Problems of the theory of state and law: Textbook / Ed. M.N. Marchenko. - M.: Jurist, 2002. - 656 p.
17. Rubinstein S.L. Being and consciousness. Man and the world. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. - 512 p.
18. Rubinstein S.L. Fundamentals of General Psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. - 720 p.
19. Feldstein D.I. Man in the current situation: trends and potential development opportunities / D.I. Feldstein // World of Psychology. - 2005. - No. 1.
20. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. – M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1983. - 840 p.
21. Frank S.L. Spiritual foundations of society. - M., "Prospect", 1992. - 532 p.
22. Frager R., Feidiman D. Personality: theories, experiments, exercises. - St. Petersburg: prime-EVROZNAK, 2002. - 864 p.

Social education and its essence.

Today the question is relevant: How does the social life of society itself educate the individual? How to educate a person so that he can successfully function in a diverse system of social relations?

Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) - “Now we receive education from three different and even contradictory sources: from our fathers, from our teachers, and from what is called light. And the lessons of the latter often destroy the ideas of the other two.”

Unfortunately, today we can state that there is no relationship and continuity between the main links of the education system - the family, educational institutions of various types; that insufficient attention is paid to the environmental factor in the upbringing and socialization of the younger generation; that there is a westernization of the most important spheres of society's life, the introduction of spiritual values ​​alien to it in order to oust and forget national history, culture, and traditions.

In order to consider upbringing as the beginning and as a way of socialization, it is necessary to look for new approaches to interpreting its essence, to understanding its role and functions in the changed conditions of social development. It is important to understand and realize that

education today is becoming a kind of mechanism for updating the ideas of the development of children and youth, the formation of their social qualities and properties;

in connection with the strengthening of the social orientation - education should be considered as an activity to introduce people to social experience in all its forms (knowledge, values, norms, qualities, skills and abilities of activity and communication), as well as to develop the individual capabilities and abilities of each person. It should be remembered that social experience is the result of active interaction with the outside world;

the main elements of the psychological and pedagogical assimilation of social experience are activities, a set of various social roles, which allows one to penetrate into the nature of the subject's assimilation of the experience of his relationship with the surrounding reality, Self-Consciousness (the world around him, interaction with people the person perceives through the prism of the "I-concept"; the system of value relations: to the world, to life, man, work, etc.;

the main tasks of socially oriented education should be the creation of a sociocultural environment where the personality develops and acquires social experience; assistance to the individual in social self-identification and self-realization of natural inclinations and creative abilities; removal of the contradiction between the social and the individual.

Then what is meant by social education?

As A.I. Levko notes, the term social education is currently used in two aspects:

1. social education- is the upbringing of the individual in society, the social environment, the social community in the course of his interaction with them. With such a consideration of social education, the emphasis is on the assimilation by the individual of group models, norms, stereotypes of collective activity, the style of thinking of a particular social group, community. The result of such upbringing is to learn social roles, social values ​​and norms of behavior and personality as an object of culture, which is the result of socialization.

2. social education there is a process of mastering by an individual a certain type of culture in the course of socialization and individualization on the basis of familiarization with the values ​​of culture, as well as the performance of certain social roles. In this approach, a person is an active subject of culture, having freedom, will, ability to creative activity. The emphasis is on the development of the spiritual and social qualities of the individual

Social education based on spiritual values ​​can be carried out with the help of:

a general civilizational approach that proceeds from universal human values ​​and understanding of culture as a kind of ideal, an ideal goal;

a multicultural approach, when each local culture is recognized as one of the possible ones and thus determines the diversity and pluralism of methods of social education. A special role here belongs to national, regional, settlement education.

social education is understood as a systematic creation of conditions for relatively targeted development and spiritual and value orientations of a person in the process of socialization (A.V. Mudrik). These conditions are created in the process of interaction of social, group and individual subjects in such areas as education (training, enlightenment, self-education), organization of social experience (organization of the life of formalized groups, influence on informal groups), individual assistance to a person (individual conversations, individual consultations, guardianship and guardianship, patronage).

Target social education:

To promote the development of a person as a person, the realization of his abilities and opportunities in society, i.e. through the accumulation of social experience and the formation of social competence.

social experience- the unity of the various rado ZUN, ways of thinking and activity; stereotypes of behavior, internalized value orientations and social attitudes, imprinted sensations and experiences.

Ovcharova R.V. defines social education as a process of promoting the productive personal growth of a person in solving vital tasks of interaction with the outside world:

1. formation of social competence;

2. achieving social self-determination;

3. achieve success in life

4. survival in society.

result social education is sociality as a person's ability to interact with the social world. With the development of sociality, a person acquires the ability for social self-development and self-education.

General and distinctive between "education as a pedagogical process" and "social education".

1. Social education considers an individual, a person as a member of a modern social group, social community, society as a whole, as a representative of a particular culture. Social education focuses on the formation of social qualities, social competence of the individual.

Traditional pedagogy studies the essence, patterns, tasks, content, conditions of the mental, moral, etc. education.

2. Social education is interested in the question “How does the social life of society itself educate individuals, and not an individual taken without connection with a social group.

3. Social education characterizes orientation on the regulation of socio-cultural interaction in a social group, community; support on social imitation, social feelings, social needs and interests; reliance on social creativity; social education in all its modifications, models, technologies, it serves as a public-state tool for stabilizing society; social education system is under the constant control of society, i.e. the social system of which it is a part.

4. Social education is focused on solving two interrelated tasks - the successful socialization of the younger generation in modern conditions and the self-development of a person as a subject of activity and communication, and as a person.

Schematically, the process of social education can be represented as: (according to A.V. Mudrik)

1. the inclusion of a person in the system of life of educational organizations;

2. acquisition and accumulation of knowledge, skills and other elements of social experience;

3. internalization (transfer of social consciousness into individual consciousness) of social experience: the transformation of the internal structures of the human psyche due to the assimilation of social experience and activity;

4. exteriorization of social experience, i.e. transformation of the internal structures of the psyche into a certain behavior.

According to Ovcharova R.V.

The process of social education of the individual has its own cycles: family, educational, work and post-work:

B ) its structure- goals and objectives; means of implementation (forms, methods, technologies); content; objects and subjects; result (defined as the degree of success of personal growth in activities, communication, cognition, self-determination and self-development);

B) their stages orientation, design, planning stage, stage of implementation of tasks, stage of evaluation of results.

Objects and subjects of social education.

Object - existing outside of us and independently of our consciousness

the external world, which is the subject of knowledge and practical influence of the subject; an object, a phenomenon to which the activity of the subject is directed.

object social education is a person, a child, (the process of its relatively purposeful and systematic development in educational organizations).

Subjects of social education- specific people (teachers, social pedagogues), social groups and communities, social organizations, educational institutions.

Subject-subject relationship

this is a type of relationship that develops in the educational process of an educational institution, consisting in the creation of parity participation of students and educators in the organization and implementation of joint activities. These are the relations that form the so-called "pedagogy of cooperation" and co-management, "pedagogy of non-violence". This is what we call "dialogue learning". This happens when the student's personality is subjectified, which is possible by the following means: a) delegating to students a number of teaching, including didactic powers; b) recognition and enforcement of the rights of the child and his parents in relation to school and learning; c) development of children's self-government both in the educational and extracurricular process; d) increasing the trust in children on the part of teachers, respect for their dignity and honor; education in children of spiritual and moral qualities; f) creation in an educational institution of a way of life that corresponds to and develops the cultural traditions of the people from which the children come. All this is the way and means of implementing the principles of democratization, natural conformity and cultural conformity of national education. In the practice of educational institutions, both types of relations, subject-object and subject-subject, should be reasonably combined, with the second type playing the leading role.

Principles of social education.(independently based on the textbook by A.V. Mudrik) - abstract.

Understanding social education as an integral part of the development and socialization of a person, as well as an approach to it as a subject-subject interaction and defining it as creating conditions for purposeful development and spiritual and value orientations, allows us to identify a number of principles that can be considered the basis for organizing social education

1. Principle of conformity to nature

Aristotle, Ya.A.Komensky, A. Diesterweg. K.D.Ushinsky.

Essence: social education should be based on a scientific understanding of the relationship between natural and social processes, be consistent with the general laws of the development of nature and man, develop in him responsibility for the development of himself, the further evolution of the noosphere. A person needs to be brought up not only as a man or woman of a certain age, not only as a resident of a particular country, but also of the planet as a whole.

This principle implies the need to take into account the individual and age characteristics of the child in solving the problems of education.

2. The principle of cultural conformity (J. Locke, A. Diesterweg, K. D. Ushinsky and others)

Essence: social education should be based on the universal values ​​of culture and be built in accordance with the values, norms, traditions of a particular national, regional culture that do not contradict universal values.

3. The principle of complementarity in social education.

Essence: Assumes an approach to human development as a set of complementary processes. Social education is considered as one of the factors of development, along with natural, social, cultural factors. This principle allows us to consider socialization as a combination of spontaneous, partially directed, relatively socially controlled processes of human development. The principle of complementarity allows us to consider education as a set of complementary processes of family, religious, social education.

4. The principle of centering social education on the development of the individual.

Essence: recognition of the priority of the individual. Educational institutions and organizations, communities of educated people can only be considered as a means of developing the individual with recognition of its priority in relation to society, the state, social institutions

5. The principle of orientation towards social value relations.

The bottom line: children are presented with a variety of objects of the world in terms of their significance for human life.

6. The principle of the humanistic orientation of education

7. The principle of collectivity of social education.

Essence: Social education is carried out in groups of various types, gives children the experience of life in society, the experience of interacting with the outside world, creates conditions for positive self-knowledge, self-determination, self-realization and self-affirmation.

8. The principle of dialogue of social education

10. Social adaptation and maladaptation.

SOCIAL ADAPTATION (lat. adaptare - to adapt) - the process of adaptation, development, as a rule, active, by a person or a group of new social conditions or a social environment for her. In modern sociology, S.A. in most cases, it is understood as such a social process in which both the adaptant (personality, social group) and the social environment are adaptive-adapting systems, that is, they actively interact, have an active influence on each other in the process of S.A.

A direct impetus to the beginning of the process of S.A. most often, a person or a social group becomes aware of the fact that the stereotypes of behavior learned in previous social activity cease to ensure success and the restructuring of behavior in accordance with the requirements of new social conditions or a new social environment for the adaptor becomes relevant.

In general, four stages of adaptation of a person in a new social environment are most often distinguished:

1) the initial stage, when an individual or group realizes how they should behave in a new social environment for them, but are not yet ready to recognize and accept the value system of the new environment and strive to adhere to the old value system;

2) the stage of tolerance, when an individual, a group and a new environment show mutual tolerance for each other's value systems and patterns of behavior;

3) accommodation, i.e. recognition and acceptance by the individual of the basic elements of the value system of the new environment while simultaneously recognizing some of the values ​​of the individual, the group of the new social environment;

4) assimilation, i.e. complete coincidence of the value systems of the individual, group and environment.

DISADAPTATION

Any violation of adaptation, adaptation of the body to constantly changing conditions of the external or internal environment. The state of dynamic discrepancy between a living organism and the external environment, leading to a violation of physiological functioning, a change in behavior, the development of pathological processes. A complete discrepancy between the organism and the external conditions of its existence is incompatible with vital activity. The degree of disadaptation is characterized by the level of disorganization of the functional systems of the body

In relation to a person, the categories of mental, psychological and social maladaptation are applicable. Objective manifestations of disadaptation are expressed by a certain type of behavior, and subjective manifestations are expressed by a wide range of psycho-emotional shifts (Ambrumova A. G., 1980). Personal maladaptation can lead to the formation of suicidal behavior in case of impossibility to implement the basic values.

Social maladaptation is manifested in the violation of moral and legal norms, in asocial forms of behavior and deformation of the system of internal regulation, reference and value orientations, social attitudes. In social maladjustment, we are talking about a violation of the process of social development, socialization of the individual, when there is a violation of both functional, and the content side of socialization. At the same time, violations of socialization can be caused both by direct desocializing influences, when the immediate environment demonstrates samples of asocial, antisocial behavior, attitudes, attitudes, thus acting as an institution of desocialization, and indirect desocializing influences, when there is a decrease in the referential significance of leading institutions socialization, which for the student, in particular, are family, school.

Given the predominantly negative impact of maladjustment on the development of the personality of a child, a teenager, it is necessary to carry out preventive work to prevent it. The main ways to help prevent and overcome the consequences of maladaptation of children and adolescents include:

Creation of optimal environmental conditions for the child;

Prevention of overload in the learning process due to the discrepancy between the level of learning difficulties and the individual capabilities of the child and the organization of the educational process;

Support and assistance to children in adapting to new conditions for them;

Encouragement of the child to self-activation and self-manifestation in the environment of life, stimulating their adaptation, etc.;

Creation of an accessible special service for socio-psychological and pedagogical assistance to various categories of the population in a difficult life situation: hotlines, offices for socio-psychological and pedagogical assistance, crisis hospitals;

Teaching parents, teachers and caregivers how to prevent maladaptation and overcome its consequences;

Training of specialists for specialized services of socio-psychological and pedagogical assistance to various categories of people in difficult life situations.

Interpersonal disunity, the growth of individualistic (egocentric) consciousness, the violation of the mechanism of identification with one's people and culture leads to the fact that our modern society is not an integrating principle that unites many personalities. In the system of interpersonal contacts, the category of "significant other" is lost; the position, feelings, worldview of an individual person are not important and require attention and understanding.

Society as a collective subject is possible only if interpersonal disunity and separation are overcome, the subject-object interaction between people is replaced, where a person appears to us only as a certain set of functions and is considered from the point of view of usefulness or uselessness for us, to subject-subject relations, where each person, expressing himself as a personality, will see in another person a personality and will not only take from him, but also give something in return, where the process of co-development, the process of personalization will take place.

The study of this problem and related problems was carried out by such psychologists and philosophers as: S.L. Rubinshtein, A.V. Brushlinsky, I.V. Vachkov, V.E. Kemerov, A. Karmin, V.I. Vernadsky, K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya and others.

S.L. Rubinstein noted that the relation of the other "I" to my "I" acts as a condition of my existence. Each "I" in so far as it is also the universality of the "I" is a collective subject, a community of subjects, a community of individuals. This "I" is really "we". IN AND. Vernadsky, he spoke of the noosphere as a sphere of reason inherent in all mankind, K. Jung postulated the existence of a collective unconscious, but consciousness is also a social product, consciousness as joint knowledge: there is no consciousness without regard to its subject, by analogy, there is no unconscious without someone to whom it is inherent. A. Karimn comes to the understanding that at this stage of development, humanity becomes united not only on an anthropological basis (as a biological species), but also on a social basis, uniting into an integral global social system.

I believe that the problem of our today's society lies in the fact that there is no that very single goal of activity that would subordinate all the private activities of individual subjects to itself, thereby posing the problem of unawareness by individuals of their involvement in the category of a collective subject.

The subject-subject relationship reaches the highest level precisely in relation to love for another person, and this is already the axiological side of the problem we are considering, this is the level of moral attitude towards another person.

I believe that for the unity of humanity as a collective subject, it is necessary:

The overcoming of subject-object relations and the assertion of subject-subject relations, where a person finds his true expression, understanding and acceptance, will be a "significant other";

The relationship of the other "I" to my "I" should act as a condition for my existence, each "I" insofar as it is and the universality of the "I" is a collective subject, therefore, there is no priority of one "I" over another;

For the successful functioning of the personality, its objective activity and its communication must necessarily have, in addition to objective expediency, some subjective, personal meaning, be experienced as a certain aspect of the "I";

It is necessary to establish trust in each other and form an integrative public goal, an idea that would unite and unite the subjects of private activities;

Formation and development of the ability in the near to see and bring to life a distant person, the ideal of a person, but not in its abstract, but in its concrete refraction;

Formation of polysubject interaction between people, we-concepts, as a factor of awareness of one's responsibility for oneself and another person;

With necessity, the process of personalization of the subject must be carried out, where he would receive an ideal representation in the life of other people and could act in public life as a person.

A true society, a unity of people, must necessarily include a given subject-subject type of relationship in its structure, and only on such a foundation will it be able to exist as such. The implementation of these relations depends on each of us as subjects of social, purposeful activity, on the special manifestation of our essential forces, our life in its human understanding. As well as from the activities of governing state bodies, the education system and other social institutions.

Ulyanov Nikolai Nikolaevich

§ 1.2. The system of psychological relations of subjects of political activity
as its integral characteristic

The subjects of political activity are all citizens of the Russian Federation who can be included (or are already included) in the collective subjects of political activity.

Since political activity is the activity of people in a certain limited territory, which, one way or another, determines the development strategy of this territory, its management, its internal and external relations; this is any activity of people that entails social changes, transformation and development of the state and society (a set of socially significant actions of the individual that add up to social behavior), therefore, in order to regulate and optimize political activity, we need to understand what is the structure of the social behavior of the individual, his main characteristics and determinants.

• appeal to the elements of culture (values ​​and norms) as regulators of these interactions;
• study of the psychological mechanisms of regulation of social behavior through various symbolic and ideological-psychological forms;
• analysis of individual behavior, taking into account the social environment in which it is carried out.

As a rule, the approaches described above are not used in their pure form; often different theoretical orientations are intertwined in the same study.

The sociocultural approach to the study of social behavior has its continuation in the geopolitical approach. His thesis: "geographic relief as destiny." Geopolitics speaks of a "spatial man", predetermined by space, formed and conditioned by its specific quality - relief, landscape. But this conditionality is especially clearly manifested in large-scale social manifestations of a person - in states, ethnic groups, cultures, civilizations, etc. The dependence of man on space - the main thesis of geopolitics - is seen only with some distance from the individual. Space manifests itself in large quantities, and therefore geopolitics is intended for social groups dealing with generalized realities - countries, peoples, etc.

The topic of national characteristics was analyzed by many scientists and researchers, and, of course, it is important to take into account the factor of historical and regional specificity in the formation of certain social behavior.

Summarizing all the considered approaches, we can single out the main groups of factors influencing social behavior:

A) Individual psychological personal factors: needs, motives, goals, thoughts, social attitudes, etc.

b) Social-group phenomena: one of the main social determinants of human behavior is interaction; the nature of the relationship with the groups of which the person is a member; group norms, value orientations, role prescriptions; intergroup interactions; influence of reference groups.

V) Sociocultural determinants include: analysis of individual behavior, taking into account the socio-economic environment in which it is carried out; a real-life social space, social time within the framework of social processes that include fragments of social life; various sign and ideological and psychological forms - people attach certain meanings (symbols) to the influences of the outside world and react to a greater extent to these symbols, and not to the interactions themselves; elements of culture (values ​​and norms) as regulators of social interaction; "mutual influence-interdependence".

G) Geopolitical determinants: "spatial man" (Dugin A.G.) - predetermined by space, formed and conditioned by its specific quality - relief, landscape; factors of historical and regional specificity influencing the formation of a certain type of social behavior.

For personality, all of the above factors can be combined into values "meaning" actions (social behavior) and "circumstances"(objective surrounding reality in all its forms and manifestations). In essence, social behavior is a fixation of an already established system of social relations, and then it also becomes the cause of changes in this system.

Behavior as a form of human activity should be viewed through the "prism" of those social relations in which this or that acting individual is included. An integrative unit of human behavior is an act as an action perceived and realized by the acting subject himself as a social act, as a manifestation of the subject, which expresses the attitude of a person to other people. It is in real (and not imaginary, ideal) action that a person manifests not only the relationship of a person to other people, but also to society, the world, and through these "external" relationships - to himself. Any act is included in the economic, political, ideological, legal, moral, aesthetic and other human relations. Thus, the act becomes a kind of real measure of his social relations.

Political activity is influenced by social life as a system of human actions, mutually relations and interactions resulting from these meanings And circumstances.

Meanings are determined primarily through the value attitude of a person - this is a psychological attitude - grade subjects of political activity to each other and to these relations themselves - connections, and to circumstances.

Thus, system of subjective relations of personality(determining social behavior) formed under the influence a large number of subjective and objective factors, which can be conditionally divided into three groups - psychological, social and cultural(socio-cultural, including the geopolitical aspect of influence).

In general terms, the system of these influences can be represented as factors that are resistant to changes (for example, geopolitical determinants, cultural characteristics, etc.) and quite flexible to changes, mobile, "mobile" factors. The most mobile, flexible, capable of transformation are precisely relationship, since they do not require a quick and deep change in the essence of phenomena and phenomena (circumstances), but only mean the transformation of the relationship-evaluation and relationship-connection (the relationship and mutual influence between them).

P.N. Shikhirev emphasizes that the regulatory function of the relationship is of the greatest interest for social practice: "The value relationship is dual: psychological in terms of the mechanics of existence and social in function - the regulation of individual and collective life ... It is a psychological regulator of the social process at its various levels, it provides the necessary "psychoenergetics", the emotional charge of various ideological and psychological forms through which this regulation is carried out. These forms themselves can perform their function if they are able to mobilize the corresponding value attitude of its participants. It is this that largely determines how they have a fairly unified idea of ​​the goals of action, the means of achieving them, their functions, rights and obligations, how this image will be correlated with similar ideological and psychological forms developed by other social subjects.

Myasishchev emphasized that the system of social relations, in which every person is included from the time of his birth to death, forms his subjective attitudes to all aspects of reality. And this system of relations to the surrounding world and to oneself is the most specific characteristic of the personality, more specific than, for example, a number of its other components, such as character, temperament, abilities, etc. The psychological meaning of the relationship lies in the fact that it is one of the forms of reflection by a person of the reality surrounding him. The formation of relations in the structure of a person's personality occurs as a result of his reflection on the conscious level of the essence of those social objectively existing relations of society in the conditions of his macro- and microexistence in which he lives.

Lomov B.F. highlights social relations as the general basis of personality properties: “Personal properties as manifestations of the social quality of an individual can be understood only by studying his life in society. also its properties such as altruism or selfishness, peacefulness or aggressiveness, striving for leadership or consent to submission, etc. ... are not determined by nature, they have a social origin.

To understand the foundations on which certain properties of a person are formed, it is necessary to consider her life in society, her movement in the system of social relations. These relations are expressed primarily in what communities, by virtue of what objective reasons, this or that particular individual is included in the process of life. Ultimately, his personal properties are formed and developed depending on his belonging to a certain class, nation, ethnic group, professional category, family of a certain (historically established) type, education (if he receives it) at school (both secondary and higher) certain type; membership in public or political organizations, etc."

From the foregoing, it follows that relationships act as the most influential characteristic of the formation, development and action of the individual, and, at the same time, as a factor that has a pronounced regulatory function of people's behavior and activities. Therefore, it is most expedient to consider the regulation and optimization of political activity as a whole through the relations of its subjects.

Specific political activity unfolds within the framework of a specific social situation, due to existing social stereotypes (social attitudes, attitudes), needs, interests, values ​​and relations of subjects of political activity. Each subject of political activity, on the one hand, is a "product" of this political activity, social ties and relations, and on the other hand, their creator, active creator. The subject of political activity in terms of the direction of his activity, on the one hand, is dependent on the environment, on the other hand, his activity is conditioned by subjective characteristics. The determinants influencing the results of his political activity are interrelated and interdependent objective and subjective factors. Objective factors include, for example, social relations, the moral and psychological climate and the level of development of society. Subjective factors include the meaning invested by the subject in political activity, the meaning invested in their specific actions and actions, as well as the knowledge of the subject about the means, methods, conditions for achieving the set goals, other subjects of political activity and objective factors (i.e. , about the circumstances that determine political activity in this particular territory).

All these relations seem to "overlap" each other (that is, they have interpenetrating parts); however, there are also "parts" that exist autonomously (see Fig. 1). At the same time, human, interpersonal relations permeate, "overlap" any branch objectively existing relations, that is, they mediate them (see Fig. 2).

The manifold moments of people's everyday behavior are not something that is "outside", "above", "under" or "inside" social relations. These are the social relations themselves in action, their concrete realization, the forms of their manifestation.

The category of "relationships" can also be considered within the narrow framework of psychological relations proper (according to V.N. Myasishchev: A) attitude towards people b) to yourself, V) to objects of the outside world), and within a broad framework, in the context of various social relations (industrial, economic, political, legal, civil, moral, religious). The three main vectors of psychological relations (to oneself, to other people, to the outside world) are closely interconnected with all other social relations.

The growing interest of psychologists in the category of "public relations" is due to the transition from "purely" scientific psychological research to the scientific and practical implementation of the results in social practice. Public relations in relation to the individual are an objective factor that determines its formation and development. Thus, party affiliation determines the specifics of an individual's political relations; participation in public work testifies to his civil relations; wages, professional and official status reflect the features of economic and industrial relations within which a person functions.

One of the criteria for the socialization of a person is not only his knowledge of the rules and norms, but also their "stereotypical", "automatic" observance and implementation. Another criterion for a socialized, mature personality may be the diversity of its real social relations.

In everyday consciousness, the concept of "relationship" has a fairly precise definition. This is one of the few categories that, being used in ontogeny, has a specific embodiment in any contacts, interactions of a person with a person, material and ideal things and phenomena. The attitude, as it were, emotionally colors any connection of the individual with the outside world. Even indifference to someone or something is an attitude. In other words, attitude is an attribute of any human connection: direct and indirect, physical and ideal.

Relationships can be divided into situational and stable, recurring regardless of situations (for example, affection).

A system of needs, motives, and inclinations of a person is determined through attitude. In this case, the attitude acts (according to B. G. Ananiev) as an indicator and means of expression, objectification of all human actions. Attitude is a socialized connection of the internal and external psyche of a person, his connection with the internal and external world.

In social relations (economic, legal, moral, civil and psychological), the ratio of production and consumption motives is their main regulator.

A sign of harmony, from a psychological point of view, is the predominance of production over consumption, since the strengthening of a person's ties with society presupposes "a kind of intersection of his social activity with the activity of other members of society, various groups, social institutions."

Society is interested in the gradual inclusion of the individual in social relations. The leading mechanism of an individual's involvement in social relations is his objective participation in socially useful activities. The mechanism of the psychological inclusion of an individual can be identification (or identification) of himself with the Motherland, any party, industry, team, etc. As is known, with the same objective complicity, psychological inclusion is not always experienced by different individuals in the same way.

One of the fundamental questions of the psychology of relationships is the adequacy of relationships to the world, objects, other people, society, and oneself. It is quite obvious that the considered adequacy within the framework of these vectors of a person's connections should contribute to a better disclosure of his potentials and tendencies in relation to other people, society and himself personally. Inadequate, distorted attitude causes difficulties in the life of a person, other people, society. An adequate attitude implies not only the accuracy of perception and understanding of the world, objects, other people, society and oneself, but also an accurate emotional response, the inclusion of needs in all these connections. Moreover, the relationship must be adequate at the level of intended and effective, practical interaction with the world, people, objects, society, and oneself.

The analysis of psychological relations in the context of such social relations as production, economic, civil, legal, political, ethical, involves the allocation of two interrelated aspects: rights and obligations. Rights and obligations regulate the behavior of an individual included in a variety of social relations. Without appropriate rights and obligations, the optimal functioning of all types of social relations is impossible.

There are many different relations in society: economic, political, legal, moral, spiritual, cultural, etc. Actually, human society itself is a set of relations, a product of human interaction. At the same time, all types and forms of relations that arise and function in society and between individuals and their associations are (unlike relationships in nature) public, or social.

Prerequisites that are necessary for the emergence and existence of any relationship: a) at least two subjects, because a person cannot be in any relationship with himself; b) interests, needs of people, under the influence of which they enter into various legal relations. "Interest is what holds members of civil society together. No one can do anything without doing it at the same time for the sake of some of their needs."

Needs can be material, spiritual or physiological. The desire to meet these needs and brings to life the appropriate legal relationship, this is their root cause. In a broader sense, material prerequisites are understood as a set of economic, social, cultural and other factors that determine the objective need for legal regulation of certain social relations.

All public relations can be divided into three groups: 1) regulated by law and, therefore, acting as legal (legal relations); 2) not regulated by law and, therefore, having no legal form; 3) partially adjustable. This division is based on three criteria: social necessity, state interest and the possibility of external control.

Legal relations constitute the main sphere of social civilized life. They are especially developed in civil society, the rule of law. Legal relations have several different classifications: according to industry, they are divided into state, administrative, financial, civil, labor, family, etc. There are regulatory and protective legal relations; According to the degree of concretization and subject composition, legal relations are divided into absolute, relative and general regulatory.

General regulatory, or simply general, legal relations, in contrast to specific ones, express legal ties of a higher level between the state and citizens, as well as the latter among themselves regarding the guarantee and exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual (the right to life, honor, dignity, security, inviolability of the home , freedom of speech, etc.), as well as duties (to comply with laws, the rule of law). They arise mainly on the basis of the norms of the Constitution, other fundamental acts and are basic, initial for branch legal relations. They are also called general because their participants are all citizens as carriers common to all fundamental rights and obligations.

For us, this means that legal relations are one of the components of the system of social relations in all their diversity, which are recognized in the process of historical development as the most significant for the state and society. These are those social relations that have self-developed into legal relations due to natural historical necessity in accordance with the development of civil society.

In our country, with the adoption of the 1993 Constitution, the previously formed trend of developing a democratic society grew into a social necessity and was enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution and reflected in the fact that "the source of power is the people." On the one hand, this norm is a consolidation of the already accumulated changes in the system of subjective psychological relations of many people, which allowed it to become a rule of law. On the other hand, now the formation of an individual personal subjective system of relations of all citizens of the country as a whole should be mediated by this fixed norm. From it follows the need to form a subjective personal system of relations of each individual as a subject of political activity responsible for the development of the country, its progress and all socio-economic processes in it.

In any legal relation, the actual (economic, political, etc.), legal and volitional content is distinguished. The actual does not change as a result of mediation by law of a real relationship. The legal content refers to the subjective rights and obligations of the participants in the legal relationship.

Thus, we consider the actual content of relations between the subjects of political activity (which are all capable citizens of the Russian Federation) and volitional. Legally, these relations are legal relations (since 1993 they have been regulated by the norms of the Constitution and other fundamental legal acts), therefore, they are characterized by all the signs, characteristics and principles of legal relations as such. Actual content includes a system of subjective personal relations of subjects of political activity, which leaves its mark on volitional content. Volitional content is the will of the state And the will of the subjects themselves. The state, for its part, has already shown its will, securing the rights of citizens as subjects of political activity. Now citizens must show will And actually perceive themselves as subjects of political activity. Then the legal content, through the will, will become factual.

The system of social relations, defining the way of life of the individual, "ensures the formation, transformation and consolidation of the properties that form his psychological make-up." At the same time, society (according to B.F. Lomov) can promote or hinder the "movement" of an individual in the system of social relations. Satisfaction of individual needs becomes dependent on how society evaluates the abilities of the individual, his work and the system of social relations in terms of breadth, level of awareness and activity, degree of stability, etc.

The nature of the inclusion of an individual in social relations can be determined by one of his positions: "from himself" or "from others." The latter involves a moral and psychological assessment of psychological, including interpersonal relationships. When not only the breadth and variety of relationships, the activity and awareness of actions in each specific case are evaluated, but also the meaning, that is, “why” and “what for” is connected with others, then the moral and political aspects of human social relations are included.

1. needs (considered in the system of relations to reality);
2. interests (as a vivid emotional attitude to the subject of activity; its formation is associated with active and successful involvement in the relevant activity);
3. assessments (evaluative relationships are associated with the process comparisons their actions and deeds with ethical, aesthetic, legal, and other criteria-examples; according to the formation of assessments and the criticism of oneself and others associated with this, exactingness arises);
4. demanding attitude (to others and to oneself);
5. beliefs (a system of requirements, combined with knowledge of reality, especially social reality, forms a person’s beliefs, which are an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe existing reality and what it should be. “In accordance with beliefs, emotional reactions and an active (volitional) readiness to fight for the implementation of existing beliefs").

The ideas of A.F. Lazursky and V.N. Myasishchev were continued in the 30-40s. Boris Gerasimovich Ananiev. Among his predecessors, various human relations - to society as a whole, nature, other people, to oneself - were, as it were, parallel. BG Ananiev showed that there is a certain sequence in the transition of these relations into character properties. So, attitudes towards people turn into stable character formations (communicative traits) in the very first place. Then, from the relationship to others, the so-called reflexive character traits are formed in a person - I as a whole system of conscious relationships to oneself.

The direction of Lazursky-Myasishchev in the psychological study of personality began to take shape earlier than the similar - in some aspects - direction of Western psychology, which posed the problem of attitude (attitude) - close to the concept of "subjective relations of the individual". The problem of attitudes was posed in Western psychology by V.I. Tomas and F. Znanetsky (1918); it was developed most intensively in the 1930s and then in the 1950s (Lickert, Shank, La Pire, Allport, Kerch and Krechfield, etc.). There is a significant difference between Soviet and Western psychology in their approach to the analysis of a person's subjective relations - attitudes. In Western psychology, they are treated as some kind of "theoretical construct", the meaning of which is only to help systematize empirical data. Phenomena that can be attributed to attitudes are stated, but their objective grounds are not disclosed. It is argued that the emergence and change of these phenomena is a matter of chance; their dynamics is considered as a stochastic process. When it comes to the objective basis of attitudes (about determinants in general), they sometimes try to look for it in the genetic and physiological properties of the individual. The essence of the social attitude (attitude) is considered in detail by R. L. Krichevsky and other authors.

The concept of "subjective-personal attitude" is close in meaning to the concept of "value orientations". The latter is interpreted as the attitude of the individual to certain values ​​of the material and spiritual culture of society. In this understanding, value orientations are closer to the English-language concept of "attitude" (social attitude). In fact, both the first and second represent an attitude determined by needs, motives, direction, that is, the internal-external vector of the personality. Social relations simultaneously act as external-internal relations of the individual. This is explained by the fact that the objectivity, the reality of the existence of social relations does not depend on the subjective desires, unwillingnesses, internal and external relations of the individual. Without individual needs, motives, orientation, attitudes, value orientations, there can be no psychological (subjective-personal) involvement of the individual.

The semantic analysis of the concept of "relationship" shows that most often the meaning that reveals the content of the concept of relationship has orientation any action, subjective (internal) or objective (external). In grammar, the expressions "in relation to someone" or "in relation to someone" are used in the sense of a preposition indicating the direction of action. The meaning of the concept of "attitude" is supplemented by the sign of relations: positive or negative, good or bad, fair or unfair.

The category "relationship" is considered and how readiness to a certain interaction, and how actual connection. In the first case, the concept of "attitude" essentially "merges" with the concept of attitude as "readiness for a certain activity, the occurrence of which depends on the presence of the following conditions: on the need that is actually acting in the given organism, and on the objective situation of satisfying this need." Readiness is understood only as the possibility of revealing the connection. Relationships of a person "represent an integral system of individual, selective, conscious connections of a person with various aspects of objective reality. This system follows from the entire history of a person's development, it expresses his personal experience and internally determines his actions and experiences."

In this definition, the moment of not only readiness is seen, but also the manifestation of connections, albeit in an implicit form. One of the significant differences that distinguish one concept from another is the degree of consciousness. Note that the concepts of consciousness and awareness (as the clarity of consciousness of reflected phenomena) are not identical. For clarity, it is better to use the concepts of awareness and purposefulness, since conscious connection implies a fragment of purpose. In the setting "consciousness is not always possible." This is evidenced by numerous studies of the school of D.N. Uznadze. It seems that the essential difference between the concepts of "attitude" and "attitude" should be the prevailing (or dominant) determinism. In the installation, the determination of its existence is determined by internal conditions - the need, while in relations, the determination, as it were, is outside. Age, gender, professional status, party membership or non-partisanship determine that objectively given system of social relations, which include individual, selective, conscious connections of the individual. Psychological characteristics, the personal experience of the individual, being internally inherent in him psychological properties, are, as it were, “launched” into experiences and actions through outwardly existing signs of social relations. "... Sometimes attitudes are considered as a stereotype. However, as you know, a dynamic stereotype, or, in other words, an attitude, is completely determined by past experience. Meanwhile, perspective lines are the most important lever of formative work. A conscious attitude, growing out of the past, focuses on the prospects for the future. Therefore, it cannot be identified either with a stereotype or with an attitude.

In Soviet psychology, social relations are considered as the basis of subjective-personal relations. The whole system of these relations (economic, civil, legal, political, etc.), which develops according to the objective laws of history, determines in one way or another the subjective relations of specific individuals, manifested in their actions, experiences, aspirations, in understanding and evaluating processes, taking place in society. The nature and dynamics of the subjective relations that form in a particular person ultimately depend on the position that he occupies in the system of social relations and his development in this system.

In the process of life, a person also forms certain subjective attitudes to scientific discoveries, cultural and art phenomena, political events, the ideological life of society, etc.

The subjective relations of the individual ensure the inclusion of the individual in the life of society, determining the ways of its activity and interaction with other people, and, consequently, the nature and extent of its participation in the development and transformation of the state and society, that is, in political activity.

Subjective relations act as a kind of "backbone" of the subjective world of the individual. In the broadest sense of the word, the subjectivity of relations means that they belong to a person as a subject. They are formed and developed in the process of accumulation and integration of the entire life experience of the individual. They characterize the life position of the individual in society. However, subjectivity and subjectivism are not the same thing. If the relationship of the individual is adequate to the progressive trends in the development of society, then their subjectivity is not only not an obstacle, but, on the contrary, contributes to the development of these relationships. However, under certain conditions, partiality can also appear in the form of subjectivism (prejudice, prejudice, rigidity in behavior and opinions, etc.), which hinders the normal relationship of the individual with other people, and hence its own development.

The subjective relations of a person are manifested in one way or another in any of its actions. But they find their fullest expression in actions, which, as Rubinstein noted, are "units" of her behavior. "An act, in the true sense of the word," he wrote, "is not any action of a person, but only one in which the conscious attitude of a person to other people, to society, to the norms of public morality has a leading meaning." An act is a social act, a demonstration by a person of his subjective relations (an act can also be inaction, a refusal to participate in certain social and political processes). In his actions, a person either asserts the existing form of social relations and his position in their system, develops them, or seeks to change them (or change his position in this system).

In the analysis of an act, it is important to keep in mind not only its significance for the individual, but also its social effect, and in this regard, to determine the specific area of ​​social relations and political activity, the development of which it has (or may have) influence, duration and depth. this influence, as well as its public "resonance".

From a legal point of view, a greater focus on oneself and disregard for the rights of others can lead to violations of legal, civil and criminal norms. The orientation of relations predominantly towards oneself within the framework of production relations can develop a consumer attitude towards all other participants in production. A measure of the balance of vectors (on oneself, other people, the outside world) can optimize or destroy all possible connections and relationships of an individual.

Changing the objective position of the individual in society necessarily requires restructuring and its subjective relations. If this does not happen, then there may be difficulties in mastering a new social function, conflicts with other people or "internal discord".

According to B.F. Lomov, public relations are not impersonal and impassive, since these are relations between people. Concrete individuals are not only objects, but also (above all) subjects of these relations. Therefore, they are not indifferent to people; each person acts as a member (or one side) of a social relationship. It is experienced as her relation and as relation to her; involved in social relations, people do not behave impartially. The whole history, saturated with human passions, convinces us of this. The subjective relations of individuals, of course, do not determine the process of development of social relations, but they influence it. At the same time, under certain conditions, they can have a very significant impact on this process: speed it up or slow it down, or change its content. This is easy to see using the concept " actual causation " (introduced by V.A. Petrovsky). Actual causality in political activity is most of all revealed through the principle " here and now " . This principle of actual determination can obviously be expressed through the category " relationship " - although they are conditioned by the past (in the form of previous events), the future (in the form of target causality), they are most of all formed in the present. The activity of the subjects of political activity is the determinism of their behavior by those relations that arise in political activity in the actual (here and now). Relationships are constantly being formed and changed, they are in dynamics. Here the principle of reflected subjectivity (V.A. Petrovsky) is expressed, when the activity of one subject affects the change in semantic formations (and, consequently, the system of relations - S.K.) of another subject (or subjects).

Thus, political activity is characterized by the presence of relations, that is, a system of diverse, multi-level, spontaneous and conscious relationships and interactions. Relations cover all spheres of society, and they are especially visible and ambiguous in the socio-economic area, where problems are solved that affect the interests and needs of people, their needs, which ultimately act as social causes and stimulators of political activity. The psychological relations of a person play a significant role in the character and in the process of interaction in political activity and, in turn, influence its result. The functioning of the subjects of political activity, among other things, is determined by the system of their internal subjective relations.

The regulatory function of relationships has been repeatedly emphasized by many authors. According to Myasishchev, the so-called deep, or rational, psychotherapy is based on the restructuring of relationships. Makarenko in his pedagogy also relied most of all on the psychology of relationships. "Since we are always dealing with a relationship, since it is the relationship that constitutes the true object of our pedagogical work, we always face a double object - the individual and society. Turning off the individual, isolating it, isolating it from relationships is completely impossible, technically impossible", he wrote. According to V.A. Yadov, the system of value orientations (relations-assessments) forms the highest level of the dispositional hierarchy of the regulation of the social behavior of the individual, "regulating the behavior of the individual in the unfolding within the framework " historical " time, situations determined by the way of life of society and social groups to which the individual belongs and with which he identifies himself. " Shikhirev calls the attitude "the psychological regulator of the social process at its various levels."

Socially significant actions of people that make up political activity, social behavior in general (which cannot be reduced only to interpersonal communications) is determined by more complex factors than attitude or attitude (although they are also important). That is why we consider relationships as having a pronounced and most influential regulatory function of social behavior and people's activities.

1. Official social events;
2. Personal interactions with close friends or relatives;
3. Random episodic meetings with acquaintances;
4. Formal contacts in stores and at work;
5. Asymmetric interactions (eg, training, leadership);
6. Conflict and negotiations;
7. Group discussion.

M. Argyle and his collaborators see the special value of the study of situations in the fact that they can become a means of overcoming crisis phenomena in social psychology.

Being a means of studying people's behavior in real life, situational analysis allows us to explore intergroup relations in all their diversity, including the regulatory function of relations at the interpersonal level.

Situational analysis makes it possible to apply almost all the data available in social science, obtained in one situation, to other situations on the basis of determining their belonging to the same class. This is one of the main reasons researchers strive to classify the phenomena they study.

Myasishchev identified three classes of relationships: attitude to the world, to other people, to oneself. All of them, strictly speaking, are attitude-evaluation", because the preposition is used "To"(relation To world, attitude To people, attitude To yourself). That is, in this case, when studying the relationship, it is important that How do I feel about something?, but no feedback is visible - how something relates to me. It is understood that if we study "how I relate to Something", this will be enough, because then I their behavior will show this attitude outside, And Something will react to it, and then we will already study Something from the position of "relationship to the world, to other people, to oneself" ... At this time, between Me And Something there will be some interactions (and there will be some relations-connections, which will change all the time in the process of our interaction and mutual influence). Thus, what will be already learned by a certain point about To me and about Something will inevitably become obsolete, since We, in the process of relationship-connection, have changed our relationship-assessments, ourselves and this one relation-relationship.

Psychological relationships are often analyzed in terms of subject-object and subject-subject relationships. Interpersonal relations are always considered as "subject-subject" relations. In turn, subject-object relations are all relations of a person to reality, excluding relations between people and self-relationship. Another aspect of the analysis of attitudes used in theoretical and applied works is by direction (attitude towards oneself, other people, business). In this case, the psychological content of the concept of "attitude" is dominated by its motivational meaning. The subject-subject relationship includes not only relationships with another person, but also the relationship of a person to himself, that is, self-relationship. So, common for one and the other connection is, for example, the activity (or severity) of the relationship, modality (positive, negative, neutral), breadth, stability, etc. At the same time, a significant difference between relations within the framework of subject-object and subject-subject relations is the unidirectionality and reciprocity of relations.

The problem of subject-subject relations and subject-subject interaction is of great importance in general psychology. In the works of leading Soviet psychologists, theoretical propositions on the specifics of subject-subject relations have been developed. Deep ideas about the specificity of subject-subject relations are developed in the works of B.F. Lomov. He notes that the specificity of communication, unlike any other types of interaction, lies precisely in the fact that it reveals the psychological qualities of people. "In the communication of people, those properties are manifested that characterize them as subjects."

As a subject-subject relationship (or relation-relationship), Myasishchev can consider "relationship to other people." Among them, Myasishchev singles out 1) special kind of ethical attitude to another person respect(if positive) and neglect or contempt(otherwise) and 2) relationship of "leadership and execution or subordination."

Analyzing the classifications of relations proposed by different authors, one can notice that none of them is fully suitable for reflecting the relations of subjects of political activity in all their diversity.

If, following Berne, we define the relationship of political actors as an ongoing sequence of transactions between two or more actors of political activity, which (according to Argyll) are a natural fragment of social life, determined by the people included in it, the place of action and the nature of the unfolding actions or activities , and (according to Myasishchev) are conditioned by a system of conscious electoral connections of the individual, then we get a definition that approximately reflects reality, but is very difficult to perceive and characterize the connections and mutual influences of relations between subjects of political activity.

Earlier we determined that political activity is influenced by a system of human actions, mutually relations and interactions caused meaning(value relation-estimation) And circumstances(objective external factors) participation of subjects in political activities.

“One of the main forms of manifestation of relations is political interests, which are means of communication, connection of subjects, the perceived needs of individuals and social groups in politics, the mode of existence and the form of manifestation of these relations. The state of people's mass interests is an indicator of the state of political relations. Interaction in the process of political activity is, first of all, a system of mutually determined individual actions connected by a cyclic causal dependence, in which the behavior of each of the participants acts both as a stimulus and a reaction to the behavior of the others. That is, certain relations-connections are formed between the subjects of political activity on the basis of the attitude-assessment of the subjects of political activity to each other, to these relations-relations themselves, and to circumstances.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider at the same time both the evaluation relationship and the relationship relationship, and the evaluation relationship in relation to the relationship relationship. Consequently, the typology of relations between the subjects of political activity should reflect the relationship-connections between them, loading them with the characteristics of the relationship-evaluation.

Considering the variety of political relations as the fabric of the political system, L.E. Ilyicheva proposes to divide them on the following grounds:

1. According to the carrier, the subject of political relations.
2. In terms of power.
3. According to the position of subjects in relation to power.
4. According to the area of ​​political life, in which, first of all, they form and function.
5. According to the method of attachment.

Within the framework of these grounds (within which different types and types of relations are also distinguished), the relations we are considering of the subjects of political activity can be attributed to the fifth group “According to the field of political life, in which, first of all, they develop and function”, which includes:

1. Practical political relations:
1. in the sphere of political domination;


2. in the field of political participation.
2. Ideological and socio-psychological:
1. worldview;


2. solidarity, mutual understanding, friendship, mutual respect;


3. isolation, differences, enmity, hatred, mutual distrust, etc.
3. Informational.

Strictly speaking, the relations we are considering embrace the entire structure of political relations and permeate it. However, this type of classification adequately reflects the subject of this study. From Ilyicheva's point of view, this will be point two, "Ideological and socio-psychological relations."

In our typology of relations between subjects of political activity, we will use the definitions of "subject-object", "subject-subject", "object-subject" types of relations. They will have a partial similarity with similar definitions of other authors, but will also have visible differences.

First, the concept of the subject of political activity specified in this study (strictly speaking, its expansion) implies a change in the object, which will necessarily affect the definition of "subject-object relations". If the subjects of political activity are all socially active people (capable citizens), then only that which answers the question becomes an object. "What?"- this is the economy, social sphere, social structure, legal relations, etc. The subject of political activity in this case answers the question "How?"- these are processes, mechanisms of regulation and transformation of the state and society. That is, the object and subject of political activity is phenomena And processes, but not People. Thus, if a "person" (or "people") cannot be an object of political activity, since they are its equal subjects, therefore, the use of the definition " subject-object relationship " in our classification is of an evaluative nature, and means that one of the parties clearly "exceeded its authority." This is the case when "the formal position of people and their real relationship to each other may not coincide. There are frequent cases " command position " among formal equals.

Secondly, the definition " subject-object relationship " is used by us only as a characteristic of relations between people (as opposed to those classifications where subject-object relations are all relations of a person to reality, excluding relations between people and self-relationship, where an object is an inanimate object).

Thirdly, the definition " subject-subject relationship " used not only for direct interpersonal relationships (as in most authors), but and for mediated. In other words, people (subjects of political activity) may never meet, be territorially located in different places, engage in different types of professional activities - that is, not have interpersonal contacts and not even know each other - but at the same time be aware that they are subjects of political activity. (as a joint activity) and evaluate each other as equal subjects of this activity.

The expansion of the range of subjects of political activity entails a refinement of their classification and the separation of functions between them (there is an additional structuring of the system). Structuring usually entails improving the quality of the system.

Based on our classification of subjects of political activity, politicians and collective structured subjects of political activity are control subsystem in political activities - or subjects of political power and control ; and such subjects of political activity as inactive participants in political activity (which include the majority of citizens) and collective unstructured subjects of political activity are managed subsystem .

The most common and frequently occurring case in social reality is the relationship within the control subsystem and the controlled one. These relations exist in almost any field of activity - political, pedagogical, labor, etc.

The typology of such relationships can be represented as a continuum:

“subject-object” → “subject-subject” → “object-subject” relations.

On the one side of the continuum, there is a group of relations where activity is built according to a scheme when the control subsystem considers the controlled only as an object of control, without recognizing any independence in psychological, legal and other terms -
This subject-object relationship .

In the middle of the continuum, the controlled subsystem gradually turns from a passive object in active subject, which, together with the control subsystem, determines the choice of directions and methods of activity - this subject-subject relationship .

On the other side object-subject relationship - here the decisions and actions of the control subsystem are completely determined by the current state, desires and will of the controlled subsystem.

The subjects of political power and management (control subsystem) must be aware that not all processes in political activity are within their competence, they are not responsible for all, and, therefore, they should not interfere in all of them. This will make it easier for them to perform their immediate tasks and accelerate the growth of professionalism.

According to M. Argyle and his followers, the social situation is determined by nine factors. The most significant of the parameters was the structure of goals, rules and the ability to overcome difficulties. Consequently, they will be the criteria for identifying the types of situations of interaction between subjects of political activity.

So, we will single out situations in accordance with the “structure of goals” in political activity, “rules” - the distribution of roles and statuses (and, accordingly, powers and responsibilities), “ability to overcome difficulties” - these are situations with an undetermined outcome, in which more all that is required are the qualities of the subject and the existence of subject-subject relations.

First, in political activity there are situations of interaction A) entities equal in status and b) different in status. That is, situations of interaction within the control (or managed) subsystem and situations of interaction between these subsystems.

Among the subjects of political activity, we singled out politicians (1) : professional (1.1) and non-professional (1.2) ; And citizens (2) - as members of structured and unstructured collective subjects of political activity, representatives of civil society.

Interaction options are as follows:

A) Equal in social status; b) different in social status.

(1.1)w (1.1)

(1.2)w (1.2)

(2)Û (2)