Abstract
article introduces the main stages and directions of the development of social psychology in the Soviet Union and Russia. compares the theoretical approaches of Russian and Western social psychology. Special emphasis is placed on issues of social cognition and response, which is very important under changing real conditions. A new professional task in social psychology is discussed. It explains the necessity of finding new paradigms in social psychology surveys under the conditions of fundamental transformation and vagueness, as well as the direction and trends of their elaboration.
Introduction
This article is dedicated to introducing the complex design characteristics of Russian social psychology, which Western peers may be aware of to some extent, but may also be influenced by misunderstandings or myths. One of these myths is related to the belief that there is a special "Russian" (early "Soviets"). When psychology is discussed in regional terms, specific countries rarely appear in scientific literature, and generally only mentions "American" social psychology in parallel with "Europe". Meanwhile, the properties of "German", "British" or "Swedish" seem to be used under any circumstances (one exception is only involving "French" social psychology, as many researchers are engaged in some specific theoretical positions). Therefore, First we must explain the true particularity of social psychology in Russia. For these reasons (not just because of national mentality), the narrative will be quite long in order to include some historical facts, as well as a brief observation of the theoretical and methodological context. If you don't do this, it's hard to explain the contemporary status of the discipline.
The main "landmark" of Russian social psychology research and development
In fact, before the 1917 revolution, the "unique" history of social psychology as a discipline in Russia was quite impossible. The issues later included in the topic of social psychology were mainly expounded in sociology, or were included in the ideological concepts of social movements, and accepted by different social forces. This is why social psychology has traditionally been "influenced" by video logic.
As for academic status, the earliest systematic use of the term "collective (social) psychology" was proposed by sociologists in a lecture read by V. Bekhterev's proposition of the Petersburg Institute of Psychological Neurology. Other references on social psychology can also be found in sociology or public literature, and then in psychology works. In this case, the links to socio-political movements are less intense. In this tradition, the most prominent contribution was made by V.M. Bechterev. He first defined the subject of social psychology ("collective reflexology"), and described one of the most important mechanisms of influence - suggestion - at the individual and collective level. Bechterev also organized the first university course in sociology, which included the relationship between sociology and social psychology.
In short, the development of social psychology ideas in Russia before the revolution did not mainly occur in the field of psychology, but in the wider field of social sciences. Here we must look for the root causes of the transformation that took place in the history of social psychology after the revolution in 1917.
Soviet Social Psychology
The history of Soviet social psychology witnesses two stages of discussion on the subject: the 1920s and the late 1950s to the early 1960s. Both stages are interesting from a historical perspective, as they help to better understand the hard way of Russian social psychology’s position in the scientific knowledge system and provide a more precise definition of its content.
In the 1920s, the first few years of the Soviet regime, discussions were stimulated by two situations. On the one hand, life in the newly formed social structure needs to solve problems related to social psychology. On the other hand, social psychology knowledge has entered the track of the fierce ideological struggles in those years.The content of this struggle is related to the requirement of rebuilding the entire social science system based on Marxist philosophy.
GI. Chelpanov is one of the people who protested this view. Therefore, he suggested that psychology be divided into two parts: : social psychology and general psychology. In his opinion, social psychology must develop within the framework of Marxism, and ordinary psychology should be an empirical science independent of Marxism or any other worldview. This view means formally recognizing the right to exist as a science, but at the cost of depriving the Marxist philosophical foundations of other parts of psychology.
It is not surprising that Cherpanov's idea is unacceptable to psychologists who agree with the reconstruction of the philosophical basis of all psychology and incorporate the entire psychology into the Marxist knowledge system. There are many forms of objection to Cherpanov. At first, some people said that as long as psychology is explained from the perspective of Marxist philosophy, the entire psychology has a social orientation, and there is no need to list a special branch separately - social psychology.
There are other arguments, but the result is the same: 's attempt to turn social psychology into an independent discipline (or at least an independent branch of psychology) stopped for quite a long time. The problems involved were successfully solved completely, but along other routes (especially pedagogy) rather than by creating independent social psychology. This period is called the "breaking period" of social psychology development, if the term is relative. Later, with the increase in ideology's pressure on social sciences, social psychology has the same fate as genetics , cybernetics and some other sciences, because it is portrayed as "bourgeois science" and has no status in socialist society .
The second phase of the discussion on the topic of social psychology took place in the late 1950s and early 1960s, taking place along with the political "thaw". Two situations have begun new developments. First, the requirements for practical activities are being expanded. Basic economic, social and political issues require a more careful analysis of the psychological aspects of various manifestations of social life. The interaction between society and individuals must be studied at the social psychology and sociological level. Secondly, when these issues are receiving great attention, psychology itself has undergone profound changes: it has become a mature discipline based on solid theoretical work and experimental research. Therefore, basic prerequisites are created for rediscussions of the fate, theme, task, method of social psychology and its position in the entire scientific system. discussing these issues at a new level has become both urgent and possible. Two methods have been formed around the controversy over appropriate topics of social psychology. These methods are close to "social social psychology" and "psychological social psychology" in contemporary languages. Supporters of the first method are very popular among sociologists. They understand social psychology as a science that studies "mass psychological phenomena" and regard the object of research as research on the psychology of large social groups, the formation of public opinion, collective behavior, etc. On the contrary, supporters of the second method believe that individuals are the main research objects of social psychology: individuals' status in small groups, interpersonal relationships, communication processes, interactions, and interpersonal perceptions.
In addition, a third method appears, in the form of trying to synthesize these two methods. Social psychology is considered a science involving the study of popular psychological processes and the position of individuals in groups. In this case, the problems of social psychology in seem to be quite extensive: we can see that almost all the problems studied in psychology and sociological social psychology are incorporated into their fields.
Theoretical and Methodological Background
After gaining the right to be independent, social psychology shows two relatively independent development directions. First, we began to actively study our own problems, which coincides with the fixed traditional investigation areas in "two" social psychology. Second, the study of problems is accompanied by methodological discussions that attempt to define the means and level of "incorporating" the principles of Marxist philosophy into social psychology research.
Compared with ideological sciences such as sociology and political science, the Marxist orientation in social psychology does not have the characteristics of "hard science" in general psychology. The problem lies not in directly applying Marxism to explain social psychology phenomena, but in explaining how Marxist philosophy affects social psychology theory. This "mediation" is based on the former "activity theory" of L. Vygotsky's School of Cultural History and A. Leondiev's (1975) and S. Rubinstein (1959).
Vigotsky's two famous assumptions are very important for the development of social psychology: the mediation of human advanced psychological functions, and the origin of psychological processes, are basically "inner" and later "inner". These views lead to the conclusion that the main mechanism of psychological development is the mastery of the forms of social and historical activities. This interpretation of general psychological problems provides a solid foundation for solving specific social psychological problems.
As for the theory (or principle) of activity 1, it also has very important significance for social psychology.
In psychology, activities are considered to be some kind of subject-object relationship in which an individual as a sub-object relates to the object he or she has in a clear way. During the activity, individuals realize their interests by modifying the world related to the object and satisfying their own needs. New demands are also generated through activities.
Therefore, activity represents a process in which human personality develops itself. Social psychology adjusts the principles of activities based on the basic object of its research - groups. Therefore, the content of the activity principle is contained in the following propositions. a) Activities are understood as people's joint social activities, in which special connections are created, for example, communication contacts b) not only individuals, but also groups as the subjects of activities, introduce the concept of collective activity subjects; this allows the investigation of real social groups as clear systems of activities ; c) group research is not allowed to be simplified to empirical descriptions, to a simple statement of individual actions outside of social context-specific systems of social relations.
Petrovsky in his "activity mediation theory of small group processes" applied these ideas to the study of social psychology, describing the process of group development. The basic concept of this idea is the new view that group activities are the determinant of all group processes, that is, it is used as the most important variable in analyzing interpersonal relationships, cognitive formation, etc. in the group. It is particularly important here that the development of the group can be seen as a corresponding and more comprehensive mediation of the comprehensive activities of all group processes. The concept of "group development level" is introduced into the concept of , and methods are designed to diagnose these levels.
has a well-known term difficulty in interpreting the principles of activity, and the fact that the term "activity" refers to both "activity" and "positive" in some languages (including Russian) this year is related to the fact that the term "activity" and "positiveness". In Marx's works written in German , two terms are used. "Tactigkeit" and "Aktivitact", where "Tactigkeit" is used for the meaning implied here. In English, "activity" wine covers these two meanings. The adoption of the principle of activity
stipulates the logic of the theme of social psychology. The entire structure looks similar as follows.Since communication and interaction between people are not carried out in a vacuum, but in an already existing society (this is the first empirical fact of the researchers), the first part of social psychology - - "communication and interaction" - should start with analyzing the position these phenomena occupy in the social relationship structure.
Here I have to do another term comment, because using the word "communication" has a special meaning in Russian psychological language. We actually talk about "communication" not in the narrow sense but in the broadest sense...as the reality of social and interpersonal relationships, as the "realization" of these relationships. Therefore, we try to connect this process to activities and incorporate communication directly into the social context. For this goal, we introduced the new concept "obshcheniye", which has no corresponding word in English. I would rather explain that "obshcheniye" includes three processes: communication, interaction and social perception.
After revealing the general characteristics of these social and psychological processes, it is necessary to analyze their changes in various social groups - first "big" and then "small". Therefore, the social psychology of groups can be naturally considered the second part of social psychology. The final stage is an analysis related to the way social groups determine the behavior and actions of individuals in it. Therefore, the third logical definition of social psychology knowledge is the social psychology of personality. Only in such a structure can personality be "attached" to the social environment.
The traditional themes of the entire social psychology can be organized within the scope of these parts. In fact, the logic of the above personal experience gives us the opportunity to form a rather comprehensive and systematic picture of the subject, which forms the specific content of this approach. Some special principles are obvious: all problems are considered in a social context; the activities of individual subjects and the activities of group subjects are recognized; the interpretation of empirical data is guaranteed in a same theoretical scheme.
So I try to describe the content of social psychology in the next chapter
While explaining my own methods of content and structure of social psychology knowledge, Soviet social psychology is also actively mastering Western social psychology experience. This is a field that is mainly ideology-influenced. Radical negative attitudes toward Western traditions—typical attitudes of social psychology being denied in the 1930s and 1950s—still exist in publications dating back to its revival. This attitude is manifested as: All Western concepts and research are the products of bourgeois science, so criticism of principles should be the only possible way to connect with it. This attitude is often contrary to the practical application of many Western experiences and theoretical achievements.
’s personal contact with Western colleagues stimulated the integration of Russian social psychology with the world’s scientific background, so many typical problems from the 1960s and 1970s seem difficult to understand today. In this regard, I can't help but think of thanks to HTajfel, who has done his best to participate in the world's scientific community.
At the same time, there are still some problems in dialogue with Western traditions. The main problem is that there is some kind of "inequality" in sharing information. The works of American and European scholars are quite famous even in the Soviet Union, and even more so in Russia. Most professionals read English works, but now many books and articles are also translated into Russian. Unfortunately, Russian works are rarely published in the West, and usually these works appear as separate articles. The only source of information for Western counterparts is personal contact or occasional speeches by Russian scientists at international conferences, conferences and symposiums. is obvious, these difficulties are based on language issues and some other issues.
In my opinion, the reason lies in the consequences of Soviet science being isolated from the Western scientific community for a long time. It is obvious that this isolation mainly involves social sciences.The lack of awareness of Russia's work also reflects the fact that regular scientific contacts have only happened recently. Therefore, many new ideas and research results have not yet spread in the West. 3 We can find many examples when the sharp temporary debate issue has long been discussed among Russian colleagues, but is unknown in the West. Today, all these facts are very important when people discuss the construction of new paradigms in social psychology in the literature.
The idea of uniting "two" (or maybe "three") social psychology was proposed to Russian colleagues long ago - in the late 1950s - when discussing the fate of social psychology in Soviet society. As mentioned above, the subject itself is interpreted from the very beginning to include both psychological logic and sociology.
In each experimental study, the need for social background is absolutely natural. Because if an experiment is conducted in Western countries, colleagues are asked to come up with the Mingyu of 10 Russian social psychologists, who are engaged in fields including communication, interpersonal perception, group dynamics, leadership, attitudes, socialization, intergroup relations, conflict, ethnic psychology, organizational behavior, etc. At the same time, I invite any member of EAESP to ask similar questions to my students, let them speak out about social attribution, social impact, frustration-attack, social comparison, cognitive dissonance , dyadic interaction, social identity, social responsibility, "group thinking" phenomenon or the theoretical author of constructivism .
Explanation of empirical data will include the social factors that determine it. For example, in our research on interpersonal perception and attribution , considering the fact that both subject and object belong to groups many years ago, it has actually solved the unpopular "social attribution" problem today. In the first edition of the university social psychology textbook, I proposed a solution in which 8 locations of interpersonal perception and attribution studies were designed.
These and other analysis directions are determined by the original methodological premises mentioned above. It helps resist the "expansion" of positivism, not only comparing the position of Russian social psychology with the trends in Europe, but also finding many common grounds.
06 Social psychology in today's Russia
Nowadays, in the contemporary discussion of the new horizons of social psychology in the world's scientific community, most of these issues are the focus of attention. In this case, further development of cooperation with European universities is particularly important, which gives both parties the opportunity to present their arguments and strengthen their research. More information, especially on the new status of social psychology brought about by Russian social psychology research and the changes in this country, is one of the preliminary conditions for this discussion.
The issues discussed in this article are closely related to the social potential of social psychology, its role in the era of rapid social change, and its views on the theory and practice of the 2nd century society. From this perspective, the Russian experience of is very interesting to Western readers: Although some related research has been published in part in the international edition, the full picture of contemporary Russian reality is hardly known to the world.
Post-communist Russia can serve as a good example of existing society in the context of rapid and radical transformation of all sectors of social life. In this case, the central point of social psychology research is the new paradigm for analyzing temporary social psychology. Its carriers include: the role of social background in research, the analysis of social changes, and the specific aspects of social cognition (the "ordinary" people's perception of the new social world in order to deal with changes).
Therefore, the problem of "social cognition" will arise at both theoretical and practical levels.I believe that the previous development and potential of the "activity paradigm" laid a good foundation for the completion of this task: many topics in previous research are closely related to new problems: social catification, social perception, attribution process , intergroup relationships and intergroup perception, response, "turning to language", social identity under globalization conditions, etc.
The Russian situation is characterized by breaking stereotypes, changing the hierarchy of values, and the crisis of identity. Long-term changes have led to the formation of new social classes, the intensification of social inequality, and other very important events in society.
life. This means the difficulty of positioning public consciousness in the new world. The process adopted becomes a new feature. The main research in the previous period is related to these topics and new models of social life organizations.
One of the key points under the new situation is to create methods for studying the unstable social world, because all the history of social psychology is related to a stable society, and all research methods are used to describe and explain these events. Therefore, under the unstable social situation, many new professional tasks have emerged in social psychology. For example, it involves some methodological issues. One of the very popular methods - questionnaire - must be modified because the terms used in them do not conform to the new language of society: many words lose their meaning ("collective property", "socialist competition"), other changes or content that conflicts with different social groups ("communism", "democrats", " private ownership ").
The more global problem is the role of social psychology in society - the relationship between them under the conditions of globalization. It is obvious that social psychology has the responsibility to provide people with more information about different social behavior patterns, describe more alternative modes of action, and propose communication methods not only among different ethnic groups, but also among other different social groups, for example, between the "winner" and the "loser" after social transformation. This kind of advice is very useful for people in a changing society.
The situation of a transition society looks like the situation under the conditions of "cultural shock" when a person thinks he is in a strange country: everything is unusual and unknown. All social institutions have changed their image: family, school, church, mass media. New types of social reality require resolving many social psychological problems, especially in the field of social cognition (difficulties in social classification, growth of perception and cognitive "error", requiring rapid decision-making in uncertain situations...), first of all - the construction of a new image of the social world.
This means that finding new paradigms of social psychology has become a practical task in today's Russia. In the past few years, many empirical research directions have been carried out in the proposed method. Unfortunately, as I have noticed before, the content of these studies
European colleagues don't know. The main methodological question is whether the paradigm elaborated in Russian social psychology - the "activity paradigm" - can occupy a place in the new paradigm of world social psychology? In my opinion, I can give a positive answer. The problem described in
requires the development of social psychology at the basic and application levels in a new context. It is obvious that the tasks of social psychology in the 21st century are very similar in many units on Earth. Perhaps now is a very suitable time to unite the power of different theoretical concepts in world social psychology to determine them. The process of globalization is particularly important for the initiation of this process.
My goal is to demonstrate the need for more cooperation between the Russian and European social psychology traditions, while taking into account the theoretical and methodological ideas of these two methods, they have many in common.
