We say about one person: “What a personality!”, but we cannot say the same about another. This means that in our consciousness there is an ordinary understanding of what it is. But in science there is a specific definition of the concept of personality. This is the subject of study of many sciences that study man and society - history, philosophy, ethics, pedagogy. There is also the concept of personality in psychology - the study of the human psyche. And any science can also interpret it as a category, that is, as a whole complex of individual traits that change depending on the culture and time in the context of which this problem is considered.

What is personality?

The concept of personality in psychology is interpreted as follows: it is a stable set of habits, preferences that are developed throughout life, the social and cultural experience of the individual, and the knowledge acquired by him. Even a person's everyday behavior can characterize him as a separate personality. An individual always takes his position in society and fulfills his assigned role. In psychology, it is understood as the social function of a person (for example, the role of a mother as an individual is raising a child, the role of an entrepreneur is managing a company and making decisions, etc.).

General personality psychology

General psychology is a broad branch of knowledge that connects a variety of areas. The subject of its study is the general and universal patterns of mental life. How does it characterize the concept of personality? In general psychology, this term is usually understood as a person as the totality of all his social manifestations, and he is considered exclusively in the context of social relations. It is this science that interprets personality in the broadest sense, studying the problem in all its aspects. It also considers a person’s thought processes, character, temperament, motivations, abilities and other factors.

Definition of personality in psychological science

The concept of personality in psychology is not clearly defined and stable. But in many psychological dictionaries respected by the scientific community one can find a definition of it as a whole system of qualities of an individual, which is formed in the course of communication and joint activities of people.

The concept of personality in psychology is the subject of serious scientific debate. The fact is that different directions in this science interpret the concept differently and focus on different key aspects. On the one hand, a personality is any person who develops in society and interacts with others. In this sense, some areas of psychology include in the definition such subjective concepts as independence and responsibility.

On the other hand, along with social characteristics, an individual also has biological needs and requirements that are inherent in any living creature. It turns out that the definition of the concept of “personality in psychology” should combine both biological and social principles in a person.

There is a whole direction that works on these problems and studies the basic concepts of personality psychology. Thanks to research, we can already talk about the existence of hundreds of concepts and theories with which we can study humans.

What is personality? Basic Concepts

It is also worth considering the basic concepts in personality psychology:

Personality structure

Personality consists of many components. Let's briefly look at just the main ones:

Personality in social psychology

Social psychology is one of the basic branches of psychological knowledge. She has her own approach to the study of this problem, and the concept of personality is also not ignored. Social psychology is interested in it when it is included in the system of social relations. This science examines the features of interaction between the individual and society. It turns out that in order to reveal the concept of personality in social psychology, it is necessary to study the real social connections and relationships into which it enters.

Personality in Russian psychology (L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev)

Our scientists view personality as a product of history. Its development is, first of all, determined by the place it occupies in society. At the same time, joint activities and communication between people in the process of this activity are of particular importance.

Traditionally, the concept of personality in Russian psychology includes all kinds of human qualities that arise as a result of life in society. Thus, in social psychology, personality is not so much an individual in itself, but, first of all, a representative of human society, inextricably linked with it.

The problem of personality in foreign psychology (S. Freud, E. Fromm, K. Rogers)

The concept of personality in foreign psychology is interpreted a little differently - it is no longer a product of social relations, but an independent phenomenon that arises on its own. Therefore, there is another interpretation of a person’s self-awareness and self-esteem: the more he perceives himself separately from society, the more clearly he can recognize himself as an individual. What follows from this? Western psychology understands personality as a subject prone to self-awareness, knowledge and self-evaluation.

It is especially important to understand this issue for people who constantly strive for self-improvement and are interested in various trainings. It is very difficult to develop self-respect if you do not perceive yourself as an individual, and not just a human being. But also for beginners who have recently begun to study the teachings and concept of personality in social psychology, this information will be useful.

Topic 2.2.: Social psychology of personality.

Lecture outline:

1. The concept of personality in social psychology
2. Personality socialization
3. Mechanisms of social behavior

Almost 150 years ago, the philosopher O. Comte surprisingly accurately revealed the main complexity of the human problem, emphasizing that he is not only something more than a biological being, but also more than a “clump of culture”. In other words, man has become the bearer of some new, unknown qualities, and in connection with this, there is a need for the emergence of a special science of studying and understanding him. Psychology was to become such a science, designed to carry out a creative synthesis of biological and sociological knowledge about human nature.

So, different sciences study different personality aspects:

o general psychology studies the entire set of human properties, including biologically determined ones, which determine socially significant behavior and activity of the individual.

o for sociology the personality appears in a “deindividualized, depersonalized form,” as a representative of a certain social group, as only an element of the social system, as a bearer of some social role.

o social Psychology considers personality primarily in the context of all the various social connections and inclusion in various social groups at both the macro and micro levels. In this case, the emphasis is on the processes of interaction and mutual influence of the individual and those groups and connections in which he is included.

Specifics social psychology of personality tied up Firstly, with research patterns and reasons for individual behavior in the context of a real group. The focus of social psychology of personality is on a person’s relationships with the people around him, which influence the continuous process of formation of his personality.

Secondly, social psychology of personality highlights a specific aspect of considering problems traditional for social psychology of a small group: problems of leadership, emotional connections between group members, their conformity or independence, their acceptance of role positions. This aspect involves the analysis of individual socio-psychological qualities of a person.

Third, social psychology of personality deals with socialization issues– the assimilation and reproduction by an individual of the norms, values ​​and customs of his society. At the same time, it is important through which groups and in what way the socialization of a given individual is carried out, on what the characteristics or, possibly, the pathology of this process depend. The results of socialization are manifested in the activity, communication and self-awareness (including social identity) of a person.

Fourth, social psychology of the individual pays special attention to the origin and implementation of the individual’s social attitudes (attitudes) - that is, the readiness to behave in one way or another in certain situations related to communication.

The concept of personality in social psychology - concept and types. Classification and features of the category “The Concept of Personality in Social Psychology” 2017, 2018.

Social psychology of personality studies a person through the use of various connections and relationships.

The object of personality sociology takes into account the inclusion of a person in the system of socio-psychological connections, as well as the features of their interaction.

The subject of personality sociology is the characteristics of human behavior and activity in the social sphere. At the same time, social functions and mechanisms for their implementation are taken into account. In addition, sociology takes into account the dependence of role functions on changes in society.

The structure of personality in social psychology is considered from two sides:

• as a platform for certain activities that are based on the development of society;
• as a social structure of personality.

A certain structure of social personality allows a person to occupy a specific niche in society.

Research in social psychology is carried out on the basis of the activities and social relationships that a person enters into during his life. Social structure takes into account not only the external, but also the internal relationship of a person with society. External correlation determines a person’s position in society and his behavior pattern, and internal correlation determines his subjective position.

In social psychology, personality adaptation occurs during a person’s interaction with different social groups, as well as during participation in joint actions. It is impossible to identify a specific situation in which a person will completely belong to one group. For example, a person is part of a family, which is a group, but at the same time he is also a member of a group at work, and is also part of a group of some section.

The study of personality in social psychology

Depending on social qualities, it is determined whether there will be a person is a full member of society. There is no specific classification, but social qualities can be divided into:

1. Intellectual, which include self-awareness, analytical thinking, self-esteem, perception of the environment and possible risks.
2. Psychological, which include emotional, behavioral, communicative and creative personalities.

Social qualities are not transmitted genetically, but are developed throughout life. The mechanism of their formation is called socialization. Personal qualities are constantly changing, as social society does not stand still.

Basic information about work

Template version 2.1 Branch Nizhny Novgorod Type of work Course work Name of discipline Psychology Topic Study of personality in social psychology Last name of the student Petrova First name of the student Yulia Patronymic of the student Vladimirovna Contract No. 0920011400402147

Introduction

The basic concept and essence of personality in social psychology

Study of the socio-psychological problem of personality

Conclusion

Glossary

List of sources used

Introduction

Personality as one of the basic categories of psychological science is the main stage in human society. Man, as a super-complex being, lives in an infinitely complex world, or rather in a great variety of worlds, of which the outstanding social psychologist Jurgen Habermas proposed to identify the following worlds as the main worlds. This is the outside world; social world (“our world” - a world in which other people exist along with me); inner world (“my world”, my individuality, the uniqueness of only “my” life path).

The very inclusion of a person in the social world is formed on his awareness and mastery of the system of “subject-object” relations existing in this world. From this point of view, the subjective psychological relations of the individual to the world around him form his most important awareness as a person. After all, the existence of a person in the social and external world is his activity. In activity, personality is realized, formed, expressed, and tries to stand out. It is difficult to find any area of ​​activity in which psychological knowledge and methods are not used so closely and are not associated with any need to take into account the integrity of the individual as a subject and at the same time an object of psychological impact and influence. In psychological practice, it is impossible to “work” with any one part of the personality, a separate process, without affecting the entire personality as a whole, without changing anything in the strategy of its relationships, motives and experiences.

The complexity and diversity of the personality phenomenon leads to the fact that in the field of personality psychology there exist together different theories that describe personality as nothing more than an integrated whole and at the same time explain the differences between people. In the numerous and quite diverse specific subjects of social psychology, there is some inconsistency in hypotheses about what place the problem of personality should take in this difficult science. But the emphasis was placed precisely on the personality, on its socially meaningful characteristics, as well as on the formation of specific qualities in it as a result of social influence, and so on. At the same time, some other position in the dispute was based on by no means the main object of research for social psychology - the individual, therefore the very “design” of implementing this special branch of psychological knowledge is to study the “psychology of the group.” With such argumentation, it was most assumed, although this was not always emphasized openly, that the personality itself acts in this situation as a subject of study in general psychology, and the difference between social psychology and general psychology is carried out in a different focus of interest.

In the modern age in our society, the interest in the problems of certain capabilities of an individual’s personality is so great that almost all social sciences turn to this object of study: the problem of personality is at the center of both philosophical and sociological-psychological knowledge; it is dealt with by ethics, pedagogy, and genetics, since it is interesting to a wide range of sciences.

Thus, all the information described above gives me the opportunity to call the topic that I chose for my course work certainly relevant, because the need to study personality is very important in our time. It is within the boundaries of social psychology that the assimilation of personality and social influences (through any of the systems of its activity) is clarified and explained. On the other hand, how does it realize and express its social essence (through what specific types of joint activities). This topic is of undoubted interest to both psychologists and psychiatrists, teachers, philosophers, and sociologists.

The object of this study, in my opinion, may be some psychological patterns in the behavior, activities and interactions of people, which are determined by their integration into social groups, which determines the specifics and specifics of social psychology as a science.

The subject of study is the personality of a person in the totality of absolutely all his psychological properties and qualities.

The purpose of my work is to study the concept, structure and formation of personality from the point of view of a variety of approaches. Also identifying socio-psychological problems that are caused by the direct involvement of the individual in his activities. And finally, consideration of the cultural-anthropological interpretation of personality.

This goal accomplished the following tasks:

Research and conditional analysis of scientific and methodological literature;

Specifics of key structures, properties and concepts;

Study of patterns of personality development within social psychology.

Study of semantic socio-psychological problems of personality.

During the course research, the following methods were used:

Theoretical, which is a study of literary sources on a given problem.

Comparative analysis of current approaches to the problem of personality.

The structure of the course study includes an introduction, two chapters and a conclusion.

During the course research, no difficult obstacles to completing the work arose.

The basic concept and essence of personality in social psychology

The idea of ​​personality and its components within the framework of socio-psychological knowledge.

The concept of “personality” refers to most of the most vague and rather controversial concepts in psychological science. As many theories of personality as there are, there are as many definitions and opinions of psychologists on this matter. I present in this paper several definitions of personality that have been given by leading experts in the field of social psychology.

So, B.G. Ananyev noted that “a personality is, first of all, a contemporary of a certain era, and this determines many of its socio-psychological properties.” Among such sets, he considered, first of all, a person’s belonging to a specific class, group, nationality, profession and other parameters. A.V. Petrovsky characterized personality in the strategy of interpersonal relationships; in connection with this, he expressed the following aspects of personality - intra-individual (reflects the properties inherent in a particular subject); interindividual (considers the characteristics of the individual’s relationship with other people); meta-individual (describes the direct influence of a person on other people). L.I. Antsyferova in her reasoning defines personality “as a way of being of a person in society, in specific historical conditions, it is an individual form of existence and development of social connections and relationships.”

However, all psychologists agree with the statement that a person is not born, but becomes, and for this a person must make considerable efforts. First, he will have to master speech, and then, with its direct help, many motor, intellectual, and sociocultural skills. Personality is considered by scientists as the result of the socialization of an individual who has mastered the traditions and system of value orientations developed long ago, at the initial stages, by humanity. The more a person was able to perceive, understand and assimilate information and experience in the process of socialization, the more developed a person he is in the future.

The general interest of many sciences in the studied problem of personality is very important, since it can only be solved through the joint efforts of all scientific disciplines that are relevant to the matter. Only the combination of these efforts determines an integrated approach to the study of personality, and this is possible only with a fairly precise definition of the search area for each of the disciplines involved in solving the problem.

Differences in the interpretation of the concept of personality also concern other aspects of the problem, but, perhaps most of all, the idea of ​​the structure and essence of personality. Psychologists have offered several reasonable explanations for the ways in which personality can be characterized. Each of them corresponds to its own specific idea of ​​the essence of personality. The least agreement exists on the issue of the dispute over the “inclusion” or “non-inclusion” of individual psychological characteristics in a person. The answer to this question varies among different authors of hypotheses. As rightly noted by I.S. Kon, the polysemy of the concept of personality usually leads to the understanding of some as the personality of a certain subject of activity in the integrity of his individual properties and his social roles. Others represent this ambiguity somewhat differently: personality “as a social property of an individual, as a set of socially significant traits integrated in him, formed in the direct and indirect interaction of a given person with other people and making him, in turn, a subject of labor, cognition and communication."

Although the second approach is often considered more sociological. It is also present within general psychology as one of the poles of the discussion. The dispute here occurs precisely on the question of the responsibility of the individual in psychology, and whether it should be considered primarily in this second meaning or in the strategy of this science the main thing is the based connection in the personality (and not just in the “person”) of socially significant traits and individual properties of a person .

In the process of writing the work and studying articles in search of information, in one of the generalizing works on personality psychology, which provide knowledge of the first approach, it was proposed to distinguish three formations in personality: mental processes, mental states and mental properties. Within the framework of the integrative approach to personality, the set of characteristics and parameters taken into account is significantly expanded. The question of personality structure was mastered in a special way by K.K. Platonov, who identified several different substructures in the personality structure, the list of which he could vary, and in the latest edition it consisted of four substructures or levels:

) biologically explained substructure. It includes: temperament, gender, age, and slightly less often pathological properties of the psyche;

) psychological substructure. Includes the individual properties of individual mental processes of the individual, which later became personality properties (memory, emotions, sensations, perceptions, feelings, will);

) social experience (this includes the knowledge, skills, abilities and habits acquired by a person in the process of socialization);

) substructure of the individual’s purposefulness (within which there is, in turn, a special interconnected (in the form of a hierarchy) number of the following substructures: drives, desires, interests, ideals, inclinations, stereotypes, individual picture of the world, beliefs) (according to Platonov).

According to K.K. Platonov, these substructures differ in the “specific weight” of social and biological content. It is precisely by the choice of such substructures that general psychology differs from social psychology as a subject of analysis. Thus, if general psychology focuses its attention on the first three substructures, then social psychology, in turn, according to this scheme, analyzes mainly the fourth substructure, since the social determination of personality in social science is presented precisely at the level of this substructure. Now all that remains to the share of general psychology is the analysis of such characteristics as gender, age, temperament (which is reduced mainly to the biological substructure) and the properties of specific mental processes, such as memory, various emotions, experiences, thinking (which is reduced, as a rule, into the substructure of individual psychological traits). In a certain sense, this also includes social experience. Personality psychology itself in general psychology is simply not represented in such a scheme.

A fundamentally different approach to the issue was proposed by another research psychologist A.N. Leontyev. Before moving on to his characterization of personality structure, he begins to formulate some general premises for a thorough consideration of personality in psychology. Their essence comes down to considering personality in inextricable connection with activity. The principle of activity in this case is consistently carried out in order to set the entire theoretical scheme for the study of personality. The main idea of ​​the study is that “a person’s personality is in no sense pre-existing in relation to his activity, just like his consciousness, it is generated by it.”

Although formally this intricate scheme does not contain a sufficient list of points of the personality structure, in essence such a system is presented as a structure of traits of characteristics derived from the characteristics of activity. The idea of ​​social determination is carried out most consistently in this case; personality, firstly, cannot be interpreted as an integration of merely biosomatic and psychophysiological characteristics. One can, of course, begin to argue that what is presented here is not a general psychological, but rather a socio-psychological approach to personality, as, by the way, opponents sometimes try to assert in various discussions.

However, if we turn to the very essence of this entire concept, to the understanding of the subject of psychology by A.N. Leontiev, then it becomes obvious that the approach of general psychology to the problem of personality is outlined, which is fundamentally different from traditional concepts. And the question of a special approach to the problem of social psychology has yet to be resolved by research scientists.

The main difficulties of expressing a specific socio-psychological range of vision are just beginning. It would be quite easy to identify a number of his problems if the entire area of ​​social determination of personality remained to his share. But such an approach would be appropriate (and, indeed, it has far from the last place) only in those structures of psychology where often only an initial consideration and explanation of the personality outside of its social connections is allowed.

Social psychology in such a structure begins at the place where these same social connections begin to be analyzed. With consistent implementation and study of the ideas that were formulated by famous research psychologists L.S. Vygotsky, S.L. Rubinstein, A.N. Leontyev, such an approach in this situation is simply unlawful. All branches of psychological science consider personality as given in its initial position in the system of social connections and relationships, then determined by them, and, moreover, acting precisely as an active subject of activity.

Actually, such socio-psychological problems of the individual begin to be solved on this basis.

Specifics of socio-psychological problems of personality

So, what range of possibilities can open up for social psychology in this broad sphere? The answer to this question is quite vigorously discussed in the specialized literature. In the works of B.D. Parygin’s model of personality, which should, and does, occupy a place in the system of social psychology, involves a combination of the following two approaches: sociological and general psychological. Although this idea itself does not cause any objections from opponents, the description of each of the synthesized approaches is presented in a rather controversial manner. Thus, the sociological approach is characterized in such a way that it views the individual directly as an object of social relations; the general psychological approach is due to the fact that here the emphasis is only “on the general mechanisms of the mental activity of the individual.” The task of social psychology is “to reveal the entire structural complexity of the personality, which is both an object and a subject of social relations...”. It is unlikely that both a sociologist and a psychologist will be able to agree with such a division of tasks: in most variants of disputes both in sociology and in general psychology, they accept the thesis that a person acts simultaneously as both an object and a subject of the historical process; this idea cannot be embodied only in a socio-psychological approach to personality, and cannot in any way be refuted. In relation to sociology and psychology, which accept the idea of ​​social determination of the individual, this statement is absolutely inapplicable.

In particular, an objection is expressed to the analysis of the model of personality that is prescribed in general psychology. This is noted when the general psychological approach “is limited, as a rule, to the integration of only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters of the personality structure.”

The socio-psychological approach in this case is “characterized by the overlap of biosomatic and social programs.”

As noted earlier, the tradition of cultural and historical conditioning of the human psyche, which was laid down by the psychologist L.S. Vygotsky is directed directly opposite to this statement: not only personality, but also individual specific mental processes are considered here as parameters determined by social factors. Moreover, it cannot be argued that when modeling personality in this case, only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters are taken into account. Personality, as it is represented in the whole structure of views, cannot be declared outside of its social characteristics and principles. Therefore, the general psychological approach to personality problems cannot in any way differ from the socio-psychological approach on the basis proposed by Vygotsky.

You can approach the definition of the specifics of the socio-psychological approach in the most descriptive way, that is, on the basis of the main type of research practice, simply try to list the problems to be solved, and this path will be completely justified.

Thus, some research psychologists note that the basis of socio-psychological knowledge and understanding of personality is “the characteristics of the social type of personality as a specific formation, a product of social circumstances, its structure, the set of role functions of the individual, their influence on social life...”

The difference between the socio-psychological approach and the sociological approach is not clearly understood in this case. Obviously, this is why the characteristics of the socio-psychological approach are often supplemented by a long list of tasks for studying personality.

The list consists of: social determination of the mental make-up of the individual; social motivation of individual behavior and activity in different socio-historical and socio-psychological conditions; class, national and other personality characteristics; patterns of formation, expression of social activity or passivity, ways and means of increasing or decreasing this activity; problems of internal inconsistency of the individual and ways to overcome it; self-education of personality and other items. The list goes on and on.

And each of these tasks in itself seems to be a very important point, but it will not be possible to grasp a specific principle in the proposed list, just as it is not possible to answer the question, what is the very specificity of personality research in social psychology?

Nor does an appeal to the assumption that in social psychology a personality must be examined and studied in communication and coordination with other individuals, although such an argument is also sometimes expressed, does not resolve the issue. But I believe that it should be rejected because, in principle and in general psychology, there is too much research into personality in communication.

When determining the specific specifics of the socio-psychological approach to the study of personality, it may be worth relying on the assumption that was put forward at the very beginning of the definition of the subject of social psychology, as well as on the understanding of personality that was once proposed by A.N. Leontyev.

At this stage, it is possible to formulate a specific answer to the question posed. Social psychology, as a rule, does not study in a special way the question of the social conditioning of personality, but not because this question does not seem important to it, but because it is solved not only by sociology, but by all psychological science, and primarily by general psychology. psychology.

Social psychology, using the definition of personality, finds out how and in which specific groups a person, on the one hand, acquires an understanding of social influences, through which of the systems of its activity; on the other hand, how and in what specific groups it implements its social structure, through what specific types of joint activities it takes place.

The difference between this approach and the sociological one is not only that for social psychology it is not particularly important how socially typical traits are represented in a person. This happens because it expresses mainly how these social-typical traits were formed, and why in some conditions of personality formation they manifested themselves to the fullest extent, while in others some difficulties arose and other, unplanned social-typical traits appeared in spite of a person's belonging to a particular social group.

For this purpose, to a greater extent than in sociological analysis, the emphasis is generally placed on the microenvironment of personality formation, although this does not mean a complete rejection of the study and understanding of the macroenvironment of its formation. To a greater extent than in the sociological approach, the calculations here use such regulators of individual behavior and activity as an integral system of interpersonal relationships. Within it, along with their activity mediation, their emotional regulation is also studied and further research is carried out.

It can also be said that for social psychology, the main guiding principle in the study of personality is the interaction, the relationship of an individual with a group, and this is not just an individual in a group, but precisely the result that is obtained from the relationship of an individual with a specific group. Based on such differences between the socio-psychological approach and the sociological and general psychological approach, one can try to isolate the problems of personality in social psychology.

The most important thing in the problem of social psychology is to isolate from the mass of parameters those patterns that govern the behavior and activity of an individual who is necessarily included in any particular social group of people. But often such problems are completely unthinkable and unacceptable by psychologists as a separate, “independent” object of research undertaken outside of group research. Therefore, to try to implement this task, it is necessary to essentially return to all those problems that were solved for a certain group, that is, to “repeat” the problems considered and described above. But try to look at them from a slightly different side - from the side of the individual, and not from the side of the group. Then it will be a completely different conversation, for example, the problem of leadership will be seen, but with such a shade that is connected by its will with the personal characteristics of leadership as a group phenomenon. Or, for example, the problem of individual motivation when participating in any collective activity will begin to stand out (where the formation and attitudes of this motivation will be studied in connection with the type of joint activity and the level of development of the group).

We can also highlight the problem of attraction, which will now be considered from the point of view of characterizing certain features of the more emotional sphere of personality; traits that manifest themselves in a special way when perceiving another person. In other words, a specifically socio-psychological consideration of individual problems from various points of view is a completely different side of the consideration of group problems.

But along with this problem, there remains a whole series of special problems that are, to some lesser extent, touched upon in a thorough analysis of groups and which, no less, are also included in the concept of “social psychology of the individual.” And, if the main focus of the analysis of personality in social psychology is its interaction with the group, then it is obvious that, first of all, it is necessary to identify the option through which groups the influence of society on the individual is exercised. For this, the most important thing is to study or observe a certain specific life path of a person, those cells of the micro- and macroenvironment through which the path of its development passed.

Speaking in the traditional, albeit slightly less understandable language of social psychology for people not privy to psychological secrets, this is a problem of socialization. Despite the possibility of expressing sociological and general psychological principles in this problem, this is the most specific problem of social psychology of personality.

This is another socio-psychological problem, which is closely related to the study of personality. Again, in the traditional language of social psychology, this problem may represent a problem of the so-called social attitude.

Therefore, today it is necessary to recognize as “legitimate” among the problems of personality research not only the main problems - problems of socialization and social attitudes - but also, for example, also take into account the analysis of the so-called socio-psychological qualities of the individual.

Study of the socio-psychological problem of personality

To begin to overcome the dyadic scheme dominant in psychology, one must, first of all, try to isolate the so-called “middle link” that indirectly interferes with the subject’s connection with the real world. Therefore, you need to start with a direct analysis of the activity, its general structure and a study of the state of the problem. However, it immediately becomes clear that the definition of activity, of course, includes the concept of its object, that activity by its very nature constitutes objectivity.

But the situation is completely different with the concept of the subject of activity. Initially, that is, even before some of the most important points that form the very process of activity are clarified, the subject remains, as it were, outside the scope of his research. It acts, or is expressed, only as a certain prerequisite for activity, one of its conditions.

Only further analysis of the movement of activity and the forms of mental reflection generated by it will show the need to introduce the concept of a specific specific subject, of personality as an internal case of activity. The category of activity is now comprehended in its actual completeness, as covering all both poles - both the pole of the object and the pole of the subject.

The study of personality as an object of activity and its product represents a special, although not separate, psychological component of the problem. And this problem is one of the most difficult in social psychology. Serious difficulties arise on the path of research even when trying to find out what kind of reality is described in scientific psychology by the term “personality”.

Personality itself is not only a subject of psychology, but also a subject of philosophical, socio-historical knowledge. Finally, at a certain stage of the level of analysis, the personality appears from the side of all its natural and biological characteristics as an object directly of anthropology, somatology and even human genetics. Intuitively, we can imagine, and are quite aware of, what the differences are here. But nevertheless, in psychological theories of personality, gross confusions and unjustified oppositions of these approaches to the study of personality constantly arise.

Only a few general provisions about personality are perceived, with certain reservations, by all authors of psychological knowledge and provisions. One of them is that personality is a kind of unique unity, a kind of integrity. Another position is sufficient recognition of the role of the personality as the highest integrating authority that controls mental processes (James called the personality the so-called “master” of mental functions, G. Allport - the “determiner of behavior and thoughts”).

However, attempts at any further interpretation of these provisions began to lead in psychology to a whole series of false and incorrect ideas and hypotheses that mystify the problem of personality.

First of all, it was an idea that contrasted “personality psychology” with psychology that studies specific determining processes, such as mental functions. One of the attempts to somehow overcome this opposition was expressed in the demand to make the personality “the starting point for the explanation of any mental phenomena”, “the center from which only all problems of psychology can be solved”, so that the need for a special section of psychology - personality psychology - disappears . One can agree with this logical requirement, but only if one tries to see in it only the expression of a very general thought, which is somehow abstracted from the specific tasks and methods of psychological research.

Despite all the convincingness of the old psychological aphorism that “it is not thinking that thinks, but man,” this requirement is methodologically naive for one simple reason. And this reason is that the subject, before the analytical study of his highest life values ​​and expressions, inevitably appears either as an abstract, “unfilled” integrity, or as a metapsychological “I”, which has dispositions or goals initially inherent in it. The latter, as is known from experience, is regulated by all personalistic theories. At the same time, it is very indifferent whether the personality is considered from a biologizing or organic standpoint, or as a purely spiritual principle, or, finally, as a kind of “psychophysiological neutrality.”

However, this requirement of a “personal approach” in psychology is sometimes understood in the sense that when studying some individual psychological processes, the researcher’s attention should, first of all, be concentrated on purely individual characteristics. But this does not solve the problem at all, since “behind our eyes” we cannot judge which of these features characterize a personality and which do not. And do the psychological characteristics of a person include, for example, the speed of a person’s reactions, the extent of his memory, or the ability to type? (see Appendix 1)

One way to get around this rather sensitive issue in psychological theory is to assume that the concept of personality means man in his empirical totality. Personality psychology thus turns into a special kind of anthropology, which includes all options - from the study of the characteristics of metabolic processes to the study of individual differences in individual mental functions.

Of course, an integrated approach to a person is not only possible, but even necessary. Moreover, a comprehensive study of man, or rather the “human factor,” has now acquired paramount importance, but it is precisely this circumstance that makes the psychological problem of the individual as special. After all, no other structure of knowledge about a total object gives us so much of its actual understanding if it lacks only one of its essential specific characteristics. This is the case with the study of man itself. A psychological study of him as a person cannot at all be compensated by some complex of morphological, physiological or separately functional-psychological data comparable with each other. After all, dissolving in them, it ultimately turns out to be reduced either to biological, or to abstract sociological, or cultural ideas about man.

The real “stumbling block” in personality research still remains the question of comparing general and differential psychology. Most psychological authors choose a differential psychological direction. This direction originates from Galton and Spearman; At first it was limited to the study of mental abilities only, but later it embraced the study of personality as a whole. Already Spearman began to extend the idea of ​​factors to the characteristics of will and affectivity, highlighting, along with the general factor “g”, the factor “s”. Further steps were taken by the research psychologist Cattell, who, in turn, proposed a multidimensional and hierarchical model of personality factors, including emotional stability, expansiveness, and self-confidence.

The research method that is being developed in this direction is carried out, as is known, in the study of statistical relationships between individual personality traits, such as, for example, its properties, abilities or behaviors, identified through their testing. The established correlations between them serve as a kind of basis for deducing hypothetical factors and so-called “super factors” that determine these connections.

Such, for example, are the factors of introversion and neuroticism, which, according to Eysenck’s reasoning, form the top of the factorial hierarchical structure, which he identifies with the psychological type of personality.

So, behind the concept of personality there is a certain “general”, holistic, which is identified through certain procedures of statistical processing of quantitatively expressed characteristics, selected according to the same statistical criteria. Therefore, despite the fact that the characteristics of this “general” are based on empirical data, it still remains, essentially, metapsychological, not requiring psychological explanation and deep understanding. If attempts to explain it begin to be made, then they go along the line of searching for corresponding morphophysiological correlates (Pavlov’s types of higher nervous activity, Kretschmer-Sheldon constitution, Eysenck’s variables), which returns to organic theories.

The empiricism characteristic of this trend, as a rule, cannot give scientists more. The study of correlations and factor analysis often deals only with variations in characteristics that are distinguished only insofar as they are expressed in measurable individual or group differences. The corresponding quantitative data: whether they relate to the speed of reaction, to the structure of the skeleton, the characteristics of the vegetative sphere, or to the nature of the images produced by the subjects when examining inkblots - all these options are processed completely without regard to the question of how the measured characteristics relate to certain features , more or less characterizing the human personality.

The above, of course, does not mean at all that the use of this method of correlations in personality psychology is generally impossible. Here we are talking about a slightly different case. It is precisely that the method of correlating an empirical set of individual properties in itself is a set that is still insufficient for the psychological disclosure of personality, because the isolation and special expression of these properties requires clear grounds that cannot be somehow extracted from them themselves.

The task of finding these very foundations arises when we begin to abandon the understanding of personality as a kind of integrity, a unity that embraces the totality of all human characteristics - “from political views to the digestion of food.” From the so-called fact of the multiplicity of human properties and characteristics, it should not be determined at all that a psychological theory of personality must strive specifically for their global coverage. This happens because man, as an empirical entity, expresses his properties in all forms of interaction in which he is involved in one way or another. For example, when a person falls from the window of a multi-story building, he will certainly discover properties that are inherent to him specifically as a physical body with mass, volume and other parameters. It is possible that, having hit the pavement, he will receive numerous injuries or even die; and in this assumption its properties will also appear, namely, the properties of its morphology. But none of the psychologists, however, would even think of including such properties in the characteristics of his personality, no matter how statistically reliably the connections between body weight or individual skeletal characteristics and, say, memory for numbers have been established.

When in everyday life we ​​begin to give any characteristic of a person’s personality, then without much hesitation we include in it such “general” features as, for example, willpower (“strong personality”, “weak character”); general attitude towards people (“benevolent”, “indifferent”), etc. But usually we don’t even think of classifying such features as, for example, the shape of the eyes or the ability to count on an abacus. When we do this, we don’t use anything reasonable at all. criterion for distinguishing between “personal” and “non-personal” characteristics.

If we go through a kind of search and comparison of individual psychological and other characteristics, then such a criterion cannot be found in any criteria at all. The whole point is that the same characteristics of a person can stand in different relationships directly to his personality. In one version of the characteristics they appear as indifferent, in the other - the same features are significantly included in its characteristics, perhaps even as the main parameters. The last circumstance makes it especially obvious that, due to widely held views, no empirical differential research is capable of providing solutions to any psychological problem of the individual. This, on the contrary, differential study itself is possible only on the basis of the general psychological theory of personality. In fact, this is exactly how things happen: behind any differential psychological study of a certain personality - testological (taking place in the form of training, a test) or clinical - there is always an explicitly or implicitly expressed, general theoretical concept.

The theory of determining two factors of personality formation in social psychology.

Despite the apparent diversity, diversity and even some mutual irreconcilability of modern psychological theories of personality, most of them retain a characteristic feature of pre-Marxist and extra-Marxist psychology - the dyadic scheme of analysis, the inconsistency of which was discussed earlier. Now this scheme appears in a new guise: in the form of the so-called “theory of two factors of personality formation,” heredity and environment. Whatever feature, characteristic feature of a person we take, it is explained according to this theory. On the one hand, the influence of heredity, which is inherent in the genotype by instincts, abilities or some other categories, and on the other hand, the influence and impact of the external environment on it (natural and social - language, culture, learning, etc.). From the point of view of common sense and a sober mind, it is, in fact, impossible and impossible to imagine any other explanation. However, the more ordinary common sense, as the research psychologist Engels wittily noted, “the venerable companion in the home experiences the most amazing adventures as soon as he ventures into the open space of research.”

The seeming, at first glance, acute insurmountability of the theory of two factors leads to debates, conducted mainly around the question of the importance of each of these factors. In this discussion, some insist that the main determinant of personality is heredity and that the external environment and social influences only determine the possibilities and forms of manifestation of the desired program with which a person is born. Others in this dispute deduce the most important features of personality traits directly from the features of the social environment, from the so-called “sociocultural matrices.” However, for all their differences in the ideological and political meaning of the expressed views, all of them in one way or another retain the position of double determination of personality, because simply ignoring one of the factors in question would mean going against the empirically proven influence of both, and this is fraught .

Views on some relationships of biological and social factors as the simplicity of their crossing or dividing the human psyche into the coexisting endosphere and exosphere have already given way to increasingly complex ideas. They arise for the most part in connection with the movement of analysis. It seemed to turn the other way around: the main problem became the internal essence of the personality itself, which form its levels, their relationships.

Thus, in particular, the idea of ​​the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious, which characterizes a person, begins to emerge, developed by the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. The “libido” he expressed is not only a bioenergetic source of activity, but also a special essence in the personality - “it” (id), which in turn opposes the “I” (ego) and the “super-ego” . And the genetic and functional connections between these entities, instances, carried out through special mechanisms (repression, censorship, symbolization, sublimation), create the formative structure of the personality.

In this case, there is absolutely no need to go into any criticism of Freudianism, the views of psychologists such as Adler, Jung and their modern successors. After all, it is absolutely clear that their views not only do not overcome, but, on the contrary, even exacerbate this theory of two factors, turning the very idea of ​​their convergence in the sense of W. Stern or D. Dewey into the idea of ​​a kind of confrontation between them.

There was also another direction parallel to the direction of convergence. It developed an approach to personality from the other side of its internal implementation, and presented the approach with certain cultural and anthropological concepts. The starting points for them were ethnological data, which showed that existing psychological characteristics are determined by rather sharp differences not in human nature, but in human culture. This, accordingly, system and structure of personality here is nothing more than an individualized system of culture into which a person is included in the process of his direct “acculturation.”

It must be said that in this regard, many observations have been made, starting with the famous works of M. Mead, who showed, for example, that even such a stable phenomenon as a psychological crisis in adolescence is not explained by the onset of puberty, because in some cultures this crisis does not exist at all. Arguments are also drawn from some examinations and tests of persons who are suddenly transferred to a new cultural environment, and, finally, from experimental studies of such special phenomena as the influence of objects prevailing in a given culture.

Conclusion

So, I tried to understand and explore personality as a psychological new formation that is formed directly in the life relationships of the individual, as a result of some transformation of his activity.

But for this, it is necessary from the very threshold to discard the ideas and initial assumptions about personality as a product of the combined influence of various forces, of which one is hidden, like a pig in a poke, “behind the surface of the skin” of a person, and the other lies completely, it would seem, in another, in the external environment. And this always happens, no matter how we interpret this force - as the force of the influence of stimulus situations, cultural matrices or social “expectations”.

After all, none of these developments are directly derived from that spectrum, which represents only its necessary prerequisites, no matter how detailed we describe them. The Marxist dialectical method itself requires an approach such that it is necessary to go further and study development as a process of so-called “self-movement”, that is, to study its internal driving relationships, contradictions and mutual transitions, so that its prerequisites appear both transforming and his own moments.

This approach necessarily leads to the position of the socio-historical essence of the individual.

This indisputable position only points to different systemic qualities manifested by a person, and does not say anything about the essence of his personality, about what gives rise to it. And this is precisely the scientific task.

Also, this assumption makes it possible to understand a certain meaning that a person first arises, is born in precisely such a society, that a person enters, wedges himself into history (just as a child enters life) only as an individual endowed with certain specific natural properties and abilities, and that he becomes a person only in the process of socialization, as a subject of social relations.

In other words, social psychology makes it clear that, unlike the individual, a person’s personality is in no way a pre-existing premise in relation to his activity, just like his consciousness, it is generated by it.

Both research and study of the process of birth and transformation, differentiation of a person’s personality in his activities, taking place in specific social conditions of the external environment and society, is the key to its truly scientific psychological understanding.

Glossary

No. Concept Definition 1 Culture A specific way of organizing and developing human life, which is represented in the products of material and spiritual labor, in the system of social norms and institutions, in spiritual values ​​and in the totality of people’s relationships to the external environment, to each other and to themselves. 2 Personality The set of social properties of a person , a product of social development and the inclusion of the individual in the system of social relations through active substantive activity and communication. 3 Society The historically developing integrity of relations between people, developing in the process of their life activity. 4 Complex society A society with highly differentiated structures and functions that are interconnected and dependent on each other, stipulating the need for their coordination. 5 Socialization The process of an individual’s assimilation of patterns of behavior, psychological mechanisms, social norms and values ​​necessary for the more successful functioning of the individual in society. 6 Social group A certain integrity of people who have a common social characteristic and perform a socially important function in the general structure of the social division of labor and activity .7 Social system A structural element of social reality, a certain holistic formation. 8 Social interaction Any behavior of an individual, a group of individuals, or society as a whole, both at the present moment and in a certain period of time. 9 Sociological research A system of logically consistent methodological, methodological and organizational-technical processes that are interconnected by one goal: to obtain objective, reliable data for their subsequent analysis and use in practice. 10 Value The property of a public object to satisfy certain needs of a social subject (individual, group, whole society).

List of sources used

psychology social personality anthropological

1.Ananyev B.G. Man as an object of knowledge. L., 1968.-214 p. [Electronic resource]

Asmolov A.G. Personality as a subject of psychological analysis. M., 1988- 124 p.

3.Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. M., 1967-243p.

4.Kovalev A.G. Psychology of Personality. M., 1970-211 s

5.Leontyev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975-186 p.

Parygin B.Ya. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. M., 1971.

Platonov K.K. Social-psychological aspect of the personality problem in the history of Soviet psychology // Social psychology of personality. M., 1979-86 p.

Bodalev A.A. Psychology of interpersonal relationships//Questions of psychology. 1993. No. 2. P.86-91.

Bozhovich L.I. Problems of personality formation. M.; Voronezh, 1995

10. Kjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality. St. Petersburg, 1997.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The relationship between the individual and society as a key problem of social psychology

Specifics of the socio-psychological approach to understanding personality, its difference from understanding personality in general psychology and sociology

Personality as a subject of research in sociology and psychology. In the numerous and varied definitions of the subject of social psychology, there is some inconsistency in judgments regarding what place the problem of personality should take in this science. When characterizing the main positions in the discussion on the subject of social psychology, it was already said that one of them understood primarily the task of social psychology to be the study of the individual, although it was added that the individual should be considered in the context of the group. But one way or another, the emphasis was placed on the personality, on its socially conditioned characteristics, on the formation of certain qualities in it as a result of social influence, etc. At the same time, another position in the discussion was based on the fact that for social psychology the individual is by no means the main object of study, since the very “design” of the existence of this special branch of psychological knowledge is to study “group psychology.” With such argumentation it was assumed, although this was not always expressed openly, that the personality itself acts as a subject of study in general psychology, and the difference between social psychology and the latter lies in a different focus of interest. In the definition of social psychology we have adopted, the problem of personality is present as a legitimate problem of this science, but in a specific aspect. Characteristics of this aspect and arguments in its favor must be made.

The need for this is also dictated by another consideration. The problem of personality is not only a problem of the entire set of psychological sciences, and therefore, even if we define the “boundaries” between them in the approach to personality, we will not completely resolve the issue of the specifics of the analysis. Currently, in modern society, interest in the problems of the capabilities of the human personality is so great that almost all social sciences turn to this subject of research: the problem of personality is at the center of both philosophical and sociological knowledge; it is dealt with by ethics, pedagogy, and genetics. One can, of course, neglect the exact designation of the sphere and angle of view in the study of this truly universally significant phenomenon and work according to the principle “everything that is known and described will be useful.” But, although from a practical point of view there is a reason for such reasoning, it is unlikely that such an approach will improve the efficiency of research. In addition, internal logic is important for each scientific discipline, and it requires more precise self-determination in the study of those problems that are of interest to many sciences.

Dividing the directions of such general interest in the problem of personality seems especially important also because it can only be solved through the joint efforts of all scientific disciplines related to the matter. The collaboration of such efforts requires an integrated approach to personality research, and this is only possible with a sufficiently precise definition of the search area for each of the disciplines involved. Thus, for social psychology it is important to at least establish the difference between its approach to personality and the approach to it in two “parent” disciplines: sociology and psychology. This problem cannot have a single solution for any system of both sociological and psychological knowledge. The whole difficulty of solving it lies in the fact that depending on the understanding of personality in any specific sociological or psychological concept, only one can understand the specifics of it as a subject of research in social psychology. Naturally, in this case, those philosophical premises that underlie the system of human sciences should also be included in the analysis. In the structure of sociological knowledge, the section “Sociology of Personality” is quite accurately designated; the section “Psychology of Personality” has an even stronger tradition within general psychology. Strictly speaking, it is precisely in relation to these two sections that a place must be found for the section of socio-psychological science “Social psychology of personality”. As you can see, the proposed question in some sense repeats the question about the general boundaries between social psychology and sociology, on the one hand, and general psychology, on the other. It can now be discussed more specifically. As for the differences between the socio-psychological approach to the study of personality and the sociological approach, this problem is solved more or less unambiguously. If the system of sociological knowledge deals primarily with the analysis of objective laws of social development, then it is natural that the main focus of interest here is the macrostructure of society, and, first of all, such units of analysis as social institutions, the laws of their functioning and development, the structure of social relations, and therefore and the social structure of each specific type of society.

All this does not mean that there is no place for personality problems in this analysis. As already noted, the impersonal nature of social relations as relations between social groups does not deny their certain “personal” coloring, since the implementation of the laws of social development is carried out only through the activities of people. Consequently, specific people, individuals are the bearers of these social relations. It is impossible to understand the content and mechanism of action of the laws of social development without analyzing the actions of the individual. However, for studying society at this macro level, it is fundamentally important that in order to understand the historical process it is necessary to consider the individual as a representative of a certain social group. V.A. Yadov, noting the specificity of sociological interest in personality, sees it in the fact that for sociology personality “is important not as an individual, but as an impersonal personality, as a social type, as a deindividualized, depersonified personality.” A similar solution is proposed by E.V. Shorokhova: “For sociology, a person acts as a product of social relations, as an exponent and concrete bearer of these relations, as a subject of social life, as an element of community.” These words should not be understood to mean that specific individuals are completely excluded from the analysis. Knowledge about these specific individuals is knowledge about how they embody characteristics that are significant for the group and how they, in turn, represent the individual in various mass actions. The main problem of sociological analysis of personality is the problem of social typology of personality.

In practice, sociological analysis often includes other problems, in particular those that are special problems of social psychology. These include, for example, the problem of socialization and some others. But partly this inclusion is explained by the simple fact that social psychology, due to the peculiarities of its formation in our country, did not deal with these problems until a certain period of time, and partly by the fact that in almost every issue relating to personality, one can see some sociological aspect. The main focus of the sociological approach is quite definite

The situation with the division of personality problems in general and social psychology is much more complicated. Indirect proof of this is the diversity of points of view that exists on this subject in the literature and depends on the fact that even in general psychology itself there is no unity in the approach to understanding personality. True, the fact that personality is described differently in the system of general psychological science by different authors does not concern the question of its social determination. Everyone who studies the problem of personality in Russian general psychology agrees on this issue.

Specifics of socio-psychological problems of personality. In the works of B.D. Parygina’s model of personality, which should take a place in the system of social psychology, involves a combination of two approaches: sociological and general psychological. The sociological approach is characterized by the fact that it views the individual primarily as an object of social relations, and the general psychological approach by the fact that here the emphasis is placed only “on the general mechanisms of the individual’s mental activity.” The task of social psychology is “to reveal the entire structural complexity of the personality, which is both an object and a subject of social relations...”. It is unlikely that both a sociologist and a psychologist will agree with this division of tasks: in most concepts of both sociology and general psychology they accept the thesis that a person is both an object and a subject of the historical process, and this idea cannot be embodied only in social -psychological approach to personality. In relation to sociology and psychology, which accept the idea of ​​social determination of personality, this statement is absolutely not applicable. In particular, the analysis of the model of personality that is prescribed by general psychology raises objections, when it is noted that the general psychological approach “is usually limited to the integration of only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters of the personality structure.” The socio-psychological approach is “characterized by the overlapping of biosomatic and social programs.” As already noted, the tradition of cultural and historical conditioning of the human psyche, laid down by L.S. Vygotsky is directed directly against this statement: not only personality, but also individual mental processes are considered as determined by social factors. Moreover, it cannot be argued that when modeling personality, only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters are taken into account. Personality, as represented in this belief system, cannot be understood apart from its social characteristics. Therefore, the general psychological formulation of the problem of personality cannot in any way differ from the socio-psychological approach on the basis proposed.

One can approach the definition of the specifics of the socio-psychological approach descriptively, i.e. Based on research practice, simply list the problems to be solved, and this path will be completely justified. Thus, in particular, they note that the basis of the socio-psychological understanding of personality is “the characteristics of the social type of personality as a specific formation, a product of social circumstances, its structure, the totality of the role functions of the individual, their influence on social life...”. The difference from the sociological approach is not captured here clearly enough, and, obviously, therefore, the characteristics of the socio-psychological approach are supplemented by a list of tasks for personality research: social determination of the mental make-up of the individual; social motivation of individual behavior and activity in various socio-historical and socio-psychological conditions; class, national, professional characteristics of the individual; patterns of formation and manifestation of social activity, ways and means of increasing this activity; problems of internal inconsistency of the individual and ways to overcome it; self-education of the individual, etc. Each of these tasks in itself seems very important, but it is not possible to grasp a certain principle in the proposed list, just as it is not possible to answer the question: what is the specificity of personality research in social psychology? The appeal to the fact that in social psychology a personality should be studied in communication with other individuals does not resolve the issue, although such an argument is also sometimes put forward. It should be rejected because, in principle and in general psychology, there is a large layer of research into personality in communication. In modern general psychology, the idea is quite persistently pursued that communication has a right to exist as a problem precisely within the framework of general psychology.

Apparently, when determining the specifics of the socio-psychological approach to the study of personality, one should rely on the definition of the subject of social psychology proposed at the very beginning, as well as on the understanding of personality proposed by A.N. Leontyev. Then you can formulate an answer to the question posed. Social psychology does not specifically study the question of the social conditioning of personality, not because this question is not important for it, but because it is solved by the entire psychological science, and primarily by general psychology. Social psychology, using the definition of personality given by general psychology, finds out how, i.e. First of all, in which specific groups does the individual, on the one hand, assimilate social influences (through which of the systems of his activity) and, on the other hand, how, in which specific groups does he realize his social essence (through which specific types of joint activities) .

The difference between this approach and the sociological one is not that for social psychology it is not important how socially typical traits are represented in a person, but that it reveals how these socially typical traits were formed, why, under certain conditions of personality formation they manifested themselves in full, while in others some other social-typical traits arose despite the individual’s belonging to a particular social group. For this purpose, to a greater extent than in sociological analysis, the emphasis here is on the microenvironment of personality formation, although this does not mean a refusal to study the macroenvironment of its formation. To a greater extent than in the sociological approach, such regulators of individual behavior and activity are taken into account here as the entire system of interpersonal relationships, within which, along with their activity-based mediation, their emotional regulation is also studied.

This approach differs from the general psychological approach not in that it studies the entire complex of issues of social determination of personality, but in general psychology it does not. The difference lies in the fact that social psychology considers the behavior and activity of a “socially determined personality” in specific real social groups, the individual contribution of each individual to the group’s activities, the reasons on which the magnitude of this contribution to the overall activity depends. More precisely, two series of such reasons are studied: those rooted in the character and level of development of those groups in which the person acts, and those rooted in the person himself, for example, in the conditions of his socialization.

We can say that for social psychology the main guideline in the study of personality is the relationship of the individual with the group (not just the individual in the group, but the result that is obtained from the relationship of the individual with a specific group). Based on such differences between the socio-psychological approach and the sociological and general psychological approach, it is possible to isolate the problems of personality in social psychology.

The most important thing is to identify those patterns that govern the behavior and activities of an individual included in a certain social group. But such problems are unthinkable as a separate, “independent” block of research undertaken outside of the group’s research. Therefore, to implement this task, it is necessary to essentially return to all those problems that were solved for the group, but look at them from the other side - not from the side of the group, but from the side of the individual. Then it will be, for example, the problem of leadership, but with a nuance that is associated with the personal characteristics of leadership as a group phenomenon; or the problem of individual motivation when participating in collective activities (where the patterns of this motivation will be studied in connection with the type of joint activity, the level of development of the group), or the problem of attraction, now considered from the point of view of characterizing certain features of the emotional sphere of the individual, manifested in a special way when perceiving another person. In short, a specifically socio-psychological consideration of individual problems is the other side of the consideration of group problems.

But at the same time, there are still a number of special problems that are less affected by the analysis of groups and which are also included in the concept of “social psychology of personality.” If the main focus of personality analysis in social psychology is its interaction with the group, then it is obvious that first of all it is necessary to identify through which groups society influences the individual. For this, it is important to study the specific life path of an individual, those cells of the micro- and macroenvironment through which the path of its development passes. In the traditional language of social psychology, this is a problem of socialization. Despite the possibility of highlighting sociological and general psychological aspects in this problem, this is a specific problem of social psychology of the individual.

On the other hand, if the entire system of influences on the personality throughout its formation has been studied, then it is now important to analyze what the result is, which was obtained not during the passive assimilation of these influences, but during the active assimilation by the individual of the entire system of social connections. How a person acts in conditions of active communication with others in those real situations and groups where his life activities take place is another socio-psychological problem related to the study of personality. Again, in the traditional language of social psychology, this problem can be designated as a problem of social attitude. This direction of analysis also fits quite logically into the general scheme of social psychology’s ideas about the relationship between the individual and the group. Although both sociological and general psychological aspects are often seen in this problem, it as a problem falls within the competence of social psychology.

With the further development of social psychology, with the expansion of the scope of its theoretical search and experimental practice, new aspects in the problem of personality will be revealed. Therefore, today it is necessary to recognize as “legitimate” among the problems of studying personality not only the problems of socialization and social attitudes, but also, for example, the analysis of the so-called socio-psychological qualities of the individual.

Traditions and current state of personality research in social psychology.

Social and psychological aspects of psychoanalytic interpretations of personality (S. Freud and others).

Concepts of personality of humanistic psychology (K. Rogers, G. Allport, A. Maslow, etc.).

Modern idea of ​​social psychology of personality in Russia

The construction of concepts of personality in domestic social psychology was preceded by the search for a place for social psychological research of personality, in contrast to the general psychological and sociological approaches of B.D. Parygyan proposed to consider two models of personality structure: static and dynamic. The first is understood as an abstract model that is extremely abstract from the actually functioning personality and characterizes the main aspects, layers or components of the individual’s psyche.” The second is “that one-time photograph or model of a person’s mental state and behavior, which allows us to understand the mechanisms of interconnection and interaction between all components and structural layers in the individual’s psyche.”

To isolate the parameters of the static structure of personality, the author proposes a single basis - the degree of representation of all components of the psyche in the structure of the personality, thanks to which three categories are distinguished: universal mental properties of the individual (the presence of the necessary set of basic mental properties and states, subject to psychophysiological mechanisms common to all people), socially specific personality characteristics (socially specific experience and its assimilation), individually unique (individually typological features characteristic of a particular person). The cross-cutting concept of the analysis of the selected parameters is the acquired experience (universal, socially specific, individually unique)

In A Yadov substantiated the need to consider “objective and subjective aspects of personality as an integrity, but in a certain relation, namely in relation to the conditions of its activity, formed thanks to previous experience and on the basis of its natural properties”

Based on theoretical and experimental data from the study of fixed attitudes by D. N. Uznadze and the social attitudes of foreign scientists, the author proposed a dispositional concept of personality. The realization of human needs is possible under appropriate conditions of activity, which can be represented in the form of hierarchical systems.

G.M. Andreeva, having analyzed existing approaches to the study of social psychology of personality, argues that “...for social psychology, the main guideline in the study of personality is the relationship of the individual with the group (not just the individual in the group, but the result that is obtained from the relationship of the individual with a specific group ). According to the author, on the one hand, it is necessary to study those groups through which society influences the individual, his specific life path, etc., i.e. the problem of personality socialization. On the other hand, it is necessary to examine the resulting result of the influence of society on the individual, i.e. the problem of social attitudes.

An integral part of the stratometric concept of groups and collectives, developed by A. V. Petrovsky (1979), is the position on the development of personality in a group. The principle of mediating interpersonal relationships by content, values ​​and organization of joint activities made it possible to differentiate groups according to their level of development into diffuse groups, prosocial associations, teams, asocial associations, corporations. The relationship between the levels of personality development and the proposed hierarchy of groups was shown.

Given the general lack of development of the problem of personality traits, it is quite difficult to outline the range of its socio-psychological qualities. It is no coincidence that in the literature there are different opinions on this issue (Bogdanov, 1983), depending on the solution of more general methodological problems. The most important of them are the following:

1. Differentiation of interpretations of the very concept of “personality” in general psychology, which was already discussed above. If “personality” is a synonym for the term “person,” then naturally, the description of its qualities (properties, traits) should include all the characteristics of a person. If “personality” itself is only a social quality of a person, then the set of its properties should be limited to social properties.

2. Ambiguity in the use of the concepts “social properties of the individual” and “socio-psychological properties of the individual.” Each of these concepts is used in a certain frame of reference: when they talk about “social properties of a person,” this is usually done within the framework of solving the general problem of the relationship between the biological and the social; When the concept of “social-psychological properties of a person” is used, they often do so when contrasting socio-psychological and general psychological approaches (as an option: distinguishing between “secondary” and “basic” properties).

3. Finally, the most important thing: the difference in general methodological approaches to understanding the structure of personality - considering it either as a collection, a set of certain qualities (properties, traits), or as a certain system, the elements of which are not “traits”, but other units of manifestation Until unambiguous answers to fundamental questions are obtained, one cannot expect unambiguous solutions to more specific problems. Therefore, at the level of socio-psychological analysis there are also contradictory points, for example, on the following points:

a) the list of socio-psychological qualities (properties) of the individual and the criteria for their identification;

b) the relationship between the qualities (properties) and abilities of the individual (and this refers specifically to “socio-psychological abilities”).

As for the list of qualities, the subject of analysis is often all the qualities studied using personality tests (primarily the tests of G. Eysenck and R. Keggell). In other cases, the socio-psychological qualities of a person include all individual psychological characteristics of a person, the specifics of the course of individual mental processes (thinking, memory, will, etc.) are recorded. In many foreign studies, when describing methods for identifying personality traits, the term “adjectives” is used (not the name of qualities, but “adjectives” that describe them), where, for example, characteristics such as “smart”, “hardworking”, etc.<добрый», «подозрительный» и т.п.

Only sometimes does a special group of qualities stand out. Thus, the socio-psychological properties of a person are considered “secondary” in relation to the “basic” properties studied in general psychology. These socio-psychological properties are summarized in four groups:

1) ensuring the development and use of social abilities (social perception, imagination, intelligence, characteristics of interpersonal assessment);

2) formed in the interaction of group members and as a result of its social influence;

H) more general ones, related to social behavior and the position of the individual (activity, responsibility, tendency to help, cooperation);

4) social properties associated with general psychological and socio-psychological properties (propensity to an authoritarian or democratic way of acting and thinking, a dogmatic or open attitude towards problems, etc.)

It is obvious that, despite the productivity of the idea of ​​​​isolating the socio-psychological properties of a person, the implementation of this idea is not strict: it is unlikely that the proposed classification meets the criterion of “secondary” nature of the listed properties, and the basis for the classification remains not entirely clear.

Personality structure in social psychology. Differences in the interpretation of personality concern other aspects of the problem, perhaps most of all - the idea of ​​personality structure. Several explanations have been proposed for the ways in which personality can be described, and each of them corresponds to a specific idea of ​​personality structure. There is the least agreement on the question of whether individual psychological characteristics are “included” or not in personality. The answer to this question varies among different authors. As rightly noted by I.S. Kon, the polysemy of the concept of personality leads to the fact that some understand the personality of a specific subject of activity in the unity of his individual properties and his social roles, while others understand personality “as a social property of an individual, as a set of socially significant traits integrated in him, formed in direct and indirect interaction of a given person with other people and making him, in turn, a subject of labor, knowledge and communication.” Although the second approach is most often considered as sociological, it is also present within general psychology as one of the poles. The debate here is precisely on the question of whether personality in psychology should be considered primarily in this second meaning, or whether in the system of this science the main thing is the combination in the personality (and not just in a “person”) of socially significant traits and individual properties.

In one of the generalizing works on personality psychology, representing the first approach, it was proposed to distinguish three formations in personality: mental processes, mental states and mental properties (Kovalev, 1970); within the framework of the integrative approach to personality, the set of characteristics taken into account is significantly expanded (Ananyev, 1968). The issue of personality structure was especially covered by K.K. Platonov, who identified various substructures in the personality structure, the list of which varied and in the latest edition consisted of four substructures or levels: 1) biologically determined substructure (which includes temperament, gender, age, and sometimes pathological properties of the psyche); 2) psychological substructure, including individual properties of individual mental processes that have become properties of the individual (memory, emotions, sensations, thinking, perception, feelings and will); 3) the substructure of social experience (which includes the knowledge, skills, abilities and habits acquired by a person); 4) substructure of personality orientation (within which there is, in turn, a special hierarchically interconnected series of substructures: drives, desires, interests, inclinations, ideals, individual picture of the world and the highest form of orientation - beliefs) (Platonov, 1975, pp. 39-40).

According to K.K. Platonov, these substructures differ in the “specific weight” of social and biological contents; It is precisely by the choice of such substructures as the subject of analysis that general psychology differs from social psychology. If general psychology concentrates its attention on the first three substructures, then social psychology, according to this scheme, analyzes mainly the fourth substructure, since the social determination of personality is presented precisely at the level of this substructure. All that remains for general psychology is the analysis of such characteristics as gender, age, temperament (which is reduced to a biological substructure) and the properties of individual mental processes - memory, emotions, thinking (which is reduced to a substructure of individual psychological characteristics). In a certain sense, this also includes social experience. Personality psychology itself in general psychology is simply not represented in such a scheme.

A fundamentally different approach to the issue was proposed by A.N. Leontyev. Before moving on to characterize the structure of personality, he formulates some general premises for considering personality in psychology. Their essence boils down to the fact that personality is considered inextricably linked with activity. The principle of activity here is consistently carried out in order to set the entire theoretical scheme for the study of personality. The main idea is that “a person’s personality is in no sense pre-existing in relation to his activity, just like his consciousness, it is generated by it” (Leontyev, 1975, p. 173). Therefore, the key to a scientific understanding of personality can only be the study of the process of generation and transformation of a person’s personality in his activities. The personality appears in such a context, on the one hand, as a condition of activity, and on the other, as its product. This understanding of this relationship also provides the basis for structuring personality: if personality is based on relationships of subordination of types of human activity, then the basis for identifying the structure of personality should be the hierarchy of these activities. But since a sign of activity is the presence of a motive, then behind the hierarchy of a person’s activities lies the hierarchy of his motives, as well as the hierarchy of their corresponding needs (Asmolov, 1988). Two series of determinants - biological and social - do not act here as two equal factors. On the contrary, the idea is held that personality is given from the very beginning in a system of social connections, that at the beginning there is only a biologically determined personality, on which social connections were later only “superimposed.”

Although formally this scheme does not contain a list of elements of the personality structure, in essence such a structure is assumed to be a structure of characteristics derived from the characteristics of activity. The idea of ​​social determination is carried out here most consistently: personality cannot be interpreted as an integration of only biosomatic and psychophysiological parameters. One can, of course, argue that what is presented here is not a general psychological, but rather a socio-psychological approach to personality, as, by the way, is sometimes done by opponents. However, if we turn to the very essence of the whole concept, to the understanding of the subject of psychology by A.N. Leontiev, it becomes clear that here an approach of general psychology to the problem of personality is outlined, which is fundamentally different from the traditional ones, and the question of how social psychology should approach this problem has yet to be resolved specifically.

The difficulties of identifying a specific socio-psychological angle of view are just beginning. It would be easy to isolate the range of his problems if the entire area of ​​social determination of personality were left to his share. But such an approach would be appropriate (and it, indeed, takes place) in those systems of psychology where an initial consideration of the individual outside of his social connections is allowed. Social psychology in such a system begins where these social connections begin to be analyzed. With the consistent implementation of the ideas formulated by L.S. Vygotsky, S.L. Rubinstein, A.N. Leontyev, such an approach is simply unlawful. All branches of psychological science consider personality as initially given in the system of social connections and relationships, determined by them and, moreover, acting as an active subject of activity. The actual socio-psychological problems of the individual begin to be solved on this basis.