Scheme of types of social interaction and their features. Social interactions: types, types

landscaping 26.09.2019

The starting point for the formation of a social connection may be the interaction of individuals or groups that form a social community to meet certain needs. Interaction is interpreted as any behavior of an individual or group that is important for other individuals and groups of a social community or society as a whole. Moreover, interaction expresses the nature and content of relations between people and social groups, which, being constant carriers of qualitatively different types of activities, differ in social positions (statuses) and roles.

Social interaction is one of the types of social connection - a mutually directed process of exchanging social actions between two or more individuals. Communication is always mutual, available and feasible (at least in the imagination). There are two types of connections: direct (as a rule, visual, interpersonal) and indirect (when the connection is carried out through intermediaries; in this case, the phenomenon of deindividualization arises - the illusion that all social relations exist independently of the will and desire of people).

There are three main forms of social interaction: 1) cooperation of several individuals for the sake of solving a common goal; 2) competition (individual or group struggle) for the possession of the necessary resources; 3) conflict between competing parties. Features of social interaction: 1) conjugation of actions of both partners; 2) recurrence of actions; 3) sustained interest in the partner's response; 4) coordination of partners' actions.

Types of social interactions: 1) rigid exchange (exchange on the basis of certain agreements (most often in the economic sphere, in the relationship between the head and the subordinate, in political life)); 2) diffuse (non-rigid) exchange (mainly in moral and ethical interactions: friendship, neighborhood, relationships between parents and children, partnership); 3) direct-indirect interactions (direct - direct (two-way) interactions between individuals, indirect - complex, mediated through 3-4 persons (in modern society, indirect interactions prevail)); 4) individual-group interactions (individual-individual, individual-group, group-group).

I. Goffman, within the framework of a phenomenological perspective, offers a slightly different view of social interactions. To analyze them, he uses a "dramatic approach" based on the premise that individuals are actors playing social roles. Accordingly, interaction is a "performance", an "acting game", designed by an actor with the aim of "making an impression", corresponding to his goals. The actions of the actor, according to I. Goffman, correspond to the concept of "presenting oneself and managing the impression." "Presentation of oneself" includes gestures, intonations, clothes, with the help of which an individual seeks to make a certain impression on his partner, to cause him this or that reaction. At the same time, the individual in the process of interaction, as a rule, provides only selected, partial information about himself, trying to control the impression that he makes on others.

P. Blau, relying on the theory of exchange and structural functionalism, argues that not all social interactions can be considered as exchange processes. The latter include only those that are focused on achieving goals, the implementation of which is possible only in the process of interaction with other people and for the achievement of which funds are needed that are also available to other people. That part of human behavior that is governed by the rules of exchange underlies the formation of social structures, but the rules of exchange themselves are insufficient to explain the complex structures of human society.

However, it is social exchange that largely determines the interactions of each individual. The success or failure of our interactions ultimately depends on the knowledge and ability (or ignorance and inability) to practically use the principles of their regulation formulated in the framework of the exchange theory.

Social interaction is mutual influence various areas, phenomena and processes of social life, carried out through social activities. It takes place both between separate objects (external interaction) and within a separate object, between its elements (internal interaction).

Social interaction has an objective and subjective side. The objective side of the interaction is connections that are independent of individual people, but mediate and control the content and nature of their interaction. The subjective side is understood as the conscious attitude of individuals to each other, based on mutual expectations of appropriate behavior. These are, as a rule, interpersonal (or socio-psychological) relations that develop in specific social communities at a certain point in time. The mechanism of social interaction includes individuals who perform certain actions; changes in the social community or society as a whole, caused by these actions; the impact of these changes on other individuals that make up the social community, and, finally, the feedback of individuals.

Interaction usually leads to the formation of new social relations. The latter can be represented as relatively stable and independent links between individuals and social groups.

In sociology, the concepts of "social structure" and "social system" are closely related. The social system is a collection social phenomena and processes that are in relationships and connections with each other and form some integral social object. Separate phenomena and processes act as elements of the system. The concept of "social structure" is part of the concept of a social system and combines two components - social composition and social ties. Social composition is a set of elements that make up a given structure. The second component is a set of connections of these elements. Thus, the concept of social structure includes, on the one hand, the social composition, or the totality of various types of social communities as the system-forming social elements of society, on the other hand, the social connections of the constituent elements that differ in the breadth of their action, in their significance in the characteristics of the social structure of society at a certain stage of development.

social structure means the objective division of society into separate strata, groups, different in their social position, in their relation to the mode of production. This is a stable connection of elements in a social system. The main elements of the social structure are such social communities as classes and class-like groups, ethnic, professional, socio-demographic groups, socio-territorial communities (city, village, region). Each of these elements is in turn complex. social system with its subsystems and connections. The social structure reflects the characteristics of the social relations of classes, professional, cultural, national-ethnic and demographic groups, which are determined by the place and role of each of them in the system. economic relations. The social aspect of any community is concentrated in its connections and mediations with production and class relations in society.

Interaction- this is the process of the influence of people and groups on each other, in which each action is conditioned both by the previous action and the expected result from the other. Any interaction involves at least two participants - interactants. Therefore, interaction is a kind of action, the distinguishing feature of which is the focus on another person.

Any social interaction has four characteristics:

· it subject, i.e. always has a purpose or cause that is external to the interacting groups or people;

· it outwardly expressed, and therefore available for observation; this sign is due to the fact that interaction always involves the exchange of symbols, signs, which are deciphered by the opposite side;

· it situationally, i.e. usually tied to some specific situations to the conditions of the course (for example, meeting friends or taking an exam);

It expresses the subjective intentions of the participants.

Indeed, two people may not speak a word and not seek to communicate anything to each other by other means, but the very fact that one can observe the actions of the other, and the other knows about it, makes any of their activity a social interaction. If people perform in front of each other some actions that can be (and will certainly be) somehow interpreted by the opposite side, then they are already exchanging meanings. A person who is alone will behave a little differently than a person who is in the company of other people.

Consequently, social interaction is characterized by such a feature as feedback. Feedback implies a reaction. However, this reaction may not follow, but it is always expected, admitted as probable, possible.

American sociologist of Russian origin P. Sorokin identified two mandatory conditions for social interaction:

The participants in the interaction must have the psyche and sensory organs, i.e., the means to find out what another person feels through his actions, facial expressions, gestures, voice intonations, etc.;

· participants in the interaction should express their feelings and thoughts in the same way, i.e. use the same symbols of self-expression.

Interaction can be seen as at the micro level, so on macro level.

Interaction at the micro level is the interaction in everyday life, for example, within a family, a small work group, a student group, a group of friends, etc.

Interaction at the macro level unfolds within the framework of social structures, institutions and even society as a whole.

Depending on how contact is made between interacting people or groups, there are four main types of social interaction:

physical;

Verbal or verbal

non-verbal (facial expressions, gestures);

mental, which is expressed only in inner speech.

The first three refer to external actions, the fourth - to internal actions. All of them have the following properties: meaningfulness, motivation, focus on others.

Social interaction is possible in any sphere of society. Therefore, we can give the following typology of social interaction by spheres:

economic (individuals act as owners and employees);

political (individuals oppose or cooperate as representatives political parties, social movements, as well as subjects state power);

professional (individuals participate as representatives of different professions);

demographic (including contacts between representatives of different sexes, ages, nationalities and races);

family related;

· territorial-settlement (there is a clash, cooperation, competition between local and newcomers, permanent and temporary residents, etc.);

Religious (implies contacts between representatives different religions as well as believers and atheists).

There are three main forms of interaction:

cooperation - cooperation of individuals to solve a common problem;

competition - individual or group struggle for the possession of scarce values (benefits);

conflict - a hidden or open clash of competing parties.

P. Sorokin considered interaction as an exchange, and on this basis he distinguished three types of social interaction:

exchange of ideas (any ideas, information, beliefs, opinions, etc.);

exchange of volitional impulses, in which people coordinate their actions to achieve common goals;

exchange of feelings, when people unite or separate on the basis of their emotional attitude towards something (love, hatred, contempt, condemnation, etc.).

Communication as interaction

The interactive side of communication is most often manifested in the organization joint activities of people. The exchange of knowledge and ideas about this activity inevitably implies that the mutual understanding achieved is realized in new attempts to develop joint activities and organize them. This allows us to interpret the interaction as the organization of joint activities.

The psychological structure of joint activities includes the presence of common goals and motives, joint actions and a common result. General goal joint activities - a central component of its structure. A goal is an ideally presented overall result that a group is striving for. The general goal can be broken down into more specific and specific tasks, step by step solution which brings the collective subject closer to the goal. An obligatory component of the psychological structure of joint activity is a common motive. The next component of joint activity is joint actions, i.e., such elements of it that are aimed at performing current (operational and fairly simple) tasks. The structure of joint activities is completed by the overall result obtained by its participants.

In psychology, all the variety of interactions between people is usually divided into the following types:

1) cooperation: both partners in interaction actively help each other, actively contribute to the achievement of the individual goals of each and the common goals of joint activities;

2) confrontation: both partners oppose each other and impede the achievement of the individual goals of each;

3) avoidance of interaction: both partners try to avoid active cooperation;

4) unidirectional assistance: when one of the participants in joint activities contributes to the achievement of the individual goals of the other, and the second evades interaction with him;

5) unidirectional countermeasures: one of the partners hinders the achievement of the goals of the other, and the second evades interaction with the first;

6) contrast interaction: one of the participants tries to assist the other, and the second resorts to a strategy of active opposition to the first (in such situations, such opposition can be masked in one form or another);

7) compromise interaction. both partners show separate elements of both assistance and opposition.

The generalization of the above types allows us to distinguish two main types of interaction: 1) aimed at cooperation and cooperation and 2) based on rivalry and competition, often leading to conflict interaction.

Conflict (from lat. conflictus - collision) is a collision of oppositely directed goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of opponents or subjects of interaction. Any conflict is based on a situation that includes either conflicting positions of the parties on any issue, or opposite goals or means of achieving them in given circumstances, or a mismatch of interests, desires, inclinations of opponents, etc. A conflict situation, therefore, includes themselves the subjects of a possible conflict and its object. However, in order for the conflict to develop, it is necessary incident when one of the parties begins to act, infringing on the interests of the other side. If the opposite side responds in kind, the conflict moves from potential to actual.

Socio-psychological analysis allows us to distinguish four types of conflict:

Intrapersonal. The parties to the conflict can be two or more components of the same personality - for example, individual traits, types or instances. In this case, we are dealing with a conflictogenic clash of individual personality traits and human behavior;

Interpersonal conflict occurs between two (or more) separate individuals. At the same time, there is a confrontation about needs, motives, goals, values and / or attitudes;

Personal-group conflict often arises in case of inconsistency of the individual's behavior with group norms and expectations;

Intergroup. In this case, there may be a clash of stereotypes of behavior, norms, goals and/or values of different groups.

In the dynamics of the conflict, the following four main stages are distinguished:

1. The emergence of an objective conflict situation. This situation is not immediately recognized by people, so it can be called the “potential conflict stage”.

2. Awareness of the objective conflict situation. In order for the conflict to be understood, it is necessary incident, i.e., a situation in which one of the parties begins to act, infringing on the interests of the other side.

3. Transition to conflict behavior. After the conflict is recognized, the parties proceed to conflict behavior, which is aimed at blocking the achievements of the opposite side, its aspirations, goals, intentions. When a conflict moves from potential to actual, it can develop as direct or indirect, constructive, stabilizing or non-constructive.

Constructive interpersonal conflict the one in which the opponents do not go beyond business arguments, relationships and do not touch the personality of the opposite side is considered. In this case, various strategies of behavior can be observed.

C. W. Thomas and and R. H. Kilman identified the following strategies of behavior in a conflict situation:

1) cooperation aimed at finding a solution that satisfies the interests of all parties;

2) compromise - settlement of disagreements through mutual concessions;

3) avoidance, which consists in the desire to get out of the conflict situation without solving it, without yielding, but also without insisting on one's own;

4) adaptation - a tendency to smooth out contradictions, sacrificing one's own interests;

5) competition - rivalry, an open struggle for one's interests.

Unconstructive interpersonal conflict arises when one of the opponents resorts to morally condemned methods of struggle, seeks to suppress the partner, discrediting and humiliating him in the eyes of others. Usually this causes resistance from the other side, the dialogue is accompanied by mutual insults, the solution of the problem becomes impossible, and interpersonal relationships are destroyed.

4. Conflict resolution is the final stage of its course. It is possible both by changing the objective conflict situation, and by transforming its images that the opponents have. Resolution can be partial (when conflict actions are excluded, but the urge to conflict remains) and complete (when the conflict is eliminated at the level of external behavior and at the level of internal urges).

Thus, there are four possible types of conflict resolution:

1) complete resolution at an objective level by transforming the objective conflict situation - for example, spatial or social separation of the parties, providing them with scarce resources, the absence of which led to the conflict;

2) partial resolution at an objective level by transforming an objective conflict situation in the direction of creating disinterest in conflict actions;

3) complete resolution at the subjective level due to a radical change in the images of the conflict situation;

4) partial resolution at the subjective level due to a limited, but sufficient for a temporary cessation of the contradiction, the change of images in the conflict situation.

COOPERATION collaboration, cooperation - 1 strategy of behavior in conflict and the process of resolving problems, which are characterized by the desire of the parties to take into account the needs and interests of each of the parties and find a mutually satisfying solution. the opposite strategy is rivalry. 2 is the same as joint activity.

To improve social climate and increase the efficiency of the organization for the transition from the psychology of rivalry to the psychology of S. 3 directions for the development of managers and employees are recommended:

Mastering the skill of listening to the interlocutor of the boss, subordinate, colleague

Cultivating the desire for trust and respect for all employees

The use of formulations when issuing any tasks that can instill vivacity in the performer, a desire to express and defend their views.

“Conflict is the most acute way to resolve significant contradictions that arise in the process of assistance, which consists in countering the subjects of the conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions” E. A. Zamedlina. Conflictology. M - RIOR, 2005 p. 4.

Conflicts are manifested in communication, behavior, activities. These are the so-called spheres of counteraction of the subjects of the conflict. Therefore, it is obvious that conflicts are studied not only by social psychology, but also by such sciences as military sciences, history, pedagogy, political science, jurisprudence, psychology, sociobiology, sociology, philosophy, economics, etc.

There are three types of conflicts:

1) intrapersonal;

2) social - interpersonal conflicts, conflicts between small, medium and large social groups, international conflicts between individual states and their coalitions;

3) animal conflicts.

However, based on the purpose of my work, I will consider only social conflicts, and specifically interpersonal ones.

The nature of social conflict.

The causes of social conflict are:

1) material resources;

2) the most important life attitudes;

3) powers of authority;

4) status-role differences in the social structure;

5) personal (emotional-psychological) differences, etc.

The conflict is one of the types of social interaction, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations.

Conflict interaction is a confrontation between the parties, that is, actions directed against each other. At the heart of social conflict are only those contradictions caused by incompatible interests, needs and values; such contradictions are transformed into an open struggle of the parties, into a real confrontation.

There are violent and non-violent forms of confrontation in conflict.

Social conflict includes the activity of an individual or groups that block the functioning of the enemy or cause harm to other people or groups.

The following terms are used in the problem of conflicts: "disputes", "debates", "bargaining", "rivalry and controlled battles", "indirect and direct violence".

Social conflict has several definitions. Here are the main ones: Social conflict is:

1) open confrontation, a clash of two or more subjects - participants in social interaction, the causes of which are incompatible needs, interests and values of the participants in the conflict;

2) an extreme case of exacerbation of social contradictions, expressed in a clash of interests of various social communities - classes, nations, states, various social groups, social institutions, etc. due to the opposition or significant difference in their interests, goals, development trends;

3) an explicit or latent state of confrontation between objectively divergent interests, goals and trends in the development of social subjects, a direct or indirect clash of social forces on the basis of opposition to the existing social order, a special form of historical movement towards a new social unity;

4) a situation where the parties (subjects) of conflict interaction pursue some of their own goals that contradict or mutually exclude each other.

Strategies and tactics in conflict

The nature of conflict actions is determined by their focus on goals of different scale. Tactical action leads to effects in specific situations, the strategy is associated with the desire to resolve the contradiction that is actualized in a specific interaction.

The most common representation, discussed as a strategy of behavior in conflict, is the model of K. Thomas, according to which conflict behavior is built in the space specified by the coordinate system, interpreted as follows:

The vertical axis indicates the degree of perseverance in satisfying one's own interests, presented as the importance of the results;

On the horizontal axis - the degree of compliance in meeting the interests of other partners, represented as the importance of the relationship.

Thus, the minimum (zero) interest on both axes at the intersection point forms an avoidance (leaving) strategy; maximum on the vertical axis forms rivalry; horizontally - fixture; the combination of maximum interest on both axes ensures cooperation; and the middle position corresponds to a compromise.

According to this model, the following interpretation of behavioral strategies can be given:

Avoidance (withdrawal) is a reaction to the conflict, expressed in ignoring or actual denial of the conflict;

Rivalry (struggle) - the desire for dominance and, ultimately, to eliminate one of the parties to the conflict;

Adaptation - concessions to the opposite side in achieving its interests, up to their complete satisfaction and renunciation of their interests;

Cooperation is the desire to integrate the interests of all participants in the conflict. The content of the interests of each of the parties includes the satisfaction of the basic interests of the other party;

Compromise - mutual concessions; agreement to partially satisfy one's own interests in exchange for achieving the partial interests of the other party.

It seems to us that not all of the forms of behavior in a conflict situation presented in the Thomas model can be discussed as strategies. Thus, adaptation, avoidance, and mutual concessions are obviously characteristics of the process of interaction and do not contain goals associated with the actual contradiction. This allows us to classify them as tactics of behavior in a conflict, since they contribute not so much to resolution as to resolution, i.e. certain way of organizing the process. One can view these forms of behavior as reactive to the fact of the conflict as a whole, and not as the strategies of the participants implemented for resolution. We consider it important to emphasize that if there is no subject in the conflict that sets the goals of resolution, it is generally impossible to discuss the question of the strategic nature of behavior.

Thus, it is possible to characterize the model of K. Thomas from the point of view of two bases.

The first reason is the position of the one who says: "These are conflict resolution strategies." This is what an observer of typical pictures of the co-organization of actions, typical pictures of the conflict process, says, meaning that some pictures are better, while others are worse for resolving the issue. Note that this observer is indifferent to the content of the contradiction being resolved. He "is" outside the conflict, this is the position of the researcher of the determinants of "resolution".

It must be recognized that the possible attitudes of the participant to the procedural regulation of the conflict are described. These attitudes can be quite calmly considered regardless of the content of the activities of the conflicting parties. Indeed, cooperation is a general attitude towards the "resolution" process, in which it is necessary to strive for a joint investigation of the problem that connected the participants; adaptation - a setting in which a participant allows the interests of another to unfold while ignoring their own interests, etc.

The second reason is functional. In what practical contexts relating to conflict resolution does the observer speak of cooperation, competition, etc.? And what does this mean for the resolution itself?

One practical context is the discussion of researchers (observers) on the issue of conflict resolution strategies. For the resolution of a particular conflict, it does not mean anything, since it is aimed at producing good ideas on this issue. And this discussion could be absolutely useless if it were not for the question of which representations are good. There is reason to believe that those that contribute to the productive development of conflict activity are good. And, accordingly, they are used by people concerned about their conflict competence.

Another practical context is the resolution of a specific conflict. It is possible to say to all participants in the conflict: "It is better to cooperate than to compete, because the focus on cooperation contributes to a better resolution of the contradiction." If the parties to the conflict accept this attitude, then the resolution process has a chance of success.

Thus, knowledge about "Thomas' strategies" is introduced as a regulator of the conflict situation as a whole, the observer now acts as a consultant or mediator in relation to the conflict as a whole.

A case that differs from the above may be a consultation of one side, and therefore knowledge of "Thomas' strategies" may act as an element (basis) for a tactic or strategy for resolving one of the participants in the conflict.

The choice of strategy essentially depends on the time in which the work with the conflict should be carried out - in the past, present or future.

To work with a conflict that has already ended (taking into account the fact that completeness can only be an appearance, and the course of the conflict has turned into a latent form), psychotherapeutic strategies are most often used. Psychotherapy deals with the phenomenon of individual experience of an event that has already ended and is not subject to change in its factual material. The range of possible intervention is limited only by the mental state and personal attitude of the client (patient) to what happened.

This kind of involvement of a specialist or self-regulatory work exploits well-known in psychotherapy and counseling techniques of compensation, protection and is aimed at reducing poor health, restoring self-esteem, reacting to negative emotions, releasing feelings of guilt, etc. This approach can be used not only as a post-conflict approach, but also as a preliminary one, freeing up rational resources to deal with the current conflict. In this sense, such techniques should be considered as tactical in line with the strategy, which has as its goal the transition to working with forms of conflict behavior or with the material of the conflict itself. Apparently, in all other cases, psychotherapy cannot be considered as a strategic work aimed at resolving the conflict.

One of a great many therapeutic options, Positive Family Therapy describes the therapeutic process of dealing with conflict through the following four factors:

a) Empathetic understanding: In psychoanalysis this is known as empathy and transference/countertransference (Becmann D., 1974; 1978). This is controlled through the therapist's self-knowledge. He himself acts as a "patient" and confronts the reality of his own concepts.

b) Willingness to use the methods of positive family therapy: This means being able to think in terms of the content, concepts and models of positive psychotherapy and apply them flexibly, always focusing on the specific needs of the patient.

c) The use of other psycho- and sociotherapeutic methods that the therapist owns: any possibilities can be used here - from elements of the psychoanalytic procedure (Freud) and behavior modification techniques (Wolpe, 1962; Innerhofer, 1978), to methods of non-directive therapy (Rogers, 1962; Tausch, 1974), individual psychology (AdLer, 1947), gestalt therapy (Perls, 1951), transactional analysis (Berne, 1964; Harris, 1975) and so on.

d) Ecological thinking. It extends from individual therapy to community psychology. Family therapy is central.

Quite a few examples of a psychotherapeutic attitude to conflicts can be cited, but in any of them two circumstances are quite obvious:

First, any therapy has as its subject the experience of conflict, and this is its purpose;

Secondly, the therapeutic approach is intended only to help survive and weaken destructive functions; in the best cases, it can be used to increase the resources of experiencing.

Currently, options for working in the current, that is, the current conflict, are also actively developing, focused mainly on regulating relations between the conflicting parties. Research in this area and the practice of mediation already allow us to consider this approach not only as a preventive (preventing negative experiences) and therapeutic strategies, but also as a constructive one, which allows one to form attitudes towards the productive function of the conflict and create the prerequisites for its adequate resolution.

We consider it extremely important that mediation does not in any way pretend to be a conflict resolution strategy. This work is aimed at organizing a process leading to resolution, a process for which violent actions are unacceptable.

The peculiarities of mediation require a special discussion of this position as a fundamentally independent one, in no way identifying with, and even less so, identifying with any of the direct and immediate participants in the conflict.

The main goal of the mediator is a normal (as good as possible) exchange of predominantly verbal actions of the participants, figuratively speaking, to make the participants listen to each other and hear through the one who is in the middle (between them).

Thus, the object of ownership in the conflict for the mediator, unlike the participant, is not the subject and material of the conflict, but the formal side of the interaction, i.e. his organization.

Hence the specific activity aimed at registration-re-registration (or additional registration, re-registration) of the actions of the parties, in order to create an atmosphere of positive attention, which, in turn, is a condition for a possible agreement as a prerequisite for resolution.

The content (subject) of the conflict is developed by the conflicting parties themselves and is their property; it must be taboo for the mediator.

Therefore, the professional competence of the mediator also consists in carefully distinguishing between the material of the contradiction drawn into the conflict and the form of its retention, which may well be transformed in the minds of the participants into an independent (often replacing the actual) subject of the conflict.

When analyzing the positions of the parties in the conflict between the employer and the performers of the work, it was noted that the behavior of the representative of the employer is considered by the other party as one of the reasons for its tough position in the negotiations. Moreover, this behavior itself began to act as an independent subject of the conflict, which gradually "mixed" with the originally conditioned subject, namely the procedures and content of relations regarding the performance of transportation. It turned out that instead of analyzing the actual conditions for transporting products, delivering them to the recipient, the parties began not directly, but very intensely, to discuss the nature of the relationship between workers and the representative of the employer. Thus, the subject of negotiations threatened to be substituted.

The mediator was faced with the task of ensuring the separation of these items. But since both conflicts turned out to be quite significant, at least for one of the parties, it was important not to ignore this revealed subject in ensuring the organization of negotiations.

The mediator must be concerned about not letting the contradiction that gave rise to the conflict "leave" the participants or be replaced by another. However, the analytical work of the mediator and his conflictological competence often lead to the loss of the mediating position and the transition to the position of a one-sided consultant, or a representative replacing one of the parties.

In the first case, we will get a manipulative strategy in which initially a third party assumes the position of a real participant (identification or solidarity with one of the parties), and begins to work in its (sides) favor, but does not act in real relations, but works as if for behind the scenes of events, being a "director", manipulating the "actor"-participant.

Directly it looks like advice on how to proceed in any particular case. Moreover, the advice of an authoritative person, by virtue of his position and competence, as if taking responsibility for the consequences. This last circumstance often determines the behavior of the conflicting parties who seek advice. This is literally an attempt to shift the responsibility for the decision to a third party.

This strategy, questionable from a professional and ethical point of view, is often justified by the situational benefit of the participant. In practice, this approach is absolutely unfounded supposedly based on the client-centered paradigm of K. Rogers, according to which the consultant always acts, unconditionally accepting the position of the client.

In another case, the so-called intermediary implements a lawyer's strategy, i.e. literally replaces the side with which he identified (identified). In some American schools, such a position is directly practiced - the "children's lawyer", whose duties include protecting the rights of children and representing them on their behalf in the school administration. Something similar appears in recent years in the domestic school. In our opinion, such an experience deserves close attention and dissemination, but at the same time, it is important to take into account the fact that no one except the conflicting parties themselves is able to resolve their conflicts, including quite competent and empowered adults. And besides, let us specifically emphasize the great importance that the experience of productive independent conflict resolution has for a developing personality.

In both cases, we have a real rejection of mediation of the "cuckoo effect" type, no matter how the specialist himself or the apologists of such approaches call it. The appeal to such psychotechnical strategies is explicitly or implicitly provoked by the speculative idea of winning, winning in conflict. In itself, this idea, of course, is based on a conflict-phobic attitude and leads the conflict away from resolving the problem presented in it towards maintaining or improving the quality of self-relationship, which in itself is not bad if every win or victory did not imply the presence of a loser, a loser. Even in an interpersonal conflict, such a strategy is very unpromising, not to mention intrapersonal.

Thus, the psychotechnics of mediation is implemented within the framework of a strategy that can be called constructively regulating. This strategy does not claim to be resolved as a necessary result, but is its condition. To implement a constructively resolving strategy, the conflict should be considered in a time continuum from the future to the present.

Such a strategy is most typical for solving the problems of education. However, in recent years, this kind of approach has begun to be actively exploited in new management paradigms.

Proponents of this approach quite rightly, in our opinion, argue that only those firms, no matter what business they are engaged in, that are systematically engaged in the education of their own personnel, have serious development prospects.

Most effective learning, especially for adults, is the product of an ever-renewing cycle of experiences that people have directly in the workplace.

Genuine learning, experts insist, goes something like this:

We have concrete, workplace experience;

We reflect on this experience, trying to understand what is happening and why;

Based on our experience, we develop concepts and generalizations;

We test our concepts and generalizations empirically.

Then the cycle repeats, like a new turn of the wheel.

Learning is a characteristic of an activity that involves such behavior in new situations, which leads to the emergence of new knowledge, new experience, new ways of acting.

This means that the conflict can be considered an attributive characteristic of the educational process, since the cognizable material always requires special overcoming efforts to master. After all, only such an object (subject) arouses interest and appropriate attention, which to some extent presents a difficulty, otherwise it is simply invisible. In other words, only that which resists can serve as a support. It is curious that the very word "resistance" as a specific sign reflects both connection and opposition.

Therefore, in order to ensure a productive educational process, a special construction of the conflict is necessary, which phenomenally represents a situation of a gap in cognitive activity, in which the resistance of the material raises a question for the subject of the doctrine, i.e. to himself, regarding the missing resource for mastering the "resisting material".

It must be specially emphasized once again that if a question posed from outside by a teacher or someone else with a teaching purpose is not translated by those to whom it is asked into a question to oneself, it is unlikely that the answer to it will serve educational purposes. Each teacher can give many examples when knowledge of the correct answers did not lead either to the formation of experience or to the emergence of new abilities.

The conditions for the implementation of a constructive-permissive psychotechnical strategy are as follows:

the idea of the material as a potentially holistic, complete; at the same time, the presence in the actual situation of partiality, insufficiency, incompleteness, discontinuity of the material;

The idea of the possibility of completion, giving integrity;

Need, the need to carry out actions to complete, "heal";

· the idea of the multiplicity of material and the possible simultaneous existence of many discontinuities;

· an idea of different resource opportunities, including the missing resource, the availability of choice;

· the possibility of evaluating different "achievement scenarios" and the assumption of integration, synthesis of different scenarios, i.e. not opposing them, but juxtaposition.

In our opinion, conflict resolution activities must necessarily be based on precisely such grounds. Compliance with the above conditions constitutes the criteria for competence and ensures the strategic nature of work with conflicts.

The strategy of behavior in a conflict is the orientation of a person (group) in relation to the conflict, the installation on certain forms of behavior in a conflict situation.

Created with the aim of improving the management of affairs in production and in business, the “management grid” has been successfully interpreted to distinguish between strategies for behavior in conflict.

Rivalry (competition) consists in imposing a beneficial decision on the other side. Cooperation (problem-solving strategy) involves the search for a solution that would satisfy both parties. Compromise involves mutual concessions in something important and fundamental for each of the parties. The application of the adaptation (concession) strategy is based on reducing one's own requirements and accepting the opponent's position. To avoid (inaction), the participant is in a situation of conflict, but without any active actions with his permission.

As a rule, combinations of strategies are used in conflict, sometimes one of them dominates. For example, in a significant part of vertical conflicts, depending on changing circumstances, opponents change their strategy of behavior, and subordinates do this one and a half times more often than leaders - 71% and 46%, respectively. Sometimes the conflict begins with cooperative behavior, but in case of failure, rivalry begins, which may be ineffective. Then again there is a return to cooperation, which leads to a successful resolution of the conflict.

Rivalry is the most commonly used strategy. Opponents try to achieve their goals in this way in more than 90% of conflicts. Yes, this is understandable. Actually, the conflict consists in confrontation, suppression of the opponent. Therefore, a person or group goes into conflict, since it is not possible to agree with the opponent in other ways.

During the period of open development of the conflict, use this strategy, especially during its escalation. In pre-conflict situations and during the end of the conflict, the range of means of influencing the opponent expands. However, in general, strategies such as compromise, avoidance, and adaptations are used several times less frequently than rivalry and cooperation (only in 2-3% of situations).

If it is impossible to prevent the conflict, the task of its regulation arises, i.e. management of its course with the aim of the most optimal resolution of contradictions.

Competent management of the course of conflict interactions involves the choice of a strategy for such behavior, which will be used to end the conflict.

There are three main strategies that are used in conflict management:

Win-lose strategy (violence or firm approach). It is characterized by the desire of one side to suppress the other. In the case of using this behavior option, one participant in the conflict becomes the winner, and the other loses. Such a strategy rarely has a lasting effect, because the defeated one is likely to hide his image and not support the decision made. As a result, after some time, the conflict may flare up again. In individual cases, when a person in authority must clean up the mess for the sake of the common good, the use of this strategy is appropriate;

Lose-lose strategy. The conflicting side deliberately loses, but at the same time forces the other side to fail. Loss can be partial. In this case, the parties act in accordance with the saying: "Half is better than none";

Win-win strategy. The conflicting party strives for such a way out of the conflict in order to satisfy each of the participants. Australian experts in the field of conflictology H. Cornelius and S. Fair developed in detail the conflict resolution technology using the "win-win" strategy and identified four stages of its use. At the first stage, it is necessary to establish what the need is behind the desires of the other side, at the second - to determine whether differences in any aspect are compensated, at the third stage it is necessary to develop new solutions that are most suitable for both parties, and at the last stage, subject to the cooperation of the parties, decide together conflict problems.

The use of the "win-win" strategy is possible only if the participants recognize each other's values as their own, treat each other with respect, if they see the problem first of all, and not the personal shortcomings of the opponents.

The win-win strategy turns the participants in the conflict into partners. The advantage of this strategy is that it is quite ethical and at the same time effective.

In addition to the three main strategies described above, there is also an additional strategy, when a person consciously agrees to make concessions or lose, i.e. selects the position of the victim. This variant of behavior is possible in relations with people who are dear to the participant in the conflict and who do not want to hurt with their winnings.

Tactical techniques for resolving conflict contradictions

Tactics (from the Greek. Tasso - “lines up troops”) is a set of methods of influencing an opponent, means of implementing a strategy. The same tactic can be used for different strategies. Yes, threat or pressure, considered as destructive actions, can be used in case of unwillingness or inability of one of the parties to go beyond certain boundaries. Tactics are hard, neutral and soft. In conflicts, the use of tactics usually moves from soft to harder. Of course, there is also a sharp, sudden use of harsh methods against an opponent (for example, a surprise attack, the start of a war, etc.). In addition, there are rational (fixing one's position, friendliness, sanctions) and irrational (pressure, psychological violence) tactics.

There are the following types of tactics to influence the opponent:

Tactics of capturing and holding the object of the conflict. It is used in conflicts where the object is material. It can be both interpersonal conflicts (for example, masterful settlement in an apartment), and inter-group (interstate). For conflicts between groups and states, such tactics are often a complex activity that consists of a number of stages and includes political, military, economic and other means; tactics of physical violence. Such techniques are used as the destruction of material values, physical impact, infliction of bodily harm (up to murder), blocking someone else's activity, causing pain, etc.;

Tactics of psychological violence. This tactic offends the opponent, offends self-esteem, dignity and honor. Its manifestations: humiliation, rudeness, offensive gestures, negative personal assessment, discriminatory measures, slander, disinformation, deceit, strict control over behavior and activities, dictate in interpersonal relationships. Often (more than 40%) is used in interpersonal conflicts;

pressure tactics. The range of techniques includes putting forward demands, instructions, orders, threats, up to an ultimatum, presentation of compromising evidence, blackmail. In vertical conflicts, two of the three situations apply;

Demonstrative tactics. It is used to attract the attention of others to their person. These can be public statements and complaints about the state of health, absence from work, a deliberately unsuccessful suicide attempt, obligations that are not canceled (indefinite hunger strikes, blocking railways, highways, using banners, posters, slogans, etc.);

Validation. Influencing the opponent with the help of a penalty, increasing the workload, imposing a ban, establishing blockades, failure to comply with orders under any pretext, open refusal to execute;

coalition tactics. The goal is to strengthen their position in the conflict. It is expressed in the creation of unions, an increase in the support group at the expense of leaders, the public, friends, relatives, appeals to the media, various authorities. Used in over a third of conflicts; the tactic of fixing one's position is the most commonly used tactic (in 75-80% of conflicts. It is based on the use of facts, logic to confirm one's position. These are persuasion, requests, criticism, making suggestions, etc.;

Friendly tactics. It involves correct treatment, emphasizing the general, demonstrating a willingness to solve a problem, providing the necessary information, offering help, providing a service, an apology, encouragement; agreement tactics. Provides for the exchange of benefits, promises, concessions, apologies.

The collected strategies of behavior determine the choice of appropriate tactics: conflict resolution, taking into account the essence of disagreements. This tactic is used if the participants in the conflict have not identified its real cause, focusing on leading to a conflict clash. In this case, it is necessary to establish an objective (business) conflict zone and find out the subjective motives of the parties in conflict; resolve the conflict according to its purpose. Often, the opposition of goals is not connected with their content, but with an insufficient understanding of the rational moment of the conflict. Therefore, conflict resolution should begin with specifying the goals of the opponents.

Conflict resolution taking into account emotional state sides. The main task in the case of using this tactic is to reduce the degree of emotional tension. It must be understood that uncontrolled emotions are detrimental to each side. The solution of the conflict, taking into account the personal traits of its participants. In this case, first of all, one should focus on the psychological characteristics of individuals, evaluating their balance, suggestiveness, type of character, temperament, etc. Solutions to the conflict, taking into account its possible consequences (complete reconciliation of the parties, the gradual fading of the conflict, its mechanical termination, for example, the disbandment of the department, etc.).

The use of appropriate strategies and tactics leads to the elimination of conflict contradictions.

Conflict resolution options are as follows:

Full resolution of the conflict at an objective level (for example, providing the parties with scarce resources, the absence of which led to the conflict);

Complete resolution of the conflict at the subjective level by radically changing the conflict situation;

Tactfully resolving the conflict at an objective level through the transformation of an objective conflict situation in the direction of creating disinterest in conflict actions;

It is tactful to resolve conflicts at the subjective level as a result of a limited, but quite sufficient for a temporary cessation of disagreements, a change in the images of the conflict situation.

Each specific situation requires the use of appropriate strategies and tactics that meet the goals and objectives. The choice of the optimal line of conduct for the participants in the conflict interaction will allow them to get out of the situation with the least losses and with the benefit of each other.

conformism[from lat. conformis- similar, consistent] - a manifestation of the activity of the individual, which is distinguished by the implementation of a distinctly adaptive reaction to group pressure (more precisely, to the pressure of the majority of group members) in order to avoid negative sanctions - censure or punishment for demonstrating disagreement with the generally accepted and generally proclaimed opinion and desire not to look different than everyone else. In a certain sense, such a conformal reaction to group pressure is demonstrated by quite a few big number people who are at the first stage of entering the reference group - at the stage of adaptation - and solving a personally significant task "to be and, most importantly, to seem like everyone else."

Conformity is especially clearly manifested in the conditions of a totalitarian social system, when a person is afraid to oppose himself to the ruling elite and the majority subordinate to it, fearing not just psychological pressure, but real repressions and threats to his physical existence. At the personal level, conformism is most often expressed as such a personal characteristic, which in social psychology traditionally referred to as conformity, i.e. the willingness of the individual to succumb to both real and only perceived as such pressure of the group, if not the desire, then, in any case, the predisposition to change their position and vision due to the fact that they do not coincide with the majority opinion.

It is clear that in some cases such “compliance” may be associated with a real revision of one’s positions, and in another, only with the desire, at least at the external, behavioral level, to avoid opposing oneself to a particular community, fraught with negative sanctions, be it a small or large group.

Thus, it is traditionally customary to talk about external and internal conformity. Classical experiments according to the scheme proposed and implemented by S. Asch, being aimed primarily at studying external conformity, showed that its presence or absence, as well as the degree of severity, are influenced by the individual psychological characteristics of the individual, his status, role, gender and age characteristics, etc. etc., the socio-psychological specificity of the community (in the framework of classical experiments, this group is dummy), the significance of a particular group for the subject, whose propensity for conformal reactions was studied, as well as the personal significance for him of the discussed and solved problems and the level of competence as the subject himself, and members of a particular community. Along with the above-mentioned experiments of S. Asch, the experiments of M. Sheriff and S. Milgram are usually referred to as classical studies of conformity in social psychology. An experimental test of how far a person is ready to go, acting contrary to his beliefs and attitudes under the pressure of the group, was carried out by S. Milgram.

To do this, his classic experiment was modified as follows: “In the basic experimental situation, a team of three people (two of them are dummy subjects) tests the fourth person on a test of paired associations. Whenever the fourth member gives a wrong answer, the team will punish him with an electric shock.” At the same time, the participants in the experiment receive the following instruction from the leader: “Teachers independently determine which blow to punish the student for a mistake. Each of you makes a suggestion, and then you punish the student with the weakest of the blows offered to you. In order for the experiment to be organized, make your proposals in order. First, the first teacher makes a proposal, then the second, and the third teacher makes his proposal last.

Thus, the role played by the naive subject gives him a real opportunity to prevent the toughening of punishment - for example, he can offer to punish the student with a shock of 15 volts throughout the experiment. and they are the first to give their opinion. In parallel, a control experiment was carried out, in which group pressure was excluded. The subject single-handedly decided with what category the “student” should be punished for the wrong answer. According to S. Milgram, “the study involved 80 men aged 20 to 50; the experimental and control groups consisted of an equal number of participants and were identical in age and professional composition.

The experiment clearly demonstrated that group pressure exerted a significant influence on the behavior of the subjects under experimental conditions. Main result this study consists in demonstrating the fact that the group is capable of shaping the behavior of the individual in an area that was thought to be extremely resistant to such influences. Following the lead of the group, the subject inflicts pain on another person, punishing him with electric shocks, the intensity of which far exceeds the intensity of the shocks applied in the absence of social pressure. We assumed that the protests of the victim and the internal inhibitions that exist in a person to inflict pain on another would become factors that effectively counter the tendency to submit to group pressure.

However, despite the wide range of individual differences in the behavior of the subjects, we can say that a significant number of subjects readily submitted to the pressure of dummy subjects. Real life provides no less impressive examples of the manifestation of conformism. As D. Myers notes, “in everyday life, our suggestibility is sometimes amazing. In late March 1954, Seattle newspapers reported on auto glass damage in a town 80 miles to the north. On the morning of April 14, similar windshield damage was reported 65 miles from Seattle, and the next day, just 45 miles away. In the evening, an incomprehensible force that destroys windshields reached Seattle. By midnight April 15, the police department had received over 3,000 reports of broken windows.

That same night, the mayor of the city turned to President Eisenhower for help. … However, on April 16, the newspapers hinted that mass suggestion might be the true culprit. After 17 April, no more complaints were received. Later analysis of the shattered glass showed that these were normal road damages. Why did we pay attention to these damages only after April 14? We succumbed to suggestion, we gazed on the our windshields, not through them.” A not so large-scale, but, perhaps, even more striking example of conformism from his own life is given by the famous English writer J. Orwell. This incident took place in Lower Burma, where Orwell served as an officer in the English colonial police.

As J. Orwell writes, by the time of the events described, "... I came to the conclusion that imperialism is evil, and the sooner I say goodbye to my service and leave, the better it will be." One day, Orwell was called to the local market, where, according to the Burmese, everything is crushed by an elephant that has broken the chain, which has begun the so-called “hunting period”. Arriving at the market, he did not find any elephant. A dozen onlookers pointed out a dozen different directions in which the elephant had disappeared. Orwell was about to go home when heart-rending screams suddenly rang out. It turned out that the elephant was still there and, moreover, crushed a local resident who turned up inopportunely. As J. Orwell writes, “as soon as I saw the deceased, I sent an orderly to the house of my friend who lived nearby, for a gun for hunting elephants.

The orderly appeared a few minutes later, carrying a gun and five cartridges, and in the meantime the Germans approached and said that the elephant was in the rice fields nearby ... When I walked in that direction, probably all the inhabitants poured out of their houses and followed me. They saw the gun and excitedly shouted that I was going to kill the elephant. They didn't show much interest in the elephant when it was destroying their houses, but now that it was about to be killed, things were different. It was entertainment for them, as it would have been for the English crowd; in addition, they counted on meat. All this drove me crazy. I did not want to kill the elephant - I sent for a gun, first of all, for self-defense ... The elephant stood about eight yards from the road, turning his left side to us. He pulled out grass in bunches, hit it on his knee to shake off the ground, and sent it into his mouth.

When I saw the elephant, I clearly realized that I did not need to kill him. Shooting a working elephant is serious business; it's like destroying a huge, expensive machine. From a distance, the elephant, peacefully chewing grass, looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then, and think now, that his urge to hunt was already passing; he will wander without harming anyone until the mahout (driver) returns and catches him. And I didn't want to kill him. I decided that I would keep an eye on him for a while, to make sure he didn't go crazy again, and then I'd go home. But at that moment I looked back and looked at the crowd that was following me. The crowd was huge, at least two thousand people, and everyone was coming. I looked at a sea of yellow faces over bright robes. They followed me like a magician who has to show them a trick. They didn't love me. But with a gun in hand, I received their close attention. And suddenly I realized that I still have to kill the elephant. This was expected of me, and I was obliged to do it; I felt two thousand wills pushing me irresistibly forward.

It was very clear to me what I had to do. I should approach the elephant and see how he reacts. If he shows aggressiveness, I will have to shoot, if he does not pay attention to me, then it is quite possible to wait for the mahout to return. And yet, I knew it wouldn't happen. I was a poor shooter. If the elephant lunges at me and I miss, I have as much chance as a toad under a steamroller. But even then, I thought not so much about my own skin, but about the yellow faces watching me. Because at that moment, feeling the eyes of the crowd on me, I did not feel fear in the usual sense of the word, as if I were alone. A white man should not feel fear in front of the "natives", so he is generally fearless. The only thought circling in my mind was that if anything went wrong, these two thousand Burmese would see me fleeing, knocked down, trampled.

And if this happens, then it is possible that some of them will laugh. This shouldn't happen. There is only one alternative. I loaded the cartridge into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim." The above passage is interesting primarily because the situation of subordination to group influence is vividly described not from the position of an external observer, which is almost always the experimenter, but from within, from the position of the object of this influence. The power of such an impact is literally amazing. Indeed, there are no signs of cognitive dissonance in the perception of the situation described by the protagonist. Both rational (absence of signs of aggression in the elephant's behavior, its high cost, obvious catastrophic consequences of a possible unsuccessful shot of an "unimportant shooter"), and emotional (pity for the elephant, irritation against the crowd, and finally, natural fears for one's own life) aspects of J. Orwell pushed him towards personal self-determination and appropriate behavior.

It should also be taken into account that the biography and work of the writer do not give any reason to suspect him of a tendency to conformism, rather, on the contrary. Apparently, the fact that in the situation under consideration the person was subjected to the simultaneous influence of, in fact, two groups - direct, from the native crowd, and implicitly - from the white minority to which he belonged. At the same time, both the expectations of the crowd and the attitudes of the white minority about how an officer should act in a given situation completely coincided. However, both of these groups, as follows from the above passage, did not enjoy the sympathy of J. Orwell, and their beliefs, traditions, prejudices were by no means shared by him. Yet J. Orwell shot the elephant.

Something similar can be observed in much more horrifying examples of participation in genocide and other crimes of totalitarian regimes by the most ordinary people who are by no means bloodthirsty by nature and who are not at all convinced adherents of racial, class and other similar theories. As D. Myers notes, the employees of the punitive battalion, which destroyed about 40,000 women, the elderly and children in the Warsaw ghetto, “... were neither Nazis, nor members of the SS, nor fanatics of fascism. They were workers, merchants, employees and artisans - family people, too old to serve in the army, but not able to resist a direct order to kill.

Thus, the problem of conformism is highly significant not only in relation to the relationship of the individual and relative to the local group (study, work, etc.), but also in a much broader social context. At the same time, as is clearly seen in the example from the story of George Orwell, conformity is the result of the action of a multitude of both socio-psychological and other variables, which is why identifying the causes of conformal behavior and predicting it is a rather difficult research task.

Nonconformism[from lat. non- no, no and conformis- similar, consistent] - readiness, in spite of any circumstances, to act contrary to the opinion and position of the prevailing majority of the community, to defend the opposite point of view. Regardless of the fact that such behavior is assessed by many researchers as fundamentally different from conformal behavior, in a psychologically essential sense, this form of personal activity is not only close, but, in fact, identical to manifestations of conformism, since in both cases one can speak with almost complete certainty about dependence of the individual on group pressure, on his subordination to the majority.

Seeming independence in the manifestation of nonconformity is nothing more than an illusion. Since it is not the person himself who makes the decision in a situation of uncertainty, his reaction to group pressure is still dependent, regardless of whether the activity is carried out in the logic of "yes" or in the logic of "no". Thus, the term "non-conformism", being, in fact, a synonym for the term "negativism", in an essentially psychological sense does not act as an antonym to the concept of "conformism", but characterizes the psychological reality described in social psychology as non-conformism and conformism, which opposite to what is assessed as a manifestation of the socio-psychological phenomenon of self-determination of the individual in the group.

At the same time, it should be noted that despite the fact that in the framework of the classical experimental formula of S. Asch, on average, about 8% of the subjects show a tendency to nonconformity behavior, there is hardly any reason to believe that such a significant number of people are those who are characterized by nonconformity as a stable personal trait. quality. Rather, it makes sense to assume that about a third of the subjects demonstrating conformal reactions, and almost every tenth of the subjects demonstrating a nonconformal reaction, do not have a stably fixed ability to defend their own personal position under conditions of experimentally specified group pressure, which means, most likely, are not integrated into their reference groups of a high socio-psychological level of development.

As already mentioned above, conformism is quite organically manifested by those members of a really functioning group who, being at the stage of adaptation, solve the personal task of “being like everyone else” as a paramount one, and nonconformism (negativism) is just as naturally realized by members of the group who, being at the stage of individualization, as a solution to their priority personal task, they strive to "be different from everyone else."

The fact that non-conformism is not the opposite of conformism, but rather its reverse side, so to speak, "the wrong side", was partially confirmed in a modified version of S. Milgram's experiment aimed at studying conformity.

social interaction

Social interaction- a system of interdependent social actions associated with cyclic dependence, in which the action of one subject is both the cause and effect of the response actions of other subjects. It is related to the concept of “social action”, which is the starting point for the formation of social ties. Social interaction as a way of implementing social ties and relationships presupposes the presence of at least two subjects, the process of interaction itself, as well as the conditions and factors for its implementation. In the course of interaction, the formation and development of the individual, the social system, their change in the social structure of society, etc. take place.

Social interaction includes the transfer of action from one social actor to another, the receipt and reaction to it in the form of a response action, as well as the resumption of the actions of social actors. It has a social meaning for the participants and involves the exchange of their actions in the future due to the presence in it of a special causality - social relation. Social relations are formed in the process of interaction between people and are the result of their past interactions that have acquired a stable social form. Social interactions, unlike them, are not “frozen” social forms, but “living” social practices of people that are conditioned, directed, structured, regulated by social relations, but are able to influence these social forms and change them.

Social interaction is determined by the social statuses and roles of the individual and social groups. It has an objective and a subjective side:

objective side- factors that are independent of interacting, but influencing them.
Subjective side- the conscious attitude of individuals to each other in the process of interaction, based on mutual expectations.

Classification of social interaction

Primary, secondary (ideological, religious, moral)
By the number of participants: the interaction of two people; one person and a group of people; between two groups
Multinational
Between people of different incomes, etc.

Notes

Social interaction in society

Only in this case will they constitute a social phenomenon; only in this case will their relationships give rise to social processes, only in this case will they create their interactions not studied by other disciplines.

Consequently, the model of a social group should be only two or more individuals interacting with each other. The model of social processes can only be the processes of interaction between individuals; only the phenomena of human interaction can be a model of social phenomena

The family can serve as a model for a number of social relations, but not all; we know that a number of social groups, even most of the latter, are not formed on a family basis and have nothing to do with the family. A gathering of friends, a gathering of believers, a political party, members of a learned society, and many other associations are non-family associations.

Therefore, you can not take the family as a model all social groups, interaction between family members - as a model of any social interaction. The family represents only a particular type of generic phenomenon - a group of interacting individuals.

All public life and all social processes can be decomposed into phenomena and processes of interaction between two or more individuals; and vice versa, by combining various processes of interaction, we can get any, the most complex of the most complex social process, any social event, ranging from the passion for tango and futurism and ending with the world war and revolutions.

All social relations break down into relations of interaction, beginning with relations of production and economics and ending with aesthetic, religious, legal and scientific relations.

Shortly speaking - the interaction of two or more individuals is a generic concept of social phenomena; it can serve as a model for the latter. By studying the structure of this model, we can also understand the structure of all social phenomena. Having decomposed the interaction into its component parts, we will thereby decompose the most complex social phenomena into parts.

⇐ PreviousPage 3 of 5Next ⇒

In their life, all people constantly interact with each other. The personality of any person is a set of those social qualities, which were formed and developed in certain networks of interpersonal interactions. Communicating with peers, acquaintances, relatives, with random fellow travelers, each person carries out certain social interactions.

Give examples of social interactions based on your life experience.

In the process of interaction is made:

1) people's perception of each other;

2) mutual evaluation of each other;

3) joint action - cooperation, rivalry, conflict, etc.

social interaction is a system of socially conditioned individual or group actions connected by mutual causal dependence, in which the behavior of one of the participants is both a stimulus and a reaction to the behavior of the others.

The main signs of interaction:

objectivity - the presence of an external in relation to interacting individuals or groups of goals, reasons, objects, etc., which encourage them to interact;

situationality - a fairly strict regulation of interaction with the specific conditions of the situation in which this process takes place: the behavior of friends at work, in the theater, at the stadium, at a country picnic is significantly different;

Explication - accessibility for an outside observer of the external expression of the interaction process, whether it is studying at a college, playing or dancing.

Reflective ambiguity - the ability for interaction to be a manifestation of both the main subjective intentions, and an unconscious or conscious consequence of the joint participation of people in interindividual or group activities (for example, joint study).

Parties and types of social interaction

Two sides of the interaction process

The social mechanism of interaction is rather complicated.

In the simplest case, it includes the following Components:

1) individuals or their groups performing certain actions in relation to each other;

2) changes in the external world, made by these actions;

3) changes in inner world individuals participating in the interaction (in their thoughts, feelings, assessments, aspirations, etc.);

4) the impact of these changes on other individuals;

5) the back reaction of the latter to such influence.

Give examples from history where all the components of the social mechanism of interaction would appear.

AT real life there is an extremely wide variety of interactions. But in this diversity stand out two main types of interaction:

1) cooperation,

2) rivalry.

Explain these types of interaction.

The variety of social interactions from the point of view of the subjects of these processes and the scale of the latter are divided into five main types:

I. interpersonal,

II. intragroup,

III. intergroup,

IV. intrasystem,

v. intersystem.

I. B interpersonal interactions processes of perception, expectation, fulfillment of words, promises, actions, roles, etc. are carried out. two, three, four interacting individuals, their mutual assessment, response in the form of appropriate actions.

Give examples from your life experience.

II. The processes are even more complex. intragroup interactions. Along with the listed elements of interpersonal interactions, they include five more types of interactions:

1. status-positional,

2. value-normative,

3. cohesion (integration),

4. disintegration,

5. leadership and decision making.

Give examples from your life experience.

Intergroup interaction is even more complicated and includes in full the elements of interpersonal and intragroup interaction. But all these elements are reinforced by other types of assistance or opposition that are characteristic of the relationship between different social groups. This includes the following types of interactions:

1. cooperation,

2. assimilation,

3. fixture,

4. neutrality,

5. rivalry,

6. conflict,

7. suppression.

IV. Intrasystem interactions rise to the next, even more complicated stage of versatility. This includes components of interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup interactions. But they all begin to group around several types of interactions that are specific to the social system. They are:

— emergence (irreducibility of the integrity of the system to the sum of its parts);

- operational isolation (determined by the functioning of the system by its internal states);

- self-reflexivity (inclusion of oneself in the subject of consideration);

— integration;

- differentiation,

- disorganization;

— chaotization;

- ordering (the formation of order from chaos).

V . Intersystem interactions become even more diverse and complex. They include components of all previously considered types of interactions. However, these processes are supplemented and transformed by new transformational processes that are characteristic only for intersystem objects. One of the most significant in this set of interactions is the process of globalization.

Under the influence of what processes of a global nature, intersystem interactions are formed in the modern world community of states?

Task: perform a syncwine with the words "action" or "interaction".

Theme of the lesson number 12

Social statuses and roles

Questions and tasks for repetition

1. What is social activity?

2. Name the functions of social activity and give examples.

3. What is social interaction? Why does it play an important role in the development of the individual and society?

4. What are the main signs of interaction.

5. List the types of social interactions.

6. Tell us what elements are included in the structure of intragroup interactions.

7. Give a description of those components, the totality of which is characteristic of intergroup interactions. Name which of these components are specific to of this type interactions.

8. Describe the structural components of intrasystem interactions. Which of these components are system-forming in this case, i.e. specific to the social system?

9. Under the influence of what processes of a global nature are intersystem interactions taking shape in the modern world community of states?

Plan

social interaction

The concept and types of social statuses

2. Social and role identification

Do you agree that each individual has a certain place or position in society?

Have you heard the expressions "this person is not of our circle", or

"She's not a match for him"?

How often do marriages occur between a man worker and a woman minister, a man teacher and a woman dishwasher? Why?

Social status - the position occupied by a person in society, associated with certain rights and obligations. The concept of social status characterizes the place of the individual in the social structure of society.

Assessment of the activity of the individual by society is expressed:

- prestige; - salary;

- privileges; - awards, title, fame

Try to determine how many statuses a person can have?

status set- a set of statuses that characterize this person.

Main status- this is the one that determines the installation and orientation of the individual, the content and nature of its activities.

Name your main status, mine, E. Petrosyan, A. Pugacheva, Beethoven, Maradona, Aristotle ...

personal status differs from the social in that the position occupied by a person is determined by the individual qualities of the individual (kindness, responsiveness).

Prescribed status - this is the one , which the individual occupies regardless of his desire, will, efforts (gender, nationality, race).

Achieved status is the reward of the individual for his efforts, perseverance, will to achieve the goal (professor, world champion).

What do you think is better for a person, low or high self-esteem?

Assessing the personality of one's status

Do you consider social status permanent or dynamic? Explain your point of view.

Each individual in his life strives to maintain or improve his social status, although objectively it can go down. The more democratic a society is, the less important the prescribed statuses are in it, determined by social origin, nationality or gender, the greater the role played in it by the achieved statuses, which are the result of a high level of education, competence, professionalism, purposeful activity of the individual, his successes and merit.

⇐ Previous12345Next ⇒

Social interaction: forms, types and spheres

Interaction- this is the process of influence of people and groups on each other, in which each action is conditioned both by the previous action and the expected result from the other

Any social interaction has four characteristics:

§ it subject, i.e. always has a purpose or cause that is external to the interacting groups or people;

§ it outwardly expressed, and therefore available for observation; This feature is due to the fact that interaction always involves character exchange, signs that deciphered by the opposite side;

§ it situationally,t. e. usually tied to some specific situations to the conditions of the course (for example, meeting friends or taking an exam);

§ it expresses subjective intentions of participants.

I would like to emphasize that interaction is always communication. However, interaction should not be identified with ordinary communication, i.e., messaging. This is a much broader concept, since it involves not only the direct exchange of information, but also an indirect exchange of meanings. Indeed, two people may not speak a word and not seek to communicate anything to each other by other means, but the very fact that one can observe the actions of the other, and the other knows about it, makes any of their activity a social interaction. If people perform in front of each other some actions that can be (and will certainly be) somehow interpreted by the opposite side, then they are already exchanging meanings. A person who is alone will behave a little differently than a person who is in the company of other people.

Consequently, social interaction characterized by such a feature as Feedback. Feedback suggests the presence of a reaction. However, this reaction may not follow, but it is always expected, admitted as probable, possible.

Depending on how contact is made between interacting people or groups, there are four main types of social interaction:

§ physical;

§ verbal, or verbal;

§ non-verbal (facial expressions, gestures);

§ mental, which is expressed only in inner speech.

Social interaction is possible in any sphere of society.

Therefore, we can give the following typology of social interaction by spheres:

§ economic (individuals act as owners and employees);

§ political (individuals oppose or cooperate as representatives of political parties, social movements, and also as subjects of state power);

§ professional (individuals participate as representatives of different professions);

§ demographic (including contacts between representatives of different sexes, ages, nationalities and races);

§ family-related;

§ territorial-settlement (there is a clash, cooperation, competition between local and newcomers, permanent and temporary residents, etc.);

§ religious (implies contacts between representatives of different religions, as well as believers and atheists).

There are three main forms of interaction:

§ cooperation - cooperation of individuals to solve a common problem;

§ competition - individual or group struggle for the possession of scarce values (benefits);

§ conflict - a hidden or open clash of competing parties.

Forms of mass behavior

Mass behavior is a spontaneous reaction of people to a social situation that affects their interests. The forms of mass behavior include the actions of the crowd and the human masses, panic, pogroms, riots, riots, etc.

Sociological studies of these issues began with the development of the theory of the crowd. The concept of the French social psychologist and sociologist G. Lebon (1841–1931) received the greatest fame in this area.

SOCIAL INTERACTION

In accordance with this concept, the crowd has its own collective psyche, in which, as it were, the psyche of individual people dissolves.

The crowd often becomes an object of manipulation by extremist parties and organizations that use unconscious irrational motivational mechanisms of participants in mass actions.

A slightly different type of mass behavior is represented by social movements, which are commonly understood as collective actions that promote or hinder social change.

The diversity of social movements allows them to be classified according to the most different criteria. In their direction, social movements can be progressive and regressive. The former are turned to the future, contribute to changes in society, the formation of new values, norms, institutions; the latter appeal to the past, advocate a return to the old orders, traditions, beliefs (for example, monarchical movements, various religious movements).

According to the scale of the proposed changes, social movements are divided into reformist and revolutionary. Reformist social movements advocate a gradual change in the existing social system and do not provide for a radical transformation of the basic institutional structures. Revolutionary social movements strive for a radical transformation of society, its political system and system of ideological values.

Social movements also differ in their level: 1) mass movements with global goals (for example, movements for the protection environment, against nuclear testing, arms race, etc.); 2) regional movements limited to a certain territory (for example, the movement against the use of the landfill in Semipalatinsk); 3) local movements pursuing specific pragmatic goals (for example, a movement to remove one of the members of the local administration).

In a broader historical context, sociologists distinguish utopian movements aimed at building a perfect society. The communes of the English theorist of utopian socialism R. Owen, the phalanxes of the followers of the French utopian C. Fourier and other similar experiments existed for a short time and fell apart due to internal contradictions and conflicts with the external environment. The same fate, as a rule, is destined for today's communes, which are trying to implement alternative lifestyle models.

Thus, in modern society, the widest range of social movements is represented. Their significance is determined by their unique contribution to the development of civil society (6.8). As the famous Polish sociologist P. Sztompka emphasizes, a society that wants to use all its creative potential must not only allow, but also encourage social movements. If society suppresses social movements, then it destroys its own mechanism of self-improvement and self-development.

⇐ Previous3456789101112Next ⇒

Related information:

Site search:

Types of social interactions: 1) rigid exchange (exchange on the basis of certain agreements (most often in the economic sphere, in the relationship of the head-subordinate, in political life)); 2) diffuse (non-rigid) exchange (mainly in moral and ethical interactions: friendship, neighborhood, relationships between parents and children, partnership); 3) direct-indirect interactions (direct - direct (two-way) interactions between individuals, indirect - complex, mediated through 3-4 persons (in modern society, indirect interactions prevail)); 4) individual-group interactions (individual-individual, individual-group, group-group).

Social interaction is the mutual influence of various spheres, phenomena and processes of social life, carried out through social activities. It takes place both between separate objects (external interaction) and within a separate object, between its elements (internal interaction).

Interaction usually leads to the formation of new social relations. The latter can be represented as relatively stable and independent links between individuals and social groups.

In sociology, the concepts of "social structure" and "social system" are closely related. A social system is a set of social phenomena and processes that are in relationships and connections with each other and form some integral social object. Separate phenomena and processes act as elements of the system.

Social interaction and its features

The concept of "social structure" is part of the concept of a social system and combines two components - social composition and social ties. Social composition is a set of elements that make up a given structure. The second component is a set of connections of these elements. Thus, the concept of social structure includes, on the one hand, the social composition, or the totality of various types of social communities as the system-forming social elements of society, on the other hand, the social connections of the constituent elements that differ in the breadth of their action, in their significance in the characteristics of the social structure of society at a certain stage of development.

Social structure means the objective division of society into separate strata, groups, different in their social position, in their relation to the mode of production. This is a stable connection of elements in a social system. The main elements of the social structure are such social communities as classes and class-like groups, ethnic, professional, socio-demographic groups, socio-territorial communities (city, village, region). Each of these elements, in turn, is a complex social system with its own subsystems and connections. The social structure reflects the characteristics of the social relations of classes, professional, cultural, national-ethnic and demographic groups, which are determined by the place and role of each of them in the system of economic relations. The social aspect of any community is concentrated in its connections and mediations with production and class relations in society.

Forms of social interactions

The concept of social ties, their types

Obviously, in order to satisfy his needs, a person must interact with other individuals, join social groups, and participate in joint activities.

The central idea of the sociological realism of E. Durkheim, to which, in essence, all his scientific work was devoted, is the idea public solidarity- the question of what is the nature of those ties that unite, attract people to each other. The desire of any person to contact with other people is due to basic needs human. These include: sexual (reproduction); group self-defense; communication with their own kind; intellectual activity; sensory-emotional experiences. Without contacts, the satisfaction of these needs is impossible.

Throughout life, a person is connected with other people through social ties that manifest themselves in various forms and forms.

Social relationships between members of a society or social group are extremely diverse. In the process of communicating with other people, a person constantly selects from a large number of various connections exactly those that he considers necessary to strengthen and develop. In this regard, each individual goes through several stages in the development of social relations before reaching the state of social relations.

In addition, it is social ties that are the basis group-forming processes, the first step in the formation of social groups (Fig. 1).

Fig.1. Types of social connections

So, consider the main types of social connections:

Social contacts. Social contacts should be recognized as the simplest type of connections. These contacts are the most simple, elementary connections between separate individuals.

The first step in building social connections is spatial contacts. They reflect the orientation of people in social space, in which individuals imagine where other people are and how many there are. They may assume the presence of other people or see them. The very assumption of the presence of a certain number of other people can change the behavior of individuals in society. Note that in spatial contact, the individual cannot single out any separate isolated objects from the total number of people around him. He evaluates the people around him as a whole.

Separation from the spatial environment of some special objects can occur only with the contact of interest. With such contact, the individual singles out from his social environment a certain individual or social group to which he pays his attention, which he can use to deepen social ties.

The last type of contacts are exchange contacts. In the course of such contacts, there is a short-term exchange of values between individual individuals. J. Schepansky, describing exchange contacts, notes that they represent a specific type of social relationships in which individuals exchange values without having the desire to change the behavior of other individuals. This means that in the course of such sporadic and short-term exchanges, the attention of the individual is concentrated on the object of exchange, and not on the other individual entering into the exchange. An example of such contact is the purchase of a newspaper, when the buyer, ignoring the seller, gives money and receives a newspaper.

Every time an individual begins to communicate with other people, he must necessarily go through all these three types of contacts in order to move on to more complex social connections.

More complex view social connections are social action. Its significance is due to the fact that it is the simplest unit, the simplest element of any kind of social activity of people. For the first time in sociology, the concept of "social action" was introduced and scientifically substantiated by Max Weber.

In the understanding of M. Weber, social action has at least two features: firstly, it must be rational, conscious, and secondly, it must necessarily be oriented towards the behavior of other people.

Social Actions - it is a certain system of actions, means and methods, using which an individual or a social group seeks to change the behavior, views or opinions of other individuals or groups.

Any social action is a system in which the following elements can be distinguished:

ü subject of action influencing individual or community of people;

ü action object, the individual or community on which the action is directed;

ü means (instruments of action) and methods of action, by means of which the necessary change is carried out;

ü action result- the response of the individual or community on which the action was directed.

Two following concepts should be distinguished: "behavior" and "action". If behavior is the body's response to internal or external stimuli (it can be reflex, unconscious or intentional, conscious), then action is only some types of behavior.

When performing social actions, each person experiences the actions of others. There is an exchange of actions or social interaction.

social interaction- this is a systematically stable performance of some actions that are aimed at the partner in order to cause a certain (expected) response from his side, which, in turn, causes a new reaction of the influencer.

P. Sorokin studied social interaction in the most detail. In his opinion, a single individual cannot be considered as an elementary "social cell" or the simplest social phenomenon.

In his work "Systems of Sociology", he noted: "... an individual as an individual - can in no way be considered a microcosm of the social macrocosm. It cannot, because only an individual can be obtained from an individual and it is impossible to obtain what is called "society", nor what is called "social phenomena" ... For the latter, not one, but many individuals, at least two, are required. However, in order for two or more individuals to be considered as an element of society, it is necessary that they interact with each other.

Sorokin calls the conditions for the emergence of any social interactions:

ü having two or more individuals that determine the behavior and experiences of each other;

ü doing something by them, influencing mutual experiences and actions;

ü presence of conductors, transmitting these influences and the impact of individuals on each other (for example, speech signals or various material carriers).

Human social connections are a set of interactions consisting of actions and responses. A complex network of interactions is formed, covering a different number of individuals. In the process of these interactions, social relations can develop.

Social Relations - this is a system of normalized interactions between partners about something that binds them (subject, interest, etc.). Unlike social interaction, social relations are a stable system limited by certain norms(formal and informal).

Social relations are divided into unilateral and mutual. Unilateral social relations are characterized by the fact that their participants put different meanings into them. For example, love on the part of an individual may stumble upon contempt or hatred on the part of the object of his love.

The reason that sometimes similar interactions differ from each other in content is values. Value in this context can be defined as a desired desired event. The content and meaning of social relations depends on how the need for values and possession of them are combined in interactions. If one individual has resources in the form of wealth, and the other is not interested in acquiring them, then in this case only one type of relationship is possible - the independence of each of the individuals, disinterest and indifference.

For example, the case when Alexander the Great, who had power, wealth and prestige, offered to use these values to the philosopher Diogenes of Sinop. The king asked the philosopher to name a desire, to present any requirement that he would immediately fulfill. But Diogenes had no need for the values offered and expressed his only desire: that the king would move away and not block the sun. The relationship of respect and gratitude, which Macedonsky counted on, did not arise, Diogenes remained independent, as, indeed, the king.

The following elements can be distinguished in the system of relations:

ü subjects of communication- two individuals, two social groups, or an individual and a social group;

ü their link, which may be some object, interest, common value, creating the basis of the relationship;

ü a certain system of duties and obligations or established functions that must be performed by partners in relation to each other.

Among the variety of social relations, there are those that are present in all other relations and are their basis. These are, first of all, relations of social dependence and power.

For example, if we consider the relationship of love, it is obvious that the love of two people for each other implies mutual obligations and the dependence of one person on the motives and actions of the other. The same can be said about friendship, respect, management and leadership, where the relationship of dependence and power is most obvious.

Forms of social interactions

Social interactions in society can be viewed from the point of view of ways to achieve desired values. Here we are dealing with such categories as cooperation, competition and conflict. The first two concepts were developed in detail by American sociologists Robert Park and Ernst Burges.

Word cooperation comes from two Latin words: co"- "together" and " operari"- work. Cooperation can take place in dyads (groups of two individuals), small groups, as well as in large groups (in organizations, social stratum or society).

Cooperation is primarily associated with the desire of people to cooperate, and many sociologists consider this phenomenon based on selflessness (social altruism). However, studies and just experience show that selfish goals serve the cooperation of people to a greater extent than their likes and dislikes, desires or unwillingnesses. Thus, the main meaning of cooperation is, as a rule, in mutual benefit.

Competition(from lat. concurrere- run together) is a struggle between individuals, groups or societies for the acquisition of values, the reserves of which are limited and unequally distributed among individuals or groups (this can be money, power, status, love, appreciation and other values). It can be defined as an attempt to achieve rewards by sidelining or outperforming rivals seeking identical goals.

Competition can be personal (for example, when two leaders compete for influence in an organization) or be impersonal (an entrepreneur competes for markets without knowing his competitors personally).

Experiments conducted in groups show that if the situation develops in such a way that individuals or groups cooperate to pursue common goals, then friendly relations and attitudes are maintained. But as soon as the conditions are created under which there are unshared values that give rise to competition, unfriendly attitudes and unflattering stereotypes immediately arise.

Conflict. Conflict analysis (from lat. conflictus- clash) it is useful to start from an elementary, simplest level, from the origins of conflict relations. Traditionally, it starts with needs structures, a set of which is specific to each individual and social group. All these needs Abraham Maslow(1908 - 1970) divides into five main types: 1) physical needs(food, sex, material well-being etc.); 2) security needs; 3) social needs(needs for communication, social contacts, interaction); four) needs to achieve prestige, knowledge, respect, a certain level of competence; 5) higher needs for self-expression, self-affirmation(for example, the need for creativity).

All desires, aspirations of individuals and social groups can be attributed to any type of these needs. Consciously or unconsciously, individuals dream of achieving their goal in accordance with their needs. Consequently, all social interactions of a person can be simplified as a series of elementary acts, each of which begins with an imbalance in connection with an emerging need and the appearance of a goal significant for the individual, and ends with the restoration of balance and the achievement of the goal.

The Sociology of Conflict was developed by Randall Collins as a general theory. Unlike K. Marx and R. Dahrendorf, who focused on the macro theory of conflict, Collins focused on everyday interactions. From his point of view, conflict is the only central process of social life. Collins extended his analysis of stratification (as a phenomenon that generates conflict) to relationships between sexes and age groups.

He took the position that the family is an arena of gender conflict, in which men come out victorious, and women are oppressed by men and subjected to various types of unfair treatment. Collins turned to considering the resources that different age groups have.

Thus, the older generation has a variety of resources, including experience, influence, power and the ability to meet the physical needs of the young. In contrast, one of the few resources of youth is physical attractiveness. This means that adults tend to dominate the young. However, as a person grows older, he acquires more resources and is more able to resist, resulting in increased generational conflict.

From the point of view of conflict, Collins also considered formal organizations. He saw them as networks of interpersonal influences and arenas of conflicting interests.