What personality is in demand in modern Russian society. Personality in modern philosophy

Introduction

Various studies have been conducted on life satisfaction among people at different times. age periods. Life satisfaction acts as the most important internal factor of a person, determining his social activity, relationships with other people, and attitude towards himself as an individual. She acts as common ground for many other values ​​– satisfaction with marriage, health, work and life in general. The level of subjective satisfaction with human life is influenced by optimism. The concept of optimism is understood as a feeling of confidence manifested in different situations, associated with generalized positive expectations relating to different areas of life. At the same time, among young people there is a more pronounced relationship between satisfaction with work and satisfaction with their future life path, and among older people between satisfaction with their work and their real life

In the modern world, there is an increase in average life expectancy, which leads to an increased role of elderly and senile people in all spheres of society, which determines relevance of this study.

Average and longest duration Women live longer in both developed and less developed countries. An exhaustive explanation for this fact has not yet been proposed. Average difference The life expectancy of men and women ranges from 2 to 9 years. It is determined by the biological component of mortality, depending on age, while its so-called background component, depending on other causes (accidents, acute infections, etc.), is usually the same in men and women.

Characteristics of the health of centenarians are especially important, since they are the ones who come closest to the standard of physiological aging. It should, however, be borne in mind that people who have reached extreme old age differ significantly from each other in terms of signs of aging and well-being. It is in long-lived groups that a very large scatter of indicators characterizing individual rates of aging has been repeatedly noted. According to the degree of vitality, the following stand out among them: vigorous long-livers with increased activity; centenarians with limited ability to work, who usually do not leave their apartment; bed sick. Of course, we can only talk about approaching the type of natural aging in relation to the first category of centenarians.

problem psychosocial development of elderly people are devoted research I.I. Mechnikova, P.A. Bogomolets, V.V. Boltenko, A.G. Nagorny, E. Erickson, G. Craig, V.D. Shapiro.

However, this area of ​​problems in developmental psychology and developmental psychology has not been sufficiently studied, which requires a more in-depth analysis of the essential characteristics, especially during the transition period.

The purpose of the study is to study the influence of life satisfaction on life expectancy.

Object of study– life satisfaction as a psychosocial phenomenon.

Subject of research– conditions for life satisfaction and its impact on longevity.

Research objectives:

Study theoretical sources on the research problem;

To reveal the essence of the conditions for life satisfaction in late adulthood;

Research methods:

Literature analysis;

Questionnaire “Are you satisfied with life”;

Quantitative and qualitative interpretation of results.

The methodological basis of the study is the philosophical position about the role social conditions in the formation of social status and its change.

Research hypothesis: I assume that factors such as need satisfaction, health, economic and marital status, positive functioning, level of communication with others - affect a person’s life expectancy.

Chapter I. The influence of life satisfaction on its duration.

Personality and aging in the modern world.

The period of late adulthood is often called gerontogenesis or the period of aging and old age, which is associated with a whole complex of biological, socio-economic, and psychological reasons, therefore this age is studied by various disciplines - biology, neurophysiology, demography, psychology, etc. Most researchers divide people who have reached this age into three groups: old age(for men - 60-74 years, for women - 55-74 years), old age (75-90 years) and centenarians (90 years and older). However, this classification is not the only one. For example, Burnside et al. divided this age into four periods: presenile (60–69 years), senile (70–79 years), late senile (80–89 years), and frailty (90–99 years).

There is an increase in average life expectancy around the world. In Russia, the average life expectancy has exceeded 71 years. This means that old age is turning into an independent and long period of life with its own social and psychological characteristics. General population aging is a modern demographic phenomenon: the proportion of groups of people over 60-65 years of age is 1/6 or 1/8 of the entire world population.

These demographic trends lead to an increased role of elderly and senile people in all spheres of society, and require an analysis of the essential characteristics of human development during this period of life.

A feeling of satisfaction with life in old age is an important indicator of a person’s psychological health, which is manifested in his interest in life and the need to live on.

As psychological studies have shown, a person’s satisfaction with life in old age and the success of adaptation to it depend on many factors. These include: health, economic and marital status, positive functioning, level of communication with others, and even the ability to use vehicles.

Among all the factors influencing a person’s satisfaction with life and the success of adaptation to it, health is considered the most important.

A huge number of older people, regardless of their own desire, leave work due to health problems. A sudden deterioration in health does not allow a person to realize his plans and forces him to limit the scope of his activities. This often leads the older person to feel helpless and worthless. later life, especially if health problems turned out to be global and led to disability. In this case, a person experiences a sharp weakening in the strength of needs, a lack of desire not only to do anything, but also to live on.

According to the results of psychological studies, satisfaction with one’s own health is very weak degree depends on age. At both 60 and 80 years old, older people can experience satisfaction simply from the fact that their body continues to function properly. The desire to maintain good health for as long as possible is a powerful incentive that encourages an elderly person to lead healthy image life (engage in physical education, nutritional culture, get involved in various theories of nutrition, etc.).

Another important factor influencing a retiree’s level of satisfaction with their life is their economic situation.

The economic situation is understood as a satisfactory financial condition (a sufficient amount of money to satisfy a person’s basic needs), the presence of social and housing conditions that are prepared by the person in advance. An elderly person expects attention and care from the state. Possibility of preferential use of vehicles, payment of social benefits, assistance in social services, etc. – all these factors create a certain atmosphere in society that allows people to feel needed and continue to function positively.

Positive functioning in late adulthood determines a person's satisfaction with their life from the point of view that old people largely divide their lives between the time before and after retirement. Using the mechanism of social comparison, old people compare their situation in these two periods, as well as with how pensioners lived when the person was still working, or with what he expected when preparing to retire. The degree of satisfaction depends on the result of this comparison.

Negative comparative result reflects the inability to fully satisfy the needs of old age. The resulting dissonance prompts a person to eliminate it by changing his own behavior, revising his needs, modifying his goals, comparing his situation with the situation of other older people (there will always be that person who lives or feels worse).

Psychological research shows that such a psychological defense mechanism as social comparison of one’s situation with the situation of other older people allows a person to remain optimistic about the future and better adapt to illness. Moreover, social comparison in combination with social integration, the maintenance of significant roles, social reference points and reference groups, mitigates the negative effects of poor physical health and has a positive impact on life satisfaction, reducing psychological suffering associated with aging and facilitating the achievement of goals further development.

Any typology is relative and approximate. This is known even to a person who is not experienced in sociology. But even if we accept any of them as very reliable and vital, we must keep in mind that in each historical era the personality type has a very significant originality. Let's say the second extrovert half of the 19th century and extrovert beginning of the XXI centuries are completely different or fundamentally different people. And the question naturally arises: “What is she like as a modern personality, what features are inherent in her?” Over similar question thought by sociologists, psychologists, writers, and simply ordinary people. The picture turns out to be far from ambiguous. The author of this manual analyzed a wide range of sources. MEPhI students under his leadership conducted a number of studies on this topic. Based on the material received, we decided to outline two types of qualities of a modern person, and according to by and large two personality types - positive and negative. Of course, extremes, the reader will say, and he will be right. But that’s why typology exists. The main features of a predominantly positive personality type can be summarized as follows. - Maximum awareness of modernity, possession of deep consciousness and understanding of our days. - Focus on the present and future, not on the past. - Freedom from traditional authorities. Lack of fear and discomfort from a rapidly changing world. Willingness to accept new ideas, even the most radical and unexpected ones. - High degree of autonomy and independence in decision making. This is the person who, in the words of I. Kant, “has the courage to use his own mind.” - Deep interest in public problems - political, economic, social, spiritual. The desire to be a direct or at least indirect, but always an active participant in their discussion and resolution. Modern man is active personality . - Rationality in all matters, the desire for knowledge, universal and professional education. - Striving for long-term, medium-term and short-term planning of one’s activities both personally and socially. - Constant desire to improve one’s social status and increase role functions; desire to quickly make a career. - Great interest in information, the ability to give it an objective interpretation, to identify what is genuine, true and false. This is a constantly learning person, including learning about himself. - Thorough knowledge of technology, high computer and general technical literacy. - Significant selectivity in determining the immediate social environment, both in group and personal terms. The huge role of privacy and personal freedom. - High sense of self-esteem, personal authority. - Focus on legal methods of solving one’s own and public problems. - The desire for comfort, pleasure, a luxurious lifestyle, inflated material claims. A modern person is an open and direct person who, without hiding, speaks about his claims to a woman (man), work, position, power, wealth, leisure. He is less disingenuous and directly states his claims, desires, attitudes, and ideals. He strives for maximum benefits, high comfort at minimum costs. The feeling of shame, as well as the moral factor of an individual’s life as a whole, are clearly relegated to the background, and not only in relationships with unfamiliar fellow members of society, but also with close relatives, friends, and work colleagues. As for the predominantly negative personality type, it has many traits that are also inherent in the positive type. He is the same pragmatist in all matters, only many times greater. His pragmatism constantly borders on criminality or “immorality.” The value system takes on the following form: “What’s mine and mine - at any cost.” He became an absolute pragmatist in family matters. Marries (gets married) not only and not so much for love, but for maximum benefit. The spiritual union is replaced by a legal contract. The family budget also became negotiable and differentiated. It has almost become the norm to have mistresses (lover). Spirituality and sincerity in relationships with children are increasingly being lost. Moreover, such a person is in no hurry to get married. He doesn't really want to have children. It is divorced with elementary simplicity and spontaneity. In about the same way he enters into a second marriage, then into a third, fifth and tenth. Many do not get married at all for the reason that the family supposedly limits their freedom and requires additional stress. They enter into unnatural homosexual marriages. Relations with parents are transferred to a formal channel. They, the elderly and infirm, can be “pushed” into special institutions, not communicating, not seeing each other for several years, simply forgetting their “ancestors.” Such a person does not really want to learn. He teaches only what has pragmatic meaning. He studies at a minimum cost (cheat sheets, bribes for passing exams are the norm for him). Better yet, buy a diploma. Looking for a job with money. It would be nice to do nothing and snatch more by any means. Professional dedication is minimal. The sense of duty to loved ones and to society has become dull. He doesn't want to sacrifice himself. Avoids physical labor. How others live does not bother him. He tries not to think about the needy and suffering. Nature is a consumerism. It literally knocks everything out of her. Trying to make the public domain his own. Doesn't want to pay taxes. When life fails, he hates everyone, including himself. It can make noise and rumble in its home, without thinking about the peace of its neighbors. He easily leaves his car on the road or at the entrance, so that he cannot get out or pass. Heads of state or governors belonging to the negative type easily engage in corruption, give away “public chunks” to relatives or friends, and are promiscuous in their sexual life. They are capable of wild, shocking, drunken antics in public places and consider it possible to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. The judge, and there are also many of them among negative personalities, does not find the elements of a crime where it is obvious. A drug addict kills an old man in order to take some crumbs of money from him for another “recharge.” A mother sells her child to improve her financial situation. An offended student or schoolboy takes up a weapon and brutally deals with his classmates, classmates, teachers, and even the first person he meets. For no reason, for no reason, he can take the lives of three dozen people. Unfortunate doctors cut out organs from absolutely healthy people in order to sell them later. They look ironically at the dying man taken to the hospital and, citing the fact that they did not take any “Hippocratic Oath,” do not provide him with the necessary assistance. The son-officer “orders” his mother and father to the killer in order to quickly become the owner of the apartment. A newly minted psychic, calling himself Christ, promises for money to revive children who died at the hands of terrorists, or, having stupefied believers with the idea of ​​the “end of the world,” he takes them to isolation from the rest of society in a dungeon. Legislators receive bribes to increase utility rates for their own constituents. They pass laws against the people. Party leaders sell mandates to crooked entrepreneurs and criminals so that they receive parliamentary immunity. A university teacher has established a system of bribes and extortions from students for the most basic tests. Another, on the contrary, gives a grade to everyone, not knowing who it is - a student, or just a passer-by, while disgustedly saying: “I don’t care about everything.” Another may come drunk to a student classroom, completely unprepared for classes. Military leaders sell weapons to enemies, from which they themselves and their soldiers then die. Representatives of law enforcement agencies, instead of fighting crime, themselves become part of the criminal world. Customs system state control turned into a business. It seems like in an instant, although in fact over the course of 20 years, a generation of male “guardians who don’t give a damn” has been formed, who can rightfully be called a special (of course, negative) type of personality. In recent years, perhaps the most popular profession in Russia has become the security of objects and subjects. Everyone (with rare exceptions) who does not have a good education and profession, who was expelled from the army, the FSB and the police, laid off and fired, rushed to protect no matter who or what. Not bad earnings by Russian standards, in any case, more than that of a professor, engineer or doctor. Other security guards of famous people (no joke!!!) consider themselves to be among the elite. But the worst thing is that the ranks of security guards are also the main abode of criminals, criminal gangs, gangs, groups. It seems that a new class has emerged in Russia, which will soon delegate “their own” to the representative and executive bodies of power. Of course, the above is somewhat exaggerated. However, the tendencies towards pragmatization, demoralization, and comfort of human life are quite obvious. It goes without saying that this begs the question: “Has man become a better person since the times of Buddha, Confucius, Solon, Socrates, Plato and Christ?” Most likely not. After all, as they deceived, so they deceive, as they stole, so they steal, as they killed, so they kill. Moreover, this negativity has increased many times over. The only difference is that they do all this in a more sophisticated, subtle way, under the guise of law, freedom, democracy, reforms, necessity, promises of a bright future and much more. Yes, a person has become more educated, knows a lot more, acts faster, smarter. But has education increased conscience, honor, and kindness? The question remains open.

Personality problem is always at the center of cultural research. This is natural, because culture and personality are inextricably linked. On the one hand, a certain type of personality is formed in culture. General historical past, historical memory, spatio-temporal relations, mythology, religious doctrines, generally accepted rituals, biosocial experience, a system of generally valid models, patterns, features of geographical space, features of social institutions, group conscience, prevailing economic models, collective opinions and feelings, prejudices , family samples, historical traditions, ideals and values, attitude towards other people's values ​​- this is not a complete list of those factors that influence the formation of personality in culture.

On the other hand, personality recreates, changes, and discovers new things in culture. Without personality there is no culture, since personality is not only the driving force and creator of culture, but also the main goal of its formation. “Human self-realization takes place in culture, and only in culture in the sense, of course, that culture itself takes place in history. Although history is essentially a personal process, the personal process itself is a cultural process, and history acts as a sphere of objectification of culture” (M.B. Turovsky).

A person in a culture does not simply adapt to environment, as is typical for all living things, but it creates its own “microworld”. She is able to leave her own world into someone else’s disordered one, penetrate into other cultures, into someone else’s spiritual life and determine her attitude towards them, create a “new” on the basis of this attitude. Genuine creativity cannot fail to recognize itself as the recreation of values ​​from the history of the past. This is of great importance for understanding and creating one’s own culture, because one’s own culture is built by combining two possibilities - the opportunity to distinguish oneself from another culture and the opportunity to discover oneself in another culture.

A person is distinguished by the fact that he separates himself as a figure of cultural and historical processes from the results of his activities. He gives the products of his labor to others. Therefore, inevitable multiplicity arises, alienation even within the framework of “one’s own” (when a writer is dissatisfied with his work, an artist rewrites a painting, and a philosopher denies his belonging to one direction or another).

The beginning of the true history of mankind was the emergence of transformative activities aimed at the future, based on continuity in traditions. Man began to create products of labor for his children, for subsequent generations, becoming a co-creator of history and culture. Indirect movement from one person to another through cultural products, experience and knowledge is the basis for the formation of human culture and history. The only universal way to comprehend the integrity of the surrounding world has become the method of interhuman communication in culture.

It is important to note that the mutual influence of culture and personality is impossible without communication systems in culture. This communication system consists of systems for transmitting, distributing and storing information; social and intercultural communication. The life of culture itself lasts in time and space, is expressed in symbols, transmitted through communication mechanisms, and enhanced through the creation of new elements in communication. During the development of culture, a variety of subject and symbolic means are created that provide indirect communication. Through information and communication means, people develop a common language, experience, values, and master social space and time. Information and communication systems are becoming the basic means of preserving and transmitting collective knowledge and experience - the most important factor in the development of culture. With their help, mutual exchange became mutual enrichment. The accumulation of cultural results, recorded materially and ideally, the cultural memory of humanity is a condition for our involvement in a continuous “field of meanings and meanings” (M.K. Mamardashvili), a condition for the development of human creative activity.

Creativity is the creation of new images, knowledge, means of communication, values. Creativity is a productive activity to renew life in culture. It is in the process creativity, self-development and self-realization of the individual occur. In the history of philosophy and in the theory of culture, creativity is considered, firstly, as a deep, truly human, “divine” process that cannot be rationally explained; secondly, as a result of the development of society, art, science and technology, the result of increasing demands for the creation of something new (since the Renaissance). The essence of creativity lies in co-creation, in the joint activity of people to renew life, in the understanding of responsibility to the universal, in the dedication of the individual. B. Pasternak said that creative act- This is the maximum revelation of oneself outside. The creative process in the culture of a certain period in history depends on: the social order for innovation; the presence of certain forms of culture for the implementation of innovations; characteristics of the social or professional group in which a creative personality is born; educational systems and conditions for creativity in society. In this regard, the study of questions about the sources of creativity, the interaction of the individual and the social and cultural environment, freedom and responsibility of the individual is of particular relevance. The main theme of the future should be the theme of man’s place in the world of culture, in the new world, his conscious right and responsible choice. For this it is important the problem of enculturation. . This concept means the gradual involvement of a person in culture, the gradual development by him of skills, manners, norms of behavior, forms of thinking and emotional life that are characteristic of a certain type of culture, for a certain historical period.

In other words, this is a long-term and gradual development by a person of methods, norms, and practical recommendations in everyday life. The ancient art of practice is the basis of human self-affirmation in history. A person submits to stereotypes, procedures accepted in a group, culture. These procedures are recorded in gestural, bodily communication, oral speech, writing and reading.

Inculturation presupposes the presence of such socio-cultural elements as the language system; value and semantic guidelines; procedures for the development of creative activity; the totality of accumulated wealth in culture; traditions and forms of continuity. The processes of enculturation are studied in cultural anthropology (M. Herskowitz). The concepts of enculturation and acculturation should not be confused. Acculturation is the process of acquiring properties and forms of culture by one people from another people. The first condition for enculturation is a person’s self-affirmation over time. To do this, a person needs to appropriate acquired skills and abilities, prepare opportunities for creativity, and thus gain a certain independence from natural, social conditions in constantly changing circumstances. This conquest of time by man occurs through the creation of an autonomous cultural space. The next condition for enculturation is appropriation in various ways mastery of space, its “vision”. To be able to see is to be able to predict, to run ahead of time and by “reading” space. But the most important thing in this process for a person becomes mastery of knowledge, experience, norms, skills in order to translate the uncertainties of history into the time and space of the cultural world understandable to man. It is carried out as socialization is the process of a person developing social norms and rules of social life for the development of an active, full-fledged member of society, for the formation of a cultural personality. In the process of socialization, the individual is gradually involved in the life of society, introduced to history and traditions, and the transfer of basic forms of sociocultural experience. In the family, at school, at a higher educational institution, an individual masters the necessary skills, acquires knowledge, and becomes familiar with cultural norms and traditions. Socialization is also an individual's identification with “others.” They can be parents, teachers, peers, favorite actors, behavioral models taken from literary works, television programs, etc. There are many interpretations of the socialization process. G. Tarde believed that the basis of socialization is the principle of imitation. T. Parsons saw in it the process of perceiving social norms, absorbing information about significant “others.” J. Smelser noted that socialization is the acquisition by people of experience and values ​​required to fulfill social roles. Socialization gives us the opportunity to interact with each other, and also contributes to the transfer of experience from generation to generation. In the process of socialization, the personal, or private, and social spheres are in constant interaction and mutual determination. The private sphere (system of personal relationships) expresses public (public) opinion, entering into public dialogical relations with public institutions (J. Habermas).

It should always be remembered that the process of socialization ultimately always becomes a process of self-determination. Each society and culture gradually develops its own character of the process of socialization of the individual. The characteristics of the types of socialization depend on the historically specific structure of society and the type of culture. In the modern world, socialization and inculturation are carried out in conditions of cultural “schisms” and sociocultural crises, the growing role of instability of social processes, clashes and mutations of cultural paradigms. All this is aggravated by the catastrophic influence of information flows on human consciousness, which increasingly complicate cultural self-identification.

In these conditions, perhaps the only means of saving the individual, his survival and development is familiarization with the origins of his native culture, understanding the danger of losing cultural identity, and a critical attitude towards cultural globalization.

The study of cultural studies can be of great help in understanding the responsibility of an individual, especially a young person, for the fate of the Motherland and its culture.

Literature

Batkin L. M. Italian Renaissance in search of individuality. M., 1989.

Batkin L. M. Don't dream about yourself! On the cultural and historical meaning of “I” in “Confession” by Bl. Augustine. M., 1993.

Gurevich P. Man as a microcosm // ONS. 1993. No. 6.

Husserl E. Articles about renewal // Questions of philosophy. 1997. No. 4.

Zenkovsky V. Unity of personality and the problem of reincarnation // Russia XXI. 1998. No. 9-10.

Kon I.S. In search of myself. M., 1984.

Kon I.S. Opening Ya. M., 1978.

Kon I.S. Child and society. M., 1988.

Culture: theories and problems. M., 1994.

Cultural anthropology. St. Petersburg, 1996.

MudM. Culture and the world of childhood. M., 1988.

Mikhailov F. T. The mystery of the human Ya. M., 1976.

Odysseus. Man in history. M., 1995.

Odysseus. Man in history. Cultural and anthropological history today. M., 1991.

Odysseus. Picture of the world in the popular and scientific consciousness. M., 1994.

• Simonovich Nadezhda Nikolaevna, Candidate of Sciences, Senior Lecturer
• Moscow City University of Moscow Government Management

• PERSONAL ATTITUDE TO SELF
• SURROUNDING REALITY
• CONSUMER ORIENTATION
• CREATIVE PERSONALITY
• INTERNET

The globalization of modern society also involves the formation of new models of behavior and life of people in our society. The article provides practical recommendations for the formation of a new society and a unified lifestyle for all people inhabiting our planet.

• Personality formation in a military family: psychological characteristics
• Psychological aspects in the work of a travel agency
• Technologies for providing socio-psychological assistance to the population
• Formation of human capital: psychological factors

Modern society is at a new stage of its development. Globalization leads to the formation of common and unified patterns of human behavior. Modern Russian society strives for rapprochement with Western models social behavior. While solving socio-economic and political problems in our society, socio-psychological and personal problems people. .

The structure of a social character includes psychosocial traits that develop in an individual, depending on existing socio-historical conditions. Let's turn our attention to social and cultural life and their attributes - the entertainment industry, the problem of free time, advertising, consumer behavior, modern media, the Internet, television. [8. P. 27]. The idea of ​​forming a single lifestyle common to all inhabitants of the planet emerged. To do this, we will highlight three key factors in the formation of a new society:

1. Consumer market orientation: formation artificial needs personality, influence on the feelings and emotions of consumers. .
2. The introduction of new digital technologies into our lives to expand the boundaries of space and time.
3. Suggestive influence on human behavior, feelings, tastes, manipulation and suggestion. .

Let's consider the psychosocial features of the modern personality.

1. Attitude to the surrounding reality. For a creative person, the world around us has no spatial or temporal boundaries. The world is recreated according to the individual’s own scenario. This is done using new interactive means of communication. The modern personality denies all prohibitions. Restrictions and rules of conduct. .
2. Attitude towards other people. For many individuals, communication with people is virtual in nature and is carried out through the Internet and television. The modern personality excludes close and deep communication based on mutual care and attention. In many young people, infantilism manifests itself and develops. .
3. Attitude towards yourself. Modern youth, under the influence of the Internet, television, media, and cinema, tries to copy the behavioral styles of popular people. Such individuals strive for group affiliation and become fans of various kinds. They have a market orientation towards themselves. They turn into consumers. .
4. Attitude to work and free time. A modern person works hard for a career and access to pleasures and active consumption. Another category of people values ​​free time, leisure and consumer behavior. For them, a good atmosphere in the team is more important than a career and wages. The modern personality is focused on hedonistic behavior. .
5. Attitude to education. For a modern person, instrumental knowledge based on communications and modern digital technologies is of high value. The personality tries to keep up with in modern ways obtaining knowledge and applying it in practice. He devotes a lot of time to self-education and advanced training in various courses and trainings, and strives to acquire modern specialties.
6. Lifestyle. A modern person understands beauty according to the trends of new times. Beauty is a way of self-expression. Create your own lifestyle and put it on display. Such individuals are creative. Creativity is manifested in active people through self-presentation, and in passive people it is borrowed through imitation and guidance. Passive individuals are influenced by advertising, symbols, and brands. They are the main consumers. .
7. Social and personal value. Modern man has his own value system. A person respects other people's values, but is not tolerant of people who try to change his own ideas about the value system. Active individuals for the values ​​of equality, freedom and independence. Passive individuals show less tolerance towards other people's values. .
8. Thinking and perception. In modern society, thinking is free and associative. The attention of the modern personality is attracted only by acute and strong sensations. For such a person, visualization is important. The individual craves the thrill of fear and experiences joy in observing someone else's embarrassment and shame.
9. Productivity of a social nature.. In your analysis of modern personality, you need to pay attention to the degree of productivity of its social character. Many human capabilities have been replaced by modern digital technologies. In social relations everything is determined through control and programming. New social management technologies are being created, in which the place of a person as an operator is determined. [12, p. 143]. The individual does not care about optimizing his powers with the help of technical means, but about passively immersing himself in the reality created by these means.

References

1. Simonovich N. E. Deviant behavior and its consequences for humans In the collection: Training and development: modern theory and practice Materials of the XVI International Readings in memory of L. S. Vygotsky. 2015. pp. 584 – 592.
2. Simonovich N. E. Innovative approaches to education In the collection: Education and development: modern theory and practice Materials of the XVI International Readings in memory of L. S. Vygotsky. 2015. P. 312.
3. Simonovich N. E. The influence of the status and position of an individual on his social well-being In the collection: Education and development: modern theory and practice Materials of the XVI International Readings in Memory of L. S. Vygotsky. 2015. pp. 186-187.
4. Simonovich N. E. Problems of personal loneliness in the Internet space: psychological features In the collection: Training and development: modern theory and practice Materials of the XVI International Readings in memory of L. S. Vygotsky. 2015. pp. 188 – 189.
5. Simonovich N. E. Problems of increasing the duration and quality of people's lives: psychological aspects In the collection: Education and development: modern theory and practice Materials of the XVI International Readings in memory of L. S. Vygotsky. 2015. pp. 183-184.
6. Simonovich N. E. Social and psychological characteristics of student youth In the collection: Education and development: modern theory and practice Materials of the XVI International Readings in Memory of L. S. Vygotsky. 2015. pp. 592 – 594.
7. Kiseleva I. A., Simonovich N. E. Features of risk assessment and the role of motivation during the crisis Moscow, 2016.
8. Kiseleva I. A., Simonovich N. E. Decision making under risk conditions: psychological aspects Financial analytics: problems and solutions. 2014. No. 18. pp. 23-29.
9. Simonovich N. E., Kiseleva I. A. Problems of human social security in modern society National interests: priorities and security. 2013. No. 44. pp. 48 – 52
10. Kiseleva I. A., Simonovich N. E. The role of motivation in people’s lives Agricultural education and science. 2016. No. 3. P. 14.
11. Simonovich N. E. Expectation as a social regulator of the future social well-being people In the collection: The sign as a psychological means: the subjective reality of culture Materials of the XII International Readings in Memory of L. S. Vygotsky. Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education vocational education, Russian State University for the Humanities” (RGGU), Institute of Psychology named after. L. S. Vygotsky, L. S. Vygotsky Foundation. 2011. pp. 48-49.
12. Simonovich N. E. Psychology of personality in the information society In the collection: Psychology of consciousness: origins and prospects for studying materials of the XIV International Readings in memory of L. S. Vygotsky: in 2 volumes. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Russian State Humanitarian University”, Institute of Psychology named after. L. S. Vygotsky, L. S. Vygotsky Foundation; Edited by V. T. Kudryavtsev. 2013. pp. 142-144.
13. Yachmeneva N.P., Simonovich N.E. On the problem of correction and resocialization of juvenile convicts Bulletin of the Russian State University for the Humanities. Series: Psychology. Pedagogy. Education. 2016. No. 2 (4). pp. 82 – 92.

The second article continues to explore the question that is traditional in philosophy, but sounds new in every era, about the role of the individual in history, and proves that in the age of globalization there is a serious need to pay attention to the study of this problem. The first part of the article provides an analysis modern views on the role of personality in history. In the second part, the author shows a complex of factors in the system that influence the role of individuals. It is concluded that the role of the individual is inversely proportional to the stability and strength of society. The article describes a model that includes four phases of the state of society: 1) a stable society such as a monarchy; 2) social pre-revolutionary crisis; 3) revolution; 4) creation of a new order. It has been shown that a personality can have the greatest influence in phases 3 and 4, while in phase 1 its influence is usually significantly less.

Historical events are not predetermined, so the future has many alternatives. At the same time, the future can change as a result of the activities of not only major political forces, but even individual groups and their leaders; it also depends on the actions of the most different people, for example scientists. Consequently, the problem of the role of personality in history for each generation always remains relevant. The relevance of the problem of the role of the individual in our modern period - the period of globalization, when general principles and mechanisms of life are being laid for all of humanity as a truly unified system - also appears in a new aspect of significance.

CHAPTERI. DEVELOPMENT OF VIEWS ON THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN THE XX-XXIBB.

1. Increased interest in the problem of the role of personality in the first halfxxV.

There is no doubt that: a) there are many factors and reasons that determine the degree of influence of historical figures on society; b) this influence can fluctuate greatly depending on the circumstances. At the beginning of the twentieth century. this began to be understood more deeply. The growth of the revolutionary movement, the First World War and the subsequent revolutions and dictatorships created the ground for the rise of social philosophy and the social sciences in general. Problems of the laws of history and chance, as well as personality in different aspects were also among the current ones. Interest was especially stimulated by the emergence of new figures who managed to change the world. The figures of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, who upended all the usual ideas about the state, society, violence and the capabilities of a historical figure, demanded a new look at the problem of the role of the individual. That is why the greatest successes in developing the theory of the role of the individual were achieved not in Marxism, among whose representatives these problems continued to be studied (for example: Trotsky 1932, Kautsky 1931, Gramsci 1991), since Marxism was dominated by the dogma of the iron laws of history, but among those who was concerned about the future of democracy. I am primarily referring to the work of Sidney Hook, which needs to be mentioned separately.

Book by S. Hook “Hero in History. Exploring Limits and Possibilities"(Hook 1955) was a noticeable step forward in the development of the problem and is still the most serious work on the topic under study. In general, Hook quite convincingly and in some places very figuratively substantiated a number of important provisions that made it possible to significantly escape from the extremes of Plekhanov’s antinomy. Within the framework of the subtitle of the book, the task is to explore the limits and possibilities of the role of the individual (AStudyinLimitationandPossibility) - he examines the power of influence of great men and some of the factors that limit it. In Chapter 6, Hook notes that, on the one hand, the activity of the individual is indeed limited by the circumstances of the environment and the nature of society, but on the other hand, the role of the individual increases significantly to the point where it becomes an independent force - when alternatives appear in the development of society (Hook 1955: 116). At the same time he does important conclusion that in such a situation the choice of alternative may depend on the personality traits.

However, alternatives exist in any state of society (for example, to wage or not wage war, to encourage innovation or not). Unfortunately, Hook does not provide a typology of such alternatives and the corresponding models of individual capabilities. And the latter - as we will see below - differ significantly in different states of society. In particular, in a state of strong society the role of individuals is smaller, and in conditions of instability it is higher. Nevertheless, although Hook does not connect the presence of alternatives with the state of society, he implicitly assumes that an individual can have the greatest influence precisely in conditions of instability. That is why a number of the examples he gave of the choice of alternatives concern the most dramatic moments (revolutions, crises).

Hook also does not oppose situations when: a) alternatives appear as a result of a crisis; b) they can become the result of the plans, intentions and actions of an outstanding person in the absence of a pronounced crisis. This is absolutely different situations. In the first case, the role of the individual looks smaller than in the second, since in a situation of crisis a number of alternative personalities inevitably appear on the public stage, ready to offer their own plan for change (see below), but in the second this does not happen.

About the second situation, however, Hook says practically nothing. Meanwhile, examples like the activities of Peter I in Russia require special attention. Peter began radical reforms in the absence of a crisis threatening his power. Moreover, it was his reforms that created a situation of crisis in the country, which led to uprisings and conspiracies against him. It follows that there are not very frequent, but from time to time, historical situations when, if a number of conditions coincide, an outstanding person can choose his own course and thereby create an alternative development. These conditions are as follows: a) the appearance of an outstanding person with the right set qualities and virtues; b) concentration of great power in his hands; c) the state and social system in society, which allows the ruler to radically change social relations; d) the presence of an external challenge from other states; e) the opportunity to borrow advanced technologies (but this condition is required only for modernizing countries, such as Russia at the end of the 17th - early XVIII V. under Peter I).

In Chapter 9, Hook makes an important distinction between historical figures in terms of their influence on the course of history, dividing them into eventful men and event-making men. Although Hook does not clearly divide individuals according to the volume of their influence (on individual societies, on humanity as a whole), nevertheless, he classified Lenin among the people who create events, since in a certain respect he significantly changed the direction of development not only of Russia, but of the whole world in the twentieth century

Hook rightly attaches great importance to chance and probabilities in history in their connection with the role of the individual (here his position is close, for example, to the position of R. Aron - see below). At the same time, he sharply opposes attempts to present all history as waves of accidents (as Fischer, in particular, tried to do). His reasoning about the missed chances of history, when the absence of the right person (or the presence of one who did not take advantage of the chance) led to the loss of the opportunity to take a different path, also looks interesting. The historical process appears to him as a tree trunk, from which there are constant forks of branches capable of producing its own trunk.

Hook's work has many merits, but it would have benefited significantly if the author had briefly but systematically presented his ideas in some place (introduction or conclusion). This would be all the more valuable since his concept has gaps. Some sections of Hook's book are overly verbose, but not sufficiently theoretical; the author formulates other provisions fragmentarily, often limiting himself only to incidental comments or hints. Thus, the problem of the hero and democracy is analyzed very carefully, at the same time, a number of important topics are not sufficiently analyzed, others are only mentioned or not touched upon at all (accordingly, for example, on what objective conditions, in addition to the presence of alternatives and the political regime, does the strength of influence of individuals depend; why in some eras there are many great people, and in others there are few; under what conditions can a person change not only the course of development of states, but also the world as a whole).

2. Declining interest in the problem of the role of the individual

Unfortunately, after the Second World War, interest in the problem of the role of the individual decreased. It remains insufficient today, despite the special importance in the context of globalization of the actions of individuals and the forces (groups) led by them. Naturally, the point was not that the role of the individual itself diminished. In general, in the world the situation was and is the opposite today. The destinies (rises and tragedies) of many countries were closely connected with certain personalities. Even international terrorism is unthinkable without outstanding leaders. True, in the center of the World System, where democracy does not favor the emergence of outstanding people, but social system with its separation of powers, checks and balances, it may have reached its maximum in its ability to ensure stability and security; indeed, the role of the individual manifested itself weaker, which could not but influence the decline in interest in this problem.

The reasons for the decrease in interest in the problem of the role of the individual is also that in last decades in general, questions of philosophy and theory of history became less popular. And at the same time, traditional philosophical problems cease to be in demand. At the same time, interest has grown in long-term trends and processes in which the role of the individual seems to be lost (although this is not always the case).

However, since social science traditionally lags behind reality, it is likely that in the coming decades, as globalization increases and the need to develop common solutions, and at the same time the influence that certain figures can have on the fate of the world, the problem of the role of the individual will again become relevant.

After the publication of Hook’s book, the study of the problem of the role of personality in history, of course, did not stop, but the work mainly proceeded in line with existing theories with the use of new scientific methods and data. Traditionally, more attention was paid to this problem by Marxist authors or some active opponents of Marxism, trying to create alternative theories to it on its own basis. On the other hand, criticism of determinism was very often voiced (see, for example: Mises 2001), sometimes very witty and deep, as, say, by Aron (1993a; 1993b; 2000; 2004), see below. In general, like some other traditional problems (for example, the study of medium-term economic cycles), the problem of the role of the individual was considered within the framework of some other problems, at best it was given a separate paragraph (as in the book of Mises, see: Mises 2001). Perhaps to the greatest extent (albeit in a form absolutely contrary to the traditions of historiography), the problem of the role of the individual is studied in the so-called counterfactual, or alternative, history (see below).

3. Main directions of research of the problem

In the last few decades they can be traced to the following:

3.1. Consideration of the issue of the role of personality as part of the general theory of the driving forces of history and the laws of history and other studies

Among the authors who have quite actively studied the problems of the laws of history, it should be noted such philosophers as W. Dray (Dray 1963; Dray 1977), K. Hempel (Hempel 1963; Hempel 1977; 1998), M. Mandelbaum (Mandelbaum 1963), E. Nagel (Nagel 1961; Nagel 1977), K. Popper (1992, for example chapter 25 “Does history have any meaning”), F. Stern (Stern 1964), W. Walsh (Walsh 1992). In the course of these studies, they to some extent (in general, rather fluently and fragmentarily) touched upon the question of the role of the individual in history, but the scope of discussion did not go beyond the framework of determinism and anti-determinism.

In the 20th century It became finally clear that society can be in different qualitative states, on which many of its characteristics depend. Some interesting comments about the differences in the strength of influence of individuals in societies of different stability (stable and critically unstable) can be found in A. Labriola (1960: 182-183), J. Nehru (1977: 71), A. Ya. Gurevich ( 1969: 68) and others (from other positions, this same aspect is also touched upon by individual supporters of the synergetic approach, see below). S. Hook, as we saw above, although he did not connect the change in the strength of an individual’s influence on society with the state of the latter, nevertheless considered the presence of alternatives as the most important condition, which often - but by no means always - corresponds to the unstable state of society.

The role of outstanding people in the process of formation of states, the creation of religions and civilizations is well known; in culture, science, inventions, etc. In this regard, it is worth pointing out the theory of the creative minority by A. Toynbee (1991). It can also be said that some neo-evolutionists sometimes slip through certain interesting ideas about the role of individuals in the process of formation of chiefdoms and states (Claessen 2002; Carneiro 2002; Miller 1976; see also: Grinin 2004).

The question of the role of individual figures in the process of state formation and their evolution is extremely interesting and important, and it perfectly illustrates the importance of developing a theory of the role of individuals. At the same time, it is worth noting that the origins of the formation of almost any early state or large political entity such as an analogue of the early state (see: Grinin 2006; 2011) always lie at the heart of one or another outstanding personality. The fact is that the formation of a state or other complex polity is always a process of qualitative transition from one state of society to another, therefore it requires outstanding energy and special qualities of leaders. Without them the process cannot take place. It is enough to point to such examples as the unifier of the Hawaiian chiefdoms Kamehameha I, Clovis in the kingdom of the Franks, Muhammad among the Arabs, Modi among the Xiongnu or Genghis Khan among the Mongols. The same applies to the evolution of the state. The transition of a state to a new evolutionary stage (for example, a developed state) is usually associated with the presence of an outstanding leader, such as Qin Shi Huang in China, Ivan the Terrible in Russia, Louis XI in France, Muhammad Ali in Egypt, etc. Without them, the process is usually does not complete or completes much later. And the presence of such leaders is by no means a rule, as evidenced, for example, by Germany in modern times, which until 1870 never found the strength to unite. And in any case, the German unification took place with the help of such an outstanding figure as O. Bismarck.

3.2. Involving methods and theories of interdisciplinary areas

In the 50-60s. XX century finally formed systematic approach(see, for example: Bertalanffy 1951; Bertalanffy 1969a; 1969b; Mesarovič 1964; Jones 1969; Boulding 1969; Ashby 1969), which potentially opened up the possibility of a new look at the role of the individual. But synergistic research turned out to be more important. Although synergetics paid little attention to the problem of the role of the individual (L.I. Borodkin can be noted as an exception, for example: 2002), nevertheless, due to the fact that synergetics in a number of respects significantly developed and deepened the understanding of the behavior of systems, this also potentially opened up some opportunities to deepen understanding of the role of the individual.

Speaking very schematically, synergetics distinguishes between two main states of a system (including society): order and chaos. In a state of order, society does not allow significant transformation; if it develops, then in a certain direction, in the terminology of N. N. Moiseev (1987), in the “channel of evolution.” Despite its negative associations, chaos often means an opportunity for a system to move into another state, which can mean either a higher or lower level. Since the system/society is in a very unstable position, when the main connections/institutions that previously held it together are weakened or destroyed, special condition- bifurcation (fork). At the point of bifurcation (revolution, war, perestroika, etc.), society can turn in one direction or another under the influence of generally insignificant reasons. And it is important that the direction and level of transition largely depend on which individuals are at the head of the movement.

3.3. Counterfactual history

Quite actively, especially in recent decades, the so-called counterfactual (or alternative) history has been developing, which explores hypothetical alternatives under non-existent scenarios, for example, under what conditions Germany and Hitler could have won the second world war(Alexander 2000), what would have happened if Churchill had died in 1931 (Murray 2000), Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo (Trevelyan 1972; Carr 2000), etc. Thus, the figure often at the center of this line of inquiry is some major historical figure and discusses an important question for our research: what would have happened if this or that person had not existed (or, conversely, if she had continued to live). Although at first glance such studies seem unsuitable for historians, they nevertheless make it possible to play out many different alternative scenarios, from which, firstly, it becomes obvious that historical events are not predetermined, and secondly, the reasons why one or another another tendency (personified by one leader or another) won. This also provides the opportunity for sweeping generalizations.

The first works in this area were done back in the 19th century, such as, for example, the book by L.-N. Geoffroy-Chateau (Geoffroy-Chateau 1836), where the focus is on the hypothesis of what could have happened if Napoleon had gone to conquer the world instead of Russia. Sidney Hook placed great importance on exploring potential alternatives that he believed had deep meaning. He even devoted an entire chapter to this, entitled “‘If’ in History.” In it, he discusses a number of such “ifs,” including asking whether the Great Depression could have been averted if Roosevelt rather than Hoover had been elected president in 1928 (and concludes that it could not). It is worth mentioning two works on similar topics by A. Toynbee: “If Alexander had not died then...”, “If Philip and Artaxerxes had survived...” (Toynbee 1969a; 1969b; Toynbee 1979; 1994). W. Thompson recently wrote an interesting article on this topic (Thompson 2010).

An analysis of the state of the problem of the role of personality in history shows that it is far from its final solution, that this level its research is absolutely insufficient and needs deepening and systematization, as well as new ideas.

In this regard, the author's theory proposed below can contribute to progress in this direction. It presents an approach to the problem of the role of the individual in history, which maximally synthesizes the ideas developed in the process of studying this problem, and proposes solutions, procedures and concepts that make it possible to make the analysis of the role of the individual more operational, including showing in which periods , how and why the role of the individual increases, and in which cases it decreases (see also: Grinin 1997; 2007; 2008; Grinin 2007; 2008; 2010; Grinin, Korotaev, Malkov 2010).

1. GENERAL APPROACHES

1.1. Dialectical difficulties of the problem and a plan of approach to its solution

As we have seen, it turned out to be impossible to resolve the problem of the role of the individual within the framework of the antinomy indicated by G.V. Plekhanov, since there is partial correctness in both one and the other approach. From a deterministic position, that is, if we recognize as real a certain ahistorical force (God, fate, “iron” laws, etc.), it is quite logical to consider individuals as instruments of history, thanks to which already existing potentials or, moreover, an initially intended program are simply realized . However, as we have seen, the reasoning of determinists in general does not stand up to criticism. In history, too many things and phenomena are personified, and therefore the role of the individual often turns out to be extremely significant. “The role of personalities and accidents in historical events is the first and immediate element”, “...he who asserts that an individual historical event would not have been different if even one of the previous elements had not been what it actually was, must prove this is a statement,” rightly says Raymond Aron (1993b: 506; see also: He 2000: 428).

At the same time, it is impossible to ignore that the role of the individual is determined by many different reasons, including the social structure and the specifics of the situation; one cannot help but see that in some periods (often long) there are few outstanding people, in others, short but stormy, there are entire cohorts; It is absurd not to recognize that people of titanic nature often fail, and nonentities can have a gigantic influence. It is obvious that the significance of a figure depends not only on his personal qualities, but also on the entire environment in which he acts, and therefore Carlyle’s saying: “the history of the world is the biography of great people” (Carlyle 1994) does not provide the key to answers to these questions. Hegel, not without reason, argued that only “it seems that heroes create from themselves and that their actions have created such a state and such relations in the world that are only their work and their consciousness” (Hegel 1935: 29). But, on the other hand, it is the actions of leaders (and sometimes even some ordinary people) that determine the outcome of the confrontation and the fate of various trends in critical periods. In a word, we have to admit that in some cases, without this or that personality (or in the presence of another personality), the course of history would really have changed, but in other situations it would hardly have changed. But also the “average view” that personality is both a cause and a product historical development(Rappaport 1899: 47), as we have seen, does not resolve the problem satisfactorily enough, much less deeply.

The question of the role of the individual for a long time belonged to the group of philosophical problems that were constructed, so to speak, on an absolute level and therefore required an absolute and unambiguous answer. A scientific solution to the problem required a transition from the abstract level to more specific conclusions and methods (that is, from solving the issue according to the “either-or” principle to solving the problem according to the principle “if ... then”, “under such and such conditions - so and so” etc.). This work began at the end of the 19th century. and continued in the first half of the twentieth century. (G.V. Plekhanov, W. James, A. Labriola, H. Rappoport, N.I. Kareev, S. Hook, etc.). But she usually stopped at the first or second stages of such techniques. And most importantly, the task of developing these methods was practically not clearly stated. Let us illustrate this using the example of G.V. Plekhanov’s thoughts. He writes that the role of the individual and the boundaries of his activity are determined by the organization of society, and “the character of the individual is a “factor” of such development only where, when and insofar as social relations allow it” (Plekhanov 1956: 322) . There is a considerable amount of truth in this. However, what are the limits of an individual’s capabilities if social relations allow him to become a “factor of such development”? After all, if the nature of society gives scope to arbitrariness (a very common case in history), then Plekhanov’s position does not work. In such a situation, development often becomes very dependent on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler or dictator, who will concentrate the forces of society in the direction he needs.

At the first stage of the analysis, we believe that it will be methodologically correct to present the question of the role of the individual as a particular (albeit very specific) case of the problem of the driving forces of historical development, which will make it possible to more accurately take into account the interrelation of all historical forces, without tearing personal motives out of the general historical context. Within the framework of the theory of driving forces (see: Grinin 2007), personality is one of the most important among them. But it acts in conjunction with them and, depending on their meaning, increases or weakens its own significance (and vice versa, its significance is increased or weakened by other factors). In subsequent stages, we will try to analyze and systematize the reasons and circumstances that strengthen or weaken the significance of figures, including the features of historical time and a specific moment.

The next step in the analysis is to formulate a general principle, although quite extensible, but still outlining the circle of search for solutions. Depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, taking into account the characteristics of the society under study, time and individual personality traits of her historical role can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous. This idea allows us to find common ground for different points of view and bring them, as it were, to a common denominator. But this general principle must be theoretically expanded in compliance with the necessary compliance rules and procedures and specified. This will constitute the further stages of our research.

1.2. On the typology of roles in history. Who can be considered an outstanding personality

First of all, it is necessary to clarify what role we are talking about in principle. As we have seen, for a very long time it was reduced only to a progressive (or negative) influence. But this is clearly not enough. It would probably be worthwhile to outline a typology of “roles”. In our understanding, this typology is as follows:

1. By time of impact: at the time of the action or later, but during the life of the actor; after death or even many years after death.

2. Close to “1” - direct and indirect. Thus, in relation to the October Revolution, Lenin plays a direct role, and Marx plays an indirect role.

3. By the very fact of the absence or presence of personality. For example, the absence of an heir to the Russian Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (1584-1598) led to the end of the dynasty of Moscow tsars, the election of Boris Godunov as tsar, the appearance of the impostor False Dmitry I in 1604 and the Time of Troubles; and, on the contrary, only the very fact of the existence of Tsar Mikhail Romanov, elected by the people in 1613, although inactive at first, greatly changed the political situation.

4. Close to “3” - active or passive. For example, imprisoned at the end of the 19th century. (in 1894) in France, on charges of espionage, the Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus himself played a passive role, but the Dreyfus affair resulted in a major political scandal that split France in the 1890s and early 1900s. almost caused a split in the country.

5. Planned - unplanned. This is important because many of the influences were not planned or even anticipated by anyone, but often they were the most significant.

6. By the presence or absence of choice. Sometimes the main thing is to do something, because everyone knows what needs to be done, but there is no necessary figure. So, the Russians in 1610-1611. They knew that they needed to drive the Poles out of Moscow, but only Kozma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky could do this. This is also the role of Joan of Arc. In other situations, the main thing is to determine the path of development.

7. By type of activity, since what is favorable for some areas of life is not for others.

8. By progressiveness - reactionaryness. All other things being equal, we can still say that it is easier to play a negative role than a positive one, and often, in order to interfere, prevent, lead to a crisis, etc., no abilities are needed, whereas to create something new they almost always needed. Thus, the concept of an outstanding personality was more often applied to individuals playing a negative role, but among them there were many who, using Hook’s term, can be classified as people influencing events.

9. By the degree of innovation.

10. According to the replaceability of persons. Figures such as Caesar or Napoleon were irreplaceable, but, for example, could the Prussian Field Marshal von Blücher, Napoleon's conqueror, be included in this category?

11. Committed individually, within an organization, or a state.

12. Others.

Of course, we have not listed all types of “roles”. In addition, a real actor can play not one role, but several at once. For each type or their combination, when analyzing, it is desirable to determine their characteristics, favorable or unfavorable aspects.

From this list it is clear that the level of intelligence, talents and personal, including moral, qualities of historical figures has a huge amplitude, that is, we should not talk - as was typical for writers of the past - only about brilliant or very talented people. Even S. Hook, who absolutely unequivocally and rightfully debunks the image of a “hero in history” or a “great man” imposed by tradition as a figure full of moral and intellectual merits, cannot completely escape such an image. Meanwhile, if we consider only the result of the actions/inactions of historical actors, regardless of their individual abilities and goals, then, together with K. Kautsky, it is appropriate to say that “by such outstanding personalities one does not necessarily have to mean the greatest geniuses. And mediocrities, and even those below the average level, as well as children and idiots, can become historical figures if great power falls into their hands” (Kautsky 1931: 687). Unfortunately, as N. Machiavelli noted, the role of an individual is not always proportional to the intellectual and moral qualities of that individual.

My approach regarding who is considered a “historical figure”, in its most general form, looks like this: due to his personal characteristics, or chance, or social position, or the specifics of time, any person can have, by the very fact of his existence, his ideas, actions or inactions, directly or indirectly, during his life or in the period after death, such influences on his or her foreign societies that can be considered important because they left a noticeable mark on history and influenced the course of further development of societies (positively, negatively or not clearly defined).

On the distinction between outstanding and ordinary personalities. As we have seen, as a reaction to the sharp opposition between the creative personality and the inert mass, sociologists and philosophers of the late 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, for example Mikhailovsky (1998), Kareev (1890; 1914), Kautsky (1931: 696), etc. made a turn in the other direction. According to their views, the boundaries by which distinguished individuals and the masses can be separated have become completely blurred. In particular, it has become fashionable, especially among Marxists, to argue that history is made by all individuals, and not just by some outstanding individuals (Kautsky 1931: 696). But with some limited validity of this approach as a whole, it - within the framework of the problem under consideration - does not take into account fundamental differences in the degree and strength of influence on events of different people (see also: Nowak 2009). Yes, formally history is made by all individuals. But does it make sense to talk about outstanding personalities if we equate them with the most ordinary ones? As a rule, the role of the ordinary person is not just small. His influence is either extinguished by other influences, or included in the general force (to a great extent, in addition to or contrary to his will). And if his action has become important in any way, then this person ceases to be an ordinary person. Thus, we believe that there is a certain critical point of the individual’s influence on society, beyond which only this influence becomes noticeable. But, of course, the method of determining this point is difficult, as with any dialectical process.

1.3. Some factors that change the scale of influence of historical figures

1) In situations where there can be only one single person (for example, a monarch, heir, commander-in-chief), or where this person determines the canons (the creator or reformer of an orthodox religion, like Muhammad, Luther, Calvin), the role of this person is much greater higher than in situations where it is allowed alternative options(in science, culture, invention, etc.), and especially where many people are engaged in any activity. So, there are always outstanding people in business. But about few of them it can be said that his role in the national and, especially, the world plan is such that without him, the development of the economy would have taken a completely different path, that one way or another, even worse or later, he would not have been replaced by other businessmen.

2) A democratic system compared to a monarchical one, on the one hand, provides an opportunity to express oneself much more more people, on the other hand, it reduces the dependence of development on the individual (“benefactor”) and protects against excessively harmful influence. However, great reformers will be less common in democracies than in monarchies (on this, see Hook 1955: ch. XI).

3) There are situations when there is a shortage of personalities and the arrival of a personality on time is tantamount to an extreme strengthening of the tendency. But it can also be the other way around - there is competition, and although someone can do better or faster, in general terms this is not so important, since the difference in time and quality will not be too big.

General conclusion: the fewer alternatives and real possibilitiessociety has more opportunities to choose or replace an individual (less real competition for the position of leader) and the more responsible the position of a given individual in the social hierarchy, the more important her role and the more dependent society is on her personal data in critical circumstances.

1.4. Personality and mass

N.K. Mikhailovsky and K. Kautsky correctly grasped the social effect: the strength of the individual increases to colossal proportions when the mass follows it, and even more so when this mass is organized and united. In this case, as Plekhanov rightly noted, the individual, as it were, ascribes to himself part of the forces of others. But the dialectic of the relationship between the individual and the masses is still much more complicated, and we see here a wide variety of situations: from the one when the masses represent an inert population with whom the authorities can do whatever they want, to the one when the leader acts only as a spokesman the mood of the layer (the masses) and cannot take steps without the desire of the masses (such was, for example, the dependence of the king on the gentry in Poland in the 18th century).

In particular, we can note the situation historical leaderism, when any figure calls on everyone, anyone to stand under his banner. It doesn’t matter to him who exactly it will be, there are no restrictions, as long as there are more adherents. These include preachers, ambitious politicians (like Catiline in Rome), rebels, etc. Such rebels often appear at difficult moments for the country (including in democracies during elections), trying to unite all the dissatisfied.

Opportunity sharp increase The strength of a movement in conditions of crisis and discontent depends not only on objective conditions, but is in direct proportion to the ability of leaders to take the right steps, adequately understand the situation, and master it. Then it happens that the characteristics of the leader largely determine which way this will turn. overall strength. The same thing happens when the masses are confused or inert.

In situations of stability in a dynasty society, state apparatus, elites and parties usually have replacement leaders when they die, become discredited, or come due for elections. This is typical for a monarchy with the correct transfer of power (“the king is dead, long live the king!”) and for a developed democracy - in a word, for an established regime.

Comparing the role of the masses and individuals, we see: on the side of the former are numbers, scale, emotions, and lack of personal responsibility. On the side of the latter are awareness, purpose, will, plan. Therefore we can say that other things being equal, the role of the individual will be greatest when the advantages of both the masses and the leaders combine into one force This is why splits reduce the power of organizations and movements, and the presence of rival leaders can reduce it to zero.

We especially note the role of leaders and individuals in situations of sharp clashes between various political, military or social forces. As A. Gramsci emphasized (1991: 165), “in reality, one can “scientifically” foresee only the struggle, but not its specific moments, which are the results of the constant movement of opposing forces, which can never be reduced to a fixed quantity, since in this movement quantity is constantly transformed in quality." Therefore, the role of the leader at such a crucial moment (battle, elections, etc.), the degree of his compliance with the role is, one might say, of decisive importance, since “the highly complex interweaving of antithetical conditions leads to the fact that at critical moments certain individuals, brilliant, heroic, successful or criminals, are called upon to say the final word” (Labriola 1960: 183).

2. FACTOR AND PHASE ANALYSIS

2.1. Situation factor

The dialectic of combining the personal and the social when assessing the role of the individual is extremely complex. In this article we sought to present in some conceptual system a complex set of reasons that influence the role of individuals. To do this, we have designated the impact of all typical causes in this regard as a single concept "situation factor" with the introduction of which the operationalization of the analysis of the role of the individual increases significantly. The word “situation” emphasizes that the significance of the role of an individual is not a constant, but a variable, determined by a combination of objective circumstances and personal qualities in a certain place and in a certain era.

Situation factors include:

a) features of the environment in which the person operates (traditions, characteristics social system, tasks facing society, etc.);

b) the state in which society is at a certain moment (stable, unstable, going up, downhill, etc.);

c) features of surrounding societies;

d) features of the stage of development of the historical process and historical time (including the degree of integration of societies, pace of development, etc.);

e) the proximity of society to the center of the World System and the central line of the historical process, which increases or decreases the ability to influence many societies and the historical process as a whole;

f) favorable moment for action;

g) characteristics of the individual himself and his understanding of his task;

h) the need for the era, task, moment and situation is precisely certain qualities personalities;

i) the presence of sufficient social (political, military, etc.) forces to solve problems;

j) the presence of competitive actors;

l) other.

The points listed above are not ranked in order of importance, since the strength of the factors in different cases may not be the same. If, for example, the influence of an individual on all of humanity is considered, then points “c”, “d”, “e” are especially important here; if the reasons for the failure of the reform are “a”, “b”, “g”, “h”, “i”, “j”. In general The more of these factors favor an individual, the more important his role may be.

2.2. Individual components of the situation factor

The scope of the article makes it possible to only briefly talk about some aspects of individual components; in more detail we will dwell only on point “b” - about the phases of the state of society and fluctuations in the role of the individual when these states change.

2.2.1. Social order (item “a”)

The modern state is very different from the states of previous times, since it has a kind of “built-in regulators” that make it possible to identify emerging problems at relatively early stages and solve them, without leading to a social explosion. Such “mechanisms” limit the role of the individual in terms of uncontrolled influence on society, although modern society created new opportunities for such influence (see below). Different forms of government may have their pros and cons, but in general it can be noted that the more correctly the separation of powers is carried out, the more society protected from the fact that its leaders or subversives will undermine its stability. Thus, a system of checks and balances in the political organization of society, the presence of “built-in regulators” and social policy reduce the excessive influence of individuals.

2.2.2. Now and before (item “g”)

The role of the individual is directly related to the forces that society currently controls and which it “trusts” to it. Moreover, all factors are interconnected, therefore the activities of individuals act in continuity with other driving forces and are in a certain correspondence with them. And when a discrepancy arises, the role of the individual greatly and dangerously increases, which concerns, in particular, getting one’s hands on certain technical means. In the ancients and medieval societies monarchical-despotic type, the rulers had enormous opportunities to influence society . Especially if it lacked mechanisms to limit despotism. But then there were not such great technical capabilities. Whatever the desire of Genghis Khan or Batu to destroy a huge part of humanity, their capabilities in any case were less than that of the current maniac who would get to the nuclear button. a hundred years ago, not a single person could have such an impact on nature as the most ordinary specialist today (on a giant tanker or at a nuclear power plant, etc.).

2.2.3. The framework of society or humanity as a whole (item “d”)

In the first case, the result is not so important for the world-historical process, whereas for society it can be of great importance, for example, the failure of a leader sometimes has fatal consequences (society can go away, become dependent, lose momentum, etc. ). Another thing is the emergence of something qualitatively new not only for society, but also for the world process as a result of the activity of an individual (for example, the prophet of a new world religion, political revolution, etc.). The stakes are much higher here. For example, Christianity could spread so widely precisely in the multinational and fairly closely united Roman Empire. Generally we can say that the role of the individual grows depending on the scale of the scene, as well as on how many “backup” paths evolution has. That is why globalization significantly increases the role of the individual - the number of alternatives decreases, and the speed of development increases. On the other side, The less united humanity is, the less influence one person can have on it(This especially applies to ancient periods of history).

2.2.4. The role of a favorable moment (item “e”)

Since history is not programmed and at each moment in time one of a number of potentials is realized, then in certain situations the chances of weak tendencies increase and, in general, the possibility of choice increases. Will there be figures capable of seizing the opportunity, and who will they be? Philosophers of the past liked to say that if one personality were not present, another would replace it. In principle, this would be the case if the situation could wait a long time. But the point is precisely whether the right person will be found at the most favorable moment (when, according to Lenin’s famous expression, today is early, and the day after tomorrow is late). If you miss an opportunity, then a ten times more gifted person will be unable to do anything. And as the pace of history increases, societies have much less time to experiment than before, when history could be replayed, destroying and re-creating civilizations (see also Hook 1955: 149-150). General level development outgrows a certain stage, and then society must catch up with others, using not its own, but other people’s models.

2.2.5. Correspondence to the time and situation and the ability to realize a historical chance (paragraphs “h”, “g”)

Undoubtedly, if there are no conditions, the individual will not create them out of nothing (this is why even the greatest talents languish in the “dark” eras). No individual is capable of creating great eras if there are no accumulated conditions for this in society. It has long been established that personality always manifests itself in a specific environment and acts primarily within the framework of existing tasks and conditions for itself and those groups with which it identifies itself. It is important to remember that individuals do not act in a vacuum, but find ready-made relationships and are formed in a certain environment. And then this givenness of the previous, refracted in a person, itself becomes an important condition its future impact on society.

Major eras open up other opportunities for the individual. But history does not always present an actor with 100% chances. Very often they are vague, unclear, controversial, simply small . And even one hundred percent chances are not always used. Therefore, how these opportunities will be realized - talentedly or incompetently - often depends to a huge extent on the person. And whether the chance is realized or missed, the course of events changes significantly.

Taking into account the above, when assessing the significance of a figure (which deepens the idea of ​​​​the boundaries of the role of an individual in history as a whole), one can try to answer the question: could someone else do the same under the existing conditions? Often we can state that no, he could not. What this man did (great or criminal, good or bad): managed to concentrate the forces of the nation, use a tiny chance, showed unprecedented cruelty, etc. - is beyond the strength of almost any person. Doesn't this also explain the attractiveness of the images of Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, etc.?

On the other hand, it is fundamentally wrong to believe that great eras give birth to great people in the sense that they come as if ordered. (Aren't we today suffering from a lack of outstanding politicians?) The tragedy of many eras has been the inadequacy of leaders for the tasks set by the times. And on the contrary, the appearance of a person who managed to take advantage of circumstances to lead society away from the most correct path became their curse. Thus, the presence of a personality more or less corresponding to social tasks is only a coincidence, not so frequent, although quite probable.

2.3. Phases of the state of society (item “b”)

Although not all aspects and components of the situation factor are taken into account when analyzing the role of the individual, a number of researchers highlight such an important aspect as the state of society. In general, two main states are noted: 1) stability and strength; 2) instability, chaos, revolutions, crises, etc. Moreover, the second state allows individuals to express themselves and influence society much more strongly than the first (see: Labriola 1960: 182-183; Nehru 1977: 71; Gurevich 1969 : 68; Barulin 1993: 276; Prigozhin, Stengers 2005: 50; Borodkin 2002: 150). We formulated this position as follows: The less solid and stable a society is, the more old structures are destroyed, the greater the influence an individual can have on it. In other words, the role of the individual is inversely proportional to the stability and strength of society.

However, we believe that it is more productive to distinguish not two, but four phases: two pole (strong stability and complete chaos) and two transitional (from stability to chaos and from chaos to a new form of stability).

3. MODELING CHANGES IN THE ROLE OF THE PERSON IN DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE STATE OF SOCIETY

The above allows us to move on to modeling changes in the role of the individual based on modeling the process of changing states (phases) of society. We have developed one of the possible models of such a process, consisting of four phases:

1) a stable society such as a monarchy;

2) social pre-revolutionary crisis;

3) revolution;

IN first phase- during a relatively calm era - the role of the individual, although significant, is still not too great (although in absolute monarchies everything that concerns the monarch can be very important, and in any state much always depends on specific person in power). An individual can influence the speed or direction of movement of society within the framework of an already planned direction of development. Much less often, a personality may appear that will radically change the course of development. Even to turn a prosperous situation under an established regime into a disaster, it often takes quite a long time. Thus, Louis XV, who left the sacramental saying “After us, even a flood,” ruled from 1715 to 1774. Both during his childhood under the regency of Philippe d’Orléans (1715-1723), and later, the domestic and foreign policy of France as a whole left much to be desired. , the government's debt continued to grow. However, it was only under his successor Louis XVI in 1788 that the financial crisis that led to the revolution began. Moreover, it takes a rare combination of outstanding personal qualities, the emergence of a desire for change and special luck in order to raise the country to a new level, as Peter I did.

In terms of creating a crisis situation, the state of neighboring and other societies, which through military invasion could undermine stability, may be more important. Natural disasters and epidemics can play a similar role.

Sooner or later, the established order begins to fail. Contradictions within the system, especially fueled by the borrowing of equipment and technology, advanced relations and laws in certain areas, are intensifying. A rebuilding movement begins. It is good if at this time there is a leader who is able to lead society along the path of peaceful development. In monarchies, this can usually only be the autocrat. In Russia in 1861, such a tsar appeared and carried out a series of reforms. In Russia 1905 and 1917 there was no such thing. An absolute ruler, as already mentioned, often acts to a large extent as an autonomous, independent force: both in protecting the old, contrary to common sense (such was Nicholas I), and in terms of reforming the outdated, despite resistance (this was in many ways Alexander II). The autonomy of such a ruler is also confirmed by the fact that very often changes begin only with his (monarch, dictator) death (overthrow), since this was impossible during life.

Second the phase begins when the formation is approaching sunset. The country is on the verge of a socio-political explosion. Whether it will happen or not depends on many factors, including the strength of individuals on one side and the other.

If the resolution of issues inconvenient for the authorities is delayed, then a crisis situation arises and the desire to resolve them by force increases. Many messianic-type personalities are appearing, ready to take on the reconstruction of society in a variety of ways - from reform to revolution. Several development alternatives are emerging, behind which not only are various socio-political forces, but which are also represented by personalities. And to one degree or another, it now depends on the characteristics and luck of these persons where society can turn.

And along with this, various concepts and schemes for rebuilding the country, the world, and eliminating injustice come onto the scene. Alternative possibilities (trends and directions) for the development of society not only receive a clearer class and group expression here, but also find their apologists, leaders, heralds, etc.

The responsibility of the monarch, if he brings society to an explosion, is largely measured by the extent to which such a revolution damaged or, on the contrary, had a positive effect on the future fate of the state. In such an era, bright personalities are more characteristic of the destructive side, which feels historical and moral rightness, while the pre-crisis era opens up opportunities for a significant number talented people declared itself. However, these are often one-sided, irreconcilable, sometimes fanatical people. But talents may also emerge in the conservative camp, which is concerned about the imbalance. This was, for example, P. A. Stolypin in Russia or A. R. Turgot in France (although precisely such figures often do not come to court). It is lucky if such a leader manages to “let off steam” and peacefully change the country, defusing the situation. However, this is not always the case. Crises are often crises because narrow-minded and stubborn people take the situation to such an extreme from which there is practically no way out.

Third phase occurs when the system dies under the influence of revolutionary pressure. Starting in such a situation to resolve global contradictions that have accumulated in the old system, society never has a clear solution in advance. This is impossible for many reasons, already because each class, group, party has its own version of solving the problem, and the struggle of parties, individuals and ideas only strengthens so many alternatives. Some of the trends, of course, have more, and some less, likelihood of being realized, but this ratio can change dramatically under the influence of various reasons. In such critical periods, in our opinion, leaders sometimes play the role of weights capable of tipping the scales of history. Such explosions provide many opportunities for different evolutionary developments, which can be both harmful and beneficial. This already determines the specific balance of power and the case. The only trouble is that the trial and error method of history requires millions of victims and ruined generations of those who fell under the unfortunate Chance.

Which force will win is determined by many specific factors, including a more successful or strong-willed leader, chance and ability to take advantage of it, etc. There is no doubt that the exceptional will of Lenin, Trotsky and others played an outstanding role in terms of the Bolsheviks gaining and retaining power . If Lenin had failed to return to Russia from Switzerland on time, or if Kamenev and Zinoviev had turned out to be more influential with their uncertainty, there is no doubt that the fate of Russia would have been more prosperous.

Consequently, at certain moments the strength of individuals, their individual qualities, compliance with one’s role, etc. are of great, often decisive importance This strong-willed, often irrational and chance-prone factor can be beneficial, but also extremely dangerous, therefore - as already said - it is much more reliable if society has limits on such influences.

After the maximum destruction of the old regime, when the ties holding society together have disintegrated and rigid structures have collapsed, society becomes amorphous and therefore very susceptible to forceful influences. During such periods, the role of individuals is uncontrollable, unpredictable and can become a shaping force for a fragile society. This is also due to the fact that in the process of a difficult struggle to come to power or retain it, under the influence of many needs and personal ambitions, social forms are often created that no one planned and could not plan. It is important that these essentially random things then become a given, which can often determine the future structure of a renewed society, especially if this society is dominated by a rigid orthodox ideology. As a result, having gained influence, leaders take societies where no one could even imagine, “inventing” an unprecedented social structure (albeit limited by geographical and other conditions that no one can ignore). In such critical epochs, the role of the individual is enormous, but this role - and especially its further influences - in the end often turns out to be not quite the same (or even completely different) than this person himself expected.

Fourth phase occurs (sometimes quite quickly) when the creation of a new system and order begins. After any political force has strengthened in power, the struggle can begin in the camp of the winners. It is connected both with the relationships between leaders and with the choice of further development path. The role of the individual here is also exceptionally great: after all, society has not yet frozen, and the new system can be associated precisely with a certain person, prophet, leader, etc. After a dramatic change in social orders, society is noticeably polarized. A popular figure, such as the leader of a rebellion or the head of a victorious party, becomes a kind of banner. To finally establish yourself in power, you need to deal with the remaining political rivals and prevent increased competition from your comrades. This ongoing struggle (the duration of which depends on many reasons) is directly related to the characteristics of the victorious individual and finally gives the shape of society, consolidating some version of the new order within the framework of the victorious direction (for example, all deviations from certain tenets of faith are declared heresy, in the Communist Party - right or left slope, etc.).

Naturally, a lot depends on what the leader is like and on what his authority within the movement was based. In particular, it is possible that if Lenin had continued to live, unlike Stalin, he could have done without large and bloody repressions in the party and, to a large extent, in society. The death of this man greatly intensifies the struggle in the camp of the winners.

Such transitional eras often end with a personal dictatorship, in which the aspirations of the leader himself, and the personification of various “successes” in him, and the weakness of society, etc. merge.

So, the character of the new system greatly depends on the qualities of the leaders, the ups and downs of the struggle and other, sometimes random, things. This is the reason that always As a result of the changes, the result is a completely different society than was planned.

Gradually, the hypothetical system we are considering matures, takes shape, acquires rigidity and its own laws. Now in many ways they determine the leaders. Philosophers of the past expressed this aphoristically: “When societies are born, it is the leaders who create the institutions of the republic. Later, institutions produce leaders.” While the system is strong enough, and even more so if it is at least partially progressing, changing it is not so easy, often impossible. If a society that has entered the “spiral” phase of stability again has failed to acquire the regulators of crisis-free development, then the cycle with certain changes may be repeated or at some stage beneficial transformations will occur.

In conclusion, we reiterate that the problem of the role of the individual in history is always relevant for each generation and is solved in a new aspect. Therefore, in our opinion, it is wrongfully written off as of little relevance. There is a serious need to return to the analysis of the problem of the role of the individual in history, taking into account new achievements in historical science and new scientific means.

Literature

Averyanov, A. N. 1985.Systemic cognition of the world. Methodological problems. M.: Political publishing house. liters.

Aron, R.

1993a. Imaginary Marxism. M.: Progress.

1993b. Stages of development of sociological thought. M.: Progress Univers.

2000. Favorites: Introduction to the Philosophy of History. M.: PER SE; St. Petersburg: University Book.

2004. Selected: Dimensions of Historical Consciousness. M.: ROSSPEN.

Barulin, V. S. 1993. Social philosophy: at 2 o'clock Moscow: Moscow State University.

Berdyaev, N. 1990. Philosophy of inequality. M.: IMA-Press.

Bertalanffy, L. von

1969a. General systems theory: a critical review. In: Sadovsky, Yudin1969b: 23-82.

1969b. General systems theory - a review of problems and results. Systems research 1: 30-54.

Blauberg, I.V. 1997. The problem of integrity and a systematic approach. M.: URSS.

Blauberg, I. V., Yudin, E. G.

1967. The systems approach to social research. Questions of philosophy 9: 100-111.

1972. The concept of integrity and its role in scientific knowledge. M.: Knowledge.

Borodkin, L. I. 2002. Bifurcations in the processes of evolution of nature and society: general and special in the assessment of I. Prigogine. History and computer 29: 143-157.

Boulding, K. 1969. General systems theory - the skeleton of science. In: Sadovsky, Yudin 1969b: 106-124.

Butinov,N.A.

1968. Papuans of New Guinea. M.: Science.

2000. The peoples of Papua New Guinea (From tribalism to an independent state). St. Petersburg: Petersburg Oriental Studies.

Hegel, G. W. F.

1934. Philosophy of Law. Op.: in 14 volumes. T. 7. M.; L.

1935. Philosophy of History. Op.: in 14 volumes. T. 8. M.; L.

Hempel, K.

1977. Motives and "encompassing" laws in historical explanation. In: Cohn 1977: 72-93.

1998. Logic of explanation. M.: House of Intellectual Books.

Gramsci, A. 1991 . Prison notebooks. Part 1. M.: Political publishing house. liters.

Grinin, L. E.

1997. Formations and Civilizations. Ch. 3. Problems of analyzing the driving forces of historical development and social progress.Philosophy and society 3: 5-92.

2006. Early State and its analogues. In: Grinin, L. E., Bondarenko, D. M., Kradin, N. N., Korotaev, A. V. (eds.), The early state, its alternatives and analogues(pp. 85-163). Volgograd: Teacher.

2007. The problem of analyzing the driving forces of historical development, social progress and social evolution. In: Semenov, Yu. I., Gobozov, I. A., Grinin, L. E., Philosophy of history: problems and prospects(pp. 183-203). M.: KomKniga/URSS.

2008. On the role of personality in history. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 78(1): 42-47.

2010. Personality in history: the evolution of views. History and modernity 2: 3-44.

2011. The state and the historical process. The era of state formation. General context of social evolution during the formation of the state. 2nd ed. M.: Librocom.

Grinin, L. E., Korotaev, A. V., Malkov, S. Yu. 2010. Introduction. Russian revolutions in a hundred-year retrospective. In: Grinin, L. E., Korotaev, A. V., Malkov, S. Yu. (ed.), On the causes of the Russian revolution(pp. 5-24). M.: LKI.

Gurevich, A. Ya. 1969. On historical patterns. In: Gulyga, A. V., Levada, Yu. A. (compiled), Philosophical problems of historical science. M.: Science.

Dray, W. 1977. Once again on the question of explaining the actions of people in historical science. In: Cohn 1977: 37-71.

Inkels, A. 1972. Personality and social structure. In: Osipov, G. V. (ed.), American Sociology: Prospects, Problems, Methods. M.: Progress.

Kareev, N. I.

1890. Basic questions of the philosophy of history. Part III. SPb.: Type. Stasyulevich.

1914. The essence of the historical process and the role of personality in history. 2nd ed., with additions. SPb.: Type. Stasyulevich.

Carlyle, T.

1891. Heroes and the heroic in history. SPb.: Publishing house. F. Pavlenkova.

1994.Heroes, hero worship and the heroic in history. V.: Carlyle, T., Now and before(p. 6-198). M.: Republic.

Kautsky, K. 1931.Materialistic understanding of history. T. 2. M.; L.: Sotsekgiz.

Kohn, I. S. (ed.) 1977. Philosophy and methodology of history. M.: Progress.

Labriola, A. 1960 . Essays on the materialistic understanding of historyrii. M.: gospolitizdat.

Liseev, I. K., Sadovsky, V. N. (ed.) 2004. Systematic approach in modern science (to the 100th anniversary of Ludwig von Bertalanffy). M.: Progress-Tradition.

Mises, L. 2001 . Theory and history. Interpretation of socio-economic evolution. M.: Unity-Dana.

Mills, T.M. 1972. On the sociology of small groups. In: Osipov, G. V. (ed.), American sociology. Prospects, problems, methods. M.: Progress.

Mikhailovsky, N.K. 1998 . Heroes and the Crowd: Selected Works on Sociology: in 2 volumes T. 2 / hole. ed. V. V. Kozlovsky. SPb.: Aletheia.

Moiseev, N.N. 1987. Evolution algorithms. M.: Young Guard.

Nagel, E. 1977. Determinism in History. In: Cohn 1977: 94-114.

Nehru, J. 1977. A look at world history: in 3 volumes. T. 3. M.: Progress.

Petrosyan, Yu. A. 1991. Ancient city on the banks of the Bosphorus. M.: Science.

Plekhanov, G. V. 1956. On the question of the role of personality in history. Favorites philosophical works: in 5 volumes. T. 2 (p. 300-334). M.: Gospolitizdat.

Popov, V. A.

1982. Ashanti people in the 19th century. Experience of ethnosociological research. M.: Science.

1990. Ethnosocial history of the Akan peopleXVI- XIXcenturies. M.: Science.

Popper, K. 1992. Open Society and his enemies. M.: International Foundation “Cultural Initiative”.

Prigozhin, I., Stengers, I. 2005. Time, chaos, quantum. Towards a solution to the time paradox. M.: KomKniga.

Rappoport, H. 1899. Philosophy of history in its main trends. St. Petersburg

Sadovsky, V. N. 1974. Foundations of general systems theory. Logical and methodological analysis. M.: Science.

Sadovsky, V. N., Yudin, E. G.

1969a. Problems, methods and applications of general systems theory (introductory article). In: Sadovsky, Yudin 1969b: 3-22.

1969b (ed.). Research on general systems theory. M.: Progress.

Toynbee, A.J.

1979. If Alexander had not died then... Knowledge is power 12: 39-42.

1991.Comprehension of history. M.: Progress.

1994. If Philip and Artaxerxes had survived... Knowledge is power 8: 60-65.

Khara-Dawan,E. 1996. Genghis Khan as a commander and his legacy. In: Muslimov, I. B. (ed.), At the junction of continents and civilizations (from the experience of the formation and collapse of empiresX- XVIcenturies)(pp. 73-276). M.: INSAN.

Schumpeter, J. 1982. Theory of economic development. M.: Progress.

Shchedrovitsky, G. P. 1964. Problems of systems research methodology. M.: Knowledge.

Ashby, W.R. 1969. General systems theory as a new scientific discipline. In: Sadovsky, Yudin 1969b: 125-142.

Alexander, B. 2000. How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Led to Nazi Defeat. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Barfield, Th. 1991. Inner Asia and Cycles of Power in China's Imperial History. In Seaman, G., Marks, D. (eds.), Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery(pp. 21-62). Los Angeles, CA: Ethnographics Press.

Bertalanffy, L. von

1951. General Systems Theory: a New Approach to Unity of Science. Human Biology 23(4): 302-361.

1962. General System Theory - A Critical Review. General Systems 7: 1-20.

1968. General Systems Theory. Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.

Carneiro, R. 2002. Was the Chiefdom a Congelation of Ideas? Social Evolution & History 1(1): 80-100.

Carr, C. 2000. Napoleon Wins at Waterloo. In Cowley, R. (ed.), What If?: The World's Foremost Historians Imagine What Might Have Been(pp. 220-221) . New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Carr, D. 1996. History, Fiction, and Human Time. History and the Limits of Interpretation. A Symposium. Internet resource. Access mode: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~hevern/narpsych/nr-hist.html

Claessen, H.J.M. 2002. Was the State Inevitable? Social Evolution & History 1(1): 101-117.

Dray, W.H. 1963. The Historical Explanation of Actions Reconsidered. In Hook, S. (ed.), (pp. 105-135).

Fisher, H. 1935. A History of Europe. Vol. I. London.

Geoffroy-Chateau, L.-N. 1836. Napoleon et la Conquete du Monde. Paris: Dellaye.

Grinin, L.E.

2004. The Early State and Its Analogues: A Comparative Analysis. In Grinin, L. E., Carneiro, R. L., Bondarenko, D. M., Kradin, N. N., Korotayev, A. V. (eds.), The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues(pp. 88-136). Volgograd: Teacher.

2007. Once More to the Question on the Role of Personality in History. In Kuçuradi, I., Voss, S. (eds.), The Proceedings of the XXI st World Congress of Philosophy ‘Philosophy Facing World Problems’ (pp. 169-173). Ankara: Philosophical Society of Turkey.

2008. The Role of the Individual in History. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 78(1): 64-69.

2010. The Role of Individual in History: A Reconsideration. Social Evolution & History 9(2): 95-136.

Hempel, C.G. 1963. Reasons and Covering Law in Historical Explanation. In Hook, S. (ed.), Philosophy and History. A Symposium(pp. 143-163). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Hook, S. 1955 . The Hero in History. A Study in Limitation and Possibility. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Hook, S. (ed.) 1963. Philosophy and History. A Symposium. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Jones, R. D. S. (ed.) 1969.Unity and diversity in systems. New York, NY: Gordon and Breach.

Mandelbaum, M. 1963. Objectivism in History. In Hook, S. (ed.), Philosophy and History. A Symposium(pp.43-56) . New York, NY: New York University Press.

Mesarovič, M. D. (ed.) 1964. Views of General Systems Theory. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Miller, J.C. 1976. Kings and kinsmen: early Mbundu states in Angola (Oxford Studies in African Affairs).Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Montefiore, S.S. 2004. Stalin Flees Moscow in 1941. In Robert, A. (ed . ),What Might Have Been: Leading Historians on Twelve ‘What Ifs’ of History(pp. 134-152) . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Murray, W. 2000. What a Taxi Driver Wrought. In Cowley, R. (ed.), What If?: The World's Foremost Historians Imagine What Might have been(pp. 306-307). New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Nagel , E. 1961. The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Nowak, L. 2009. Class and individual in the Historical Process. In Brzechezyn, K. (ed.), Idealization XIII: Modeling in History(Series: Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 97) (pp. 63-84). Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi.

Ogburn, W. F. 1926. The Great Man versus Social Forces. Social Forces 5(2) (December): 225-231.

Oman, WITH. 1942. Napoleon at the Channel. New York.

Popper, K . 1966. The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Schumpeter, J.A. 1939. Business Cycles. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill .

Stern,F. (ed.) 1964. The Varieties of History. From Voltaire to the Present. Cleveland; New York.

Trevelyan, G. 1972. If Napoleon had Won the Battle of Waterloo. In Squire, J.C. (ed.), If It Had Happened Otherwise Plekhanov wrote that the clash of views on the issue of the role of the individual often took the form of “an antinomy, the first member of which was general laws, and the second – the activities of individuals. From the point of view of the second member of the antinomy, history seemed to be a simple concatenation of accidents; from the point of view of her first member it seemed that the action common reasons even the individual features of historical events were determined” (Plekhanov 1956: 331). For more details on attempts to escape the restrictions of this antinomy, see article 1 (Grinin 2010).

Thus, it is well known that Columbus appealed to several sovereigns before receiving consent from Isabella of Castile. A similar example with Fulton, the inventor of the steamboat, who approached Napoleon with a proposal, is also analyzed by Hook (Hook 1955: 124-125) with reference to: Oman 1942: 155.

Moreover, it was precisely situations of the first type that formed the ideas characteristic of determinists that if a certain person had not appeared in time, he would have been completely replaced by another. And the second situations gave reason to educators and representatives of the heroic movement to believe that heroes create history from themselves (see more about both approaches in article 1 [Grinin 2010]).

Take the same Deng Xiaoping in China, A. Nasser in Egypt, M. Suharto in Indonesia, A. Pinochet in Chile, M. Gorbachev in the USSR, S. Milosevic in Yugoslavia, etc., and it will become obvious that with others leaders, the processes could have gone differently.

But let us note in passing that if truly outstanding leaders do not appear in Western countries, then the “decline of the West” may become an irreversible process.

See, for example, the shift of such interest from individuals and their actions to economic factors of deep structure and long-term processes of social change since the Annals school: Carr 1996.

Among the latter one can mention, for example, the famous Polish philosopher L. Nowak. In his article “Class and Personality in the Historical Process” (2009), Novak tries to analyze the role of personality through the prism of a new class theory within the framework of the non-Marxist historical materialism he created. Novak believes that the personality itself as an individual is not capable of significantly influencing the course of the historical process if this personality is not at the intersection with some other factors-parameters of the historical process.

Between some of them in the late 50s - early 60s. There were discussions about the laws of history. As part of these discussions, some thoughts were also expressed about the role of the individual (in particular, about the motives for the actions of historical figures and the relationship between motives and results). Some of the most interesting articles, for example by W. Dray, K. Hempel, M. Mandelbaum - which, of course, is not surprising - were published in a collection edited by Sidney Hook (Hook 1963). Some of these discussions were published in Russian in the work “Philosophy and Methodology of History” (Kon 1977).

This is especially clearly visible in the process of rather rare cases of state formation among nomads, since they have fewer objective conditions for this than do settled, cultivated farmers. Even large polities emerged among nomads only a few times throughout history, and the Mongol Empire should be considered as an exceptional case (Barfield 1991: 48), which would not have been realized without the personality of Genghis Khan himself. On the other hand, we see that for success and especially for the institutionalization of the situation of state formation, energy and outstanding qualities are not enough. Thus, the example of Marobodus, Arminius or Ariovistus among the Germans in the 1st century. n. BC, which created quite powerful politically and militarily polities (see for more details: Grinin 2011: 256, 286), shows that sometimes such leaders are capable, thanks to their qualities and ability to use the situation, to create large political formations. But if there are no deeper conditions for the existence of the state, such unions fall apart.

True, there are eras of programmed chaos, for example feudal fragmentation and civil strife, intercommunal “war of all against all,” as in the pre-colonial period among the Papuans (Butinov 1968; 2000), which do not give birth to anything new and do not bring society to a new state (despite the fact that at times certain notable personalities stand out there). The same chaos can exist in a state of “wild capitalism.” For the manifestation of personality, the most productive states are, in the language of J. Schumpeter (1982; Schumpeter 1939), creative destruction.

In connection with the above, even a passing statement by Ilya Prigozhin that in the presence of different personalities, the same social and historical mechanisms can give rise to a different history (see: Prigozhin, Stengers 2005: 50), seems methodologically interesting.

To determine the priority of, say, an inventor or scientist, the period is sometimes determined not in years and months, but in days and even hours. The famous story of the dispute between Alexander Bell and Elisha Gray over the priority of the invention of the telephone serves as a good example. Bell's application for a patent for the telephone and Gray's opposition to this application were filed on the same day - February 14, 1876, with a time difference of several hours.

But sometimes short term is extremely important, since it is who is the first to do something that acquires enormous significance. So, if Germany, and not the United States, had created the atomic bomb first, this could have serious consequences.

On the contrary, in the absence of a system of transfer of power in a monarchy, the death of a monarch often causes bloody strife and power struggles between the heirs, and in such a situation, the accession to power largely depends on the ability of the contenders. It is not surprising that the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II in the 15th century, wanting to avoid a struggle for power after his death, issued an inherently astonishing law that gave the right to the son who ascended the throne “to kill his brothers so that there would be order on earth.” "(Petrosyan 1991: 164).

Leo Tolstoy called Nicholas II Genghis Khan with guns and a telegraph. The great writer, fortunately for him, did not imagine what kind of Genghis Khans with concentration camps, as well as tanks, poisonous gases and an atomic bomb would come soon. In the 20th century It became obvious that (all other things being equal) the role of the individual can grow to gigantic proportions if two trends are combined in one place: on the one hand, the personalization of power and the permissiveness of rulers, on the other, the technical power of modernity plus the ability to use it to influence rest of the world. This is exactly what happened in the USSR, Germany, and Japan in the last century (see also: Hook 1955).

Differences in the strength of individual influence between the past and the present in some cases are manifested in the fact that today politicians have much more knowledge about different paths and models of development, which often makes the choice of one course or another dependent on the individual (for example, Kemal Atatürk chose the path for Turkey secular Europeanized state, and current Muslim leaders often choose Islamization).

Naturally, there is a limit to the possibilities of the individual in general (it was impossible to discover the theory of relativity in antiquity) and a limit to those conditions that could give rise to the need for the necessary personality (for example, steam engine knew back in antiquity, but it didn’t go beyond toys, since there was no need for it).

The episode described by Plutarch very well illustrates the difference between a genius and a simply outstanding person. Alexander the Great consulted with his entourage whether or not to accept the conditions proposed by the Persians. Darius III, even before the decisive battle of Gaugamela, was ready to make peace on very favorable terms. He ceded to Macedonia all the lands west of the Euphrates and promised a huge indemnity. Parmenion said: “If I were Alexander, I would accept these conditions.” “I swear by Zeus, I would have done the same,” Alexander exclaimed, “if I were Parmenion!” And then he wrote an ultimatum letter to the Persian king (Plutarch. Alexander: XXIX).

True, unfortunately mostly this is expressed in the form of incidental and sometimes vague remarks without systematization and any detailed analysis.

Hegel also noted that great historical figures are figures who act in critical epochs.

It is also necessary to create a more detailed classification of the states of society. In particular, both stability and especially instability have many options, each of which has very significant features. Thus, stagnation differs from strength in conditions of economic (territorial) growth, and even more so from conditions of rapid growth. Stability can also occur with slow degradation or decline. Even with stability, much depends on how much the social system is “regulated” to one individual. The options for social disruption are also diverse: reform differs from revolution, peaceful revolution differs from civil war, etc.

Of course, there may be many other models. For example, the following look productive: stability - crisis - reform; stability - crisis - revolution - counter-revolution; stagnation - reform - rise (or decline); rise - reform - rise. Etc.

Here is how Hegel speaks about what he considers an ideal state: “...here the premise is incorrect, as if the character trait matters. With the perfect organization of the state, all that is important is the presence of a formally decisive peak and natural inflexibility to passions... For the peak must be of such a kind that the peculiarity of character does not matter... The monarchy must be strong in itself, and what belongs to the monarch beyond this latter decision is something that falls within the realm of the private, to which no importance should be attached. There may be such states of the state in which only this area of ​​the private appears, but then the state is not yet fully developed or not well built” (Hegel 1934: 308-309).

In the language of dynamic chaos theory, society is approaching a bifurcation point, when one channel of future social evolution is selected from several alternative ones.

“Everyone is responsible for the revolution, and most of all the reactionary forces of the old regime are responsible.” “Revolution always says that those in power have not fulfilled their purpose” (Berdyaev 1990: 258).

This is also similar to the phenomenon of resonance in physics. And when the frequency of fluctuations in social opportunities (in the most varied forms, for example, in the desires of the masses or the army) coincides with the fluctuations of the individual, when the gigantic will of social force accumulates in him, its role increases a thousandfold.

About one of these situations, A. Labriola, for example, wrote: “When the specific interests of individual social groups so aggravated that all the fighting parties mutually paralyze each other, then, in order to set in motion political mechanism, the individual consciousness of a certain personality is required” (Labriola 1960: 183).

Such fears were reflected in the worldview of the founding fathers of the United States, who believed that any government is an inevitable evil, but a bad one is an unbearable evil.