Russian psychological community. Psychological societies and organizations

Moscow Psychological Society (MPO) was created on January 24, 1885 under Moscow University with the aim of uniting everyone scientific forces to develop development paths psychological research and dissemination of psychological knowledge in Russia.

MPO arose at a time when domestic psychological thought in Russia and in particular at Moscow University had not yet emerged as an independent field of scientific knowledge, but developed as component philosophy - along with logic and history of philosophy and in connection with the fate of philosophy in Russia.
The MPO was dominated by philosophers - N.Ya. Grot, L.M. Lopatin, Vl. Soloviev, G.G. Shpet, I.A. Ilyin and other outstanding figures of Russian philosophy.

Professor at Moscow University, sociologist and lawyer, founder of the natural law school V.M. Khvostov included questions of free will in connection with the consideration of phenomena public life. Professor of Criminal Law D.A. Dril made a great contribution to the development of domestic legal psychology, he believed necessary knowledge psychology in practical work with juvenile offenders. Research in the field natural sciences and in medicine they also demanded philosophical and psychological foundations. Professors at Moscow University, biologist K.F., turned to philosophy and psychology and contributed to their development. Roulier, physiologist I.M. Sechenov, naturalist and major historian of science V.I. Vernadsky, psychiatrists S.S. Korsakov, A.A. Tokarsky, V.P. Serbsky, P.B. Gannushkin, N.N. Bazhenov, S.A. Sukhanov.

All this encouraged the consolidation of forces of both people professionally involved in philosophy and scientists interested in problems of psychology in connection with their professional interests. The actual rapprochement of philosophy and sciences based on psychological issues and was the objective prerequisite and reason for their unification.

The creation of the Psychological Society became a form of their organizational unification. The society was created on the initiative of M.M. Troitsky and supported by 14 professors from all faculties of the university, who were its founders. At its first meeting on January 24, 1885, the founding members elected the Council of the Society. The founder of the Society, philosopher and psychologist Matvey Mikhailovich Troitsky, was elected Chairman. fellow chairman - Doctor of Medicine V.A. Legonin, secretary - lawyer N.A. Zverev, fellow secretary - anthropologist and geographer D.N. Anuchin. The place for meetings was determined - the new building of the university (now the building that houses the Faculty of Journalism), and the place for public lectures and reports - the old one (the building that houses Assembly Hall, and in its right wing is the Institute of Asian and African Countries). At the same meeting, the founding members proposed another 53 persons for election as full members of the Society.

They were elected at the next - public - meeting on March 14, 1885, and one of the new members N.A. Abrikosov- was then elected treasurer. Subsequently, the number of members of the Society began to grow rapidly and reached more than 200 people.

MPO was one of many scientific societies that arose and developed at the university, within its walls. Both the founders and most of members of the MPO were professors at Moscow University. N.Ya. took the most active part in its work. Grot, L.M. Lopatin - both were chairmen of the Society at different times, as well as G.I. Chelpanov, Vl. Soloviev, S.S. Korsakov, V.A. Wagner, G.I. Rossolimo. They made presentations at the most different topics, participated in discussions on other reports.

When did the MPO start publishing its magazine? "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology" (since 1889), they acted in it not only as authors of articles, but also gave reviews latest literature on psychology and philosophy, reviews of them. Their reviews were essentially short articles with a brief but very informative summary and analysis of the relevant publications. These are, for example, reviews by N.A. Berdyaev on the books by O. Weininger “Gender and Character” and W. James “The Variety of Religious Experience”, reviews by P.P. Blonsky and others.

Through the MPO, university scientists communicated with other scientific centers Russia. Members of the MPO and the authors of its publications were philosophers, psychologists and psychiatrists from St. Petersburg - N.O. Lossky, A.I. Vvedensky, I.I. Lapshin, from Kazan University - V.N. Ivanovsky, Lviv University - Yu.L. Okhorovich, Yuryev University - V.F. Chizh.

The MPO had extensive connections with world science.

Many outstanding foreign philosophers and scientists were honorary members of the IPO. Among them are A. Bain, W. Wundt, G. Helmholtz, E. Dubois Raymond, T. Ribot, S. Richet, E. Zeller, W. Windelband, G. Spencer, W. James, G. Gefding, E. Titchener , E. Hartmann. Through them, materials about the work of the MPO were transmitted to foreign scientific journals, so that its activities became known to the world community of psychologists.

Members of the IPO participated in the organization and conduct of international psychological congresses, international congresses of psychiatrists and other international forums.

Detailed reports about them were published in the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology.”

In addition to the purely scientific, there was another very important side to the Society’s activities.

His activities influenced the spiritual life of Russia as a whole.
The IPO’s connection with the general public was facilitated by holding public meetings, usually devoted to the most significant topics, the activities of outstanding figures of the Society, the memory of outstanding thinkers of the past - J. Bruno, R. Descartes, etc. The topics of a number of its other meetings also included issues that worried not only specialists , but aroused sympathy and interest among the general public.

Here are some of these topics:
- what is hypnosis;
- what are the foundations of moral life and activity as opposed to immoral behavior;
- how do they relate moral duty and happiness;
- how to understand determinism and free will in connection with issues of law, morality, and phenomena of social life;
- what is the meaning of life;
- what is the psychology of a woman;
- is it possible to talk about human progress;
- what are national characteristics Russian philosophical self-awareness, etc.

Speaking at the ceremonial (hundredth) meeting of the Society on February 21, 1893, N.Ya. Grot, as chairman of the MPO, said with good reason that it never “...was not given any other goals than to modestly and to the best of our ability contribute to the enlightenment of the homeland, the rise of the Russian spirit, the development of Russian thought and self-awareness.”

Connections with society were also facilitated by the fact that members of the IPO were not only outstanding philosophers and scientists, but also writers - L.N. Tolstoy, A.A. Fet, P.D. Boborykin, professor of the Moscow Conservatory A.N. Scriabin, cultural figures - V.N. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Yu.I. Aikhenwald and other famous public and cultural figures. In their speeches at the meetings, they drew attention to life problems, important for Russian society, meeting its spiritual needs and mindsets, directly addressed feelings and common sense thinking people.

Public events included performances
L.N. Tolstoy about the concept of life and the moral tasks of man,
Vl. Solovyov about the essence of the true Christian ideal and about deviations from it in the activities of the church.

The Psychological Society enjoyed support from its wealthy members in the form of donations.

In December 1888, competing members of the IPO A.A. and N.A Abrikosovs spoke publishers of the project conceived by the Chairman of the Society N.Ya. Grotto of the journal "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology", having set the following conditions: the publication of the journal must be carried out under the editorship of N.Ya. Grot and with the participation of the Psychological Society.

When the magazine no longer needed financial assistance, A.A. Abrikosov transferred the rights to its publication into the ownership of the Society and from 1893 to 1918 ( Last year publication of the magazine) the magazine was published under the stamp of the Psychological Society.

In the same 1888, full member of the Society D.A. Stolypin donated 2,000 rubles for the establishment of a prize at the Society for an essay on the philosophy of O. Comte and 1,000 rubles for the costs of publishing the magazine or other possible publications. The prize was established, and in 1891 it was awarded to the work of B.N. Chicherin "Positive philosophy and the unity of science." This fact is also known. A peasant from the Tambov province transferred his savings to the MPO fund and at the same time asked to be considered a member of it.

In general, we can rightfully say that the Moscow Psychological Society, together with other scientific societies of the university (with some of them, the MPO held joint meetings - for example, on February 10, 1885, a public joint meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature and the Psychological Society was held in memory of J. . Bruno), as well as museums organized at the university (such as the Museum fine arts, founded in 1912 by professor of Moscow University I. Tsvetaev, Historical Museum - 1883, Polytechnic - 1877, Anthropological - 1879, etc.), created a cultural environment around the university, helping to transform the university into a true center of Moscow philosophical education, cultural and spiritual life Moscow.

In 1922 the Psychological Society, like others scientific societies, was closed.

http://rl-online.ru/articles/1-05/284.html
Moscow Psychological Society is 120 years old
Antonina Zhdan, Alexander Dontsov

Specifics of determination of social psychology.

Psychology of social changes in society.

Possibilities of regulatory influence on the psychology of society

In sociology society understood as a relatively stable system determined in the process of historical development of mankind social connections and relationships in a community of people, supported by the power of customs, traditions, laws, social institutions etc., based on a certain method of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material and spiritual goods.

Society represents the unity of objective and subjective, material and spiritual, social existence and social consciousness. Objective - this is a certain territory, economy, acting individuals, social actions and interactions, social institutions, various government bodies. Subjective - everything that is connected with the spiritual, cultural and historical characteristics of society, life in it, public consciousness, social values ​​of the people, their aspirations, expectations, aspirations, public opinion, public sentiment, traditions, customs, etc.

The forces and patterns of this reality reveal themselves through the actions of people with consciousness. In the history of the development of knowledge about society, extremes have been fairly criticized: excessive “materialization” of the life of society (explaining everything and everyone by material conditions, the economy) and excessive “subjectivization” (explaining everything only by the state of the spiritual sphere of society), one of the varieties of which is “psychologization” (reducing everything to psychology). However, the latter does not mean that psychological factors can be underestimated.

Productive research into the problems of social psychology was carried out by social psychologists A.A. Bodalev, G.G. Diligensky, E.S. Kuzmin, B.D. Parygin, B.F. Porshnev, S.K. Roshchin, V.A. Sosnin, A.N. Sukhov and others. However, the scope of such studies is now disproportionate to the significance and complexity of the turbulent and contradictory social changes in the post-Soviet space, and the number of specialists included in them is unjustifiably small. Therefore, it is more correct to consider the judgments presented below as preliminary and insufficiently complete, although they provide grounds for discussion.

Psychology of society (social psychology)- a holistic, systemic set of socio-psychological phenomena, inherent in the population living in a certain territory, the organization of life activities in which is carried out by the state.

By its essence, nature, it is a subjective image of the world, life, society, existing among the population, characterizing it psychologically and formed in conditions of a common history and joint life activity. As a psychological phenomenon, this image includes not only cognitive components, but also axiological (value, evaluative), need-motivational (incentive) and behavioral-volitional (mastered and habitual methods of action). Therefore, the psychology of society is not only an understanding, a “picture of the environment,” but also subjective regulator life of the population and its socially significant activity.

In cognitive terms, social psychology is a specific, holistic, interconnected system of knowledge, ideas, views, feelings, value orientations, norms of behavior, motivations, needs, aspirations, behavioral habits, relationships and other things that have developed among a people, characterize their history, manifest themselves and affect on his modern life and in a certain way influencing his immediate future.

The psychology of society represents unity public consciousness And subconscious. The first is a set of socio-psychological phenomena that characterize what is realized by the people, which is expressed in the views, ideas, beliefs, public opinion of the people, as well as in the achievements of science, teachings, theories, ideology, law, doctrines, scientific literature, etc. The second - unconscious, not formed into clear judgments and justifications, but affecting the consciousness, attitude and behavior of people in society. The psychology of society combines elements of science and everyday life (empiricism), reliable and erroneous, conscious and unconscious.

The specificity of causality in the psychology of society is in its trinity : integrated influence objective living conditions of people, contacts between them, jointactivities. However, a single activity as such, which is the main determinant of the psychology of small groups, is absent in society. Her place is taken vital activity of the population in all its diversity, and the general features in it are determined mainly by the type of socio-economic structure of society and real events his stories. Those that dominate the life of the population and those that prevailed in the past are acquiring an increased role in influencing it. social realities, type of social relations, economics, politics. Therefore, the main sources of difficulties in changing social psychology, which do not always contribute to the development of social life, are due to the difficulties of objective changes V the lives of citizens and historical experiences that coincide or do not coincide with real changes.

The only thing common to the entire population is contacts with funds mass media and printing. The development of the latter in modern conditions has acquired a total, systematic, long-term character of penetration into the immediate environment of almost all citizens, into every apartment. They have become important factors social environment and contacts with her.

The psychology of society is most fully represented all types of socio-psychological phenomena , and above all mass: motivational and need nature (social goals, needs, interests, values, aspirations, hopes and expectations, aspirations, intentions, attitudes, orientations), predominantly cognitive nature (public opinions on various issues life of society and the activities of the state, public views, beliefs, ideas, perceptions, memory, beliefs, superstitions, prejudices, rumors), predominantly of an emotional nature (public moods, feelings, experiences, affects, panic), predominantly of a behavioral-volitional nature (social movements , actions, behavior, norms, customs, traditions, tastes, fashion) and relationships between large social communities, groups, citizens.

The psychology of society, as a most complex systemic socio-psychological reality, has hierarchical structure. This is expressed by the presence in it layers(strata, subsystems within whose boundaries various socio-psychological phenomena are detected and interact.

At first approach, they stand out two socio-psychological layers. First - system-forming, sustainable (in other terminology, “deep”). This layer includes, from the already mentioned socio-psychological phenomena, public interests, needs, beliefs, ideals, memory, beliefs, traditions, customs and others, more complex, which are discussed below.

Second socio-psychological layer system-dynamic. This is a layer of constantly emerging and disappearing manifestations of the psychology of society, caused by changes in the complex of reasons influencing it. It includes most of the above types of socio-psychological phenomena, especially clearly manifested in the emergence and changes of public opinion, moods, expectations, and decisions.

At the level of social psychology, a general psychological pattern is expressed: external causes act through internal conditions.

TO system-forming, basic The components of social psychology include the following.

Social consciousness - psychologically characterized by the self-identification of the population as a society, their awareness of their integrity and originality, their differences from the population of other states, the commonality of their life and destiny, the need to live together, their “mirror” - “We” (vision and assessment of themselves as if through the eyes of other peoples) , self-assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses, social interests and needs.

Public consciousness - meaningful understanding and attitude towards the surrounding world, primarily towards social reality, existence both in one’s society and in humanity. It is expressed in a system of basic concepts, the specifics of their meanings and implications, criteria for understanding and evaluating what is happening, axiomatic judgments (including proverbs, sayings, parables), beliefs, social ideals, recognized norms of behavior, public opinion, ideology, scientific achievements, etc. .

Spiritual and psychological culture - a historically certain level (degree) of development of the spiritual forces and capabilities of the people, the system of spiritual values ​​dominant in it. Usually it includes a culture of values, relationships, norms of behavior, thinking, morality, education, language, national symbols (coats of arms, flags, anthems, traditions, customs, rituals), art culture, social, political, legal, etc. Precise measurement criteria there is no level of development. It is assessed by comparison with the achievements of modern human civilization, its development trends, and the level of culture of the peoples of other countries.

People's mentality - historically developed psychological mindset, way of thinking, assessments, spiritual attitudes, habitual social preferences and tastes. This is sometimes called "social (folk) character." It presents the folk uniqueness of the psychology of a given society.

Social and psychological climate in society - manifestation of social psychology as favorable or unfavorable for the life and activities of the population, its groups and citizens. It is most clearly expressed in satisfaction - dissatisfaction of people, groups, communities with life in society and the social changes and processes occurring in it, and the activities of the state apparatus. It manifests itself in public opinion and sentiment, in the socio-psychological well-being of citizens.

Social activity - actual practice of behavior of the population, assessed with social positions and focus on ensuring a balance of individual interests. Particular importance is attached to the mass activity of citizens and groups, proactively and voluntarily directed towards the creation of non-state public institutions, participation in their activities, independent of the state mechanism and aimed at improving life in society and the self-realization of citizens in it (this is what is now associated with the concept "civil society".

All the basic components of the psychology of society are interconnected, penetrate each other, and mutually determine the characteristics and systemic characteristics of each.

Social psychology does not represent a monolithic unity, and its characteristic features can be discussed only by its predominant features. The characteristics of the various social communities that form the main population groups discussed above confirm the diversity of social psychology, but do not exclude the presence in it of certain common system-forming and system-dynamic phenomena.

Studying and assessing the entire set of basic characteristics of the psychology of society will help to holistically understand and evaluate its state, much of what is happening in society, in communities and small groups, in the socialization of the individual citizens.

Society, like everything in the world, is subject to continuous changes in structure, relationships, norms, properties, condition, etc. These changes are called social. They influence the life of society and the people in it. One type of social change is socio-psychological, occurring in the psychology of society, groups, citizens. They can occur in all structural elements of the psychology of society and in it as a whole.

Sociocultural sociological theories assign a priority role to socio-psychological changes. Research by social psychologists has established that they naturally precede, accompany or result from objective ones, influencing them and their results.

All social changes, especially radical ones, inevitably affect the interests of society and people, change the conditions and plans of their lives, their fate, naturally giving rise to a whole ensemble of personal and group socio-psychological changes. At the level of social psychology, each of the changes in social life that has at least some significance for the population is reflected in socio-psychological reaction (change), acting, figuratively speaking, as a socio-psychological “response”, “echo”, “shadow” of it. Features of socio-psychological changes (reactions), their varieties are determined according to socially significant characteristics.

Scale(massiveness, prevalence among the population) of socio-psychological reactions is determined by the number of social communities and groups whose interests are affected by objective social changes. They can be national or local. Thus, the psychological response to information about a change in the structure of local self-government in a rural area and the introduction of a new tax from the entire population of the country, at least in scale, will, of course, not be the same.

Socially important sign - degree of generality socio-psychological reactions. It is found in the sameness or differences in psychological changes in groups and social communities caused by the same circumstances. The greater the social stratification of society, the more different the psychology of social communities and groups included in it, the less commonality of socio-psychological reactions. Differences in reactions reveal and activate social contradictions and tensions within society.

According to socio-psychological fullness(saturation) reaction can manifest itself in a change in one of the mass socio-psychological phenomena mentioned above, or in their entire complex.

Force socio-psychological reaction is expressed in its different scale, fullness and degree of expression. The stronger the reaction, the more tangible (psychologically “painful”) the interests of large and small groups of people are affected.

Social and psychological reactions differ in their depth. Most of them occur in the system-dynamic layer of the psychology of society and are in the nature of processes and states. They are dynamic, changeable, passing. For changes in a system-forming sphere, reasons that are more fundamental in strength, duration, and repeatability are needed.

The sign is also important consequences changes occurring in the psychology of society. They can be direct and collateral, foreseen and unforeseen, immediate and delayed.

By adequacy a specific socio-psychological reaction may correspond in all respects to the one that caused it objective reason(to be natural, natural, “organic,” justified), or maybe not: excessively strong or weak, deliberately expressed or unreasonably hidden, etc. Objective changes, affecting, for example, the interests of the entire population, can cause protests from only part of it. This depends on the degree of understanding by the population of the ongoing objective changes, their approval or disapproval, the characteristics of social psychology, or on special efforts to restrain or, on the contrary, “inflate” reactions.

Not only research, but also simple observations of life around us reveal the saturation of its socio-psychological reactions, processes of socio-psychological changes in social psychology, its actual state - a consequence of these changes and their undoubted influence on events in society.

Special view socio-psychological changes advocated socio-psychological tension - increasing loads and energy expenditure to maintain the balance of the psychological system during internal and external changes. Socio-psychological tension is a universal reaction that accompanies and ensures all other changes. The more significant the goal, the greater the change, the more complex the conditions, the less prepared people are for change, the higher the tension. Therefore, it is incorrect to evaluate socio-psychological tension only negatively.

Socio-psychological stress is sometimes called group stress and evaluate it negatively. However, socio-psychological stresses have their own characteristics and are divided into subtypes (varieties), depending on which the nature of their influence on behavior, people’s lives and social changes is determined.

By system targeting socio-psychological stresses are characterized by those structures of socio-psychological reality that are undergoing changes. According to this criterion, they can be local and systemic (i.e., covering the entire psychology of society). Local ones are differentiated with greater accuracy: socio-psychological stress of mentality, public opinion, moods, ideals, values, traditions, etc.

Sign of inconsistency expresses the presence, location, nature of contradictions between ongoing changes and other systemic phenomena. Thus, socio-psychological tensions in society can arise due to different interests in changes between the government and the people, property and national communities, contradictions between the changes being implemented and the experience of the people, between promulgated promises and the real situation in society, etc.

Sign intensity- the degree of tension and the resulting expenditure of force. There are optimal socio-psychological stresses, increased, overstrains (high, extreme) and extreme (causing mass affects, dominance of feelings over the mind: socio-psychological breakdown, shock, panic, hysteria, explosion, aggression, turmoil). The intensity depends on the nature, degree and speed of the changes occurring. For example, changes affecting the main vital interests, values, traditions, mentality of the people, their main groups, are potentially “psychologically painful” and can cause significant tensions and conflicts, and changes in fashion - less. There is another type of tension associated with exhaustion of strength and called “psychological fatigue.” It contains the potential of two polar manifestations - mass affects and mass apathy, anomie (complete indifference to what is happening; “the people are silent,” but this is often more eloquent than externally expressed reactions).

With any socio-psychological changes, it is necessary to take into account the existing socio-psychological tension, its changes (increase or decrease) and assess how it will affect the results of the planned changes.

Research and historical facts, modern Russian reality confirm that social development of society occurs more successfully if Among the enabling changes is the corresponding development of the psychology of society. Victory will really come only when social innovations are organic, natural, if they matured and psychologically, those. correspond to the level of socio-psychological development of society, are expected, understood, approved, accepted and implemented by the people. The history of any tyrannies, dictatorships, cliques, oligarchies testifies that their strength and apparent steadfastness are illusory.

It makes sense to somehow include, in a system of measures aimed at ensuring development, regulatory influences on the psychology of society.

In relation to psychological reality, targeted regulation is more effective not by pressure, command, command, order, coercion, violence (although they are not excluded in appropriate cases, especially at the level of individual psychology), but - inducement, persuasion, stimulation, motivation, encouragement, assistance, influence. This psychologically softer(not causing internal protest, non-acceptance, resistance, opposition in people) ways and means. In addition, they are designed for practically continuous and long-lasting action. The effectiveness of psychological influences is explained by the fact that they are focused primarily on people’s positive experiences, while hard ones do not take into account feelings or are focused on fear, on the reaction of avoiding troubles. When we're talking about about the psychology of society, then only soft forms, means and methods of regulation with the help of influences, creating favorable conditions, persuading masses of people mainly through experience are appropriate, and psychological and other violence is contraindicated.

To the number basic socio-psychological conditions, taking into account the specifics of socio-psychological regulation at the level of society and the basic patterns of its socio-psychological development, include the following.

1. Comprehensive and correct taking into account all the features of social psychology, changes occurring in it, promoting developmental socio-psychological changes V interests of each person, the entire population and society.

2. Social development can be successful if it corresponds to the basic, system-forming, stable, historically established features of social psychology,- the mentality of the people, value orientations, social habits, traditions, customs, memory of the people, “folk psychology”. Each of the cultures embodied the unique features of centuries-old lessons from the history of peoples: American - five hundred years of brutal colonization, African - long-term slavery, Japanese - thousands of years of isolation from the world and self-development on the islands, Russian - the extremes of feudal fragmentation and total centralization.

It is impossible to adjust the life of the masses to any social ideas, but ideas must be “derived” from the life, psychology, experience and memory of the people. This is exactly how all the “velvet revolutions” of modern times were carried out (in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.), which respected the national dignity and uniqueness of their people.

3. Measures aimed at social development can be successful if if they are timely, correspond to the achieved level of social development, culture of society, including its socio-psychological sphere.

Socio-psychological development, as an analysis of the historical experience of many peoples shows, proceeds through a slow and contradictory accumulation, increasing the share of those signs of psychology that are characteristic of a more perfect future. When the latter become predominant, a new level of socio-psychological development arises.

4. The process of social development of society should be in agreement with real dynamic socio-psychological phenomena in society

The current level of achievements of human civilization corresponds to measures to create in society social and psychological support systems his life and development.

Optimally it includes:

Large-scale and continuous study of the psychology of society in all its components, and especially public opinion, moods, social expectations, social assessments by the population of ongoing social changes;

Ensuring that the population understands state ideology, prospects for the development of society, and the practice of managing state and public structures;

Providing the activities of state and public structures with information about the state of psychology of society, large and small groups;

Participation of social psychologists in the preparation, consultation and examination of prepared measures aimed at implementing social development;

Anticipation of important social measures by socio-psychological forecasting of immediate and long-term consequences, the possibility of unexpected and side socio-psychological consequences;

Participation of social psychologists in preparing public opinion for planned significant social changes, excluding their non-acceptance by the population and members of specific groups;

Socio-psychological support of social changes, bringing to the population positive information about the measures being implemented in all branches of government and management, achieving an adequate understanding of them, tracking the socio-psychological phenomena arising in the course of them among the population, carrying out additional socio-psychological work, preventing side negative social -psychological consequences;

Carrying out socio-psychological counseling and providing socio-psychological assistance to the population and citizens;

Identification of socio-psychological factors associated with the negative phenomena common among the population, in certain groups, and participation in localizing their spread and gradually overcoming it;

Organization of socio-psychological education, education, increasing the level of socio-psychological literacy of the population, government employees, managers and other categories of persons whose activities have a pronounced socio-psychological aspect.

The most significant feature modern society– its instability – excludes its analysis by methods and means designed for the analysis of stable situations. The term "crisis" is increasingly used to characterize the period being experienced. In an emerging new type of society, its norms - pluralism of opinions, the admissibility of various economic solutions, human rights - are perceived quite difficult by many social groups. We can only outline those processes that the mass consciousness faces in a situation of instability and which require close socio-psychological attention. First of all, this is a global breakdown of established social stereotypes. Changing the value system is the second block of socio-psychological phenomena that require special attention researchers. This concerns the question of the relationship between group (primarily class) and universal values. In the conditions of radical transformations, the “old” values ​​were largely destroyed, and the “new” ones were not accepted. The loss of guidelines regarding the hierarchy of values ​​gives rise to moral chaos. An identity crisis is another example of significant changes in mass consciousness in an era of change: older people experience a loss of identity, young people have difficulty defining their identity. The list of problems that give rise to a special – also unstable – state of mass consciousness in the era of radical transformations can be continued. Thus, social psychology is faced with a new social reality and must comprehend it. It is necessary to search for new fundamental approaches to the analysis of socio-psychological phenomena in a changing world, a new strategy for socio-psychological research.

Literature:

Literature:

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., 1998.

Aronson E. Social animal. Introduction to social psychology. / ed. 7.; lane from English - M.: Aspect Press, 1998. - 517 p.

Bendas T.V. Psychology of leadership: Tutorial. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009. - 448 p.

Berne. E. Games that people play. People who play games. M., 1999.

Bityanova M.R. Social psychology: science, practice and way of thinking. Tutorial. – M.: Publishing house “EXMO-Press”, 2001. – 576 p.

Borodkin F.M., Koryak N.M. Attention: conflict! – Novosibirsk: NSU, 1989.

Baron R., Byrne D., Johnson B. Social psychology. Key Ideas. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. - 512 p.

Introduction to Psychology. / Under the general Ed. A.V. Petrovsky - M., Academy 1997.

Verderber R., Verderber K. Psychology of communication. – SPb.: PRIME EUROZNAK, 2003. – 320 p.

Gozman L.Ya. Psychology of emotional relationships. – M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1987. – 176s.

Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008. - 544 p.

Devyatkin A.A. The phenomenon of social attitudes in twentieth-century psychology. – Kaliningrad: Kaliningr. university,

Diligensky G. Socio-political psychology. – M.: Nauka, 1994. – 304 p.

Zhuravlev A.L., Sosnin V.A., Krasnikov M.A. Social psychology: Textbook. – M.: Forum; Infra-M, 2006. - 416 p.

Zankovsky A.N. Organizational psychology. – M.: Flint; MPSI, 2002. - 648 p.

Ilyin E. P. Psychology of communication and interpersonal relationships. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009. - 576 p.

Ilyin E. P. Psychology of communication and interpersonal relations. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009.

Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. – M.: Politizdat, 1967. - 383 p.

Korolev A. A. Ethnomentality: essence, structure, problems of formation. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. humanist University "Socium", 2011. - 68 p.

Krichevsky R. L., Dubovskaya E. M. Social psychology small group: Textbook for universities. – M.: Aspect Press, 2001.- 318 p.

Krysko V.G. Ethnic psychology: textbook for universities. – M.: Publishing Center “Academy”, 2002. -320 p.

Labunskaya V. A. Human expression: communication and interpersonal cognition. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 1999. - 608 p.

Lionov P.F. 100 most popular communication tricks. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2011. – 176 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. / Transl. from English – St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. - 688 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. Intensive course. – St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. – 512 p.

Methods of social psychology. / Ed. E. S. Kuzmina, V. E. Semenova. - L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1977. – 175 p.

Nazaretyan A.P. Psychology of spontaneous mass behavior. Lectures. – M:. PER-SE, 2001. – 112 p.

Novikov V.V. Social Psychology. Phenomenon and science: Textbook. – M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2003. – 344 p.

Obozov N. N., Shchekin G. V. Psychology of working with people. Advice to the manager: Training manual. – K.: MAUP, 2004. – 228 p.

Orban-Lembrick L.E. Social psychology. – K.: Libid, 2004. – 576 p.

Parygin B. D. Social psychology: Textbook. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise, 2003. – 616 p.

Petrovsky A.V. Shpalinsky V.V. Social psychology of the collective. Textbook for pedagogical students. Inst. – M.: “Enlightenment”, 1978.

Political psychology. / Under general ed.. A.A. Derkach, V.I. Zhukova, L.G. Laptev 2001. – 576 p.

Pochebut L. G. Meizhis I. A. Social psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. – 672 p.

PochebutL. G., ChikerV. A. Organizational social psychology: Textbook. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house “Rech”, 2002. – 298 p.

Psychology personality. Tutorial. / Ed. P. N. Ermakova, IN. A. Labunskaya. – M.: Eksmo, 2007 – 653 p.

Psychology. Tutorial for humanitarian universities/ Under the general editorship V. N. Druzhinina. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. – 656 s.

Psychology. Textbook. / Ed. A.A. Krylova. – M.: Prospekt Publishing House, 2005 – 453 p.

Rudensky E.V. Social psychology: Course of lectures. – M.: Infra-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, 1997. – 224 p.

Sventsitsky A.L. Social psychology: Textbook. - M.: TK Velby LLC, Prospekt Publishing House, 2005. – 336 p.

Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: Stories, theories, research. In 2 parts. Part 1. – Vladivostok: Far Eastern University, 2001. – 145 p.

Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: Stories, theories, research. In 2 parts. Part 2. – Vladivostok: Far Eastern University, 2003. – 135 p.

Social psychology in modern world. / Ed. G.M.Andreeva, A.I. Dontsova. – M.: Aspect Press. - 2002. – 336 p.

Social psychology of personality in questions and answers: Textbook. / Ed. V.A. Labunskaya. – M.: Gardariki, 1999 – 397 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities. / Ed. A.M. Stolyarenko. – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. – 543 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities. / Comp.: R.I. Mokshantsev, A.V. Mokshantseva. – Novosibirsk: Siberian Agreement; M.: INFRA-M, 2001. – 408 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities./ Ed. A.N. Sukhova, A.A. Derkach. – M.: Publishing house. Center Academy, 2001. – 600 p.

Social psychology: Reader: Textbook for university students. / Comp. E. P. Belinskaya, O. A. Tikhomandritskaya. – M.: Aspect Press, 2003. – 475 p.

Stefanenko T. G. Ethnopsychology. – M.: Institute of Psychology RAS; Academic project, 1999. – 320 p.

Harris R. Psychology of mass communications. – St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2003 – 448 p.

Cialdini R., Kenrick D., Neuberg S. Social psychology. Understand others to understand yourself! – St. Petersburg: PrimeEvroznak, 2002. – 256 p.

Cialdini R., Kenrick D., Neuberg S. Social psychology. Understand yourself to understand others! – St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. – 336 p.

Shevandrin N.I. Social psychology in education. – M.: Vlados, 1995. – 544 p.

Shestopal E.B. Political psychology. – M.: Infra-M, 2002. – 448 p.

Shibutani T. Social psychology. - Rostov n/d., 1998. – 521 p..

Yanchuk V.A. Introduction to modern social psychology: Textbook for universities. – Mn.: ASAR, 2005. – 800 p.

Psychological Society on Wednesdays

The group that met on Wednesday evening at Freud's was formed in the fall of 1902. This happened modestly and unofficially - young doctors who wanted to study, practice and promote psychoanalysis began to gather around him. All this was started by one doctor who own experience convinced of the effectiveness analytical therapy" This is exactly how Freud described the first period of society after 10 years. It is significant that due to subsequent dissatisfaction with Wilhelm Stekel (or his independence?), the founder of the movement did not name his colleague, at whose suggestion a group of like-minded people began to organize their meetings. Stekel, an imaginative and successful Viennese physician, underwent a brief and fairly successful course of psychoanalysis with Freud to relieve symptoms of psychological impotence. This was the first link. The second was Stekel's work on the symbolism of dreams. As subsequent editions of The Interpretation of Dreams testify, with their open acknowledgment of the author's debt to Stekel, the relationship between the founder of psychoanalysis and this and some of his other proponents was mutually beneficial. Freud gave his first confidants much more than he received from them, but he was also open to their influence. In those early years, as Stekel put it with characteristic pomp, he himself was “an apostle of Freud who was my Christ!”

Had Sigmund Freud lived to hear this statement, he might have called Stekel a Judas... Be that as it may, over time, Freud began to develop a strong dislike for him. But in 1902, Stekel put forward an idea whose usefulness the founder of psychoanalysis quickly realized. It seemed extremely timely to him. Whatever the faults of the people who gathered in his waiting room on Wednesday evenings, they initially gave him the psychological response that Freud so craved. They became, to one degree or another, a substitute for Fliess and the source of the approval he expected to win with his book The Interpretation of Dreams. And at first, as Freud later noted, he had every reason to remain satisfied.

The first meetings of the Psychological Society on Wednesdays were not large, but the atmosphere was upbeat. Freud sent invitation cards to Steckel and three other Viennese doctors - Max Kahane, Rudolf Reitler and Alfred Adler. They formed the core of a circle that in 1908 became the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, a model for dozens of similar societies around the world. Kahane, like Freud, translated Charcot's book of lectures into German. He, in fact, introduced Stekel to Freud and his works. Having died early in 1917, Reitler became the second most famous psychoanalyst after Freud, a practitioner whose works were quoted with respect by the founder of the doctrine and whose speeches at Wednesday meetings were distinguished by caustic, sometimes offensive criticism. But the most valuable recruit was the socialist physician Alfred Adler, who published a book on the occupational diseases of tailors but then became interested in the social aspect of psychiatry. The first Wednesday night meetings, Stekel proudly recalled, were inspiring. He wrote that “all five were in complete harmony, without any dissonance; we were like pioneers recently open ground, and Freud is our leader. It was as if a spark jumped from one soul to another, and every evening was like a revelation.”

Stekel's metaphors are banal, but his description correctly conveys the atmosphere of the meetings - disagreements and disputes were yet to come. No doubt some early members of the society found such theological terminology quite appropriate. “The meetings,” recalled Max Graf, “were held in accordance with a certain ritual. First, one of those present presented his report. Then black coffee and cakes were served; cigars and cigarettes lay on the table and were consumed in huge quantities. After a quarter of an hour of casual conversation, the discussion began. The final and decisive word always remained with Freud himself. It's like we were laying the foundations new religion. Freud was its prophet, who showed the superficiality of all methods of studying the psyche used so far.” However, Freud did not like this kind of comparison. He considered himself more flexible, not as authoritarian as any “prophet” could be. But the feeling of superiority was still present, and after a few years it became so oppressive that some members of the group, including Graf, left the group, despite their admiration for the founder of psychoanalysis.

Admission to the Psychological Society on Wednesdays required general consent, but friendly atmosphere In the early years this was a mere formality. One of those present was simply introducing the newcomer. Some people dropped out, but these were few. In 1906, when Freud turned 50, there were 17 members of the society, and the founder of the movement could always count on a dozen guests for lively and even aggressive discussion. This October, the style of the Psychological Society on Wednesdays changed, quite a bit, but significantly. In its fifth year, the society decided to hire a secretary, Otto Rank, to keep detailed minutes of each meeting, record the speeches and conversations of those present, and account for contributions.

Rank's records give us the opportunity to find out that at meetings, members of the society reviewed case histories and psychoanalyzed the heroes literary works and public figures, discussed literature on psychiatry, and talked about the upcoming publications of their own works. Sometimes the evening was dedicated to someone's confession: in October 1907, Maximilian Steiner, a dermatologist and specialist in venereal diseases, spoke about psychosomatic symptoms that appeared during a period of sexual abstinence and disappeared after he began an affair with the wife of a friend who suffered from impotence . At the beginning of 1908, Rudolf von Urbancic, the director of the sanatorium, entertained the audience with excerpts from his diary of the development period - sexual development- until his marriage, where he admitted early masturbation and a certain tendency towards sadomasochism. IN final comment Freud dryly noted that Urbancic had given them something of a gift. This gift was accepted without a shadow of embarrassment: The Wednesday Psychological Society was proud of this kind of scientific self-exposure.

Some of the members who joined the society after 1902 were unremarkable individuals, but a few left their mark on the history of psychoanalysis. Among the latter we must name Hugo Heller, a bookseller and publisher, owner of a salon for intellectuals and artists, who eventually began publishing books on psychoanalysis, as well as Max Graf, whose five-year-old son, in some sense of the word, gained immortality as little Hans– this is one of the famous cases described by Freud. They were lay people, whom the founder of the movement especially valued, since he always feared that psychoanalysis would be monopolized by doctors. Nevertheless, it was the Aesculapian members of the society who would soon take leading positions in the psychoanalytic movement both in Austria and in other countries. Paul Federn, who became one of Freud's most devoted supporters in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, turned out to be an original and respected theorist. Isidore Zadger, a capable psychoanalyst and interesting companion, brought his nephew Fritz Wittels to one of the meetings. Eduard Hitchmann, who joined the society in 1905, received a special commendation from Freud six years later for popular presentation psychoanalysis, the creation of which the title of the book tactfully attributes to the master - “Freud’s Theory of Neuroses.” In all the vicissitudes of subsequent years, Hitchmann, like Federn, showed himself to be a faithful and reliable assistant.

Perhaps the most unusual recruit was Otto Rank, an experienced mechanic. Short, ugly, in poor health and suffering from this for many years, Rank, thanks to an insatiable thirst for knowledge, was able to escape from the hardships of his needy and unhappy Jewish family.

Unlike most self-taught people, he was distinguished by his extraordinary intelligence and ability to absorb new things. Rank read everything. Alfred Adler, their family doctor, introduced him to the works of Freud, and Rank became interested in them. The books stunned him. It seemed to him that they contained the key to all the mysteries of the world. In the spring of 1905, Rank was then only 21 years old, he introduced Freud to the manuscript of a small book called “The Artist” - a kind of attempt to apply the ideas of psychoanalysis to culture. A little more than a year later Otto Rank became secretary of the Wednesday Psychological Society. Freud had paternal feelings for him. With a slight tinge of condescension, he called him little Rank, hired him as an assistant to process his works, and generously helped him enter first the gymnasium (belatedly) and then the University of Vienna. At the Psychological Society on Wednesdays, Rank was not just a secretary: in October 1906, after just a month of work, he presented quite large excerpts from his future huge monograph on the topic of incest in literature.

Apparently, during the period of Rank's work as secretary of the company, there were fewer acquisitions than losses, although this was not his fault. The atmosphere at the meetings became nervous, even bilious - their participants sought to stand out from the rest, flaunted originality or expressed hostility towards colleagues, crudely disguising it as psychoanalytic frankness. In 1908, an official discussion on the procedures of “reform” took place, in line with which a proposal was discussed for a ban on “intellectual communism” - geistiger Kommunismus, that is, every idea should be considered private property author. Freud proposed a compromise: allowing each member of society to decide for himself how his contributions should be treated—how common property or with his personal. The founder of psychoanalysis himself announced that he was ready to make everything he said public domain.

Other members of the circle turned out to be less generous and less restrained. In December 1907, on one of the ordinary evenings, Sadger read a report on psychoanalysis of the personality of the Swiss poet XIX century by Conrad Ferdinand Meyer, in which he emphasized the unrequited love of Piita for his mother. Although such an analysis of the Oedipus complex was quite consistent with the intellectual habits of the group, Zadger's colleagues considered his performance inappropriate. Federn declared that he was furious, Stekel expressed surprise and protested against unnecessary simplifications, which could only spoil a good example. Wittels began to defend his uncle and expressed dissatisfaction with “these personal outbursts of rage and indignation.” The dispute forced Freud, who had his own complaints about Sadger's report, to urge everyone to show restraint. If necessary, he could be merciless, but he saved the “heavy artillery” for important cases. Stung by this reaction, Zadger said he was disappointed - he expected to receive advice, but heard only a lot of rude words.

In 1908, such heated discussions occurred quite often. And quite often, ardor became the cause of superficiality. But the disappointment with the Psychological Society on Wednesdays was not just a symptom of the oppressive atmosphere that mediocrity brings to any group. When vulnerable, often emotionally unstable personalities collide, sparks of hostility inevitably flare up. Moreover, the provocative nature of the very subject of psychoanalytic research, indelicately intruding into the most protected areas of the human psyche, also had Negative influence, becoming the cause of general irritability. In the end, none of these people, who in those heroic years of research tactlessly and decisively invaded the secret sanctuaries of the soul, both others and their own, were themselves subjected to the procedure of psychoanalysis - Stekel’s treatment was brief and far from complete. Freud, of course, analyzed himself, but self-analysis by its nature cannot be copied. Others who could have benefited from psychoanalysis did not. At the beginning of 1908, Max Graf sadly remarked: “There is no longer the camaraderie that there was before.”

Shortly before this, Freud, still the unquestioned authority for his tireless army, tried to take into account the changed circumstances by proposing to dissolve the informal association and transform it into the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. Such a reorganization would provide an opportunity for the peaceful departure of those group members who no longer agreed with Freud's goals. It was a neat trick, nothing more. The founder of psychoanalysis could not force others to jump over their heads. In December 1907, Karl Abraham, attending the society's meeting for the first time, accurately and ruthlessly described his own impressions to his friend Max Eitingon: “I was not very impressed with the Viennese supporters. I was at the meeting on Wednesday. He head and shoulders above the rest. Zadger looks like a Talmudist; he interprets and comments on each of the master's settings with the rigor of an Orthodox Jew. Of all the doctors best impression I was impressed by Dr. Federn. Stekel is superficial, Adler suffers from one-sidedness, Wittels is a phrase-monger, the rest are unremarkable. Young Rank seems very smart, and so does Doctor Graf...” In the spring of 1908, Ernest Jones saw everything with his own eyes and agreed with him. He later recalled that when he visited Vienna and attended the Wednesday meeting of the Psychological Society for the first time, he was not too impressed by the Viennese followers of Freud. To the impartial observer they "seemed an unworthy accompaniment to Freud's genius, but in Vienna at that time, full of prejudices against him, it was difficult to find a student who had anything to lose in terms of reputation, and therefore one had to be content with what was available."

Of course, there were also bright periods: from 1908 to 1910 the society was replenished with new members, such as Sándor Ferenczi from Budapest, the talented but extremely nervous lawyer Viktor Tausk, school teacher and the Social Democrat Karl Furthmüller, the witty lawyer Hans Sachs. The number of participants was increased by visitors who came to Vienna to meet Freud and attend Wednesday's meeting: the "Swiss", psychiatrists and inquisitive medical students from Zurich and other Swiss cities, appeared as early as 1907. Freud called them - Max Eitingon, Carl G. Jung, Ludwig Binswanger and Karl Abraham - the most interesting of the new supporters. The following year, other visitors arrived in Vienna to meet Freud and his group, who subsequently did a lot for the development of psychoanalysis: the American translator of Freud and his apostle Abraham A. Brill, Ernest Jones - this would become the most influential British supporter of the master, and the pioneer of psychoanalysis in Italy Eduardo Weiss.

The contrast between these “birds of passage” and the Viennese meeting regulars was painful for Freud. When assessing people, he often allowed his cherished desires to take precedence over experience, but did not harbor any illusions regarding his local adherents. In 1907, after one Wednesday evening meeting, Freud said to the young Swiss psychiatrist Ludwig Binswanger: “Well, now you've seen the gang!” There was a certain amount of flattery in this brief, mocking remark - Freud wanted to please his new Swiss supporters, but Binswanger, recalling the scene after many years, gave it a kinder and perhaps more accurate interpretation: he realized how lonely - Freud still felt among this crowd. “All my crowns,” the founder of psychoanalysis gloomily admitted to Abraham in 1911, “are worth nothing, with the exception of little Rank.” Among the Viennese there were promising individuals: Federn, Sachs, perhaps Reitler, Hichmann and even Tausk, but over time Freud began to increasingly pin his hopes on foreign countries.