(2005), "Honorary Worker of the Higher vocational education Russian Federation" (2003).

Scientific results

Area of ​​scientific research: psychological characteristics of the personality and activities of various categories of leaders, psychological methods and leadership style, management of socio-psychological phenomena.

Author of 350 works, 12 of which are author's and collective monographs. The works are devoted to the problems of social, economic, organizational and economic psychology, personality psychology, labor and management in modern Russian society.

Developed an author's questionnaire to determine the individual leadership style. Actively explored the psychological phenomena of labor groups. Developed a psychological concept of joint activity. Heading the Laboratory of Social Psychology of the IP RAS (since 1987), he implemented a number of major scientific projects devoted to the study of the dynamics of the social psychology of an individual and a group in a changing Russian society, as well as the study of economic and psychological phenomena.

Major writings

• "Individual style of production team management". M., 1976 (co-author).
• "Psychology and Management". M., 1978 (co-author).
• "Joint activity: theory, methodology, practice". M., 1988 (co-author).
• "Business activity of entrepreneurs: methods of evaluation and impact". M., 1995 (co-author).
• "Socio-Psychological Dynamics under Economic Change". M., 1998 (co-author).
• "Moral and psychological regulation of economic activity". M., 2003 (co-author).
• "Psychology of managerial interaction". M., 2004; "Psychology of joint activity", M., 2005; "Social Psychology: tutorial". M., 2006 (co-author).
• "Psychology of joint activity". M., 2005.
• One of the authors and resp. ed. edition of "Problems of Economic Psychology". T. 1. M., 2004; T. 2, 2005.
• "Social Psychology: A Study Guide". M., 2006 (co-author)

Links

• Anatoly Laktionovich Zhuravlev: "You can't rewrite history" (Interview).

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Zhuravlev A. L." in other dictionaries:

Zhuravlev, Alexander Alexandrovich Wikipedia has articles about other people with the surname Zhuravlev. Alexander Alexandrovich Zhuravlev Birth name: Alexander Occupation: Russian and Soviet restorer Date of birth ... Wikipedia

ZHARAVLEV ZHERAVKIN ZHORAV ZHURAVEL ZHURAVKIN ZHURAVKOV ZHURAVLEV ZHURAVLEV ZHURAYEV ZHURKIN Birds' non-church names were not uncommon in Russian villages. On behalf of Zhuravl, a patronymic was formed, which became a surname. Zhuravok, Zhuray in folk dialects ... ... Russian surnames

Yuri Ivanovich Zhuravlev Russian scientist, mathematician, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Date of birth: January 14, 1935 Place of birth: Voronezh, USSR Scientific field: Discrete mathematics, Mathematical cybernetics Place of work ... Wikipedia

Andrei Zhuravlev (better known as Andrei Ioannov; 1751 1813) archpriest, historian of the split of the Old Believers. Initially, an Old Believer himself, well acquainted with the teachings of schismatic sects, Zhuravlev converted to Orthodoxy and was appointed a priest ... ... Wikipedia

Jerzy Zhuravlev (Polish Jerzy Żurrawlew; January 21, 1887, Rostov-on-Don October 3, 1980, Warsaw) is a Polish pianist and music teacher, initiator (1927) of the Chopin International Piano Competition. Zhuravlev's father was Russian, his mother ... ... Wikipedia

Zhuravlev, Grigory Nikolaevich Icon painter from the village of Utyovka Grigory Nikolaevich Zhuravlev (standing on the right) with his brother Afanasy Occupation: Russian artist, icon painter ... Wikipedia

Boris Nikolaevich Zhuravlev (July 25, 1910, St. Petersburg 1971, ibid.) Leningrad architect, author of projects for the Ploshchad Vosstaniya and Frunzenskaya Leningrad metro stations, the Rossiya Hotel and other buildings. Biography Boris ... ... Wikipedia

ON THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF A.L. ZHURAVLEVA

On June 9, 2008, Anatoly Laktionovich Zhuravlev, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education and Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, turned 60.

A.L. Zhuravlev was born into a working-class family. His father, who was seriously wounded in the war and lost the ability to move, thanks to a huge effort of will, managed to get back on his feet and return to an active life.

After graduating from the school of working youth in Gomel, Anatoly Laktionovich in 1967 entered the psychological faculty of the Leningrad State University. A.A. Zhdanov (LSU), where he comprehended psychology under the guidance of such famous scientists as B.G. Ananiev, A.A. Bodalev, L.M. Wecker, E.A. Klimov, A.A. Krylov, E.S. Kuzmin, N.V. Kuzmina, B.F. Lomov, V.N. Myasishchev, E.F. Rybalko, N.A. Tikh, A.V. Yarmolenko and others. After graduating from Leningrad State University, A.L. Zhuravlev for two years (1972-1974) worked as an assistant at the Department of General Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of Yaroslavl State University, where he gained teaching experience. In 1973, he entered the graduate school of the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (at the correspondence department).

A.L. Zhuravlev as a scientist is still distinguished by high sensitivity to the demands of life, interest in problems of social importance.

In 1976, he successfully defended his Ph.D. thesis, which became the first concrete theoretical and empirical research in the field of leadership psychology. His main mentors while working on the topic were the supervisor V.F. Rubakhin and B.F. Lomov, whose names are associated with the formation of this field of knowledge in our country. The dissertation substantiated the understanding of the individual leadership style and the typology of styles; the structure of management psychology as a branch of psychological science is proposed; the connection between the leadership style and the level of development of the team, etc. is considered. Many researchers use the methodology developed by him to determine the individual leadership style. The results of this cycle of research were presented in the books "Individual style of management of the production team" (1976), "Psychology and Management" (1978), in which A.L. Zhuravlev acted as a co-author of V.F. Rubakhina, V.G. Shorina, B.F. Lomov.

In August 1976 A.L. Zhuravlev was enrolled as a junior researcher in the sector of social psychology of the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by E.V. Shorokhova. At this institute, he went from a junior researcher to the head of the social psychology sector, which he has headed for 21 years, and the director of the institute.

In the 1970s professional activity of A.L. Zhuravlev was primarily associated with research psychological features personality and activities of various categories of leaders of labor collectives of industrial enterprises, methods and style of leadership, management of the socio-psychological climate.

Even then, he paid great attention not only to research work, but also to the implementation of the results obtained in the real practice of management at industrial enterprises. In particular, for a number of years he taught a course in the psychology of leadership at the Institute of Management of the National Economy under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, where ministers and their deputies, heads of main departments, departments and departments of ministries, general directors of large manufacturing enterprises and research and production associations.

In the 1980s the main subject of scientific research by A.L. Zhuravlev were the psychological phenomena of the labor activity of the primary teams of industrial enterprises. He developed the author's psychological concept of joint activity and its collective subject. The results obtained in the course of these studies were presented in a collective (co-authored with K.A. Abulkhanova, P.N. Shikhirev, E.V. Shorokhova and others) monograph “Joint activity: Methodology, theory, practice (1988).

In the 1990s Under his scientific guidance, the laboratory team implemented a number of research programs on topical and socially significant problems of the social psychology of personality, labor and management, economic, organizational and environmental psychology. Studies were carried out on the socio-psychological patterns of the formation of a new social group of society - Russian entrepreneurs, as well as the dynamics of the social psychology of an individual and a group in the context of socio-economic transformations in Russian society. The results obtained are summarized in the collective work "Business activity of entrepreneurs: methods of evaluation and impact" (1995).

In the collective monograph "Socio-Psychological Dynamics in the Conditions of Economic Changes" (1998), socio-psychological phenomena of a critical historical period in the development of our country were covered. Based on a large amount of factual material, the dynamics of the value orientations of the individual and social ideas about economic phenomena are revealed, including new economic and psychological characteristics of the individual and the group, which have become the subject of empirical research for the first time in Russian psychology, changes in group psychological phenomena are found in conditions of fundamental socio-economic and political transformations. Some parallels were established in the dynamics of the social psychology of the individual and the group in Russian society in the 1990s. and during the NEP.

In a generalized form, the scientific results obtained in the course of many years of research are presented in the doctoral dissertation of A.L. Zhuravlev on the topic "Psychology of joint activities in the context of organizational and economic changes" (1999).

With his scientific works, A.L. Zhuravlev also contributed to the development of economic psychology in our country. He analyzed the patterns of interaction between organizational, economic and socio-psychological factors in labor activity, substantiated the concept of the zonal nature of their interaction, identified and described its main types, etc. The results of economic and psychological research carried out with the direct participation of A.L. Zhuravlev and under his scientific guidance, were presented in the two-volume collective work "Problems of Economic Psychology" (2004, 2005). As part of this cycle of research, such new scientific areas as the moral and psychological regulation of the economic activity of an individual and a social group, the economic self-determination of an individual and group subject in a new socio-economic environment, etc., took shape.

The general result of the scientific activity of A.L. Zhuravlev is the preparation and publication of over 450 works, including 12 author's and collective monographs.

In 2002, after the tragic death of A.V. Brushlinsky, A.L. Zhuravlev was elected director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He headed the institute in a very difficult period for domestic academic science, characterized by extremely weak funding for fundamental research, restructuring of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was accompanied by a reduction in the number of employees of academic institutions. Largely thanks to the efforts of A.L. Zhuravlev managed to maintain the institute and achieve further scientific development of his team.

A.L. Zhuravlev is the chairman of two councils for the defense of doctoral dissertations: at the IP RAS and at Moscow State University.

Since 2003, he has served as the editor-in-chief of the Psychological Journal, being at the same time a member of the editorial boards and editorial boards of a number of other domestic and foreign scientific journals in the socio-humanitarian profile.

A lot of attention A.L. Zhuravlev devotes himself to the training of highly qualified psychologists: under his leadership, two doctoral and 18 master's theses were defended. Research activities of A.L. Zhuravlev combines with pedagogical. He is the head of two departments organized by him: social psychology in State University Humanities (GUGN) and Social and Ethnic Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of the Moscow University for the Humanities (MosGU), Dean of the Faculty of Psychology of the GUGN, member of the Presidium of the Psychology Council of the Educational and Methodological Association (UMO) for classical university education of the Russian Federation, author and editor-in-chief of many educational methodological developments, including a number of textbooks on social psychology for students of psychological faculties.

Recognition of the merits of A.L. Zhuravlev in the field of psychological education was the award in March 2003 of the industry award of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation "Honorary Worker of Higher Professional Education of the Russian Federation." In 2004 he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education, and in 2005 he (together with Professor L.I. Antsyferova and Academician of the Russian Academy of Education V.A. Ponomarenko) for a series of theoretical, empirical and experimental studies on the problem of personality development professional in individual and joint activities by the decision of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences awarded the prize to them. S.L. Rubinstein in the field of psychological science.

For fruitful activity in the field of development of fundamental and applied problems of psychology A.L. Zhuravlev was awarded the state medals "For Labor Distinction" and "In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow". His contribution to the development of psychology has been noted by the professional community. According to the results of 2006, by the decision of the grand jury of the National Professional Psychological Competition "Golden Psyche", he was recognized as the winner in the nomination "Personal contribution to the formation of a unified professional psychological community in Russia."

By the decision of the Academic Council of the Modern Humanitarian University (SSU) in 2003, A.L. Zhuravlev was awarded the Order "Honorary Professor of SSU" for his great contribution to the development of psychological education. In 2005, Kazan State University presented him with the “Badge of Honor. V.M. Bekhterev for outstanding achievements in the field of theoretical and experimental psychology. By the decision of the scientific councils of the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education and MSUPU in 2006, he was awarded the medal. G.I. Chelpanov I degree "For contribution to the development of psychological science." In June 2007, the International Academy of Psychological Sciences and the Interregional Ergonomic Association awarded A.L. Zhuravlev with the medal "Human Factor". In April 2007, the UNESCO Institute for a Culture of Peace, the International Humanitarian Academy "Europe-Asia" and the International Academy of Human Factors awarded him an international award - the Order of the "Creator of the Era" (in the nomination "Science Activist").

A.L. Zhuravlev is actively engaged in social activities in the professional psychological community; is Vice-President of the Russian Psychological Society (since 2003) and the Russian Federation of Educational Psychologists (since 2004).

Your anniversary A.L. Zhuravlev meets in the prime of his creative powers. Much has already been done, and ahead are new big creative plans. It remains only to wish him strength and health for their successful implementation.

Social Psychology. Ed. Zhuravleva A.L.

M.: 2002. - 351 p.

The content of the manual is also an integration of classical and modern socio-psychological knowledge that developed in the 90s of the XX century. Its authors practice both research and teaching activities in the field of social psychology, which made it possible to take into account the results contemporary research main classical objects of social psychology: personality in a group, small and large social groups, interpersonal and intergroup interaction.

This textbook is a summary of the course "Social Psychology" for students of psychology faculties of classical, social and humanitarian universities.

Format: doc/zip

The size: 605Kb

/ Download file

Format: pdf(in the format pdf is better, here is the book itself)

The size: 10.9 MB

yandex.disk

Content
Chapter 1. Subject, history and methods of social psychology ........ 5
1.1. The subject and structure of social psychology (A.L. Zhuravlev)......5
1.2. History of Russian social psychology (E.V. Shorokhova)...10
1.3. On the history of the emergence of foreign social psychology (S.K. Roshchin)......22
1.4. The formation of modern social psychology abroad (V.A. Sosnin) ..31
1.5. Program and methods of socio-psychological research (V.A. Khashchenko)...37

Chapter 2
2.1. Socio-psychological ideas about personality in foreign psychology (S.K. Roshchin).61
2.2. Ideas about the personality in domestic social psychology (E.V. Shorokhova)......66
2.3. Social attitude of the individual (S. A. Roshchin).................87
2.4. Self-concept as a socio-psychological phenomenon (V.A. Sosnin)......................94
2.5. Socialization of the individual (S.K. Roshchin).................................. 102
2.6. Social behavior of the individual and its regulation (E.V. Shorokhova) ....... 105

Chapter 3
3.1. Communication studies in social psychology: structure and functions (V.A. Sosnin)...123
3.2. Theoretical approaches to the study of communication in social psychology (V.A. Sosnin) ..130
3.3. Non-verbal ways of communication (S.K. Roshchin) .............. 136
3.4 Communication technique: practical orientation (V.A. Sosnin) ........... 139
3.5. Psychology of interpersonal cognition (E. I. Reznikov) ............... 146
3.6. Psychology of interpersonal relations (E.N. Reznikov) .................. 164
3.7. Psychology of interpersonal influence (E.N. Reznikov) ........... 179

Chapter 4
4.1. The concept and types of small groups (V.P. Poznyakov) .............................. 193
4.2. The structure of a small group (V.P. Poznyakov) .............. 198
4.3 Development of a small group (V.P. Poznyakov) ....................................203
4.4. Group cohesion (V Ya. Poznyakov) ....................207
4.5. The interaction of the individual and the "scarlet group" (V P. Poznyakov) .......... 209
4 6 Leadership in small groups (V. P. Poznyakov)............216
4.7. Socio-psychological approach to the study of conflicts (V.L. Sosnin).. 219

Chapter 5
5.1 Basic theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations (V.P. Poznyakov).233
5.2. Processes of intergroup differentiation and integration (V P Poznyakov) ....... 240
5 3. Factors of determination of intergroup relations (V.P. Poznyakov) ............... 244

Chapter 6. Psychology of large social groups and mass mental phenomena ... 252
6.1. Theoretical problems of the study of large social groups (E.V. Shorokhova).252
6.2. Psychology of the crowd (L.L. Zhuravlev).............267
6.3. Mass phenomena in large diffuse groups (AL. Zhuravlev).. 273

Chapter 7
7.1 Political psychology (S.K. Roshchin) .................... 280
7 2 Economic psychology (V. P. Poznyakov) .......... 292
7 3 Ethnic psychology (E.I. Reznikov) . . .... 313
7.4 Social psychology of entrepreneurship (V.P. Poznyakov) ..331

A.L. Zhuravlev (Moscow, IP RAS)
PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF A COLLECTIVE SUBJECT 1

Introduction. The relevance of the study of the collective subject is determined primarily by theoretical grounds, the most important of which is the need for a more differentiated representation (or designation) of numerous group phenomena studied primarily by social psychology. At present, unfortunately, the term "group" (until we differentiate it from the term "collective") refers to extremely diverse phenomena, or phenomena that take place in a group. They simultaneously include, for example: potential and real, attitudinal and behavioral, internally existing and externally manifested, and many other characteristics of the group. Such a situation, of course, is characteristic of the corresponding level of theoretical understanding of the results of the study of group phenomena, i.e. a level that can no longer be considered satisfactory today. And above all, there is a theoretical need to take a serious step towards differentiation and specification of group phenomena. To solve such a problem, there is a need and opportunity to use the concept of "collective (or group) subject" to refer to a certain set of group characteristics, which will be specially considered below.

One of the theoretical advantages of the concept of “subject” is its integral nature and the possibility of using it in psychology to designate the characteristics of both an individual (“individual subject”) and a group (“group, collective subject”). That is, the concept of “subject” allows us to identify the general in psychological properties of the individual, small and large groups and society as a whole. We can agree with the opinion of A.V. Brushlinsky that in fact the subject can be a community of any scale , including all of humanity.

Along with the theoretical, there is the most important practical relevance of highlighting the phenomenon and the concept of "collective subject" It is now well recognized that any modern society (be it Western, Eastern or, in particular, Russian) lives in conditions of various types of threats to its normal functioning and especially development. Specifically, this refers to natural disasters and man-made disasters, wars and terrorist acts of various scales, economic, ideological, informational and other impacts on people of varying intensity, and much more. However, not only the threat is perceived as a kind of reality, but also the only way to counter this threat by the community of people as a collective subject. Although in each specific case, the threat can be understood as a community of different sizes and different scales (or levels), but each time it is possible to effectively resist and, accordingly, survive only by an active, integral, jointly acting set of people. And in this sense, in our opinion, it is more adequate to use the concept of "collective subject", denoting this or that community, with the appropriate characteristics (qualities, abilities, etc.).

Consequently, at present there are both theoretical and practical grounds for an intensive study of the psychology of the collective subject.

Understanding the collective subject in modern psychology.

In modern social psychology, the concept of "collective subject" is used in several meanings (or senses).

Firstly, "collective subject" and "collective as subject" are used in the same sense, and thus the former becomes only the epistemological meaning of the collective. Therefore, when the ontological meaning is meant, then the concepts “collective”, “group” are used, and when the epistemological meaning, then “collective (group) subject, or “collective (group) as a subject” These concepts are considered as an alternative to “collective ( group) as an object. In the most striking form, such an understanding of the collective subject is found in the social psychology of management, which operates with the concepts of "the collective as the subject and object of management (influence)", i.e. in the context of epistemological opposition of subject and object.

Secondly , “collective subject” is understood as an alternative (in the sense of opposition) to “individual subject” or “subject” in general, which is, as it were, a priori understood as “individual subject”. , as well as for research in the field of psychology of work, analyzing joint work. In fact, the emphasis is on the fact that the "collective subject" is not one and not a separate person, but connected with other people in some of their community (this is an interconnected and interdependent group of people).

"Individual subject" and "individual activity" are only some of the conventions that are allowed in research or in practical analysis. This theoretical position was most clearly and extensively formulated by B.F. Lomov, who wrote: “Strictly speaking, any individual activity is an integral part of joint activity. Therefore, in principle, the starting point for the analysis of individual activity is to determine its place in joint activity, and, accordingly, the function of a given individual in a group. . Of course, for the purpose of scientific research, individual activity can be “cut out” from the general context and considered in isolation. But the picture inevitably becomes incomplete. In general, it is hardly possible (and especially in the conditions of modern society) to find such an activity in which an individual, like Robinson, would do everything from beginning to end himself.

With this understanding, the collective subject has both epistemological and ontological meaning. This fundamentally distinguishes this approach from the first one, which operates only with the epistemological meaning of the collective subject.

However, within the framework of such an understanding of the collective subject, an alternative to it can be considered not only an individual subject, but also an unrelated set of individuals, which is fundamentally important for highlighting the criteria and specific characteristics of a collective subject. . This was well understood by V.M. Bekhterev, who, analyzing the characteristic features of the team, wrote: “A collective person, society or team cannot be called a random accumulation of many people in a given period of time in a certain place. Such an accumulation of people is a gathering without any unifying principle, ... it is clear that in this case there can be no talk of any collective. Therefore, it can be argued that interconnectedness is the most important characteristic of a collective subject.

Thirdly, the content of the "collective subject" is a certain quality of the collective (group), the quality of being a subject, which characterizes collectives to varying degrees. AT last years this quality sometimes began to be designated as "subjectivity", although it has not yet received distribution . Consequently, different collectives are collective subjects to varying degrees. To be fully a collective subject means to be active, acting, integrated, i.e. acting as a whole, responsible, etc. One or another set of qualities can characterize a collective subject, but the fundamental understanding does not change. This meaning of the "collective subject" is more common in the study of children's, school, youth groups, which are integrated primarily by interpersonal relationships, communication and lesser degree- joint activities . This understanding of the “collective subject” is poorly reflected by social psychologists, so it is difficult to answer, for example, the question of whether a collective (group) can not be a subject, or is every collective a subject, but with varying degrees of severity of the quality of subjectivity?

Fourth, the broad interpretation of the "collective subject" in social psychology can be represented as follows. A collective subject is any jointly acting or behaving group of people. Any set of people that manifests itself through any form of behavior, relationship, activity, communication, interaction, etc., is a collective subject. Therefore, groups can be real or potential subjects. At the same time, "group" and "collective" subjects are most often not differentiated. "Collectivity" in the modern language of social psychology should be understood as "compatibility", nothing more than what is extremely important. Collectivity (compatibility) should not be confused with collectivism as a psychological quality of a team or an individual in a team. Such an understanding of the collective and collectivity was characteristic of Russian social psychology at the beginning of the 20th century and was defined primarily in the works of V.M. Bekhterev, who wrote that “The collective is a collective in the case when we have a crowd, and in the when we have an organized society of people of one kind or another, such as, for example, a scientific, commercial or any other society, a cooperative, a people, a state, etc.” However, it must be recognized that a similar interpretation of the collective is also found in earlier works by representatives of Russian psychological (subjective) sociology.

Summing up, we can conclude that in modern social psychology, not only does there not exist a generally accepted understanding of the "collective subject", but there is not even any interpretation that has become widespread. Differences in the meanings of this concept today are determined primarily by different understanding of "collectivity", "collective" in social psychology. The content of the “subject” (i.e., the second component of the concept of “collective subject”) should be developed in social psychology precisely in the context of “the collective, only then will social psychology be able to introduce a fundamentally new content into this concept in comparison with the general theory of psychology. By the way, none of the psychological dictionaries includes, and therefore does not interpret the concept of "collective subject". When there are no clearly established, albeit different, interpretations of this concept, the way is actually “open” for the formation of an integral approach that combines the currently used meanings and meanings of the collective subject in social psychology.

Some signs of a collective subject

Despite the described ambiguity of interpretations of the collective subject, its understanding remains clearly incomplete, if one does not single out those basic properties (qualities) of the group that make it a collective subject. Recently, the term “subjectivity” has become increasingly used, which refers to the ability to b individual or group life b subject, i.e. show b subjective qualities. However, it is difficult to find any complete series of such qualities in the literature, especially when it comes to a collective subject. In our opinion, three most important properties of the group can be distinguished, which are necessary and, in fact, criterial in the description of the collective subject.

I. Interconnection and interdependence of individuals in a group contributes to the formation of a group state as a state of pre-activity - the most important prerequisite for any activity. The criterionality of this quality lies in the fact that only if it is present, the group becomes a collective subject. However, specific characteristics (indicators) of interconnectedness and interdependence are also important, and the indicators of two classes:

a) dynamic (intensity, or closeness of mutual connections and dependencies between individuals in a group);

2. The quality (ability) of the group to show joint forms of activity, that is, to act, to be a single whole in relation to other social objects or in relation to itself. Joint forms of activity typically include the following; communication within the group and with other groups, group activities, joint activities, group attitudes, group behavior, intergroup interaction, etc. Recently, the concept of “activity” has been increasingly used to denote this quality of a group, meaning a wide range of its manifestations, and not only in joint activities. The use of the concept of "joint activity" allows you to combine a whole set of group phenomena and, accordingly, the concepts of "joint activity", "communication", "communication", "group action", "group behavior", "intragroup and intergroup relations", etc. .

Here it is appropriate to note the acute urgent need for a theoretical analysis of the relationship between the basic concepts of social psychology, among which not only "activity", but also "interaction" claim to be the most general; “group behavior”, perhaps, and something else (at present it is no longer possible to “get past” such terms as: “being” of a group, “life” of a group, etc.).

3. The quality (ability) of the group for self-reflection, as a result of which the feelings of “We” are formed (primarily as experiences of belonging to the group and unity with their group) and the image of We (as a group representation of their group). Here, many analogies with the image - I can arise, however, due to the complete lack of study of, let's say, group self-reflexivity, in this case we will not be ahead of specific empirical studies of the identified quality of the collective subject.

Consequently, the subjectivity of a group is simultaneously described by three features: the interconnectedness of group members, joint activity, and group self-reflexivity.

Highlighting the three main features of the collective subject, it should be recognized that the main among them is the ability of the group to show joint forms of activity. This position must be explained as follows. On the one hand, if a group is characterized by a second feature, then interconnectedness and interdependence will naturally take place, although there is no feedback between these features. On the other hand, group self-reflection (or group self-knowledge) can be considered as a form of joint self-directed activity. Therefore, in order to emphasize the importance of the second feature, we can designate it as a general feature

Keeping in the analysis all three main features of the collective subject, it is possible to formulate the following proposition: for specific groups, these features are not only characteristic to varying degrees, but some of them may be leading, dominant, while others will be less pronounced. This makes it possible to single out qualitatively different states of group subjectivity:

Subjectivity as the interconnectedness and interdependence of a set of individuals can be designated as potential subjectivity, or pre-subjectivity (it is fundamentally important that a particular group may not yet show joint forms of activity, but already be psychologically prepared for this and, in this sense, be a collective subject in the most elementary, potential its quality);

Subjectivity as a joint activity is denoted by subjectivity itself, or real b noah (as opposed to potential) subjectivity, thereby once again emphasizing the main meaning of subjectivity in the ability of the group to manifest joint forms of activity; ^

Subjectivity as a group self-reflexivity 1 in relation to natural groups can be considered the most complex state of subjectivity, which does not always characterize this or that specific group.

The three main psychological states of the collective subject can most likely be considered b Being as different levels of subjectness: from elementary forms of interconnectedness to the most complex forms of group self-reflection - such a level-by-level development can be characteristic of a collective subject.

And one more important concept must be introduced precisely in this context - the psychological type of subjectness (and, accordingly, the collective subject). On the one hand, the presence of the most pronounced feature (or features) determines the psychological type of subjectivity, which leads to the selection, for example , its three main types, corresponding to the features described above. But on the other hand, the links between features are such that the presence of one of them automatically implies the presence of the other, hence each of the three types is characterized by a different number of features, which violates the traditional logic of constructing typologies. The first type of collective subject, based on interconnectedness, is characterized by one leading feature (the first one); the second type, based on joint activity, is characterized by two features (both the first and the second); the third type of collective subject (if we are talking about natural groups) involves the expression of all three features at the same time.

Of course, some other psychological types of the collective subject are also possible, occurring, for example, among specially formed groups of socio-psychological training, psychotherapeutic groups, etc. They are characterized by the main forms of joint activity directed in relation to themselves and, above all, in the form of group self-reflection, i.e. the most pronounced are the first and third of the features of the collective subject identified above.

Thus, the use of the main features of the collective subject makes it possible to single out not only the psychological phenomenon of subjectness in general, but also its levels and psychological types.

Naturally, the introduction of various individual criteria of a collective subject or their various combinations can narrow or, conversely, expand the boundaries of the phenomenon of interest. In close connection with this, the question arises of the possibility of the existence of groups that do not have the quality of subjectivity or the properties of a collective subject. Answering this question, it can be argued that such groups are possible under certain conditions, among which are the following:

Spontaneous groups that are formed in accordance with a particular situation, and then easily disintegrate or change, for example, the so-called transport, street and other similar groups;

Territorial groups formed at the place of residence, although they can become real subjects, their typical states, as a rule, are not characterized by subjectivity;

Any short-term existing group, which can be either spontaneous or specially, but temporarily (situationally) organized;

Many natural and organized groups, but at the earliest stages (stages) of their formation and formation, only nominally, but not really corresponding to the criterion of interconnectedness and interdependence, etc.

Consequently, such social groups, which are found only by spatial and temporal signs, do not really possess the qualities of a collective subject. However, such an interpretation is possible only when the first of the above signs of a collective subject is already considered sufficient for attributing one or another group to it. If, however, the second sign (joint activity) is taken into account as necessary, along with the first, then the totality of the group that does not have the quality of subjectivity will increase dramatically.

The main directions and schemes of analysis of the collective subject.

The collective subject is characterized by the multiplicity of its manifestations, which are fixed in a number of concepts used in social psychology, for example: the collective subject of behavior, life, activity, communication, relationships, cognition, management, etc. A similar picture is also found at the individual-personal level, for example, with the multiplicity of the phenomenon of "I", etc. So here, we can talk about the multiplicity of manifestations of the phenomenon of "We" (collective subject). However, it is here that it is necessary to recall the thesis of A.V. Brushlinsky that “the subject is not the human psyche, but a person with a psyche, not one or another of his mental properties, types of activity, etc., but the person himself is active, communicating, etc.” The same can be formulated in relation to the collective subject: studying its various forms of manifestation, nevertheless, these manifestations themselves, no matter how numerous they may be, cannot be called a collective subject, which can only be a collective acting together, communicating, relating to social objects. etc.

The phenomenon of the collective subject manifests itself through various forms of joint group activity (or joint life activity), which, unfortunately, are not systematized in social psychology due to the difficulties associated with their multiplicity and high degree of diversity. Of the most known forms joint activity, the following can be distinguished (they, apparently, , and are the main forms):

Joint activity in all its variety of types: labor, educational, gaming, etc.;

Intra-group interaction in any of its forms, including the establishment of communications, communication, etc.

Group behavior (joint actions, expression of group opinions, assessments, attitudes towards social and other objects, etc.);

Group self-knowledge (self-reflection) for the purpose, for example: establishing group norms, rules of conduct, their self-correction, etc.

Intergroup interaction on the widest range of issues related to the activity of one's own and other groups.

Despite the proposed grouping of forms of joint activity of the group, their systematization seems to us to be a relatively independent task that requires special studies.

Almost each of the manifestations of the collective subject listed above represents one or another area of ​​research in social psychology, which has been developed to varying degrees. The “collective subject of activity” or “subject of joint activity” is predominantly studied.

The approaches to the study of the collective subject that have developed today are fundamentally different in terms of which psychological phenomenon is taken as a “unit” or “cell” of the analysis of the collective subject. The main ones can be schematically represented as follows.

1. Individual activity is considered an invariant of joint activity, therefore, all elements of joint activity can be derived from individual activity, and from it we can proceed to the analysis of a collective subject performing joint activity. In this case, individual activity is that “cell” (“unit”), based on which one can describe both joint activity and its collective subject. A detailed critical analysis of such ideas about “collective activity” and “collective consciousness” was carried out by A.I. Dontsov.

2. A collective subject is a certain set of individuals (personalities) who are in interpersonal relationships mediated by activity or its individual elements (goals, for example, etc.). That is, the main "unit" of the analysis of the collective subject is activity-mediated interpersonal relations, the description of which is actually a description of the collective subject.

3. The main "unit" of the analysis of joint activities - and its collective subject is the interaction of participants in joint activities (or members of the team performing joint activities), however, not all interaction, namely, subject-oriented, i.e. focused on the subject of joint activity. A similar scheme of analysis (from object-oriented interaction to joint activity and a collective subject) can be used to study other manifestations of the collective subject listed above. The main thing in this case is to proceed from an analysis of the phenomenon of interaction of elements (members) of a collective subject, whether aimed at cognition, communication, management, attitude to other social objects, etc., or to analyze its behavior, life activity in general. This or that quality (property, state) of the manifestation of a collective subject is determined by the interaction of the constituent elements of the collective subject, which can be both individuals and communities of different quantitative composition (see below in the text).

Formal-structural characteristics of the collective subject.

If we rely on the last of the above and most widely interpreted approaches to understanding the "collective subject", then it is necessary to single out fundamentally different forms of its existence, described by formal (not meaningful) characteristics, starting with the quantitative composition of the community of people, which is designated by the collective subject . As a result, the collective subject can be represented in the following forms:

Dyad (spouses, parent-child, teacher-student, manager-executor, doctor-patient, consultant-client, commander-private, etc., etc.);

Small group (family, study group, production team, department, laboratory, group of friends, circles of various hobbies, etc.),

Medium-sized group (small and medium-sized enterprise, workshop of a large enterprise, typical research institutes and design bureaus, universities, organized meetings, rallies, etc.);

Large social groups (classes and social strata, ethnic groups, troops, large political parties, social movements, large crowds, gatherings; processions, territorial groups, etc.);

Society as a whole as an organized set of intersecting and included in each other (in accordance with the principle of "matryoshka") individuals, small, medium and large social groups.

Another fundamental formal feature of the collective subject, along with the quantitative composition, are the forms of its organization, i.e. structures of links between the constituent elements of the subject. Their diversity is currently not amenable to any systematization and grouping, except for a simplified division of the collective subject into the following forms, depending on the characteristics of the structure of connections:

Externally and internally defined organization;

Rigidly, moderately and poorly regulated (organized);

Hierarchically and side by side organized;

Organized on formal (business, functional, official) and informal (informal, personal) connections and dependencies, etc.

The next formal-structural characteristic of the collective subject is its homogeneity (homogeneity) - heterogeneity (heterogeneity), or rather their degree, according to the most diverse features that characterize the elements included in it. Most often, we mean individuals who are part of a collective (group). The degree of homogeneity/heterogeneity is assessed, for example, by socio-demographic characteristics (gender and age, educational, marital status, etc.), social (property status, political orientations, ethnicity, etc.). The result of the analysis of the homogeneity/heterogeneity of various features of a collective subject is its "composition".

Dynamic (procedural) characteristics of the collective subject of activity.

As noted above, the various manifestations of the collective subject in social psychology have been studied extremely unevenly. At present, there are opportunities to characterize the subject of joint activity in more detail, i.e. one of its manifestations. However, it must be argued that this manifestation is the most important. It is appropriate to recall here that B.G. Ananiev, for example, referred the concept of "subject" to the characteristics of a person, manifested in his activity and mainly in labor activity. He wrote: "A person is the subject, first of all, of the main social activities - labor, communication, knowledge", and also: "The main objective activity of a person is labor, on the basis of the development of which all other forms of it arose, including play and learning."

Studies of the collective subject are carried out in close connection with the study of joint activity, therefore, the selected properties (characteristics) of the collective subject are at the same time the properties of joint activity. In accordance with its main features, the following properties of both joint activity and its collective subject are distinguished.

1. The purposefulness of the collective subject of activity in this context is understood as the desire for the main socially significant goal. Purposefulness characterizes such a state of the team, when the goal has a decisive influence on joint activities, subjugates it to itself, as it were, “penetrates” it. In turn, the purposefulness of the collective subject of activity is characterized by group interests, the content of the goals that the group puts forward, collective social attitudes, beliefs, and ideals. Purposefulness expresses, first of all, the really existing tendencies in the activity of the collective and is the most important characteristic of its social and socio-psychological portrait.

2. Motivation as a property of a collective subject of activity represents an active, interested and effective attitude (motivation) to joint activities. It characterizes such a state of the motivational sphere of SD participants, in which there are emotional experiences of need, inclination, desire to act together, as well as awareness of the need for joint activity and a biased, enthusiastic attitude towards it. Motivation is formed as a result of the integration of individual motives, their mutual "addition" and "interlacing". It manifests itself in the peculiarities of the activity and interest of the members of the team in the SD.

3. The integrity (or integration) of a collective subject of activity is understood as the internal unity of its constituent elements. This property characterizes the degree of interconnectedness and interdependence of the members of the collective subject. In the socio-psychological and psychological literature, some other terms are also used to denote integrity: unity, integrity, conjugation.

4. An important property of the collective subject of activity is its structuredness, which means clarity and rigor. b mutual distribution of functions, tasks, rights, duties and responsibilities between members of the team, the certainty of its structure. A well-structured collective subject, first of all, has the ability to be easily divided into basic elements or parts that correspond to the functions and tasks performed in joint activities, i.e. each link has its own place.

5. Consistency as a property of a collective subject of activity represents a harmonious combination of its members, the mutual conditionality of their actions. To designate this property in specific types of professional activity, such terms as “coordination”, “coherence”, “harmony”, “teamwork”, etc. are also used. Consistency (or mismatch) is manifested at all stages of the implementation of the SD and characterizes the combination of its main structural elements: goals and objectives, motives, actions and operations, intermediate and final results.

6. The organization of the collective subject of activity means orderliness , composure, subordination to a certain order of joint activities, the ability to act exactly in accordance with a predetermined plan (plannedness). The term “controllability” is sometimes used to denote the property of organization, and in recent years the concept of “controllability” close to it has become widely used, which refers to the ability to follow control actions. In this property, two main aspects can be distinguished: the ability of a collective subject of activity to follow external organizational and control influences, i.e. his diligence, which characterizes the team as an object of management in relation to the management bodies; the ability of a collective subject to organize and manage its own activities. In this sense, organization and manageability are characterized by cohesion in solving intra-collective tasks and the degree of development of self-government.

7. An integral property of a collective subject of activity is its effectiveness, which means the ability to achieve a positive outcome. In performance, in the form of indicators of specific products of activity, certain levels of development of the properties of the team are “focused”. In the socio-psychological literature, there are also other terms that are similar in terms of the content of effectiveness: “productivity”, “productivity”, “efficiency”, “effectiveness”.

Along with the properties that characterize both the joint activity and its subject, properties are distinguished that are related only to the collective subject of the activity, but not to the joint activity itself. They have in common that they are potential characteristics in relation to joint activities (but real for a collective subject), for example: readiness, competence, professionalism, etc. collective subject. The listed properties remain factors of joint activity.

Psychological characteristics of other manifestations of the collective subject.

In accordance with the provision on the plurality of manifestations of a collective subject, it can be characterized, for example, in connection with the qualities (properties) of both intra-subject (intra-collective, intra-group) and inter-subject (inter-collective, inter-group) relations. As a result of this, it is possible to obtain a socio-psychological "portrait" of the collective subject of relations. And such characteristics, i.e. not being the properties of joint activity (although its remaining factors, nevertheless related to the collective subject), are intensively developed in social psychology. If we confine ourselves to the leading properties of the collective subject of relations, then they can be the following polarly presented properties:

Cohesion - disunity;

Compatibility - incompatibility;

Openness - closeness;

Satisfaction - dissatisfaction;

Conflict - non-conflict;

Tolerance - intolerance;

Stability - variability;

Goodwill - aggressiveness;

Respect is disrespect.

Of course, this set can be replenished, however, the listed properties of the collective subject of relations are actually studied in social psychology.

The next most important manifestation of the collective subject is the phenomenon of communication. Like relationships, communication can be intrasubjective (intracollective) and intersubjective (intercollective). The main properties that describe this manifestation (quality) of the collective subjects studied in social psychology are as follows;

Purposefulness - aimlessness

Contact - non-contact (isolation)

Sociability - isolation

balance - unbalance

Competence - incompetent about st

Comfort - discomfort, etc.

Based on the comparison of the sets described above, it is necessary to formulate a theoretical position that some psychological properties of the collective subject simultaneously characterize its various manifestations, and thus they can be called general properties, and some of them are specific and characterize only individual manifestations of the collective subject. The latter properties constitute a group of private or partial ones. However, such a division has not been essentially made in social psychology, so such work remains to be done.

The formulation of such a task is also natural because the various manifestations of the collective subject are psychological phenomena of varying degrees of generalization/particularity. In this regard, the most generalized manifestation of a collective subject can be behavior that integrates its particular forms, which include communication, attitude, management, etc. Other generalized forms of activity of a collective subject are also interaction and a broadly understood joint activity. Such, for example, property scales as “activity-passivity”, “satisfaction-dissatisfaction”, “stability-variability” and some others are related to any manifestations of a collective subject and thus can be attributed to the group of its most general properties, etc. .

LITERATURE

1. Abullanova K L. On the subject of mental activity. M. 1973

2. Ananiev B.G. Man as an object of knowledge. L., 1969.

3. Bekhterev V M. Selected works in social psychology

4. Brushlinskiy A 8. Subject, thinking, teaching, imagination. M. - Voronezh, 1996.

5. Dontsov A.I. Psychology of the team. M., 1984.

b ZhuravlevA. J]. Psychology of joint activity in the conditions of organizational and economic changes: Diss. n. M - IP RAS, 1999.

7. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. M., J984.

8 Rubinshtein S.L. Problems of general psychology. M., 1973

9. Joint activity in the conditions of organizational and economic changes / Editor-in-chief AL Zhuravlev M, 1997 10. Socio-psychological dynamics in conditions of economic changes / Editor-in-chief AL, Zhuravlev, E.V Shorokhova. M, 1998. Socio-psychological studies of leadership and entrepreneurship / Ed. A.L. Zhuravlev, B. V. Shorokhova M., 1999

10. Chernyshev A.S., Krikunov A.S. Socio-psychological foundations of the organization of the team. Voronezh, 1991.

Anatoly Laktionovich Zhuravlev - Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education. Laureate of the Prize of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the field of psychology named after S. L. Rubinshtein (2005).

Author of 350 works, 12 of which are author's and collective monographs. The works are devoted to the problems of social, economic, organizational and economic psychology, personality psychology, labor and management in modern Russian society. The main monographs of A. L. Zhuravlev: “Individual style of managing a production team” (M., 1976), “Joint activity: Methodology, theory, practice” (M., 1988), “Socio-psychological dynamics in conditions of economic changes” ( M., 1998), "Social psychology" (M., 2002), "Moral and psychological regulation of economic activity" (M., 2003), "Psychology of managerial interaction" (M., 2004), "Psychology of joint activity" ( M., 2005).

At the Moscow University for the Humanities, A. L. Zhuravlev is the head of the Department of Social and Ethnic Psychology.

We present our reader with a conversation with him.

– Anatoly Laktionovich, how did your path to science begin? Who (or what) influenced your choice: parents, family traditions, teachers, your own experience and aspiration?..

– The biggest role in my professional self-determination was played by two factors: parents and teachers.

My parents not only didn't have higher education, but even incomplete average. My father finished 3 classes, and my mother - 6 (incomplete secondary at that time was seven). Although they had a very worldly idea of ​​science, it was my parents who instilled in me from childhood a love for education, for knowledge, for books, for science. In our family, the education of children has always been the highest priority interest and occupation.

“They sought to fulfill their own unrealized abilities through you?”

– Today's psychoanalysts would say that parents realized in their children what was laid in them. My parents had excellent inclinations, which they did not realize and could not do this for many objective reasons. But they deeply understood the value and importance of education and conveyed to me the desire to study, always directing me to it, supporting my studies and creating all possible conditions for them.

Mother comes from the Volga - from the village of Novye Klyuchi, Petrovsky district of the Kuibyshev region. And I was born there. During the war, in 1942, my father got there after the hospital. And he is from the village of Novaya Milcha, Gomel region of Belarus. The war brought my parents together and I was born as a post-war. I have a sister and had a brother from my parents' first marriages. We lived together, and all the children received higher education.

- Where did you get your education?

– Here I will talk about the second factor that influenced my self-determination. These are my teachers. I graduated with honors from the 4th grade at the Novoklyuchevskaya secondary school. Then we moved to my father's home. Already in Gomel, I graduated with honors from 8 classes at school No. 20. Then I entered the Gomel Machine-Building College at the Department of Metal Cutting, which I graduated with honors. I really wanted to have some kind of specialty before the army, I consciously decided to play it safe in this regard.

Both at school and at the technical school, highly professional teachers worked with us, many of them graduated from universities in Moscow and St. Petersburg at one time. In addition, in Gomel there was a high general desire of young people to receive higher education, and in general, an atmosphere reigned in society at that time, which was characterized by a high value of culture, science, and education. Therefore, even before entering the technical school, in the seventh or eighth grade, thinking about the prospects, my life path, I had a great interest in science. Few of my relatives had a higher education, and at that time I had only a general idea of ​​what “science” was, but I had a general very positive attitude towards this field of activity.

The range of interests began to become clearer already during my studies at the technical school. There I realized that the technique is not mine, I'm not interested. I felt an interest in people, in a person, I realized that I had to change my professional orientation. This was especially evident in the 3rd year. But he still firmly decided to get a specialty and therefore completed his studies at the technical school. I have a qualification of a technologist for metal cutting and a turner of the third category.

From the 3rd year, moving to the 4th, I simultaneously went to study at the Gomel regional part-time secondary school in order to get a general secondary education. Now there are no such educational institutions. Something like the evening education system, but including study on Sunday.

This school had excellent teachers in a number of disciplines. My class teacher and favorite teacher was Lidia Mikhailovna Shelyuto, who taught us Russian language and literature. She showed the possibilities of artistic, literary, psychological analysis of people's behavior through the works of Russian classics. Lidia Mikhailovna was a graduate of the Faculty of Philology of the Leningrad State University, Department of the Russian Language and Literature. That is, she had a classical education. And it was she who, perhaps imperceptibly for herself, influenced my life path. She once noted, and I remember well, that I have a rather abstract, philosophical mindset, she saw me before that I was a humanitarian, not a techie. Her influence also affected my choice of Leningrad University. I entered there in 1967, at the Faculty of Psychology. It was a relatively new faculty, the second enrollment was announced.

- Did you manage to enter without any problems?

- "No problems" is a relative concept... It is always very difficult to enter a metropolitan university. We had a competition of 9 people per place. But if you were prepared, then you had a real opportunity to enter. It was objective, we - the applicants knew everything about it, believed in it and hoped only for our own strength. Of the four exams, I received one "four", the rest were "five". I was enrolled.

Maybe it will seem strange today, but I didn’t have any connections or agreements for admission. There was not even a single acquaintance in Leningrad. Therefore, I had nowhere to even spend the first night, when I did not have time to register and get a place in the hostel ...

- You have begun double work on yourself: both to master new knowledge and to master a new place - the capital city.

- Yes, that's right. At the university, I first developed an interest in zoopsychology and comparative psychology of animals and humans, animals and children of different ages. This was incredibly new for me. I made two trips for research purposes to the Sukhumi nursery. My thesis was devoted to a comparative analysis of the memorization of objects according to various characteristics in monkeys and children of toddler and kindergarten ages.

As a result of working with the method of programmed observation of herds of various monkeys, I developed an interest in the study of group behavior of people - in general, in the psychology of groups. By industry, it was an interest in social psychology. And, first of all, I took up issues related to the organization and management of small labor groups. Why? Let me explain, returning to my pre-university training.

The teaching of Lidia Mikhailovna Shelyuto can be called a real school. But I will also add to this that the technical school also had wonderful teachers, and there were interesting courses for me, in which the role of the human factor in production was revealed. Now industrial social psychology and industrial sociology are close to this, and the course was called "Safety". The second, very interesting course was "Technical Aesthetics" (now it's "Design", "Ergonomics", closely related to engineering psychology and labor psychology).

In addition, I had a six-month practice at the plant - in the tool shop of the Gomel Plant of Tractor Starting Engines in 1966. This practice has given me a lot in life. I still have an interest in the psychology of labor activity, in the psychology of labor collectives. I return to this experience even now, performing managerial functions. There I saw that a person conceals a huge reserve that is not used, not fully demanded. I saw in practice the role of the organization of labor, the so-called "NOT" (scientific organization of labor), and realized that it would be advisable to make some changes to it. Collaboration can be especially effective.

All this knowledge, experience and reflection helped me during my studies at the university. Moreover, the issues of organizing joint labor activity, the problem of using human resources in labor have gone through almost my entire professional and scientific life.

How did you defend your PhD thesis? Who were your academic advisors?

- After the university, which I graduated with honors, in 1972 I went to work in Yaroslavl State University as an assistant at the Department of General Psychology. I did not have the right to enter full-time graduate school in a year, I had to work out two. But a year later, in 1973, I entered the postgraduate correspondence department of the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. And already in 1974 he transferred to the full-time postgraduate department.

Since November 11, 1974, my work book has been in the IP of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. It's been thirty-one years now... Almost my entire professional life has been connected with the Institute of Psychology. Here I have passed seven positions. These are: PhD student, junior researcher, senior researcher, leading researcher, head of the laboratory, deputy director and director. All positions I mastered a certain period of time. For a short time he was a full-time graduate student - about 2 years, a leading researcher - a year and a deputy director - a year and a half. I worked in other positions for several years.

I will talk about the Moscow-Leningrad school, because the IP RAS was created by Boris Fedorovich Lomov. This is my lecturer at Leningrad University, the first dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Leningrad State University. Then he moved to Moscow and soon organized an institute within the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

The Institute of Psychology traces its history back to December 16, 1971, and the scientific team has actually been functioning since the spring of 1972. Boris Fedorovich, as my university lecturer in the course "Experimental Psychology" and as the director of my institute, really became my number one teacher. I worked with him for twenty-two years. He also put forward my candidacy for the position of head of the laboratory of social psychology, which I headed in 1987. He himself died in July 1989 ...

When in January 1973 I turned to Boris Fedorovich with a question about my research work, he referred me to Vladimir Fedorovich Rubakhin, his colleague, deputy director, also from Leningrad. And he instructed to develop a new branch for that time - the psychology of management. I entered graduate school under V. F. Rubakhin and defended my dissertation in 1976. The Ph.D. thesis was called "The style and effectiveness of the management of the production team." In terms of subject matter, this is a combination of the interests that I had developed by that time, and the research and production needs of the institute, formulated by B.F. Lomov.

In addition to these two teachers, I will name people who have played a huge role in my professional life. These are: Boris Gerasimovich Ananiev - the founder of the psychological school of the Leningrad State University; Vladimir Nikolaevich Myasishchev - a very famous medical psychologist; Ekaterina Vasilievna Shorokhova - one of the first graduates of the psychology department of the Leningrad State University, deputy director of the IP of the USSR Academy of Sciences, head of the laboratory of social psychology, which I later headed; Konstantin Konstantinovich Platonov - a well-known specialist in the psychology of work, personality and other industries; Evgeny Sergeevich Kuzmin - founder of the first university department of social psychology in the USSR; Nina Alexandrovna Tikh - a specialist in zoopsychology and comparative psychology, the author of the classic book - "The Prehistory of Society" (she played a tremendous role in shaping my earliest interests in the herd life of monkeys and in general in social psychology); Evgeny Alexandrovich Klimov - a labor psychologist and a very interesting person; Aleksey Alexandrovich Bodalev is a famous social psychologist, a specialist in the psychology of personality and communication. Of course, I consider my teachers: Andrei Vladimirovich Brushlinsky, the second director of our institute, a researcher in the psychology of thinking and the subject, and Ksenia Alexandrovna Abulkhanova, a specialist in the field of personality psychology, an interesting modern methodologist.

These twelve people - my teachers - are a whole galaxy of brilliant domestic psychologists. I am proud of the scientific school to which I belong. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it integrates the natural-science and social-scientific roots of psychology. Psychological science, after all, according to many experts, is at the center of the sciences, at their intersection, and at the same time has double roots. Natural science roots go from Bekhterev Vladimir Mikhailovich, through B. G. Ananiev and V. N. Myasishchev - to B. F. Lomov. And the philosophical and humanitarian roots - from Sergei Leonidovich Rubinstein. He is also one of the first Leningraders who moved to Moscow and created fundamental psychology here. Sergei Leonidovich had an excellent, classical philosophical education. He created the sector of methodological problems of psychology at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1943, from where our institute originated. Then, in 1972, this sector became part of our institute and became its first structural unit. Andrei Vladimirovich Brushlinsky and Ksenia Alexandrovna Abulkhanova are direct students of Rubinstein.

The Moscow-Leningrad school is original, powerful and based on a comprehensive, systematic study of man. It integrates a wide variety of knowledge. Both this complexity and interest in man, the so-called school of human knowledge, coming from V. M. Bekhterev and B. G. Ananiev, in a later period, in the 1970s, was developed into another form of integration - into a systematic approach in psychology. It was substantiated already by B. F. Lomov.

This is the scientific basis on which today's research is carried out at our institute, and my own. It is also very significant for me that, together with well-known professors L. I. Antsyferova and V. A. Ponomarenko, I recently became a laureate of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the field of psychology named after S. L. Rubinshtein for a series of works devoted to the development of the personality of a professional in individual and joint activities.

– In management psychology, you have studied leadership styles, you have built a typology. you yourself long time work as a leader. Can the results of your research be applied to you personally? Could you name your leadership style?

Your question evokes one vivid memory for me. After defending my Ph.D. thesis on November 26, 1976, several people were sitting around the table around the cake. Among them was B.F. Lomov, director of the institute, my teacher. He asked me a question, beginning with "Sir." He called me differently: "Tolya", "Anatoly" or "Anatoly Laktionovich". But there were moments when he addressed exactly “sir”, and not only to me. This happened only in situations with complex, very responsible issues. And then he asked me: “Sir, what type of leadership style, according to your classification, does your director belong to?” And the answer I gave Boris Fedorovich then fits your question today. At that moment it was a complete improvisation. I said: "Boris Fedorovich, in order to answer this question, it is necessary to conduct a rigorous study."

– Research in relation to a specific person? Even despite the fact that there is a ready-made theory, typology?

- Certainly. Theory and methodology are scientific tools. You can also determine "by eye". But ... After all, we don’t ask a doctor: “Look at me and tell me what my temperature is now”? It is normal for us that the doctor will take an instrument - a thermometer and measure this temperature. So I developed a specific assessment tool, defining an individual leadership style. It received an abbreviation and spread in the scientific literature as the "SRI questionnaire". There is a tool for determining the ISR. And it can be applied specifically to each person. It makes no sense to do this by eye, including talking about yourself. Of course, I can give myself some characterization. But already as a specialist, and not as a layman, I know that someone else will do it better, more precisely.

I can only confess to one thing that I reflect and very often think about mistakes, especially when something doesn’t work out. But this is my inner “kitchen” no longer as a professional, but as a person, as a manager.

- And if you reflect to a professional? How do you rate what you have done?

- It so happens that my professional interests are concentrated around some problem in periods of approximately 7-10 years. In the 1970s, I worked psychological problems management of labor collectives, in the 1980s - the psychology of the joint activity of labor collectives, in the 1990s - the analysis of the socio-psychological dynamics of the individual and small groups in the changing Russian society.

Since the second half of the 1990s and for the last five years my interests have been connected with economic psychology. I am now participating in the formation and development of domestic economic psychology. It cannot be said that it is only now emerging. This is the economic psychology of modern times, based on specific empirical research.

I was also interested in the problems associated with environmental psychology, its formation and development. First of all, this is connected with the Chernobyl tragedy and with my personal interests. The most affected areas from the disaster are the areas of the Gomel region - my father's homeland. Therefore, I did not just participate in the implementation of specific studies, but was their initiator, developed research programs. We were engaged in studying the features of ecological consciousness in the post-catastrophic period. The objects of research were residents of the city of Gomel. Partially, the results have been published, and partially, they are still awaiting processing, analysis, and publication.

- What interests you now?

– I have a great interest in performing research. This is a kind of alternative management activity. The theoretical paradigm in which I work in the field of management psychology is the so-called psychology of managerial interaction. The essence of interaction lies in the fact that the performing and managerial activities are integrated. And if management activity has been sufficiently studied in our country, then the problem of performing activity is only just beginning to be dealt with. Therefore, now I am very interested in the psychological components of performing activity, and its structure, and personality types of performers, and so on.

There is one more topic. I would like to tackle a very complex area - the psychology of mass phenomena. It is poorly developed in our country, and in general in the world. Why? The reasons can be called: spontaneity and uncontrollability of processes, poor opportunities for direct study of these phenomena, the complexity of modeling and using the experiment ... Many things hinder normal research work, the development of this industry. The accumulation of knowledge remains slow and small. The classics of the 19th century laid the foundations that are still working, we use them, but, in general, the progress here is very weak.

– What area of ​​your interest is the study of students of different courses, which you spoke about at the recent conference “Higher Education for the 21st Century” at Moscow State University?

- To economic psychology. Now, together with our students, we are dealing with the problem of self-determination of the individual in the economic environment. In general, the phenomenon of self-determination for a young person, and for an adult person, is of tremendous interest. Moreover, in the new economic environment, the phenomena of self-determination are exacerbated. They are also interesting when a person is faced with new values, ideals, life meanings.

When the environment changes, any person has a problem of self-determination. Now, for example, mass computerization is taking place, and something is still ahead of us ... And any person, of any age, is faced with questions: how to relate to this, how to evaluate, how to behave, what to undertake, how to overcome, and so on.

Therefore, now my reflections and some research, together with my students, are in the field of studying the structure and dynamics of self-determination of the individual and social groups in the economic environment. But not only in economics.

– You mentioned in your report that adults, in an attempt to find inner support for themselves in changing conditions, often turn to past experience. And this mechanism is also present among young people. Moreover, she also refers to the experience that she herself did not have. So you are also dealing with the problem of the collective unconscious?

Yes, that's Jung's term. The collective unconscious exists unconditionally. We discover its role in research. Analyzing the results obtained, we came to the conclusion that Jung's ideas about the collective unconscious, archetypes are quite appropriate to use. But I want to emphasize that other explanations are possible.

When it comes to one individual person, then his mechanism for returning to old values ​​is always very individual. The way to return to the basic, well-established is found in many, but the system of these values ​​can be characteristic of other people: parents, brothers or sisters (not necessarily older, but also close in age), teachers, literary heroes. The dynamics of the value system is such that in our development we are sometimes ahead of our capabilities. When the value system encounters some new conditions, circumstances that a person has not seen or encountered before, a return to past experience occurs. A person asks the question: can I rely on what I have, can I understand what is happening with this help? And if this is not in my experience, then the experience of other people is used. This is a normal mechanism. It is difficult to unambiguously designate it as an inversion mechanism. Because the mechanism of inversion has a clear content: a return to what was with a person before. But here it is not. Here the inversion is only partial. It can be in different versions. The main thing is a return to the proven, to the stable, to the basic, to what saved, rescued, led to a stable, stable state. Not me, so others. The archetypal is not some kind of relic, but a certain adaptive mechanism, it performs certain functions in the social environment ...

- Can you say - "in culture"?

- Probably, it is possible. But I am very careful with wording that goes beyond my competence. We have not explored this mechanism as a cultural phenomenon. Each researcher has his own fields, there are limits. It is better to specifically study and then draw broad conclusions. Here we talk about what we specifically studied and for which we can be responsible.

– Cooperation between your institute and Moscow University for the Humanities began in difficult times for IP RAS - in the early 1990s. Please tell us how it all started.

– Indeed, the beginning of the 1990s, or rather 1992, was a very difficult year for all academic institutions. And for the entire Russian society. In fact, since 1993, the staff of our institute have been involved in professional psychological training in two main forms.

First. At our institute, a higher educational institution was created - the Higher College of Psychology, which was later transformed into the Higher School of Psychology at the IP RAS. We created this structure ourselves, it is successful, because it has been functioning for twelve full years so far.

And the second. In the same year, 1993, in March, the Faculty of Psychology was established at the Institute of Youth. Professor Alexander Vasilyevich Ivashchenko was appointed its head. He, looking for professional deputies, turned to the IP RAS and invited our colleague Yuri Nikolayevich Oleinik, who a year later became the dean of the new faculty. But the idea was wider. It consisted in uniting the efforts of institutions - the Institute of Youth and the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences - in the formation of this faculty.

I have been involved in this process from the very beginning. The very first meetings with the leadership of the university, which took place in the spring, before the start of the academic year, attracted our attention extremely positive attitude to psychology. A number of circumstances came together: the needs of the university for specialists, the desire to create a highly professional faculty, the focus on quality training, the willingness of the leadership to create conditions, including making some concessions, in order to retain good specialists, the needs of our institute staff to acquire students and earn money, the needs of our science in new specialists, etc.

Therefore, taking into account many favorable conditions, both objective and subjective, I agreed to an invitation not only to work there, but to soon organize a department of social and ethnic psychology, as well as bring specialists from the corresponding laboratory of the IP RAS. And we created this department as a department-laboratory. She still has that status. For its main backbone is made up of our employees from the laboratory of social and economic psychology of the IP RAS and from other laboratories of our institute.

Subsequent cooperation with the rector of IM, MGSA, Moscow State University - Professor Igor Mikhailovich Ilyinsky - showed a very high efficiency: both scientific, and teaching, and educational. The possibilities of Moscow State University turned out to be colossal for the implementation of the idea of ​​integrating science and higher education. Everyone benefited from cooperation. The faculty in terms of the level of training, the scientific potential of the teaching staff from the very beginning was at a high level. We keep our positions until now. About 40 employees of the IP RAS are currently working at Moscow State University. This is a very large group of specialists. Among other things, the departments acquired young personnel for themselves. Done and Protected a large number of dissertations. Of course, there are also employees of the IP RAS - graduates of Moscow State University.

– Work at the academic institute - research. Was it difficult for researchers to start teaching?

– It was very difficult. After all, this is a special, different kind of activity. Not everyone succeeded, some could not combine it. Today I can say that the integration of research work with university work among our employees is so high that it is impossible to imagine a qualified research worker without teaching experience. And they became teachers in many respects at the Institute of Youth. Not just a large, but a huge part of our institute has passed and pass this school. I am grateful to the leadership of Moscow State University for the patience they have shown. Not everything worked out right away, there was a natural dropout. But there has always been a tolerant and justified attitude towards our specialists - non-professional teachers, who already in the course of their work became professional teachers.

There is a lecturer's rule that has always existed: you need to read the course three times in order to understand how not to read. And read the course four times to understand how to read. This is the path we took in parallel at the Higher School of Psychology and at the Institute of Youth. This parallel has accelerated the process of becoming teachers, the process of developing courses. So we didn't have to work for seven years. Three years was enough.

Today, the IP RAS has its own psychology department at the State University for the Humanities. It is based here, in the space of the Institute. Special training is given by the staff of the IP RAS. But it appeared a little later... You can't rewrite history. And the role of the Institute of Youth, Moscow State University in the development of our employees as teachers, in the new quality of the work of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be overestimated. Our cooperation is not only actively continuing, but is also acquiring new content and diverse forms.

Interviewed by Ch. K. Dargyn-ool