Is politics a sphere of personal self-determination or a sphere of manipulative imposition?

Is politics a sphere of personal self-determination or a sphere of manipulative imposition?

It is important for her to see how much you personally care about what you offer. Again, even the "iron" logic of proving one’s rightness will not give us an advantage if one or another rather expressive emotion, one or another feeling, does not arise in the souls of our counterparts. After all, this will mean that our interlocutor is not involved "for life" and that he has not become more open to us.

In every conversation, even the shortest and most meaningless, we use various socio-psychological mechanisms of influence and various tactics aimed at strengthening it. And it is no exaggeration to say that the productivity of our activities will increase significantly if in the process of communication we can proactively and purposefully use the whole arsenal of socio-psychological mechanisms of influence.

We concretize this opinion. Yes, a typical situation is when we decide to find like-minded people, colleagues, partners, helpers to achieve some goals. In this case, it was necessary to be guided by intuition and feelings that come "from the heart." Especially since real colleagues do not often come across on the road, and therefore, sometimes they need to be selected, formed, educated and so on. Therefore, in order to make another person his ally, it is necessary to make certain purposeful influences in relation to him, which would cause him the necessary "transformations".

It is clear that there can be issues of ethical and psychological nature. That is, when it comes to the formation of the commonality of one self with others, the influences exerted should in no way affect the essential-semantic core of the individual against his will. Moreover, any purposeful influence of man on man must guarantee the latter the possibility of free self-determination and transformation of itself according to its own laws. Exceptions can be only medical, correctional-rehabilitation, preventive effects on the person in whom this kernel is deformed. The second question is how exactly these influences should be organized, and therefore, whether there is any systemic logic of the application of socio-psychological mechanisms of human influence on man.

Studies show that such logic really exists and manifests itself, in particular, in the peculiar dynamics of propositional and prescriptive mechanisms of influence. Implied?

Imagine that two subjects of activity interact, and therefore, speaking in "systemic" language, two similar (but not identical) functional structures, each of which is able to set certain goals, choose the means to achieve them, make decisions about transition from intentions to actions, to execute the decisions, to estimate results of execution and to fix in experience results and ways of the carried-out activity. To form a psychological community "We", these two structures must in some way "interact". In this case, one of them assumes the role of initiator or subject of influence, the other – must agree to be its object. The task of the subject – to apply certain (necessary and sufficient) socio-psychological mechanisms of influence, and the task of the object – adequately, actively, selectively, critically (ie, also, in a sense, subjectively) to respond to them … Consider a schematic version of this interaction.

Suppose that subject A is interested in the formation of relations of cooperation, cooperation, partnership, etc. between him and B. To do this, he must first (on the basis of an interview or practical test) find out what he is largely striving for and what the candidate is capable of, what ideas he professes. Then the plot of the interaction can unfold as follows.

So that B consciously absorbed the same ideas as the subject A, that he had the same motives, beliefs, that he as much as A, sought to implement a certain goal-idea in life and did not think of another destiny, the latter, as the initiator of interaction, must be based on a propositional mechanism of persuasion.

In order for B to agree in principle with the methods of achieving the goal proposed by A, to, like A, responsibly (and not on the principle of "purpose justifies the means") subordinate the means help write lab report to the purpose of activity, the latter must resort to the prescriptive mechanism of obligation.

In order for B to internally join A in decision-making, listen to his advice and show confidence in the necessity and timeliness of the transition from intentions to practical actions, A must become an authoritative person for B, which will allow effective use of the proposed suggestion mechanism.

In order for B to consistently, diligently and proactively implement jointly adopted decisions, to be binding, to be internally disciplined in the performance of assignments and their direct responsibilities, A must be able, if necessary, to correctly apply the prescriptive authorization mechanism.

In order for B to adequately, critically and at the same time self-critically evaluate the results of the completed case, guided by the criteria that A adheres to and proposes, the latter must resort to the application of a proposed mechanism of presentation of standards … However, ultimately, the choice is left to B. He decides to what extent the evaluation criteria offered to him by A are acceptable to him.

In order for B to record in his individual experience and further be able to use in his activities exactly those results and work out exactly those methods that he considers essential and necessary, the latter must resort to the use of a prescriptive mechanism of exercise.

The accumulated experience of such interaction A and B is not a "dead weight" but is constantly transformed and transformed into new motives (ideas, goals), the implementation of which will require the creation of new ways and means, and their implementation – new solutions and decisive actions. In this way, in our opinion, the dialectical "spiral" of influence of the subject A on the subject B for the purpose of creation and development of the subject-subject community "We" is "untwisted".

The given synthetic model of social and psychological mechanisms of human influence on a person in real life (for example, in the process of formation of creative scientific collectives, political groups, parties, factions, teams, etc.) can acquire various modifications. For example, some of its blocks can be used very actively, and others can only be taken into account.

Obviously, the effectiveness of any interaction depends on the extent to which its participants withstand the specified systemic logic of the application of mechanisms of influence. After all, if, say, subject A managed to achieve motivational unity with B by his influences, and he did not pay due attention to reaching an agreement on the means and methods of interaction, they can always have conflicts and the result of interaction will be low, and may and the opposite of what was expected.

Therefore, depending on what psychological effect the subject of influence expects, he must use appropriate socio-psychological mechanisms. However, this raises questions: how many and what mechanisms can be identified so that their combination meets the criterion of necessity and sufficiency; Is there any internal structural and functional dependence between the individual mechanisms and is it possible to combine them on the principle of systematicity?

Our attempt to answer these questions led to the conclusion that each socio-psychological mechanism of influence acquires structural and functional certainty and relative independence, and the combination of these mechanisms can be considered as a systemic, synthetic formation, if their integration is based on structural and functional psychological model of the person as the subject of activity, and interaction of the subject and object of influence will be constituted in the subject-subject format.

28.05.2012

Attitudes of young people to politics. Abstract

The abstract provides information about the socio-psychological characteristics of young people with varying degrees of interest in politics

Is politics a sphere of personal self-determination or a sphere of manipulative imposition? Ironically, most researchers agree with the first thesis. But in order for a person to begin to self-determine, that is, to form stable and meaningful political and ideological beliefs, attitudes, ideals, norms of behavior, to form the ability to observe and understand the phenomena of life, he must have at least a basic interest and knowledge of political reality.

In the study, we did not accidentally focus on adolescence, because during this period there is an intensive formation of a system of value orientations, mastery of conceptual thinking, accumulating social experience.

Young people form a system of value orientations through the expansion of the sphere of communication, observation of various forms of behavior, views, ideals, which increases the opportunities to make independent choices, including political ones. The emergence of their own social and political attitudes, beliefs, orientations indicates an active interested search for their selves in society. However, numerous sociological studies show that only a small percentage of young people are interested in politics and are politically active.

What determines the low or high interest in politics, the desire or unwillingness to navigate in the subjects of political and ideological space, the activity or passivity of the young cohort in defending their civil rights? We assume that one of the reasons is the existence of a certain set of socio-psychological features that distinguish politically active and passive youth.

Both from a practical and from a theoretical point of view, the disclosure of the socio-psychological essence of interest in politics provides a unique opportunity to express the socio-psychological characteristics of the individual in terms of determining its political and ideological preferences. Thus, the identified significant socio-psychological qualities of politically interested youth will allow to influence the formation of significant attitudes, which will lead to significant transformations of the internal position on participation in the political life of society.

As an object of study, socio-psychological features are attractive because they are quite stable personal characteristics that determine the specifics of both interests and basic life strategy, form a common and coherent style of thinking. Our study was aimed at identifying the personal and interpersonal specifics of those ways of young people who in different show interest in political processes in society, attach different importance to the formation of their political and ideological orientations.