Isolating individual social actions is very useful in studying social processes. At the same time, even simple observation shows that social action rarely occurs in a single, isolated form. In fact, people are connected to each other by thousands of invisible threads and depend on each other. Dependence arises in cases when each of us can say about ourselves: “Specific objects, values, conditions (and we can talk about both material and moral values) that are required to me, are situated in his disposal."

It can be elementary, direct dependence on parents, friends, colleagues, or it can be complex, indirect. The latter include the dependence of our individual life on the level of development of society, the effectiveness of the economic system, the effectiveness of the political system, etc. Social life arises, reproduces and develops precisely due to the presence of dependencies between people, because it is they who create the prerequisites for the interaction of people with each other.

In the case when dependence is realized through a specific social action, we can talk about the emergence of a social connection . Social communication, no matter what form it takes, has a complex structure. But it is always possible to identify the main elements in it: the subjects of communication, the subject of communication and, most importantly, the “rules of the game” by which this connection or the mechanism of conscious regulation of relationships between subjects is carried out.

Social connection appears in the form of social contact and social interaction. Let us take a closer look at these phenomena.

Every day each of us enters into a huge number of social contacts: a random passerby asks us how to get to such and such a street, we go into the store and ask the seller to give us the goods we need. We encounter people at work, in transport, at university. Without thinking, we pass by people, but we constantly remember their existence. This is expressed in a change in our behavior in the presence of other people: talking out loud to ourselves alone is not such a rare occurrence, but on the street we do the same mentally, “to ourselves” and only because there are others next to us.

Contacts can be sporadic (as in a situation with a random passer-by) or regular (with the saleswoman of “your” store). We can join them as individuals or representatives of a team or institution.

Despite all their diversity, social contacts have common features. During contact, the connection is superficial, fleeting. The contact partner is fickle, random, and can be easily replaced (you may also be served by another saleswoman; you can find out what time it is, if not from this person, then from another passerby). The expectation and orientation towards the other in each of the partners does not extend further than this social contact (having satisfied the curiosity of the passer-by regarding the route, we part, without trying to renew contact).

In other words, social contact is a fleeting, short-term connection in which there is no system of associated actions in relation to the partner. This does not mean that social contacts are unimportant and insignificant in our lives: a quarrel with another passenger on a tram or a conflict with an inattentive cashier can significantly determine our well-being. But still, they do not constitute the leading basis of our social life, its foundation.

The leading importance is social interaction - systematic, fairly regular social actions of partners, aimed at each other, with the goal of a very specific (expected) response on the part of the partner, which generates a new reaction of the influencer. We are talking about the exchange of actions that are mutually related. It is these moments: the conjugacy of the systems of action of both partners, the recurrence of actions and their coordination, a stable interest in the response actions of one’s partner - that distinguish social interaction from a single social contact

A striking example of interaction is the educational process. Each teacher, preparing for classes, selects material, mentally imagining, predicting the reaction of students: will they be interested in certain questions, will the examples given reveal the essence of the problem posed, etc. During classes, students behave differently depending on how important they consider the subject to be for their professional training, and how interesting, intelligible and convincing the teacher presents his material. Some work with interest, with passion, others are not very interested in the subject, but they also try to work in order to avoid possible troubles, others do not hide their lack of interest in the subject, mind their own business or do not attend classes at all. The teacher records, “catches” the current situation and, preparing for a new meeting with students, adjusts his actions taking into account past experience.

As you can see, in the above example there is a main characteristic social interaction - deep and close coordination of the system of actions of partners regarding the subject of social communication - study.

Social interactions come in three main options: social relations, social institutions and social communities. Let's give brief description each of them.

Social relations are a stable system of interaction between partners, which is distinguished by the fact that relationships are established across a wide range of phenomena and have a long-term, systematic, self-renewing nature. This feature applies to both interpersonal and intergroup relations. When we talk, for example, about interethnic relations, we mean an established, recurring connection between ethnic entities across a fairly wide range of interactions (we are, as a rule, talking about political, economic, and cultural ties).

The concept of “” captures the fact that the process of satisfying basic human needs is to a greater or lesser extent guaranteed against randomness, sporadicity, that it is predictable, reliable, and regular. Any social institution arises and functions as the interaction of groups of people regarding the implementation of a certain social need. If such a need, due to some circumstances, becomes insignificant or completely disappears, then the existence of the institution turns out to be meaningless. It may still function for some time due to inertia or as a tribute to tradition, but in most cases it disappears.

The birth and death of a social institution is clearly illustrated by the example of the institution of noble duels of honor. The duel was an institutionalized method of settling relations between nobles for three centuries. It arose due to the need to protect the honor of the nobleman and streamline relations between representatives of this social stratum.

Initially, quarrels and duels occurred spontaneously, by chance, but gradually a certain system of procedures emerged that regulated the behavior of all participants in duels, distributing roles between them (duelists, manager, seconds, medic). This institution provided for strict adherence to rules and norms in situations of honor protection. But with the development of industrial society, ethical standards also changed, which made it unnecessary to defend noble honor with arms in hand, as a result of which this institution is gradually dying out. An example of its decline is the absurd choice of dueling weapons by A. Lincoln: he proposed throwing potatoes at the enemy from a distance of twenty meters.

From the above example it is clear that the institutionalization of social connections presupposes:

· formation of common goals for interacting subjects;

· the emergence of social norms and rules, as well as procedures for their implementation;

· establishing a system of sanctions that stimulate desirable behavior and discourage and deter undesirable behavior;

· clear distribution of functions, rights and responsibilities of participants in interaction, creation of a system of statuses and roles, as a result of which individual behavior within the institution is more predictable;

· impersonality of requirements for those who are involved in the activities of the institute; status and role expectations for each object are presented as instructions for a given institution;

· division of labor and professionalization in the performance of functions.

The above makes it obvious that the more developed, streamlined and effective social institutions are, the more stable and sustainable the development of society will be. Particularly dramatic periods are marked in the development of a particular society, when there is a transformation of the main social institutions, when the rules and norms that underlie the functioning of each institution change. In essence, we are talking about reconsidering basic value systems. For example, in our society the institution of property is being renewed.

If yesterday Russians did not own, did not manage property, were controlled, but had a guaranteed minimum standard of living, today many want to own, manage, take risks and at the same time have only a chance to live prosperously and independently. Naturally, not all participants in social interaction regarding property perceive the established institution of property in the same way, hence the inconsistency, severity, and drama of the formation of new stable norms in this area. The same can be said about the institutions of the army, family, education, etc.

A characteristic feature of such social interaction as social communities, is that they arise from the need for solidarity and coordination of joint actions. The basis of social community is the human desire for the benefits that come from combining efforts. Individuals who form united forms of social interaction can qualitatively increase the effectiveness of individual actions, the ability to improve, defend their interests, and survive. Based on the types of communication (social contacts and social interactions), two main types of social communities can be distinguished: social circles, i.e. people between whom there are contacts, communication, and social groups, which are based on the exchange of related, coordinated systems of actions regarding the coordination of joint efforts, unification, and solidarity.

Modern society demonstrates a huge diversity of social groups, which is due to the variety of tasks for which these groups were formed. More details about the types, types and methods of functioning of various groups can be found in other sections of this manual. In the meantime, it is important for us to note that the desire for solidarity and joint efforts means the emergence of shared expectations of each member of the community regarding the other: for example, from your neighbor down the street, whom you meet from time to time, you expect one type of behavior, and from your loved ones, members family is different. Violation of these expectations can lead to mismatch, depression, and conflicts.

The variety of social interactions makes it necessary their typology. First of all, social interactions can be divided according to the following criterion: as the nature of the action.

In accordance with it, we obtain the following types:

· physical interaction;

· verbal interaction;

· sign or symbolic interaction.

In addition, sociologists distinguish between social interactions by methods, with the help of which partners agree on their goals and means of achieving them. In connection with this criterion, two of the most general type interactions - cooperation and competition (sometimes in the sociological literature you can find another division - cooperation, competition and conflict). Cooperation involves the interrelated actions of individuals aimed at achieving common goals, with benefits for all parties. Interaction based on rivalry is based on attempts to remove and suppress an opponent striving for identical goals.

Finally, interactions can be studied using micro and macro level. In the first case we are dealing with interpersonal interactions, in the second - with the existence of social relations and institutions. It should be noted that in any given social context elements of both levels are combined. Everyday communication between family members occurs at the micro level. At the same time, the family is a social institution studied at the macro level.

So, social interaction is a special type of social connection, which is characterized by the actions of social partners based on mutual expectations of a response. This means that everyone, in their interaction with another, can predict (with varying degrees of probability) his behavior. Consequently, there are certain “rules of the game” that are observed to one degree or another by all participants in social interaction, otherwise it is either impossible at all or ineffective.

Therefore, it is necessary to find out how and by what means people’s relationships are regulated in the process of social interaction.

Society does not consist of individual individuals, but expresses the sum of those connections and relationships in which these individuals are with each other. The basis of these connections and relationships is the interaction of people.

Interaction- this is the process of direct or indirect influence of objects (subjects) on each other, giving rise to their mutual conditionality and connection.

It is causality that constitutes the main feature of interaction, when each of the interacting parties is highly dulls as the cause of the other and as a consequence of the simultaneous reverse influence of the opposite side, which determines the development of objects and their structures. If a contradiction is discovered during interaction, then it acts as a source of self-propulsion and phenomena and processes.

In Russian social psychology, interaction usually means not only the influence of people on each other, but also the direct organization of their joint activities, allowing the group to implement common activities for its members. The interaction itself in this case acts as a systematic, constant implementation of actions aimed at causing an appropriate reaction on the part of other people.

Usually a distinction is made between interpersonal and intergroup interaction.

Interpersonal interaction- accidental or intentional, private or public, long-term or short-term, verbal or non-verbal contacts and connections of two or more people, causing mutual changes in their relationships, etc.

The presence of an external goal in relation to interacting individuals, the achievement of which requires mutual efforts.

Explicitness (availability) for observation from the outside and registration by other people.

Situationalism is a fairly strict regulation by specific conditions of activity, norms, rules and intensity of relationships, due to which interaction becomes a rather changeable phenomenon.

Reflexive ambiguity is the dependence of perception on the conditions of implementation and the assessments of its participants.

Intergroup interaction- the process of direct or indirect influence of multiple subjects (objects) on each other, generating their mutual conditionality and the unique nature of the relationship. Usually it takes place between entire groups (as well as their parts) and acts as an integrating (or destabilizing) factor in the development of society.

Currently, in Western science there are many points of view that explain the reasons for human interaction.

The process of human interaction is divided into three main stages (levels).

At the first stage (initial level), interaction represents the simplest primary contacts of people. Between them there is only a certain primary and very simplified mutual or unilateral influence on each other for the purpose of exchanging information and communicating. It's in force specific reasons may not achieve its goal and may not receive further development.

The success of initial contacts depends on the acceptance or rejection of each other by the interaction partners. Differences between individuals are one of the main conditions for the development of their interaction (communication, relationships, compatibility, workability), as well as themselves as individuals.

Any contact usually begins with a concrete sensory perception of the external appearance, characteristics of the activities and behavior of other people. At this moment, as a rule, the emotional and behavioral reactions of individuals dominate. Acceptance-rejection relationships are manifested in facial expressions, gestures, posture, gaze, intonation, and the desire to end or continue communication. They indicate whether people like each other or not. If not, then mutual or unilateral reactions (gestures) of rejection follow.

Contact is terminated.

And vice versa, people turn to those who smile, look directly and openly, turn to the front, and respond with a cheerful and cheerful intonation; to someone who is trustworthy and with whom further cooperation can be developed based on joint efforts.

Of course, the acceptance or rejection of each other by interaction partners has deeper roots.

The first (lower) level is the ratio of individual (natural) and personal parameters (temperament, intelligence, character, motivation, interests, value orientations) of people. Of particular importance in interpersonal interaction are the age and gender differences of partners.

The second (upper) level of homogeneity - heterogeneity (degree of similarity - contrast of participants in interpersonal interaction) is the ratio (similarity - difference) of opinions in the group, attitudes (including likes - antipathies) to oneself, partners or other people and to the objective world (in including joint activities). The second level is divided into sublevels: primary (or initial) and secondary (or resultant). The primary sublevel is the initial correlation of opinions given before interpersonal interaction (about the world of objects and their own kind). The second sublevel is the correlation (similarity - difference) of opinions and relationships as a consequence of interpersonal interaction, the exchange of thoughts and feelings between participants in joint activities.

The congruence effect plays a major role in interaction at its initial stage, i.e. confirmation of mutual role expectations, a single resonant rhythm, consonance of the experiences of the contact participants.

Congruence presupposes a minimum of discrepancies in the key points of the behavior lines of the contact participants, which results in the release of tension, the emergence of trust and sympathy on a subconscious level.

Congruence is enhanced by the partner’s sense of complicity, interest, and mutual search activity based on his needs and life experience. Congruence may appear from the first minutes of contact between previously unfamiliar partners, or it may not arise at all. The presence of congruence indicates an increased likelihood that the interaction will continue. In this sense, one should strive to achieve congruence from the first minutes of contact.

The experience of belonging that arises:
- when the goals of the subjects of interaction are interconnected;
- when there is a basis for interpersonal rapprochement;
- in the case of subjects belonging to one. Empathy (emotional empathy with the interlocutor) is realized:
- when establishing emotional contact;
- when the behavioral and emotional reactions of partners are similar;
- if you have the same feelings towards some object;
- when attention is drawn to the feelings of partners (for example, they are simply described).

Identification (projection of one’s views onto the interlocutor), which is enhanced:
- with a variety of behavioral manifestations of the interacting parties;
- when a person sees his own character traits in another;
- when partners seem to change places and conduct a discussion from each other’s positions;
- when referring to previous cases;
- with common thoughts, interests, social roles and positions.

As a result of congruence and effective initial contacts, feedback is established between people, which is a process of mutually directed response actions that serves to support subsequent interaction, during which both intentional and unintentional communication is carried out to another person about how his behavior and actions (or their consequences) ) perceived or experienced.

Feedback can be of different types, and each of its variants corresponds to one or another specificity of interaction between people and the establishment of stable relationships between them.

Feedback can be immediate or delayed in time. It can be bright, emotionally charged and transmitted as a kind of experience, or it can be with minimal experience of emotions and behavioral responses (Solovieva O.V., 1992). IN different options joint activities, their own types of feedback are appropriate. The inability to use feedback significantly complicates the interaction of people, reducing its effectiveness. Thanks to feedback during interaction, people become like each other, bring their state, emotions, actions and actions in accordance with the unfolding process of relationships.

At the middle stage (level) of interaction between people, which is called productive joint activity, gradually developing active cooperation finds increasing expression in an effective solution to the problem of combining the mutual efforts of partners.

There are usually three forms, or models, for organizing joint activities:
- each participant does his part of the overall work independently of the other;
- the common task is performed consistently by each participant;
- there is simultaneous interaction of each participant with all others. Their actual existence depends on the conditions of activity, its goals and content.

At the same time, the common aspirations of people can lead to clashes in the process of coordinating positions. As a result, people enter into “agree-disagreement” relationships with each other. In case of agreement, partners are involved in joint activities. At the same time, roles and functions are distributed between the participants in the interaction. These relationships cause a special direction of volitional efforts in the subjects of interaction, which is associated either with a concession or with the conquest of certain positions. Therefore, partners are required to demonstrate mutual tolerance, composure, perseverance, psychological mobility and other strong-willed personality traits, based on intelligence and a high level of personality.

At the same time, at this time, the interaction of people is actively accompanied or mediated by the manifestation of complex socio-psychological phenomena, called compatibility - incompatibility (or workability - incompatibility). Just as interpersonal relationships and communication are specific forms of interaction, compatibility and workability are considered its special constituent elements (Obozov N.N., 1980). Interpersonal relationships in a group and the compatibility (physiological and psychological) of its members give rise to another important socio-psychological phenomenon, which is commonly called “psychological climate.”

Psychophysiological compatibility is based on the interaction of temperamental characteristics and needs of individuals.
Psychological compatibility involves the interaction of characters, intellects, and motives of behavior.
Socio-psychological compatibility involves the coordination of social roles, interests, and value orientations of the participants.
Social-ideological compatibility is based on the commonality of ideological values, on the similarity of social attitudes (in intensity and direction) regarding possible facts of reality related to the implementation of ethnic, class and religious interests. There are no clear boundaries between these types of compatibility, while extreme levels of compatibility, for example physiological, socio-psychological and socio-ideological climate, have obvious differences (Obozov N.N., 1980).

In joint activities, control on the part of the participants themselves is noticeably activated (self-monitoring, self-checking, mutual monitoring, mutual checking), which affects the performing part of the activity, including the speed and accuracy of individual and joint actions.

At the same time, it should be remembered: the driver of interaction and joint activity is, first of all, the motivation of its participants. There are several types of social motives for interaction (i.e., the reasons for which a person interacts with other people).
Cooperation - maximizing the total gain.
Individualism - maximizing one's own gain.
Competition - maximizing relative gain.
Altruism - maximizing the gain of another.
Aggression - minimizing the gain of another.
Equality-minimization of differences in winnings (Bityanova M.R., 2001).

The mutual control of each other carried out by participants in joint activities can lead to a revision of individual motives for activity if there are significant differences in their focus and level, as a result of which individual people begin to coordinate.

During this process, there is a constant coordination of thoughts, feelings, and relationships of partners in joint life activities. It is clothed in various shapes influence of people on each other. Some of them encourage the partner to act (order, request, proposal), others authorize the partners’ actions (agreement or refusal), and others call for a discussion (question, reasoning). The discussion itself can take place in the form of coverage, conversation, debate, conference, seminar and a number of other types of interpersonal contacts.

However, the choice of forms of influence is more often dictated by the functional-role relationships of partners in joint work. For example, the control function of a leader encourages him to more often use orders, requests and sanctioning responses, while the pedagogical function of the same leader requires more frequent use of discussion forms of interaction. In this way, the process of mutual influence of interaction partners is realized. Through it, people “process” each other, striving to change and transform mental states, attitudes and, ultimately, the behavior and psychological qualities of partners in joint activities.

Mutual influence as a change in opinions and assessments can be situational when circumstances require it. As a result of repeated changes in opinions and assessments, their stability is formed; the convergence of positions leads to behavioral, emotional and cognitive unity of the participants in the interaction. This in turn leads to a convergence of interests and value orientations, intellectual and characterological characteristics of the partners.

Under their influence, opinions and relationships of interaction partners change. Regulators of mutual influence are formed on the basis of a deep property of the psyche - imitation. In contrast to the latter, suggestion, conformity and persuasion regulate interpersonal norms of thoughts and feelings.

Suggestion is an influence on other people that they perceive unconsciously.
Conformity is a conscious change in opinions and assessments. Situational and conscious conformity allows one to maintain and coordinate ideas (norms) regarding ongoing events in people’s lives and activities. Of course, events have varying degrees of significance for those who are forced to evaluate them.
Persuasion is a process of long-term influence on another person, during which he consciously learns the norms and rules of behavior of interaction partners.

The convergence or change of mutual points of view and opinions affects all spheres and levels of interacting people. In the context of solving specific current problems of life and activity, and especially communication, their convergence-divergence represents a kind of regulator of interpersonal interaction. If the convergence of assessments and opinions forms a single “language”, group norms of relationships, behavior and activities, then their divergence acts as the driving force for the development of interpersonal relationships and groups.

The final stage (highest level) of interaction is always the extremely effective joint activity of people, accompanied by mutual understanding. Mutual understanding between people is a level of their interaction at which they understand the content and structure of the partner’s present and possible next action, and also mutually contribute to the achievement of a common goal. For mutual understanding, joint activity is not enough; mutual assistance is needed. It excludes its antipode - mutual opposition, with the appearance of which misunderstandings arise, and then misunderstanding of man by man. At the same time, mutual misunderstanding is one of the essential prerequisites for the breakdown of human interaction or the cause of a wide variety of interpersonal difficulties, etc.

An essential characteristic of mutual understanding is always its adequacy. It depends on a number of factors:
- type of relationship between partners (relationships of acquaintance and friendship, friendly, love and marital relationships);
- friendly (essentially business relations);
- sign or valence of relationships (likes, dislikes, indifferent relationships);
- the degree of possible objectification, manifestation of personality traits in the behavior and activities of people (sociability, for example, is most easily observed in the process of communication interaction).

In adequacy, as accuracy, depth and breadth of perception and interpretation, an important role is played by the opinion and assessment of other more or less significant people, groups, and authority figures.

For a correct analysis of mutual understanding, two factors can be correlated - sociometric status and the degree of similarity according to it. In this case, it is necessary to take into account:
- persons who have different socio-psychological statuses in the team consistently interact (are friends) with each other;
- reject each other, i.e. experience interpersonal rejection, heifers, who are similar in status and it is not high enough for them.

Thus, interaction is a complex multi-stage and multifaceted process during which communication, perception, relationships, mutual influence and mutual understanding of people are carried out.

The interaction, as already emphasized, is diverse. An indicator of this is its typology.

Usually there are several ways of interaction. The most common dichotomous division is: cooperation and competition (consent and conflict, adaptation and opposition). In this case, both the very content of the interaction (cooperation or competition) and the degree of expression of this interaction (successful or less successful cooperation) determine the nature of interpersonal relationships between people.

Additional interaction - partners adequately perceive each other’s position.
Intersecting interaction - partners, on the one hand, demonstrate an inadequate understanding of the positions and actions of the other participant in the interaction, and on the other, clearly demonstrate their own intentions and actions.
Hidden interaction includes two levels at the same time: explicit, expressed verbally, and hidden, implied. It involves either deep knowledge of the partner, or greater sensitivity to non-verbal means of communication - tone of voice, intonation, facial expressions and gestures, since they convey hidden content.

Interaction is always present in the form of two components:
Content - determines around what or about what this or that interaction unfolds.
Style refers to how a person interacts with others.

We can talk about productive and unproductive styles of interaction. The productive style is a fruitful way of contact between partners, contributing to the establishment and prolongation of relationships of mutual trust, the disclosure of personal potential and the achievement of effective results in joint activities.

In other cases, having exhausted the adaptation resources available to them, having achieved some balance and trust in the first stages of development of interaction, people cannot maintain effective relationships. In both cases, they talk about an unproductive style of interaction - an unfruitful way of contact between partners, blocking the realization of personal potentials and the achievement of optimal results of joint activities.

The unproductiveness of an interaction style is usually understood as a specific embodiment in an interaction situation of the unfavorable state of the existing system of relations, which is perceived and recognized as such by at least one of the participants in the interaction.

The nature of activity in the position of partners:
- in a productive style - “next to your partner”, i.e. the active position of both partners as participants in the activity;
- in unproductive - “above the partner”, i.e. the active position of the leading partner and the complementary passive position of the slave’s subordination.

Nature of the goals put forward:
- in a productive style - partners jointly develop both near and distant goals;
- in unproductive - the dominant partner puts forward only close goals, without discussing them with the partner.

Nature of responsibility:
- in a productive style, all participants in the interaction are responsible for the results of their activities;
- in unproductive - all responsibility is assigned to the dominant partner.

The nature of the relationship that arises between partners:
- in a productive style - goodwill and trust;
- in the unproductive - aggression, resentment, irritation.

The nature of the functioning of the mechanism and isolation:
- in a productive style - optimal forms of identification and alienation;
- in the unproductive - extreme forms of identification and alienation.

Interaction is a process of influence of people and groups on each other, in which each action is determined by both the previous action and the expected result on the part of the other. Any interaction requires at least two participants—interactants. Consequently, interaction is a type of action, the distinctive feature of which is its focus on another person.

Any social interaction has four characteristics:

· it substantively, that is, always has a purpose or cause that is external to the interacting groups or people;

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

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

· it expresses the subjective intentions of the participants.

I would like to emphasize that interaction is always communication. However, you should not equate interaction with ordinary communication, i.e., messaging. This is a much broader concept, since it involves not only a direct exchange of information, but also an indirect exchange of meanings.

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

Hence, social interaction is characterized by such a feature as feedback. Feedback presupposes the presence of a reaction. However, this reaction may not follow, but it is always expected, accepted as probable, possible.

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

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

· participants in interaction must express their feelings and thoughts in the same way, that is, use the same symbols of self-expression.

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

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

Interaction at the macro level takes place within social structures, institutions, and even society as a whole.

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

· physical;

· verbal, or verbal;

· non-verbal (facial expressions, gestures);

· mental, which is expressed only in inner speech.

The first three relate to external actions, the fourth - to internal actions. All of them have the following properties: meaningfulness, motivated, focused on other people.

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

· economic (individuals act as owners and employees);

· political (individuals confront or cooperate as representatives of political parties, social movements, and also as subjects of government);

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

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

· family-related;

· territorial-settlement (there are clashes, cooperation, competition between locals and newcomers, permanent and temporary residents, etc.);

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

Three main forms of interaction can be distinguished:

· cooperation - collaboration of individuals to solve common task;

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

· conflict - a hidden or open clash between competing parties.

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

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

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

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

Communication as interaction

The interactive side of communication most often manifests itself when organizing joint activities of people. The exchange of knowledge and ideas about this activity inevitably presupposes that the achieved mutual understanding is realized in new attempts to develop joint activities and organize them. This allows interaction to be interpreted as the organization of joint activities.

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

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

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

2) confrontation: both partners oppose each other and prevent each other from achieving their individual goals;

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

4) unidirectional assistance: when one of the participants in a joint activity contributes to the achievement of the individual goals of the other, and the second avoids interacting with him;

5) unidirectional counteraction: one of the partners interferes with the achievement of the other’s goals, and the second avoids interacting with the first;

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

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

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

Conflict (from Latin conflictus - collision) is a collision of opposing goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of opponents or subjects of interaction. The basis of any conflict is a situation that includes either contradictory positions of the parties on any issue, or opposing goals or means of achieving them in given circumstances, or a divergence of interests, desires, inclinations of opponents, etc. A conflict situation, therefore, includes themselves as subjects of a possible conflict and its object. However, for the conflict to begin to develop, it is necessary incident when one of the parties begins to act, infringing on the interests of the other party. If the opposite side responds in kind, the conflict goes from potential to actual.

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

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

Interpersonal conflict occurs between two (or more) separate individuals. In this case, there is a confrontation regarding needs, motives, goals, values ​​and/or attitudes;

Personal-group conflict often arises when an individual’s behavior does not correspond to group norms and expectations;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) compromise - resolving disagreements through mutual concessions;

3) avoidance, which consists in the desire to get out of a conflict situation without resolving it, without giving in, but also without insisting on one’s own;

4) adaptation - the tendency to smooth out contradictions by sacrificing one’s interests;

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

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

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

Thus, there are four possible types of conflict resolution:

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

2) partial resolution at an objective level due to the transformation of an objective conflict situation in the direction of creating disinterest in conflict actions;

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

4) partial resolution at the subjective level due to a limited, but sufficient to temporarily stop the contradiction, change in images in a conflict situation.

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

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

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

Cultivating a commitment to trust and respect for all employees

When issuing any tasks, use formulations that can instill in the performer cheerfulness, a desire to express and defend their ideas.

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

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

There are three types of conflicts:

1) intrapersonal;

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

3) zoo conflicts.

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

The nature of social conflict.

The causes of social conflict are:

1) material resources;

2) the most important life attitudes;

3) power;

4) status and role differences in the social structure;

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

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

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

There are violent and non-violent forms of conflict.

Social conflict involves the activity of an individual or groups blocking the functioning of an opponent or causing harm to other people or groups.

The following terms are used in conflict issues: “disputes”, “debates”, “bargaining”, “rivalry and controlled battles”, “indirect and direct violence”.

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

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

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

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

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

Strategies and tactics in conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, K. Thomas’s model can be characterized in terms of two bases.

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

It must be recognized that the participant’s possible attitudes towards the procedural regulation of the conflict are being described. These guidelines can be considered quite calmly regardless of the content of the activities of the conflicting parties. Indeed, collaboration is a general attitude towards the process of “resolution”, in which it is necessary to strive for joint exploration of the problem that connected the participants; adaptation - an attitude in which a participant allows the interests of another to develop while ignoring his own interests, etc.

The second basis is functional. In what practical contexts related to conflict resolution does the observer talk about cooperation, competition, etc.? And what does this mean for the resolution itself?

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

Another practical context is the resolution of a specific conflict. You can say to all parties to the conflict: “Cooperating is better than competing, because an attitude of cooperation contributes to a better resolution of the contradiction.” If the parties to the conflict accept such an attitude, then the resolution process has a chance of success.

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

A case different from the one indicated above may represent counseling to one party, and therefore knowledge of “Thomas’ strategies” may act as an element (the basis) for tactics or strategies for resolving one of the parties to the conflict.

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

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

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

One of many therapeutic options, positive family therapy describes the therapeutic process of dealing with conflict through the following four factors:

a) Sympathetic understanding: In psychoanalysis it is known under the terms empathy and transference/countertransference (Beckmann D., 1974; 1978). Control over this is exercised through self-knowledge of the therapist. He himself acts as a "patient" and faces the reality of his own concepts.

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

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

d) Ecological thinking. It extends from individual therapy to community psychology. Family therapy takes center stage.

You can give quite a few examples of the psychotherapeutic attitude towards conflicts, but in any of them two circumstances are quite obvious:

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

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

Options for working in an actual, that is, current conflict, focused mainly on regulating relations between the conflicting parties, are currently being actively developed. Research in this area and the practice of mediation already allow us to consider this approach not only within the framework of preventive (preventing negative experiences) and therapeutic strategies, but also as constructive, allowing us to form attitudes towards the productive function of the conflict and create the preconditions for its adequate resolution.

We consider it extremely important that mediation in no way pretends to be a conflict resolution strategy. This work is aimed at organizing a process leading to resolution, a process in which violent actions are unacceptable.

The peculiarities of mediation require a special discussion of this position as a fundamentally independent one, in no way in solidarity with, and certainly not identified with, any of the direct and immediate participants in the conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

When analyzing the positions of the parties in the conflict between the employer and the work performers, it was noted that the behavior of the employer’s representative is considered by the other party as one of the reasons for its tough position in negotiations. Moreover, this behavior itself began to act as an independent subject of conflict, which gradually “mixed” with the initially determined subject, namely the procedures and content of relations regarding the implementation of transportation. It turned out that instead of analyzing the actual conditions of transporting products and delivering them to the recipient, the parties began to indirectly, but very intensely discuss the nature of the relationship between the workers and the employer’s representative. Thus, the subject of negotiations threatened to be replaced.

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

The mediator must be concerned with not allowing the contradiction that gave rise to the conflict to “leave” the participants or be replaced by another. However, the analytical work of the mediator and his conflict management competence often lead to the loss of the mediation position and the transition to the position of a one-sided consultant, or a representative replacing one of the parties.

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

This directly looks like advice on what to do in a particular case. Moreover, the advice of an authoritative person, by virtue of his position and competence, seems to take responsibility for the consequences. This last circumstance is often decisive in the behavior of one of the conflicting parties who seeks advice. This is literally an attempt to shift responsibility for the decision to a third party.

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

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

In both cases, we have a real refusal of mediation according to the “cuckoo effect” type, no matter how it is called by the specialist himself or by apologists of such approaches. The appeal to such psychotechnical strategies is explicitly or implicitly provoked by the speculative idea of ​​winning, victory in the conflict. This idea itself, of course, is based on a conflict-phobic attitude and diverts the conflict from resolving the problem presented in it towards maintaining or improving the quality of self-attitude, which in itself is not bad if every gain or victory did not presuppose the presence of a loser, a defeated one. Even in interpersonal conflict, such a strategy is very unpromising, not to mention intrapersonal.

So, the psychotechnics of mediation is implemented within the framework of a strategy that can be called constructive regulatory. This strategy does not claim resolution as an indispensable result, but is its condition. To implement a constructive resolution strategy, the conflict should be considered in a time continuum from the future to the present.

This strategy is most typical for solving educational problems. However, in recent years, this kind of approach has begun to be actively used in new management paradigms.

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

The most effective learning, especially for adults, is the product of an ever-renewing cycle of learning that people gain on the job.

True learning, experts insist, goes something like this:

We have concrete, on-the-job experience;

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

Based on our experience, we develop concepts and generalizations;

We test our concepts and generalizations experimentally, empirically.

Then the cycle repeats, like turning a wheel again.

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

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

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

It is necessary to specifically emphasize once again that if a question asked from the outside by a teacher or someone else for educational purposes is not translated by those to whom it is asked into a question for themselves, the answer to it is unlikely to serve educational purposes. Each teacher can give many examples , when knowledge of the correct answers did not lead to either the formation of experience or the emergence of new abilities.

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

· the idea of ​​the material as potentially holistic, complete; at the same time, the presence in the current situation of partiality, insufficiency, incompleteness, and discontinuity of the material;

· idea of ​​the possibility of completion, imparting integrity;

· need, need to carry out actions to complete, “heal”;

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

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

· the ability to evaluate different “scenarios of achievement” and allow for integration, synthesis of different scenarios, i.e. not opposing them, but comparing them.

In our opinion, efforts to resolve the conflict must necessarily be based on precisely such foundations. Compliance with the above conditions constitutes the criteria for competence and ensures strategic work with conflicts.

A strategy of behavior in a conflict is the orientation of a person (group) in relation to the conflict, an orientation toward certain forms of behavior in a conflict situation.

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

Rivalry (competition) consists of imposing a beneficial solution on the other side. Cooperation (problem-solving strategy) involves searching for a solution that would satisfy both parties. Compromise involves mutual concessions on something important and fundamental for each party. The use of an adaptation (concession) strategy is based on reducing one’s own demands and accepting the opponent’s position. By avoidance (inaction), the participant is in a situation of conflict, but without any active action with its permission.

As a rule, combinations of strategies are used in conflict, sometimes one of them dominates. For example, in a significant proportion of vertical conflicts, depending on changes in circumstances, opponents change their strategy of behavior, and subordinates do this one and a half times more often than managers - 71% and 46%, respectively. Sometimes conflict begins with cooperative behavior, but if this fails, competition begins, which may not be effective. Then there is a return to cooperation, which leads to a successful resolution of the conflict.

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

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

If it is impossible to prevent a conflict, the task of regulating it arises, i.e. managing its progress in order to resolve contradictions in the most optimal way.

Competent management of the course of conflict interactions involves choosing a strategy for such behavior that will be used to end the conflict.

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

Win-lose strategy (violence or firm approach). It is characterized by the desire of one side to suppress the other. If this behavior option is used, one participant in the conflict becomes the winner and the other loses. This strategy rarely has a lasting effect, because the defeated will most likely hide his image and not support decision. As a result, after some time the conflict may flare up again. In some cases, when a person in authority must restore order for the sake of everyone's well-being, the use of this strategy is appropriate;

Lose-lose strategy. The conflicting party deliberately chooses to lose, but at the same time forces the other side to suffer defeat. The loss may also be partial. In this case, the parties act in accordance with the saying: “Half is better than nothing”;

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

Using a “win-win” strategy is only possible if the participants recognize each other’s values ​​as their own, treat each other with respect, and if they see the problem first and not the personal shortcomings of their opponents.

The “win-win” strategy turns the parties to the conflict into partners. The advantage of this strategy is that it is both ethical and effective.

In addition to the three main strategies described above, there is also an additional strategy when a person consciously agrees to make concessions or lose, i.e. chooses the position of the victim. This type of behavior is possible in relationships with people who are dear to the participant in the conflict and whom he does not want to hurt with his winnings.

Tactical techniques for resolving conflict contradictions

Tactics (from the Greek Tasso - “builds troops”) is a set of techniques for influencing an opponent, means of implementing a strategy. The same tactic can be used for different strategies. Yes, threat or pressure, considered destructive actions, can be used if one of the parties is unwilling or unable to go beyond certain limits. There are hard, neutral and soft tactics. In conflicts, the use of tactics usually goes from soft to harder. Of course, there is also a sharp, sudden use of harsh methods against an opponent (for example, a surprise attack, the start of a war, etc.). In addition, there are rational (fixation of one’s position, friendliness, authorization) and irrational (pressure, psychological violence) tactics.

The following types of tactics of influencing an opponent are distinguished:

Tactics of capturing and holding the object of conflict. Used in conflicts where the object is material. These can be either interpersonal conflicts (for example, willful occupancy in an apartment) or inter-group (interstate) conflicts. For conflicts between groups and states, such tactics are often complex activities that consist of a number of stages and include political, military, economic and other means; tactics of physical violence. Techniques such as destruction of material assets, physical force, causing bodily harm (including murder), blocking someone else’s activities, causing pain, etc. are used;

Tactics of psychological violence. This tactic insults the opponent, hurts pride, dignity and honor. Its manifestations: humiliation, rudeness, offensive gestures, negative personal assessment, discriminatory measures, slander, misinformation, deception, strict control over behavior and activities, dictatorship in interpersonal relationships. Often (more than 40%) used in interpersonal conflicts;

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

Demonstration tactics. It is used to attract the attention of others to your person. This could be public statements and complaints about health conditions, absenteeism from work, a deliberately unsuccessful suicide attempt, obligations that cannot be canceled (indefinite hunger strikes, blocking railway tracks, highways, the use of banners, posters, slogans, etc.);

Authorization. Influencing an opponent through penalties, increasing workload, imposing a ban, establishing blockades, failure to comply with orders under any pretext, open refusal to comply;

Coalition tactics. The goal is to strengthen one’s position in the conflict. Expressed in the creation of alliances, increasing the support group at the expense of leaders, the public, friends, relatives, appealing to the media, various organs authorities. Used in more than a third of conflicts; the tactic of fixing one’s position is the most frequently used tactic (in 75-80% of conflicts. It is based on the use of facts and logic to confirm one’s position. These are beliefs, requests, criticism, making proposals, etc.;

Friendly tactics. Involves correct treatment, emphasizing the general, demonstrating readiness to solve the problem, providing the necessary information, offering help, providing a service, apologizing, encouraging; agreement tactics. Provides for the exchange of benefits, promises, concessions, and apologies.

The collected behavioral strategies determine the choice of appropriate tactics: conflict resolution, taking into account the essence of the disagreement. This tactic is used if the parties to the conflict have not determined its real cause, focusing on the lead to the conflict. In this case, it is necessary to establish the objective (business) zone of the conflict and find out the subjective motives of the conflicting parties; resolving the conflict taking into account its purpose. Often, the opposition of goals is associated not with their content, but with an insufficient understanding of the rational aspect of the conflict. Therefore, conflict resolution should begin with specifying the opponents’ goals.

Conflict resolution taking into account the emotional state of the parties. The main task when using this tactic is to reduce the degree of emotional tension. It is necessary to understand that uncontrolled emotions cause damage to each of the parties. Conflict resolution taking into account the personal characteristics of its participants. In this case, first of all, you should focus on the psychological characteristics of individuals, assessing their balance, suggestiveness, character type, temperament, etc. Resolution of the conflict, taking into account its possible consequences (full reconciliation of the parties, gradual fading of the conflict, its mechanical termination, for example, disbandment of the department, etc.).

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

Options for resolving the conflict may be as follows:

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

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

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

Tactfully resolving conflicts on a subjective level as a result of a limited, but quite sufficient for the temporary cessation of disagreements, change of images of the conflict situation.

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

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

Conformism manifests itself especially clearly in conditions of a totalitarian social system, when a person is afraid to oppose himself to the ruling elite and the majority subordinate to it, fearing not only psychological pressure, but real repression and threats to one’s physical existence. At the personal level, conformity is most often expressed as such a personal characteristic, which in social psychology is traditionally designated as conformity, i.e. the individual’s readiness to succumb to both real and only perceived group pressure, if not aspiration, then at least case, a predisposition to change one’s position and vision due to the fact that they do not coincide with the opinion of the majority.

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

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

To do this, his classic experiment was modified as follows: “In a basic experimental situation, a team of three people (two of them are dummy subjects) tests a fourth person on a paired association test. Whenever the fourth participant gives an incorrect answer, the team punishes him with an electric shock.” In this case, the participants in the experiment receive from the leader the following instructions: “Teachers independently determine what blow to punish a student for a mistake. Each of you makes a suggestion, and then you punish the student with the weakest blow you have suggested. To ensure that the experiment is organized, make your suggestions in order. First, the first teacher makes a proposal, then the second, and the third teacher makes his proposal last.

Thus, the role played by the naive subject gives him a real opportunity to prevent the punishment from becoming harsher - for example, he can throughout the experiment offer to punish the student with a 15-volt shock." As for the dummy subjects, they offer to use a stronger shock each time and they are the first to express their opinion. In parallel, a control experiment was conducted in which group pressure was excluded. The subject unilaterally decided which category should be used to punish the “student” for an incorrect answer. As S. Milgram reports, “80 men aged 20 to 50 years took part in the study; The experimental and control groups consisted of an equal number of participants and were identical in age and professional composition.

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

However, despite the wide range of individual differences in the behavior of the subjects, we can say that a significant number of subjects readily submitted to the pressure of dummy subjects." No less impressive examples of the manifestation of conformity are provided by real life. As D. Myers notes, “in everyday life, our suggestibility is sometimes shocking. In late March 1954, Seattle newspapers reported damage to car windows in a town 80 miles north. On the morning of April 14, similar damage to windshields was reported 65 miles from Seattle, and the next day - just 45 miles away. In the evening, an unknown force destroying windshields reached Seattle. By midnight on April 15, the police department had received over 3,000 reports of damaged glass.

That same night, the city's mayor turned to President Eisenhower for help. ... However, on April 16, newspapers hinted that mass indoctrination may be the real culprit. After April 17, no further complaints were received. Later analysis of the broken glass showed that it was normal road damage. Why did we pay attention to these damages only after April 14? Succumbing to suggestion, we gazed intently on our windshields, not through them.” Not as large-scale, but perhaps even more shining example The famous English writer J. Orwell cites conformity from his own life. This incident took place in Lower Burma, where Orwell served as an English colonial police officer.

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

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

When I saw the elephant, I realized very clearly that I did not need to kill it. Shooting a working elephant is a serious matter; it's like destroying a huge, expensive car. From a distance, the elephant, peacefully chewing grass, looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and think now that his urge to hunt had already passed; he will wander about, harming no one, until the mahout (driver) returns and catches him. And I didn’t want to kill him. I decided that I would watch him for a while to make sure he didn't go crazy again, and then I would go home. But at that moment I turned around and looked at the crowd following me. The crowd was huge, at least two thousand people, and it kept coming. I looked at a sea of ​​yellow faces above bright clothes. They watched me as if I were a magician who was about to show them a trick. They didn't like me. But with a gun in my hands I received their undivided attention. And suddenly I realized that I would still have to kill the elephant. This was expected of me, and I was obliged to do it; I felt like two thousand wills were pushing me forward irresistibly.

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

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

It is also worth taking into account that the biography and work of the writer do not give any reason to suspect him of a tendency towards conformism; rather, on the contrary. Apparently, the fact that in the situation under consideration the person was exposed to the simultaneous influence of essentially two groups played a role - direct, from the native crowd, and implicit - from the white minority to which he belonged. At the same time, both the expectations of the crowd and the attitudes of the white minority about what an officer should do in this situation completely coincided. However, both of these groups, as follows from the above passage, did not enjoy the sympathy of J. Orwell, and their beliefs, traditions, and prejudices were not shared by him. And yet J. Orwell shot the elephant.

Something similar can be observed in much more horrific examples of participation in genocide and other crimes of totalitarian regimes by the most ordinary people, who are not at all bloodthirsty by nature and who are not at all convinced adherents of racial, class and other similar theories. As D. Myers notes, the employees of the punitive battalion, which destroyed about 40,000 women, old people and children in the Warsaw ghetto, “...were neither Nazis, nor members of the SS, nor fanatics of fascism. These were workers, traders, office workers and artisans - family people, too old to serve in the army, but unable to resist a direct order to kill."

Thus, the problem of conformity is highly significant not only in relation to the relationship between an individual and a relatively local group (school, work, etc.), but also in a much broader social context. Moreover, as is clearly seen in the example from the story of George Orwell, Conformity is the result of the action of many socio-psychological and other variables, which is why identifying the causes of conformist behavior and predicting it is a rather complex research task.

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

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

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

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

The fact that nonconformism is not the opposite of conformism, but rather its flip side, the “wrong side”, so to speak, was partially confirmed in a modified version of S. Milgram’s experiment aimed at studying conformity

As is known, the structural features of any complex system, whatever the nature of its origin, depend not only on what elements are included in its composition, but also on how they are connected to each other, connected, what influence they have on each other. Essentially, it is the nature of the connection between elements that determines both the integrity of the system and the emergence of emergent properties, which is its most characteristic property as a single whole. This is true for any system - both for fairly simple, elementary ones, and for the most complex systems known to us - social ones.

The concept of “emergent properties” was formulated by T. Parsons in 1937 in his analysis of social systems. In doing so, he had in mind three interconnected conditions.

¦ Firstly, social systems have a structure that does not arise on its own, but precisely from the processes of social interaction.

¦ Secondly, these emergent properties cannot be reduced (reduced) to a simple sum of biological or psychological characteristics of social figures: for example, the characteristics of a particular culture cannot be explained by correlating it with the biological qualities of the people who bear this culture.

¦ Thirdly, the meaning of any social action cannot be understood in isolation from the social context of the social system within which it manifests itself.

Perhaps, Pitirim Sorokin examined the problems of social interaction most scrupulously and in detail, devoting a significant part of the first volume of “Systems of Sociology” to them. Let's try, following the classics of Russian and American sociology, to understand the elementary concepts of this most important social process, which connects many disparate people into a single whole - society and, moreover, transforms purely biological individuals into people - that is, into intelligent, thinking and, most importantly, , social creatures.

Just as in their time O. Comte, P. A. Sorokin expressed confidence that an individual individual cannot be considered as an elementary “social cell” or the simplest social phenomenon: “... an individual as an individual cannot in any way be considered microcosm of the social macrocosm. It cannot because from an individual one can only obtain an individual, and one cannot obtain either what is called “society” or what is called “social phenomena”... The latter require not one, but many individuals, at least two.”

However, for two or more individuals to form a single whole, which could be considered as a particle (element) of society, their mere presence is not enough. It is also necessary that they interact with each other, that is, exchange some actions and responses to these actions. What is interaction from the point of view of a sociologist? The definition that Sorokin gives to this concept is quite broad and claims to embrace the almost immense, that is, all possible options: “The phenomenon of human interaction is given when: a) mental experiences or b) external acts, or c) both of one (one) people represent a function of the existence and state (mental and physical) of another or other individuals.”

This definition is, perhaps, truly universal, because it includes cases of immediate, direct contacts of people with each other, and options for indirect interaction. It is not difficult to verify this by considering a wide variety of examples found in the everyday life of each of us.

If someone (accidentally or intentionally) stepped on your foot on a crowded bus (external act) and this caused you to be indignant (psychic experience) and an indignant exclamation (external act), then this means that an interaction occurred between you. If you are a sincere fan of the work of Michael Jackson, then probably every appearance of him on the TV screen in the next video (and the recording of this video probably required the singer to perform many external acts and feel many mental experiences) will cause you a storm of emotions (mental experiences), or maybe you will jump up from the couch and start singing along and “dancing along” (thus performing external acts). In this case, we are no longer dealing with direct, but with indirect interaction: Michael Jackson, of course, cannot observe your reaction to the recording of his song and dance, but there is little doubt that he was counting on exactly such a response from millions of his fans, planning and carrying out their physical actions (external acts). So this example also shows us a case of social interaction.

Tax officials developing a new fiscal project, deputies State Duma, discussing this project, making amendments to it, and then voting on the adoption of the corresponding law, the president signing the decree putting the new law into effect, the many entrepreneurs and consumers whose incomes will be affected by this law - they are all in a complex intertwined process interaction with each other, and most importantly - with us. There is no doubt that there is a very serious influence here of both external acts and mental experiences of some people on the mental experiences and external acts of other people, although in most cases the participants in this chain may not even see each other (at best, on the TV screen).

It is important to note this point. Interaction always causes some physical changes in our biological organism. For example, our cheeks “flare up” when looking at a loved one (the blood vessels under the skin expand and experience a rush of blood); listening to an audio recording of our favorite popular singer, we experience emotional arousal, etc.

What are the basic conditions for the emergence of any social interaction? P. A. Sorokin introduces and subjects to detailed analysis three such conditions (or, as he calls them, “elements”):

3) the presence of conductors that transmit these influences and the influence of individuals on each other.

We, in turn, could add a fourth condition here, which Sorokin does not mention:

Now let's try to look a little closer at each of these four conditions.

1. Obviously, in an empty space (or in a space filled only with plants and animals) no social interaction can occur. It is unlikely that it can happen even where there is only one human individual. Robinson's relationship with his parrot and goat cannot be recognized as patterns of social interaction. At the same time, the mere fact of the presence of two or more individuals is not enough for interaction to arise between them. These individuals must have the ability and desire to influence each other and respond to such influence. Among the ten basic needs homo sapiens, which P. A. Sorokin identifies in his classification, at least five are closely related to the desire of any person for contacts with other people, and without such contacts, their satisfaction is simply impossible.

True, it should be noted that most of these needs are by no means innate; they arise only in the course of interaction. However, the question of which of them - needs or the interaction process - is ultimately the cause and which is the consequence, has as much chance of being answered as the question of what is primary - the chicken or the egg.

2. As stated in the definition given at the beginning of this paragraph, interaction occurs only when at least one of two individuals influences the other, in other words, performs some act, action, act aimed at the other. In fact, it is possible (albeit with difficulty) to imagine an arbitrarily large number of people gathered on one territory within direct reach (visibility and audibility) of each other, but at the same time completely not paying any attention to each other, busy exclusively with themselves and your inner experiences. And in this case we can hardly say that there is interaction between them.

3. The condition of the presence of special conductors that transmit the irritating effect from one participant in the interaction to another is quite closely related to the fact that the information transmitted during the interaction is always imprinted on some kind of material media.

Strictly speaking, information cannot exist outside of material media. Even at the deepest and most unconscious – genetic – level, information is recorded on material media – in DNA molecules. Elementary information that animals exchange with each other is also transmitted using material media. The loose tail of a male peacock is perceived by the female through the perception of light waves by her visual organs. Alarm signals (warnings of potential danger) are transmitted and perceived by members of the flock (either a rook or a wolf) using sound waves; the same applies to the calling trills of the male nightingale, perceived by the female with the help of air vibrations. Ants communicate with each other by secreting portions of certain odorous substances through special glands: the olfactory organs of insects perceive molecules of a particular substance as an odor, deciphering the information contained in it. In short, in all cases, information is transmitted and received using certain material media. However, these natural material carriers are extremely short-lived; most of them exist only during the period of transmission and reception, after which they disappear forever. They must be created anew each time.

Perhaps the most significant difference between human (and therefore social) interaction and communication between animals is the presence of the so-called second signaling system! This is a system of conditioned reflex connections unique to humans, formed under the influence of speech signals, i.e., in fact, not the direct stimulus itself - sound or light, but its symbolic verbal designation.

Of course, these combinations of sound or light waves are also transmitted using short-lived material carriers, however, unlike momentary, instantaneous information transmitted by animals, information expressed in symbols can be recorded (and subsequently, after an arbitrarily long period of time, reproduced, perceived, deciphered and used) on such material media that are preserved for a long time, being imprinted on stone, wood, paper, film and magnetic tape, magnetic disk. They, unlike natural carriers that exist in nature in ready-made form, are produced by people and are artificial objects. Information is imprinted on them in a sign-symbolic form by changing certain physical parameters of the media themselves. This is precisely the fundamental basis for the emergence and development of social memory. The second signaling system itself, being the basis for the emergence of generalized abstract thinking, can only develop in the course of specific social interaction.

One way or another, if there are no conductors acting as carriers of material carriers of information, there can be no talk of any interaction. However, when the conductors are present, neither space nor time will be an obstacle to interaction. You can call your friend from Moscow to Los Angeles, located on the other side of the globe (conductor - telephone cable or radio waves transmitted using an artificial Earth satellite), or write him a letter (conductor - paper and postal delivery means) and thus interact with him. Moreover, you interact with the founder of sociology, Auguste Comte (who has been dead for fifteen hundred years), by reading his books. Look at what a long chain of interactions runs between you, how many social actors are included in it (editors, typesetters, translators, publishers, booksellers, librarians) - they, in turn, also act as conductors of this interaction.

Thus, with the presence of conductors, “in fact, neither space nor time is an obstacle to human interaction.”

We have already noted above that sociology, unlike scientific disciplines such as, for example, psychology or social psychology, studies not only direct and immediate interaction that occurs during direct contacts between individuals. The object of her research is all types of social interactions. You interact with many people you know and don't know when you speak on the radio, publish an article in a magazine or newspaper, or, as a high-level official, sign a document that affects the lives of a fairly large number of citizens. And in all these cases it is impossible to do without material carriers of information, as well as certain conductors transmitting this information.

4. We considered it necessary to supplement the list of conditions for the emergence of social interaction proposed by P. A. Sorokin with one more - what we called the presence of a common basis1 for contacts between social actors. In the most general case, this means that any effective interaction can only occur when both parties speak the same language. We are talking not only about a unified linguistic basis for communication, but also about an approximately identical understanding of the norms, rules, and principles that guide the interaction partner. Otherwise, the interaction may either remain unrealized or lead to a result that is sometimes directly opposite to what both parties expect.

Finally, the most general approach to considering the essence of social interaction requires classifying them, that is, creating a certain typology of interactions. As is known, the compilation of any typology is made on the basis of the choice of a certain criterion - a system-forming feature. P. A. Sorokin identifies three main features that make it possible to develop, respectively, three different approaches to the typology of social interactions. Let's take a brief look at them.

1. A typology of social interactions is compiled depending on the quantity and quality of individuals participating in the interaction process. If we talk about quantity, then only three options for interactions can arise here:

a) occurring between two single individuals;

b) between a single individual and a group;

c) between two groups. Each of these types has its own specificity and differs significantly in character from the others, as Sorokin points out, “even under the premise of qualitative homogeneity of individuals.”

As for quality, this criterion indicates, first of all, the need to take into account the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the subjects entering into interaction. A great variety of criteria for homogeneity or heterogeneity can be identified; it is hardly possible to take into account even a somewhat complete set of them. Therefore, Sorokin provides a list of the most important of them. In his opinion, special emphasis should be placed on belonging to:

a) one family

a") to different families

b) one state

b") to different countries

c) one race

c")" races

d)" language group

d")" language groups

e) same sex

e")" floors

f)" age

f")" ages

m) similar in profession, degree of wealth, religion, scope of rights and obligations, political party, scientific, artistic, literary tastes, etc.

m"), different in profession, property status, religion, scope of rights, political party, etc.

“The similarity or difference of interacting individuals in one of these relations is of enormous importance for the nature of the interaction.”

2. The typology of social interactions is compiled depending on the nature of the acts (actions) performed by the interacting subjects. Here it is also impossible or extremely difficult to cover the entire range of options; Sorokin himself lists some of them, the most important. We will simply name these options, and the interested reader can familiarize themselves with them in more detail in the original source.

1) depending on doing and not doing (abstinence and patience);

2) one-way and two-way interaction;

3) interaction is long-term and temporary;

4) antagonistic and solidaristic interaction;

5) interaction is template and non- template;

6) interaction conscious and unconscious;

7) intellectual, sensory-emotional and volitional interaction.

3. And finally, the typology of social interactions is compiled depending on the conductors. Here Sorokin identifies: a) forms of interaction depending on the nature of the conductors (sound, light-color, motor-facial, object-symbolic, through chemical reagents, mechanical, thermal, electrical); b) direct and indirect interaction.

In addition, in the first volume of “Systems of Sociology” there is a reference to other methods of classification developed by other sociologists.

§ 2. Interpretations of social interaction in special sociological theories

So, the concept of social interaction is central in sociology due to the fact that a number of sociological theories have emerged that develop and interpret its various problems and aspects at two main levels of research, as we have already mentioned, the micro level and the macro level. At the micro level, the processes of communication between individuals who are in direct and immediate contact are studied; Such interaction occurs mainly within small groups. At the macro level of social interaction, the interaction of large social groups and structures arises; Here the interest of researchers primarily covers social institutions. In this section we will briefly look at just some of the most common theories and their “branches”.

One of the most well-known and thoroughly developed concepts describing social interaction is exchange theory. In general, the conceptualization of social interaction, social structure and social order in terms of exchange relations has long been the focus of such a scientific discipline as anthropology, but only relatively recently has it been adopted by sociologists. The intellectual foundations of the idea of ​​exchange are described in detail in classical political economy, the founders of which Bentham and Smith believed that the main driving factor in the activity of any human being should be considered the desire for utility and benefit. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, many works on social anthropology pointed to important role exchange transactions in the life of primitive tribes.

One of the initial premises on which the theory of exchange is based is the assumption that in the social behavior of any person there is a certain rational principle that encourages him to behave prudently and constantly strive to obtain a wide variety of “benefits” - in the form of goods, money, services , prestige, respect, approval, success, friendship, love, etc. In the early 60s, the American sociologist George Homans came to the conclusion that concepts such as “status,” “role,” and “conformity” that were established in sociology , “power”, etc., should be explained not by the action of macrosocial structures, as is customary in functionalism, but from the point of view of the social relations that give rise to them. The essence of these relationships, according to Homans, is the desire of people to receive benefits and rewards, as well as the exchange of these benefits and rewards.

Based on this, Homans explores social interaction in terms of the exchange of actions between the “Doer” and the “Other”, suggesting that in such an interaction each party will strive to maximize benefits and minimize their costs. Among the most important expected rewards, he considers, in particular, social approval. The mutual reward that arises during the exchange of actions becomes repeated and regular and gradually develops into relationships between people based on mutual expectations. In such a situation, violation of expectations on the part of one of the participants entails frustration and, as a consequence, the emergence of an aggressive reaction; At the same time, the very manifestation of aggressiveness becomes, to a certain extent, a source of satisfaction.

These ideas were developed by another modern American sociologist, Peter Blau, who argued that practically “all contacts between people rest on the scheme of giving and returning the equivalence.” Of course, these conclusions were borrowed from the ideas of market economics, as well as behavioral psychology. In general, exchange theories see similarities between social interactions and economic or market transactions carried out in the hope that services rendered will be returned in one way or another. Thus, the basic paradigm of exchange theory is a dyadic (two-person) model of interaction. We repeat that the emphasis is on mutual exchange, although the basis of interaction still remains calculated and, in addition, includes a certain amount of trust or mutually shared moral principles.

This kind of approach almost inevitably faces a number of criticisms. The content of these comments is as follows.

The psychological premises of exchange theory are too simplistic and place excessive emphasis on the selfish, calculating elements of individuality.

¦ Exchange theory, in fact, is limited in development because it cannot move from the two-person level of interaction to social behavior on a larger scale: as soon as we move from the dyad to a wider set, the situation acquires significant uncertainty and complexity.

¦ Exchange theory is not able to explain many social processes, such as, for example, the dominance of generalized values, which cannot be extracted from the paradigm of dyadic exchange.

Finally, some critics argue that exchange theory is simply an “elegant conceptualization of sociological triviality.”

Taking this into account, Homans' followers (Blau, Emerson) tried to show greater flexibility to overcome the gap between the micro and macro levels that the exchange theory created. In particular, Peter Blau proposed to conduct research on social interaction using a synthesis of the principles of social exchange with the concepts of such macrosociological concepts as structural functionalism and conflict theory.

One of the modifications of the exchange theory is the theory that arose in the 80s of the twentieth century rational choice. This is a relatively formal approach, which argues that social life can in principle be explained as the result of the “rational” choices of social actors. “When faced with several possible courses of action, people tend to do what they believe is likely to lead them to the best overall outcome. This deceptively simple sentence sums up rational choice theory." This form of theorizing is characterized by a desire to use technically rigorous models social behavior, which help to draw clear conclusions from a relatively small number of initial theoretical assumptions about “rational behavior.”

Another influential theory that aims to explain social interaction is symbolic interactionism. This theoretical and methodological direction focuses on the analysis of social interactions primarily in their symbolic content. In essence, Sorokin pointed out that, unlike animals, people endow their actions and the actions of other people with certain symbolic meanings that go beyond their purely physical meaning. Followers of symbolic interactionism argue: any actions of people are manifestations of social behavior based on communication; communication becomes possible due to the fact that those people who come into contact to exchange information attach the same meanings to the same symbol. In this case, special attention is paid to the analysis of language as the main symbolic mediator of interaction. Interaction is thus seen as “an ongoing dialogue between people in which they observe, understand, and respond to each other’s intentions.” The very concept of symbolic interactionism was introduced back in 1937 by the American sociologist G. Bloomer, who summarized the basic principles of this approach in terms of three assumptions:

a) human beings perform their actions in relation to certain objects on the basis of the meanings that they attach to these objects;

b) these meanings arise from social interaction;

c) any social action stems from the adaptation of individual lines of behavior to each other.

One of the sociologists who founded the concept of symbolic interactionism is George Herbert Mead (N. J. Smelser generally calls him the author of this theory). Mead was a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, he never considered himself anything other than a philosopher, and indeed carried out quite complex research within this science. Nevertheless, his contribution to American philosophy remained, as is considered, very superficial, but his influence on American sociology and social psychology was enormous. The work most responsible for this influence was not published until after his death. In fact, it was a series of lectures compiled by his followers into a book they called Mind, Self and Society. In this work, Mead analyzes in great detail how social processes create the human self (a person's awareness of himself and his special place in society), emphasizing that it is impossible to understand the individual without understanding him in a social context. At the same time, Mead uses the concept of role as a key one. Later, Mead's work on social philosophy became the basis for the development of the so-called “role theory”, which found its place in American sociology. Mead's influence remains very strong to this day, and he is generally regarded as one of the most significant figures in that school of sociology and social psychology that is today called symbolic interactionism.

“Playing roles,” in addition to the general educational function, also has the function of conveying social meanings “for reality.” How Russian children will portray the roles of policemen and crooks in their games will greatly depend on what this role means in their immediate life. social experience. For a child from an intelligent, wealthy family, a policeman is a figure full of authority, confidence, and readiness to protect ordinary citizens, whom one can turn to in case of trouble. For a child from a marginalized family, the same role is likely to involve hostility and danger, a threat rather than a trust, someone to run from rather than to resort to. We can also assume that in the games of American children, the roles of Indians and cowboys will have different meanings in a white suburb or on an Indian reservation.

Thus, socialization occurs in the continuous interaction of a person with other people. But not all others with whom the child deals are equally important in this process. Some of them are clearly of “central” importance to him. For most children, these are parents, and also, to one degree or another, brothers and sisters. In some cases, this group is supplemented by figures such as grandparents, close friends of parents and playmates. There are other people who remain in the background and whose place in the socialization process can best be described as background influence. These are all types of random contacts - from the postman to a neighbor whom they see only occasionally. If we consider socialization as a type of dramatic performance, then it can be described from the point of view of ancient Greek theater, where some of the participants act as the main characters of the play (protagonists), while others function as a chorus.

Mead calls the main characters in the drama of socialization significant others. These are the people with whom the child interacts most often, with whom he has important emotional connections, and whose attitudes and roles are decisive in his situation. Obviously, who these significant others are is very important in what happens in a child's life. By this we mean not only them individual characteristics and fads, but also their location within the structure of the larger society. In the early phases of socialization, whatever attitudes and roles the child accepts, they are accepted precisely from significant others. They are, in a very real sense, the social world of the child.

However, as socialization proceeds, the child begins to feel that these specific attitudes and roles relate to a much more general reality. The child begins to understand, for example, that it is not only his mother who is angry with him when he wets himself; that this anger is shared by every other significant adult he knows, and indeed by the adult world at large. It is at this moment that the child begins to relate not only to specific significant others, but also to the generalized other (another Meadian concept), which represents society in its entirety. This process is easy to follow if you analyze the baby’s language. In the earlier phase, the child seems to say to himself (in many cases he actually does this): “Mom doesn’t want me to wet myself.” After the discovery of the generalized other, it becomes something like this statement: “This cannot be done.” Specific attitudes are now becoming universal. Specific commands and prohibitions of individual others become generalized norms. This stage is very decisive in the process of socialization.

According to some sociologists, symbolic interactionism provides a more realistic view of the mechanisms of social interaction than exchange theory. However, he concentrates his attention on the subjective perceptions of interacting individuals, each of whom is, in essence, unique and inimitable. Therefore, on its basis it is quite difficult to make generalizations that could be applied to a wide variety of life situations.

Let us briefly mention two more influential sociological concepts of interaction - ethnomethodology and the concept of impression management.

The first of these, ethnomethodology, attempts to take on the research methods used by anthropologists and ethnographers to study primitive cultures and communities, making them sociologically universal. The basic assumption here is that the rules governing contacts between people are usually accepted by them on faith, in ready-made form. Thus, ethnomethodology aims to study how people (“members”) construct their world. Its subject is the hidden, unconscious mechanisms of social communication between people. Moreover, all forms of social communication are reduced to a large extent to verbal communication, to everyday conversations. One of the ethnomethodological research methods is illustrated by some of the experiments of their founder Harold Garfinkel to destroy the stereotypes of everyday life. Garfinkel asked his students to behave as if they were boarders or hotel guests when they arrived home. The reactions of parents and relatives were dramatic, at first perplexed, then even hostile. According to Garfinkel, this illustrates how the social order of everyday life is carefully, even delicately, constructed. In other studies (for example, the behavior of jurors), he studied how people construct their order in various situations, completely taking it for granted. J. Turner formulated the program position of ethnomethodology as follows: “The features of rational behavior must be identified in the behavior itself.”

The second sociological concept of interaction - the concept of impression management - was developed by Erwin Goffman. The main interest of his research was related to the elements of fleeting encounters, the possibilities inherent in momentary encounters, that is, with the sociology of everyday life. In order to study and understand the order of such social encounters, Goffman used drama as an analogy for their production, which is why his concept is sometimes called the dramaturgical approach (or dramaturgical interactionism). The main idea of ​​this approach is that in the process of interaction people usually play a kind of “show” in front of each other, directing impressions of themselves as perceived by others. Social roles are thus similar to theatrical roles. People project their own images, usually in ways that best serve their own purposes. The regulation of interactions between people is based on the expression of symbolic meanings that are beneficial to them, and they often themselves create situations in which, as they believe, they can make the most favorable impression on others.

1. According to the universal definition of P. Sorokin, the phenomenon of social interaction “is given when: a) mental experiences or b) external acts, or c) both of one (one) people represent a function of the existence and state (mental and physical) of another or other individuals."

2. The conditions for the occurrence of any social interaction are determined as follows:

1) the presence of two or more individuals who determine each other’s behavior and experiences;

2) their performance of some actions that influence mutual experiences and actions;

3) the presence of conductors that transmit these influences and the influence of individuals on each other;

4) the presence of a common basis for contacts and common ground.

3. In accordance with the concept of P. Sorokin, three typologies of interaction can be distinguished depending on the choice of system-forming features:

1) quantity and quality of interaction participants;

2) the nature of the acts performed by the participants in the interaction;

3) the nature of interaction conductors.

4. A number of sociological concepts have been developed that describe and interpret the mechanisms of social interaction. According to exchange theory, any social interaction can be likened to the relationship between a buyer and a seller in a market; The rewards that arise during the interaction become repeated and regular, gradually developing into relationships between people based on mutual expectations. According to the concept of symbolic interactionism, social life depends on our ability to imagine ourselves in other social roles, and this acceptance of the role of another depends on our ability to engage in self-talk. Proponents of ethnomethodology proceed from the fact that the rules governing contacts between people are usually accepted by them on faith, in ready-made form. The concept of impression management (dramatic interactionism) argues that the regulation of interactions between people is based on the expression of symbolic meanings that are beneficial to them, and they often themselves create situations in which they believe they can make the most favorable impression on others.

Control questions

1. What are “emergent properties”?

2. How does human interaction differ from interaction between any other living beings?

3. Describe four conditions for social interaction to occur.

4. What is it? main feature conductors of social interaction?

5. What are the main foundations of the typology of social interactions defined by P. A. Sorokin?

6. What is the essence of exchange theory?

7. On what fundamental principles is the concept of symbolic interactionism based?

8. What is a “significant other”?

9. What basic assumption is ethnomethodology based on? 10. What is the essence of dramatic interactionism?

1. Abercrombie N, Hill S., Turner S. Sociological Dictionary / Transl. from English – Kazan, 1997.

2. Andreeva G. M. Social psychology. – M., 1988.

3. Antipina G. S. Theoretical and methodological problems of studying small groups. – L., 1982.

4. Bloomer G. Collective behavior // American sociological thought. – M., 1994.

5. Bobneva M.I. Social norms and regulation of behavior. – M., 1978.

6. Cooley Ch. Primary groups // American sociological thought. – M., 1994.

7. Kultygin V.P. The concept of social exchange in modern sociology // Sociological research. – 1997. № 5.

8. Merton R.K. Social structure and anomie // Sociological studies. – 1992. No. 3–4.

9. Mead J. From gesture to symbol. Internalized others and the self // American Sociological Thought. – M., 1994.

10. Risman D. Some types of character and society // Sociological studies. – 1993. No. 3, 5.

11. Smelser N.J. Sociology. – M., 1994.

12. Modern Western sociology: Dictionary. – M., 1990.

13. Sorokin P. A. System of sociology. T. 1. – M., 1993.

14. Turner D. The structure of sociological theory. – M., 1985.

15. Freud Z. Psychology of masses and analysis of the human self // Dialogue. -

16. Fromm E. Anatomy of human destructiveness // Sociological studies. – 1992. No. 7.

Activity, activity and actions, like atoms, are combined into complex molecules, which in the language of psychology and sociology are called social interaction.

In everyday life, we now and then perform many elementary acts of social interaction without even knowing it. When we meet, we shake hands and say hello; when we get on the bus, we let women, children and older people go ahead. All of these are acts of social interaction or social behavior.

However, not everything we do in connection with other people is social interaction. If a car hits a passerby, then this is a normal traffic accident. But it becomes a social interaction when the driver and pedestrian, analyzing the incident, each defend their interests as representatives of two large social groups.

The driver insists that the roads are built for cars and the pedestrian does not have the right to cross wherever he pleases. The pedestrian, on the contrary, is convinced that the main person in the city is he, and not the driver, and cities are created for people, but not cars. In this case, the driver and pedestrian indicate social statuses. Each of them has their own range of rights and responsibilities. Playing the role of a driver and a pedestrian, two men do not establish personal relationships based on sympathy or antipathy, but enter into social relationships and behave as holders of social statuses that are defined by society. The arbiter in their interaction is often a policeman.

When communicating with each other, they talk not about family matters, weather or crop prospects. The content of their conversation is social symbols and meanings: the purpose of such a territorial settlement as a city, the norms for crossing the roadway, the priorities of a person and a car, etc. Concepts in italics constitute attributes of social interaction. It, like social action, is found everywhere. But this does not mean that it replaces all other types of human interaction.

So, social interaction consists of individual acts, called social actions, and includes statuses (range of rights and responsibilities), roles, social relationships, symbols and meanings.

Behavior is a set of movements, acts and actions of a person that can be observed by other people, namely those in whose presence they are performed. It can be individual and collective (mass). It follows that the main elements of social behavior are: needs, motivation, expectations.

When comparing activities and behavior, it is not difficult to notice the difference. Activities include conscious goals and planned actions. It is performed for the sake of some kind of reward that serves as an external incentive, for example, earnings, fees, promotion. Behavior does not contain a goal as the main, defining element. Most often it does not serve any purpose. But in behavior there are intentions and expectations, there is a need and motives. Unlike incentives, motives refer not to external, but to internal incentives.

The unit of behavior is an action. Although it is considered conscious, it has no purpose or intention. The action of an honest person is natural and therefore arbitrary. He simply could not do otherwise. At the same time, the person does not set a goal to demonstrate to others the qualities of an honest person. In this sense, the action has no purpose. An action, as a rule, is focused on two goals at once - compliance with one’s moral principles and the positive reaction of other people who evaluate our action from the outside. To save a drowning man, risking his life, is an act oriented towards both goals. Going against the general opinion, defending your own point of view, is an act focused only on the first goal. I think you yourself can give examples of actions focused only on the second goal.

If sociological theories are developed cumulatively, they should not use ordinary language. This means that the subject of sociology cannot be the social world described in everyday language, as everyone is accustomed to believe. Theoretical constructs in sociology are not abstract counterparts of everyday phenomena. They describe a possible state of affairs.
Theoretical Methods in Sociology / Ed. by L. Freese. Pittsburgh.
1980. P. 331

In a team or in a small group, which consists of people you know and constantly interact with you, behavior is significantly different from what can be observed in a crowd consisting of strangers, random people. The difference is based on following the rule: behave with others (in scientific parlance, “significant others”) the way you would like them to behave with you. You can be rude to a passerby and you won’t see him again, but what about a fellow worker? Among their acquaintances, people try to look the way they would like to look, or the way they would like others to see them. Most people want to be seen as generous and intelligent. They want to be helpful, courteous, and expect the same from others. They understand that if they themselves are not like this, then they will not be able to demand the same from others.

Actions, deeds, movements and acts are the building blocks of behavior and activity. Activity and behavior are two sides of one phenomenon, namely human activity.

Action is possible only if there is freedom of action. If your parents oblige you to tell them the whole truth, even if it is unpleasant for you, then this is not yet an act. An action is only those actions that you perform voluntarily.

Freedom of choice is necessary for a person at every step. Even going to the store or drinking a cup of tea requires freedom of action. It is even more necessary in the higher spheres of human activity, especially in creativity. A scientist, an artist, an actor cannot create anything if they are forced, pointed out, or interfered with. When we view world history as the progression of humanity from pre-industrial to industrial and post-industrial societies, we speak of the increased importance in the modern era of scientific knowledge, information, intellectual work, as well as leisure and creativity. When scientists call a post-industrial society a leisure society, they emphasize an important detail: the degree of freedom of action today should be immeasurably greater than before.

If you carefully analyze the statistics, this is what you will discover: in modern society, the volume of intellectual workload and the life expectancy of people have increased. Is the connection between the two phenomena coincidental?

When we talk about an action, we unwittingly mean an action focused on other people. An action emanating from an individual may or may not be directed at another individual. Only an action that is directed at another person (rather than at a physical object) and produces a response should be classified as social interaction. Interaction is a bidirectional process of exchange of actions between two or more individuals.

In science, it is customary to distinguish between three main forms of interaction - cooperation, competition and conflict. In this case, interaction refers to the ways in which partners agree on their goals and means of achieving them, distributing scarce (rare) resources.

Social interaction consists of many individual social actions. They are called mass. Mass actions can be poorly organized (panic, pogroms), or sufficiently prepared and organized (demonstrations, revolutions, wars). Much depends on whether the situation is realized or not, whether organizers and leaders have been found capable of leading the rest or not.