Conscience and tolerance as a sociological analysis. Tolerance as a sociological problem
AT recent times among the foreign words that are used in the vocabulary of Russians, the concept of “tolerance” is quite actively used. The concept of "tolerance" means respect, acceptance and understanding another culture, others forms of expression, others ways of expressing human individuality. Tolerance presupposes knowledge, openness, communication, freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Everyone is free to adhere to their beliefs, but at the same time, to recognize the same right for others. The views of one person cannot be imposed on others. In fact, tolerance implies a civilized "dialogue of cultures" in all types of communications.
Acceptance and understanding another culture, another personality is impossible without mastering the normative values of each of the interacting parties. The appropriation of the values of another culture not only ensures the intellectual, spiritual development of the individual, but also allows you to build a new scheme of interaction, in which the pivotal basis is not the "vertical", but the "horizontal", since all the cultures existing in the modern world are side by side. There can be no underdeveloped or overdeveloped culture. Culture always reflects the spiritual search of the people, the individual.
The principles of tolerance were formulated in the West, which is probably due to the peculiarities European history. As you know, during the Renaissance in Europe, those humanistic values were formulated that subsequently determined the spirit and content of European civilization. Since the time of the Renaissance, the measure of everything that exists for Europeans has become a person, his rights and freedoms. It is no coincidence that the Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance states that the manifestation of tolerance is consonant with respect for human rights.
Europeans for rights and freedoms went to the barricades during the bourgeois revolutions. Constitutional state, civil society is the socio-political achievements of Europeans, examples of European culture. In Russia, no one fought for rights and freedoms. They were either taken or given away. Hence the difficulties that have been encountered in recent decades. The people were given rights and freedoms, but they did not explain what to do with them, and meanwhile, history has shown that it is much easier to win rights and freedoms than to dispose of them.
It is not surprising that tolerance is not yet the basis for interaction in any of the spheres of the life of Russian society. Moreover, we often encounter manifestations of intolerance in the sphere of politics, and in the sphere of economy, and in the sphere of culture, and in the sphere of interethnic relations. It is probably no secret to anyone that relations between people in our society have also taken the form of intolerance, which is confirmed by the results of numerous sociological studies.
The population of Russia does not feel socially protected, although social harmony is defined as the norm public life. This kind of contradiction gives rise to a clear or hidden rejection of the principles of tolerant interaction. As a rule, only those “like themselves” are adequately perceived, that is, a person feels more comfortable in his social environment. In fact, intolerance dominates in the communicative field of Russians.
A stereotype has already been formed in the public consciousness, which is based on the identification of the foreign language concept of "tolerance" with the Russian concept of "tolerance". Probably, it does not require special social insight to understand that tolerance, understood as tolerance, is unlikely to win big number supporters. "Tolerance" in the perspective of Russian history, as you know, has a negative context. Moreover, in the Russian version, respect for another culture, for another person takes the form of a tolerant attitude towards otherness, which fundamentally changes the qualitative coloring of the content of the concept of tolerance.
In modern conditions, all social groups and individuals mainly "play tolerance", thereby providing a sense of self-satisfaction. Meanwhile, one cannot “play” with tolerance. At one time, D.S. Likhachev said that you can pretend to be kind, generous, attentive. It is impossible to pretend to be intelligent. So you can't pretend to be tolerant either. Sooner or later this "game" will show up. Moreover, tolerance is like politeness: “it is expensive to be valued, but it is cheap.” She does not require financial costs, but its result is a fabulous capital, inalienable property - an appropriated culture in all its diversity.
In modern conditions, in order to master the principles of tolerance, first of all, it is necessary to understand that tolerance is just a way, a mechanism, an instrument of interaction, and not an end in itself. The goal is to achieve social harmony, social security. Tolerance does not imply concessions, condescension or indulgence, as written in the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. Tolerance is the recognition of the universality of rights and freedoms, that is, the realization of the fact that rights and freedoms are not the prerogative of one person. Through comprehension, awareness of our rights and freedoms, we will gradually come to the recognition of the rights and freedoms of other citizens, other peoples, other cultures, other political views and positions.
Recently, the predominant part of the population of our country reassures itself with the fact that "the rich also cry." In an explicit or hidden form, we constantly observe a certain confrontation between various social groups: rich and poor. Meanwhile, it should probably be understood that actual social equality is nothing more than a utopia, since all people have different potential: both intellectual and physical. History has shown that in practice the utopian idea of social equality acquires an unsympathetic form of social sameness. Whether we like it or not, in the human community there will always be those who are more successful and those who are less successful. Another question: the criteria for success and the principles of climbing "up". Probably, the real reasons for social negativism in modern Russia should be sought precisely in this. It is not wealth that irritates, but arrogance, intolerance, the inability to respect, accept and understand the "other" on the part of those who are successful according to today's criteria. The verbal monument of our time looks tough enough: “If you are so smart, why are you so poor?”. Because the other side has not yet matured to understand its rights and freedoms and has not asked its own question: “If you are not so smart (in other words, stupid), why are you so rich?”. Probably, in the West they realized the need for social balance, social security, as a result of which material for reflection, which is rather difficult for us to understand, appeared: “Declaration of the principles of tolerance”. Will we be able to appropriate the results of someone else's bitter experience or will we create, in the old fashioned way, something of our own, time will tell. Only one thing is clear, without accepting the principles of tolerance, we will not be able to ensure either social harmony, or social security, or forward movement forward, because in today's Russia there is no code of honor among either the rich or the poor.
The "deprivation" complex, which determines the level of tolerance, is also present among librarians, and beyond their age and social status. The only correlating feature within the environment itself, which determines the boundaries of tolerance, is the "geography" of the librarians' residence, which provides them with a different level of social integration. However, the commonality of social problems, which determines behavioral patterns, worldview foundations are gradually “erased” geographical boundaries, turning this subculture into a kind of cultural area that exists according to its sociocultural dominants. Librarians are gradually turning into custodians of artifacts - watchmen (according to their social and status position in society), who have a corresponding meager material contentment. And at the same time (at the level of self-awareness, self-esteem) volunteers of culture, "the last of the Mohicans", whose spiritual search is of little interest to society.
In modern conditions, it is almost impossible to imagine a young librarian with personal degrees of freedom, with a level of demand (in all respects!), With an active moral position similar to the heroine of S. Gerasimov's film "At the Lake", it is almost impossible.
Society stopped listening to scientists, writers, teachers, librarians. All attention is focused on the actors, who talk from the screen on all possible topics, excluding the program "Obvious-incredible". In the current conditions, it is virtually impossible to imagine the selfless activity of a librarian protecting Lake Baikal or anything else. The librarian cannot protect, first of all, himself in the eyes of society. As a result, disrespect, rejection by society of this subculture; forms of its expression, ways of manifestation. The society was overwhelmed by pragmatism, which allows us to consider the work of a librarian from an instrumental point of view: it stores, gives out books.
Knowledge, openness, ability to communicate, which are professional markers of librarians, are becoming unclaimed. There is a forced transformation of individual and group values of people in this profession, the attractiveness of the profession for the younger generation is decreasing. As a result, an insignificant number of young people in the staff of libraries; feminization of the profession, which leads to gender asymmetry, resulting in a significant number of unmarried women librarians who raise children on their own or have no children at all. Such problems clearly do not contribute to the growth of the attractiveness of the profession among young people.
If the girls did not have time to equip their family life in universities, within the walls of the library in the regime of hard working hours and limited gender communications, they are unlikely to be able to successfully solve this problem. In addition, studying at universities of the appropriate profile (full-time or part-time), they are doomed to a permanent stay in women's groups, the standards of existence of which are not optimal from the point of view of the natural context of culture.
As a result, girls/young women “guilty without guilt” gradually lose their life orientations/routers: they cannot influence social processes (there is no appropriate mechanism), they cannot solve their problems (material, housing, family, professional, gender, personal) (society is not up to them); they cannot create acceptable working conditions; can not provide labor protection, health. All initiatives are gradually “fading away”, since librarians in modern Russian society do not have the material and non-material resources that contribute to the resolution of these problems; librarians do not have adequate social role and socio-cultural activities of social security.
Obviously, tolerance cannot become the moral basis of the socio-cultural activities of only young librarians. In this case, it is appropriate to talk about the need to reform/modernize the moral foundations of interaction within the professional environment itself in the context of the civilizational requirements of the historical era.
Mastering the principles of tolerance is a process extended over time. In each specific case, the starting positions that characterize the beginning of the movement will be determined by those socio-cultural norms that have been developed within a particular team, the degree of their identity with the principles of tolerance. For some collectives, this is an opportunity to nominate the moral foundations that characterize relations within the collective, for others it is an irritant, despite which traditional intolerant relations continue to persist, presented to society (contrary to common sense) as corporate.
Such a dualism in the perception of the civilizational foundations of the life of the modern human community also characterizes the personal positions of the representatives of the profession, since in each case we are dealing with the level of personal acceptance / non-acceptance of the principles of tolerance. For some, this is an undeniable way of interacting with readers, with colleagues (beyond age and social status), for others, it is a rigid behavioral scenario, which is either difficult or almost impossible to master.
In general, summing up, it should be noted that tolerance will become a moral regulator of relations within the professional environment of librarians only if the vectors of influence of objective and subjective factors are equally taken into account. Young librarians, no matter how passionate they are, will not be able to change those behavioral stereotypes that have become entrenched within the teams. The solution to the problem lies outside the hypothetical indicators of the level of tolerance of the youth itself. In this case, it is obvious that the possibilities of self-realization of young people in the context of tolerance directly depend on those moral attitudes that determine the intra-image characteristics of teams; on the level of social security that characterizes the life of a certain team.
X Conclusion
The idea of developing the science of children's reading, which arose at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, becomes especially relevant in connection with significant changes in the reading strategy of children and adolescents.
· Introduction to reading is a link in the work of librarians, teachers, parents and all those who are related to the book. The purpose of this activity is to convey to the child the idea that he himself is responsible for his education, cultural level and standard of living, that the reader himself - first of all, his family - in the second, and all cultural educational institutions - in the third, are responsible for the level of his reading culture, education, training.
· In Russia, the study of children's reading is carried out by a few researchers - sociologists, psychologists, teachers, librarians, and literary critics. The integrating role associated with the unification of researchers and practitioners interested in the development of children's reading belongs to libraries, primarily for children, which is confirmed by the practice of the Republican Library for Children and Youth in the Udmurt Republic.
· As a consequence, the localization of research. Local research certainly enriches the science of children's reading. But at the same time, they do not provide: 1) the formation of a general picture of the ongoing processes; 2) a reliable information foundation for organizing support for children's reading on a national scale, as they rely on various methodological and methodological approaches.
The analysis of research results proposed by the authors of the monograph is an example of a sociological view of children's reading. Obviously, the presentation of the results, the conclusions of the research, are not indisputable and, as a result, can be disputed by those who have their own research view of the problem, confirmed by empirical research data. This is their right, which is respected by the authors of the monograph.
· The authors of the monograph did not fundamentally change the severity of assessments, the emphasis in the presentation of research results, since they have a historical context and belong to "their time". The more interesting they are for the reader.
· Over the past five years there have been significant changes in the practice of children's reading. The computer literacy of children and adolescents has increased, which requires additional research efforts to study the dynamics of the information/reading needs of children and adolescents.
· Meanwhile, the stated results of the research have not lost their scientific value, since they allow us to consider children's reading not as a frozen form, but as a process extended in time and space.
The solution to the problem of introducing children to reading has national importance: "a reading nation is created from reading children."
XI. APPENDIX
1.Questionnaire layout for students in grades 5-6
The Republican Library for Children and Youth would like to know your opinion about the work of our library. Please answer all questions without giving your first and last name. Please circle all possible answers that suit you. Where applicable, please fill in your answer.
1. You visit our library:
01. once a week
02. once or twice a week
03. once a month
04. very rarely, if necessary
05. your option _________________________________
2. To the library you:
01. signed up on my own
02. came to record with parents
03. came to record with grandma or grandpa
04. came to record with classmates
05. came to record with friends
06. your option _________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What books do you usually borrow from the library?(please indicate all possible options answers)
01. fairy tales 05 comics
02. adventures 06 reference books
03. science fiction (fantasy) 07 encyclopedia
04. detectives 08 Something else? Please write _______________________
_______________________________________________________
01. about animals, plants 04 about professions
02. about countries and peoples 05 about school and your peers
03. by story 06 about love and friendship
07 Anything else? Please write _______________________
_______________________________________________________
How to protect nature, how to get rid of wars, disasters, crises? The efforts of many people are needed to resolve these issues. At the same time, people should understand each other well, that is, be tolerant.
The problem of tolerance is considered by many sciences: philosophy, ethics, psychology, pedagogy. And each of them considers the problem from its own point of view. Some see tolerance in >, believing that >. Others believe that she > . Despite such strong differences in the assessment of tolerance, all scientists are united by the belief in the need to fight its antipode, intolerance, which occurs quite often in our lives.
Tolerance to a large extent affects not only the development of the social climate, interpersonal relations, politics, it seems to be the most urgent task for the development of modern man and his education. Unfortunately, in adult life there are many negative examples intolerant relations between nations. For example, in Germany in 1938, 91 Jews were destroyed in one night (later it was named>).
Without pretending to the breadth of consideration of the concept >, we decided to consider interpersonal relationships among high school students. It has been noted that the model of relationships that develop in the school environment is transferred almost unchanged to adulthood. Therefore, the topic of our study is important and relevant.
In many cultures, the concept of > is a kind of synonym for >. But in the process of historical and cultural development and the formation of philosophical thought, the category > (tolerance) has undergone changes. In my opinion this is natural phenomenon, as society itself was changing, different ideas became at the forefront of human relationships.
So, for example, the explanation that tolerant relations are based on tolerance would not be reasonable. In my opinion, it is necessary to decipher what it means to endure each other - to throw oblique, reproachful glances and malicious ridicule, but at the same time not to say anything to a person, to endure! Or, nevertheless, tolerance is a manifestation of tolerance for other people's opinions, beliefs, behavior, indulgence towards something or someone, it must be remembered that the harmony of relations implies, first of all, respect by the subjects of each other. Such a semantic load is carried by the definition\u003e offered by the American dictionary.
When considering the essence of the concept of "tolerance", we proceeded from the definition set forth in the Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance. In particular, it notes that "tolerance means respect, acceptance and a correct understanding of the rich diversity of cultures of our world, our forms of self-expression and ways of manifestation of human individuality." At the same time, in the scientific literature devoted to the phenomena and problems of tolerance, other features and properties of the individual are distinguished, which, one way or another, correlate with the concept of "tolerance".
In essence, tolerance is seen as a special integral quality personality, in the structure of which a certain set of individual personal properties is distinguished.
Based on the definition given in the Declaration, as a basic, main property included in the structure of tolerance, we singled out respect for a person who has certain individual characteristics behavior and distinctive socio-psychological characteristics that characterize him as "other". Accordingly, tolerance in a generalized form appears to us as the ability of a person to respect the "other". As separate personality traits that reflect the essence of tolerance, one can note, such as respect for the rights of the "other" person, respect for another opinion, the ability to respect other tastes and customs.
0. 1. Interpersonal tolerance.
Interpersonal tolerance is a complex quality of a person, manifested in its different semantic meanings (cognitive, emotional, behavioral). It is the object of the formation process, therefore the essential characteristics of interpersonal tolerance are significant:
1) the essence of the concept>, is revealed in understanding, respect, care for others;
2) the structure of interpersonal tolerance consists of such components as empathy, acceptance, sociability;
3) functions of interpersonal tolerance: axiological, communicative, relational, motivational, activity.
Since it is now recognized that we live in a rapidly changing world, interpersonal tolerance is a quality that helps to live among people who are unequal in social status, political aspirations, character and level of culture.
Therefore, an important point is the formation of interpersonal tolerance. It includes information about tolerance as a social value, the motivation of students for tolerant behavior, the organization of the activities of high school students to gain experience in interpersonal tolerance.
1. 2. Tolerance as a sociological problem.
We found out that the concept of tolerance is multifaceted. Sociology considers tolerance as a system of values, norms and patterns of behavior united around "the willingness to accept others as they are and to interact with them on the basis of consent"
There are three main points in this direction.
Firstly, tolerance can be viewed as a system of values that is part of the structure of public consciousness. In this regard, it is possible to analyze the state doctrine in this area, the main types of public consciousness, the consciousness of various social groups, strata of the population, etc. In this case, the object of research will be the problems of developing theoretically based indicators of the stratification of public consciousness, the construction of its various types, analysis of the impact on each type of ideological and socio-economic factors and the impact of a certain type of consciousness on social processes and behavior of people.
When analyzing tolerance as a component of the structure of social ideology, special attention is supposed to be paid to the problems of classification, both of the social consciousness itself and its bearers - classes, social groups, and strata of the population.
Secondly, tolerance can be considered within the framework of the functioning of a particular institution, which is especially significant for the study of the ideology of tolerance, for example, educational, media, etc. Analyzing this process of functioning within the framework of any sociological theory, one can analyze the features of the influence of tolerant (intolerant) values, norms and patterns of behavior on the attitudes and behavior of individuals or groups. At the same time, the functions of tolerant or intolerant values and norms and their impact on the performance of the institution's main functions will be studied. So, for example, one can consider the influence of values, norms and patterns of behavior of educational institutions (schools, universities, etc.) on the success of educating the younger generation.
Thirdly, tolerance can be viewed as a system of intergroup interactions (interethnic, interethnic, interfaith, etc.). Here we are talking, first of all, about large social groups identified by socio-demographic indicators (interpersonal relations of two specific representatives of national or religious groups, or the attitude towards a person as a representative of a particular group).
Chapter 2. Tolerance in interpersonal relationships high school students of school No. 7 in Ostrov
2. 1 Analysis of the state of interpersonal tolerance of high school students of our school.
In the study of the problem of tolerance of interpersonal relations in the youth environment, we focused on identifying both positive and negative trends, which make it possible to identify and comprehend the real problems of the state of interpersonal tolerance, as well as determine ways to solve them.
In order to identify what kind of idea of tolerance high school students have, how well-formed this quality of personality is, we, together with a psychologist, selected diagnostic methods. Then we interviewed high school students - a total of 59 respondents. The students were offered the following diagnostics: >, > and test >.
The students were given a form in which 16 personality traits were presented in the form of a table. It was proposed to assess their qualities, and choose from the proposed list those three features that, in everyone's opinion, correspond to the concept of "tolerance". According to the results of the assessments, the average values of the degree of representation in the minds of students of individual personality traits as corresponding to the concept of "tolerance" were calculated.
It turned out that the concept of "tolerance" is reflected in the minds of students most often in the form of a combination of the following personality traits: respect for the rights of the "other" person, willingness to listen and understand the "other", benevolence, responsiveness and willingness to help, respect for other opinions, self-control and restraint, the desire for mutual understanding.
Among the personality traits that do not have special treatment to the concept of "tolerance", in the minds of students stand out: curiosity, sense of humor, altruism, and condescension.
The results of the calculations showed that, in general, the tolerant consciousness of high school students in its content corresponds to the concept of "tolerance" set forth in the Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance. It can also be said that in the minds of high school students their own subjective ideas about "tolerance" are formed, which are close, in general, to generally recognized ones.
In test > . 45 statements were presented, with which it was necessary to agree or refute (on a scale from 0 to 3). Respondents were asked to evaluate themselves in nine proposed simple situations of interaction with other people.
The maximum number of points in this test was 135. The higher the number of points, the more intolerant a person is towards others, and vice versa, the lower, the more tolerant a person is towards many types of partners, in many situations, i.e. more tolerant.
Table 1
Number of students
When processing the test, we came to the following results: in grades 10A and 11A, an average level of communicative tolerance is observed, and in grade 10 B it is high. These results are normal.
The test focused on value-oriented tolerance - it incorporates the main worldview ideals of a particular person, his immediate and distant life goals, interests, assessments of what is happening. The average and high level of general communicative tolerance is characterized by the following features of the behavior of older students: the ability to understand or accept the individuality of other people, the ability to mutually support, condescension towards each other.
Tolerance - intolerance.
Tolerance - intolerance - is always a problem of the attitude of one ethnic group to another. That is why we put tolerance in line psychological characteristics, which are especially important in the study of intergroup interaction and transformations of ethnic identity.
Intolerance is the rejection of another person, unwillingness to coexist with other (other) people; intolerance is manifested through destructive, conflict, aggressive behavior>>.
In our school, the ethnic composition of students is homogeneous. The results of the study did not reveal pronounced disagreements in the answers of students. Tolerant persons were those respondents whose ethnic identity can be characterized by the type of "norm" (there is a natural preference for their own ethno-cultural values, combined with a positive attitude towards other ethnic groups), or by the type of "norm" and "ethnic indifference" (indifference to interethnic problems, assessing them as insignificant) at the same time.
The purpose of behavior diagnostics > was to identify the most characteristic aspects and trends in the manifestation of communicative tolerance and intolerance of high school students. It was necessary to assess the degree of their agreement or disagreement with each of the seven judgments. . We have entered the results of the survey in table 2.
Tolerance level
Level of intolerance
(average)
(average)
(average)
The level of intolerance was (+5) in the 11th grade, and in the parallel of the 10th grade the result was (+2), which indicates that the students are moderately intolerant. The values of tolerance indicators were within the average norm. Basically, high school students respect diverse socio-cultural groups, but at the same time share some cultural prejudices, using stereotypes regarding representatives of certain cultures.
Thus, we found out what kind of idea of tolerance the high school students of our school have, that tolerance as a phenomenon takes place in their lives. It was revealed that this age group of students is characterized by an average level of formation of this personality trait. The index of intolerance corresponds to the norm.
A humane attitude towards a Person is caused by several reasons: firstly, children are characterized by compassion and friendly manifestations, therefore it is important to develop them at certain stages of the development of a child's personality; secondly, the consistent work of the teaching staff of the school and upbringing in the family teaches children to respect the culture and traditions of other people; thirdly, tolerance among high school students is easier to form due to the homogeneity ethnic composition in the school community.
2. 2. Formation of interpersonal tolerance of high school students.
Along with the interpersonal tolerance of students, I would like to highlight pedagogical tolerance. It is characterized by a willingness to take the position of another, the ability to cooperate, aimed at positive development high school student, constructive assistance.
Considering that tolerance is largely determined by the formation of social norms and rules of behavior, we can conclude that it is possible to create a tolerant personality quite early. As Shchekoldina SD notes > .
In the appendix, we present the activities that are carried out by the teachers of our school to form and educate students' interpersonal tolerance: one, training >, is based on the game, the other, >, is carried out in the form of a problem-activity game based on discussions and discussions.
2. 3. Comparative characteristics of the level of interpersonal tolerance of high school students.
For the reliability of the conclusions about the level of formation of interpersonal tolerance, we re-tested the same students a year later. 25 tenth-graders and 47 students of grades 11 took part in the test > (in the 2009-2010 academic year, these were former students of grades 10A and 10B). The test results are presented in the diagram, where out of 16 personality traits, high school students chose three that, in their opinion, correspond to the concept of "tolerance". The average values of the degree of representation in the minds of students of individual personality traits as corresponding to the concept of "tolerance" were calculated.
Analysis of the test showed that the concept of "tolerance" is reflected in the minds of high school students in the form of a rating assessment of such personality traits: respect for the rights of the "other" person, willingness to listen and understand the "other", benevolence, responsiveness and willingness to help, respect for other opinions , self-control and restraint, the desire for mutual understanding.
These results almost coincide with the results of testing in the past. school year, difference fluctuations go from > 0.1 to 0.2 points in terms of respect for the rights of the "other" person (+0.1), willingness to listen and understand the "other" (+0.2), benevolence (+0.2 ), respect for another opinion (+0.1), desire for mutual understanding (+0.1) and with > 0.2 - 0.3 points in terms of responsiveness and willingness to help (-0.2), self-control and restraint (-0.3). The indicator of tolerance - benevolence has not changed.
It can be concluded that the formation of interpersonal tolerance among high school students is stable. This also allows us to assert that, despite the subjective nature of tolerant consciousness, the essence of the concept of "tolerance" is reflected in the consciousness of high school students quite adequately and steadily over time.
45 pupils of the 11th grades (former pupils of 10A and 10B grades) and 24 pupils of the new 10A grade took part in the repeated test. Respondents were asked to evaluate themselves in nine proposed simple situations of interaction with other people. The test results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Number of students
When processing the test, we came to the following results: in grades 10A and 11A, an average level of communicative tolerance is observed, and in grade 11B, the level is still high. These results are normal. When compared with the indicators of the last academic year, it was revealed that the levels of tolerance among students in grades 11A and 11B remained at the same level, although the quantitative indicators in points increased slightly (+1 and +2, respectively). It can be concluded that the value-oriented side of schoolchildren's tolerance, which changes rather slowly. Purposeful work is needed to form the worldview ideals of each student, which directly affects the ability to understand and accept the individuality of other people.
Tolerance - intolerance
To assess the stability of the most characteristic aspects and trends in the manifestation of communicative tolerance and intolerance in the behavior of high school students, we also carried out a second diagnosis >.
45 respondents took part in it - students of 11A and 11B grades, compared its results with the results of the 2009-2010 academic year.
We have included the results of the survey in Table 4.
Table 4
Tolerance level
Level of intolerance
(average)
(average)
(average)
When processing the results, we came to the following conclusions:
The level of intolerance was (+2) in grades 11AB, that is, it remained at the same level, which indicates that the students are moderately intolerant. The values of tolerance indicators were within the average norm. In general, high school students respect diverse sociocultural groups, but at the same time they continue to share some cultural prejudices based on stereotypes regarding representatives of certain cultures.
Conclusion
Modern man of culture- this is not only an educated person, but a person with a sense of self-respect and respected by others. Tolerance is considered a sign of high spiritual and intellectual development individual, group, society as a whole.
Tolerance as a phenomenon takes place in the life of high school students of our school. In this paper, we have considered only one of its aspects - this is interpersonal relations within the framework of the functioning of a particular educational institution - MOU > Pskov region.
Summing up our work, we can draw the following conclusions:
* The content of the tolerant consciousness of high school students of our school corresponds to the concept of "tolerance" set forth in the Declaration of the Principles of Tolerance.
* The features of the behavior of older students were revealed: the ability to understand or accept the individuality of other people, the ability to mutually support, condescension towards each other. This corresponds to the indicators of medium and high levels of general communicative tolerance.
* the indicator of intolerance of high school students corresponds to the norm, this indicates the correct strategy of school teachers in the direction of the formation of interpersonal tolerance of students, starting from the primary level.
* Comparative characteristics of the level of interpersonal tolerance of senior students allow us to state that, despite the subjective nature of tolerant consciousness, the essence of the concept of "tolerance" is reflected in the consciousness of high school students quite adequately and steadily over time.
Our hypothesis that the interpersonal tolerance of high school students is at an average level and increases with the cooperation and support of school teachers has been confirmed.
This work can be used by teachers and class teachers when conducting social studies lessons, class hours, may be of interest to students and their parents.
We see the prospect of this work in determining the level of formation of tolerance in different age groups of our school (junior link - grades 3-4, middle link - grades 8-9, old school-10-11 grades), as well as in the study of problems of interpersonal tolerance different schools city and region.
The concept of tolerance is complex and diverse. Despite its widespread use, a clear definition of tolerance still does not exist. In the history of the development of society in every era, the problem of tolerance was endowed with a certain meaning, depending on who it was directed to. Are there limits to tolerance and what are they? Is it worth it to be tolerant of others? Is the policy of tolerance successful and should it be applied? At each stage of history, these issues have been dealt with in different ways. Thus, tolerance is one of the links in the formation of civilization.
The problem of tolerance attracts the attention of many sciences. One such science is sociology. In sociology, tolerance is understood as the recognition of equality between people, as well as the recognition of the rights of the “other”. Tolerance is a factor in the development of society associated with the interaction between people.
Tolerance as a value can be interpreted on the basis of the basic needs of individuals in the formation of social relations with "others". The primary form of such relations, according to G. Simmel, is hatred and enmity. Arguing the opinion that it is hostility that is the primary form of social interactions, Simmel draws attention to the spirit of contradiction that accompanies the emergence of any new idea. This reaction is considered by Simmel as a kind of defensive reaction of any living organism to an external intrusion into the habitat. In society, denial is the simplest form self-affirmation of the individual. Speaking against the “other”, the individual proves his advantages through denials. Simmel draws attention to the fact that "it is much more difficult for the average person to inspire another with the same distrust and disgust." Thus, hostility is a natural human reaction, according to Simmel, a pair reaction of sympathy and love.
The German and American sociologist Herbert Marcuse considered the idea of tolerance in an industrial society. Tolerance, in his opinion, at that time was a vague and subversive goal. At that time, a humane society had not yet been formed. The violence that the politician used in their actions was considered democratic. However, if tolerance is allowed for such measures, then this will lead to the destruction of society rather than to its prosperity. Tolerance has become a means of control. All this contradicted the criteria of tolerance, according to which it should be universal and independent of class division. Universality was understood as such a quality of tolerance, in which “it applies equally to both rulers and the people, both landowners and peasants, both sheriffs and their victims. Such universal tolerance is possible only in the case when no threat emanating from a real or imaginary enemy requires society to militarize it and accustom the people to violence and destruction.
In a society in which the ruling classes have privileges, tolerance can exist in two forms: active and passive. Active tolerance is the official form of tolerance and is responsible for the safety of existing discrimination mechanisms in society. Passive tolerance consists in disagreement, but acceptance of these mechanisms.
The goal of tolerance is truth. True tolerance "cannot be indifferent and indiscriminate in regard to the content of both words and actions; it should not defend false words and wrong actions that contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation" .
Only a democratic society can be tolerant. Under an authoritarian regime, people tolerate politics more than they show it. However, tolerance in a democratic society Marcuse saw as an abstract and skeptical phenomenon, within which there is an equality between nonsense and meaning. A situation arises when “a stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as an intelligent opinion, and propaganda is next to education, and truth is a lie.” According to Marcuse, such tolerance is an advantage for those in power and becomes "repressive".
A certain contribution to the development of the ideas of tolerance was made by the Russian sociologist Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin. In his work Mutual Aid as a Factor of Evolution, he formulated the law of mutual aid and solidarity as a necessary condition for progress. He defines mutual assistance as the basis of tolerance. Comparing the biological and social forms of life, the scientist concluded that people, like animals, are inherent in struggle. But this struggle leads to progressive development only when it is based on solidarity. Unlike rivalry, mutual assistance always leads to progress in society.
According to P. A. Sorokin, tolerance should be the main value, since it is precisely this that is the condition for social harmony and peace. In his work "Man. Civilization. Society” he considered tolerance as an active action. Tolerance is often confused with a passive attitude. However, it is absolutely not similar to inaction, but rather requires reflection and inner effort. His work makes us understand that active tolerance is not just the absence of intolerance. Active tolerance means the ability to understand another and accept the fact of his existence.
In the studies of K. F. Grauman, tolerance is seen as a conscious process that “involves the ability to see perspectives and the desire to act with this perspective in mind” . Thus, tolerance does not necessarily manifest itself in the division and agreement with a different opinion, position. Tolerance in this case means readiness to understand and recognize the right to dissent. Grauman's ideas of tolerance are based on the perspective and its mutual vision. The system of relations consists of the object under consideration, the subject and the sides of the study of the object. As a result of changing relations, the aspects of the object, characteristic of all relations, also change, that is, the object will appear in one of the guises of the aspect.
Further, revealing the problem of perspective as a characteristic of cognition in general, in accordance with the psychology of cognitive social and moral development, K. F. Grauman comes to the conclusion that, having a psychological structure, tolerance is not a psychological, but a moral and political concept. Tolerance turns out to be "a deterministic concept and ideals of freedom and dependent on the level and type of culture" .
The Austrian and British sociologist K. R. Popper is another supporter of the ideas of tolerance. His merit lies in the study of the "paradox of tolerance". It is "that unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance". The main meaning of this paradox is that if we tolerate those who are themselves intolerant, if we do not stand up against xenophobia, then a tolerant society will be destroyed. Popper admits that suppression would not be the wisest act if we could resist these currents with reason and control them through public opinion. However, it may happen that the intolerant will refute all reasonable arguments in communication. In this case, the proclamation of the right to suppress intolerance by force in inevitable situations is necessary.
Based on Popper's idea, we can conclude that in order to maintain tolerance in society, it is necessary to fight intolerance, that is, to be intolerant of it. "We must outlaw all intolerant movements and make incitement to intolerance and persecution the same crime as incitement to murder, kidnap children, or revive the slave trade."
Thus, in sociology, tolerance acts as a value that allows you to regulate human life. Being a kind of moral and ethical ideal, tolerance makes it possible to replace the culture of war with a culture of peace.
Bibliography:
- Grauman K.F. Mutual vision of prospects - the initial prerequisite for conscious tolerance // Higher education in Europe. - 1997. - No. 2. - P. 46-56.
- Simmel, G. Man as an enemy. [Electronic resource] - Access mode: URL: http://socioz.ru/library (Date of access: 12.08.2016)
- Marcuse G. Repressive tolerance. [Electronic resource] - Access mode: URL: http://www.sensusnovus.ru/idea/2013/09/16/17194.html (Date of access: 10.09.2016)
- Popper K. R. Open society and its enemies: in 2 volumes / transl. from English, under the general ed. V. N. Sadovsky. – M.: Int. Foundation "Cult. initiative", 1992. - 448 p.
Chapter 1 Methodological problems of modern 24 sociology of morality.
1.1 The current state of the sociology of morality: 24 critical discourse.
1.2 On the problem of the object and subject of the sociology of morality
1.3 Features and possibilities of the study of morality 78 sociological methods.
Chapter 2 Formation, development and current state of the study of moral problems in foreign and domestic sociology.
2.1 Formation and development of foreign sociology 101 morality.
2.2 Features of the development of national sociology 131 morality.
2.3 Social typology of personality.
Chapter 3 Sociology of morality: research practice.
3.1 Critical analysis moral1 state of Russian society in the context of social reality.
3.2 Evaluation of moral norms and ideals by various social groups.
3.3 Dynamics of value orientations of Russians.
3.4 Conscience and tolerance as objects of sociology 247 morality
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "The Formation of the Sociology of Morals: Sociological and Historical Analysis"
Relevance of the research topic. In our time, the economic, ideological and moral foundations of the life of Russian society are being radically transformed. Without tracking, understanding the main trends of these changes, it is impossible to effectively understand and, therefore, manage these processes.
If large-scale research is carried out in the field of economics and politics, both at the theoretical and empirical levels, then in the spiritual and moral sphere, serious, representative studies significantly less. This is explained, firstly, by the fact that many empirical studies of morality are not based on deep methodological developments. Secondly, disputes about the possibility of a sociological study of moral problems are still ongoing, caused by the specificity of the phenomenon of morality - its extra-institutional nature.
In this regard, the analysis of the level of development of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the sociology of morality, the identification of methodological problems of its current state and development prospects is becoming increasingly relevant for modern domestic sociological discourse.
In order to evaluate the moral side of the decisions made, their morality, to prevent anomie, it is important to have necessary knowledge about the actual functioning of morality in society. The need to study the spiritual and moral foundations of Russian society is extremely high, it is necessary to stimulate work in this direction by laying a serious methodological basis for them.
The effectiveness of influencing the moral situation in society is possible only if the true mechanisms of the formation of moral consciousness and the laws of development and functioning of morality in society are sufficiently deeply investigated. The scientific system of knowledge about morality, based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of the sociology of morality, can become effective tool improvement of moral relations in society. In this regard, the disclosure of the leading approaches and methods of the sociological study of morality is becoming extremely relevant today.
Meanwhile, the moral factor acquires a decisive role in the life of a person at the present stage of the historical development of society. This is due to the complexity of the current historical situation, which consists in the fact that humanity is faced with the need to resolve not only the economic, financial, but also the moral crisis, which manifests itself in the forgetfulness of many ethical principles, the reassessment of traditional spiritual values, and the loss of ideals. AT individual consciousness the moral crisis is expressed in the loss of the meaning of life, focusing primarily on material rather than spiritual values. The reassessment of values and the change of moral guidelines taking place in modern Russia result in the destruction of the moral foundations verified by the previous history and the erosion of universal ideals.
However, positive creative processes are also taking place in the moral sphere, expressed in the search for and attempts to form new value orientations, ideals and norms. Whether these positive trends are able to prevent the danger of national and global catastrophes is not only a theoretical but also a practical question. Therefore, at this stage in the development of society, the need for a sociological study of morality is felt with particular acuteness. Without this, it is impossible to understand the essence of the changes taking place today and make predictions about the future shape of Russian society.
The study of scientific sources has shown that in recent decades, monographic and dissertation studies of an applied socio-ethical nature in the sociology of morality have not been published. This determines the theoretical relevance of the sociological historical analysis the formation of the sociology of morality as a special sociological theory.
The relevance of the study of morality by sociological methods is also explained by the fact that scientific analysis of this social phenomenon is a prerequisite for the development of a human-oriented social policy. It becomes extremely important to monitor the processes taking place in the moral system of society, so it is necessary to trace the dynamics of value orientations in various social groups. To a large extent, this also applies to such significant moral values as conscience and tolerance.
The state of scientific development of the problem. The study of the phenomenon of morality, its functioning, the dynamics of value orientations is at the intersection of many sciences: sociology, ethics, applied ethics, philosophy, psychology. In this sense, this problem is one of the complex and multidimensional ones. Its various aspects are reflected in numerous works of domestic and foreign sociologists.
Close attention to the problems of morality in the social context was paid to late XIX- early XX centuries. representatives of the French, German, English and American sociological schools O. Comte, JI. Levy-Bruhl, E. Durkheim, M. Weber, G. Simmel, J. St. Mill, I. Bentham, G. Spepser, J. Dewey, W. James, A. Small, C. Cooley, A. Ross. They made an attempt to develop sociological methods for the study of morality.
In line with positivist sociology, a new understanding of ethics emerged as a descriptive, empirical science. E. Durkheim and M. Weber most clearly expressed the tendency towards the sociologization of ethics.
A significant contribution to the theory of values was made by V. Windelbaid, N.O. Lossky, G. Rickert, M. Scheler, M. Heidegger, D. Hildebrand, N. Hartmann. In the concepts of Z. Freud, G. Allport, G. Murrel, R. Lingon, A. Maslow, K. Rogers, the place of moral consciousness in the structure of personality is determined. The idea of the crisis of the old, traditional morality and the need for a "new" one was developed in their works by C. Reich, K. Nash, D. Yankelovich, D. Baines.
Various aspects of the functioning of morality in a modern modernized society from the standpoint of structural and functional analysis are presented in the works of the classics of American sociology T. Parsons and R. Merton. The works of N. Luhmann, Sh.Kh. Pfürtier, R. Bloom, J. Habermas, K.A. Ziegert and other German scientists.
The problems of the moral development of the individual and the role of conscience in this process are reflected in the works of Western researchers A. Bandura, R. Burns, K. Gilligan, L. Kolberg, T. Laikona, F.K. Powee, E. Higgins.
A great contribution to the development of the sociology of morality was made by the Polish scientist M. Ossovskaya and the Bulgarian researchers Zh. Oshavkov and K. Neshev.
The morality of the post-industrial society from the standpoint of postmodernism was considered in his works by the English sociologist Z. Bauman.
In Russian sociology, representatives of Russian neo-Kantianism L.I. Petrazhitsky and P.I. Novgorodtsev. In the integral sociology of the outstanding Russian-American sociologist P.A. Sorokin received a comprehensive justification for the concept of the unity of moral action and the moral reaction to it from society.
The works of V.M. Sokolov, one of the founders of the national sociology of morality, as well as JT.M. Arkhangelsky, O.G. Drobnitsky, JT.B. Konovalova, N.V. Rybakova, D.G. Kharchev. The works of G.S. Batygina, V.A. Bachinina, V.I. Bakshtanovsky, S.P. Paramonova, Yu.V. Sogomonov.
A good basis for the development of methodology, methods and techniques for the study of morality is created by the works of V.F. Anurina, I.F. Devyatko, L.G. Ionina, V.I. Dobrenkova, A.I. Kravchenko, G.V. Osipova, Z.V. Sikevich,
B.E. Shlapentokha, V.A. Yadova, O. Hellevik.
Studies of life plans, value orientations, and cultural needs of young people are reflected in the works of JT.A. Belyaeva, E.O. Cabo, B.B; Kogan, A.I. Kolodnoy, G.V. Kuznetsova, T.S. Lapina,
C.I. Levikova, L.V. Maksimova, K. Muzdybaeva, A.G. Zdravomyslova, N.I. Lapina, M.S. Lebedinsky, G.A. Cherednichenko.
An analysis of the moral aspects of the flow of various social processes in society is contained in the works of R.G. Apresyan, V.E. Boikova, E.M. Babosova, G.E. Galanova, N.V. Golovashchenko, M.K. Gorshkova, N.A. Golovko,
A.A. Grigorieva, A.A. Huseynova, V.I. Zhukova, E.V. Zmanovskaya, G.A. Zavalko, T.I. Zaslavskaya, V.N. Ignatieva, T.M. Karakhanova,
B.N. Kovaleva, M.I. Kodina, V.P. Kolomeyts, V.N. Kudryavtseva, A.V. Losev,
C.E. Matushkina, A.I. Mikhailova, A.G. Myasnikova, A.P. Nazaretyan, Yu.V. Nazarova, Yu. V. A.P. Nikonova, S.S. Novikova, G.I. Osadchey,
A.V. Prokofiev, A.V. Razina, O.M. Sichivitsy, I.V. Sokolova, N.V. Solntseva, I.N. Stepanova, S.V. Sytin, D.K. Tanatova,
B.C. Tapilina, A.I. Titarenko, G.S. Fedorova, V.V. Frolova, A.S. Franz. V.N. Shcherbak, V.N. Sherdakova, T.N. Yudina, V.A. Yadov.
Analysis of the problem of conscience and its role in the moral development of the individual are studied by Z.A. Berbeshkina, B.C. Bibler, V.A. Vasyulin,
PC. Grechko, M.V. Demin, V.A. Demichev, V.Zh. Kelle, V.E. Kemerov, M.Ya. Kovalzon, I.S. Konom, A.F. Krysanov, V.N. Levina, V.A. Lefebvre, G.G. Matyushkin, A.A. Miltsom, N.I. Moiseeva, I.V. Petrivney, Yu.K. Pletnikov, A.I. Rakitov, V:F. Serzhantov,
A.K. Uledov, V.P. Fetisov, L.D. Chernoy, B.D. Chernyshev,
B.N. Shevchenko, Yu.A. Schrader, A.M. Yurchenko.
The studies of A.A. Galkina, S.A. Kravchenko, Yu.A. Krasina, V.A. Lektorsky, M.Yu. Martynova, M.P. Mchedlova, I.V. Orlova, N.A. victory,
C.G. Ter-Minasova, Z.Ya. Umarova, V.V. Shalina.
Paying tribute to the scientific and practical significance of the available domestic research, it should be noted that most of the works that consider the problems of morality relate to ethics, and not to the sociology of morality. The number of works of the post-perestroika period devoted to the sociological analysis of morality is very small. There are no monographic works on the sociology of morality.
Modern stage development of Russian society, accompanied by reform, transformation of all spheres of its functioning, processes of updating the idea of civil society, the rise national consciousness citizens, has an impact on the nature of socialization, the formation of spiritual and moral values of people, including Russian youth.
All this together determined the objective necessity and relevance of the study of morality by sociological methods in the conditions of modern Russia, as well as the object, subject, purpose and objectives of the dissertation work.
The object of research is the sociology of morality as a special sociological theory.
The subject of the research is the formation and development of the methodological foundations of the sociology of morals as a special sociological theory.
The purpose of the work is to identify and substantiate the methodological problems of the current state and prospects for the development of this special sociological theory on the basis of a sociological and historical analysis of the process of formation of the sociology of morality.
The goal set predetermines the solution of the following tasks:
To analyze the priority methodological approaches that have developed in foreign and domestic sociology of morality;
To reveal the features and main stages of the formation and development of the national sociology of morality;
Reveal the main methodological problems of the formation, development and current state of the sociology of morality;
Conduct a theoretical and methodological analysis of the object-subject field of the sociology of morality, determine its place in the structure of scientific knowledge; to systematize the conceptual and categorical apparatus of the sociology of morality; define the functions of the sociology of morality as a special sociological theory;
To analyze the features and possibilities of the study of morality by sociological methods;
Explore the social typology of various social groups depending on their attitude to morality;
Assess the attitude of various social groups to moral norms and ideals;
To identify the most stable trends in the dynamics of the value orientations of Russians;
Present conscience and tolerance as objects of sociological analysis.
The theoretical basis of the study was: the works of Durkheim, who proposed the term "sociology of morality" and most clearly expressed the tendency towards the sociologization of ethics;, M. Weber's ideas on the consideration of the moral components of social systems, the role of ethics in culture, its significance for economic development society; the concept of the unity of moral action and the moral reaction to it on the part of society P.A. Sorokin; works of V.M. Sokolov devoted to the theoretical and methodological foundations of the sociology of morality;, scientific developments in the field of value theory (W. Windelband, G. Rickert, M. Scheler, M. Heidegger, N. Hartmann, D. Hildebrand); works of representatives of structural functionalism (R. Merton, T. Parsons); studies of tolerance problems (M.P. Mchedlov, N.A. Pobeda, V.V. Shalin, V.A. Lektorsky); studies of the phenomenon of conscience (E. Fromm, 3. Freud, K.G. Jung, V. Frankl, L.P. Volchenko, T.V. Zagorulko, O.G. Drobnitsky, Z.A. Berbeshkina, A.I. Tigarenko).
The methodological basis of the study was systemic, structural-functional and value-normative approaches. In the course of the dissertation work, a multi-disciplinary approach was implemented, which makes it possible to use methodological principles and the categorical apparatus of branches of scientific knowledge related to sociology.
The main empirical methods include questionnaires, interviews, observation and analysis of documents.
The empirical basis of the dissertation work was the results of sociological research conducted by the author in the period from 1997 to 2008. The studies used in the analysis include:
1. "Features of the formation of the moral consciousness of youth." Sociological research was carried out by the method of questioning in two stages: in 1997 and in 1999 according to the author's program. The sample is a quota, representing the totality of students of the Moscow state university forests (MGUL), quota characteristics - sex, age (N = 525 people).
2. "Moral socialization of youth" - a questionnaire survey conducted in accordance with the work plan of the Scientific Sociological Laboratory at the Department of Philosophy of the Moscow State University of Education and Science in 2005 and 2006. The sample is a quota, representing the totality of students of the Moscow State University of Education and the Moscow Regional Institute of Management, Economics and Sociology (KIUES); quota signs - sex, age (N = 725 people).
3. "Dynamics of the value orientations of young people" - a questionnaire survey conducted in accordance with the plan of scientific work of the Department of Philosophy of the Moscow State University of Education and Science (1998-2008). Sample - quota, representing the totality of students of MSUL and KIUES; quota characteristics - gender, age (N = 4052 people).
4. "Social types of personality in the student environment" - a questionnaire survey carried out in accordance with the plan of scientific work of the Department of Philosophy of Moscow State University of Education and Science (2000-2002). Sample - quota, representing the totality of MSUL students; quota characteristics - gender, age (N = 452 people).
5. "Formation of ethnic tolerance among young people" - a questionnaire survey conducted in accordance with the plan of scientific work of the Department of Humanitarian and Social Disciplines of KIUES (2006, 2008). The sample is a quota, representing the totality of KIUES students and schoolchildren of the city of Korolev, Moscow Region; quota characteristics - gender, age (N = 860 people).
For the secondary analysis materials of sociological researches of domestic and foreign sociologists were used.
The above studies made it possible to empirically identify the most acute theoretical and practical problems of the functioning of morality in society, to test the ideas of the dissertation research.
The most significant results of the study and their scientific novelty are that:
An analysis of the priority methodological approaches that have developed in foreign and domestic sociology of morality has been carried out;
For the first time in Russian sociology, the main stages of the formation and development of the national sociology of morality were determined, their specificity was revealed; investigated the current state of this scientific direction;
The main methodological problems of the formation, development and current state of the sociology of morality are considered;
The author's interpretation of the object-subject area of the sociology of morality is presented; the place and role of the sociology of morality in the structure of scientific knowledge are determined; the conceptual and categorical apparatus of the sociology of morality is systematized and its interdisciplinary connections are revealed;
The social typology of various social groups has been studied depending on their attitude to morality;
The attitude of various social groups to moral norms and ideals is considered;
Analyzed current trends in the dynamics of the value orientations of Russians;
Conscience and tolerance are presented as objects of sociological analysis.
The obtained scientific results in their totality contribute to the solution of an important scientific problem - the analysis of the process of formation and development of the sociology of morality, the identification of methodological problems of the current state of this scientific direction.
The following provisions are put forward for defense:
1. The main methodological problems of the sociology of morality are: clarification of its object-subject area, structure and conceptual categorical apparatus; analysis of interdisciplinary connections of the sociology of morality and identification of the place of this scientific direction in the structure of scientific knowledge; revealing the features and possibilities of the study of morality by sociological methods; analysis within the framework of the sociology of morality of the main components of morality: moral regulation, moral relations, moral consciousness, proper and real morality; development of a scientifically based typology of the population, individual socio-demographic groups, depending on their attitude to morality; creation of own research methods and application methodological techniques developed by other disciplines.
The most important methodological principles of the analysis of morality by sociological methods are: the principle of historicism, the principle of objectivity, the principle of consistency, the principle of social determinism and the principle of empiricism, which have a certain specificity in the study of moral problems.
2. Based on the analysis of scientific discussions, it is determined that the object of the sociology of morality is morality as part of the social system, the actual functioning and development of morality in society. Based on this understanding of the object of the sociology of morality, the subject of the sociology of morality is the specificity of the functioning of morality and its main components (moral regulation, moral relations and moral consciousness) both in various social groups and institutions, and in society as a whole. The subject of the sociology of morals, unlike ethics, is not what morals and morals should be in society, but what they really are, their actual functioning in society.
3. In the structure of the sociology of morality, it is advisable to single out the following four levels of knowledge: the general philosophical level; level of theoretical sociology; the level of special sociological theory - the sociology of morality; the empirical level of the sociology of morality.
The first, general philosophical level, which is the methodological basis of the sociology of morality, includes such concepts as morality, morality, good, evil, duty, honor, ideal, values, moral imperative, conscience, tolerance.
The concepts of the second level - theoretical sociology - include: society, social institutions, social groups, social functions, social connections, social interactions, social types, socialization.
The third level - a special sociological theory - the sociology of morality includes: moral socialization, moral atmosphere, moral responsibility, value worlds of society, value orientations, moral regulation, moral relations, moral consciousness, social functions of morality, moral self-control, social effectiveness of morality, moral sanctions , moral character, anomie, deviation.
The concepts of the empirical level of the sociology of morality act as an empirical operationalization of the categories and concepts of the previous levels - these are morality, moral convictions, moral principles, moral ideas, moral norms. These concepts contribute to obtaining objective information about the real manifestation of morality in society, they are the basis of tools and methods for collecting and processing scientific information about the functioning of morality in various social institutions and social groups, as well as at the level of individual consciousness.
The most important functions of the sociology of morality are: humanistic, epistemological, information-analytical, instrumental.
4. The specificity of morality, its non-institutional nature, causes serious methodological problems, but does not serve as an obstacle to the empirical study of morality. The subject of sociological research within the framework of the sociology of morality can be: features of moral relations of individual socio-demographic and professional groups, the dynamics of their value orientations; moral aspects of socialization; social effectiveness of morality; various forms manifestations of anomia, including deviant behavior; features of the formation of individual moral consciousness; assessment by various social groups of the moral atmosphere in society; the degree of conformity of the moral norms and principles of various social groups with the norms and principles of public morality; ideas about the ideal; moral relations; study of social types of the population and individual socio-demographic groups depending on their attitude to morality; study of the features and factors of the formation of tolerance in society as a whole and in specific social groups.
5. Features of the study of morality by sociological methods are manifested in the study of morality, primarily as a component of the social system, in the study of the system of social relations between morality and society, the influence of morality on the functioning of social relations; in the study is not proper, but real situation morals in society. The goal of the sociology of morality is not the construction of ideal schemes, but a rigorous analysis of the existing reality, no matter how “wrong” or “pathological” it may be. The sociology of morality is based on empirical data and through their analysis rises to the level of theoretical generalizations. When studying the moral state of society, the sociology of morality uses empirical methods of data collection: observation, analysis of documents, mass survey, experiment, generalization of life experience, description of life and customs, etc.
6. The basis of the periodization of the national sociology of morality is the question of the subject and object of sociological research on moral problems. Historically, in the formation and development of the national sociology of morality, four main stages can be distinguished:
A sociological and historical analysis of the formation, development and current state of the sociology of morality gives reason to assert that this scientific direction is an integral part of modern domestic sociological knowledge and that, despite methodological disputes and disagreements, the necessary institutional background for the comprehensive development of the sociology of morality.
7. Using in this work the classification of social personality types, according to which it is customary to single out modal, ideal and basic personality types, the dissertation considers it necessary to add a fourth to the three types listed - a dynamic personality type, which most people living in a given society are guided by, because it corresponds to their interests and value orientations as much as possible. According to the respondents, the dynamic type of personality is characterized by: diligence, patience, professionalism, education, initiative, accuracy, caring, responsiveness, determination, independence, striving for self-improvement, self-control, kindness. Since in modern Russia the new basic personality types are still in the process of formation, the ideal types have not received a complete design, the dynamic personality type begins to play a decisive role. It is he who becomes a reference point for the majority of representatives of various social groups and society as a whole. This is especially true for young people, since the consciousness of young people, their type of behavior is still being formed in the process of socialization.
8. When focusing on the analysis of the moral values of Russians in the sociology of morality, their instability and inconsistency are noted: the interweaving in the moral consciousness and behavior of all social groups and strata of Russian society of positive changes towards freedom and the development of social initiative with apathy, passivity and dissatisfaction with one's own forces.
A study of the dynamics of the value orientations of young people, conducted by the author during 1998-2008, showed that their hierarchy last years has undergone major changes - in the minds of young people, we can trace the interweaving of traditional and innovative values. As for the dynamics of young people's value orientations, the study made it possible to identify certain trends.
First, in the moral consciousness of young people, traditional values retain their significance. Just like in the 70s and 80s. of the last century, at the top of the hierarchy of value orientations of young people are such basic values as "family", "friendship", "love". This indicator contradicts numerous statements about the crisis of the family. The family, obviously, in modern conditions acts as a refuge from social cataclysms and as the most important incentive for the development of the individual. The layer of traditional values, preserved in the minds of young people, performs the function of a protective mechanism that creates a sense of some stability.
Secondly, in the minds of young people there is active process self-determination, acquisition of new value orientations. Young people demonstrate self-reliance, individualistic values close to the Western mentality. In the minds of young people, the importance of such a value as “career” is growing. The most important conditions for achieving success in life for today's youth are: "the ability to achieve one's goal", "a good education" and "perseverance". A pronounced vector towards the modernization of values contributes to the successful adaptation of young people to the social conditions of modern Russian society.
Thirdly, a sharp decrease in the importance for young people of socially significant values, such as “respect for people”, “the ability to benefit people”, attracts attention. The lowest rating for 10 years, from 2000 to 2008, had the value of "food for the good of the Motherland."
9. The author considers conscience as the highest manifestation of individual moral consciousness. Comparative analysis of studies conducted by him in 1998-2008. with the participation of more than 3,000 students of MSUL and KIUES, revealed trends in the dynamics of students' attitudes towards such a value as a "clear conscience". On the one hand, in absolute terms, the importance of a "clear conscience" for young people has increased from 6.46 points in 1998/1999 to to 7.1 points in 2008. Along with this, in the hierarchy of value orientations, “clear conscience” has moved from
6th place in 1998/1999 ranked 12th in 2008. “Go against conscience” and “act immorally for the sake of personal material well-being about a third of the respondents considered it possible for themselves, about half of the students considered it unacceptable for themselves. Approximately every second student surveyed does not, under any circumstances, agree to go against his conscience and act immorally.
10. The attitude of young Russians towards representatives of other nationalities is becoming more and more differentiated and selective today. Respondents are most tolerant towards representatives of the leading countries of the old European culture - primarily the French and Italians, as well as some Slavic peoples historically closely connected with Russia - Belarusians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians. However, there is a whole group of ethnic groups to which the majority of Russian respondents feel antipathy. These are practically all Caucasian peoples, excluding the Armenians, who have long lived among Russians and are adapted to communicate with them. The Chechens are in the most unfavorable position in this respect. Russian youth is almost as intolerant towards the inhabitants of the Baltic countries. The significance of the study of the problems of tolerance within the framework of the sociology of morality is determined by the fact that tolerance, in the author's understanding, is the highest manifestation of morality at the level of public consciousness.
The theoretical significance of the dissertation lies in: integration of ethical and historical analysis of morality with sociological analysis contemporary problems moral development of the individual and society;
Analysis of the priority methodological approaches that have developed in foreign and domestic sociology of morality; summarizing the research conducted within the framework of the sociology of morality;
Consideration of the main methodological problems of the formation, development and current state of the sociology of morality;
Analysis of the object-subject field of the sociology of morality, identifying its place in the structure of scientific knowledge; systematization of the conceptual and categorical apparatus of the sociology of morality and the definition of its functions as a special sociological theory;
Development of a methodology and methods for empirical research of moral processes in society, which form the conceptual basis of a series of sociological surveys that make it possible to judge the state of the moral atmosphere in Russian society and the changes taking place in it.
The scientific, practical and methodological significance of the study is determined by the fact that the theoretical and methodological foundations of the sociology of morality developed in the dissertation can increase the level of methodological equipment of researchers studying the problems of the sociology of morality and help researchers of related, frontier sciences take a fresh look at the object-subject area moral sociology research.
The results obtained have become the basis for the development of practical steps for studying the moral organization of an individual, a social group, society as a whole, they contribute to the deepening of social and ethical ideas about morality and the specifics of its functioning in specific social institutions.
In the course of the study, the main problems of the formation of sociological knowledge about morality as a social phenomenon were identified. Accordingly, the tasks of developing the sociology of morality in Russia are defined and concretized, a set of theoretical and practical advice on the study of the problems of the sociology of morality.
The conclusions and materials of this study can be used for educational and methodological purposes for the preparation of special courses: "Sociology of Morals", "Methods and Techniques for the Empirical Study of Moral Problems", "Moral Foundations of Social Progress", as well as individual lectures within the framework of sociology, ethics, methodology and techniques of applied sociological research and other social and humanitarian disciplines; to develop practical recommendations for the education of young people in various educational institutions; at scientific seminars and round tables in higher educational institutions.
The theoretical provisions of the dissertation were used in the development of methodology and analysis of the results of empirical studies of the dynamics of value orientations, tolerance, the dynamics of the moral consciousness of students; when conducting practical classes in sociology, methods and techniques of sociological research at Moscow State University of Education and Science and KIUES.
The reliability and validity of the research results are provided by the clarity of the initial methodological principles; theoretically substantiated provisions; complex use of empirical methods of sociology, adequate to the object, subject, goal, objectives and logic of the study; the representativeness of the study sample of students and pupils obtained in different educational institutions. The results of the analysis of the conducted empirical research are correlated with the known experimental data of domestic and foreign scientists.
Approbation of the work and implementation of the research results.
The main provisions of the dissertation were reported and discussed at international scientific and practical conferences: "Problems of education at the turn of the XXI century: international dialogue" (Kursk, 1996), "The development of spirituality1 as the basis for the revival of Russia" (Moscow, 2000), "Man and society of the XXI century. Ideas and ideals” (Kursk, 2006, 2007). "IX Nevsky Readings" (St. Petersburg, 2007), " Regional Office and economic growth” (Korolev, 2009); at all-Russian scientific-practical and scientific-educational conferences: "Education in the spirit of patriotism, friendship of peoples, religious tolerance" (Moscow, 1999), "Znamensky Readings" (Kursk, 2007), "Modern Russia: problems of socio-economic and spiritual and political development" (Volgograd, 2008), "Tolerance in Russia: history and modernity" (Volgograd,
2008); " Scientific outlook and prospects for its development” (Moscow,
2009); "Morality of Modern Russian Society in the Context of Social Reality" (Moscow, 2009); "Education and Society" (Moscow, 2009). Progress and results - the studies were discussed at scientific conferences in MSUL (1997-2008); at the Moscow Regional Scientific and Practical Conference; dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the formation of the Moscow region (Moscow, 1999); at meetings of the Department of Philosophy of Moscow State University of Education and Science, at meetings of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and at meetings of the Academic Council of KIUES.
The research materials were used in teaching the disciplines of the social and humanitarian cycle: sociology, methods and techniques of sociological research, sociology of conflict, information and computer technologies in sociological research, ethics; when writing curricula; in the process of managing coursework, diploma and scientific work of students; when organizing and holding round tables and scientific and practical student conferences at KIUES and MSUL. The research materials formed the basis of the textbook "Sociology of Morals".
The main provisions and conclusions on the topic of the dissertation research are reflected in the author's publications with a total volume of 91 printed sheets, including 3 monographs, 6 textbooks, 29 scientific articles published in central periodicals.
The structure and volume of the dissertation are determined by the purpose, objectives and logic of the research. The work consists of an introduction, ipex chapters divided into ten paragraphs, a conclusion, a list of used literature in Russian and foreign languages, and appendices.
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Theory, methodology and history of sociology", Kirilina, Tatyana Yurievna
Conclusions on the third chapter. An analysis of the results of all-Russian research indicates that Russians are seriously concerned about the weakening of the moral foundations of modern Russian society. According to our fellow citizens, the decline in morality has become one of the biggest losses as a result of the reforms of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. Russians note an increase in aggressiveness and cynicism and, on the contrary, a weakening of such qualities as honesty, goodwill, sincerity and disinterestedness. Only 3.7% of young people who participated in a study conducted under the supervision of the author rated the moral atmosphere in modern Russian society as positive. Every third respondent expressed confidence that in order to survive in modern Russian society, morality must be forgotten. A significant part of the respondents is convinced that in Russia business and morality are incompatible concepts.
An analysis of all-Russian studies revealed the opinion of respondents that the moral revival of Russia is impossible without the help of the state. This is recognized by more than half of the youth and the vast majority of older people.
According to the results of research conducted by the author, students rate their moral qualities quite low. At the same time, the normative, desired and ideal levels of the majority of respondents are quite high, which indicates the possibility of growth in the moral consciousness of students when certain conditions are created.
In general, all-Russian studies fix two trends in the transformation of the moral system of Russian society: the renewal of the components of the normative-value structure and the preservation of the significance of basic moral values.
It can be assumed that the concern of Russians with the spiritual and moral state of society is not so much a statement of some incurable loss of roots and traditions as, on the contrary, a sign that society and its citizens are aware of the need for the moral recovery of society, and therefore are ready to embark on this path.
Based on the analysis of various approaches to understanding the phenomenon of conscience, it is defined in the dissertation as the cultivated ability of a person to evaluate his thoughts, feelings, actions through the prism of good and evil, according to the measure of universal moral values, independently formulate moral norms and principles for himself and demand from himself their implementation. .
Conscience is the highest form of manifestation of morality at the level of individual moral consciousness and is of decisive importance in the moral socialization of the individual.
Comparative analysis of studies conducted by the author in 1998-2008. revealed trends in the dynamics of students' attitudes towards the value of "clear conscience". In absolute terms, the importance of a "clear conscience" for young people increased from 6.46 points in 1998/1999 to 7.1 points in 2008. Along with this, in the hierarchy of value orientations, “clear conscience” moved from 6th place in 1998/1999 to 12th place in 2008.
Summarizing the data obtained, we can conclude that in Russia a kind of selective (selective) nationalism has arisen and is spreading more and more widely among young people. This is probably connected both with the realities of the current Russian everyday life (primarily with interethnic competition in various spheres of life), and with the assertion of post-imperial forms of Russian identity. Russian youth, especially the educated part of it, is aimed at active self-affirmation in the global space.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of various views on the current state of the sociology of morals as a special sociological branch, carried out in the dissertation, indicates that in Russian science there is a fairly common point of view, according to which the sociology of morals has a reputation as the most problematic type of sociological knowledge. The question of the possibility or even the impossibility of the existence of a sociology of morals remains one of the key questions in Russian sociology. In this regard, the actual problems are: clarification of the object-subject area, structure and categorical apparatus of the sociology of morality; analysis of its interdisciplinary connections and identification of the place of this theory in the structure of scientific knowledge; revealing the features and possibilities of the study of morality by sociological methods; analysis within the framework of the sociology of morality of the main components of morality: moral regulation, moral relations, moral consciousness, proper and real morality; development of a scientifically based typology of the population, individual socio-demographic groups, depending on their attitude to morality; creation of own research methods and application of methodological techniques developed by other disciplines.
Based on the analysis of various approaches to the interpretation of the object-subject area of the sociology of morality, the paper concludes that the object of the sociology of morality is morality as part of the social system, the actual functioning and development of morality in society. Its subject is the specifics of the functioning of morality in various social institutions and social groups of society; influence social factors on the structure of morality and its functioning in society; social effectiveness of morality; ethical aspects of socialization; various forms of manifestation of anomie, including the spread of forms of deviant behavior.
Four levels of knowledge are distinguished in the structure of the sociology of morals: the general philosophical level, the level of theoretical sociology, the level of a special sociological theory - the sociology of morals, and the empirical level of the sociology of morals. Each of them corresponds to certain concepts and categories that make up the conceptual and categorical apparatus of the sociology of morality.
The first - general philosophical - level includes such concepts as morality, morality, good, evil, duty, honor, ideal, values, moral imperative, conscience, tolerance. The concepts of the second level - theoretical sociology - include society, social institutions, social groups, social ties, social interactions, social types, socialization. The third level of a special sociological theory - the sociology of morality includes: moral consciousness, moral atmosphere, moral regulation, moral responsibility, social functions of morality, social effectiveness of morality, moral character, moral relations, moral socialization, moral self-control, moral sanctions, value worlds of society, value orientations, anomie, deviation. The concepts of the empirical level of the sociology of morality act as an empirical operationalization of the categories and concepts of the previous levels - these are morality, moral convictions, moral principles, moral ideas, moral norms. These concepts are the basis of tools and methods for collecting and processing scientific information about the functioning of morality in various social institutions and social groups, as well as at the level of individual consciousness.
The most important category of the sociology of morality is moral socialization, which is defined as the process of assimilation by an individual of moral norms and principles, the internalization of moral categories and values of society.
An analysis of the interdisciplinary connections of the sociology of morality and different points of view on its position in the system of scientific knowledge led to the conclusion that the sociology of morality, which has its own object, subject and methods of research, is a special sociological theory, although it is based on the general methodological plan on the theoretical principles of ethics.
The most important functions of the sociology of morality are humanistic, epistemological, information-analytical, and instrumental.
Disputes about the possibility of a sociological study of moral problems are still ongoing in the scientific literature, caused by the specificity of the phenomenon of morality - its extra-institutional nature. The very possibility of studying the phenomenon of morality by empirical methods is questioned.
The non-institutional nature of morality causes serious methodological problems, however, in our opinion, it does not serve as an obstacle to the empirical study of morality. The subject of sociological research within the framework of the sociology of morality can be: features of moral relations of individual socio-demographic and professional groups, the dynamics of their value orientations; assessment by various social groups of the moral atmosphere in society; the degree of conformity of the moral norms and principles of various social groups with the norms and principles of public morality; representations of various social groups about the ideal; moral aspects of socialization; social effectiveness of morality; various forms of manifestation of anomia, including deviant behavior; features of the formation of individual moral consciousness; study of social types of the population and individual socio-demographic groups depending on their attitude to morality; study of the features and factors of the formation of tolerance in society as a whole and in specific social groups, etc.
An analysis of the priority methodological approaches that have taken shape in the foreign sociology of morality has shown that structural-functional analysis is dominant in it. Foreign sociologists have made a significant contribution to the formation and development of the sociology of morals and, undoubtedly, had a great influence on the development of the sociology of morals in Russia.
The basis of the periodization of the national sociology of morality, proposed in this work, is the question of the subject and object of sociological research on moral problems. There are four main stages in the formation and development of the national sociology of morality:
1) since the 1860s. until the end of the 1920s;
2) from the beginning of the 1930s. until the end of the 1950s;
3) since the early 1960s. until the end of the 1980s;
4) since the late 1980s. until now.
During the first stage, L.I. Petrazhitsky and P.I. Novgorodtsev. The concept of the unity of moral action and the moral reaction to it on the part of society received a comprehensive justification in the integral sociology of the outstanding Russian sociologist P.A. Sorokin. 1920s became the time of the formation of domestic empirical sociology.
The second stage - from the beginning of the 1930s. until the end of the 1950s. - in the history of Russian sociology of morality, it was characterized by a complete ban on both empirical and sociological research in our country, since sociology was declared a bourgeois pseudoscience and banned for several decades.
The third stage - from the beginning of the 1960s. until the end of the 1980s. - was marked by the revival of the national sociology of morality. Methodological problems of the sociology of morality were developed in the works of L.M. Arkhangelsky, N.V. Rybakova, A.G. Kharchev and other researchers. Since the 70s of the XX century. large-scale surveys and questionnaires began to be carried out. During this period, research is being carried out on the life values of Soviet people under the guidance of V.M. Sokolov, who made a significant contribution to the development of the national sociology of morality.
In the modern period, the problems of the sociology of morality are explored in their works by G.S. Batygip, V.I. Bakshtanovsky, S.P. Paramonova, Yu.V. Sogomonov, V.M. Sokolov and others. scientists. In the post-Soviet period, Russian scientists paid special attention to the problems of changes taking place in the moral consciousness of Russians under the influence of perestroika. In recent decades, large-scale studies of moral processes have been carried out by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The values of moral consciousness have been the subject of research conducted by the Sociological Center for 15 years Russian Academy public service under the President of the Russian Federation. In general, the studies give grounds for the conclusion that one of the forms of socio-psychological adaptation of people to reality has become their social mimicry, that is, a network of correction of views, value orientations, norms of behavior in accordance with the standards of new relationships.
Based on the analysis of the main methodological approaches that have developed in the domestic sociology of morality, it can be argued that the value-normative approach is dominant in it, which makes it possible to link together the action of external factors that determine human behavior (values, norms) with internal value orientations, motives, goals. etc.) and showing how external factors are internalized by a person in the process of his socialization and act as the motivating forces of his behavior.
A sociological and historical analysis of the formation, development and current state of the sociology of morals proves that this scientific direction is an integral part of modern domestic sociological knowledge and that, despite methodological disputes and disagreements, the necessary institutional prerequisites for the comprehensive development of the sociology of morals have been formed in modern domestic sociology.
As a result of the generalization of the available theoretical data on the social typology of personality, the classification of social personality types, according to which it is customary to distinguish modal, ideal and basic types, is supplemented by a fourth - dynamic personality type. This is the type of personality that most people living in this society are guided by, since it best suits their interests and value orientations. According to the respondents, such qualities as diligence, patience, professionalism, education, initiative, accuracy, caring, responsiveness, determination, independence, self-improvement, self-control, kindness are characteristic of the dynamic type of personality.
Since the new basic personality types in modern Russia are still in the process of formation, and the ideal types have not received their final form, the dynamic personality type plays a decisive role today. It is he who becomes a guide for the majority of representatives of various social groups and society as a whole, and, first of all, for young people.
An analysis of the results of our study shows that modern Russian youth is focused on social type, which is most well adapted to the transformations taking place in modern Russia. Young people are well aware that without initiative, determination and independence it is impossible to achieve a decent social position in society and succeed in life.
The results of all-Russian studies demonstrate the concern of a significant number of Russians about the weakening of the moral foundations of modern Russian society. Our fellow citizens are convinced that the decline in morality was one of the biggest losses as a result of the reforms of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Russians sharply negatively evaluate changes in relations between people, noting the growth of aggressiveness and cynicism and, on the contrary, the weakening of such qualities as honesty, goodwill, sincerity and disinterestedness.
In general, all-Russian studies record two trends in the transformation of the moral system of Russian society: the renewal of the components of the normative-value structure and a noticeable strengthening of the significance of pre-existing moral values.
Young people are traditionally much more inclined to rely on their own strength and demonstrate independence from anyone, including the state. However, in a situation where public morality is going through far from prosperous times, among young people the main hopes for its strengthening are today associated with the Russian state.
According to nationwide surveys, many Russians admit that the difficulties they face in various areas of life force them to take a serious "inventory" of values. As a result, most young people are forced to admit that their success in life largely depends on the ability to turn a blind eye to their own principles in time, and agree with the thesis that “the modern world is cruel, and in order to succeed in life, sometimes you have to transcend moral principles and norms. ".
An analysis of contemporary all-Russian studies shows that, forced to adapt to constantly changing conditions of life, many Russians, especially young people, noticeably “succeeded” in the art of circumventing the norms dictated by society and the state. The younger generation is indeed somewhat behind the older one in terms of involvement in the spiritual and moral context of the life of our society, treating many things more easily, without excessive reflection. The majority of Russians justify such actions as resistance to the police, appropriation of found things and money, evasion of military service, ticketless travel in public transport. It can be stated that these immoral actions have passed into the category of socially acceptable. Actions prohibited for Russians include: poor upbringing, abandonment of children; drug use; homosexuality; public manifestation of hostility towards representatives of other nationalities; animal abuse. Greater loyalty, in comparison with older people, was shown by young people to enrichment at the expense of others, rudeness, rudeness and the use of obscene language, drunkenness and alcoholism, business non-obligation and prostitution.
On the basis of his own sociological research and a comparative analysis of data from a number of studies of the attitude of various social groups to moral norms, carried out on representative all-Russian samples, the dissertation concludes that, in general, pessimistic diagnoses of the moral destruction of Russian society are still premature and far from being true. Traditional values and meanings, norms, everyday rules of human society are still relevant for our fellow citizens, including young people. On a number of issues, the position of young Russians is quite close to the generally accepted one, and in terms of the norms of family relations, they are even more demanding than the generation of “fathers”.
Long-term observations of the dynamics of the value orientations of young people make it possible to assert that young people are primarily oriented towards privacy and personal values. In the minds of young respondents, socially significant values give way to individually significant ones. The dissertation emphasizes that the closure of a person in his own "small" world is an important prerequisite for his adaptation to social reality. However, it is also a kind of isolation from society in the circle of their own interests.
In the minds of young people there is an active process of self-determination, acquisition of new value orientations. Young people demonstrate self-reliance, individualistic values close to the Western mentality. The importance for young people of such a value as "career" is growing. The most important conditions for achieving success in life for today's youth are "the ability to achieve one's goal", "a good education" and "perseverance". A pronounced vector towards the modernization of values contributes to the successful adaptation of young people to the social conditions of modern Russian society.
When analyzing the moral values of Russians, one should note their instability and inconsistency: the interweaving in the moral consciousness and behavior of all social groups and strata of Russian society of apathy, passivity and dissatisfaction with one's own forces with positive changes towards freedom and the development of social initiative.
Supreme form manifestations of morality at the level of individual moral consciousness is conscience, which is of decisive importance in the moral socialization of the individual.
Based on the analysis of various approaches to understanding the phenomenon of conscience, in this work it is defined as the cultivated ability of a person to evaluate his thoughts, feelings, actions through the prism of good and evil, according to the measure of universal moral values, independently formulate moral norms and principles for himself and demand them from himself. execution.
A comparative analysis of studies conducted in 1998-2008 with the participation of more than 3,000 students of MSUL and KIUES revealed trends in the dynamics of students' attitudes towards the value of "clear conscience". In absolute terms, the importance of a "clear conscience" for young people increased from 6.46 points in 1998/1999 to 7.1 points in 2008. Along with this, in the hierarchy of value orientations, “clear conscience” moved from 6th place in 1998/1999 to 12th place in 2008. About a third of the respondents considered it possible for themselves to go against conscience and act immorally for the sake of personal material well-being, and about half of the students considered this unacceptable for themselves. Approximately every second student surveyed does not, under any circumstances, agree to go against his conscience and act immorally.
The significance of the study of the problems of tolerance within the framework of the sociology of morality is determined by the fact that tolerance is the highest manifestation of morality at the level of public consciousness. Tolerance is a key spiritual and moral principle of civil society and is based on the recognition and respect for universal human rights and freedoms.
As a result of studying the features and factors of the formation of ethnic tolerance, its rather high level at the youth. Almost half of the respondents are completely tolerant in interpersonal relations with people of other nationalities, although an intolerant view of representatives of some nationalities has been revealed.
The most preferable for the respondents were representatives of the leading countries of the old European culture - the French and Italians, as well as some historically closely connected with Russia Slavic peoples - Belarusians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians. However, there is a whole group of ethnic groups to which the majority of Russian respondents feel antipathy. First of all, these are practically all Caucasian peoples, excluding Armenians, and residents of the Baltic countries.
At the same time, the analysis of the results of the study of the problem of the formation of ethnic tolerance among young people revealed that the vast majority of students and schoolchildren who took part in the survey are aware of the need to develop this quality in themselves, which indicates that there is a certain potential for increasing the level of tolerance among young people and adolescents and harmonization of relations between representatives of different nationalities.
Summarizing the data obtained, we can conclude that in Russia a kind of “selective” (selective) nationalism has arisen and is spreading more and more widely among young people. This is probably connected both with the realities of the current Russian everyday life (primarily with interethnic competition in various spheres of life), and with the assertion of post-imperial forms of Russian identity. Russian youth, especially the educated part of it, is aimed at active self-affirmation in the global space.
On the basis of the study, it can be argued that, despite methodological disputes and disagreements, the sociology of morals is, of course, an integral part of domestic sociological knowledge and that the necessary institutional prerequisites for its comprehensive development have been formed in modern domestic sociology. The sociology of morality as a system of knowledge is based on the empirical study of the facts of the real manifestation of morality in society, in social reality, and its theoretical generalizations are linked together on the basis of fundamental principles for interpreting the features of the functioning of morality, both in society as a whole and in individual social groups.
In general, the results obtained in the dissertation in their totality contribute to the solution of an important scientific problem - the analysis of the process of formation and development of the sociology of morality, the identification of methodological problems of the current state and prospects for the development of this special sociological theory.
List of references for dissertation research Doctor of Sociological Sciences Kirilina, Tatyana Yurievna, 2009
1. Anurin V.F. Dynamic sociology: Tutorial for higher education / V.F. Anurin. M. : Academic Project, 2003. - 295 p.
2. Anurin V.F. Empirical sociology: Textbook for universities / V.F. Anurin. M. : Academic project, 2003, - 288 p.
3. Anurii V.F. Institutional problems of modern Russia: materials of the V region, scientific. conf. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhegor. commercial in-t, 2006.-p. 36-45
4. Anurin V.F. Intellectual training / V.F. Apurin. -M.: Acad. Project, 2005. 298 p.
5. Anurin V.F. Marketing research of the consumer market: Unique. fatherly experience: Proc. allowance for university students / V.F. Anurin. SPb. and others: Peter: Peter Print, 2004. - 320 p.
6. Apresyan R.G. The idea of morality and basic normative-ethical programs / R.G. Apresyan. M.: RAN. Institute of Philosophy, 1995 - 353 p.
8. Arkhangelsky L.M. Socio-ethical problems of personality theory / L.M. Arkhangelsky. M.: Thought, 1974. - 218 p.
9. Arkhangelsky L.M. A course of lectures on Marxist-Leninist ethics / L.M. Arkhangelsk. M. : Higher school, 1974. - 317 p.
10. Arkhangelsky L.M. Methodology ethical research/ L.M. Arkhangelsky. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. - 382 e.
11. Babosov E.M. Sociology in texts. Reader: Textbook for university students / E. M. Babosov. Mn. : Tetra System, 2003. -352 p.
12. Babosov E.M. Applied sociology: Proc. Handbook for university students. 2nd ed., stereotype / E. M. Babosov. Mn. : "TetraSystems", 2001.-496 p.
13. Babosov E.M. Sociology: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Foreword by GV Osipov. M.: Book house "LIBROKOM", 2009.-480 p.
14. Bakshtanovskiy V.I., Sogomonov Yu.V. The moral choice of a journalist / V.I. Bakshtanovsky, Yu.V. Sogomonov. Tyumen: Research Institute of Applied Ethics Tsogu. - 2002. - 442 p.
15. Bakshtanovskiy V.I., Sogomonov Yu.V. Sociology of morality: normative-value systems // sociological research. M. - 2003. - No. 5. - P.8-20.
16. Bakshtanovskiy V.I., Sogomonov Yu.V. Civil Society: New Ethics / V.I. Bakshtanovsky, Yu.V. Sogomonov. Tyumen: Research Institute of Applied Ethics of Tsogu, 2003. - 450 p.
17. Bakshtanovskiy V.I., Sogomonov Yu.V. Civil society: the ethics of public arenas / V.I. Bakshtanovsky, Yu.V. Sogomonov. - Tyumen: Research Institute of Applied Ethics Tsogu, 2004. 412 p.
18. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Applied ethics and moral creativity: the concept of humanitarian expertise and counseling / V.I. Bakshtanovsky. Tyumen: IPOS, 1990. - 69 p.
19. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Applied ethics ecumene: models of new development / V.I. Bakshtanovsky. Tyumen: Oil and Gas University, 2007.
20. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Applied ethics: a reflexive biography of the direction / V.I. Bakshtanovsky. Tyumen: Research Institute of Applied Ethics Tsogu. - 2007. - 455 p.
21. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Ethics and ethos of education: sociodynamics of contexts / V.I. Bakshtanovsky. - Tyumen: Oil and gas up-t, 2002. -256 p.
22. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Introduction to applied ethics / V.I. Bakshtanovsky. Tyumen: Oil and Gas University. - 2006. - 430 p.
23. Bakshtanovskiy V.I. Profession ethics: mission, code, deed / V.I. Bakshtanovsky Tyumen: Express, 2005. - 389 p.
24. Bandzeladze G. Ethics / G. Bandzeladze. ed. 2nd. Tbilisi: Sabchota sakartvelo, 1970. - 468 p.
25. Bandura A. Social learning theory / A. Bandura. SPb. : Eurasia, 2000. - 318 p.
26. Batygin G.S. How impossible is the sociology of morality // Justification of morality: Sat. scientific articles: To the 70th anniversary of Professor Yu.V. Sogomonov / Ed. Ed. V.I.Bakshtanovsky, A.IO. Sogomonov. M., Tyumen: Express. - 2000, pp. 108-119.
27. Batygin G.S. Lectures on the methodology of sociological research / G.S. Batygin. M. : Russian University of Friendship of Peoples, 2008. -285 p.
28. Batygin G.S. History of sociology: a textbook on the discipline "Sociology" for students of humanitarian and socio-economic specialties and areas of training / G.S. Batygin. M. : Higher Education and Science, 2007. - 285 p.
29. Batygin G.S. Social sciences in post-Soviet Russia / G.S. Batygin. M. : Acad. project, 2005. - 310 p.
30. Bauman 3. Globalization. Consequences for a person and society / 3. Bauman. -M.: Logos. 2007. - 310 p.
31. Bauman 3. Individualized society / 3. Bauman. Per. With. English Ed. V.L. Inozemtseva. M.: Logos, 2005. - 325 p.
32. Bauman 3. Thinking Sociologically: Textbook / 3. Bauman. M. : Aspect Press, 1996. - 255 p.
33. Bauman 3. Fluid modernity / 3. Bauman. M. : Piter, 2008. - 240 p.
34. Bauman 3. Freedom / 3. Bauman. M.: Liberal Foundation, mission: New publishing house, 2006. - 395 p.
35. Bachinin V.A. “Sociomoral contradiction as a philosophical and sociological problem. (Methodological foundations of sociology of morals) ”Author. diss. for an apprenticeship degree of doctor of sociological sciences / V.A. Bachinin. Kharkiv. - 1991. -42 p.
36. Bachinin V.A. Sociology. Encyclopedic Dictionary / V.A. Bachinin. SPb. : Publishing House of Mikhailov V.A., 2005. - 288s.
37. Bachinin V.A. Christian thought: sociology, political theology, cultural studies / V.A.Bachinin. SPb. : New & Old Publishers, 2005.
38. Bachinin V.A. Religious studies / V.A.Bachinin. SPb. : Publishing house Mikhailov V.A. , 2005. - 287 p.
39. Bachinin V.A. National idea for Russia: choice between Byzantism, evangelism and secularism: historical essays political theology and cultural anthropology / V.A.Bachinin. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2005. - 412 p.
40. Bachinin V.A. Ethics: encyclopedic dictionary / V.A.Bachinin. St. Petersburg: V. A. Mikhailov Publishing House, 2005.
41. Baines D. Moral of the XXI century: translation from Spanish / D. Baines. M. : Scientific book, 2007. - 318 p.
42. Bentham I. Introduction to the foundations of morality and legislation / T. Bentham. M. : ROSSPEN, 1998. - 415 p.
43. Berbeshkina Z.A. Conscience as an ethical category / Z.A. Berbeshkin. M.: Higher School, 1986.-103 p.
44. Berger P.L. Person-oriented sociology / P.L. Berger. M. : Academic project, 2004. - 605 p.
45. Berne R. The development of self-concept and education / R. Berne. Per. e English; Tot. ed. and intro. article by V.Ya. Pilipovsky. - M. : Progress, 1986 - 420 p.
46. Bibliography B.C. Thinking as creativity: Introduction to the logic of mental dialogue /V. S. Bibler. M. : Politizdat, 1975. - 399 p.
47. Bibler B.C. Moral. Culture. Modernity. (Philosophical reflections on life problems) // Ethical Thought: Scientific Publicistic Readings. -M.: Politizdat, 1990. S.16-58.
48. Bibler V. S. Designs / V. S. Bibler. M.: Publishing house. Center of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2002. - 433 p.
49. Boikov V. E. People and power. Results of sociological monitoring: 1998-2005 / V.E. Boyko. M. : Publishing House of the RAGS, 2006. - 174 p.
50. Big explanatory sociological dictionary (Collins). T.l (A-O): Per. from English. M. : Veche, ACT, 1999. - 544 p.
51. Big explanatory sociological dictionary (Collins). V.2 (P-Y); Per. from English. M. : Veche, ACT, 2001.- 528 p.
52. Bratus B.S. Personality anomaly / B.S. Brother. M. : Thought, 1988.-304 p.
53. Bratus B.S. Moral consciousness of personality / B.S. Brother. -M. : Knowledge, 1985.-64 p.
54. Bratus B.S. Psychology of moral consciousness in the context of cultures / B.S. Brother. M. : Manager, Rospedagenstvo, 1994, - 60 p.
55. Bacon F. New organon. / F. Bacon. Riga: Zvaigzne, 1989.
56. Vasyulin V.A. Logic of History: Questions of Theory and Methodology / V.A. Vasyulin. M. : Iz-vo Mosk. Univ., 1988. 328 p.
57. Weber. M. Selected works / M. Weber. M. : Nauka, 1990.-490 p.
58. Weber. M. History of economy. Exchange and its meaning / M. Weber. -M. : Kuchkovo field, 2007. 576 p.
59. Weber. M. Favorites: Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism / M. Weber. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2006. - 610 p.
60. Windelband V. Preludes. Philosophical articles and speeches / V. Windelband. In book: Selected. Spirit and history. - M. : Thought, 1995. -152 p.
61. Volchenko JI.B. Marxist-Leninist ethics about conscience and ways of its formation. Abstract of diss. cand. philosophy Sciences / L.B. Volchenko. M., 1964.- 16 p.
62. Galanova G. E. Modern ethics: Russian reality and forecasts: Materials of Vseros. scientific-practical. conference, 14 -15 Nov. 2003, IEPM, Kazan. Kazan: Taglimat, 2003. - 255 p.
63. Galkin A.A., Krasin Yu.A. Culture of Tolerance before the Challenges of Globalization // Sociological Studies. - M. 2003. - No. 8. - S. 64-74.
64. Ganzhin V.T., Sogomonov Yu.V. Ethics and management of moral processes and ethical and applied research / V.T. Ganzhin, Yu.V. Sogomonov. Novosibirsk, 1980, - p. 17.
65. Hartman N. Ethics / N. Hartman. SPb. : "Vladimir Dal"; "University Fund", 2002. - 707 p.
66. Gernet M.N. Selected works / M.N. Gernet. M.: Legal literature, 1974. - 250 p. ■
67. Giddens E. Organization of society: Essay on the theory of structuration / E. Giddens. M. : Academic project, 2003. - 525 p.
68. Giddens E. Sociology / With the participation of C. Birdsall. Ed. 2nd, M. : Editorial URSS, 2005. 632.
69. Hildebrand D. fon. Ethics / D. von Hildebrand. SPb. : , 2001.- 360 p.
70. Golovko N.A. Freedom and moral responsibility / N.A. Golovko. -M.: Knowledge, 1973.-63 p.
71. Gorshkov M.K. Russian society in the conditions of transformation ( sociological analysis) / M.K. Gorshkov. M. : ROS-SPEN, 2000. - 527 p.
72. Citizens of the new Russia: who do they feel themselves to be and in what society would they like to live? (1998-2004) Analytical report. M. : AIRO-XX, 2005.- 176 p.
73. Grechko P.K. Human practice: Experience of philosophical and methodological analysis / P.K. Grechko. - M .: From the University of Friendship of Peoples, 1998, - 151 p.
74. Grigoriev A.A. Formation of social order in a military organization: dissertation for the academic title of Doctor of Sociological Sciences: 22.00.08. M. RAGS, 2004. - 420 p.
75. Gumilyov J1.H. Rhythms of Eurasia / Jl. N. Gumilyov. M. : Progress, 1993.-575 p.
76. Gumilev JT.H. Ethnosphere. The history of people and the history of nature / L. N. Gumilyov. M. : SZKEO "Crystal": ACT, 2002. - 571 p.
77. Huseynov A.A. Language and conscience. Fav. social-phil. Journalism / A.A. Huseynov. M. : IF RAN, - 1996. - 184 p.
78. Guseynov A.A. Philosophy. Morality. Politics / A.A. Huseynov. -M.: Akademkniga, 2002. 300 p.
79. Huseynov A.A., Apresyan R.G. Ethics: Textbook / A.A. Huseynov. -M.: Gardariki, 2002. 472.
80. Devyatko I.F. Methods of sociological research / I.F. Nine. 3rd ed. - M.: KDU, 2003. - 296 p.
81. Demin M.V. The nature of activity / M.V. Demin. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1984. - 168 p.
82. Demichev V.A. social life and public consciousness, mechanisms of their relationship / V.A.Demichev. Chisinau: From the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Moldova, 1969. - 216 p.
83. Dynamics of the values of the population of the reformed Russia / Otv. ed. N.I. Lapin, L.A. Belyaeva. M.: Editorial URSS, 1996. -224 p.
84. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Fundamental Sociology: In 15 vols., - Vol. 1 M.: Infra-M, 2003. - 1040 p.
85. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Methods of sociological research: Textbook / V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko. M.: INFRA-M, 2004.-768 p.
86. Dobrenkov V.I. Social anthropology: textbook: for students of higher educational institutions / V.I. Dobrenkov. - M.: INFRA-M, 2008. - 688 p.
87. Drobnitsky O.G. The concept of morality / O.G. Drobnitsky. M.: Nauka, 1974.-386 p.
88. LIST OF USED LITERATURE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES
89. Allport G. Personality: Psychological Interpretation.- N.Y. 1937.
90. A moral of personality. N.Y., 1981.
91. Aysenck H. Psychology is about people. L., 1972.
92. Bandura A. Social learning theory. N.Y., 1971.
93. Bauman Z. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993
94. Bauman Z. Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995.
95. Blasi A. Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical of review of literature // Psychologicel Bulletin. 1980 V. 88. 1 P. 1-45.
96. Boaly F., Moore M. Extended Deliberation: Definitions of Sociology (1951-1970) // Sociology and Social Research. 1972 Vol. 56. P. 433-439.
97. Broom L., Selznick Ph. sociology. Harper and Row, 1968. P.3.
98. Bronfenbrenner U.Two worlds of childhood.N.Y., 1971.
99. Bull N. Moral education.!., 1969.
100. Dewey J. Theory of Valuation. Chicago, 1939.
101. Dressier D. Sociology: The Study of Human Interaction. N.Y. , 1969. P3.
102. Eckenwiler L. The Ethics of bioethics: mapping the moral landscape. -Baltimore: Johns Hopkins univ., 2007.
103. Eskin M. Ethics and dialogue: In the works of Levinas, Bakhtin, Mandel "shtam, a. Celan- Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 2000.
104Eysenk H.J. Crime and Personality N.Y., 1970.
105. Eysenck H. Psychology is about people. L., 1972.
106. Gilligan J.J. The death of morality N.Y., 1978.
107. Gilligan J. Beyond morality: Psychoanalitik reflections on schame, guilt and love. N.Y., 1976.
108. Garbarino J., Bronfenbrenner U. The socialization if moral judgment and behavior in crosscultural perspective, N.Y., 1976.
109. Gilligan J. Beyond morality: Psychoanalitik reflections on schame, guilt and love. N.Y., 1976.
110. Hollander P. Soviet and American Society. A comparison. N.Y., 1973.
111. Inkels A. What is Sociology? Prentice-Hall, 1964, p. 25.
112. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. The McMillan Company and the Free Press, 1968. Vol. 15. P.l
113. Introdaction in psychology. Geneva: Cosmopress, 1990.
114. Johnson H. Sociology: A Systematic Introduction. Hareourt, Bronc and Word, 1960. P.2.
115. Kohlberg L. Recent research in moral development. N.Y., 1977.
116. Levy-Bruhl L. La morale et science de moeurs. Paris, 1903.
117. Lickona T. Moral development and behavior. N.Y., 1976.
118. Loevinger J. Ego development. San Francisco, 1976.
119. Luhmann N. Risk: A Sociological Theory. N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter? Inc., 1993.
120 Maslow A.H. Toward a Psychology of Being, Princeton, G.J., Van Nostrand., 1962.
121. Merton R. Social Theory and Social Structure. N.Y., 1957
122. Merton R. Sociological Theory / N.Y. Aldine de Gruyter, Inc., 1993.
123. Merton R. Sociological Ambivalcnc. N.Y. ,1976.
124. Michel W. Introduction to personality. N.Y. ,1971.
125. Moral education: Interdisciplinari approaches. Toronto, 1971.
126. Ossowska M. Soziologia moralnosci. Warsz., 1963.
127. Ossowska M. Normy moraine. Warzawa, 1970.
128. Piagct J. The moral judgment of the child. L., 1932.
129. Pfurtner, Stephan H., erste Auflage 1978, Zur wissenschaftlichen Begriindung der Moral. In: Theoretietechnik und Moral. Hrsg. von Niklas1.hmann und Stephan H. Pfurtner. suhrkamp taschebbuch wissenschaft 206. Frankfurt a. M.
130. Quigley M. Encyclopedia of ethics information and security. Hershey, Pa.; New York: Inform, science ref., cop. 2008.
131. Reich Ch. The greening of America. N.Y., 1972.
132. Rodgers C.R., On Becoming a Person, Houghton-Miffin, 1961.
133. Ross A. Kritik der sogenannten praktischen Erkenntnis, Upsala, 1933.
134. Schopenhauer A. Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Moscow: ACT: Astrel, 2006
135. Shaw D. Genetic morality. Bern, 2006.
136. Simmel G. Einletung in die Moralwissenschaft. Berlin, 1892.
137. Skinner B.F. Beyond freedom and dignity. Harmonworth, 1971.
138. Social science and social welfare.N.Y. ,1977.
139. Social Surveys // Gallup Ltd. 1974.
140. Society and Culture/Ed. By F.S. Merill. Prentice Hall, 1965. P. 9.
141. Steady Quide to Accompany. N.Y., 1977. P 3; Smith R., Preston F. Sociology. N.Y., 1977. P.6.
142. Tomeh A. K. Moral Values in a cross cultural perspective // Journal of Social Psychology. 1978 Vol. 174.
143. Touraine A. The self production of society / Alain Touraine; Transl. by Derek Coltman The self - production of society. -Chicago; London: Univ. of Chicado press, Cop. 1977.
144. Touraine A. The postindustrial society Tomorrow "s social history: classes, conflicts a. culture in the programmed soc. / Alain Touraine; Transl. by Leonard F.X. Mayhew The postindustrial society. N. Y .: Random house, Cop. 1971.
145. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. USA, 1985. P. 1723.
146. Williams J. The ethics of territorial borders: drawing lines in the shifting sand. Basingstoke, Hants.; N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
147 Woods S. J. Introductory Sociology. Harper and Row, 1966. P.l.
148. Wright D. Morality and religion a review of empirical studies || Rationalist Annual L., 1973.
149. Wright D. The psychology of moral behavior. Baltimore, 1971.
150. Yankelovich D. New rules: searching of selffunlfiument in the twined unsidedown world. N.Y., 1981.
151. Zimmermann J. Ethik und Moral als Problem der Literatur und Litcraturwissenschaft / hrsg. von Jutta Zimmermann u. Britta Salheiser Ethik und Moral als Problem der Literatur und Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt, 2006.
Please note that the above scientific texts are posted for review and obtained through recognition original texts dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors associated with the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
The modern socio-cultural context of understanding and using the concept of "tolerance" is characterized by a number of features. On the one hand, there is a constant direct interaction of different ethnic, religious and political views of population groups, associated with the multicultural society. On the other hand, as a result of this process, there is an increase in interest in issues of national identification and religious self-determination, expressed in the desire to preserve one's identity, to demonstrate the real or imaginary advantages of one's social group, which, in turn, strengthens the mood of isolation and manifestations of intolerance towards "other".
The scientific discourse of tolerance problems is represented by the works of scientists from various areas of socio-humanitarian knowledge, but there is no understanding of tolerance as an integral phenomenon in them. This is due to a number of difficulties that researchers face when considering the phenomenon of tolerance. So, some difficulties arise even when trying to give a clear definition of the category, which greatly complicates the analysis (including sociological) of the content of the phenomenon of tolerance. Most scientific works are devoted to certain types of tolerance: for example, ethnic, political, religious, which actualizes the appeal to a comprehensive sociological analysis of the problem of tolerance.
The term "tolerance" in a similar sound exists in almost all languages. There are two concepts in the Russian language: tolerance and its Russian analogue - tolerance, denoting a property or quality, the ability to endure something or someone only out of mercy, indulgence. Sometimes tolerance is interpreted as a moral quality that characterizes the attitude to the interests, beliefs, habits and behavior of other people and is expressed in the desire to achieve mutual understanding and harmonization of heterogeneous interests and points of view without the use of pressure, mainly by methods of explanation and persuasion. The definition of tolerance as a social norm is presented in the UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance: “Tolerance is a value and a social norm of civil society, manifested in the right of all citizens to be different; ensuring stable harmony between different confessions, political, ethnic and other social groups; respect for the diversity of the world's different cultures, civilizations and peoples; willingness to understand and cooperate with people who differ in appearance, language, beliefs, customs and beliefs. The presented definitions, in our opinion, characterize the category of tolerance in two different planes: at the macro and micro levels. In this regard, the statement of J. Habermas is of interest, who speaks of English tolerance as a virtue, German tolerance as a legal act, and Russian tolerance as embodying both. Developing this idea, we assume that at the macro level, tolerance should be considered as a norm, attitude and value of society, a “culture of peace”, which is regulated and secured by rights and laws, as a formalized general scientific category. Tolerance at the micro level is a moral quality of the individual, the foundations of which are laid in its inner essence, and which is realized, first of all, in the microsociety, forms and determines the attitude and behavior of the individual towards "others" - real or potential social partners, different in their social positions. , ambitions, resources of meanings, cultural skills and landmarks. The phenomenon of tolerance consists in the manifestation by an individual through tolerance / intolerance to the “other” of his attitude to the reality surrounding him, and the surrounding reality, in turn, predetermines his attitude to the “other”.
In the context of sociological analysis, it seems possible to consider tolerance as a specific social value, embodied under certain conditions in specific models of social interactions between individuals and groups of individuals. With such interaction, the subject of tolerance (individual), depending on the object of tolerance (distinctive feature), determines the object of a tolerant attitude (“other”), showing him a certain model, form, measure and limit of tolerance, and as an extreme position - intolerance. The selection by researchers of various forms and types of tolerance is associated with the rarity of the manifestation of “ideal” tolerance, while the forms of a tolerant attitude, which is an indispensable condition for the existence of a person in society, in our everyday interactions can be of the most diverse nature. Therefore, the tolerance of a person can have an exclusively external character and act as a norm, a value that regulates behavior, while an individual may disagree internally, and what he feels at the same time, as he explains his position, affects the tolerance he has shown. Promising areas of sociological analysis can be the classification of models and types of tolerance, the characteristics of the subjects of tolerant practices, the factors that determine the content and specifics of the process of tolerance formation.
Literature: 1. Dictionary of Ethics / [ed. A. A. Huseynov and I. S. Kona]. - M. : Politizdat, 1989. - 447 p. 2. Declaration of principles of tolerance. Adopted by a resolution of the General Conference of UNESCO on November 16, 1995. [Electronic resource] - Access mode: www.un.org. 3. Habermas Y. When should we be tolerant? On the competition of visions of the world, values and theories / J. Habermas // Sociological research. - 2006. - No. 1. - P. 45-54.
Kutyanin Alexander
Kharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazin
(Ukraine, Kharkiv)
A ship at a crossroads: the commissioning of the Ivan Gren large landing ship is not a dot, but an ellipsis ... Landing ship Ivan Gren of project 11711
How the USSR fought in Angola
International relations on the eve of World War II