The role of personality in the history of philosophy briefly. The person who influenced the course of history: examples. People who changed the course of world history. The people are the creator of history

There are a lot of people who have changed the world. These are well-known doctors who came up with cures for diseases and learned how to perform complex operations; politicians who started wars and conquered countries; astronauts who first orbited the Earth and set foot on the Moon and so on. There are thousands of them, and it is impossible to tell about all of them. This article lists only a small part of these geniuses, thanks to which scientific discoveries, new reforms and trends in art appeared. They are individuals who changed the course of history.

Alexander Suvorov

The great commander, who lived in the 18th century, became a cult person. He is a person who influenced the course of history with his mastery of strategy and skillful planning of war tactics. His name is inscribed in golden letters in the annals of Russian history, he is remembered as a tireless brilliant military commander.

Alexander Suvorov devoted his entire life to battles and battles. He is a member of seven wars, led 60 battles, not knowing defeat. His literary talent manifested itself in a book in which he teaches the younger generation the art of warfare, shares his experience and knowledge. In this area, Suvorov was ahead of his era for many years ahead.

His merit, first of all, is that he improved the tendencies of warfare, developed new methods of offensives and attacks. All his science was based on three pillars: onslaught, speed and eye. This principle developed in the soldiers a sense of purpose, the development of initiative and a sense of mutual assistance in relation to their colleagues. In battles, he always went ahead of ordinary soldiers, showing them an example of courage and heroism.

Catherine II

This woman is a phenomenon. Like all other personalities who influenced the course of history, she was charismatic, strong and intelligent. She was born in Germany, but in 1744 she came to Russia as a bride for the Empress' nephew, Grand Duke Peter III. Her husband was uninteresting and apathetic, they almost did not communicate. Catherine spent all her free time reading legal and economic works, she was captured by the idea of ​​the Enlightenment. Having found her like-minded people at court, she easily overthrew her husband from the throne and became the full-fledged ruler of the Russian Empire.

The period of her reign is called "golden" for the nobility. The ruler reformed the Senate, took church lands into the state treasury, which enriched the state and made life easier for ordinary peasants. In this case, the influence of the individual on the course of history implies the adoption of a mass of new legislative acts. On account of Catherine: the provincial reform, the expansion of the rights and freedoms of the nobility, the creation of estates following the example of Western European society and the restoration of Russia's authority throughout the world.

Peter the First

Another ruler of Russia, who lived a hundred years earlier than Catherine, also played a huge role in the development of the state. He is not just a person who influenced the course of history. Peter 1 became a national genius. He was hailed as an educator, "the light of the era", the savior of Russia, a man who opened the eyes of the common people to the European style of life and government. Remember the phrase "window to Europe"? So, it was Peter the Great who "cut through" it to spite all envious people.

Tsar Peter became a great reformer, his changes in the foundations of the state at first frightened the nobility, and then aroused admiration. This is a person who influenced the course of history by the fact that, thanks to him, progressive discoveries and achievements of Western countries were introduced into "hungry and unwashed" Russia. Peter the Great managed to expand the economic and cultural boundaries of his empire, conquered new lands. Russia was recognized as a great power and appreciated its role in the international arena.

Alexander II

After Peter the Great, this was the only tsar who began to carry out such large-scale reforms. His innovations completely updated the face of Russia. Like other famous personalities who changed the course of history, this ruler deserved respect and recognition. The period of his reign falls on the XIX century.

The main achievement of the king was in Russia, which hampered the economic and cultural development of the country. Of course, the predecessors of Alexander II, Catherine the Great and Nicholas the First, also thought about the elimination of a system very similar to slavery. But none of them dared to turn the foundations of the state upside down.

Such drastic changes took place rather late, as a revolt of discontented people was already brewing in the country. In addition, reforms stalled in the 1880s, which angered the revolutionary youth. The reformer tsar became the target of their terror, which led to the end of the transformation and completely influenced the development of Russia in the future.

Lenin

Vladimir Ilyich, a famous revolutionary, a person who influenced the course of history. Lenin led a revolt in Russia against the autocracy. He led the revolutionaries to the barricades, as a result of which Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown and the communists came to power in the state, whose rule spanned a whole century and led to significant, cardinal changes in the lives of ordinary people.

Studying the works of Engels and Marx, Lenin advocated equality and condemned capitalism in every possible way. The theory is good, but in practice it was difficult to implement, since the representatives of the elite still lived, bathing in luxury, and ordinary workers and peasants worked hard around the clock. But that was later, but at the time of Lenin, at first glance, everything turned out the way he wanted it to.

During the reign of Lenin, such important events as the First World War, the Civil War in Russia, the cruel and ridiculous execution of the entire royal family, the transfer of the capital from St. Petersburg to Moscow, the founding of the Red Army, the complete establishment of Soviet power and the adoption of its first Constitution fall.

Stalin

People who changed the course of history... The name of Iosif Vissarionovich burns in bright scarlet letters on their list. He became the "terrorist" of his time. The founding of a network of camps, the exile of millions of innocent people there, the execution of entire families for dissent, artificial famine - all this radically changed people's lives. Some considered Stalin the devil, others God, since it was he who at that time decided the fate of every citizen of the Soviet Union. Of course, he was neither one nor the other. The frightened people themselves put him on a pedestal. The cult of personality was created on the basis of general fear and the blood of the innocent victims of the era.

The person who influenced the course of history, Stalin, distinguished himself not only by mass terror. Of course, his contribution to the history of Russia has a positive side. It was during his reign that the state made a powerful economic breakthrough, scientific institutions and culture began to develop. It was he who led the army that defeated Hitler and saved all of Europe from fascism.

Nikita Khrushchev

This is a very controversial person who influenced the course of history. His versatile nature is well demonstrated by the tombstone erected to him, made of white and black stone at the same time. Khrushchev, on the one hand, was Stalin's man, and on the other, a leader who tried to trample on the cult of personality. He began cardinal reforms that were supposed to completely change the bloody system, released millions of innocently convicted from the camps, pardoned hundreds of thousands of those sentenced to death. This period was even called the "thaw", since persecution and terror ceased.

But Khrushchev did not know how to bring big things to an end, so his reforms can be called half-hearted. The lack of education made him a narrow-minded person, but excellent intuition, natural sanity and political flair helped him stay in the highest echelons of power for so long and find a way out in critical situations. It was thanks to Khrushchev that he managed to avoid a nuclear war during and even turn the bloodiest page in the history of Russia.

Dmitriy Mendeleev

Russia has given rise to many great universals that have improved various areas of science. But Mendeleev should be singled out, since his contribution to its development is invaluable. Chemistry, physics, geology, economics, sociology - Mendeleev managed to study all this and open new horizons in these areas. He was also a famous shipbuilder, aeronaut and encyclopedist.

The person who influenced the course of history, Mendeleev, discovered the ability to predict the emergence of new chemical elements, the discovery of which is still taking place today. His table is the basis of chemistry lessons at school and at the university. Among his achievements is also a complete study of gas dynamics, experiments that helped to derive the equation of state of a gas.

In addition, the scientist actively studied the properties of oil, developed a policy of injecting investments into the economy and proposed to optimize the customs service. His invaluable advice was used by many ministers of the tsarist government.

Ivan Pavlov

Like all individuals who influenced the course of history, he was a very intelligent person, possessed a broad outlook and inner intuition. Ivan Pavlov actively used animals in his experiments, trying to highlight the common features of the vital activity of complex organisms, including humans.

Pavlov was able to prove the diverse activity of nerve endings in the cardiovascular system. He showed how he could regulate blood pressure. He also became the discoverer of the trophic nervous function, which consists in the influence of nerves on the process of regeneration and tissue formation.

Later, he took up the physiology of the digestive tract, as a result of which he received the Nobel Prize in 1904. His main achievement is considered to be the study of the work of the brain, higher nervous activity, conditioned reflexes and the so-called human signal system. His works became the basis of many theories in medicine.

Mikhail Lomonosov

He lived and worked during the reign of Peter the Great. Then the emphasis was placed on the development of education and enlightenment, and the first Academy of Sciences was created in Russia, in which Lomonosov spent many of his days. He, a simple peasant, was able to rise to incredible heights, run up the social ladder and turn into a scientist, whose trail of fame stretches to this day.

He was interested in everything related to physics and chemistry. He dreamed of freeing the latter from the influence of medicine and pharmaceuticals. It was thanks to him that modern physical chemistry was born as a science and began to develop actively. In addition, he was a famous encyclopedist, studied history and wrote chronicles. He considered Peter the Great an ideal ruler, a key figure in the formation of the state. In his scientific writings, he described him as a model of the mind that changed history and turned the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe management system. Through the efforts of Lomonosov, the first university, Moscow, was founded in Russia. Since that time, higher education began to develop.

Yuri Gagarin

People who influenced the course of history... Their list is difficult to imagine without the name of Yuri Gagarin, the man who conquered space. Starry space has attracted people for many centuries, but only in the last century, mankind began to explore it. At that time, the technical base for such flights was already well developed.

The space age was marked by competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. The leaders of the giant countries tried to show their power and superiority, and space was one of the best ways to demonstrate this. In the middle of the 20th century, competition began over who could send a man into orbit faster. The USSR won this race. We all know the famous date since school: on April 12, 1961, the first cosmonaut flew into orbit, where he spent 108 minutes. This hero's name was Yuri Gagarin. The day after his journey into space, he woke up famous all over the world. Although, paradoxically, he never considered himself great. Gagarin often said that in those one and a half hours he did not even have time to understand what was happening to him and what his feelings were at the same time.

Alexander Pushkin

It is called "the sun of Russian poetry". He has long become a national symbol of Russia, his poems, poems and prose are highly valued and revered. And not only in the countries of the former Soviet Union, but all over the world. Almost every city in Russia has a street, square or square named after Alexander Pushkin. Children study his work at school, devoting to him not only school time, but also extracurricular time in the form of thematic literary evenings.

This man created such harmonious poetry that it has no equal in the whole world. It was with his work that the development of new literature and all its genres began - from poetry to theatrical plays. Pushkin is read in one breath. It is characterized by accuracy, rhythmic lines, they are quickly remembered and easily recited. If we also take into account the enlightenment of this person, his strength of character and deep inner core, then it can be argued that he is really a person who influenced the course of history. He taught people to speak Russian in its modern interpretation.

Other historical figures

There are so many that it would be impossible to list them all in one article. Here are examples of a small part of Russian figures who changed history. And how many others are there? This is Gogol, and Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. If we analyze foreign personalities, then one cannot fail to note the old philosophers: Aristotle and Plato; artists: Leonardo da Vinci, Picasso, Monet; geographers and discoverers of lands: Magellan, Cook and Columbus; scientists: Galileo and Newton; politicians: Thatcher, Kennedy and Hitler; inventors: Bell and Edison.

All these people were able to completely turn the world upside down, create their own laws and scientific discoveries. Some of them made the world a better place, and some almost destroyed it. In any case, every person on planet Earth knows their names and understands that without these personalities, our life would be completely different. Reading the biographies of famous people, we often find ourselves idols from whom we want to take an example and be equal in all our deeds and actions.

Professor O.N. Kozlov. In her article published in the journal Social and Humanitarian Knowledge, she says that there are two oppositional interpretations when determining the essence of personality.

The first involves seeing the essence of the individual as perceived, adopted from society. So, K. Marx defined it as "the totality of all social relations." According to L. Gumplowicz, “in a person it is not he who thinks at all, but his social group”.

Another interpretation involves the vision of the essence as its particularity, individuality. A person creates, brings something new to the world not in common, what she has with other people, but in exceptional, as noted by V.V. Rozanov.

The opposition of these two approaches is reflected in the psychological dispute. School L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, P.Ya. Galperina, in which an "activity approach" was developed to determine the essence of personality, she was looking for the source of the uniqueness of the "I" of a person in his being, in social relations, relationships, in his activities. The leader of Western sociology, J. Piaget, defended the exact opposite position: the essence of the personality is in its inclinations, in the encoded features that are unique in the genes, which determine the individuality of a given person.

Within the framework of the activity approach, the source of personality development is its abilities that stimulate human activity. Another approach assigned the main role in personality development to needs as a stimulator of human activity.

The essence of personality does not manifest itself from the moment of birth of a person. A person becomes a person. The process of preparation for fulfilling the role of the subject of human social life is the process of education. The main participants in this process are society and the individual himself.

From the moment a person is born, society socializes him, surrounds him, introduces him to culture, gives knowledge, teaches ethical and aesthetic standards, that is, transfers sociocultural experience. Having mastered this experience, a person begins to realize his specialness, individuality.

The concept of personality is ambiguous. On the one hand, it denotes a specific individual (person) as a subject of activity, in the unity of his individual properties (individual) and his social roles (general). On the other hand, personality is understood as the social unity of the individual, as a set of his features, formed in the process of interaction of this person with other people and making him the subject of labor, cognition and communication.

The concept of personality is used in sociology in two meanings:

1) a personality is understood as a normative type of a person that meets the requirements of society, its value-normative standards. A synonym is "modal personality", or national character, which is understood as a set of socially significant traits of personality behavior, including stereotypes of behavior traditional for a given culture (industriousness, sociable disposition, efficiency, collectivism, etc.);
2) the second definition of a person (sociological) considers him as a member of a social group, society, team, organization, i.e., through his activities, included in different kinds social systems.

Personality is the mechanism that allows you to integrate your "I" and your own life, to carry out a moral assessment of your actions, to find your place not only in a separate social group, but also in life as a whole, to develop the meaning of your existence, to refuse one in favor of another. .

In sociological works, a personality is interpreted as a set of roles and statuses that it occupies in society.

The role of personality formation

Society (from lat. Socium - general) is a large stable social community, characterized by the unity of the living conditions of people and the commonality of culture, cultural heritage and traditions. We consider society, first of all, from the point of view of the process of including a person into it through the nearest social environment, into society as a whole. From this point of view, it becomes important that the relationship between a person and the external social conditions of his life, his life in society has the character of interaction.

The environment is not just a street, houses and things, the location of which is enough for a person to know in order to feel comfortable there when entering it. The environment is also the most diverse communities of people, which are characterized by a special system of relations and rules that apply to all members of this community. Therefore, on the one hand, a person introduces something of his own into it, to a certain extent influences it, changes it, but at the same time, the environment also influences a person, makes its demands on him. It can accept a person, some of his actions, manifestations, or maybe reject; may treat him kindly, or maybe hostilely.

Personality formation is a very complex process that occurs:

Influenced by family, school, out-of-school institutions;
- under the influence of the mass media (press, radio, television, recently the Internet);
- as a result of live, direct communication with other people.

In different age periods of personal development, the number of social institutions that take part in the formation of a child as a person, their educational value are different.

In the process of development of the child's personality from birth to three years, the family dominates, and his main personality neoplasms are associated primarily with it. The positive impact on the personality of the child in the family is that no one, except for the people closest to him in the family - mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, brother, sister - treats the child better, does not love him and does not care so much about German In preschool childhood, the influence of the family is added to the influence of communication with peers, other adults, access to accessible media. With admission to school, a new powerful channel of educational influence on the personality of the child opens through peers, teachers, school subjects and affairs. The sphere of contacts with the mass media is expanding due to reading, the flow of educational information is sharply increasing, reaching the child and exerting a certain influence on him.

Starting from adolescence, communication with peers, with friends, among whom the child spends most of his time, plays an important role in shaping personality. This allows you to take a significant step from dependence to independence and move on to an autonomous, independent path of further personal development. From this age, self-education and self-improvement of the individual become increasingly important, which in youth become the main means of its development.

As they grow older, the role of the family in the development of the child gradually decreases, it is especially strong in the first years of the child's life. In infancy, the primary influence on the child is the mother or the person who replaces her, who directly cares for the child and constantly communicates with him. In general, the family begins to actively influence the child from an early age, when he masters speech, upright posture and gets the opportunity to enter into various contacts with different family members. In the early years, family educational influence is mainly reduced to a variety of influences on the emotional sphere of the child, as well as on his external behavior: submission to elementary disciplinary and hygienic norms and rules.

In childhood, to the described family influences, those are added that are aimed at educating the child's curiosity, perseverance, adequate self-esteem, the desire for responsiveness, sociability, kindness, as well as the moral development of the personality, which, first of all, are manifested in relations with people: decency, honesty, etc. Here, not only adults begin to take part in the upbringing of the child, but also peers with whom he plays a lot and in various ways, and this happens in role-playing games with rules that are typical for children of older preschool age.

With admission to school, the educational influence of the family weakens somewhat due to the fact that the school begins to successfully compete with it. It is here that the child receives the first ideas about civic life, learns to comply with the formal requirements of discipline and order, learns to interact and communicate with his peers, with senior teachers.

A significant part of the time the child now spends outside the family, among teachers and peers, communicating with them in different situations and for various reasons. The impact of the family on the personal development of the child is not only relatively smaller, it is changing qualitatively. Adult family members consciously focus their attention on nurturing in the child such personality traits that are necessary for successful learning and communication with various people at school and outside the home. During the period of study in the lower grades, the influence of school and family, however, still remains the same.

In adolescence, the situation changes radically. The personality-developing influence of school and out-of-school communication is increasing in comparison with the influence of intra-family communication, and adolescence in this regard is a transitional period from childhood to adulthood. Some children of adolescence still remain under the strong and dominant influence of the family, while others leave it already at the beginning of adolescence. Therefore, in terms of individual characteristics, just this age also seems to be transitional and one of the most difficult. If family members close to the child are treated with due understanding, if good, trusting relationships are established between the teenager and his parents (grandparents, brothers, sisters, etc.), then the family can remain the dominant institution of positive social relations for a long period of growing up. psychological relationships.

With the transition to early adolescence, the influence of external institutions of education begins to prevail over the family for the vast majority of children. The further process of the formation of the child's personality, starting from this time, acquires purely individual features and directly depends on the circle of people with whom the boy or girl communicates, as well as on the situations in which communication turns, and on his character.

In general, the influence of the school on the development of the child as a person is episodic, although chronologically it takes a period of time up to 10 years (from 6-7 to 16-17 years). Children do not spend much time directly at school, and, in addition, a significant part is spent on teaching, and not on education, i.e. associated mainly with the development of the cognitive sphere, and not personality. And, nevertheless, there is a certain period in the life of a child associated with the school, when it plays a significant role in his personal formation. This is the primary school age and the beginning of adolescence, when children are psychologically still in the sphere of significant influence from adults who are authoritative for them, in this case teachers. It is precisely at this time that the main educational influences on the part of the school should be timed.

Early adolescence is a time of relative stabilization of the personality, its practical preparation for independent life in society. However, taking into account the totality of all factors influencing the formation of personality, it is necessary to note the decisive role of the activity of the personality itself. It is she who transforms all the factors in herself: something accepts in them, but something does not.

By the age of about 16-17 years, the personality can be considered basically already formed. Those changes that occur to a person in the course of his later life usually do not affect many personality traits and then remain practically unchanged.

The period after graduation is especially important and difficult, when a person has to constantly make responsible choices (in the broadest sense of the word): profession, marriage partner, value systems, etc. This is the period of the most intensive making of vital decisions. Various organizations and institutions, universities, the media, etc., begin to play an increasingly large role in the formation of personality.

The role of personality in history

The question of the role of personality in history is one of the most fundamental in historical science and philosophy.

Until now, there are directly opposite judgments on this issue:

1. The historical process is natural, so individuals cannot influence the course of history. In the development of mankind, there are certain objective patterns that determine the historical mission of individual civilizations (for example, Western and Eastern), states, countries, peoples, groups of people and, naturally, individuals. Consciousness, will and human behavior do not arise from nowhere, they are a historically conditioned product.

Indeed, a person is born, develops and acts under certain conditions of the social environment: economic, political, cultural, environmental, etc. Therefore, his thinking seems to be completely set by these conditions. Placing an individual in a different socio-cultural context also changes his behavior, and this is a scientifically proven fact. As the saying goes, "with whom you will lead, from that you will type."

According to this paradigm, if a person makes any efforts to change the course of history, then over time they are leveled anyway. That is, the maximum role of the individual in history is the acceleration or deceleration of historical patterns, which, after the "retirement of a person from business," will still take their toll and eliminate (smooth out) all the efforts made.

Such an approach is characteristic precisely for Marxists - apologists for the dialectical-materialist trend. In his work "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" F. Engels argued that there are certain historical patterns in the existence and development of human society. He identified several stages in the development of society, calling them socio-economic formations: the primitive communal system - the slave-owning system - the feudal system - the capitalist system - the communist system. Therefore, according to Marxists, nothing depends on the individual, and he will always be just a cog in the mechanism of history (society, state). But then it becomes completely incomprehensible why V.I. Did Lenin risk his life for the sake of the socialist revolution if humanity was doomed to a natural transition from one formation to another?

2. If certain patterns of development of society exist, then they are not a "rut", but rather "rules of the game", which are obligatory for all subjects-players (from civilizations to individuals). For each historical fact, there is its own ratio of objective and subjective, which is determined both by the personality itself and by the context surrounding it.

A) Is a particular historical fact objective or subjective? If the historical fact is objective, then the role of the individual in a particular history is "zero";
b) if a specific historical fact is generated by human behavior (subjective), then under the influence of what exactly - objective processes or subjective factors - were human actions generated?

Proponents of this trend pay great attention to the role of chance in history. Regularity, in their opinion, is what is caused by objective factors, randomness is a combination of circumstances that are in no way connected with each other.

At the level of abstractions, everything seems to be clear, and the second point of view personally evoked sympathy for me once in the past. However, upon closer examination, it turned out that the problem had not gone anywhere and the issue returned. Why did it happen? Yes, because I can’t imagine the existence of a universal way by which, firstly, the facts could be “scattered” into objective and subjective, and secondly, to separate regularity from chance, because the last division is always subjective. To prove this, I will give an example of a simple situation.

Imagine that you are walking in a city park in autumn and a leaf that has fallen from a tree has fallen on your head (shoulder, pocket, etc.). Accident? If you rarely have a chance to walk in the autumn park, if you have never had a leaf fall on this part of your body (clothes), then, most likely, you will perceive this event as accidental. However, if you understand the essence of the situation, then there is nothing accidental here. Do you have free time to walk in the park at the moment? Was this leaf supposed to fall off in the fall? Given the speed of the wind, its direction, the shape of the leaf, the height of the tree, etc., where else could he fall, no matter where he fell?

Or maybe we should abandon the question of the role of the individual in history altogether?

Within the framework of the existing scientific paradigm, historians do not consider it possible to bypass this issue. Drawing on the knowledge accumulated in other sciences, for example, psychology and pedagogy, they argue as follows. At least 3 factors influence the formation of a human personality: heredity (objective), environment (objective-subjective) and upbringing (objective-subjective). That is, the formation of the human personality is quite natural and causally conditioned. But people are born and raised in various conditions. For example, under monarchies, heredity and education of the king played a significant role, which affected the situation in the world. An interesting historical fact can be cited in this respect. In the next war of the Austrian succession, the French troops won, and France had every opportunity to get Austria to cede a large piece of the territory of present-day Belgium. However, Louis XV did not do this, because he considered it humiliating for himself to bargain like a merchant. Therefore, the Peace of Aachen gave France absolutely nothing. Historians suggest that if there had been another king in place of Louis XV, or if he had received a different upbringing, then the territory of France could have been different since then, and this would have changed the course of history, at least the history of Europe.

There is no need to look far for other examples. Let's imagine how the course of history would have changed if the atomic bomb had been invented in Nazi Germany? And if the Soviet Union did not have Marshal G.K. Zhukov?

I am sure that it is pointless to raise these questions, since it is impossible to calculate the chain of development of those events that did not exist.

You can also hear the point of view that the role of the individual in history depends on the individual himself, that is, only the person who takes an active role can influence the course of history. life position who through his work, perhaps even struggle, contributes to the development of a certain area, thereby influencing the course of history. However, this is not the case, since inaction can also be active and conscious (ignoring elections to government bodies, going on strike, not helping another person, etc.).

I believe that the dispute about the role of personality in history has its roots in the main question of philosophy: what comes first - consciousness or matter? I mean, the question of the chicken and the egg. Indeed, willy-nilly, a person who thinks about the role of personality in history is trying to make a historical prediction. But, as we know, history does not know the subjunctive mood "what would happen if ...". Since this did not happen, then no "would" matter. "History teaches us what it teaches nothing" - this is not a beautiful metaphor, but a reality. Today, more and more representatives of the social sciences are inclined to believe that there are no social laws. There are only a few established patterns, the truth of which is only probabilistic, since it depends on the context. And since context is always unique, all social sciences are, at best, valid descriptions on which generalizations are based. So K. Marx made a mistake with the place of the socialist revolution, predicting its imminent accomplishment in Germany and the impossibility of it in Russia.

The question of the role of personality in history, according to the great philosopher and anthropologist of the twentieth century G. Bateson, is a mixture of logical types. To better understand what is at stake, you can give an example:

The molecules that make up the planet Earth interact with each other. This interaction is given by the forces of attraction and repulsion existing between them (electromagnetic force). Thanks to them, Brownian motion arises, which for an outside observer appears completely chaotic. However, if we consider each collision of one molecule with another, then we will not see any chaos, but we will see, on the contrary, a strict order supported by electromagnetic interaction. Everything is perfectly predictable here, just like an ace of the highest category in billiards predicts where the ball will fly (I can’t give a better example, although its failure is obvious - “there is a hole in the old woman”). This is one logical level at which its own patterns work.

In addition to the planet Earth, there are the Sun, other planets, their satellites, etc. in the Solar System. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and such rotation becomes possible due to universal gravitation (gravity). This is a different logical level, on which there are already completely different patterns (different from the "molecule - molecule" system).

Of course, the position of the planet Earth determines the position of the molecules of which it is composed. However, the electromagnetic forces between molecules do not affect the position of the Earth relative to other bodies in the solar system at all.

And now the most interesting thing: does a molecule experience gravitational interaction between bodies in the solar system? Apparently, yes, it does, but it is negligible compared to the effects that other molecules exert on the molecule. In addition, such an influence for a larger system ("molecule - Sun") will be completely unpredictable. For example, as a result of a collision of the Earth with the Sun, the molecules will behave differently than in the state of "quiet Earth", but what the result of such a collision will be for a single molecule is completely unpredictable, so it makes no sense to raise such a question.

As for the influence of the molecule on the "behavior" of the Earth, the answer is obvious: it is negligible, although anything can happen. This "maybe" could be an atom of plutonium-239, the decay of the nucleus of which will start a chain reaction and the planet Earth will explode. Nothing, not in the sense of the "strength" of the molecule, but in the sense of probability.

Thus, the question of the role of personality in history is analogous to the question of the influence of a molecule on the motion of the Earth around the Sun. It may exist, but it is impossible in principle to calculate the force of such an impact, and if this is impossible, then from the point of view of science it will never make sense. This is not a matter of science, and by definition it never will be. Science never makes predictions. But lyricists, mystics and sorcerers "perfectly cope" with it. But with predictions, everything is simple: among all their predictions, we select exactly those that we consider "come true".

As for the influence of historical patterns on human life, it certainly exists, but just as completely unpredictable. The very formulation of the question of the role of the individual in history is senseless, since between the laws of existence of the individual and society lies an insurmountable abyss, the abyss between different logical types. You can't compare sour and green.

Social roles of the individual

It is natural for a person to take a position in life, and this, in turn, gives rise to social roles that are applied under certain circumstances.

Personality as a bearer of social roles

The concept of "social role" should be understood as a certain model of behavior that meets the requirements, expectations, long prescribed by society. In other words, these are actions necessary for the performance of a person occupying a certain social status. As an example, let's analyze the social role of "doctor". Many expect that he will be able to provide first aid or cure you of an unfamiliar ailment in a matter of minutes. In the event that a person fails to fulfill the roles prescribed by her status, as well as meet the expectations of others, certain sanctions are applied to her (the head is deprived of his position, deprivation of parents of parental rights, etc.).

It is important to note that the social role of the individual in society has no boundaries. One moment you are playing the role of a customer, the next you are a caring mother. But sometimes the simultaneous performance of several roles can lead to their clash, to the emergence of a role conflict. A vivid example of this is the consideration of the life of a mother who is passionate about building a successful career. So, it is not easy for her to combine such social roles typical of her personality as: a loving wife, a responsible worker, a mother whose heart is full of tenderness for her baby, a homemaker, etc. In such situations, psychologists recommend, in order to avoid the aforementioned conflict, correctly prioritize, giving first place to the social role to which you are most drawn.

It is worth noting that this choice is largely determined by the values ​​that dominate, the list of personal priorities and, finally, the prevailing circumstances.

It would not be superfluous to mention that they classify both formal (those that are enshrined in law) and informal roles of a social nature (behavioral norms, rules that are inherent in every society).

Social positions and roles of the individual

The social position should include status, a certain prestige that is attributed to the individual through public opinion. It is a general characteristic of a person in society (financial situation, belonging to certain social groups, profession, education, etc.).

Role in the formation of personality

The family plays an important, decisive role in the development of the individual. It is in the family that a person begins to take his first steps towards understanding the world. Parents have a great responsibility for shaping a person's outlook on life and moral values. Who, if not parents, will tell the growing child what is good and what is bad? who, if not the family, will lay the moral foundation in a person? Of course, the world around also affects the personality, but the formation begins in the family. As Famusov, the hero of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, said: “There is no need for another model when the father’s example is in the eyes.” And, indeed, if a child from childhood sees quarrels, scolding, a manifestation of disrespect, in a word, an all-bad negative, then later he himself absorbs these qualities. And if before the eyes of the baby the world, goodness, mutual understanding between loved ones, then soon he himself will become kind and open to the world. Let's talk about what a family is.

The family is, first of all, the unity of people. But what unites them? What is the core of human relationships? Material or spiritual? It depends on what the emerging personality will absorb. The values ​​of the family will determine the values ​​of a person.

Answering the question posed, it can be noted that the role of the family in the development of personality can be both positive and negative. In the works of Russian classics, the authors have repeatedly shown the influence of the family on a developing person.

It is impossible not to recall the comedy of D. I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth". This is where the influence of parents has become decisive in the formation of personal values. The undergrowth became, so to speak, a hostage to the wickedness of the Prostakovs. Mitrofan is the fruit of the evil morals of the family. From childhood, before his eyes were quarrels, cruelty towards serfs, contempt for enlightenment. He grew up in an environment where the traditional family structure was completely destroyed. The mother is two-faced, in everything she seeks benefits for herself. The father is apathetic, narrow-minded, completely subject to the influence of his wife. There is no mutual understanding between relatives. You can’t exactly call such a family structure a role model. The child has no choice. He inherits from his parents traits of their character, a model of their behavior. Therefore, Mitrofan appears before us as a rude, uninterested young man. He is arrogant and cruel, calls the nurse "an old grunt", in addition, he takes up lessons with great reluctance, preferring the dovecote to books and education. And the scene of the quarrel between Uncle Skotinin and his nephew further emphasizes the absence of any moral rules in the family.

Thus, we have before us a vivid example of the role of the family in the development of personality. The protagonist inherited the habits and lifestyle of his parents. Mitrofan's wickedness is a direct consequence of the bad qualities of his parents. So who would cultivate virtue in him?

Yes, the role of the family in the formation of personality is enormous. Let's look at another work of Russian classics, the story of A. S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter". Consider how parents influenced the formation of personality here.

Pyotr Grinev, the protagonist of the story, was brought up in an atmosphere of high morality from childhood. Parents respect each other, peace reigns in the family. Before Petrusha's eyes is a living example of mutual understanding between people. The father's testament "Take care of your dress again and honor from your youth" became the main life guide for Peter. In the future, it is this father’s order that will affect Grinev’s behavior. He will be faithful to honor and duty, despite all the difficulties and obstacles. It becomes clear that it is the family that takes part in the formation of the personality, shows the child the way, opens the way to the world. If it were not for the solid moral foundation laid by the family and the order of his father, then who knows whether Pyotr Grinev would have remained true to his principles or would have followed the path of Shvabrin?

Summing up, I would like to say that the role of seven in the development of personality is enormous and should not be underestimated. Of course, “every person must educate himself”, but it is the family that determines the foundation of a person, it is the family that serves as a living illustration of behavior and morals.

The role of personality in education

The most important patterns and factors in the development and formation of personality can be considered as external and internal. External include the combined influence of the above environments and upbringing. To internal factors - natural needs and inclinations, needs for communication, altruism, dominance, aggressiveness and specific social needs - spiritual, creative needs, moral and value needs, needs for self-improvement, interests, beliefs, feelings and experiences, etc., arising influenced by environment and upbringing. As a result of the complex interaction of these factors, the development and formation of personality occurs. In the process of development, it is difficult to find a period of uniform influence of all factors. As a rule, their serial or group predominance is observed.

So far, pedagogy has reasonably affirmed the decisive influence of upbringing on the development and formation of personality through the stimulation of internal activity (motor, cognitive activity of communication) and the activity of one's improvement, self-development. In other words, it is the formation of motivation.

S.L. Rubinshtein noted that everything in the development of personality is externally conditioned to a certain extent, but does not follow directly from external conditions. In this regard, the position of R.S. Nemova: “A person in his psychological qualities and forms of behavior appears to be a social and natural being, partly similar, partly different from animals. In life, its natural and social principles coexist, combine, sometimes compete with each other. In understanding the true determination of human behavior, it is probably necessary to take both into account.

Until now, in our political, economic, psychological and pedagogical ideas about a person, we have mainly taken into account the social principle, and a person, as life practice has shown, even in relatively calm times of history has not ceased to be partly an animal, i.e. a biological being, not only in the sense of organic needs, but also in its behavior. The main scientific error of the Marxist-Leninist teaching in understanding the nature of man was probably that in the social plans for the reorganization of society, only the higher, spiritual principle in man was taken into account and his animal origin was ignored.

External factors of personality formation, manifesting themselves through a strong biological principle (we also mean the original spiritual substance), ensure development and improvement. Probably, the biological in a person is not always sufficiently subordinate to external factors development. Apparently, some genetic atavism takes place in biological development. Pedagogical practice knows many examples when excellent living and upbringing conditions did not give positive results, or, on the other hand, in the most difficult family, social, domestic conditions, in conditions of hunger and deprivation (years of wars), but with the correct organization of educational work, the creation the educational environment achieved high positive results in the development and formation of personality. Pedagogical experience of A.S. Makarenko, V.A. Sukhomlinsky, V.F. Shatalova, Sh.A. Amonashvili shows that, first of all, the personality is formed by the system of relations that develops between the personality and the environment and the people around it, created by parents and teachers, adults.

The development of the child occurs in conditions of diverse relationships of a positive and negative nature. The system of pedagogically justified educational relations forms the character of the personality, value orientations, ideals, ideas, worldview, sensory-emotional sphere. However, the child is not always satisfied with a properly organized system of relations. It is not updated for him into a vital one. Forming a variety of attitudes to reality, it sometimes does not take into account the inner "I" of the individual, mental development and the conditions of physical development, the hidden inner position of the educated person. A high result of development and formation is achieved if the educational system represented by the teacher provides a subtle psychological and pedagogical influence in the context of unanimity with the child, ensures the harmony of the emerging diverse relationships, takes him into the world of spiritual activity and values, initiates his spiritual energy, ensures the development of motives and needs .

But, at the same time, analyzing the patterns of education as a planetary phenomenon, I would like to note that a conscious attitude to one's improvement and purpose on Earth is, perhaps, the main objective condition for the continuation and preservation of life. And in this sense, education is a phenomenon nurtured and preserved in the genetic code of mankind.

An important factor in development is the personality of the student himself (or a person in general) as a self-regulating, self-propelling, self-developing, self-educating person.

The activity of a person's personality is seen in two aspects: purely physical and mental. These two types of activity can manifest themselves in many combinations in an individual: high physical activity and low mental activity; high mental and low physical; the average activity of both; low activity of both, etc.

A person is influenced by a number of factors that determine his activity. The first of these is his heredity, which determines his atomic-physiological and mental organization. The second factor is environmental conditions. And the third factor is education in the broad sense of the word. It can influence the development of physical and mental activity through a system of specially organized training and education itself. For schoolchildren, this is education, the development of a cognitive interest in learning, the formation of learning motivation, the development of mental activity, the development of a system of value orientations, spiritual ideals, spiritual and material needs.

The function of education in this case will be reduced to the development ("launch") in the child of the mechanisms of self-regulation, self-motion, self-development. In many ways, man is the creator of himself. Despite the fact that a certain program of individual development is already laid down at the genetic level (including physical and mental predisposition), a person retains the right to develop himself.

Without denying the paramount role of upbringing in the development of the individual, I would like to note that not all people succumb to the developmental and formative influences tested in society.

Simultaneous complex impact on the development of the personality of positive and negative (primarily social origin) factors expands the range of mutations of mental neoplasms that threaten the health of a single person, nation, state, planet. There is a replacement of spiritual values ​​with sensual and material ones, a growing number of drug addicts, sadists and maniacs of various kinds, representatives of sects who are ready to destroy almost all of humanity for the sake of their idea, people with suicidal behavior, psychopaths (people who are not able to make any compromises) , "when the world of things created by people begins to prevail over the world of human values." Apparently, society needs new theories and concepts, a dialectical reassessment of the already existing social and socio-psychological resources that ensure the development and formation of a personality capable of self-development and self-preservation as a special biological species on Earth in modern conditions.

Statuses and the role of the individual

The definition of the place and role of the individual in the social system can be revealed through the concept of "social status".

The social status of a person is the position of a person in society, which he occupies as a representative of a certain social group.

One person has many statuses, as he participates in many groups and organizations.

He is a man, father, husband, son, teacher, professor, doctor of science, dean, middle-aged man, Orthodox, etc.

The set of all statuses occupied by one person is called a status set.

In the status set, there will definitely be a main one.

The main status is the most characteristic for a given person, with which he is identified (identified) by other people or with whom he identifies himself.

For a man, as a rule, the main thing is the status associated with the main place of work. The main thing is always the status that determines the style and lifestyle, the circle of acquaintances, the manner of behavior.

Social statuses are divided into attributed and achieved.

Ascribed is a status in which a person is born, but which is necessarily recognized as such by a society or group. Most of the assigned statuses are also innate statuses.

The kinship system gives a whole set of natural and ascribed statuses: son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, nephew, aunt, cousin, grandfather, etc. They are received by blood relatives.

Non-blood relatives are called relatives in law. Mother-in-law in law, father-in-law in law. These are attributed but not innate statuses, because they are acquired through marriage.

Attributable is any status acquired against one's will, over which the individual has no control.

The achieved status is acquired as a result of free choice, personal efforts and is under the control of a person. Such are the statuses of a student, professor, banker, president, party member, etc. Also achieved are the statuses of wife and husband, godfather.

Sometimes it is very difficult to determine the type of status and then one speaks of a mixed status. Mixed status has features of ascribed and achieved. For example, the status of the unemployed, the prisoner, etc.

Statuses are also divided into professional, demographic, religious, political and consanguineous. All these are the main statuses, they determine the main thing in life.

There are a huge number of episodic non-mainstream statuses. These are the statuses of a pedestrian, a passer-by, a patient, a witness, a reader, a listener, a TV viewer, a trolleybus rider, a diner, etc. They affect the details of behavior.

At no point in time does any person exist outside of statuses or status.

Behind each status - permanent or temporary, basic or non-basic - there is a large social group or social category.

Men, women, engineers, teachers, Orthodox (basic statuses) form a real group.

Pedestrians, patients standing in line (non-basic statuses) form a nominal group, as a rule, carriers of non-basic statuses do not coordinate their behavior with each other and do not interact.

Statuses do not directly enter into social relations, but enter indirectly through their carriers and thus determine the nature and content of social relations. A person looks at the world and treats others in accordance with his status. The poor despise the rich, and the rich despise the poor. Those who do not have dogs do not understand the owners of the latter. A Russian is more likely to show solidarity with a Russian than with a Vietnamese or Chinese, and vice versa.

Status determines the interest that this person explicitly or implicitly, permanently or temporarily will pursue and protect.

The seller is interested in you as a buyer, and the young man is interested in the girl as a sexual partner or bride.

The individual behavior of a person in accordance with his status is called a social role. From a student, others expect one kind of behavior, from a professor a completely different one. Role is the dynamic side of status.

Thus:

Social statuses, their functional interrelation refer to social relations, i.e. to static;
- social roles refer to social interaction, that is, they describe the dynamics of society.

We can say that the status emphasizes the similarity of people, and the role - their difference.

Each status includes a number of roles. For example, the status of the mistress of the house includes such roles as educator, nanny, cleaner, dishwasher, cook; doctor and baker, artist and actress, etc.

Each role in the role set requires a specific demeanor. Even two similar roles of an associate professor of a university - a teacher and a group curator - suggest a different attitude towards students.

In a completely different way than with students, the teacher builds his relations with his colleagues, with the administration.

As well as the statuses of the role are prescribed and achieved. But if the prescribed status is very difficult to change, then the roles are more fluid and more amenable to change. Thus, the roles of men and women in society are largely prescribed. A woman to be a mother and a man to be a father.

But most roles can be performed quite well by both women and men. Thus, in Pakistan, domestic workers are traditionally represented by males; in the Philippines, all secretaries are men; in a number of nationalities, a cook is a purely male occupation. That is, the definition of male and female roles is subjective and depends on a particular place and time. Every society has customs, traditions and norms related to the performance of male and female roles.

role conflicts. There are two types of them:

1) between roles;
2) within the same role.

An example of the first: a working woman finds that the demands of her main job conflict with her role as mother or wife, housewife; or a married student must reconcile the demands made on him as a husband with the demands made on him as a student.

An example of a conflict occurring within the same role is the position of a leader who publicly proclaims one point of view, and in a narrow circle declares himself a supporter of the opposite.

In many roles played by an individual - from plumber to university teacher - there are so-called conflicts of interest, in which the obligation to be honest with people conflicts with the desire to "make money".

Experience shows that very few roles are free from internal tensions and conflicts. If the conflict escalates, it can lead to a refusal of role obligations, a departure from this role, to internal stress.

There are several types of actions by which role tension can be reduced and the human self is protected from many unpleasant experiences.

These include:

rationalization;
- division;
- regulation of roles.

Rationalization of roles is one of the ways to protect against a person's painful perception of a situation with the help of concepts that are socially and personally desirable for him. For example, a girl who cannot find a groom convinces herself that she will be happy if she does not marry, because all men are deceivers, rude, selfish, etc. In this case, by rationalizing the situation is determined in such a way that role tension disappears.

Separation of roles reduces role tension by temporarily removing one of the roles from life. For example, a sales worker who violates the laws during the day, in the evening from the podium advocates for their tightening. He's not necessarily a hypocrite, he's just switching roles.

Role regulation, in contrast to the protective mechanisms of rationalization and division of roles, differs in that it is conscious and deliberate. In practice, this looks like an individual's reference to the influence of organizations, whereby he must act in a certain way. Example: a husband justifies himself to his wife for a long absence, saying that work required this.

The problem of the role of personality

One of the most difficult questions of philosophy is the question of the role of the individual in history. D. A. Volkogonov, philosopher, historian, political scientist, raises this question, resolving it by studying the views of various scientists.

So, the philosophical problem of the role of the individual in history, in my opinion, is the central one in Volkogonov's article. He writes that for a long time in history the point of view dominated, according to which the exceptional role in the development of society belonged to great people, heroes. The author analyzes various opinions on this issue. The English thinker Thomas Carlyle believed that "a hero who possesses the traits of cruelty, ruthless authority and determination to use force is capable of playing a messianic role in history." Russian sociologist Nikolai Mikhailovsky argued that the hero is the main creator of history, that only he is able to raise and captivate "the crowd to a feat or a crime." The closest thing to understanding this problem, according to Volkogonov, are the thoughts of G. V. Plekhanov, for whom the hero is primarily a beginner, he sees further than others, “his activity is a conscious and free expression ... of the necessary and unconscious course” of history.

The philosopher clearly and unambiguously formulates his vision of the question of the role of the personality of history: “Outstanding personalities, heroes appear when people need them. If the actions of these individuals coincide with the main progressive tendencies of social development, the interests of the advanced classes, their role is exceptionally great.

The position of D. A. Volkogonov seems to me correct. Let's remember the classics. In the novel "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy, one of the central problems is the problem of the role of the individual in history. Alexander the First, Napoleon, Kutuzov - this is an incomplete list of historical figures shown in the novel. Who among them can claim to be the creator of history, a great man? According to Tolstoy, a great man bears in himself the moral foundations of the people and feels his moral obligation to people. Alexander the First cannot always understand what is most important for the people, the country at the moment. Napoleon's ambitious claims betray in him a person who does not understand the significance of the events that are taking place. “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth,” - such a sentence to Napoleon is issued by Tolstoy. He calls Kutuzov a great man, since he set the interests of the whole people as the goal of his activities. It expresses the people's soul and patriotism.

The question of the role of the individual in history is also considered in F. M. Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. The real reason for Raskolnikov's crime was the desire to test his theory. Its essence was that Raskolnikov divided all people into those who "have the right" and "trembling creatures." The first live in obedience, the second - transgress the law, destroyers. Lycurgus, Mohammed, Solon, Napoleon - all these great people were criminals who shed a lot of blood. It is these people, according to Raskolnikov's theory, that "move the world and lead it to the goal." Dostoevsky debunked the inconsistency of the theory of the protagonist of the novel by the whole course of action, by the fact that the most humiliated and insulted heroine, Sonechka Marmeladova, turned out to be spiritually superior to the rest, by the fact that, testing his theory in practice, Raskolnikov subjected himself to terrible moral torments.

The complex and multifaceted problem of the role of the personality of history is important at all times, but it is especially relevant in our time, when the world around us is so unstable, when many people in power believe that it is they who are able to move history forward, without disdaining any means.

The role of personality socialization

A person becomes a personality due to the fact that he lives in society and, in interaction with other people, develops those capabilities that are inherent in his biological nature. Personality is a socio-historical category, it characterizes an individual as a member of a certain historical society, possessing the social qualities necessary for life in this society.

The process of including an individual in the system of social relations and the formation of his social qualities is called socialization.

Socialization is the process of formation and development of personality, which begins at the birth of a person and continues throughout his life. Socialization is carried out under the influence of all social conditions of human life. The basis of socialization is the communication and activity of the individual in the family, school, work collective, etc.

A huge role in the socialization of the individual is played by education, training, self-education. It is important to understand that no external conditions, no matter how favorable they may be for a person, can by themselves realize his abilities - this requires his personal aspiration, will, inner looseness, spiritual freedom. Religious or philistine ideas, patterns, stereotypes, prejudices, superstitions, unwillingness to think and act independently, to take responsibility, the desire to shift it to others, to superiors, etc. have a negative effect on the spiritual freedom of many people. These ideas limit the freedom of choice, creative activity and spiritual freedom of a person.

In the process of socialization, an individual is included in the world of human culture: mastering the language and ways of handling objects, he masters the norms, rules, programs of behavior and becomes at the same time a consumer, bearer and creator of culture. However, the wealth of culture accumulated by humanity is so vast and diverse that an individual person cannot embrace it entirely. Therefore, the problem of mastering culture is practically a problem of choosing from all the cultural values ​​of those few that an individual can master throughout his life. This choice can be formed both on the basis of a casual acquaintance with some aspects of science, art, philosophy, technology, and on the basis of a purposeful systematic study of any one sphere of society (for example, jurisprudence).

Due to the uniqueness of individual choice, each person forms his own special range of mastering the cultural achievements of mankind - his horizons. The spiritual world of the individual, the circle of her knowledge, requests and interests depend on its features - the wider it is, the higher the level of cultural development of the individual.

W. Shakespeare: "The whole world is a theater. Women, men are all actors in it ... And everyone plays more than one role." But social roles, unlike theatrical ones, do not develop according to a play written by someone with a predetermined ending. In life, all of us, playing the roles of fathers and children, bosses and subordinates, teachers and students, buyers and sellers, are both performers and authors of our life plays.

Role behavior of a person depends on:

Often a person submits to the pressure of the majority, showing conformism (lat. conformis - "similar, similar") - opportunism, passive acceptance of the prevailing opinion, the order of things, etc. Conformity serves as a way to resolve the conflict between personal and group opinions in favor of the group, since a person's dependence on others forces him to seek his true or imaginary consent, to adjust his behavior to other people's standards.

Different roles make incompatible demands on the person, which causes role conflicts (lat. conflict - "collisions"):

1) inter-role, when a person has to choose between roles, behaviors (boss and friend of a subordinate, employee and relative, etc.);
2) intra-role, when the behavior prescribed by the role is understood differently by different people (head of the family, platoon commander, etc.).

A variety of conflicts require independent and responsible decisions from the individual. A person cannot be an automaton obediently performing prescribed functions.

A personality is formed at the intersection of its inner spiritual world and the external requirements of its social roles. The assimilation of certain roles significantly changes the mental traits and the entire spiritual appearance of the individual. As a rule, a professional role greatly deforms the abilities, interests, personality: many policemen, not only at work, but also in personal relationships, have an edifying manner of speech, a tendency to lecture, inflexibility, straightforward thinking associated with the habit of simplifying complex things, "observing legitimacy". On the other hand, the mental characteristics themselves, the value orientations of the individual, her outlook, influence her choice of professional and other social roles.

Depending on the spiritual world of a person, his attitude to the roles performed, the degree of involvement in them develops. With some of his roles, a person can grow together, becoming a single whole, and for other roles he can "keep a distance", feeling his autonomy and independence. However, it is very difficult, being Stirlitz, to remain at the same time Isaev: the use of a mask does not always go without consequences for a person: a mask can grow to a person; the behavior corresponding to the taken mask can eventually become habitual and change the essence of the personality, its true features.

The role of the individual in society

The individual and society are in a dialectical relationship, they cannot be opposed, because the individual is a social being and any manifestation of his life, even if it does not appear in the direct form of its collective manifestation, possessing generic characteristics, can also act as an original individuality.

In modern conditions and conditions of the accelerated development of civilization, the role of the individual in society is becoming increasingly significant, in connection with this, the problem of freedom and responsibility of the individual to society is increasingly arising.

The first attempt to substantiate the point of view of explaining the relationship of freedom and the need for its recognition of their organic relationship belongs to Spinoza, who defined freedom as a conscious necessity.

A detailed concept of the dialectical unity of freedom and necessity from an idealistic position was given by Hegel. The scientific, dialectical-materialist solution to the problem of freedom and necessity proceeds from the recognition of objective necessity as primary, and the will and consciousness of man as a secondary derivative.

In society, individual freedom is limited by the interests of society. Each person is an individual, his desires and interests do not always coincide with the interests of society. In this case, a person under the influence of social laws must act in some cases so as not to violate the interests of society, otherwise he is threatened with punishment on behalf of society.

In modern conditions, in the era of the development of democracy, the problem of individual freedom is becoming more and more global. It is decided at the level of international organizations in the form of legislative acts on the rights and freedoms of the individual, which are now becoming the basis of any policy and are carefully protected.

However, not all problems of individual freedom have been solved in Russia and throughout the world, since this is one of the most difficult tasks. Individuals in society currently number in the billions, and every minute their interests, rights and freedoms collide on earth.

The role of personality in education

In fact, in domestic education, personal development means the improvement of those qualities of students that are not related to intellectual abilities, knowledge, skills and abilities. This is due to the main tasks (or areas of activity) that are set for educational organizations in relation to a particular student: he must be educated and trained.

Education is made up of education and upbringing. As the law "On Education in the Russian Federation" says: "Education is a single purposeful process of upbringing and learning, which is a socially significant good ... Education is an activity aimed at developing the personality, creating conditions for self-determination and socialization of the student on the basis of sociocultural, spiritual and moral values ​​and the rules and norms of behavior accepted in society in the interests of a person, family, society and the state ... Education is a purposeful process of organizing the activities of students in mastering knowledge, skills, skills and competencies, gaining experience in activities, developing abilities, gaining experience in applying knowledge in everyday life and the formation of students' motivation to receive education throughout their lives.

Thus, the development of the student's personality (education) is not someone's whim or fantasy. This is one of the two main tasks of educational organizations. Should every teacher be engaged in education? It turns out that he should, because his duties include: "To develop in students cognitive activity, independence, initiative, creativity, to form a civic position, the ability to work and live in conditions modern world to form a culture of a healthy and safe lifestyle among students" (in the same law).

Based on this specificity, it turns out that the personality in education is understood as something that does not belong to the intellectual sphere. If in modern psychology personality is usually understood as the social face of a person, which provides him with an "image" and inclusion in certain social relations, then in the field of education a personality is an alloy of certain qualities that provides socialization and self-determination. Accordingly, the more developed the personality, the more successful it is in terms of social adaptation and finding one's own place in life. As well as vice versa.

Psychologists, in general, have long moved away from the question that smacks of scholasticism: "Who can be called a more developed personality, and who less?" A criminal, for example, from the point of view of psychology, can also have his own personality, and quite developed (if he has an interesting, original image, a wealth of social connections). Teachers (here we mean especially theoretical workers) are unlikely to agree that a criminal can have a developed personality. In pedagogy, a developed personality is a personality rich in various kinds of positive virtues (the so-called "comprehensively developed personality").

These advantages include:

Responsibility,
- focus and perseverance
- patriotism,
- honesty,
- curiosity
- friendliness and responsiveness,
- collectivism,
- ability to self-sacrifice,
- ability to work independently
- Creative skills,
- industriousness,
- civil position (social obedience) and more. If there is no dignity or it has the opposite polarity (not diligence, say, but laziness), then a person can no longer claim the title of "comprehensively developed personality."

The difference in the understanding of personality in pedagogy and psychology is also visible in the following. In the above list of virtues, there is not and cannot be temperament. Temperament cannot be developed: there are no good and bad temperaments, and temperament is influenced to a large extent by innate and some acquired physiological features. Nevertheless, in psychology, temperament is considered as an important element of a person's personality.

Be that as it may, the social order for the development of the individual is clearly formulated, and it must somehow be fulfilled.

The main problems of personality development in an educational organization

The first problem that school teachers face is that a child who comes to school already has a more or less formed personality. This formation was influenced by family, kindergarten, friends and other familiar people. The formation of the personality of a small person could also be influenced by films watched or scenes that the child observed directly in the life of strangers. Some preschoolers are good readers, and books may have already influenced them too.

Children from different families come to school. Some of the parents are not shy about obscene expressions, someone is constantly lying, someone likes to fight, someone steals, etc. Of course, with a high degree of probability, these behaviors can be transmitted to the child. They can, at the same time, be transmitted not only at 6-7 years old, but also later. All this must be taken into account by the teacher and try to reverse the unpleasant trend in the child's behavior.

In many cases, the team helps. First, the child himself quickly notices that his behavior is different from the behavior of the majority. Secondly, the teacher himself can point out this contradiction if the child does not see it. Thirdly, the student team itself can put pressure on the "problem" student. The team should not be idealized. However, the teacher who does not use the possibilities of the team is bad.

The second problem is methodological ambiguity: how and what qualities should be developed? Other questions are related to this: how to determine the effectiveness of certain educational activities? how to determine the effectiveness of individual pedagogical workers? With training, it is more or less clear: there are various kinds of verification activities. There is even a unified state exam that allows the most accurate assessment of the achievements of students and, on this basis, the work of teachers. In upbringing, there are no such evaluation procedures, there are no clear standards for personal development at all. Most educators therefore rely mainly on their life experience and intuition. Often educators focus their attention on only one or two qualities being developed. Often the role of such a "beacon" is the development of creative abilities. In this case, educational work is distinguished by entertainment and ostentatious efficiency.

The third problem of personality development has a legal basis. According to the Constitution, we have quite a few rights, for example:

Privacy, personal and family secrets,
- freedom of thought and speech.

The teacher therefore needs to be quite careful in finding out information that can be attributed to personal and family secrets. And in general it turns out that the whole process of education should be purely voluntary, without any pressure. Not only an adult, but also a child has freedom of thought and speech. Within himself, each person can be a scoundrel, think whatever he likes. As long as it does not come out, does not interfere with other people's lives. It turns out that even phrases like this: "You must always tell the truth, otherwise you will be a bad boy" can compromise the teacher.

With age, the younger generation understand their rights more and more clearly. Therefore, educational efforts (at least directive ones) are less and less likely to reach the goal. The upbringing of a student is a very dubious thing. To the directive: "You must love the Motherland," you can often get the answer: "I owe nothing to anyone." Therefore, universities usually limit educational work to the development of creative abilities and wit.

How to deal with this problem? The answer is quite obvious: directives should be replaced by clarifications. Do not say phrases like: "Good girls don't swear" or simply "You must love your Motherland."

It is best to explain how this or that behavior will affect life and attitude towards you:

If you lie, no one will believe you anymore.
- Hard-working people are proud of their successes.
- A brave man will not be afraid of every bush.

In extreme cases, you can limit yourself to vague phrases like this: "If you do not love the Motherland, then the Motherland will not love you either."

Educational opportunities of an educational organization

Of all social institutions, only the family can compete in educational opportunities. There is a very narrow circle of people in the family, but communication with them is very close, very trusting, very long-term. A lot of life attitudes, in general, a way of life is transmitted "by inheritance". Educational organizations, on the other hand, have other opportunities: competent staff, a team, broad social ties.

Educators may notice such deviations in development and behavior that even parents do not notice. They can not only notice, but also give competent advice. In difficult cases, an educational psychologist who understands both developmental psychology and methods of correction and development can participate in the process of personality development.

As already noted, the team has a very strong influence on the child. This influence is so strong that with its help it is possible to overcome all the shortcomings of family education.

Broad social ties mean that the school gradually socializes the student. She introduces him to a wide range of new faces. These are other students (including from other classes), and teachers, and administrative workers, and all sorts of social partners.

By interacting with each new person, the student expands his understanding of:

A) people in general
b) the impression he makes on others,
c) points of intersection of interests - one's own and others'.

All this certainly contributes to the development of personality. Therefore, an important strategic consideration can be put forward: in every possible way it is necessary to ensure that each child has direct contact with a wide range of people, and not just with his friends and teacher.

The role of personality in culture

In its conception and immediate goal, Freudianism is focused on the study and treatment of the psyche of individuals, but from the very beginning it contained a tendency to explain social consciousness in its present and past. The "prohibitions" which, according to Freud, push sexual desire into the realm of the unconscious and give rise to neuroses, were, in essence, nothing more than social norms of morality and law that arose at the dawn of human history. Freud called them "cultural prohibitions" and believed that it was extremely important to find out how, why, under what conditions they arose, established themselves, evolved. The scientist's attention was drawn to the problems of the formation and essence of human culture. As Freud himself wrote, he sought to judge the general development of mankind by his experience acquired ... on the path of studying the mental processes of individuals throughout their development from childhood to adulthood. Transferring individual characteristics from an individual to the whole of humanity, Freud thus tried to understand the process of evolution of society.

It should be noted that Freud transfers to the whole of humanity the psychological traits of not just an individual, but a neurotic. Along the way, the scientist put forward a number of statements. In his opinion, firstly, all people are more or less neurotic. Secondly, each child in his individual development goes through a phase of neurosis. Thirdly, the stage of neurosis is also characteristic of primitive man. All peoples pass through it in their cultural and historical development. Considering culture through the prism of the individual's neurotic consciousness, Freud qualified it as a system of prohibitions that block a person's natural inclinations. In his opinion, the repression of instincts is a measure of the achieved cultural level, and the cultural development of mankind is a renunciation of natural passions, the satisfaction of which guarantees the elementary pleasure of our "I".

It should be emphasized that the Freudian term "culture" in most cases turns out to be equivalent to the concept of "society". In the most detailed definition of "human culture", Freud points out that "it includes all the knowledge and methods acquired by people in order to dominate the forces of nature and obtain goods for the satisfaction of human needs", and at the same time it includes all institutions that regulate relations between people. , in particular the distribution of extracted goods. But it should be noted that destructive, antisocial, anticultural traditions are still alive among all people, and that these aspirations in a significant number of people are so strong that they determine their behavior among others.

We can say that a person, as it were, is between two fires. On the one hand, culture oppresses a person, deprives him of pleasures (for this he seeks to get rid of it); on the other hand, culture protects it from environmental factors, allows you to master all the benefits of nature and use them, and also divides them among people. So, if a person renounces culture in favor of his own pleasures, then he loses protection, many benefits, and may perish. If he refuses pleasures in favor of culture, then this is a heavy burden on his psyche. In what direction is the person inclined? Of course, in the second. Freud writes about it this way: “Because of this, any culture must be built on coercion and on the renunciation of instincts, and when it is understood, it turns out that the center of gravity has been shifted from material interests to the psyche. The decisive question is whether and to what extent it will be possible to reduce for people, the severity of the sacrifice, which consists in the renunciation of their desires, will reconcile people with the sacrifices that they inevitably have to bear, and how to reward them for these sacrifices. The main question remains how to force the negative crowd to comply with cultural dogmas. This raises the question of the role of the individual in culture.

The role of personality in culture

Just as it is impossible to do without compulsion to cultural work, so it is also impossible to do without the domination of the minority (elite) over the masses, because the masses are rigid and short-sighted, they do not like to give up impulses, do not want to listen to arguments in favor of such a refusal, and individual representatives masses encourage permissiveness and licentiousness in each other. It is only through the influence of exemplary individuals, recognized by them as leaders, that they allow themselves to be inclined to the intense inner work of self-denial, on which the development of culture depends. All this is good if individuals with an extraordinary understanding of this vital necessity, who have managed to achieve dominance over their own inclinations, become leaders. But for them there is a danger that, not wanting to lose their influence, they will begin to yield to the masses more than they did to them, and therefore it seems necessary to us that they be independent of the authorities as administrators of the means of power.

In short, people have two common properties responsible for the fact that the institution of culture can be maintained only to a certain extent by violence, namely, people, firstly, do not have a spontaneous love of work and, secondly, the arguments of reason are powerless against them. passions.

The role of the individual in the group

The entry of a person into society implies awareness of oneself in it, assimilation, development of relations generated by the environment. Cognition of social life occurs in a certain group. It is in it that the individual joins the values ​​and norms of society, masters the forms of interaction and cooperation, assimilates social experience, and is formed as a person.

Self-awareness of the individual as a factor of formation in the group

A person's understanding of not objects, but their properties and connections, significance for himself and society creates conditions for updating the socio-psychological mechanisms for deploying purposeful interaction. The subject of awareness is intellectual, emotional activity aimed at self-knowledge, that is, internal information that allows you to understand why a person chooses a certain way of behavior in interaction with society. We are talking about self-awareness, which provides a choice of activities, lines of behavior, the formation of a lifestyle.

Self-awareness is the ability of a person to reproduce himself, to perceive himself from the outside, to reflect on his capabilities.

The object of self-consciousness is a person who simultaneously cognizes and is known, evaluates and evaluates. The structure of self-consciousness includes self-knowledge, self-esteem, self-control.

Self-knowledge is always mediated by the reflection of the outside world, represented in joint activities and communication with other people.

Self-knowledge is the process of self-knowledge by the subject, his activity, internal mental content.

The richness of self-knowledge depends on the conditions and possibilities of objective reality. The limited social contacts and relationships, the inability to get feedback, and, consequently, feedback, hinders self-knowledge. Being the result and prerequisite of self-consciousness, self-knowledge cannot be reduced to it: a person can be aware of himself, his actions and not know the essence of his "I".

Important in the structure of self-consciousness is self-esteem.

Self-esteem - an assessment by a person of himself, his qualities, life opportunities, the attitude of others towards himself and his place among them.

It is an important regulator of the individual's behavior, its relationship with the social environment, criticality, exactingness towards oneself and others. Self-esteem affects the way social contacts and group relationships are formed, their duration and effectiveness. In social psychology, self-esteem and evaluation by others are inextricably linked. This gives grounds to assert that self-esteem is an assessment by people taken by a person for his own program of behavior. Thanks to the ability to self-esteem, a person acquires the ability to independently direct and control his actions and actions, educate and improve himself.

Adequate to the level of claims and real capabilities of a person, self-esteem contributes to the correct choice of tactics and forms of behavior in a group. For discrepancies in the level of claims and real opportunities (inadequate self-esteem), the individual begins to evaluate himself incorrectly, which predetermines his inadequate behavior in the group. The consequence of this are emotional breakdowns, excessive anxiety, which negatively affect group relationships.

Personal self-esteem, being a dynamic formation, changes in accordance with the level of social well-being of the individual. High self-esteem contributes to personal development, self-affirmation in society and the structure of group relations. Low self-esteem interferes with individual growth, inhibits the disclosure of individuality, provokes complexes that complicate relationships. Such, for example, is an inferiority complex - an exaggerated sense of one's own weakness and failure; excess complex - a tendency to exaggerate one's physical, intellectual, social qualities and abilities. Self-esteem is associated with the phenomena of false consensus (Latin consensus - consent, unanimity) - the tendency to overestimate the prevalence of any opinion, undesirable or ineffective behavior; false uniqueness - the tendency to underestimate the fact that abilities and desirable or effective behaviors are widespread.

One of the levels of development of self-awareness of the individual is self-control.

Self-control - conscious, volitional control of one's mental life and behavior in accordance with the "I-characteristics", mentality, value-semantic, demand-motivational and cognitive spheres.

The ability to self-control is predetermined by the requirements of society for the behavior of the individual and implies the ability of the individual as an active subject to recognize and control the situation. The level of self-control is an indicator of the maturity and culture of the individual.

Self-awareness is associated with the ability to reflect.

Reflection (lat. reflexio - turning back, self-knowledge) - an individual's awareness of how he is perceived and evaluated by other individuals or communities; a type of cognition in which the subject becomes the object of his observation; reflections, analysis of one's own mental state.

From the point of view of social psychology, reflection is a form of awareness by the subject (person, community) of how he is perceived and evaluated by other people and groups. This provides for six positions: the subject that is in reality; the subject as he sees himself; the subject as it is seen by another, and the same three positions, but from the side of another subject. In this understanding, reflection is the process of reflection by subjects of each other.

A form of self-awareness is human awareness dignity- an idea of ​​their value as a person. Confirmation and assertion of one's dignity contributes to the success of the individual in interaction with other people. A person's understanding of his own dignity is one of the ways to realize responsibility to himself as a person. And from partners in interaction, the dignity of the individual requires self-respect, recognition of the corresponding rights and opportunities. Thanks to self-esteem, a person realizes himself as an individual reality, a self-sufficient person.

People with self-esteem are happier, less neurotic, less prone to drug and alcohol addiction. Anyone who considers himself competent and efficient is always in an advantageous position. Based on the analysis of these phenomena, the concept of self-efficacy was substantiated (A. Bandura).

Self-efficacy is a sense of one's own competence and effectiveness.

This feeling is different from self-respect and self-esteem. People endowed with high self-efficacy are more persistent, less anxious, better learners, and less prone to depression. Psychological studies have repeatedly convinced of the high effectiveness of optimistic faith in one's own abilities.

So, self-consciousness of the individual is an important factor in the formation and self-improvement of the individual in the structure of social relations. It is a complex mental process, the essence of which is the perception of oneself in numerous situations of interaction with other people, understanding oneself as a subject of actions, feelings, behavior, position in society.

The role of personality in life

The concept of "individual" usually denotes a person as a single representative of a particular social community. The concept of "personality" is applied to each person, since he individually expresses the significant features of this society. The indispensable characteristics of a person are self-consciousness, value orientations and social relations, relative independence in relation to society and responsibility for their actions, and its individuality is that specific thing that distinguishes one person from others, including both biological and social properties, inherited or acquired.

Personality is not only a consequence, but also the cause of socially ethical actions performed in a given social environment. The economic, political, ideological and social relations of a historically certain type of society are refracted and manifested in different ways, determining the social quality of each person, the content and nature of his practical activity. It is in its process that a person, on the one hand, integrates the social relations of the environment, and on the other hand, develops his own special relationship to the outside world. The elements that make up the social qualities of a person include the socially defined goal of his activity; occupied social statuses and performed social roles; expectations regarding these statuses and roles; norms and values ​​(i.e. culture) by which he is guided in the course of his activities; the sign system he uses; body of knowledge; level of education and special training; socio-psychological features; activity and degree of independence in decision-making. A generalized reflection of the totality of recurring, essential social qualities of individuals included in any social community is fixed in the concept of "social personality type". The path from the analysis of the social formation to the analysis of the individual, the reduction of the individual to the social, makes it possible to reveal in the individual the essential, typical, naturally formulated in a concrete historical system of social relations, within a certain class or social group, social institution and social organization to which the individual belongs. When it comes to individuals as members of social groups and classes, social institutions and social organizations, then we mean not the properties of individuals, but social types of individuals. Each person has his own ideas and goals, thoughts and feelings. These are individual qualities that determine the content and nature of his behavior.

The concept of personality makes sense only in the system of social relations, only where one can speak of a social role and a set of roles. At the same time, however, it presupposes not the originality and diversity of the latter, but, above all, a specific understanding by the individual of his role, an internal attitude towards it, a free and interested (or, conversely, forced and formal) performance of it. A person as an individual expresses himself in productive actions, and his actions interest us only to the extent that they receive an organic, objective embodiment. The opposite can be said about a personality: it is actions that are interesting in it. The accomplishments of the personality themselves (for example, labor achievements, discoveries, creative successes) are interpreted by us, first of all, as actions, that is, deliberate, arbitrary behavioral acts. Personality is the initiator of a successive series of life events. The dignity of a person is determined not so much by how much a person succeeded, whether he succeeded or did not succeed, but by what he took under his responsibility, what he imputes to himself. There is only one kind of universally valid norms valid for all times. These are the simplest requirements of morality, such as "do not lie," "do not steal," "do not commit violence." It is them that a person must, first of all, raise into his own unconditional imperative of behavior. Only on this moral basis can the personal independence of the individual be established, his ability to “rule himself”, to build his life as a meaningful, successive and consistent “act” can develop. There are several major social personality types that can be traced throughout the entire historical path of human development:

“Doers” - for such the main thing is active action, changing the world and other people, including oneself, “thinkers” are people who, according to Pythagoras, come into the world not to compete and demand, but to watch and think , people of feelings and emotions - who keenly feel how the "crack of the world" (R. Heine) passes through their hearts, humanists and ascetics - are distinguished by a heightened sense of feeling the state of mind of another person, as if they "feel" into him, facilitating mental and bodily suffering.

In the main cultures and civilizations of the Earth, certain types of personalities have developed, reflecting the characteristics of the East and West. So, if we compare the European canon of personality, which reflects the ideal of Western civilization, with the Japanese one, as a model of the cultures of the East, then significant differences are obvious. In the European model, a person is understood as a certain integrity, and for the Japanese, the perception of a person and her actions as a combination of several “circles of duties” is more characteristic - in relation to the emperor, parents, friends, oneself, etc.

Finally, the existing world religions have developed their own normative ideal of personality, which reflects the essence and dogmatic core of each religion. So, the Christian ideal of a person basically has love for God and love for one's neighbor, which is inextricably linked, in the Islamic model of personality, strict and impeccable fulfillment of the will of Allah, for a person brought up in the spirit of the Buddhist tradition, the main thing is the awareness of the four "noble" truths and readiness follow the eightfold path to enlightenment. That. within the framework of the three world religions, one can distinguish and different types personality and ways of its improvement.

The formation of a society, who or what determines the chain of events large and small on different historical scales, which has a key, guiding influence on the course of the development of society, is one of the main and controversial issues that interests historians and not only them, but many people whose activities are not related to only directly, but even in general, it would seem, is not connected with historical science. Moreover, this question interests almost every person. If we consider the process of development of society as a result of the activity of the management system, which is formed to some extent by chance, and to some extent naturally under the influence of many physical, natural and social factors, then the question of the role of each part of this system in the process is natural. The control system itself consists of a number of subsystems, each of which is also a system with its own internal relationships and rules. But since individual subsystems are part of the real world and their existence in this form is largely determined not only by their internal activities, but also by external relationships, one of the topical issues is the question of the influence of each of them individually on the overall process of functioning of the system of which it is a part. .

The control itself is a closed system. It always provides for some main goal to achieve which the activity of subsystems connected in systems is directed. The factor determining the operation of such a closed system is the use of a comparison of the real layout of facts with the one that should be in accordance with the goals and the response to the result of this difference by changing the form and degree of impact on the system, in other words, in a closed system, feedback serves to control the achievement of the goal. But the result of such a comparison is largely determined by the transformations made on information and influence by the subsystems of this control chain, namely, if any strategy is used for control, then the result is largely determined by how the other subsystems perceive the impact and what they return at the output. One of the major subsystems in this chain is society and groups of people most actively involved in the activities of the management system. So what is the role of society and the individual in this chain?

There are different views on the role of the individual in the development of society as a broad, multifaceted problem. The numerous existing reflections on this problem are also interesting, especially since it is largely affected in the literature.

The problem of the relationship between personality and development in the sense of their influence on each other and interaction can be traced throughout the life of mankind. Many centuries ago, when the settlement of mankind on Earth was just beginning, the change in lifestyles occurred mainly under the influence of natural conditions, during this period the evolution of man was slow. In the primitive period, the role of the individual can be traced from a formal point of view quite simply - this is the presence of leaders in the tribes, who, in the process of their formation, gained authority by force, dexterity and wisdom and turned into universally recognized authorities. And this was quite understandable, since we had to fight for existence, and by uniting together, preserving and advanced experience, this was easier. For centuries, with an extremely small population of the Earth, the influence of tribes on each other was very small, and then the historical periods were very much stretched in time.

So, in the primitive period of development, we can conclude that there was a tradition to single out the individual and ascribe to her a role in the development of society. Over time, the population increased and the influence of population groups on each other manifested itself more and more. By the time the peoples inhabiting large territories were formed, relations between people reached a new level, they were significantly stratified by levels, versatility appeared in the form of formed spheres of relations, such as a state with many subsystems of relations in it. It has become much more difficult not only to say who determines the course of development, but also to single out the chain and sequence of events in this development. It can be assumed that leadership, the dominant role in the course of personality development, is one of the oldest, subconscious traditions.

The role of a historical figure

Philosophy, while developing this problem, often exaggerated the role of the individual in the historical process and, above all, statesmen, believing that almost everything is decided by outstanding personalities. Kings, kings, political leaders, generals supposedly can control the whole of history and run it like a kind of puppet theater, where there are puppeteers and puppets. Historical personalities are personalities placed on the pedestal of history by the force of circumstances and personal qualities. Hegel called world-historical personalities those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain substantial components: the will, the world spirit or the reason of history. "They draw their strength, purpose and their vocation from a source whose content is hidden, which is still underground and knocks on the outside world, as if on a shell, breaking it."

“Studying the life and work of historical figures, one can notice,” Machiavelli wrote in his work “The Emperor,” that happiness did not give them anything, except for the chance that delivered to them the material to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles; without such cases of their valor could fade away without application; without their personal virtues, the case that gave them power in their hands would not be fruitful and could pass without a trace. It was necessary, for example, that Moses find the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to get out of such an intolerable situation would induce them to follow him.

According to Goethe, Napoleon became a historical figure, first of all, not because of his personal qualities (he had many of them, however), but the most important thing is that “people, obeying him, expected thereby to achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence. Plato's statement seems interesting in this regard: "The world will only become happy when the wise men become kings or kings become wise men." No less interesting is the opinion of Cicero, who believed that the strength of the people is more terrible when they have no leader. The leader feels that he will be responsible for everything, and is preoccupied with this, while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the danger to which he exposes himself.

Having become the head of state by chance or out of necessity, a person can have various influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is more often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands the political, state power is concentrated. A lot depends on her. V. Hugo wrote: "A distinctive feature of true statesmen lies precisely in the fact that they benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state." The leader alone, if he is a genius, must subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people. In this regard, the reasoning of A.I. Herzen: “A person is very strong, a person placed in a royal place is even stronger. But here again the old thing: he is strong with the flow and the stronger, the more he understands him. But the flow continues even when he does not understand him and even when he opposes it."

Such a historical detail is curious. Catherine the Second, when asked by a foreigner why the nobility obeyed her so unconditionally, replied: "Because I order them only what they themselves want." But high power, however, also carries heavy responsibilities. The Bible says, "To whom much is given, much will be required." Do all former and present rulers know and follow these commandments?

An outstanding person must have high charisma. Charisma is a "God's spark", an exceptional gift, outstanding abilities that are "from nature", "from God". The term and its development in relation to this or that leader are given in the sociological theories of Troeltsch and Max Weber. The charismatic personality itself spiritually influences its environment. The environment of a charismatic leader can be a "community" of students, warriors, co-religionists, that is, it is a kind of "caste-party" community, which is formed on charismatic grounds: students correspond to the prophet, retinue to the military leader, confidants to the leader. A charismatic leader surrounds himself with those in whom he intuitively and by the power of his mind guesses and catches a gift similar to himself, but "smaller in stature." It seems that of all the above concepts about the place and role of the leader, the leader, the most acceptable is such a happy option when a sage becomes the head of the state, but not by himself, not a sage for himself, but a sage who clearly and timely captures the mood of the people who trusted him power, able to make his people happy and prosperous.

The role of education in personality development

What is upbringing? About upbringing and the role of upbringing in the development of the individual have been arguing for a long time and a lot. Scientists have long been trying to establish what ... exactly social influences and how they form the mental qualities of a child. Meanwhile, lately we have increasingly begun to "blame" Mother Nature for everything. They say that what is inherent in a person is not going anywhere and nothing can be corrected. "An apple does not fall far from an apple tree", "he has such heredity", etc.

Is it possible to become a man without receiving proper education? Can a human be raised from an animal? Experiments on raising animals in human conditions have been carried out for a long time and in different countries. In America, the Kellers were engaged in research on animal cubs. We have at the time Soviet Union zoopsychologist N.N. Ladygina-Kots tried to raise a baby chimpanzee who was 1.5 years old and raised him until he was 4 years old. The entire course of education was carefully recorded. Then, when she had her own child, she could compare the results of raising a child and an animal. The result was the book The Chimpanzee Child and the Human Child. The results of these studies were similar. It turned out that in both babies many emotional manifestations were very similar, including in play activities. But at the same time, the monkey cub could not understand the meaning of the activity, but grasped only the "external pattern" of the action. For example, he was never able to hammer a nail, although he constantly trained. Games that are creative and constructive in nature also turned out to be inaccessible to the monkey cub. Not to mention the assimilation of words and imitation of the sounds of speech.

Does this mean that human abilities cannot arise without a human brain?

It turns out they can't. At the same time, in order for a person to become a person in the full sense of the word, it is necessary to educate him. So what is the role of education in personality development? Let us recall the stories of children who, by the will of circumstances, were brought up by animals. I don't mean the tales of Mowgli and Tarzan. There are cases when children were found in the den of a wolf. For example, in the 20s of the 20th century in India, 2 girls were found in a pack of wolves. And, although they were taken by people under the age of 6 years (one was about 3 years old, the second - 5-6 years old), they could not adapt to life with people until the end of their lives. The youngest died a year later. And the eldest lived to be 15 years old, but she never learned to speak well and in certain situations (for example, when she was in a hurry) walked on all fours.

From this follows the conclusion that human abilities do not develop without human conditions of life and a certain upbringing, and the foundations of behavior are laid precisely at an early age.

“What a person will be depends mainly on how you make him by the fifth year of life. If you don’t educate him properly before the age of five, then you will have to re-educate him.”

It is not in vain that there is an old saying that a child must be brought up when he lies across the bench, when he lies along it, it is too late to bring him up. Of course, this can be argued in the sense that it is necessary to educate even after he no longer fits across the bench. It is education and training that are the main means of transferring social experience accumulated over the centuries. Each new generation receives from previous generations everything that was created before.

Some parents have an opinion that they should raise a child up to 3 years old, and then let him take care of the kindergarten, school, which is fundamentally wrong. The child is brought up by the environment in which he lives, the people who are next to him, even the toys he plays with. And, of course, what a child saw on TV, read in a book, heard from peers, can leave an indelible mark on his soul, give new meaning to what he learned before.

The role of personality in communication

Communication is of great importance in the formation of the human psyche, its development and the formation of reasonable, cultural behavior. Through communication with psychologically developed people, thanks to the wide opportunities for learning, a person acquires all his higher cognitive abilities and qualities. Through active communication with developed personalities, he himself turns into a personality.

Successful formation of a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality is possible only if the laws of its development are taken into account.

The inclusion of a person in different systems: biological, ecological, social - determines the extreme complexity and heterogeneity of the determinants and potentials of individual development.

Human development is a single process determined by the historical conditions of social life. The result of the interaction of biological and social in the individual development of a person is the formation of individuality. Its essence is the unity and interconnection of the properties of a person as a personality and a subject of activity, in the structure of which the natural properties of a person as an individual function; the general effect of this fusion, the integration of all the properties of a person as an individual, personality and subject of activity is individuality with its holistic organization of all properties and their self-regulation. The socialization of the individual, accompanied by ever greater individualization, covers the entire life path of a person.

The nature of psychophysiological development is heterogeneous and contradictory throughout ontogeny. General development is the result of mastered activities: labor, knowledge and communication. They significantly influence the formation of the potential properties of a person.

In many works, the facts of a significant change in the indicators of various mental functions as a result of labor activity were revealed. If the first phase of the development of mental functions acts as a consequence of their age-related maturation, then the further progress of functions is primarily due to the formation of operational mechanisms in the process of activity, which can significantly expand the possibilities for developing potentials and contribute to creative longevity.

As the personality develops, the integrity and integrativity of its psychological organization grows, the interconnection of various properties and characteristics increases, new development potentials accumulate. There is an expansion and deepening of the ties of the individual with the outside world, society and other people. A special role is played by those aspects of the psyche that provide the internal activity of the individual, manifested in his interests, emotional, conscious attitude to the environment and to his own activities.

A number of studies have established a great similarity in the characteristics of personality development in childhood, adolescence, early, middle and late adulthood, which allows us to speak about the existence of various individual development styles.

Thus, development potentials include individual, subjective and personal characteristics, which, being transformed under the influence of human activities, constitute a kind of combination of individual development potentials. If from birth a person was deprived of the opportunity to communicate with people, he would never become a civilized, culturally and morally developed citizen, he would be doomed to remain a semi-animal until the end of his life, only outwardly, anatomically and physiologically resembling a person. This is evidenced by numerous facts described in the literature and showing that, being deprived of communication with their own kind, the human individual, even if he, as an organism, is completely preserved, nevertheless remains a biological being in his mental development. As an example, we can cite the conditions of people who are found from time to time among animals and who for a long period, especially in childhood, lived in isolation from civilized people or, already as adults, as a result of an accident, found themselves alone, isolated from their own kind for a long time ( e.g. after a shipwreck).

Of particular importance for the mental development of the child is his communication with adults in the early stages of ontogenesis. At this time, he acquires all his human, mental and behavioral qualities almost exclusively through communication, since until the beginning of schooling, and even more definitely before the onset of adolescence, he is deprived of the ability to self-education and self-education.

The role of the personality of the teacher

The successful fulfillment by the teacher of his functions is a necessary condition for the formation of a student team, the formation of the personality of schoolchildren, and their preparation for subsequent independent adult life. At the same time, even the strict implementation by the teacher of only role instructions does not guarantee that he will solve educational problems. Sometimes a teacher who seems to meet all the requirements for him, despite the good knowledge of students and quite satisfactory discipline in the classroom, has nothing to be proud of when it comes to educating students as a collectivist. The decisive factor here is the personality of the educator himself.

The decisive significance of the teacher's own personal influence on the development of the personality of his pupils was noted by progressive Russian teachers of the pre-revolutionary period. “In education, everything should be based on the personality of the educator, because the educational power flows only from the living source of the human personality,” wrote K. D. Ushinsky. And then even more definitely: "Only a personality can act on the development and definition of a personality, only character can form a character." This approach was creatively developed by the classics of Soviet pedagogy. Emphasizing the fundamental importance of this position in the upbringing of the younger generations, especially in the conditions of building a new society, N. K. Krupskaya noted that “for children, the idea is inseparable from the personality. What a beloved teacher says is perceived in a completely different way than what a despised or alien person says. Such broad educational opportunities for a teacher simultaneously place a high responsibility on him and require a particularly careful attitude to the organization and implementation of the educational process. Pointing out the complexity and difficult specifics of the professional activity of a teacher, M. I. Kalinin noted that “dozens of eyes look at him, and there is nothing more attentive in relation to the various nuances of a person’s mental life, no one will catch all the subtleties like a child’s eye.” V. A. Sukhomlinsky considered the human wealth of the teacher as the most important educational factor: “The force that encourages each pupil to look at himself, think about his own behavior, manage himself - and this, in essence, begins real education - is the personality of the teacher , his ideological convictions, the richness of his spiritual life.

In modern psychological and pedagogical science, the question of the influence of the personality of the educator on the process of forming the personality of the child is traditionally regarded as key and decisive. Many theoretical and experimental studies of Sh. A. Amonashvili, L. I. Bozhovich, N. V. Kuzmina, A. V. Mudrik, D. I. Feldshtein and others are devoted to this problem. The educational tasks facing Soviet educators at the present time can only be achieved if there is a creative approach to their solution and if a variety of scientifically substantiated methods of pedagogical influence are skilfully used.

In Soviet psychological and pedagogical science, two main types of pedagogical influence have been distinguished - direct (open) and indirect.

Direct influence is understood as a direct appeal to the object in order to present it with any requirements or proposals. The very specificity of the teacher's professional activity, his constant and at the same time direct contact with students suggests the need for quite frequent use of just this type of influence. At the same time, in some cases, such tactics may not be flexible enough and too straightforward. Sometimes the teacher's unjustifiably persistent use of direct influence causes the student's opposition to be equal in strength, creates a conflict situation, and seriously complicates the relationship between the teacher and students.

Here, the method of indirect influence is more effective, the essence of which is as follows. The teacher directs his efforts not directly to the one whom he seeks to ultimately influence, but to his environment, pursuing the goal, changing the circumstances of the life of the person of interest to him, changing him in the right direction.

This educational tactic is especially effective in relation to adolescents, who often actively resist any control from an adult. So, if a teacher, for one reason or another, is deprived of the opportunity to achieve the desired result by directly influencing students, he can, for example, use the technique of influencing through a reference person. As a rule, each student in the school has one or more comrades, whose opinion he listens to, whose position he is oriented to, in other words, there are reference persons for him. If, with the help of a specially organized influence on such a student, the teacher succeeds in turning him into his ally, then the main task can be easily solved. The reference student will become the “channel” through which it will not be difficult for the teacher to exercise indirect influence on other students and, as a result, achieve the influence he needs.

The influence exerted by the teacher on students can be different both in nature and in direction. In social and pedagogical psychology, first of all, the purposeful and non-purposeful influence of the teacher is singled out.

Purposeful influence is the result of a specially organized by the teacher impact. One of the conditions for such influence is the teacher's awareness of its necessity. An obligatory stage is the sometimes long and laborious work of the teacher in choosing a specific method of influencing the student, which could lead to the fact of the desired influence. Thus, purposeful influence is conscious, deliberate, planned. An example is the successful work of a teacher in the reorientation of so-called difficult teenagers. If a specially selected and skillfully applied system of pedagogical measures gradually leads to the desired result, corresponding to the initial goals of the educator, we can talk about his purposeful influence on schoolchildren. At the same time, as she shows teaching practice the situation does not always work out so well. Sometimes, despite all the efforts not only of an individual teacher, but also of the whole pedagogical team, the result cannot be called satisfactory, meeting the goals, intentions and plans of teachers who carried out a targeted impact. Naturally, in this case, although the pedagogical influence was carried out by the teacher, it would be unlawful to talk about his purposeful influence.

Along with purposeful influence, the teacher inevitably, both in the course of his professional and pedagogical activity and in the course of communication with students, unintentionally exerts an unplanned influence on them, which he often does not realize has happened and which, for these reasons, should be defined as untargeted. This influence can be both positive and negative. Examples in this regard are the effects of social facilitation and inhibition, repeatedly recorded in experimental psychological studies.

As psychological studies have shown, even the mere presence of a teacher or the actualization of his image among schoolchildren significantly affects the activities of the latter. The direction of influence ultimately depends on how much this or that teacher is personalized in his students, and on what is the "sign" of this personalization - whether it is positive or negative. Actualization of the teacher's image can lead to the optimization of schoolchildren's activities, increase their activity, stimulate conscientious, responsible performance of the task. At the same time, the reverse situation sometimes develops - students choose the tactics of "deviating" behavior, resort to unlawful methods to achieve the goal, and seek to avoid responsibility. It is clear that such influence, although it is real and carried out by the teacher, is not only untargeted, but, moreover, directly opposite to what is desired.

As theoretical and experimental studies have shown, the purposeful and non-purposeful influence of a teacher can have an individual-specific character.

The teacher, in the process of his interaction and communication with students, intentionally and unintentionally, in an individual-specific, unique way, continues himself in them, carrying out transformations of their personal meanings, motives, and behavior that are significant for schoolchildren. The teacher, realizing the role of a mentor, demonstrates to his students previously undeveloped patterns of activity, individual options for role-playing behavior, which reflect his personal characteristics. The assimilation by students of these personal qualities transmitted by the teacher in the form of personalization of the teacher in schoolchildren is the result of his influence, which is defined as an individual-specific influence. At the same time, both the object and the subject of this influence are far from always aware of its presence. According to experimental data, a creative teacher, perceiving each teaching and educational task facing him as unique and offering original ways to solve it, thereby transmits his "creativity" to students. In such classes, students are much more independent, proactive, capable of finding extraordinary solutions compared to students led by a teacher who strictly adheres to standard functional-role methods of influence.

So, for example, students were presented with a list of concepts and the associations arising in connection with these concepts were recorded. At the preliminary stage of the study, with the help of a special procedure, teachers working with this class were differentiated into "non-creative", i.e. tending to use pedagogical clichés, and "creative". An analysis of the data obtained made it possible to reveal the following regularity: in the case of a list being presented by a “creative” teacher and the students completing tasks in his presence, the extent and originality of their associations sharply increase in comparison with the situation in which there is a teacher who does not have sufficient creative potential. This result cannot be explained otherwise than by the presence of an individually-specific influence on students of a "creative" teacher.

Emphasizing the defining role of the personality of the teacher, V. A. Sukhomlinsky wrote that, speaking of the team as a great educational force, “we mean the flowering and green crown of the tree, which is nourished by deep and inconspicuous roots, and these roots are the human wealth of the educator” .

The personality of the teacher significantly influences the formation of the educational team and, in particular, the socio-psychological climate in it.

The role of the individual in the team

The question of the relationship between the collective and the individual is one of the key ones, and in the context of the democratization of education, the observance of human rights and freedoms, it is of particular importance. For many decades, the issue of shaping the student's personality through the impact on the team in the domestic pedagogical literature was almost not considered. It was believed that the individual must unconditionally obey the collective. Now we have to look for new solutions that correspond to the spirit of the time, based on the deep philosophical concepts of man and the experience of world pedagogical thought.

The process of including a student in the system of collective relations is complex, ambiguous, and often contradictory. First of all, it should be noted that it is deeply individual. Schoolchildren, future members of the team, differ from each other in their state of health, appearance, character traits, degree of sociability, knowledge, skills, and many other traits and qualities. Therefore, they enter the system of collective relations in different ways, cause an unequal reaction of the CQ side of the comrades, and have the opposite effect on the team.

The position of the individual in the system of collective relations most significantly depends on his individual social experience. It is experience that determines the nature of her judgments, the system of value orientations, and the line of behavior. It may or may not correspond to the judgments, values ​​and traditions of behavior that have developed in the team. Where this correspondence is evident, the inclusion of the individual in the system of established relationships is greatly facilitated. In cases where a student has a different experience (already, poorer or, conversely, richer than the experience of the social life of the team), it is more difficult for him to establish relationships with peers. His position is especially difficult when individual social experience contradicts the values ​​accepted in this team. The clash of opposing lines of behavior, views on life is simply inevitable here and, as a rule, leads to different, not always predictable results.

Let us conclude: how the relationship between the individual and the team develops depends not only on the qualities of the individual himself, but also on the team. Experience confirms that relations develop most favorably where the team has already reached a high level of development, where it represents a force based on traditions, public opinion, and the authority of self-government. Such a collective relatively easily establishes normal relations with those who enter it.

Each person, with more or less energy, strives for self-affirmation in the team, for taking a favorable position in it. But not everyone succeeds - subjective and objective reasons interfere. Not everyone, due to their natural abilities, manages to achieve visible success, overcome shyness, critically comprehend the differences in value orientations with the team. It is especially difficult for younger schoolchildren who have not yet developed self-awareness and self-esteem, the ability to correctly assess the attitude of the team, comrades towards themselves, to find that place in the team that, corresponding to the possibilities, would make them interesting people in the eyes of comrades, deserving attention. In addition to subjective, there are also objective reasons: the monotony of activities and the narrow range of those social roles that a student can play in a team; the poverty of content and the monotony of organizational forms of communication between members of the team, their lack of a culture of perception of each other, the inability to see in a friend something interesting and valuable that deserves attention.

Scientific research has identified the three most common models for the development of relations between the individual and the team:

1) the individual is subordinate to the team (conformism);
2) the individual and the team are in optimal relations (harmony);
3) the individual subjugates the collective (nonconformism). In each of these general patterns, there are many lines of relationships, for example: the collective rejects the individual; the individual rejects the collective; coexistence on the principle of non-intervention, etc.

According to the first model, a person can naturally and voluntarily obey the requirements of the team, can yield to the team as an external superior force, or can try to continue to maintain his independence and individuality, obeying the team only externally, formally. If the desire to enter the team is obvious, the person tends to the values ​​of the team, accepts them. The collective "absorbs" the personality, subordinates it to the norms, values ​​and traditions of its life.

According to the second line of behavior, various paths for the development of events are possible:

1) the individual outwardly submits to the requirements of the team, while maintaining internal independence;
2) the person openly "rebels", resists, conflicts. The motives for adapting the individual to the team, its norms and values ​​are diverse. The most common motive that existed in our school groups was the desire to avoid unnecessary and unnecessary complications, troubles, the fear of spoiling the “characteristic”. In this case, the student only externally perceives the norms and values ​​of the team, expresses the judgments that are expected of him, behaves in various situations in the way that is customary in the team. However, outside the school team, he argues and thinks differently, focusing on his earlier social experience. Such a state may be temporary, transient, or may remain permanent. The latter is observed when the previously formed social experience of the individual, inadequate to the experience of the collective, receives reinforcement from other collectives (families, yard companies, etc.).

An open "revolt" against the collective is a rare phenomenon in our schools. The guys "rebel" only occasionally, and then on unprincipled issues. The sense of self-preservation takes over. The collective that has broken the personality acts in relation to it in the role of a gendarme. This is contrary to the humane approach to education, and teachers have something to think about, developing new ways to improve the relationship of the individual with the team.

The ideal of relationships is the harmonization of the individual and the team. According to some estimates, less than 5% of the schoolchildren surveyed consider comfortable living conditions in a team. An in-depth study of these guys showed that they are endowed with rare natural collectivist qualities, and therefore they are able to get along in any team, they have acquired a positive social experience of human coexistence and, moreover, ended up in well-formed teams. In this case, there are no contradictions between the individual and the collective. Each member of the team is interested in the existence of a friendly long-term association.

A typical model of relations between the individual and the collective, characteristic of our recent school, is coexistence. The individual and the collective coexist, observing formal relations, while being called a collective, but not being one in essence. In most cases, a double system of values ​​is established in the team, a double field of moral tension, when positive relations are established between schoolchildren within the framework of activities organized with the participation of teachers, and with unorganized communication they remain negative. This is due to the fact that the guys cannot show their individuality in the team, but are forced to yell at the imposed roles. Where it is possible to expand the range of sols, schoolchildren find positions in the team that satisfy them, and their position in the system of relations becomes more favorable.

The third model of the relationship of the individual with the team, when the individual subjugates the team, is not common. However, given the activity called informal leaders, and, consequently, the presence of double, and often triple systems of values ​​and attitudes, this model cannot be ignored. A bright personality, her individual experience may, for one reason or another, be attractive in the eyes of the members of the team. This attractiveness is most often due to personal qualities, unusual judgments or actions, originality of status or position. In this case, the social experience of the team may change. This process can have a dual character and lead both to the enrichment of the social experience of the collective, and to its impoverishment, if the new idol becomes an informal leader and orients the collective towards a lower value system than the one that the collective has already achieved.

Psychologists and educators note the widespread position of members of school groups, in which individualism manifests itself in a hidden, veiled form. There are quite a few schoolchildren who are very willing to take on the proposed work, especially the responsible one. To shine, to be in front of everyone, to show their superiority over others and often at the expense of others is a frequent motive for their zeal. They are not saddened by the poor state of affairs in the team, sometimes they are even pleased with the general failures of the class, since against this background their own achievements shine brighter.

Of course, the considered models do not exhaust all the huge variety of relations between the individual and the team, the analysis of which in each specific case must be approached fully armed with knowledge of the psychological mechanisms of motivation for the activity and behavior of the individual, as well as the laws of social pedagogy and psychology.

The role of personality in science

Eduard Salmanovich Kulpin-Gubaidullin is a vivid example of how a person, a personality opens up new paths in the scientific and philosophical knowledge of the world and how difficult these searches and discoveries are. Being a “techie” by education and initial place of work, and a natural scientist by mentality, at the same time he was interested in the deep mechanisms of the development of man and society, their interaction with nature. This problem brought him to the philosophical level of generalization, but at the same time he sought and found new opportunities for using the methodology of the natural, exact sciences in the social and humanitarian sphere. And this gave the combination of general theoretical positions with specific research, so important for knowledge. So, thanks to the breadth of the scientist's interests, the depth of his personality, socio-natural history arose, which is a synthesis of scientific areas that study the development of nature, man and society in their interaction.

Of course, when creating socio-natural history, Eduard Salmanovich relied on the achievements and developments of his predecessors - primarily the French historical school "Annals", the work of L. N. Gumilyov, many geographers, specialists in the history of climate, biologists, soil scientists, etc. At the same time, he critically rethought the work of his predecessors and saw many things in a new way. E. S. Kulpin’s original and still unappreciated contribution lies, in particular, in determining the most important relationships between the nature of the enclosing landscape, the technologies used in a given society, and the system of basic values ​​inherent in this society. Equally important is his analysis of the division of the world into West and East, which occurred during the axial time (first millennium BC) and was also associated with a different enclosing landscape, different technologies and different value systems inherent in the West and the East. Extremely important is also the concept of the socio-ecological crisis, introduced by Kulpin and not yet rooted either in traditional history or in other humanities and social sciences. Meanwhile, the concept of a socio-ecological crisis describes many crisis or turning points that have occurred in the past or are occurring in the present simultaneously both in nature and in society. This concept becomes especially important in the modern era, when the whole world is experiencing a global socio-ecological crisis. The consequences of this global crisis we see in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and other regions of the world. And this means that socio-natural history is very relevant for humanity: if the various civilizations that exist in the world fail to learn from previous socio-ecological crises, degradation and destruction await them.

In one of the interviews, Eduard Salmanovich accurately and figuratively described the essence of socio-natural history. “Socionatural history is a part of the history of the Earth's biosphere, a scientific discipline at the intersection of the natural and human sciences. When combining the knowledge of different sciences, an effect similar to color printing in polygraphy occurs. There, the overlay of three colors - blue, yellow and red - gives the whole spectrum of the rainbow. Moreover, new clear lines appear, which are poorly outlined or completely absent on individual mono-color prints. In socio-natural history, the analogue of the rainbow is a voluminous, multidimensional representation of processes, phenomena and events; analogue of lines - new ideas, new logical chains. Unlike traditional disciplines, where you always know what you are trying to achieve, there are many new and unexpected things in socio-natural history. You get not only what you are looking for, but also something else. Kulpin's works are really a rainbow with numerous lines - new ideas, logical chains, unexpected relationships and patterns.

Returning to the role of the individual in the development of science, it should be noted that in recent decades there has been a dangerous trend consisting in an attempt to present the dynamics of fundamental and applied science as a “self-developing” process in which the personality of the scientist plays a very small role, and everything is decided by the allocated resources for science. money and its organization. This harmful and dangerous delusion is the result of a technocratic-bureaucratic approach to science, which leads to the formalization and commercialization of scientific research, meaningless and ever-increasing reporting, the pursuit of indicators and ratings contrary to content and meaning. The danger of such an approach lies in the fact that science loses its creative essence and spiritual and intellectual multidimensionality, inevitably turning into a tool for the destruction of nature and man. Isn't that why, along with scientific and technological progress, we observe processes of degradation in science, education, the social sphere, politics and even the economy? Are these processes of degradation connected with the loss of morality and ethics, with the formalization, commercialization and standardization of the activities of scientists and other specialists? Eduard Salmanovich Kulpin was categorically against such an approach to science and he himself was an example of a multidimensional creative moral personality that does not need any standardization and formalization and opposes it in every possible way. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read his scientific works, including articles directed against the thoughtless and formal "reform" of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian education.

And last but not least, Eduard Salmanovich Kulpin insisted that both in science and in education direct personal relationships between the Teacher and the Student must be preserved. In other words, a person must educate another person and be educated by her. It is precisely such relationships that can ensure not only continuity in knowledge, but also the connection between generations, which is so lacking now, when the gap between generations has reached alarming proportions. I remember one Polish colleague talking enthusiastically about fully computerized student learning, where students take everything from the Internet, and the role of the teacher is reduced to answering a few questions from students. Eduard Salmanovich was horrified by this: on the contrary, he believed that the communication between the teacher and students is a personal and direct communication between the Teacher and the Students. At the same time, the Teacher does not teach the Student, but communicates with him, they together strive to comprehend the truth and help each other to do this. So, Eduard Salmanovich himself was such a Teacher, always striving for the truth, a real Teacher both for me and for many others.

Text from the exam

(1) History is not faceless. (2) Many names are carved on its pages, the memory of which survives centuries, decades. (Z) These are the names of the heroes. (4) At all times people have revered heroes. (5) They were the national pride of the peoples, legends were passed on from generation to generation, legends were formed. (b) Thousands and thousands of folios in many languages ​​of the world depict the deeds and accomplishments of heroic personalities. (7) Streets and squares are named after the heroes, expositions in museums are dedicated to them, songs are sung about them and poems are composed. (8) Superficially, one might get the impression that only great people - the heroes of history - manage its affairs. (9) For centuries, this view of the role of outstanding personalities, heroes among the crowd, was dominant. (10) Such views on the role of heroes in human history were also “substantiated” theoretically. (11) The English thinker Thomas Carlyle in his book "Heroes, the cult of heroes and the heroic in history" argued that world history is, in essence, the history of great people. (12) According to him, the hero who possesses traits of cruelty, ruthless authority and determination to use force is capable of playing a messianic role in history.

(13) The Russian sociologist Nikolai Mikhailovsky, in his work The Hero and the Crowd, wrote that the hero is the main creator of history. (14) Modern life, he argued, empties people's minds and paralyzes their will, as a result of which the masses turn into a "crowd". (15) And only a "hero" is able to raise and captivate her to a feat or a crime.

(16) Such views, expressing the essence of the theories of "elites", "leaders", in a camouflaged form affirm the historical conditionality of the power of the chosen minority, the need for a "strong hand" for those who are at the top of the pyramid of power.

(17) G.W. Plekhanov, wittily ridiculing this theory, wrote that for the Narodniks the masses are an endless series of zeros. (18) Only one can turn this chain of zeros into a positive value - a hero, standing at the head of a faceless row. “(19) A great man,” wrote G.V. Plekhanov in his work “On the Question of the Role of the Personality in History” is great ... in that he has features that make him the most capable of serving the great social needs of his time ... (20) A great man is precisely the initiator, because he sees further others and wants more than others. (21) He solves the scientific problems put in the queue by the previous course of the mental development of society; he indicates the new social needs created by the previous development of social relations; he takes upon himself the satisfaction of these needs. (22) He is a hero. (23) Not in the sense of a hero that he can allegedly stop or change the natural course of things, but in that his activity is a conscious and free expression of this necessary and unconscious course. (24) Outstanding personalities, heroes appear when people need them. (25) If the actions of these individuals coincide with the main progressive tendencies of social development, the interests of the advanced classes, their role is exceptionally great.

(According to D.A. Volkogonov)

Introduction

History is made by the interaction of vast masses of people. But at the head of events there is always someone leading the process or someone who was able to turn what is happening in a different direction, change the course of history.

Problem

Who are these people? What is their significance for society and history? Can one person influence the course of historical events? V.A. reflects on the role of personality in history. Volkogonov in his text, comparing the points of view on this issue of various philosophers.

A comment

Heroes are at the head of history, they leave a memory of themselves for all time, they are revered, admired, they make up legends and traditions about them. Streets are named after them, expositions are dedicated to them, poems and songs are written to their glory.

For example, Thomas Cargeil, an Englishman, assured that great people are at the head of history. They, even endowed with traits of cruelty and unquestioning, become saviors for society.

Another thinker, Nikolai Mikhailovsky, also asserts the dominant role of the hero in history. A simple person in our time is so impersonal and paralyzed that he is not able to influence history, he simply does not think about it. The crowd is not capable of moving forward on its own, only the hero is able to direct it on the right path.

G.V. Plekhanov presents a different point of view. In his opinion, any person who is able to look far into the future, who wants change more than anyone can become a historical arbiter. He is a pioneer, solving problems set by previous generations. He is committed to meeting the needs of his people.

Author's position

Volkogonov is close to Plekhanov's position. He shares the idea that the hero sees further than others, all his actions express the decisive course of history.

own position

Volkogonov's position is close to me and understandable. Indeed, the hero is not only a representative of high society with power. First of all, this is a person who understands the needs of his people, fighting for their well-being.

Argument #1

Remembering the classics, we find confirmation of this. L.N. Tolstoy in the epic novel "War and Peace" depicts the course of history over decades, and one of the main themes of the novel is the role of the individual in history. The work presents images of emperors and commanders - Napoleon, Alexander the First, Kutuzov. Which of them is really the hero who directs the course of history?

Tolstoy believes that a true hero reflects the interests of the people, follows the people's morals. Alexander the First does not understand the needs of the people at all, does not know what is important for his people and country at the moment. Napoleon is so vain and ambitious that he does not understand at all what he is pushing his troops into. Kutuzov seems to be the true leader and arbiter of history to Tolstoy, because he strives to embody the interests of an entire people. He becomes the spokesman of the people's soul and the embodiment of patriotism.

Argument #2

The problem of the role of personality in history is raised by F.M. Dostoevsky in the novel Crime and Punishment. The real reason for Raskolnikov's actions is the murder of an old pawnbroker and her feeble-minded pregnant sister - a test of the effectiveness of his own theory. Raskolnikov divided people into two types: "having the right" and "trembling creatures."

The former create history through the transgression of the law, the latter obediently follow the will of the former. Napoleon, Mahomet and many other leaders shed blood, were criminals. It is they, according to Rodion, who move the course of history, guide humanity forward.

But Raskolnikov's theory turned out to be false. She didn't confirm. Above all the others in strength of mind was a little girl, humiliated and insulted, Sonya Marmeladova. Yes, and Raskolnikov himself, testing the effectiveness of the theory, subjected himself to incredible torment.

Conclusion

The problem of the role of the individual in history is multifaceted and complex. It is also relevant in our modern life, when the world is in limbo, when people close to power are ready to use any means to achieve their goals.

The complexity and ambiguity of understanding the problem of the role of the individual in history is seen in the example of the same Marxism, despite the fact that, as is known, it most consistently defends the primacy of social laws over other factors of historical development. Plekhanov expressed his Marxist views on this problem most systematically in his work “On the Question of the Role of the Personality in History”. Nevertheless, modern researchers (Lukach, 1991; Aron, 1993; Karsavin, 1993; Grinin, 1998, etc.) evoke quite reasonable criticism of some aspects of it. For example, the fact that the author speaks almost only about the great and progressive figures, while there were many more insignificant, reactionary, bloodthirsty, insane, etc., who often played a very large role. However, the main mistake is that he tries to see social laws as inexorable, eternal, unchanging, hence the belittling of the role of the individual. Recognizing the development of productive forces as the main, most general historical cause, he writes: the historical situation in which the development of the productive forces of a given people takes place and which itself was created in the last instance by the development of the same forces among other peoples, i.e. the same common cause. “Finally, the influence of special causes is supplemented by the action of single causes, i.e. personal features of public figures and their "accidents", thanks to which events finally receive their individual physiognomy. "Single causes cannot produce fundamental changes in the action of general and special causes, which, moreover, determine the direction and limits of the influence of single causes." One gets the impression that Plekhanov imagines history as a pre-written performance in which the director can replace the actor, but will still do what is indicated in the script. The author involuntarily proceeds from the idea of ​​the existence of the meaning of history before the events took place. If we refuse such an approach, then it is not at all easy to answer the endless questions that arise, as soon as you delve into the history of any country. Why do small personalities sometimes play such a huge role, while great heroes fail? What is the reason for the demonic success of usurpers and tyrants (Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Hitler, etc.) who enslave society, and why are often reformers (Boris Godunov, Alexander II, Khrushchev, etc.) who try to free it, lose their lives or are overthrown? Why do some tyrants calmly end their lives, while rebellions rise up against others? Why are some ideas so easily perceived and become, in the words of K. Marx, a “material force”, while others, seemingly very relevant, stumble upon a wall of misunderstanding? How the activities of certain individuals affected the country and the whole world, and what would happen if this leader died. How did the features of character, environment affect? Etc. The answers given are different, they are intertwined with true and erroneous positions. “The role of the individual is determined by the organization of society,” Plekhanov correctly writes. But then why is it given such a small role in his theory? After all, if the nature of society is such that it allows governing at will, then with the coming to power of a new personality, the historical outline may no longer depend on the nature of society, but on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler, who will attract social forces to satisfy them. And at the moment of the decisive battle for the primacy of the two leading world powers, when the outcome may depend mainly on the luck and talent of the generals, will the character of society always have a noticeable effect? “Not an idea, not a dream, but a mysteriously great man stands here, as elsewhere, at a turning point in history,” writes one of the supporters of the exaggerated role of the individual A. Julicher (Yaspers, 1994, p. 176.). This is also true, but the most difficult question arises: is this “mysteriously great man” caused by the era or, on the contrary, created it himself (did the Arab people, looking for a new idea, cause Mohammed, or did the latter himself bring the Arabs out of historical oblivion?). So, is any person capable of becoming the most important independent factor that changes society (epoch, dominant views) depending on his understanding of the matter, or is he only realizing what was laid down by previous development and inevitably should manifest itself? In other words, would the course of history change in some cases if there were no one or another person, or, on the contrary, if the right figure appeared at the right time? For Plekhanov, the proposition that the role of the individual is determined by the organization of society serves only as a way to prove the triumph of harsh, inexorable Marxist laws over the will of man. Modern researchers (Lukach, 1991; Aron, 1993; Karsavin, 1993; Grinin, 1998, etc.) note that within the framework of the antinomy indicated by Plekhanov (see introduction), the issue cannot be resolved, since there is correctness in both approach. Moreover, as shown in the previous section, a person is not a simple “cast” from society, but nevertheless has a completely definite attitude towards it with their active mutual influence on each other.

As you know, history is a process of human activity that forms a link between the past, present and future. The linear model of historical development, according to which society develops from a simple to a more complex stage, has existed in science and philosophy for a long time. However, at present, priority is still given to the civilizational approach.

Many factors influence the development of the historical process. Among these factors, a person who conducts social activities plays an important role. The role of a person in history especially increases if he is directly related to power.

Plekhanov G.V. noted that history is made by people. The activities of each individual person, who takes an active life position, contributes with his work, theoretical searches, etc. In addition, a certain contribution to the development of a particular sphere of public life is already a contribution to the historical process as a whole.

The French writer J. Lemaitre wrote that all people participate in the creation of history. Therefore, each of us, even in the smallest part, is obliged to contribute to her beauty and not let her be too ugly. One cannot but agree with the writer's point of view, since all our actions in one way or another affect the people who surround us. So how can a person influence the formation of society and history as a whole?

The question of personality in the historical process has worried scientists at all times, and currently remains relevant. Life does not stand still, history moves forward, there is a constant development of human society and significant personalities enter the historical arena, replacing those who remain in the past.

The problem of the role of personality in history has been dealt with by many thinkers and scientists of philosophy. Among them G. Hegel, G.V. Plekhanov, L.N. Tolstoy, K. Marx and many others. Therefore, the ambiguity of the solution of this problem is associated with ambiguous approaches to the very essence of the historical process.

Let us note that history is driven by impulses that set in motion large masses of people, entire peoples, and in each given people, entire classes. And for this it is necessary to understand what influence these masses carry in themselves.

The people are the creation of their era, but the people and the creator of their era. The creative power of the people appears especially brightly in the deeds of great historical figures. Throughout the life of mankind, we see the connection between personality and history, their influence on each other, their interaction. At the same time, the emergence of this category of personality is caused by certain historical conditions, which are prepared by the activities of the masses and historical needs.

The mass, as it is a special type of historical community of people, fulfills the role assigned to it. If the originality of the individual is ignored or suppressed when the cohesion of the team is achieved, the human team turns into a mass. The main features of the mass are: heterogeneity, spontaneity, suggestibility, variability, which serve as manipulation by the leader. Individuals are able to control the masses. The mass, in its unconscious movement towards order, elects a leader who embodies its ideals.

The influence of the individual on the course of history in many respects directly depends on how numerous the mass that follows him, and on which he relies through some class, party. Because of this, an outstanding personality must not only be talented, but also have organizational skills in order to captivate people.

History teaches that no class, no social force achieves dominance if it does not put forward its own political leaders. But individual talents are not enough. It is necessary that in the course of the development of society there are tasks on the agenda that this or that person can solve.

The appearance on the historical arena of an outstanding personality is prepared by objective circumstances, by the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear at variable periods in the development of countries and their peoples. So what characterizes an outstanding personality, especially a statesman?

In his work The Philosophy of History, G. Hegel wrote that there is an organic connection between the necessity that dominates history and the historical activity of people. Personalities of this kind, with extraordinary insight, understand the perspective of the historical process, form their goals on the basis of what is new, which is still hidden within the given historical reality.

The question arises, would the course of history change in some cases if there were no one or another person or, on the contrary, if a figure appeared at the right moment?

G.V. Plekhanov believes that the role of the individual is determined by the organization of society, which serves only as a way to prove the triumph of inexorable Marxist laws over the will of man.

Modern researchers note that a person is not a simple "cast" from society. On the contrary, society and the individual actively mutually influence each other. There are many ways to organize society, and therefore, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality. Thus, the historical role of the individual can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous.

A huge number of events in history have always been marked by the manifestation of activity by various personalities: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre; strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary.

And as history shows, a person, having become the head of a state, an army, a party, a people's militia, can have a different influence on the course of historical development. The process of nomination of the individual is determined by the personal qualities of people and the needs of society.

Therefore, first of all, historical figure is evaluated from the point of view of how it fulfilled the tasks assigned to it by history and people.

A striking example of such a person is Peter I. To understand and explain the actions of an outstanding person, one must study the very process of forming the character of this person. We will not talk about how the character of Peter I was formed. We will only pay attention to the following. From the way Peter's character developed and what the result was, it becomes clear what effect he could have on Russia as a king. The methods and strategy of governing the state of Peter I were very different from the previous ones.

One of distinctive features Peter I, determined by his upbringing and the process of character formation, this is what he intuitively felt and looked far into the future. At the same time, his main policy was that in order to achieve the desired results in the best possible way, there is little influence from above, it is necessary to go to the people, improve the skills and change the style of work of the governing groups of society through training abroad.

Historians have long come to the conclusion that the program of Peter the Great's reforms matured long before the beginning of the reign of Peter I, that is, there were already objective prerequisites for change, and a person is able to speed up or delay the solution of a problem, give this solution special features, use the opportunities provided talentedly or mediocrely.

If another “calm” sovereign had come to replace Peter I, the era of reforms in Russia would have been postponed, as a result of which the country would have begun to play a completely different role. Peter was a bright personality in everything, and this is what allowed him to break the established traditions, customs, habits, enrich the old experience with new ideas, deeds, borrow what is necessary and useful from other peoples. It was thanks to the personality of Peter that Russia made significant progress, closing its gap with the advanced countries of Western Europe.

However, we note that a person can have a different influence on the course and outcome of historical events, both positive and negative, and sometimes both.

In our opinion, in modern Russia, one can single out a person who left his mark on its history. An example of such a person is M.S. Gorbachev. Not much time has passed to fully understand and appreciate its role in the history of modern Russia, but some conclusions can already be drawn. Becoming General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in March 1985, M.S. Gorbachev could have continued the course taken before him. But to analyze the situation in the country that had developed by that time, he came to the conclusion that perestroika is an urgent need that has grown out of the deep processes of development of a socialist society, and society is ripe for change, and the delay in perestroika is fraught with the threat of a serious socio-economic and political crisis.

Gorbachev M.S. were characterized by idealism and courage. At the same time, you can scold and blame him for all Russian troubles as much as you like, but the fact that his activities are disinterested is obvious. He did not increase his power, but reduced it, a unique case. After all, all the great things of history were improvisations. Gorbacheva M.S. often blamed for not having a preconceived plan for rebuilding. At the same time, it is important to note that it could not have been, but even if it had, life, various factors, would not have allowed this plan to come true. Moreover, Gorbachev came too late to reform the system. At that time, there were too few people who were ready to read the state in a democratic spirit. And Gorbachev's path is the path of introducing new content into old forms. All the grandiose destructive and creative work of Gorbachev M.S. unthinkable without idealism and courage, in which there is an element of "beautiful soul", naivety. And it was precisely these features of Gorbachev, without which there would be no perestroika, that contributed to its defeat. Definitely, Gorbachev M.S. a large personality whose strengths are at the same time her weaknesses. He relied on reason, hoping to realize universal interests both in his country and in the world, but he did not have the strength to replace the old power relations with new ones.

Thus, the analysis of two outstanding personalities showed how much a person can influence the course of history, and how personal characteristics can radically change the course of the historical process. One cannot beg the role of the individual in history, because a progressive personality accelerates the course of the historical process, directs it in the right direction. At the same time, there are many examples of the impact of personality on history, both positive and negative, thanks to which our modern state has developed.

Literature:

1. Malyshev I.V. The role of the individual and the masses in history, - M., 2009. - 289 p.

2. Plekhanov G.V. Selected Philosophical Works, - M .: INFRA-M, 2006. - 301 p.

3. Plekhanov G. V., To the question of the role of personality in history // History of Russia. - 2009. - No. 12. - P. 25-36.

4. Fedoseev P.N. The role of the masses and personality in history, - M., 2007. - 275 p.

5. Shaleeva V.M. Personality and its role in society // State and Law. - 2011. - No. 4. - S. 10-16.

Scientific adviser:

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Ragunstein Arseniy Grigorievich.