3.2. M. Andreeva. Attribute processes (Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social knowledge. - M.: Aspect Press, 1997. - P. 64-88.)

In social psychology, there is a special direction of research on the analysis of how people interpret the causes of the behavior of another person in conditions of insufficiency of information about these reasons. If there are sufficient information, the actions of other people, of course, are interpreted, but it is assumed here that the reasons are known. When they are unknown, the means of causing explanation is attributing, i.e. There is a kind of completion of information. At the same time, the scope of attribution becomes much more wide - the reasons are attributed not only to the behavior of a separate person, but in general, various social phenomena. Therefore, we can say that the attribution process serves as a person in order to make the meaning of the surrounding.

There is a connection with theories of cognitive conformity, where the nature of the meaning was also raised. However, the differences between these two approaches are notable. In the theories of cognitive compliance, the nature of the meaning was put on a high, almost philosophical level, it also emphasizes that, without solving philosophical problems, it is necessary to try to solve the issue at the operating level, namely, to determine what kind of information people take into account, attributing to Or something? In addition, the theory of attribution starts with the analysis of the motivation of the individual to understand the causes and consequences of relations, the needs of people to understand the nature of the surrounding for orientation in it and to possibly build prediction of events and actions. The reason that a person attributes to this phenomenon has important consequences for its own behavior, since the value of the event and its reaction to it is determined to a large extent ascribed cause.

The development of this problem does not mean the study of the process of attributing the causes of the behavior to another person, as should be done, but, on the contrary, as it is actually done by the usual person, whom F. Hider called the "naive psychologist." Hayder noted that people in their everyday actions, in everyday life, always do not simply observe phenomena, but analyze them in order to understand the essence of what is happening. Hence, their desire primarily understand the causes of the behavior of another person, and if there is not enough information regarding these reasons, then people attribute them. Usually they strive to attribute stable, well-widespread and typical causes, although they evaluate the intentional and unsliminated behavior in different ways.

To determine in each case, what reason should be attributed to, you need to know the possible types of reasons. For Hydera, these are the causes of personalities (i.e., when the reason is attributed to the action of the subject) and the reasons are rooted in the "medium" (i.e., such that are attributed to the circumstances).

These were the first "outline" of the theories of the causal attribution. Subsequently, these theories were significantly enriched, so that today sometimes they do not even talk about the attribute theory, but about the "psychological explanation". Since the problems of the attribution are associated with the process of explaining by the person around the world, it is necessary to dissolve the concepts of "scientific explanation" and "ordinary explanation". The tradition of studying scientific explanation is sufficiently stupid, especially in the logic and philosophy of scientific research. The explanation is considered here as a rod of scientific knowledge. In the same way, the everyday explanation is the rod of the ordinary knowledge of the world, the main way of understanding the world "man from the street": the whole system of his relationship with the world is mediated by the ordinary explanation. Therefore, an attribute theory dealing with this ordinary explanation and can be considered as the most vivid example of the transition from social perception to social knowledge.

When analyzing the attribute process, it is necessary to keep in mind the differences that exist between scientific and ordinary explanation.

The scientific explanation acts as it were, as it were for the "confluence": no matter who explains, the result is important. Although, as A. V. Yurevich fairly shown, in reality, still an indication of who explains in a hidden form: in any scientist who exercise scientific explanation, its "personal equation", its "life world", that is, its own Interpretation of the explained. This is exactly what is the cause of numerous errors known in the history of science.

An ordinary explanation, on the contrary, is entirely "subjective": it will also know here and, it means explains the concrete "naive subject", which is always in communication with another, that is, they explain in the end together, bringing the whole set of their relations into this process. In contrast to the scientific explanation, where knowledge first turns out and only then it is "superimposed" to reality, in the case of an ordinary explanation, it immediately, despite its imperfect form, sets the importance, that is, "leads it to the standards" and highlights the meaning. Therefore, this is a very specific form of an explanation that exists in the form of "attribution" - attribution.

However, it is important to consistently trace how attribution ideas developed. First, from the very beginning, a person's need to understand the world surrounding his world and the attribution was considered as one of the means of such an understanding. Secondly, the primary concept of "causal attribution" was later replaced by a wider concept of "attribute processes", since it was found that people in the process of knowing another person attribute to him not only the causes of behavior, but often certain personal features, motives, needs etc. Thirdly, mainly by the efforts of S. BEM, the phenomena of self-performance were included in the number of attribute processes, that is, processes relating to perception and knowledge of themselves. Bem made a festinger with his theory of cognitive dissonance.

According to the festingre, as we remember, people know about the inconsistency of their opinions, the settings of behavior, and from here they have dissonance. Bem believes that people do not usually know their genuine installations, on the contrary, they bring them out of their behavior (thus learn, thus rearly), so I doubtfully have dissonance. Mechanisms of self-performance need to be studied specifically. Fourthly, there were even more difficult dependencies. For example, people are often concerned not so much because of the causes of the behavior of another person, how much is the search for the fact that we can be useful for us: for us it is often more important than the value of a person than the understanding of His nature; Actions of people therefore we raise more often on their adequacy, and not for their causal condition.

All of the above serves as proof that with the development of the theories of attribution, the analysis is increasingly included with a wide range of issues of knowledge, not just perceptions. This situation is disclosed with particularly evidence in the theory of attribution, which in recent years has been proposed by a number of social psychologists in Europe. This theory was called the "Theory of Social Attribution". M. Houston and I. Yaspers make the emphasis on the fact that the attribute theories should be considered the process of attributing the reasons for social behavior. In a traditional approach, the emphasis was made on how the individual carries out an attribute process without taking into account the belonging to this individual to a specific social group. In a new approach, it is emphasized that the individual attributes something else on the basis of the submissions about the group to which this "other" belongs. In addition, the attribute process also takes into account the nature of the interactions that have developed in the group to which the subject of perception belongs. Thus, the number of links multiplies, which must be taken into account when the process of attributing, and thus the process is even more removed from the "clean" perception and is complemented by a whole complex of mental operations. With a more detailed consideration of the attribute processes, it is necessary to discuss at least two cardinal questions: how the process itself is carried out (that is, what logic is subject to, what are its components, stages, etc.) and where are the attributed reasons come from?

Thus, we see that in the development and promotion of brands, knowledge both personal (individual) and social psychology studying social archetypes is actively applied. Chapter 3. Features of the formation and functioning of brands in modern Russia. Domestic manufacturers for forming their own brands require great efforts and means to "intercept ...

The term "Communication", under which the process of transmitting information from the sender to the recipient is understood. Thus, we can conclude that the above theoretical approaches do not exhaust the relevance of the study of the problem of communication in social psychology. At the same time, they show that communication should be studied as a multidimensional phenomenon, and this involves learning a phenomenon with ...

It can be agreed that the processes of causal attribution do the essential side of the interpersonal perception, with the one that is significantly weaker than analyzed in the preceding period, namely the characteristics of the very processperceptions of another person, its specifics.

Attribute processes. G.M. Andreeva (Andreeva G.M. Psychology of Social Cognition. M.: Aspect Press. 1997.)

In social psychology, there is a special direction of research on the analysis of how people interpret the causes of the behavior of another person in conditions of insufficiency of information about these reasons. If there are sufficient information, the actions of other people, of course, are interpreted, but it is assumed here that the reasons are known. When they are unknown, the means of causing explanation is attributing, i.e. There is a kind of completion of information. At the same time, the scope of attribution becomes much more wide - the reasons are attributed not only to the behavior of a separate person, but in general, various social phenomena. Therefore, we can say that the attribution process serves as a person in order to make the meaning of the surrounding.

There is a connection with theories of cognitive conformity, where the nature of the meaning was also raised. However, the differences between these two approaches are notable. In the theories of cognitive compliance, the question of nature was put on a high, almost philosophical level, it is emphasized here that, without solving philosophical problems, it is necessary to try to resolve the issue at the operating level, namely, it is determined, some kind of information, people take into account, attributing to anyone . In addition, the theory of attribution starts with anchizis of the Individual motivation to understand the causes and consequences of relations, the needs of people to understand the nature of the surrounding for orientation in it and to be able to build prediction of events and actions. The reason that a person attributes to this phenomenon has important consequences for its own behavior, since the value of the event and its reaction to it is determined to a large extent ascribed cause.

The development of this problem does not mean the study of the process of attributing the causes of behavior to another person, as should be done; And, on the contrary, as it is actually done by the usual person, whom F. Hider called the "naive psychologist." Hayder noted that people in their everyday actions, in everyday life, always do not simply observe phenomena, but analyze them in order to understand the essence of what is happening. Hence, their desire primarily understand the causes of the behavior of another person, and if there is not enough information regarding these reasons, then people attribute them. Usually they strive to attribute stable, well-widespread and typical causes, although they evaluate the intentional and unsliminated behavior in different ways. To determine in each case, what reason should be attributed to, you need to know the possible types of reasons. For Hydera, these are causes of personalities (i.e., when the reason is attributed to the action of the subject) and the reasons are rooted in the "medium" (that is, such that are attributed to the circumstances).

1. Andreeva, G.M. Psychology of social knowledge / G.M. Andreevna. - M.: Aspect-press, 2000. - 288 p.

2. Berdyaev, N. Fate of Russia / N. Berdyaev. - M., 1990. - 346 p.

3. Bromley, Yu.V. Essays of the theory of ethnos / Yu.V. Bromley. - M.: Science, 1983. - 412 p.

4. Bromley, Yu.V. Ethnosocial processes: theory, history, modernity / Yu.V. Bromley. - M.: Science, 1987. - 333 p.

5. WONDT, V. Problems of the psychology of peoples / V. Wundt. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 160 p.

6. Donets, A.I. Language as a factor of ethnic identity / A.I. Donets, T.G. Stephenko, J.T. Utalyeva // Vopr. Psychology. - 1997. - № 4. - P. 75-86.

7. Dugarova, so Features of ethnic self-consciousness of adolescents Buryat in modern conditions / ftk Dugarova // Ethnopsychology and ethnopedagogic. - 1999. - № 4. - P. 99-113.

8. Libr, A.V. Differential psychology: at the intersection of European, Russian and American traditions / A.V. Libe. - M.: Meaning, 1999. - 532 p.

9. Nalchazhyan, A.A. Ethnopsychological self-defense and aggression: studies. benefit. - Yerevan, Publishing House of Fueban, 2000. - 408 p.

10. Pedagogy of interethnic communication: studies. Manual / Ed. prof. DI. Latvian. - M.: Gardariki, 2004. - 320 p.

11. Picker, V.I. Study of the concept of "collectivism / individualism" / V.I. Picker. // Vopr. Psychology. - 2004. - №2. - P. 30-36.

12. Pisthennev, B.F. Social psychology and history / B.F. Pistron. - M.: Science, 1979. - 232 p.

13. Posetsheva, T. V. Formation of ethnocultural competence / T.V. Posterva // Pedagogy. - 2005. - № 3. - P. 35-42.

14. Psychology of the XXI century: studies. / Ed. V.N. Druzhinina. - M.: Pen SE, 2003. - 863 p.

15. Psychology crowd. - M.: Inst. Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ed. "KSP +", 1998. - 416 p.

16. Psychology of National Intolerance: Reader / Sost. Yu.V. Chernyavskaya. - MN: Harvest, 1998. - 560 p.

17. Russians. (Ethnosociological essays). - M.: Science. 1992. - 464 p.

18. Sadokhin, A.P. Ethnology: textbook / A.P. Sadochin. - M.: Gardariki, 2000. - 256 p.

19. Soldatova, G.U., live in a world with me and others: Training tolerance for teenagers / G.U. Soldatova, L.A. Shaygerova, OD Sharov - M.: Genesis, 2000. - 112 p.

20. Sukharev, A.V. Features of the ethnic identity of adolescents in ethnically oriented training centers / A.V. Sukharev, S.L. Bukharev // Vopr. Psychology. - 2005. - №6. - P. 82-90.

21. Tatarko, A.N. The role of modernizing the lifestyle in the transformation of ethnic identity / A.N. Tatarko, N.M. Lebedeva, MA Kozlova // Vopr. Psychology. - 2006. - №2. - P. 156-166.

22. Khotets, V.Yu. Formation of ethnic identity of students in the process of learning in the university / V.Yu. Khotyn // Vopr. Psychology. - 1998. - № 3. - P. 31-43.

23. Khotets, V.Yu. Ethnic self-consciousness / V.Yu. Khotets. - St. Petersburg: Aletia, 2000. - 240 s.

24. Ethnic and ethnosocial categories: the arch of ethnographic concepts and terms. MODE: - M.: RAS, 1995. - 216 p.

25. Ethnic stereotypes of male and female behavior. - St. Petersburg: Science, 1991. - 318 p.

26. Ethnographic study of modern society: Applied aspects. - Scientific and analytical review. - M.: Inion RAS, 1998. - 36 p.

27. Ethnosociology: studies. allowance / Yu.V. Harutyunyan, L.M. Drobizheva, A.A. Susokolov. - M.: Aspect Press, 1999. - 271 p.

28. Yudenko, O.N. Features of the formation of national identity of preschoolers: monograph / O.N. Sudenko. - Krasnoyarsk: Rio KGPU, 2003. - 114 p.

Tuvintsy:

1. Anyban, Z.V. Republic of Tuva: Model Ethnological Monitoring / Z.V. Aniban. - Moscow, 1997. - 96 p.

2. Anyban, Z.V. Interethnic relations in Tuva in the 90s (based on materials of ethnosociological studies) / Z.V. Aniban. - M.: 1999. - 334 p.

3. Balakina, P. Modern Tuva: Socio-cultural and ethnic processes / G.F. Balakina, Z.V. Aniban. - Novosibirsk: Science; Sib. ed. Firm RAS, 1995. - 140 s.

4. Bartan, Oh. Tyva Dladda Kizhini Psychology Ildaken Sospen / O. Bartan, N.O. Towau. - Tylegu, 2006; Center nat. Schools, 2006. - 43 p.

5. Dargyn Ool, Ch. Sharp Continentality of Tuvintsev / Ch. Dargyn-Ool // Center Asia. - 2004. - 13-19 Aug. - № 32. - C.1, 4, 9.

6. Dongak, V.S. Ethnic Identity of Tuvintsev: Author. dis. ... Cand. Sociol. science / - St. Petersburg., 2003. - 25 p.

7. Dorgeo, Z.Yu. Ethnopolitical situation in the Republic of Tyva. Ethnosocial processes in Siberia: Thematic Collection / Ed. Yu.V. Popkov. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of SB RAS, 2000. - Vol. 3. - P. 249-252.

8. Dyakonova, V.P. Childhood in the traditional culture of Tuvintsev and Telengitov / V.P. Dyakonova // Traditional education of children from the peoples of Siberia. - M.: Publishing House Science, 1988. P. 152-185.

9. History of Tuva: in 2 tons. - T.1. / under total. ed. S.I. Weinstein, M.Kh. Mannai Oola. - Novosibirsk: Science, 2001. - 367 p.

11. Kan, V. Ethnosocial situation in Tuva / V.K. Plus Inform. - 2009. - № 26. - P. 5-6.

12. Kenin-Lopsan, M.B. Tyva Chongnun Burung Urslara. Traditional ethics of Tuvintsev / M.B. Kenin-Lopsan. - Kyzyl: Institute for Improving Teachers Rep. Tyva; Publishing house "Tuva News", 1994. - 345 p. - (on Tuv. Yaz.).

13. Kenin-Lopsan, M.B. Tyva Changchyl. Tyva Chonnun Idyktyg Chanchyldara. - Tuvinian traditions. Book Second: the sacred traditions of the Tuvinian people / M.B. Kenin-Lopsan. - Kyzyl: Publishing House Tuva. - 1999. - 352 p. - (on Tuv. Yaz.).

14. Kenin-Lopsan, M.B. Traditional Tuvintsev culture: studies. Manual / MB Kenin-Lopsan. - Tuv. Book. Publishing house, 2006. - 230 s.

15. Kuzhuget, A.K. Traditional norms of behavior and communication of Tuvintsev: Structure and transformation / A.K. Furious. - Kemerovo: Cemerovo, 2006. - 320 p.

16. Kuzhuget, A.K. Spiritual culture of Tuvintsev in everyday life // Tuvintsev culture: tradition and modernity / A.K. Furious. - Kyzyl, 1989. - P. 65-73.

17. Kurbatsky, G.N. Tuvintsy in their folklore (historical and ethnographic aspects of Tuvinian folklore) / G.N. Kurbat. - Kyzyl: Tuv. Book. Publishing House, 2001. - 464 p.

18. Lamajaa, Ch. The rulers of the steppe ball. Is modernization possible in Tuva possible? / C. Lamazhaa // Center Asia. - No. 21 (May 26 - June 1, 2006), No. 22 (June 2-8, 2006).

19. Lamajaa, Ch. Cogorts of century / Ch. Lamahaa // Center Asia. - No. 11 (March 21, 2008), No. 12 (March 28, 2008).

20. Lamajaa, Ch.K. Claim in the policies of regions of Russia: Tuvinian rulers / Ch.K. Lamazhaa. - St. Petersburg: Aletia, 2010. - 208 p.

21. Lamajaa, Ch.K. Tuva between past and future / Ch.K. Lamazhaa. - M.: Publishing House Nipcz Voshod-A, 2008. - 500 s.

22. Mannai Ool, M.Kh. Tuvintsy: Origin and Formation of Ethnic Sheet / M.Kh. Mannnai Ool. - Novosibirsk: Science, 2004. - 166 p.

23. Marcus, S.V. Tuva: Culture Dictionary / S.V. Marcus. - M.: Academic project, Triksta, 2006. - 832 p.

24. MONGUSH, M.V. Lamaism in the family life of Tuvintsev / M.V. Mongush // Tuvintsev culture: tradition and modernity. - 1989. - P. 58-64.

25. MONGUSH, M.V. Mongolia Tuvints and China: Ethnisperse groups: (history and modernity) / M.V. Mongush. - Novosibirsk: Science, 2002. - 126 p.

26. MONGUSH, M.V. Tuvintsy in China: the problem of history, language and culture. Scientists notes. The historic series. Issue 18. / M.V. Mongush. - Kyzyl, 1995. - P.30-56.

27. Moskalenko, N.P. The main problems of the ethnopolitical history of Tuva in the 20th century: author. dis. ... Cand. East. science - M.: 2000. - 25 p.

28. Onar, L.M. To the problem of studying the national self-consciousness / L.M. Odar.
// Bashki. - Kyzyl, 2000. - №2. - S.57-60.

29. Onar, L.M. Features of the national self-consciousness of Tylegu / L.M. Onar // Formation and development of science in Tuva. - Part 2. - Kyzyl: Tylegu, 2000. - S.8-9.

30. Onar, L.M. On the formation of a national self-consciousness in ontogenesis / L.M. Onar // Actual problems of preserving and developing languages, cultures and the history of the peoples of Sayano-Altai. - Abakan: Isat, 2001. - P. 209-214.

31. Onar, L.M. Stages of development of the national self-consciousness of Tuvintsev / L.M. Onar // Russia and Tuva: 60 years together. - Kyzyl: Tylegu, 2004. - P. 152-156.

32. Onar, L.M. National identity self-awareness: monograph /
LM Onar. - Abakan: LLC "Book. Publishing house Brigantine, 2009. - 172 p.

33. Onar, L.M. On the results of the study of ethnic identity in senior school age / L.M. Odar // Bulletin of Tiling State University. Social and humanitarian sciences. No. 1. - Kyzyl, 2009. - P. 90-95.

34. Onar, L.M. Education of tolerance: the interaction of school and family / L.M. Ondar // Pedagogy of Love: Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference "Ethnopedagogical Heritage of the Peoples of Siberia and Central Asia". July 8-12, 2009 / under scientific. ed. A.S.Shaaly, GD Sunduy - Kyzyl: Publishing and Printing Department Bilig, Institute for National School. - 2009. - P. 102-104.

35. Onar, L.M. Methods of study of the national identity identity in adolescence / L.M. Onar // Bashki. - 2009. - № 3. - P. 84-89.

36. Onar, TA On the issue of National Ethics of Tuvintsev / TA Onar // Bashki. - 2007. - № 2. - p. 53-61.

37. Onar, TA Socialization of children in Tuvinian traditional culture / TA Onar // Scientific works of Tiling State University / Materials Annual Scientific and Practical Conference. Issue 5, volume II. - Kyzyl: Publisher Tyavegu, 2007. - C.212-215.

38. Reznikov, E.N., Ethnopsychological characteristics of the people of Tyva: Theory and Practice / E.N. Reznikov, N.Otova - M.: Pen SE, 2002. - 223 p.

39. Salchak, K.B., Short Russian-Tuvinsky Dictionary of Psychological Terms / KB Salchak, L.M. Onar, kk. Sot feather - Kyzyl: Tylegu - 2002. - 78 p.

40. Serdobov, N.A. .. The history of the formation of the Tuvinian nation / N.A. Carts. - Kyzyl: Tuv. kn. Publishing house, 1971 - 481 p.

41. Socio-psychological studies: Ethnos Tyva at the turn of the century (XX-XXI centuries): collective monograph / edited by N.O. Towau. - Kyzyl: Publishing House of Tyvgu, 2009. - 271 p.

42. Suvandy, N.D. Introduction with the name of Tuvintsev. Ethnosocial processes in Siberia: Thematic Collection / Ed. Yu.V. Popkov. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of SB RAS, 2000. - Vol. 3. - P. 72-74.

43. The traditional culture of Tuvintsev's eyes of foreigners (end 19 - beginning.
20 century) / Sost. A.K. Furious. - Kyzyl: Tuv. kn. Publishing. - 2002. - 224 p.

44. Uryanhai. Tyva deter. Anthology of scientific and educational thoughts on the ancient Tuvinian land and its statements, about Uryanhae - Tanna-Tuva, Uryanhouses - Tuvints, about the anconditions of Tuva. [Text]: In 7 t. T.3: Uryanhai edge. Tuvinian-Russian relations (the beginning of the XVII - the beginning of the XX centuries) / Sost. S.K. Shoigu. - M.: Word / Slovo, 2007. - 608 p.

45. Uryanhai. Tyva deter. Anthology of scientific and educational thoughts on the ancient Tuvinian land and its statements, about Uryanhae - Tanna-Tuva, Uryanhouses - Tuvints, about the anconditions of Tuva. [Text]: In 7 t. T.4: Uryanhayan Territory: from Uryanhaya to Tana-Tuva / Sost. S.K. Shoigu. - M.: Word / Slovo, 2007. - 552 p.

46. \u200b\u200bUryanhai. Tyva deter. Anthology of scientific and educational thoughts on the ancient Tuvinian land and its statements, about Uryanhae - Tanna-Tuva, Uryanhouses - Tuvints, about the anconditions of Tuva. [Text]: In 7 t. T.5: Uryanhai edge: Crossroads of opinions (end XIX - early XX centuries) / Sost. S.K. Shoigu. - M.: Word / Slovo, 2007. - 736 p.

47. Uryanhai. Tyva deter. Anthology of scientific and educational thoughts on the ancient Tuvinian land and its statements, about Uryanhae - Tanna-Tuva, Uryanhouses - Tuvints, about the anconditions of Tuva. [Text]: at 7 t. T. 6: Tanna-Tuvinian People's Republic (1921-1944) / Sost. S.K. Shoigu. - M.: Word / Slovo, 2007. - 584 p.

G.M. Andreeva Psychology of Social Cognition. Tutorial. Gryman

288 pp., 2004 Publisher: Aspect-press bought a book http://www.kdu.ru/description.aspx?Product_no\u003d141248.

ISBN 5-7567-0248-2

The training manual is the presentation of one of the most important components of social psychology - the psychology of social knowledge, which analyzes how a person perceives the surrounding social world, as in his consciousness to build this world. The manual prepared at the Faculty of MSU Psychology for the Special Course psychology, describes in detail the process `cognitive work` A person with social information, his` emotional support`, determining his social factors, as well as the formation of ideas about individual elements of the social world. For students, graduate students, teachers of psychological and pedagogical specialties of universities.

G.m.andreyeva

PSYCHOLOGY

Aspect-press

MOSCOW

Preface to the second edition

The first edition of this work was published in 1997 and was a peculiar result of a special course with the same name read by students specializing in social psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University. At that time, it was, perhaps, the first, more or less systematic statement of the problems of the psychology of social knowledge in our country, which was a rather concise manual. His goal was to outline the subject, to designate the problem of a relatively new area of \u200b\u200bsocial psychology, which, however, has already received sufficient development in many countries. Hence some features of the presentation of the material in the first edition: its often reviewing character, a limited set of researchers working in this direction, minimized references to specific experiments, etc. In addition, there were only possible lines of development of issues - already existing and future - in domestic social psychology.

During the time that has passed since then, much has changed. The psychology of social knowledge still continues to actively develop in world social psychology; Together with the enrichment of its problems, the number of critical comments in its address is multiplied, often related to the common, "global" search for the entire system of social and psychological knowledge at the end of the 20th century and at the turn of the Millennium. On the other hand, the psychology of social knowledge increases its potential and in domestic science: quite a few original experimental and empirical studies have appeared, including young scientists, once leaving this course at one time; Interesting attempts of a practical application of ideas developed in theoretical approaches were made. In addition, in recent years, transfers of several fundamental foreign works containing a large amount of information on the problems under discussion have been published. Numerous meetings of the author with foreign colleagues, during which the problems of social knowledge were discussed, also contributed to the designation of new directions in research.

All this made substantially recycle and supplement the book published earlier. The fate of the author, who "for life" is a university professor, such that love is almost inevitably brings to himself training Edition. Therefore, this style is saved in the proposed work. However, a number of changes in the text are aimed at presenting the field of psychology of social knowledge in its more modern form, both from the point of view of its greater inclusion in the general context - social and intellectual and in terms of simply greater details of the material, giving it a more traditional "Academic" form.

I can not deny myself the pleasure of expressing the most heartfelt thanks to my students and colleagues in the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University, from which I repeatedly received "feedback" about the first edition of the book, which significantly helped me with its refinement. I am also grateful to my graduate students, many of whom risked to associate their scientific fate with research in the field, previously not enjoying special attention in the domestic scientific literature; At the very time, in particular, in the Paradigm of the Psychology of Social Cognition, the dissertations of Yu. A. Kalashnikova - about the implicit theories of the personality, I. B. Bovina - about the factors of erroneous group decisions, N. Yu Belousova - about the peculiarities of negotiations between representatives of various organizational crops, S. A. Lipatov - On the ways of social and psychological diagnosis of organizational culture; Work is prepared on the role of values \u200b\u200bin social knowledge, about the formation of social identity, etc. Many ideas of social knowledge psychology have been reflected in the doctoral dissertations in the past of my graduate students and applicants (T. G. Stefenenko, T. Y. Bazarov). The authors of these works follow representatives and younger generations, who want to transfer the relay.

All this largely contributed to the preparation of the second - supplemented - the publication of this book.

Includepicture "kdu.ru/bookcovers/42240.jpg" * mergeformatinet
G.M. Andreevpsychology of social knowledge. Tutorial. Gryman
288 pp., 2004 Publisher: Aspect-press Buy the book "KDU.ru/Description.aspx?Product_no\u003d141248" kdu.ru/description.aspx?Product_no\u003d141248
ISBN 5-7567-0248-2
The training manual is the presentation of one of the most important components of social psychology - the psychology of social knowledge, which analyzes how a person perceives the surrounding social world, as in his consciousness to build this world. The manual prepared at the Faculty of MSU Psychology for the Special Course psychology, describes in detail the process `cognitive work` A person with social information, his` emotional support`, determining his social factors, as well as the formation of ideas about individual elements of the social world. For students, graduate students, teachers of psychological and pedagogical specialties of universities.

G.m.andreyeva

PSYCHOLOGY
Social knowledge

Aspect-press
MOSCOW
2000

Preface to the second edition

The first edition of this work was published in 1997 and was a peculiar result of a special course with the same name read by students specializing in social psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University. At that time, it was, perhaps, the first, more or less systematic statement of the problems of the psychology of social knowledge in our country, which was a rather concise manual. His goal was to outline the subject, to designate the problem of a relatively new area of \u200b\u200bsocial psychology, which, however, has already received sufficient development in many countries. Hence some features of the presentation of the material in the first edition: its often reviewing character, a limited set of researchers working in this direction, minimized references to specific experiments, etc. In addition, there were only possible lines of development of issues - already existing and future - in domestic social psychology.
During the time that has passed since then, much has changed. The psychology of social knowledge still continues to actively develop in world social psychology; Together with the enrichment of its problems, the number of critical comments in its address is multiplied, often related to the common, "global" search for the entire system of social and psychological knowledge at the end of the 20th century and at the turn of the Millennium. On the other hand, the psychology of social knowledge increases its potential and in domestic science: quite a few original experimental and empirical studies have appeared, including young scientists, once leaving this course at one time; Interesting attempts of a practical application of ideas developed in theoretical approaches were made. In addition, in recent years, transfers of several fundamental foreign works containing a large amount of information on the problems under discussion have been published. Numerous meetings of the author with foreign colleagues, during which the problems of social knowledge were discussed, also contributed to the designation of new directions in research.
All this made substantially recycle and supplement the book published earlier. The fate of the author, who "life" is a university professor, such that any of his work almost inevitably bears the seal of the educational publication. Therefore, this style is saved in the proposed work. However, a number of changes in the text are aimed at presenting the field of psychology of social knowledge in its more modern form, both from the point of view of its greater inclusion in the general context - social and intellectual and in terms of simply greater details of the material, giving it a more traditional "Academic" form.
I can not deny myself the pleasure of expressing the most heartfelt thanks to my students and colleagues in the Department of Social Psychology of Moscow State University, from which I repeatedly received "feedback" about the first edition of the book, which significantly helped me with its refinement. I am also grateful to my graduate students, many of whom risked to associate their scientific fate with research in the field, previously not enjoying special attention in the domestic scientific literature; At the very time, in particular, in the Paradigm of the Psychology of Social Cognition, the dissertations of Yu. A. Kalashnikova - about the implicit theories of the personality, I. B. Bovina - about the factors of erroneous group decisions, N. Yu Belousova - about the peculiarities of negotiations between representatives of various organizational crops, S. A. Lipatov - On the ways of social and psychological diagnosis of organizational culture; Work is prepared on the role of values \u200b\u200bin social knowledge, about the formation of social identity, etc. Many ideas of social knowledge psychology have been reflected in the doctoral dissertations in the past of my graduate students and applicants (T. G. Stefenenko, T. Y. Bazarov). The authors of these works follow representatives and younger generations, who want to transfer the relay.
All this largely contributed to the preparation of the second - supplemented - the publication of this book.
Andreeva

Introduction

The psychology of social knowledge relatively recently declared itself as an independent field of psychological science, although the knowledge of the world around the world is one of the cross-cutting problems of culture. It is easily viewed by a wide variety of aspects that are correlated with the two most important areas of human existence: with the sphere of awareness of them of the reality, part of which he is, understanding the links of both the outside world and its connections with this world and, of course, with the sphere of its activities In the world, unthinkable without such awareness. Such a global nature of the problem makes it consider it in a wide variety of measurements - in philosophy, art, science and in certain areas of practice. Naturally, in each of these measurements, the problem acquires its special kind, dictates the ways to approach it. It also develops its own tradition of analysis in each of the listed areas. The specific decision is proposed in psychology.
The content itself of the term "social cognition" undergoes a significant change here. In most philosophical and sociological approaches, we are talking about those methods, methods, guided by which can be studied (learn) social reality. Social knowledge in such a interpretation is the scientific knowledge of the entire totality of social phenomena, relationships, facts; The task and ways to solve it by researchers. The second accent, which in principle was also noted, is the knowledge of the social world by an ordinary person, a non-professional, knowledge of the daily reality of his own life. "Social knowledge" in this case is not scientific knowledge, but the "knowledge", which develops in the immediate vital experience of each person. The latter acts as a "naive psychologist" or, as a last resort, as "naive scientist."
Social psychology categorically stated that her interest in social knowledge is associated with this second possible emphasis. There are many reasons that this approach has become especially relevant in the second half of the century. The complication of public life, manifested and in the lifting of social processes, and in the emergence of new forms and "sections" of public institutions, and in all multiplying stormy social changes, and sometimes cataclysms, requires an ordinary person, a serial member of a sufficient degree of understanding that happens around.
The orientation in the surrounding world, of course, has always been a human need, but it increases sharply in a new situation: to focus in a new, complex world, you can only be able to more or less adequately interpret the observed facts; Without such an interpretation, it is easy to lift the meaning of both what is happening and its own place in it. The rapid pace of social change, the development of the media requires not only greater adaptation to society, but also the ability to "cope" with a new situation, i.e. Optimize activities in it, therefore, it is better to understand how our knowledge of the world relates to changes in it. Thus, the knowledge of the social world by an ordinary person becomes a special subject of research.
The most closest "predecessors" of the psychology of social knowledge are the sections of general psychology devoted to the study of cognitive processes, in particular the special branch of it, which has declared itself recently, - cognitive psychology and social psychology in that part of it, where social perception problems are being studied (interpersonal and intergroup perception), theories of cognitive conformity and attribute processes. The central idea, which is based on the study of the psychology of social knowledge, is as follows: although the knowledge of the world around the world, the need for this knowledge as old as the very existence of a person, the specifics of the knowledge of the surrounding social world is not always quite clearly designated. The psychology of social knowledge is designed to fill this gap: it puts its task to disclose the mechanisms, through which a person realizes itself with a part of the social reality in which he lives and operates, as well as the entire set of social factors that cause these processes. In other words, this is the question of how a person builds the image of a social world or "constructs" the social world. Under the "design" means bringing information about the world into a system, the organization of this information into connected structures in order to comprehend its meaning. Its result is to build an image of a social world, which appears in front of a person as a certain social reality. According to the expression of W. Thomas, "if people perceive some situation as a real one, it will be real and in their consequences" [see 47, p. 66]. Therefore, it is very important to analyze the process, during which such reality "is constructed".
One of the first definitions of social knowledge psychology made an emphasis on the study of how people comprehend their position in the real world and their relationship with other people. In other words, from the very beginning of the existence of this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge, such the most important feature of the socio-cognitive process, as obtaining knowledge of the world and understanding it, was emphasized. But how to reveal the meaning of the surrounding social world? The answer to this question psychology was looking for throughout its history. Two circumstances were disclosed on this path.
First, it was found that psychology is not a mirror, and therefore knowledge is not there is a simple passive adaptation of a person to the outside world. Moreover: a person will know the world, depending on how it acts in it, and at the same time acts in it depending on how he knows it. It means that in the case of social cognition, first of all, it is necessary to open the connection between the knowledge and action of a person. Secondly, the knowledge process itself has long been interpreted, too, not as a simple fixation of external relations and relations, but as a peculiar reconstruction of them, and, consequently, as the creation of a certain inner picture of the world, when building the role of who builds it is especially great. This is well said from E. Melibruda: "Perception and understanding of people is rather reminding the process of creating a picture by an artist or film director than recording a tape recorder or photographing process."
Although all this can be attributed to any knowledge at all, including the knowledge of the physical world, in relation to the knowledge of the social world there is a number of additional conditions and circumstances. Social knowledge is always a bilateral process: the perceived person at the same time perceives and "perceiving", which is excluded in perception, for example, a table or any other subject. A perceived person or any social action is changeable, which also distinguishes the object of perception from the physical object. A table that can appear as an object of perception in the physical world, and in a year will be the same table
(His aging is not counting), but a person can be completely different in a year. Change your appearance can be a perceived some time ago the nature of the relationship between people, any social institution, political party, mass movement. The process of social cognition is therefore much more difficult, and the possibility of real understanding of the social world is more connected with the active action of the subject of knowledge. The meaning of the surrounding social world can be carried out by a person only in the process of active development of this world and, subject to the "ability" to draw a picture of this world, which is difficult to associate many mistakes, but according to D. Myers, "the exquisite analysis of our imperfections of our Thinkings already in itself is a tribute to human wisdom. "
It is hardly necessary to talk about the huge practical meaning of this kind of research, especially in a modern complex world. Psychology, if she wants to really help a person navigate the system of social connections, contradictions should describe and explain those features that are peculiar to a person in comprehending the diversity of his relationship with other people, social institutions, a complex mosaic of social phenomena. To identify what psychological and social factors who make the adaptation of a person in the modern world successful or, on the contrary, unsuccessful, to help him "cope" with circumstances means to provide him with significant practical assistance for orientation in an unstable world, in radical social transformations.
The study of these two factors is the focus of the interest of psychology of social knowledge. And if we consider that the process of "mastering" by a social reality man is carried out throughout his life, then you can add the third assembly assembly - the construction of the social world at different stages of socialization. The psychology of social knowledge adjoins in this matter to the psychology of development.
As for the term "psychology of social knowledge" itself (in the English-language literature "Social cognition"), he received distribution since the beginning of the 70s. Currently, there is quite extensive literature on the problems of this area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. As a special section, it is included in all textbooks and guidelines for social psychology, starting from the 80s. The most fundamental work is "social cognizing" S. Fiske and Sh. Taylor, published in 1984 and 1991. . As the authors themselves indicate, the book was the answer to those difficulties ("crisis"), which were found in social psychology in the early 80s, and an attempt to outlines some new approaches. In addition to this work, it is possible to mention the book F. Seraphon "Development of social knowledge in context", the work of V. Dennon "Social Cognition: new directions in the study of the child's development". As it develops in it, as, however, in general, in social psychology, the second half of the XX century, there was a certain confrontation between the American and European traditions.
In European Social Psychology, the development of this problem area is primarily associated with the names of A. Tesfel and S. Moskovisi. Already in the work of A. Tesfel and K. Fraser "Introduction to Social Psychology", published in 1978, the main problem of the psychology of social knowledge was indicated in a specific key. Anticipating the later criticism of the "American" approach, which makes emphasis on the study of individual mechanisms of social knowledge, in the work of Tesfel and Fraser, social determinants of this process were particularly investigated. The development of ideas proposed here is contained in the fundamental work edited by M. Houston, V. Godreb, J. Stephenson "Introduction to Social Psychology", which is today the main European textbook on social psychology. Considerable attention is paid to the problems of psychology of social knowledge in sociological work 77. Berger and T. Lucman "Social Designing of Reality". This problem occupies a strong place in all recent international and European congresses on psychology and social psychology. She paid special attention to the studies of members of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology (ESEP).
At the same time, in the traditions of domestic general psychology, the fundamental approaches to the problems of social knowledge are not only presented, but numerous experimental studies have been carried out. Unfortunately, they are still not reduced together and often simply "not spelled out" in terms taken now in the area studied, although in the depth of analysis not only are not inferior to modern research, but sometimes they are superior to them. The time of "organizational design" of this industry of psychology and in our country, which is especially relevant during the period of radical social transformations.

Chapter I Theoretical Backgrounds

The psychology of social knowledge as a separate independent area of \u200b\u200bthe study originated from two sources: non-psychological (philosophy, sociology of cognition) and psychological (certain sections of general psychology, psychosemantics, cognitive psychology, social psychology). Therefore, it is necessary to briefly characterize each of these sources (Fig. 1).

1. Philosophy

The problem of human knowledge itself is the oldest problem of philosophy, it was discussed in different aspects within the framework of the special area - the theory of knowledge. However, both in the history of philosophical thought of antiquity, and in the later concepts of the XVII-XIX centuries. The problem of social knowledge as such was not put. Arriving this, you should immediately explain what it is understood under the "social cognition". As already noted, later use of this term involves a study of how a person knows the social world (which is to know - this is the second question). However, along with this, there is another interpretation of the term when under the "social cognition" means the social conditionality of the cognitive process. In this second sense, the problem has a much longer history. And the philosophical tradition If it was dealing with the named problem, then he considered it as an idea of \u200b\u200bcommunication, knowledge of a person with the real conditions of its existence in the social world. Only much later, in the philosophy of the beginning of the XX century, it was proposed to formulate a question related to the first meaning of the term, and then in a specific form, namely, as the problem of unity (or differences) of two forms of knowledge: the physical and social (spiritual) world. In the early stages of the development of philosophical knowledge, you can only see

Designations: MLV - interpersonal perception; TKS - cognitive conformity theory; Ka - causal attribution.

Fig. 1. Theoretical sources of psychology of social knowledge Fragments of the problem, which, as a rule, included an integral part in the theory of knowledge, developed by one or another philosopher.

With the first such fragment, we already encounter ancient philosophy, for example in the concept of Plato. In its terminology, the difference is carried out between "true knowledge" and "opinion". If the first applies only to the world of spiritual entities - ideas, the second one is annual for the knowledge of sensory things that are changeable and inconstant, and therefore the true knowledge is impossible. Does the social world refers - human relations - to "spiritual entities" or to "things", it is not clear from the proposed division. It is clear, however, that in principle there are two different types of knowledge that are not equal to each other.
In the philosophy of the new time, the theoretical and cognitive problematics is present in almost every major thinker, however, there is no formulation of the issue of social knowledge in the finished form - in any of the possible interpretations of this concept. Only through some approaches you are interested in faces can be traced. Naturally, in this brief review, there is no possibility, and the need to give the detailed characteristics of numerous philosophical concepts, it is important to note only the most significant milestones.
The first one is the philosophy of the XVII century. The teachings about the knowledge that all its representatives were preceded by the development of the idea that a person is part of nature, but it is inherent in the most important ability - it is reasonable to think that it ensures freedom of action. But in order for this reasonable beginning to fully show itself, it is necessary to "clean", to free it from all that he bothers him. Francis Bacon spoke first with this idea, in his work "New Organon" a look at the coincidence of the knowledge and power of man. True knowledge, by Bekon, prevent "ghosts", from which should be free. These are ghosts: kind (errors, which are rooted in the very nature of man, in particular in his "passions"), caves (delusions imposed by a person with his immediate environment), the market (delusions originating from communication of people among themselves, for example because of the wrong The use of words), theater (error based on the assimilation of the previous wrong ideas, for example, coming from false philosophical concepts). "Cleansing" reason involves learning how to avoid the influence of ghosts. According to N. V. Motrosilov rightly, "the general meaning of the teachings about the ghosts is determined by this social and educational function."
The following key figures, with the names of which are associated with two different trends in the future development of knowledge of knowledge, is Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbs. Descartes is the author of the famous COGITO ERGO SUM approval ("Thought, therefore exist"), the meaning of which is the meaning of the meaning of the mind; The task of it is dominance of nature. But the appeal to the mind does not exclude another major principle - the principle of doubt. It arises because "illusions and feelings" affect the mind, human passions. Only liberation from them will mean that the mind cleared, and the person will begin in the full sense of the word "think." Descartes reveals the meaning of the informative act: a person must learn to "dismember" things for their knowledge. Important elements of the cognitive process are the knowledgeable entity and method itself. The concept of Descartes is a consistent rationalism.
His opponent was T. Gobbs. Not touching in detail the controversy of these two thinkers, we note only the most significant step made by Hobbes in the enrichment of philosophical ideas about knowledge. Gobbs suggested that for a deeper understanding of the essence of knowledge, it is necessary to detect the relationship between people carrying out a cognitive process, since people transmit to each other knowledge embodied in words ("Tags"). Thus, communication is introduced into the process of cognition. Gobbs believed that if even the person of an outstanding mind devoted all his time to thinking and the invention of the corresponding marks to reinforce his memory and succeeded due to this in knowledge, then he himself would clearly bring a little benefit, and the other - no one. Only when these memory marks are the property of many and that invented by one can be invented by others, science can develop for the benefit of the sake of salvation of the whole human race. Only due to communication, one person can teach another, exhort it and consult with him. Relying on these thoughts of Hobbes, it can be concluded that they are proposed in a kind of form the idea of \u200b\u200bsocial determination of knowledge - through the recognition of the role of communication in the cognitive process.
Subsequently, at the end of the XVIII century, two lines scheduled for Carteste and Gobbs will be continued by other thinkers: the line of rationalism of Descartes - Labitz and the line of social conditionality of knowledge - D. Lokke. In the context of interest to us, it is important to consider the last approach.
John Locke in the spirit of general trends in the development of philosophy of this period concentrates its attention on the problem of a person's scientific research in counterweight scholasticism. This new approach involves attracting a whole complex of various scientific disciplines, which allows to explore social ties and relations of people. Hence the interest in the problems of the state, property, freedom. All this is directly related to the problems of knowledge. Like a key idea of \u200b\u200bphilosophers of the XVII century, the mind is now proclaimed by the main ability of a person. But now his capabilities are revealed from the point of view of the regulation of the practical behavior of a person in order to continue public life and "finding pleasure in it." In other words, the mind is considered in connection with the practical behavior of a person as a "practical mind", which cannot but mean changes in the submission of the subject of knowledge: now it is not an abstract individual, but a person who should in the process of knowledge to navigate not only on his own aspirations, But also on the requirements of society. A variety of approaches to the analysis of the problems of freedom and morality are connected with this thesis, which other thinkers of this period solved in different forms (for example, D. Yum, who directly talks about "sociality" when it argues about the problems of such values \u200b\u200bas "good" and "evil").
We do not stop in detail at all points of the theory of the knowledge of Locke, in particular, on his teaching on the origin of ideas, about the first principles of human knowledge, since these problems are usually quite detailed in the history of psychology. It is important to identify those aspects of its concepts that directly relate to the problems of social knowledge. In this sense, huge interest is of the social typology of people proposed by Locke in relation to the methods of knowledge of knowledge. Here are two types allocated to them. Other people rarely reason; They come and think as it is indicated by an example of others: parents, neighbors, servants of the Church, etc. Another type is people who sincerely the following reason, but always compounded by a narrow point of view, self-catering, dedication from the positions of others. Relief from these disadvantages is possible only with a careful attitude to how the child begins to know from the very first of his experiments, expressing the modern language, from the first stages of socialization. In the future, we will see how this idea is implemented in the modern concepts of psychology of social knowledge.
The proposed wining excursion helps to understand that in the philosophy of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe relationship of knowledge and social life found its diverse recognition. In the outlined tradition, this idea took the postulate that individual knowledge always means the plexus of their own desires, aspirations and norms with the requirements of society. But the subject of knowledge is always, an individual, society, or a neutral environment, or a hindrance of his knowledge, nevertheless, it is in a certain way with cognition connected. Despite a number of brilliant ideas regarding the processes of knowledge, the thinkers of the XVII - the first half of the XVIII century. Found in a rather contradictory position. On the one hand, they understood and stated that the process of cognition is actually carried out by individuals, on the other, they encountered the fact that the meaning and content of concepts, especially scientific, withdraws outside the current human being, makes it suggests the existence of a nadudividual mind. The attempt to solve this contradiction was proposed already in later philosophy, in particular within the framework of the tradition represented by I. Kant.
Immanuel Kant proclaims the consciousness of childbirth, universal education, social in nature. At the same time, individual knowledge is considered as an introduction to the world-historical flow of knowledge through the system of categories and concepts developed by the latter. This meant a fundamentally new look at the nature of knowledge and the content of the cognitive process. At the same time, many initial parcels of the theory of Kant's knowledge (his agnosticism, recognition of the unrecognizable "things in itself") make the concept of knowledge of the extremely contradictory and requiring special and scrupulous research. It is important, however, note that within the framework of the idealistic tradition of the XIX century. (In the philosophy of Kant and especially in the philosophy of Hegel), a clear focus on the active nature of knowledge was raised. The subject of the subject, no matter how the nature of knowledge itself is interpreted, acts in this tradition as an active principle. As for appeals to more specific social factors determining the process of cognition, they were not discussed within this tradition.
The new round of ideas directly related to social knowledge gives the philosophy of the beginning of the XX century. Here is the aspect that was mentioned at the beginning of the review, namely the question of the specifics of social knowledge, its differences from the knowledge of physical objects. Two opposite points of view on this subject are represented by the two largest philosophical schools.
The first of these is the school of non-coanthism, in particular, its branch that was called Freiburian (Badenskaya). Her most important representatives - Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert. The basic idea of \u200b\u200bthe Baden School was to prove the fundamental difference between the two types of sciences - "Nature Sciences" and "Culture Sciences". Although Windelband put the question not about the difference in the objects of natural and social sciences, but only about the difference in the ways of knowledge in those and others, essentially the problem stuck as the difference in two classes of objects. Some sciences are natural - they find laws, others - sciences about culture (primarily history) - describe individual facts. The first type of thinking of Windelband calls "nometic", i.e. Comprehensive laws, the second - "idiographic", i.e. Describing special, single. Although both methods have equal value, but the second - "idiographic" - for a long time remained in the background, while it is also necessary to intensify, since everything that relates to human interest and assessment is always "one-time and once". In the arguments of Windelband, there are no references to social reality: there is almost all the time about historical knowledge, but nevertheless one can assume that social life is stacked in the direction of the same scheme, since appeals to the historical process as a whole are repeated.
Even more detailed the same ideas are developed in the concept of Rickert. It distinguishes the same two methods in the knowledge of different spheres - nature and culture, but call them differently. Since natural-scientific knowledge is directed to the general, its method was called "Generalizing", while historical knowledge dealing with individual events that cannot be submitted under the law uses the "Individualizing" method. Therefore, natural science and historical science should always be in the principled logical oppositeness among themselves. From this point of view, the task of the science of society is, the discovery of natural unchanging laws, but a thorough description of single facts.
However, the fixation of all possible facts of human existence is impossible, it is necessary to have a criterion for their selection and evaluation. It is at this point that the work of the Humanitarian researcher differs from the work of the naturalist: each fact is not simply described, but it happens "attribution to value". Category of value, like the entire formulation of value of values \u200b\u200bin knowledge, is the cornerstone of the concept of Rickert. Only the concept of value gives, from its point of view, the opportunity to allocate significant in the historical process. Due to the attribution of single historical facts to value, we can concentrate our attention on the side of the historical process called the culture. Ultimately, "attribution to value" is the method of not only historical, but also all theoretical knowledge, because in each such case we do not just get some idea, but we are discussing knowledgeable, we take a judgment about him.
The Neokantian tradition was widely distributed in the XX century philosophy. And firmly entered her arsenal as an idea of \u200b\u200bseparating two types of knowledge, as a substantiation of the specifics of the knowledge of the world of culture, and therefore, various manifestations of social life.
In contrast to this tradition, another school of philosophy of this period is positivism - made a fundamentally different interpretation of the process of knowledge. The ancestor of positivism was Auguste CONT, at the same time was the created and the creator of special science - sociology, which he gave the "name and program". The rationale for the status of this new scientific discipline from the standpoint of positivistic philosophy is the main problem of the work of the contact. In accordance with the general initial parcels of the philosophy of positivism, requiring the refusal of infertile "metaphysics" and the construction of a "positive" system (ie, "positive") knowledge, CONT proclaimed the most important task of sociology to escape from captivity of metaphysical speculations and approve itself on a solid foundation strictly Analytical knowledge. If sociology wants to be really science, she must discard the former philosophy and turn into a "positive" knowledge.
A real means for constructing such a system of sociology is to assimilate it methods of natural sciences, above all physics. Only subject to the development of sociology as "social physics" its progress is possible. This installation was reflected in the terminology of the contact: two parts were allocated in sociology - social statics and social dynamics. Nevertheless, the Company is considered as a complex system for the interaction of many different factors that make up some integer. To know this whole, build a truly scientific knowledge of society based on the facts, you need to be able to disclose "natural laws", according to which the Company operates: to analyze the conditions in which events occur, and tie them with each other with natural sequence and similarities.
Although there is a number of questions, for example, what means "consistency and similarity relationships", as they are related to the relationship of causality, but it is undoubted that the general plan for building science on society in the models of exact sciences is prescribed quite clearly. The principle guided by the CONT with the presentation of the method of cognition of social reality will later be called the principle of "physicialism". It is obvious that the proposed program completely dispersed with the ideas of the Neokantian school. The controversy between two different orientations (later they will be called a science and humanistic) on the problems of knowledge of social phenomena continues almost to the present.
The question of the social conditionality of knowledge took one of the central places in the philosophical concept of Marxism. It is not by chance that in many modern manuals on the psychology of social knowledge, the name of Marx is mentioned among the authors who have made a great contribution to the subsequent development of the problem. The key idea here is that when analyzing the cognitive activity of a person, it is impossible to proceed from consciousness as such. Consciousness itself is formed as a result of practical activity and embodies the social and historical experience of mankind. And the cognitive activity itself is socially conditioned, including the process of communication between people.
The concept of Marx proposed a whole set of problems: and the social determination of the very subject of knowledge, and the inclusion in the process of knowledge of the Communication and the public defense of the language of the researcher. According to V. A. Lecturensky, in terms of this approach itself, the individual entity of knowledge arises only to the inspection, since it is included in a certain objective system of relations to other entities and "mastering social activities. In other words, the process of cognition is possible only with the condition where the standards that have a socio-cultural character are used in it ... ". Many of the ideas of Marx about the social conditionality of knowledge served as the basis for the development of the psychological theory of activity in domestic psychology and interpretation on the basis of the substance of cognitive processes.

2. Sociology

In general, the sociological tradition is characterized by a high interest in the problems of social knowledge and knowledge. The study of social knowledge has been made as a social phenomenon, where the following areas are allocated: the social determination of the forms of knowledge, the conditions for its storage and use in society by various social groups, the social condition of knowledge of knowledge in certain epochs, finally, social institutions and the social structure of knowledge production. Such a change in the focus of research was due to the larger separation of sociology from philosophy and turning it into independent science. The positivistic approach to the study of social phenomena was proclaimed by the right of social phenomena was the first protest against the "philosophical speculation" in the knowledge of social
life. Therefore, in the process of constitutioning sociology, the problems of knowledge more and more transformed, affecting the philosophical principles of social knowledge, but to analyze the specific social conditions of its development.
Some new approaches were laid in the writings of such classics of sociology, like P. Sorokin, M. Weber, E. Durkheim. So, in the work of P. A. Sorokina "Social and Cultural Dynamics" a thought was expressed that it was the dominant culture that determines what to consider true and that - false as the knowledge of social phenomena. Social life itself, according to Sorokin, there is a system of various "social interactions", combined into various systems. All these systems are integrated with certain values, values. People and groups in their behavior implement these values, or cultural values. All dynamics of public life determined by the dynamics of culture, i.e. A combination of those changes that occur in the "Truth" system, "values", "values". Naturally, the process of social cognition and should be focused on the knowledge of the latter. Thus, here, despite the controversy of the idea of \u200b\u200bdetermination of the development of society only changes in culture, the problem of the role of values \u200b\u200bin social knowledge is raised, i.e. Essentially, a protest against the physicist thesis of positivism on the development of the Company under the laws of natural sciences is expressed.
A peculiar decision of the question of the specifics of the knowledge of social phenomena is proposed in the works of Max Weber. In his opinion, to study social reality, a sociologist creates special concepts, abstraction - "ideal types", with which he builds typology of various public systems. They are the design of the researcher who are needed to systematize numerous and scattered facts. The presence of such "ideal types" Weber method seems to develop further "idiographic method" of neocantians, because the manifold of single and unique facts of social life can now be reduced to some categories. At the same time, Weber believes, sociologist is guided by creating "ideal types" with certain values \u200b\u200bof its time. Weber, as well as Sorokin, continued in sociology, that line, which was asked by the Neokantian tradition, opposed the positivism with his denying the specifics of the knowledge of social phenomena.
On the contrary, the positivist tradition was continued in sociology Emil Durkheim. One of the most influential sociologists of the end of the XIX - early XX century, Durkheim is equally popular among psychologists. As for social psychology, it often challenges the belonging of Durkheim to sociology and tend to consider his ideas as the initial stage of the formation of socio-psychological knowledge. In some sense, this is true, especially if you turn to the method of social knowledge, which developed Durkheim. In his opinion, the essence of the Company is the system of "collective representations", which are produced in society and cannot be reduced to the individual ideas of individual people about some social phenomena. The collective consciousness is not the amount of individual consciousness, and for understanding the being of public life, it is not enough to explore only forms of individual knowledge. According to Durkheim, the group formed from associate individuals is the reality of a completely different kind than each, the individual, taken separately, and collective states exist in the group earlier than the individual will affect and the form of a purely internal mental state will be collapsed. Collective consciousness as a totality of "collective representations" exists objectively, its substrate is society. Therefore, "collective ideas" can be considered as a kind of "social facts". Since the task of any science is the knowledge of the facts, it is necessary to develop a method that would allow to investigate the facts of a special kind - "social facts" (see in detail).
Durkheim developed "the rules of the sociological method", which were philosophically methodological introduction to his work. In the "Rules" - a mixture of certain positivistic abstracts (since the facts are objective, a naturalistic installation is needed for studying them) and at the same time recognizing the specifics of social reality (and therefore the need for a special method). The specificity of the sociological method is to develop their own research techniques. So, with the knowledge of social facts, a special "sociological" explanation is necessary, which should be sought in the nature of society itself: the defining cause of each social fact should be found among the preceding social facts, and not in the states of individual consciousness. Examples of this kind of social facts, which are "collective submissions", Durkheim considered the legal system of society, ethical norms and values, religious beliefs, political documents, works of art, customs. All these phenomena exist objectively, and at the same time they are specific. Consequently, both of them must be carried out by a special way. This specificity of knowledge should not impede objectivity upon receipt of empirical facts, for which it is necessary to exclude "the oscillations of the mind of a scientist" and seek strict definitions and determining the concepts used. In addition, with the knowledge of social facts it is necessary to obtain their sufficient quantity. Hence Durkheim a high assessment of statistics and the requirement of its widespread use in a sociological method.
All wealth of methodological considerations of Durkheim (like a number of their limits) is repeatedly reproduced in the following concepts of social knowledge. His ideas are fair to consider as one of the immediate sources of formation of the psychology of social knowledge.
From the above examples, it can be seen that already in classical sociological work the spectrum of social knowledge problems was significantly expanded compared to those that were solved in philosophy. Expansion This concerned primarily a clearer designation of the principle of determination of social knowledge by social factors, which means that the understanding of its nature. Especially clearly, these thoughts sounded in the framework of the elected independent field of sociology - the sociology of knowledge (or sociology of knowledge), the subject of which is a study of knowledge as a social phenomenon. Her people were M. Sheer and K. Mannheim.
Max Sheer was the author of the term "Sociology of Knowledge" (his book is called: "Forms of knowledge and society. Problems of sociology of knowledge", 1926). From his point of view, it is necessary to recognize the "fundamental fact of the social nature of all knowledge", which means the rejection of the positions of a number of philosophers about any innate ideas. The task of sociology of knowledge is to substantiate the specifics of social knowledge, and for this, first of all, it is necessary to refer to the "cultural sociology", for it is precisely in this area that the specific phenomena of human society are recorded: art, language, writing, morals. All this is also the reality of society, and the sociology of knowledge should relate the area of \u200b\u200bthe ideal and its meaning for the individual. The society, according to Soller, does not interfere with the interaction of an individual with the knowledge of any public phenomenon, but only determines the choice of objects of knowledge. In other words, society does not define the knowledge as much as it makes it possible. A person is peculiar to some ideal values, constants defined by a certain culture, and a person must implement them in the process of knowledge. Social conditions play the role of "gateways", which ensure the correlation of these constants with real reality. (On Shelera, such a provision is achieved with the help of a special "law of continuity.") The essence of rather complex reasoning of the sheer is to approve the need to correlate the single ideas of a separate person and the style of thinking of the era, its "ethos" (the aggregate of culture values).
Therefore, the idea of \u200b\u200bsocial determination of knowledge, although it is very clear and definitely declared by Solkom, finds a very specific development in its further reasoning. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the sheer deliberately put the goal in front of him to overcome in his sociology of knowledge and Marxism (with its tough social determination of the process of knowledge), and positivism (with his denying the role of values \u200b\u200bin social knowledge). The inconsistency of the Sheer manifested itself in the fact that he does not distribute the thesis on the social nature on the area of \u200b\u200bthe so-called "true knowledge", in which the human spirit can overcome the impact of social interests.
Another prominent representative of the Sociology of Cognition is Karl Mannheim, who first introduced the term "social cognition" into the use of science; This term designated the social conditionality of all knowledge, although later restrictions were introduced here. It is strictly socially determined by only "historical knowledge", and the "knowledge of nature" is determined from the impact of society. True, in the first case, it is possible to detect spheres, "free" from society, which only is true knowledge. The dependence of the knowledge from society is always distortion, since it turns into dependence on a certain ideology.
The "mechanism" of this distortion is disclosed as follows. When analyzing any products of spiritual activity (and the "historical knowledge" is dealing with them) Be sure to take into account the intention of the subject of activity. Through this intention, a person fits into the system of social reality, it is based on his "ideology" (the term that mannheim introduced later). Ultimately, this ideology reflects the point of view of the learning and current subject dictated by its social, and above all class, position in society. In this paragraph, Mannheim agrees with Marx. He even believes that the fundamental principle of sociology of knowledge is not just a social, but precisely class conditioned by knowledge. But this class position is always limited: no class can apply for the complete knowledge of historical (and social) facts and phenomena.
Therefore, in reality, such an ideological dependence of historical knowledge distinguishes him from the knowledge of the "true". Full and genuine truth can only be found by "independent intellectuals", which are not tied to any ideological position and which have the opportunity to accept any position. In this part of the arguments, Mannheim diverges with Marx in general, the proclaimed idea of \u200b\u200bthe social conditionality of all kinds of knowledge is largely "trimmed",
Despite numerous limitations and reservations, the concepts of Soller and Mannheim are unanimously recognized by the foundation of the special area of \u200b\u200bsociology, namely the sociology of knowledge (or knowledge). Further development of research in this area, one way or another, is connected with the ideas of these authors, and sometimes directly relies on them.
Specific is the position of Robert Merton, one of the outstanding researchers in the field of sociology of knowledge in a later period. For him, knowledge is "mental products", which has two bases: social (belonging to the class, generation, profession) and cultural (value, ethos, folk spirit). It follows the various types of this mental product: as knowledge is used by a specific social system, social groups, social institutions.
Merton was proposed the term "self-sufficiency of prophecy", which he indicated the degree of contribution made by people into the creation of such life circumstances that would confirm their previously existing hypotheses about the world around. Here, a peculiar form is expressed in a kind of form, which one way or another manifested itself in almost all the buildings of social knowledge: people create ("Creating") the world in which they live more than they live in the real world. The "picture" of each social situation created by the person determines the image of his behavior in this situation, and this, in turn, affects the behavior of others, and further is a whole network of consequences. The main question for everyone, according to Merton, to understand, with what degree of objectivity we participate in this "creativity of the world." As a result, Merton comes to the thoughts about the need to form such a field of sociology as the sociology of science: it is she who must study social cognition.
On this last example, the principles of approach to the study of social knowledge are very well visible. To a greater extent, this is not an analysis of the process of the formation of such knowledge (although individual provisions concern this issue), but it is precisely an analysis of the knowledge of "knowledge society". In this sense, a sociological tradition, as in many other problems, is different from the socio-psychological: it does not pay the place to describe the processes of social skiing