Analysis of the connection between public and interpersonal relationships allows you to place a number of correct accents on the issue of the place of communication throughout complex system human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of the domestic social psychology. The term “communication” itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term“communication”, but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely activity theories. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.
Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. “Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society” (Leontyev, 1975, p. 289), i.e. included in communication. It is especially important here to emphasize the idea that real communication not only the interpersonal relationships of people are given, i.e. not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social ones are also embodied in the fabric of communication, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: the position of a person outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of a system of his connections, and this process can also be realized only in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.”
Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups rather studied in sociology. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. IN in this case It is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion of human history (in this sense, we can talk about the significance of communication in the “phylogenesis” of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people (see A.A. Leontiev, 1973). In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, i.e. changing them as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other public relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process figure in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals? Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives a certain amount of money for it, and money acts here the most important means communication in the system of public relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby “personally” communicates with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena, a form of direct communication is given - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the “secondary plan”, but in real life this “second plan” of communication is always present. Although in itself it is a subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.
Unity of communication and activity
However, with any approach, the fundamental question is the connection between communication and activity. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem when, polemicizing with G. Tarde, he turned Special attention not on the dynamics of social phenomena, but on their statics. Society looked to him not as a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but as a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: social process boiled down to the process of spiritual speech communication. This gave rise to A.N. Leontiev note that with this approach the individual appears more “as a communicating than as a practically acting social being” (Leontiev, 1972, p. 271).
In contrast to this, in domestic psychology the idea is accepted unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms joint activities: people do not just communicate while they are doing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of an active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities. Thus, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is stated in one way or another by all researchers.
However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides human social existence; his way of life (Lomov, 1976, p. 130). In other cases, communication is understood as a certain side activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as condition communication (Leontiev, 1975, p. 289). Finally, communication can be interpreted as a special view activities. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence(Elkonin, 1991). In the other - communication in in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc. (A.A. Leontiev, 1975. P. 122).
It is unlikely that it will be very important to clarify the advantages and comparative disadvantages of each of these points of view: none of them denies the most important thing - the undoubted connection between activity and communication, everyone recognizes the inadmissibility of separating them from each other during analysis. Moreover, the divergence of positions is much more obvious at the level of theoretical and general methodological analysis. As for experimental practice, all researchers have much more in common than different. This common thing is the recognition of the fact of the unity of communication and activity and attempts to fix this unity. In our opinion, it is advisable to have the broadest understanding of the connection between activity and communication, when communication is considered both as an aspect of joint activity (since activity itself is not only work, but also communication in the process of work), and as its unique derivative. Such a broad understanding of the connection between communication and activity corresponds to a broad understanding of communication itself: as the most important condition for an individual to appropriate the achievements of the historical development of mankind, be it at the micro level, in the immediate environment, or at the macro level, throughout the system social connections.
The acceptance of the thesis about the organic connection between communication and activity dictates some very specific standards for the study of communication, in particular at the level of experimental research. One of these standards is the requirement to study communication not only and not so much from the point of view of its shapes, how much in terms of it content. This requirement is at odds with the principle of studying the communication process, typical of traditional social psychology. As a rule, communication is studied here primarily through a laboratory experiment - precisely from the point of view of form, when either the means of communication, or the type of contact, or its frequency, or the structure of both a single communicative act and communication networks are analyzed.
If communication is understood as a side activities, as a unique way of organizing it, then analyzing the form of this process alone is not enough. An analogy can be drawn here with the study of the activity itself. The essence of the principle of activity lies in the fact that it is also considered not just from the side of form (i.e., the individual’s activity is not simply stated), but from the side of its content (i.e., exactly the object to which this activity is directed is revealed). An activity, understood as an objective activity, cannot be studied outside of the characteristics of its subject. Similarly, the essence of communication is revealed only in the case when not just the fact of communication itself is stated, and not even the method of communication, but its content (Communication and activity, 1931). In real practical human activity, the main question is not whether how the subject communicates, but about what he communicates. Here again, an analogy with the study of activity is appropriate: if the analysis of the subject of activity is important there, then here the analysis of the subject of communication is equally important.
Neither one nor the other formulation of the problem is easy for the system of psychological knowledge: psychology has always polished its tools only for analyzing the mechanism - if not activity, but activity; maybe not communication, but communication. Analysis of the substantive aspects of both phenomena is poorly supported methodologically. But this cannot become a reason for refusing to raise this question. (An important circumstance is that the proposed formulation of the problem is prescribed by the practical needs of optimizing activity and communication in real social groups.)
Naturally, highlighting the subject of communication should not be understood vulgarly: people communicate not only about the activity with which they are associated. In order to highlight two possible reasons for communication, the literature differentiates between the concepts of “role-based” and “personal” communication. Under some circumstances, this personal communication in form may look like role-playing, business, “subject-problem-based” (Kharash, 1977, p. 30). Thus, the breeding of role and personal communication is not absolute. IN certain relationships and situations, both are associated with activity.
The idea of “wovenness” of communication into activity also allows us to consider in detail the question of what exactly in activity can “constitute” communication. In the very general view The answer can be formulated in such a way that through communication the activity is being organized And enriches itself. Building a plan for joint activities requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of its goals, objectives, understanding the specifics of its object and even the capabilities of each participant. The inclusion of communication in this process allows for “coordination” or “mismatch” of the activities of individual participants (A.A. Leontiev, 1975. P. 116).
This coordination of the activities of individual participants can be achieved thanks to such a characteristic of communication as its inherent function impact, in which the “reverse influence of communication on activity” is manifested (Andreeva, Yanoushek, 1987). We will find out the specifics of this function along with consideration of various aspects of communication. Now it is important to emphasize that activity through communication is not just organized, but actually enriched, new connections and relationships between people arise in it.
All of the above allows us to conclude that the principle of connection and organic unity of communication with activity, developed in domestic social psychology, opens up truly new perspectives in the study of this phenomenon.
Communication structure Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow designate its structure so that it can then be
analysis of each element. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, as well as the definition of its functions. We propose to characterize the structure of communication by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The structure of communication can be schematically depicted as follows:
Rice. 3. Communication structure
Communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. Interactive side lies in organizing the interaction between communicating individuals, i.e. in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. Perceptual side communication means the process of perception and knowledge of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense. For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative (Lomov, 1976, p. 85). The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular for building a system experimental research. All aspects of communication identified here are revealed in small groups, i.e. in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the issue of the means and mechanisms of influence of people on each other and in the conditions of their joint massive actions, what should be the subject special analysis, in particular when studying the psychology of large groups and mass movements.
Communication
Introduction
Analysis of interpersonal relationships as relationships that develop not somewhere outside social relations, but within them, allows us to place emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world.
Both series of human relationships, both social and personal, are realized precisely in communication. Thus, communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations.
The purpose of this work is to consider the problem of communication in social psychology. This whole problem is a specific problem of social psychology.
The first chapter provides a description of communication in the system of interpersonal relationships. The second chapter is devoted to the consideration of two interrelated components - communication and activity. Finally, the final chapter provides a framework for communication; Three of its interrelated aspects are also considered here: communicative, interactive and perceptual. In particular, this chapter contains the main provisions of the relevant theories of domestic and foreign psychologists.
It should be noted that the problem under consideration is well covered both in the domestic psychological literature and in specialized periodicals.
1. Communication in the system of interpersonal relations
In real communication, not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, that is, not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social, that is, impersonal in nature, relationships are also embodied in the fabric of communication. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain “construction” of the system of his connections, and this process can be is also realized only in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupéry to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.”
Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationship - process, more studied in social psychology. Sometimes there is a tendency to equate communication and interpersonal relationships. But, although these two processes are interconnected, one can hardly agree with the idea of their identification. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, so it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, that is, given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person to another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it is carried out in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely aggravated. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. The need for such a dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connections between interpersonal and social relations.
2. Communication structure
Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow indicate its structure so that analysis of each element is then possible. The structure of communication can be approached differently, as well as to the definition of its functions. In domestic social psychology, the structure of communication is characterized by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. The interactive side consists in organizing interaction between communicating individuals, that is, in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. The perceptual side of communication means the process of communication partners perceiving each other and establishing interaction on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense. For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative. The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular for constructing a system of experimental research. All aspects of communication indicated here are revealed in small groups, that is, in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the issue of the means and mechanisms of interaction between people in the context of their mass actions. Such mechanisms in social psychology traditionally include the processes of mental infection, suggestion (or suggestion) and imitation. Although each of them is, in principle, possible in the case of direct contact, they acquire much greater, independent significance precisely in situations of communication between large masses of people.
This scheme does not consider either the mechanism, forms, or functions of communication in the broad sense of the word discussed above. In principle, we should, for example, talk about two rows of communication functions: social and actual socio-psychological. However, practical social psychology analyzes mainly the latter, while problems associated with understanding communication in a broader sense are simply not raised here. This is explained by the fact that in the established tradition these problems are studied in line with other disciplines, in particular in sociology. This should not be considered a great advantage of psychology. However, at this stage of its development, it practically did not approach problems of this kind.
Let's consider the characteristics of each of the identified sides of communication.
2.1. The communicative side of communication
When they talk about communication in the narrow sense of the word, they first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange with each other various ideas, ideas, interests, moods, feelings, attitudes, etc. All this can be considered as information, and then The communication process itself can be understood as a process of information exchange. From here it is tempting to take the next step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory. However, this approach cannot be considered methodologically correct, because it omits some the most important characteristics namely human communication, which is not limited to the process of transmitting information. Not to mention the fact that with this approach, basically only one direction of information flow is recorded, namely from the communicator to the recipient (introduction of the concept “ feedback”does not change the essence of the matter), another significant omission arises here. Whenever we consider human communication from the point of view of information theory, only the formal side of the matter is fixed: how information is transmitted, while in the conditions of human communication information is not only transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed.
Therefore, without excluding the possibility of applying some provisions of information theory when describing the communicative side of communication, it is necessary to clearly place all the accents and identify the specifics even in the process of information exchange itself, which, indeed, takes place in the case of communication between two people.
Firstly, communication cannot be considered as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as its reception by another system because, unlike the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is an active subject : mutual informing of them presupposes the establishment of joint activities. This means that each participant in the communicative process assumes activity in his partner as well; he cannot consider him as a certain object. The other participant also appears as a subject, and it follows from this that when sending him information, it is necessary to focus on him, that is, analyze his motives, goals, attitudes (except, of course, the analysis of one’s own goals, motives, attitudes). But in this case, one must assume that in response to the information sent, new information emanating from another partner. Therefore, in the communication process there is not a simple “movement of information”. But at least an active exchange of it. The main “add-on” in a specifically human exchange of information is that the significance of information plays a special role here for each participant in the communication. Information acquires this significance because people not only “exchange” meanings, but also strive to develop a common meaning. This is only possible if the information is not just accepted, but also understood and meaningful. Therefore, in every communicative process, activity, communication and cognition are actually given in unity.
Secondly, the nature of the exchange of information between people, and not between, say, cybernetic devices, is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. In other words, the exchange of such information necessarily involves an impact on the partner’s behavior, that is, the sign changes the state of the participants in the communication process. The communication influence that arises here is nothing more than psychological impact one communicator to another in order to change his behavior. The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is. This means (in a certain sense) a change in the very type of relationship that has developed between the participants in communication. Nothing similar happens in “purely” information processes.
Thirdly, communicative influence as a result of the exchange of information is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single or similar system of codification and decodification. In everyday language, this rule is expressed in the words: “everyone must speak the same language.” This is especially important because the communicator and the recipient constantly change places in the communication process. Any exchange of information between them is possible only on the condition that the signs, and, most importantly, the meanings assigned to them are known to all participants in the communicative process. Only acceptance unified system meanings ensures that partners can understand each other.
Also L.S. Vygotsky noted that “thought is never equal direct meaning words." Therefore, communicators must have identical, in the case of auditory speech, not only lexical and syntactic systems, but also the same understanding of the communication situation. And this is only possible if communication is included in some common system activities.
Fourthly, in the conditions of human communication, completely specific communication barriers can arise. These barriers are not related to vulnerabilities in any communication channel or to encoding and decoding errors. They wear social or psychological character. On the one hand, such barriers may arise due to the fact that there is no common understanding of the communication situation, caused not just by the different “language” spoken by the participants in the communication process, but by deeper differences that exist between partners. These can be social, political, religious, professional differences, which not only give rise to different interpretations of the same concepts used in the process of communication, but also generally different attitudes, worldviews, and worldviews. Barriers of this kind are generated by objective social reasons, the belonging of communication partners to various social groups, and when they manifest themselves, the inclusion of communication in a broader system of social relations becomes especially clear. Communication in this case demonstrates its characteristic that it is only a side of communication. Naturally, the process of communication is carried out even in the presence of these barriers, even military opponents negotiate. But the whole situation of the communicative act is significantly complicated by their presence.
On the other hand, barriers to communication can also be of a more “purely” expressed psychological nature: they can arise either as a result of individual psychological characteristics communicating (for example, excessive shyness of one of them, the secrecy of another, the presence of a trait in someone called “lack of communication”), or due to the special kind of psychological relationships that have developed between the communicating: hostility towards each other, distrust, etc. . In this case, the connection that exists between communication and attitude, which is naturally absent in cybernetic systems, becomes especially clear.
It should be added that the information itself coming from the communicator can be of two types: motivating and stating.
Incentive information is expressed in an order, advice, or request. It is designed to stimulate some kind of action. Stimulation, in turn, can be different. First of all, it can be activation, that is, an incentive to action in a given direction. Further, it can be interdiction, that is, also an impulse, but an impulse that does not allow, on the contrary, certain actions, a prohibition of undesirable activities. Finally, it may be destabilization - mismatch or disruption of some autonomous forms of behavior or activity.
Ascertaining information appears in the form of a message; it takes place in various educational systems; it does not imply a direct change in behavior, although ultimately in this case general rule human communication works. The very nature of the message can be different: the degree of objectivity can vary from a deliberately “indifferent” tone of presentation to the inclusion of obvious elements of persuasion in the text of the message itself. The message option is set by the communicator, that is, by the person from whom the information comes.
The transmission of any information is possible only through signs, or rather, sign systems. There are several sign systems that are used in the communication process; accordingly, a classification of communication processes can be constructed. In a rough division, a distinction is made between verbal communication (speech is used as a sign system) and nonverbal communication (various non-speech sign systems are used).
Verbal communication, as already mentioned, uses human speech, natural sound language, as a sign system, that is, a system of phonetic signs that includes two principles: lexical and syntactic. Speech is the most universal means of communication, since when transmitting information through speech, the meaning of the message is least lost. True, this should correspond to a high degree of common understanding of the situation by all participants in the communicative process, which was discussed above.
With the help of speech, information is encoded and decoded: the communicator encodes while speaking, and the recipient decodes this information while listening. For a communicator, the meaning of information precedes the encoding process (utterance), since he first has a certain idea and then embodies it in a system of signs. For the “listener,” the meaning of the received message is revealed simultaneously with decoding. In this last case, the significance of the situation of joint activity is clearly manifested: its awareness is included in the decoding process itself, revealing the meaning of the message is unthinkable outside of this situation.
The accuracy of the listener’s understanding of the meaning of the utterance can become obvious to the communicator only when there is a change in “communicative roles” (a conventional term designating “speaker” and “listener”), that is, when the recipient turns into a communicator and with his utterance makes it known how he revealed the meaning of the received information. Dialogue, or dialogical speech, How specific type“conversation” represents a consistent change of communicative roles, during which the meaning of the speech message is revealed, that is, the phenomenon that was designated as “enrichment, development of information” occurs.
However, the communication process is incomplete if we are distracted from its non-verbal means.
The first among them is the optical-kinetic system of signs, which includes gestures, facial expressions, and pantomime. These gross motor skills various parts the body reflects a person’s emotional reactions, therefore the inclusion of an optical-kinetic system of signs in a communication situation adds nuance to communication. These nuances turn out to be ambiguous when the same gestures are used, for example, in different national cultures. The significance of the optical-kinetic system of signs in communication is so great that it has now special area research is kinetics, which specifically deals with these problems.
Paralinguistic and extralinguistic sign systems are also “additives” to verbal communication. The paralinguistic system is a vocalization system, that is, the quality of the voice, its range and tonality. Extralinguistic system - inclusion in
Similar abstracts:
Verbal means communication. The essence and principles of communication. Convincing the interlocutor of your point of view and inducing him to cooperate. Examples of types of communication barriers: information-deficient, stylistic, socio-cultural differences.
Communication as the basis of interpersonal relationships. The communicative side of communication. Types of information and means of communication. Psychology of interpersonal communication. Social-role relations. Social and psychological climate in the team. Small group structure.
Analysis of the perceptual process of communication, showing that when perceiving another person, an idea of him and an emotional attitude towards him arise. The interactive side of communication, characterizing the interaction of people and the organization of their activities.
The need for communication psychological development man, his types and functions. Levels of communication according to B. Lomov. Motivational and cognitive components in the structure of communication. The relationship between the communicative, interactive and perceptual aspects of communication.
Communication is the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the need for joint activities and including the exchange of information, the development of a single detail of interaction, perception and understanding of a person by a person.
Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations.
Leontyev: Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society, i.e. included in communication.
In real communication, not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, but also social ones, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships.
The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of the system of his connections, and this process can also only be realized in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations.
Each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups is more likely to be studied in sociology.
Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The same applies to the characteristics of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations
Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal.
9. Correlation of the concepts “communication”, “activity”, “personality”.
In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity.
E. Durkheim: society is not a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication.
Domestic psychology: the idea of unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities.
The nature of this connection is understood in different ways.
Lomov: activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides of human social existence; his way of life.
Leontiev: communication is understood as a certain aspect of activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as a condition of communication.
Communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc. (A.A. Leontyev)
Sots.ps analyzes primarily those patterns human behavior and activities that are determined by the fact of communication and interaction of people. Ch. task, cat. stands before social ps, - reveal the specific mechanism of “weaving” the individual into the fabric social reality to understand what the impact is social conditions on the activities of the individual. The personality itself, on the one hand, is already a “product” of these social connections, and on the other hand, is their creator, an active creator. There is an interaction between the individual and society as a whole, so the study of the individual is always another side of the study of society.
There are two main types of relationships: public and interpersonal
General structure relationships are studied by sociology. They are impersonal. They are based on production, material relations, and a whole series is built on top of them: social, political, ideological. All this together represents a system of social relations. The specifics of their mortgage. in that they do not simply “meet” individual with individual, but individuals “meet” as representatives of certain social groups (classes, professions, political parties, etc.). Such relationships are not built on the basis of interaction specific individuals, but on the basis of a certain position occupied by everyone in the system of society.
Interpersonal(Myasishchev calls them “psychological”) relationships do not develop somewhere outside the community. rel., and within them, there are no “pure” general rel. In almost all group actions, their participants appear in two capacities: as performers of impersonal social role and how unique human personalities. The concept of “interpersonal role” is introduced as a fixation of a person’s position in the system of group connections based on the individual psychological characteristics of the individual (shirt-guy, insider, scapegoat, etc.). Interl. rel. can be considered as a factor in the psychological “climate” of the group. The most important specific trait interl. rel. – emotional basis. Based on the set of feelings, two large groups can be distinguished:
1)conjunctive- this includes various kinds of things that bring people together, uniting their feelings. The parties demonstrate their readiness to cooperate, to collaborate. actions.
2)disjunctive feelings- here rel. feelings that separate people, there is no desire to collaborate.
Practical rel. relationships between people in a group do not develop solely on the basis of immediate emotions. contacts. Relationships mediated by joint activities are important here. When the act of communication must take place even if the groups are antagonistic.
Place of communication in the system of social and interpersonal relations.
Communication and activity. Structure of communication. Communication as an exchange of information. Features of verbal and nonverbal communication. The role of communication for young people in social and interpersonal relationships.
Communication and activity.In modern scientific knowledge the question of the relationship between communication activities remains not completely resolved. In a number of social science theories there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. E. Durkheim ultimately approached this formulation of the problem when he paid special attention not to the dynamics of social phenomena, but to their statics. For him, society looked like a collection of static forms of communication. At the same time, the factor of communication is emphasized as the main one in people’s behavior, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated. Thus, the social process was reduced to a process of spiritual speech communication. Another point of view identifies the concepts of communication and activity. In this case, communication is considered as one of the types of human activity in society. In modern domestic social psychology, the idea of unity of communication and activity is accepted, but not the substitution of one concept for another. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations. It is assumed that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” this activity. This is how a person, in the course of one activity or another, interacts and communicates with other people. Communication forms the unity of tasks and goals of individuals performing joint activities. Based on this, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is confirmed by all researchers.
The idea of the indispensable inclusion of communication in activity allows us to consider the question of exactly what functions communication performs in the process of activity. In the most general form, the answer can be formulated as follows: through communication, activity is organized and enriched. Building a plan for joint activity requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of its goals, objectives, understanding the specifics of the object of activity and even the capabilities of each participant. Thus, carrying out the function of influence (regulatory-communicative function), communication leads to the coordination of the activities of its individual participants and, consequently, to the optimization of its results. Along with this function, researchers distinguish the information-communicative and affective-communicative functions of communication. At the same time, it must be emphasized that activity and communication in real social activity of people are almost always combined. This is especially noticeable in group, collective activities, where people communicate while doing business.
Structure of communication.The structure of communication can be approached in different ways; in this case, the structure will be characterized by highlighting three interrelated sides in communication: communicative, interactive and perceptual.
The communicative side of communication consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. During an act of communication, there is not just a movement of information, but a mutual transfer of encoded information between two individuals - the subjects of communication. In this case, not only does an exchange of meanings take place, but subjects strive to develop a common meaning. And this is only possible if the information is not only accepted, but also comprehended. Communicative interaction is possible only when the person sending information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a similar system of codification and decodification of information.
The interactive side consists of organizing interaction between communicating individuals (exchange of actions). This is a characteristic of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities. There are two types of interaction: cooperation and competition. Cooperative interaction means coordinating the forces of participants. Cooperation is a necessary element of joint activity and is generated by its very nature. Competition is rivalry, struggle, conflict.
The perceptual side of communication refers to the process of perception and cognition of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis.
All three aspects of communication are closely intertwined with each other and make up the communication process as a whole.
Communication as an exchange of information.When we talk about communication in the narrow sense of the word, we first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange with each other various ideas, ideas, interests, moods, feelings, attitudes, etc. All this can be considered as information, and then the communication process itself can be understood as a process of information exchange. From here one can take the next tempting step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory, which is what is done in a number of systems of socio-psychological knowledge. Therefore, without excluding the possibility of applying some provisions of information theory when describing the communicative side of communication, it is necessary to clearly place all the emphasis and identify the specifics in the process of information exchange itself when it takes place in the case of communication between two people.
Firstly, communication cannot be considered only as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as the reception of it by another system because, unlike the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is active subject: mutual informing of them presupposes the establishment of joint activities. This means that each participant in the communication process assumes activity in his partner as well; he cannot consider him as a certain object. The other participant also appears as a subject, and it follows that when sending him information, it is necessary to focus on him, i.e. analyze his motives, goals, attitudes (except, of course, the analysis of one’s own goals, motives and attitudes), “address” him, in the words of V.N. Myasishchev. Schematically, communication can be depicted as an intersubjective process ( SS ). But in this case, it must be assumed that in response to the information sent, new information will be received coming from the other partner. Therefore, in the communication process there is not a simple movement of information, but at least an active exchange of it.
Secondly, the nature of the exchange of information between people is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. In other words, the exchange of such information necessarily involves influencing the behavior of the partner, i.e. a sign changes the state of the participants in the communication process; in this sense, “a sign in communication is like a tool in work.” The communicative influence that arises here is nothing more than the psychological influence of one communicator on another with the aim of changing his behavior. The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is.
Thirdly, communicative influence as a result of information exchange is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single and similar decodification codification system. On ordinary language this rule is expressed in the words “everyone must speak the same language.”
Finally, fourthly, in the conditions of human communication, completely specific communication barriers can arise. They are not associated with vulnerabilities in any communication channel or errors in encoding and decoding, but are of a social or psychological nature. On the one side. Such barriers may arise due to the fact that there is a lack of understanding of the communication situation, caused not just by the different languages spoken by the participants in the communication process, but also by the deeper differences that exist between the partners. These can be social, political, religious, professional differences, which not only give rise to different interpretations of the same concepts used in the process of communication, but also generally different attitudes, worldviews, and worldviews. These kinds of barriers are generated by objective social reasons, the belonging of communication partners to different social groups, and when they manifest themselves, the inclusion of communication in a broader system of social relations becomes especially clear. Communication in this case demonstrates its characteristic that it is only a side of communication. Naturally, the communication process takes place even in the presence of these barriers: even conflicting parties negotiate. But the whole situation of the communicative act is significantly complicated by their presence.
Speech as a means of communication.No matter how important feelings, emotions, and relationships of people are, communication involves not only and not so much the transfer emotional states, how much information transfer. The content of information is transmitted using language, i.e. takes verbal or verbal form. The idea of speech, its content comes to consciousness through emotional sphere. The speaker's job is to influence the feelings of his listeners. Strong feeling, a person’s experiences always affect the mind, leaving indelible impressions. Speech is something more than a mechanically produced series of sounds that expresses fleeting observations and moods that occupy the speaker at the moment. Speech is the person as a whole. Each statement, both in fact and in the consciousness of the person who perceives it, represents an instantaneous disclosure of the entire experience and character, intentions and feelings of a person. Speech is an integral part of character and defines personality in the broadest way. Nowadays, more than ever before, speech is the main means by which people live together and collaborate locally, nationally and internationally. For the world, in the face of any danger that threatens it, the word will be the means by which people will achieve victory if it triumphs. The word is a means of transmitting information, but its complete transmission from one person to another does not always occur. When transmitting information, its meaning is often distorted and partially lost. A statement without orientation takes the form of a monologue. The amount of information loss during a monologue message can reach 50%, and in some cases, 80% of the volume of original information. Monologue in communication develops in people with a sedentary psyche and low creative potential. Research shows that the most effective form communication is dialogue. Dialogue presupposes fluency in speech, sensitivity to non-verbal signals, and the ability to distinguish sincere answers from evasive ones. The basis of dialogue is the ability to ask questions to yourself and others. A culture of behavior in any communication is unthinkable without observing the rules of verbal etiquette associated with forms and manners of speech, vocabulary, i.e. with all the style of speech adopted in human communication.
Nonverbal communication.Non-verbal communication, better known as the language of postures and gestures, includes all forms of human self-expression that do not rely on words. Psychologists believe that reading nonverbal cues is the most important condition effective communication. A person perceives about 70% of information through the visual (visual) channel. Nonverbal means allow you to understand the true feelings and thoughts of your interlocutor. Our attitude towards the interlocutor is often formed under the influence of the first impression, and it, in turn, is the result of the influence of non-verbal factors - gait, facial expression, gaze, demeanor, style of clothing, etc. Nonverbal signals are especially valuable because they are spontaneous, unconscious and, unlike words, always sincere.
Nonverbal communication includes five subsystems:
- spatial subsystem ( interpersonal space);
- sight;
- optical-kinetic subsystem ( appearance, facial expressions, pantomimics, i.e. poses, gestures);
- paralinguistic or near-speech subsystem (range, tempo, timbre of voice);
- extralinguistic or extra-speech subsystem (pauses in speech, laughter, etc.).
One of the main types of nonverbal communication is facial expression, which conveys certain emotions. Paul Ekman and his colleagues described the movements of the facial muscles that form one or another facial expression. They invented a system they called the Facial Expression Coding System. Even Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, argued that the basic patterns of expression of emotions are the same for all people on the planet. Ekman's research across cultures supports this view. Ekman and Friesen studied a native tribe in New Guinea whose members had virtually no previous contact with outsiders. When they were shown pictures of different expressions faces that represented six emotions (happiness, anger, sadness, disgust, fear, surprise). The natives correctly identified these feelings.
Communication as interaction.Analyzing communication as interaction presents significant difficulties. Generally division three sides communication perception, communication, interaction is possible only as a method of analysis: with all the effort, it is impossible to distinguish “pure” communication, without perception and interaction, or “pure” perception. The main content of communication is the impact on the partner. When describing it, we most often use action terms. In communication there is a constant reaction to the actions of another. When communicating, we constantly answer the question “What is he doing?”, and our behavior is based on the answer received. Communication as interaction can be viewed from the perspective of control and understanding orientation. Control orientation involves the desire to control, control the situation and behavior of others, which is usually combined with the desire to dominate in interactions. Understanding orientation involves seeking to understand the situation and behavior of others. It is associated with the desire to interact better and avoid conflicts, with ideas about the equality of partners in communication and the need to achieve mutual, rather than one-sided, satisfaction.
Loading...