The first psychological societies arose in Russia at the end of the 19th century. The largest of these was the Moscow Psychological Society, which operated from one year to the next. The initiator of its creation and the first chairman was Professor M. M. Troitsky. The society aimed at the development of psychological science and the dissemination psychological knowledge; it held regular meetings and had two publications - Proceedings of the Moscow Psychological Society and the monthly journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology. After the death of Troitsky, professors N. Ya. Grot, L. M. Lopatin and I. A. Ilyin were chairmen of the society in turn. The Moscow Psychological Society was created not only as a psychological, but also as a philosophical society, and idealist philosophers played a key role in its activities. With the advent of Soviet power, the society began to experience material and organizational difficulties, and after the expulsion abroad of a number of its members, headed by Chairman Ilyin, ceased to exist forever.

In addition to the Moscow one, other psychological societies existed in pre-revolutionary Russia, for example, the Russian Society for Experimental Psychology, which arose in St. Petersburg in the 1890s under the leadership of Professor N. P. Wagner. In 1914, professor G. I. Chelpanov founded the university at Moscow University. Unlike the Moscow Psychological Society, the institute managed to survive the years of Soviet power, during which it changed many names. In 1957, within the walls of the Psychological Institute, which in those years was called the Research Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, the Society (Union) of Psychologists of the USSR was created. After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Psychological Society formed on November 22, 1994 under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences became the legal successor of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR. As of January 2013, the number of members of the RPO is about 5,000 people The structure of the RPO includes 62 regional branches and 16 scientific sections.

Organizational structure

Society leaders

• Smirnov, Anatoly Alexandrovich, action. Member of the APS of the USSR, President of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1957-1963).
• Leontiev, Alexei Nikolaevich, action. member of the APS of the USSR, president of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1963-1968).
• Lomov, Boris Fedorovich, corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, President of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1968-1983).
• Matyushkin, Alexei Mikhailovich, action. member of the Russian Academy of Education, President of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1983-1987).
• Zinchenko, Vladimir Petrovich, action. member of the RAO, and. about. President of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1988-1991).
• Klimov, Evgeny Alexandrovich, action. member of the Russian Academy of Education, President of the Russian Psychological Society (1994-2001).
• Dontsov, Alexander Ivanovich, action. member of the Russian Academy of Education, President of the Russian Psychological Society (2001-2007).
• Zinchenko, Yuri Petrovich, action. Member of the Russian Academy of Education, President of the Russian Psychological Society (since 2007).

Presidium

As of August 2014, the RPO Presidium includes:

• Zinchenko, Yuri Petrovich
• Tsvetkova, Larisa Alexandrovna - Associate Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Akopov, Garnik Vladimirovich
• Asmolov, Alexander Grigorievich - Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Psychology.
• Bazarov, Takhir Yusupovich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Galazhinsky, Eduard Vladimirovich
• Dalgatov, Magomed Magomedaminovich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Ermakov, Pavel Nikolaevich - Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Biological Sciences.
• Zhuravlev, Anatoly Laktionovich - Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member. RAO, Doctor of Psychology.
• Karayani, Alexander Grigorievich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Karpov, Anatoly Viktorovich - Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Psychology.
• Baturin, Nikolai Alekseevich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Leonov, Nikolai Ilyich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Malykh, Sergey Borisovich - Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Psychology.
• Maryin, Mikhail Ivanovich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Nechaev, Nikolai Nikolaevich - Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Psychology.
• Reshetnikov Mikhail Mikhailovich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology, Candidate of Medical Sciences.
• Rubtsov, Vitaly Vladimirovich - Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Psychology.
• Sergienko, Elena Alekseevna - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Tkhostov Alexander Shamilevich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology.
• Shaboltas, Alla Vadimovna - Associate Professor, Candidate of Psychological Sciences.
• Shadrikov, Vladimir Dmitrievich - Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Doctor of Psychology.
• Shoigu, Yulia Sergeevna - Candidate of Psychological Sciences.
• Yurevich, Andrei Vladislavovich - Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Psychology.
• Veraksa, Alexander Nikolaevich - Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Director of the RPO
• Kandybovich Sergey Lvovich - Professor, Doctor of Psychology

RPS cooperation with international organizations

Participation of RPO in international organizations

The Russian Psychological Society is an official member of:

Printed publications

The Russian Psychological Society publishes / published the following journals and collections:

Honorary members of the society

Honorary members of the RPO are:

Write a review on the article "Russian Psychological Society"

Notes

See also

Links

An excerpt characterizing the Russian Psychological Society

“Oh my God, the people are like a beast, where can the living be!” was heard in the crowd. “And the fellow is young ... it must be from the merchants, then the people! .. they say, not that one ... how not that one ... Oh my God ... Another was beaten, they say, a little alive ... Eh, people ... Who is not afraid of sin ... - they said now the same people, with a painfully pitiful expression, looking at the dead body with a blue face, smeared with blood and dust and with a long, thin neck chopped.
A diligent police official, finding the presence of a corpse in His Excellency's courtyard indecent, ordered the dragoons to pull the body out into the street. Two dragoons took hold of the mutilated legs and dragged the body. A bloodied, dust-stained, dead, shaved head on a long neck, tucked up, dragged along the ground. The people huddled away from the corpse.
While Vereshchagin fell and the crowd, with a wild roar, hesitated and swayed over him, Rostopchin suddenly turned pale, and instead of going to the back porch, where the horses were waiting for him, he, not knowing where and why, lowered his head, with quick steps walked along the corridor leading to the rooms on the ground floor. The count's face was pale, and he could not stop his lower jaw shaking as if in a fever.
“Your Excellency, this way… where would you like to?.. this way, please,” his trembling, frightened voice said from behind. Count Rostopchin was unable to answer anything and, obediently turning around, went where he was directed. There was a carriage on the back porch. The distant rumble of the roaring crowd was heard here too. Count Rostopchin hurriedly got into the carriage and ordered to go to his country house in Sokolniki. Having left for Myasnitskaya and not hearing the cries of the crowd anymore, the count began to repent. He now recalled with displeasure the excitement and fear he had shown to his subordinates. "La populace est terrible, elle est hideuse," he thought in French. - Ils sont sosh les loups qu "on ne peut apaiser qu" avec de la chair. [The crowd is terrible, it is disgusting. They are like wolves: you can't satisfy them with anything but meat.] “Count! one god is above us!' - he suddenly remembered the words of Vereshchagin, and an unpleasant feeling of cold ran down the back of Count Rostopchin. But this feeling was instantaneous, and Count Rostopchin smiled contemptuously over himself. "J" avais d "autres devoirs," he thought. – Il fallait apaiser le peuple. Bien d "autres victimes ont peri et perissent pour le bien publique“, [I had other duties. I had to satisfy the people. Many other victims died and are dying for the public good.] - and he began to think about the general duties that he had in relation to his family, his (entrusted to him) capital and himself - not as Fyodor Vasilyevich Rostopchin (he believed that Fyodor Vasilyevich Rostopchin sacrifices himself for the bien publique [public good]), but about himself as a commander in chief, about "If I were only Fyodor Vasilyevich, ma ligne de conduite aurait ete tout autrement tracee, [my path would have been drawn in a completely different way,] but I had to save both the life and dignity of the commander in chief."
Swaying slightly on the soft springs of the carriage and not hearing the more terrible sounds of the crowd, Rostopchin physically calmed down, and, as always happens, simultaneously with physical calming, the mind forged for him the reasons for moral calming. The thought that calmed Rostopchin was not new. Since the world has existed and people have been killing each other, not a single person has ever committed a crime against his own kind without comforting himself with this very thought. This thought is le bien publique [the public good], the supposed good of other people.
For a man who is not obsessed with passion, the good is never known; but a person who commits a crime always knows exactly what this good consists in. And Rostopchin now knew it.
He not only did not reproach himself in his reasoning for the act he had done, but found reasons for complacency in the fact that he was so successfully able to use this a propos [opportunity] - to punish the criminal and at the same time calm the crowd.
“Vereshchagin was tried and sentenced to death,” thought Rostopchin (although Vereshchagin was only sentenced to hard labor by the Senate). - He was a traitor and a traitor; I could not leave him unpunished, and then je faisais d "une pierre deux coups [did two blows with one stone]; I gave the victim to the people to calm down and executed the villain."
Arriving at his country house and busying himself with household arrangements, the count completely calmed down.
Half an hour later, the count was riding fast horses across the Sokolnichye field, no longer remembering what had happened, and thinking and thinking only about what would happen. He was now driving to the Yauza Bridge, where, he was told, Kutuzov was. Count Rostopchin prepared in his imagination those angry reproaches that he would express to Kutuzov for his deceit. He will make this old court fox feel that the responsibility for all the misfortunes that come from the abandonment of the capital, from the death of Russia (as Rostopchin thought), will fall on one of his old heads that has gone out of his mind. Thinking ahead about what he would say to him, Rostopchin angrily turned around in the carriage and looked angrily around.
The falconer field was deserted. Only at the end of it, near the almshouse and the yellow house, were groups of people in white robes and a few lonely, the same people walking across the field, shouting something and waving their arms.
One of them ran across the carriage of Count Rostopchin. And Count Rostopchin himself, and his coachman, and the dragoons, all looked with a vague feeling of horror and curiosity at these released madmen, and especially at the one who ran up to them.
Staggering on his long, thin legs, in a fluttering dressing gown, this madman ran swiftly, keeping his eyes on Rostopchin, shouting something to him in a hoarse voice and making signs for him to stop. Overgrown with uneven patches of beard, the gloomy and solemn face of the madman was thin and yellow. His black agate pupils ran low and alarmingly over the saffron-yellow whites.
- Stop! Stop! I say! he shrieked piercingly, and again, gasping for breath, shouted something with impressive intonations in gestures.
He caught up with the carriage and ran beside it.
“Three times they killed me, three times I was raised from the dead. They stoned me, crucified me... I will rise... rise... rise. Ripped apart my body. The kingdom of God will be destroyed… I will destroy it three times and raise it three times,” he shouted, raising and raising his voice. Count Rostopchin suddenly turned as pale as he had turned pale when the crowd rushed at Vereshchagin. He turned away.
“Sh… go quick!” he shouted at the coachman in a trembling voice.
The carriage rushed at all the legs of the horses; but for a long time behind him Count Rostopchin heard a distant, insane, desperate cry, and before his eyes he saw one surprised, frightened, bloodied face of a traitor in a fur coat.
No matter how fresh this memory was, Rostopchin now felt that it was deeply, to the point of blood, cut into his heart. He clearly felt now that the bloody trace of this memory would never heal, but that, on the contrary, the further, the more wickedly, more painfully this terrible memory would live in his heart until the end of his life. He heard, it seemed to him now, the sounds of his own words:
“Chop it, you will answer me with your head!” Why did I say those words! Somehow I accidentally said ... I could not say them (he thought): then nothing would have happened. He saw the frightened and then suddenly hardened face of the striking dragoon and the look of silent, timid reproach that this boy in a fox coat threw at him ... “But I didn’t do it for myself. I should have done this. La plebe, le traitre… le bien publique,” ​​[Mob, villain… public good.] – he thought.
At the Yauza bridge, the army was still crowding. It was hot. Kutuzov, frowning and dejected, was sitting on a bench near the bridge, playing with his whip on the sand, when a carriage galloped up to him noisily. A man in a general's uniform, in a hat with a plume, with shifting eyes that were either angry or frightened, approached Kutuzov and began to say something to him in French. It was Count Rostopchin. He told Kutuzov that he had come here because Moscow and the capital were no more and there was only one army.
“It would have been different if your lordship had not told me that you would not surrender Moscow without even giving a battle: all this would not have happened! - he said.
Kutuzov looked at Rostopchin and, as if not understanding the meaning of the words addressed to him, diligently tried to read something special written at that moment on the face of the person speaking to him. Rastopchin, embarrassed, fell silent. Kutuzov shook his head slightly and, without taking his searching gaze off Rostopchin's face, said softly:
- Yes, I will not give up Moscow without giving a battle.
Whether Kutuzov was thinking about something completely different when he said these words, or on purpose, knowing their meaninglessness, he said them, but Count Rostopchin did not answer and hastily moved away from Kutuzov. And a strange thing! The commander-in-chief of Moscow, the proud Count Rostopchin, took a whip in his hands, went up to the bridge and began shouting to disperse the crowded wagons.

At four o'clock in the afternoon, Murat's troops entered Moscow. In front rode a detachment of Wirtemberg hussars, behind on horseback, with a large retinue, the Neapolitan king himself rode.
Near the middle of the Arbat, near Nikola Yavlenny, Murat stopped, waiting for news from the advance detachment about the situation in the city fortress "le Kremlin".

RPO - Russian Psychological Society

The first Russian psychological society was formed in 1885 at the Moscow Imperial University. The statute stated that the purpose of creating the Psychological Society was the development of "psychology, in its composition, applications and history, and the dissemination of psychological knowledge in Russia." The list of the most discussed issues was as follows:

• a) “the system of Psychology, in all forms of its processing;
• b) the application of psychological teachings to the development of other sciences, such as: logic, morality, philosophy of law, aesthetics, pedagogy, etc.;
• c) the history of Psychology and its application, in ancient and modern times ”(from the charter of the Russian Psychological Society). Since its inception, the society has been engaged in publishing the works of domestic and foreign psychologists.

M. M. Troitsky was elected the first chairman of the RPO (until 1887). Troitsky was replaced as chairman by N. Ya. Grot (1887-1899), who embodied the social and ideological aspirations of the Russian intelligentsia at the end of the 19th century. “This determined his scientific and pedagogical activity- the desire not only to teach, but also to influence morally, forming certain values ​​and aspirations in the audience. As chairman of the society, N. Ya. Grot was engaged in scientific research, as well as organizing the educational work of the RPO. In order to popularize the achievements of science, N. Ya. Grot began to publish the journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology. wide scope scientific activity and theoretical discussions that took place at the meetings of the Russian Psychological Society were supposed to contribute to the formation of a domestic scientific school. Let us cite the topics of some scientific discussions of that time: “On the relationship between the methods and tasks of philosophy and psychology” (N. Ya. Grot), “On internal experience and its significance for psychology and the general philosophical worldview” (P. E. Astafiev), “On forms of memory disorder” (S. S. Korsakov), “On the issue of color hearing” (G. R. Ivanitsky), etc.

issues of paramount importance in the 1910s. for RPO were the subject and method of psychology. This is the subject of N. N. Lange’s dissertation on the topic “Psychological research. The law of perception. The theory of volitional attention”, the works “Foundations of experimental psychology” (N. Ya. Grot) and “Method of self-observation” (L. M. Lopatin), which reveal the problems of determination, causality, the specificity of the psyche as a spiritual one.

In Soviet times, the Union of Psychologists of the USSR became an analogue of the RPO. Its history begins with the re-establishment of the Society within the walls of the Psychological Institute of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences as the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1957). AT different years The Society of Psychologists of the USSR was headed by such outstanding scientists as A. A. Smirnov, A. N. Leontiev, B. F. Lomov (1927-1989).

Anatoly Alexandrovich Smirnov (1984-1980), after graduating from Moscow University in 1916, was left at the Department of Philosophy and Psychology, took an active part in the seminar of G. I. Chelpanov. Published in 1916

Chel Panov "Workshop on experimental psychology" to the student of Moscow University A. A. Smirnov was thanked for his assistance in preparing this manual. After several years of work in various scientific and educational institutions Moscow, Smirnov returned to the Psychological Institute and did not part with him until the end of his life.

A significant part of the scientific heritage of A. A. Smirnov is represented by experimental work in the field of the psychology of memory. Developmental and educational psychology also constituted the area of ​​his scientific interests. He is one of the founders of the journal "Problems of Psychology" (for many years - the only periodical in Russian psychology) and for 25 years until the end of his life he was its editor-in-chief. He was able to preserve the institute and its traditions. “Whatever kind of activity A. A. Smirnov is engaged in, on everything

the features of his unique personality were reflected, he put a living soul into everything, gave not only his remarkable mind, but also a generous heart.

Main works : "Introduction to pedology in connection with the doctrine of human behavior" (1927); "Psychology of memory" (1948); "Memory and its education" (1948); "Problems of the Psychology of Memory" (1966); Selected psychological works in 2 volumes (1987).

A whole era in Russian psychology is associated with the name of A. N. Leontiev. This is the time of consolidation and flourishing of the professional community throughout the country. During this period, domestic psychology occupies a certain place in the world professional psychological community. In 1966, the XVIII World Congress of Psychology took place in Moscow. Such significant representatives of foreign psychological science as J. Piaget, G1 came to Moscow. Fress and others. 1,500 Soviet psychologists took part in the work of the congress; problems of various subjects were discussed, including questions of the mental development of the child, the development of perception and sensory systems. The central events of the congress were a speech by J. Piaget on the relationship of psychology with other sciences, as well as a lecture by A. A. Smirnov on the development of Russian psychological science.

In the late 1960s - early 1970s. psychological science penetrates into various areas of the national economy, for example, into astronautics, atomic energy. Ties between psychology and education are being intensively strengthened. During this period, the Union of Psychologists held a number of significant conferences in Moscow: "Scientific Creativity" (1969), "Problems of Activity in Soviet Psychology" (1973), "Experimental Study of Productive Thinking Processes" (1977), "Creativity and Pedagogy" (1988) .

In the 1990s a new period begins in the history of the Psychological Society. At this time, the all-Moscow methodological seminar continues to work; The Moscow Psychological Society holds regular meetings. As soon as the Law on Public Organizations came out, an initiative group of psychologists restored the Society within the framework of the Russian Federation (the founding congress of the RPO took place on November 22, 1994). In the 1990s the position of domestic psychology was complicated by the system-wide and financial crisis. But even in these years, psychological science continued to develop. Thus, the all-Moscow methodological seminar at the Moscow Psychological Society continued to operate, which was held by three leading psychological organizations: the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education, the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the psychological faculty of Moscow State University.

We note the most important events that took place with the participation of the RPO in the XXI century: V All-Russian Conference of the RPO (January 30 - February 1, 2002); III Congress of the RPO (June 25-28, 2003); IV Congress of the RPO (September 18-21, 2007). The first RPO Youth School was also held within the framework of the congress. Today RIO has about 5,000 members. It has 62 regional departments and 16 scientific sections.

I. E. Sirotkina*, R. Smith**

* Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Deputy Director of the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology. S. I. Vavilov RAS, Moscow

** Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Emeritus at Lancaster University, Scientific Advisor to the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology. SI. Vavilov Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Associate Fellow of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

A review of the literature on the "psychological society" is given and an attempt is made to define this phenomenon. By "psychological society" is meant not so much the institutional development of psychology or the increase in the number of psychologists, but the penetration of psychological views and practices into the life of modern man. The authors try to answer the question of what consequences - both for the individual and for society as a whole - bring with it the popularization of psychology and the assimilation of its categories and practices in everyday life.

Keywords: modernity/modernism, "psychological society", individualization, psychologization.

For psychology, the recent century was decisive. From a modest academic university discipline, as it was in the previous century, psychology has become a large-scale scientific and practical field of activity and has taken a dominant place in the culture of Western societies. AT modern world there is hardly a person who has not encountered psychologists in one way or another. Testing, psychotherapy, family counseling and career guidance for schoolchildren have entered the lives of many millions of people. Psychology began to claim to explain to a person his actions, to guide his decisions, to advise on the most intimate problems. All this gave rise to talk about modern Western society as "psychological" - based on psychology in solving both the everyday problems of the individual and global social problems.

The term "psychological society" does not originate in academic psychology, but in discussions about the modern Western way of life, where it has been used along with such concepts as "modernism", "liberalism" and "consumer society". There is no stable definition of this term in the literature, but the persistence with which it is used indicates the relevance of the topic. We are talking about the important place that psychology - as a system of knowledge, practices and social institutions - occupies in modern society. She did not acquire this place by chance. Its expansion in the Western world began around the 1940s (some authors name even more early dates- 1920s), when a massive influx of psychologists began in such areas as medicine, the army, business, and education. There is no need to say that for the same reason the topic of "psychological society" in our country has become very relevant today.

But the "psychological society" is not only the institutionalization of psychology, the growth of the community of psychologists and the expansion of their spheres of activity. The word "psychology" has many meanings. This is both scientific knowledge, and a profession, and an important dimension of human existence. The ambiguity of psychology reflects, in particular, the reflexive nature of human consciousness: in psychology, a person is at the same time both the subject and the object of knowledge. People who are the object of study by professional psychologists are themselves surrounded by psychological information that they use in a certain way in their lives. Thus, modern society is characterized not only and not so much by the greater presence of psychologists than in the past, but by the spread of psychological views and practices in it. This is facilitated by the flow of books, magazines, radio and television programs, and computer programs that popularize psychology and present it as an essential part of human self-knowledge, a necessary part of everyone's daily life. Assimilated these views and practices, a modern person begins to think in psychological categories, to look at the world through "psychological

spectacles." To paraphrase, we can say that in the "psychological society" Everyone is their own psychologist. It is, therefore, not so much about increasing the number of psychologists, but about each person's choice of lifestyle and identity. If people believe that "think", "act", "hope" are processes psychological, this cannot but affect the life of society as a whole.

Over the past half century, a lot of research has appeared on the topic of "psychological society", affecting its various aspects. We have divided this literature into four groups:

- emergence and intensive development in the XX century. psychology as a profession;

- social nature of psychological knowledge;

- individualization and psychologization as phenomena of modernity;

- the role of psychology as a practice, or technique, of public administration.

Let's consider each of these aspects in more detail.

The first of these, and the most obvious of them, is the emergence and rapid spread of the profession of psychologist in the 20th century. In 1992, the American Psychological Association had thousands of members, and there were 20,000 registered psychologists in the Netherlands. In Russia, the growth in the number of psychologists recent decades, of course, is very significant, although specific figures are not known to us. Research into how this growth took place has been carried out mainly on the basis of American psychology. This is not surprising, since psychology as a profession developed earlier and on a larger scale in the United States than in the rest of the Western world. From 1919 to 1939 the number of psychologists there increased 10 times; after the Second World War, this growth accelerated markedly, reaching a figure of a quarter of a million in 1995. Not the last role was played by wars, which attracted the attention of psychologists to the multimillion-strong armies of soldiers. In the years following the First and Second World Wars, the participation of psychologists in state and public programs of rehabilitation and social assistance to the population also raised the role of the profession and led to the opening of new vacancies. Among the works devoted to the development of psychology as a mass profession in the United States, one can name the books of J. Burnham, J. Capshew, D. S. Napoli and E. Herman. As far as Europe is concerned, especially France, research here is devoted mainly to the history of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. The example of the Netherlands, where the status of psychologists as social workers and experts quite early received legislative consolidation, is the best studied.

More interesting, however, is another aspect of the discussion of "psychological society" - the question of the social nature of psychological knowledge. Starting to think about the knowledge they produce, psychologists are faced with the fact that this knowledge somehow affects the object, changes it. In other words, the process of cognition in psychology is different from, for example, in physics, where, as is traditionally believed, a scientist first studies some natural objects empirically, then formulates a theory, and then applies the knowledge gained in practice. In contrast to physics, there are no "natural objects" in psychology: the subject of research is both given to the psychologist and created by him at the same time. Two important epistemological conclusions follow from this: first, in psychology there is no sequence of stages of cognition - "empiricism-theory-practice" - which exists (or is believed to exist) in some other sciences. Secondly, since the object of psychology - a person - is social in nature, then social and psychological knowledge itself. And this means that all concepts, categories and models of psychology are historical, arise at a specific historical stage and in response to the demands of a certain society and at a certain moment - for example, with the disappearance of this society - can cease to exist. This, of course, is typical not only for psychology, but also for all social and human sciences. The thesis about the social nature of psychological knowledge limits the ambitions of scientists and their claims to discover universal truths about man. Psychological knowledge is neither eternal nor universal; suitable for a person of any society and any era. With this in mind, psychologists must abandon messianic illusions and not transfer their local diagnoses to "the nature of man in general", since such a nature is nothing more than a very vague abstraction.

In the history of psychology, a special direction has developed - the history of individual psychological categories and practices, the study of how they arose and acquired their modern form. One of the most influential in this field was and remains a book by the Canadian historian of psychology Kurt Danziger on the history of psychological experiment in three different cultures: French-, German- and English-speaking. And the categories that are most often considered in such studies are personality and intelligence. It is no coincidence that they are considered the most important: through them, psychology is connected with education, politics and everyday life million people. It is around these categories - especially intelligence - that there is an unrelenting debate about the role of

whether hereditary or acquired, the so-called nature-and-nurture debates, in terms of emotional intensity, they are more like military operations than scientific discussion. This is not accidental, since each of the positions has unspoken premises - radical left among supporters nurture(education) and conservative among supporters nature(nature). The scales here fluctuate all the time: if in the revolutionary 1960s and 1970s the point of view on the socio-cultural nature of intelligence was dominant, then in the 1980s that followed them - a period of departure from left-wing radical politics - the opposite point of view begins to prevail .

Related to these studies are works on historical psychology - studies of how over the centuries, from antiquity to the present day, a person and his mentality have changed. In addition, some researchers are convinced that not only psychological categories - emotions, memory, mind - but also the concept itself have their own history. psychology. The human "I" was not always, as it happens today, perceived in psychological terms: there was a time when people thought in other, non-psychological categories. The idea of ​​a person about himself as a psychological being is not initially, not given by nature, but appeared at a certain stage in history. In other words, the psychological way of thinking that is characteristic of modern Western society is indeed of recent origin. This means that both the everyday idea of ​​psychology and its formation as a scientific discipline are relatively recent acquisitions, not earlier than the 18th century.

Related to this is the following aspect of the discussion of "psychological society" - individualization and psychologization of modern social relations. It would be possible to fix these phenomena with the help of a simple survey. The question could be asked in the following way: "Do you agree with the fact that in our days people more than in the past use psychological concepts in relation to themselves and to those around them?" Of course, it is not easy to conduct our imaginary survey in practice. First you need to agree which psychological concepts we mean, what do we understand under psychology. Despite regularly repeated attempts to give unity to this science, linking it to a single theory, we have to admit that instead of a single psychology, at present there is a "fan" of psychological theories.

It can be assumed, however, that we would have been able to obtain an answer to the question posed above, and that for the majority of the respondents it would have been positive. This can be evidenced, for example, by the fact that all more people faced with difficulties in the family or at work, seek help from a psychologist. For those who watch television programs, such a survey is unlikely to be needed at all. First in the West, and now in our country, you can turn on the TV and see, for example, a talk show where a wife talks about how she discovered that her husband is a transsexual; to her impressions, sympathetic show participants add their own stories about their transgender children or about themselves as such. Three-minute express psychotherapist consultations are broadcast on the radio, where the painful addiction of clients to shopping, their insufficient potency, jealousy or inescapable grief are discussed. Glossy magazines and newspaper strips run interviews in which movie stars, pop musicians and famous athletes talk about their eating habits, sexual inclinations, toilet habits. Films and television series are full of stories from family life told by participants and victims: conflicts between parents, violence against children, emotional shock, alcoholism. It is clear that we live in a world saturated to the limit with stories about the personal, about ourselves, a discourse formed by psychology.

As a rule, authors writing about such problems are critical of the phenomenon of "psychological society". For the first time, the question of how our contemporaries and society as a whole are changing under the influence of psychology was raised in works on historical sociology and social criticism. Beginning with M. Weber and G. Simmel, sociologists have focused on individualization, a phenomenon characteristic of Western society in the 20th century. If earlier the individual "I" or human identity was largely determined by the community, then the modern era is characterized by the destruction of communities and the liberation of the individual from the inherited and predetermined social role. This process is called "individualization". The man of modern society lacks the prospect, with which many of our predecessors lived, of finding a stable home at the end of the road. "Being on the road," writes the English sociologist Z. Bauman, "has become a permanent way of life for individuals who do not have (now chronically) their stable position in society." And further: "The surrogate for such a haven, or a stable position - in other words, a surrogate for the community, is "identity" .

The human "I" turns from a given into a task, the responsibility for which is borne by the individual himself. The destruction of stable social

nal structures forces individuals to take care of their identity. In order to acquire it, everything is used, including psychology. The properties and characteristics that this science has ever ascribed or ascribes to a person are used by him for self-description, become the main features of individuality, identity. Having switched almost exclusively to individual psychological categories, people lose the ability to adequately understand the social - the meaning of social structures and institutions, the nature of political power, the social basis of judgments about truth. The researchers called the replacement of the social understanding of the world with a psychological one "psychologization". One of the most striking examples of the substitution of a social explanation for a psychological one is the explanation by the American researcher R. Herrnstein of the causes of student unrest at American universities in 1968 not by the catastrophic war in Vietnam, but by teenage negativism.

Among the most authoritative works on this subject are the books by R. Sennett "The Fall of the Public Man" (1977) and by K. Lasch "The Culture of Narcissism" (1979). The authors characterize their contemporary generation as "me-generation" - an egocentric "I-generation". They criticize the "psychological society" for replacing many people's participation in public life and politics. According to Lasch, “not hoping for a radical improvement in their lives, people begin to believe in psychological self-improvement, contact with their feelings, a healthy diet, ballet or belly dancing, oriental wisdom, jogging in the morning, studying relationships between people and overcoming fears. actions are harmless in themselves, but raised to the level of a vital program and presented as a vital truth, they lead away from politics.

Bauman's recent work, Individualized Society, continues this tradition, although it deals with postmodern society (for us, this distinction is not so important). In the modern era, people, according to Bauman, are not so much concerned with how to acquire a chosen identity and get others to recognize it, but with how which one identity to choose and how to be able to do it in time another choice if the previously chosen identity loses value or loses its appeal. And in this case, psychology, with its variety of approaches and theories - and hence, identity options - plays an important role.

Speaking about the emergence of a "psychological society", it is impossible not to note the studies devoted to psychotherapy as a social phenomenon. There is a point of view that the function of a psychotherapist is close to the role that in the past was assigned to a priest who helped to achieve enlightenment, purification, healing of the soul (today the opposite can be said: that priests perform a psychotherapeutic function). In other words, instead of looking for "salvation" in religious obedience, prayer or meditation, secular people, our contemporaries, in search of peace, love, freedom and strength, turn to a psychotherapist. Therapy promises a person liberation from stress, reconciliation with oneself, the achievement of depth and unity - everything that people used to look for primarily in God. This is a symptom of the general process of secularization, the transformation of society from religious to purely secular. Now this topic is being actively discussed - for example, in discussions about "spirituality" - since it is clear that the spiritual dimension, most likely, has not completely disappeared, but has been transformed. One of the most influential participants in this discussion was F. Reef, author of Freud: The Mind of a Moralist (1961) and The Triumph of Therapy (1966). Reef believes that the dominant type of Western culture by the middle of the 20th century was psychological man, replacing in this role moral man and Economic man. This revolution did not take place without the participation of S. Freud. Once again, Reef writes, "history has produced a type specially adapted to the new period: the type of trained egoist, the private individual who leaves the arena of public life - in which he did not succeed - to study himself and his emotions. This introversion of interests should was to fit the new discipline, and Freud's psychology, with its interpretation of politics, religion, and culture in terms inner world individual and his direct family experience, is the most suitable for this.

Freud, like no one before, managed to convince people that they are all sick - at least with a neurosis. At the end of the 19th century, neurosis, or neurasthenia, became a fashion: even Hamlet was recognized as a neurotic. For clients with "shattered nerves", overworked, irritable, "nervous" clinics, sanatoriums and outpatient clinics that arose like mushrooms, where they were treated with hypnosis and psychotherapy, were intended. Therapists themselves, however, believed that a complete cure for neurosis is impossible: according to Freud, therapy is eternal - curing some diseases, it gives rise to others. His followers developed these ideas. In the work "Ways out of a sick society" E. Fromm also ascribes to diseases - or even just one threat to get sick - the role of the engine of human existence: "All the passions and aspirations of man

century is an attempt "to find an answer to the problem of one's existence, or ... to avoid mental illness." Like Freud, Fromm considers illness not an exceptional, but an ordinary, "normal" human condition. In his opinion, "the problem is not why people become mentally ill, but rather why most of them manage to avoid mental illness."

All psychotherapists agreed with Freud that almost everyone needed their help, but not all were as pessimistic as psychoanalysts. For example, since the creation of their method, behavioral therapists have no doubt that they can save humanity from the psychological problems that plague it. The German psychologist H. Eysenck, who worked in the UK, wrote: “Behavioral methods (behavioral therapy, behavior modification, conditioning treatment) have shown themselves to be effective, fast and adequate. ... It is quite possible that in the near future we will be able to time to eliminate inactive fears, obsessive-compulsive behavior and many other serious neurotic symptoms ... with the help of mobile clinics on wheels, which will be staffed by clinical psychologists. These problems of the so-called "little" psychiatry cause people a lot of pain and grief; the time has come to launch an attack on them, commensurate with the damage that they inflict on the happiness of people "(quoted from:).

Thus, in the first third of the 20th century, the ideological ground was prepared for the emergence of psychotherapy and psychohygiene - mass events, the purpose of which was declared to be the prevention of the mental health of the population. The Soviet Union adopted a state mental hygiene program in the early 1920s (the United States adopted a similar program in the 1960s but did not implement it on the intended scale). The base institution of this program was the psycho-neurological dispensary that still exists in our country (its first name is "neuropsychiatric"), which combines outpatient reception of patients with propaganda " healthy lifestyle life. "A special staff of social workers had to examine residential buildings and places of work and put on record all those who were threatened with a nervous or mental illness. The contingent of the psychiatrist's wards, thus, expanded significantly and covered theoretically the entire population of the country.

As a result of the emergence of such psychological practices as psychotherapy (at the level of the individual) and psychohygiene (at the level of the population as a whole), the way was opened for the creation of a "psychological society".

The last group of studies, influenced by M. Foucault, is devoted to psychology as a practice of social control or management. This is not a traditional story, but, using the term of the scientist himself, genealogy psychology - a history written backwards, from the present to the past. Comparing psychology with other management control tools, Foucault notes that, based on self-control or self-regulation, this tool is more liberal than direct administrative influence. But its action is no less real and in Western society is sometimes even more effective than administrative-coercive control.

Foucault carefully analyzes the relations of power that permeate the whole of society, from the level of public policy to the formation of the human person, or identity. In order to show how relations of power operate at the most intimate, individual-personal level, Foucault in his later works introduces the term gouvernementalite, which, for lack of a better translation, is translated into Russian as "controllability" or "management" [ibid.]. This is a symbiosis of dominance techniques, i.e. power and the technique of constructing the subject, which, according to Foucault, emerged in the era of modernism. Prior to this, people submitted to the direct pressure of the power of the ruler or sovereign, which often used violence; authority in these cases was imposed from outside. As P. - J. Proudhon, one of the most ardent critics of the society of administrative control, wrote in the middle of the 19th century, to become the object of someone's control means "to be under the supervision of the police, subjected to searches, espionage; to be buried under a bunch of laws, doctrines and sermons ; obey control, evaluation, censorship, taxation, reforms, commands; follow orders, recommendations, registrations, licenses and patents; be supervised and suffer punishment for every action, every act "(cited by:).

On the contrary, in the modern era, people are not subjects, but citizens of the state, the power in which acts in other ways - from within, through the consciousness of the people themselves. In a liberal Western society, people are convinced that the interests of the authorities and their own coincide, and that it is in their own interests to obey state regulations. Power, in turn, ceases to use violence and comes to the conclusion that the best way to govern is to inspire people that their personal happiness is possible only if social rules and government regulations are observed. So, acting supposedly voluntarily - to achieve a better life, well-being, self-improvement - people maintain and renew relationships

authorities. To show how such a mentality is formed, Foucault conceived and wrote a "history of madness", i.e., a history of practices by which in different eras they tried - "in their own interests" - to control the mentally ill by placing them in medical institutions, which differed little from prisons. From these works of Foucault on psychiatric control, the study of psychology as one of the techniques for managing people under Western liberalism begins.

Foucault's followers R. Castel, F. Castel and A. Lovell also focused on the social function of psychiatry. In the years that they wrote their book, the Western press was critical of the situation in the Soviet Union, where psychiatry was used for political purposes to eliminate dissidents. The authors, however, saw in this use of psychiatry under dictatorships only an extreme expression of what was also the case in liberal states. In particular, they believed that psychiatry in the United States also acted as an instrument of social control, only less brutal and violent. Since most psychiatric institutions in the United States were not public, placement in them was part of public self-government. In this sense, psychiatry there was similar to other institutions of civil society - charitable foundations, mutual aid groups, religious communities, psychological training and counseling groups, and so on. All of them, according to the authors, performed the same function, ensuring that the members of these groups accepted the official values ​​of American society.

The English explorer N. Rose, another follower of Foucault, wrote a series of books in the genre he called history of the present(about modern Anglo-American society): "Psychological Complex" (1985), "Soul Control" (1990) and "Inventing Yourself" (1996) . Rose agrees with Foucault that the roots of modern psychological activity go back to the early 19th century. It was then that modern practices of managing society were born: schools, hospitals, prisons, orphanages, soldiers' barracks and shelters. Rose shows how, as a result of the need to classify and manage the human masses, discourse about individual abilities and differences. Its creation was largely a matter of psychology. This process was mutual: creating a new object of control - individual abilities - psychology declared itself as a science of the behavior of an individual in society. The discourse of individual abilities became at the same time the way in which individuality or identity is defined, and the focus or point to which management practices are applied. Creating concepts of intelligence, psychological development, adaptation and maladaptation, family relations, group dynamics, etc., psychology thereby constituted subjectivity and intersubjectivity as potential objects of social control. The moment of the birth of this discourse was at the same time the moment of the recognition of psychology as a science. Thus, the creation of tests that underlie all modern techniques for managing personality gave a powerful impetus to the development of the psychological profession.

A consequence of the emergence of a psychological discourse about the individual was the strengthening of political individualism: now the object of management and reforms was not society, but an individual. For example, according to C. Lombroso, an Italian psychiatrist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, responsibility for a crime lies not with society, but with the criminal. He, according to Lombroso, commits a crime allegedly because he belongs to a special biologically fixed "criminal type". To adapt and cope with difficulties in a liberal state is required of individual; the main attention of both the authorities and researchers is directed to it. At the same time, in such an individual-centered paradigm society as such remains outside the scope of study and analysis.

Management of modern Western society is achieved by teaching its citizens about professional roles, the language in which they interpret their experiences, the norms to which these experiences relate, and the ways in which people can improve themselves. The personality of a modern person is rather rigidly defined by socially fixed identity techniques that encourage us to look for the meaning of human existence in individual self-realization, within personal biography. The ethic of subjectivity, according to Rose, is contained in these techniques, which are at the same time procedures of power. In Western society, people are not controlled by coercion, but by delicate insight into their intimate experiences, their ideas of freedom, happiness, and the meaning of existence.

Rose carried to its logical conclusion Foucault's thesis that the connection between power and the individual cannot be interpreted as a crude external pressure. This connection is internal, intimate, because the purpose and result of the techniques of command and control is the constitution of "free" individuals. In one of her last books, The Power of Freedom (1999), Rose argues that freedom is the ideal of social reformers.

of the past is only possible as internalized control. "Freedom is duty be self-reliant and independent, create your own identity, choose." Playing with words, Rose writes: "To have an identity is to be identifiable" - to have an identity, or personality, means that the authorities can easily establish this "personality".

So, as a result of the processes of individualization and psychologization actively taking place over the past century, the individual turned out to be focused on himself, on the techniques of self-control. The increased emphasis at the end of the 20th century on self-control, self-management, coincided in a number of states with the collapse of attempts to build social life on the principles of collectivism and socialism. If we compare the work of Castells and Lovell written in the 1970s with Rose's book published thirty years later, one can see a change in the political attitude from the radical left to the conservative one. If the generation of the sixties believed that the control of society could threaten individual freedom, then the next generation, whose views were formed in the much more conservative atmosphere of the 1980s, does not think of freedom other than internalized social control. These changes are directly related to our topic: if the researchers of the 1970s were critical of psychologization, seeing it as a departure from politics or, worse, as an instrument of political pressure, then modern social theorists like Rose consider "psychological society" not only an inevitability, but also a direct blessing.

In conclusion, we could define "psychological society" as a characteristic of the modern age, in which human identity and the meaning of life are given primarily through psychological categories. "Psychological society" arises at a certain historical stage, in the era of modernism. Like any other product of modernism, it claims to be the only reasonable and logical form of development. To those who are not aware of the historical and transient nature of the "psychological society", it may seem to be a universal feature, a permanent - and perhaps the best - mode of existence of modern man. However, this is not true. It is especially important for the psychologist, whose science has contributed to the emergence of the phenomenon, to know this. The historian's task is to follow how the "psychological society" developed and create a critical distance from it. We hope that our article has partly fulfilled this task.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bauman Z. Individualized Society: Translation from English. M.: Logos, 2002.

2. Rose N. Psychology as a "social science" // Foreign psychology. 1993. T. 1. N 1. S. 39 - 46.

3. Sirotkina I. E. Psychopathology and politics: formation of ideas and practice of psychohygiene in Russia // Issues of the history of natural science and technology. 2000. N 1 S. 154 - 177.

4. Fromm E. The problem of man in Western philosophy. Moscow: Progress, 1988.

5. Burnham J. Paths into American Culture: Psychology, Medicine, and Morals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988.

6. Carson J. Army alpha, army brass, and the search for army intelligence//Isis. 1993. V. 84. P. 278 - 309.

7. Capshew J. Psychologists on the March: Science, Practice and Professional Identity in America, 1923 - 1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

8. Castel R., Castel F., Lovell A. The Psychiatric Society. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1982.

9. Danzinger K. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

10. Danziger K. Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. L.: Sage, 1997.

11. Dehue T. Changing the Rules: Psychology in the Netherlands, 1900 - 1985. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

12. Foucault M. Technologies of the Self//Technologies of the Self: a Seminar with Michel Foucault/Ed. H. Martin Luther et al. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988, pp. 16-49.

13. Herman E. The Romance of American Psychology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

14. Lash C. Culture of Narcissism. N.Y.: Warner Books, 1979.

15. Napoli D.S. Architects of Adjustment: The History of the Psychological Profession in the United States. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1982.

16. Riff P. Freud: The Mind of the Moralist. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961.

17. Riff P. The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973.

18. Rose N. The Psychological Complex. L.: Routledge, 1985.

19. Rose N. Governing the Soul. The Shaping of the Private Self. L.: Routledge, 1990.

20. Rose N. Inventing Our Selves. Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

21. Rose N. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

22. Samelson F. Putting psychology on the map: ideology and intelligence testing //Psychology in Social Context / Ed. A. R. Buss. N.Y.: Irvington, 1979. P. 103 - 168.

23. Sennet R. The Fall of Public Man. L.: Faber & Faber, 1977.

24. Sokal M.(ed.). Psychological Testing and American Society. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987.

Moscow Psychological Society (MPO) was created on January 24, 1885 with Moscow University with the aim of uniting all scientific forces to develop ways for the development of psychological research and the dissemination of psychological knowledge in Russia.

MPO arose at a time when domestic psychological thought in Russia and in particular at Moscow University had not yet emerged as an independent field of scientific knowledge, but was developing as component philosophy - along with logic and the history of philosophy and in connection with the fate of philosophy in Russia.
The MPO was dominated by philosophers - N.Ya. Grot, L.M. Lopatin, Vl. Solovyov, G.G. Shpet, I.A. Ilyin and other prominent figures of Russian philosophy.

Professor of Moscow University, sociologist and jurist, founder of the natural law school V.M. Khvostov included questions of free will in connection with the consideration of the phenomena of social life. Professor of Criminal Law D.A. Dril made a great contribution to the formation of domestic legal psychology, considered it necessary to know psychology in practical work with juvenile delinquents. Research in the natural sciences and medicine also required philosophical and psychological foundations. Professors of Moscow University, biologist K.F. Ruler, physiologist I.M. Sechenov, naturalist and prominent historian of science V.I. Vernadsky, psychiatrists S.S. Korsakov, A.A. Tokarsky, V.P. Serbian, P.B. Gannushkin, N.N. Bazhenov, S.A. Sukhanov.

All this prompted the consolidation of the forces of both people professionally engaged in philosophy and scientists interested in the problems of psychology in connection with their professional interests. The actual convergence of philosophy and sciences on the basis of psychological issues was the objective prerequisite and reason for their unification.

The creation of the Psychological Society became a form of their organizational association. The society was created on the initiative of M.M. Troitsky and supported by 14 professors from all faculties of the university, who acted as its founders. At their first meeting on January 24, 1885, the founding members elected the Council of the Society. The founder of the Society, philosopher and psychologist Matvei Mikhailovich Troitsky, was elected chairman, Deputy Chairman - Doctor of Medicine V.A. Legonin, secretary - lawyer N.A. Zverev, assistant secretary - anthropologist and geographer D.N. Anuchin. The meeting place was determined - the new building of the university (now the building that houses the Faculty of Journalism), and public lectures and reports - the old one (the building that houses the Assembly Hall, and in its right wing - the Institute of Asian and African Countries). At the same meeting, the founding members proposed another 53 persons for election as full members of the Society.

They were elected at the next - public - meeting on March 14, 1885, and one of the new members N.A. apricots- was then elected treasurer. Subsequently, the number of members of the Society began to grow rapidly and reached more than 200 people.

The IGO was one of the many scientific societies that emerged and developed at the university, within its walls. Both the founders and most of the IPO members were professors at Moscow University. The most active part in its work was taken by N.Ya. Grot, L.M. Lopatin - both in different years were chairmen of the Society, as well as G.I. Chelpanov, Vl. Solovyov, S.S. Korsakov, V.A. Wagner, G.I. Rossolimo. They made presentations on the most different topics, participated in discussions on other reports.

When did the IGO start publishing its magazine "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology" (since 1889), they acted in it not only as authors of articles, but also gave reviews of the latest literature on psychology and philosophy, reviews of them. Their reviews were essentially small articles with a brief but very informative presentation and analysis of relevant publications. Such, for example, are the reviews of N.A. Berdyaev on the books of O. Weininger "Sex and Character" and W. James "Variety of Religious Experience", reviews by P.P. Blonsky and others.

Through the IPO, the university scientists were connected with other scientific centers of Russia. The members of the IGO and the authors of its publications were philosophers, psychologists and psychiatrists from St. Petersburg - N.O. Lossky, A.I. Vvedensky, I.I. Lapshin, from Kazan University - V.N. Ivanovsky, Lviv University - Yu.L. Okhorovich, Yuriev University - V.F. Chizh.

The IGO had extensive connections with world science.

Many prominent foreign philosophers and scientists were honorary members of the IGO. Among them are A. Bain, W. Wundt, G. Helmholtz, E. Dubois Reymond, T. Ribot, C. Richet, E. Zeller, W. Windelband, G. Spencer, W. James, G. Gefding, E. Titchener , E. Hartman. Through them, materials about the work of the IGO were transmitted to foreign scientific journals, so that its activities became known to the world community of psychologists.

Members of the IGO participated in the organization and holding of international psychological congresses, in international congresses of psychiatrists and other international forums.

Detailed reports about them were published in the journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology.

In addition to the purely scientific, there was another very important aspect in the activities of the Society.

His activities influenced the spiritual life of Russia as a whole.
IGO relations with the general public were facilitated by holding public meetings, usually devoted to the most significant topics, the activities of prominent figures of the Society, the memory of outstanding thinkers of the past - J. Bruno, R. Descartes, etc. The topics of a number of his other meetings also included issues that worried not only specialists , but aroused sympathy and interest in general public.

Here are some of those topics:
- what is hypnosis;
- what are the foundations of moral life and activity as opposed to immoral behavior;
How do moral duty and happiness relate?
- how to understand determinism and free will in connection with issues of law, morality, phenomena of public life;
- What is the meaning of life?
- what is the psychology of a woman;
- is it possible to talk about human progress;
- what are the national features of Russian philosophical self-consciousness, etc.

Speaking at the solemn (hundredth) meeting of the Society on February 21, 1893, N.Ya. Grot, as chairman of the IGO, with good reason said that it had never "... set itself any other goals, how modestly and to the best of its ability to contribute to the enlightenment of the motherland, the rise of the Russian spirit, the development of Russian thought and self-consciousness."

Communication with society was also facilitated by the fact that not only outstanding philosophers and scientists were members of the IGO, but also writers - L.N. Tolstoy, A.A. Fet, P.D. Boborykin, Professor of the Moscow Conservatory A.N. Scriabin, cultural figures - V.N. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Yu.I. Aikhenvald and other famous public and cultural figures. In their speeches at the meetings, they drew attention to vital problems that are important for Russian society, meeting its spiritual needs and mindsets, and directly appealed to the feeling and common sense of thinking people.

Public events were performances
L.N. Tolstoy about the concept of life and about the moral tasks of a person,
Vl. Solovyov about the essence of the true Christian ideal and the deviation from it in the activities of the church.

The Psychological Society enjoyed support from its wealthy members in the form of donations.

In December 1888, competing members of the IGO A.A. and N.A. Abrikosov spoke the publishers of the project conceived by the chairman of the Society N.Ya. Grot of the journal "Issues of Philosophy and Psychology", while setting the following conditions: the journal should be published under the editorship of N.Ya. Grot and with the participation of the Psychological Society.

When the magazine stopped needing financial assistance, A.A. apricots transferred the rights to publish it to the ownership of the Society, and from 1893 to 1918 (the last year the journal was published), the journal was published under the heading of the Psychological Society.

In the same 1888, a full member of the Society D.A. Stolypin donated 2,000 rubles for the establishment of a prize for an essay on the philosophy of O. Comte at the Society and 1,000 rubles for the costs of publishing a journal or other possible publications. The prize was established; in 1891, it was awarded to the work of B.N. Chicherin "Positive Philosophy and the Unity of Science". This fact is also known. A peasant from the Tambov province transferred his savings to the MPO fund and at the same time asked to be considered a member of it.

In general, it can be said with full right that the Moscow Psychological Society, together with other scientific societies of the university (with some of them the IPO held joint meetings - for example, on February 10, 1885, a public joint meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature and the Psychological Society in memory of J. Bruno), as well as museums organized at the university (such as the Museum of Fine Arts, founded in 1912 by Moscow University professor I. Tsvetaev, the Historical Museum - 1883, the Polytechnic - 1877, the Anthropological - 1879, etc.), were created around the university cultural environment, contributing to the transformation of the university into a true center of Moscow philosophical education, cultural and spiritual life of Moscow.

In 1922, the Psychological Society, like other scientific societies, was closed.

http://rl-online.ru/articles/1-05/284.html
Moscow Psychological Society - 120 years
Antonina Zhdan, Alexander Dontsov

The specificity of the determination of the psychology of society.

Psychology of social changes in society.

Possibilities of Regulatory Influence on the Psychology of Society

In sociology society understood as a relatively stable system of social ties and relations in the community of people, determined in the process of the historical development of mankind, supported by the power of customs, traditions, laws, social institutions etc., based on a certain method of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material and spiritual goods.

Society is a unity of objective and subjective, material and spiritual, social being and social consciousness. Objective - it is a certain territory, economy, acting personalities, social actions and interactions, social institutions, various state bodies. Subjective - everything related to the spiritual, cultural and historical characteristics of society, life in it, public consciousness, social values ​​of the people, their aspirations, expectations, aspirations, public opinion, public sentiments, traditions, customs, etc.

The forces and laws of this reality manifest themselves through the actions of conscious people. In the history of the development of knowledge about society, the extremes were subjected to fair criticism: excessive “materialization” of the life of society (explanation of everything and everything by material conditions, the economy) and excessive “subjectivization” (explanation of everything only by the state of the spiritual sphere of society), one of the varieties of which is “psychologization” (reducing everything to psychology). However, the latter does not mean that psychological factors can be underestimated.

Productive studies of the problems of the psychology of society were carried out by social psychologists A.A. Bodalev, G.G. Diligensky, E.S. Kuzmin, B.D. Parygin, B.F. Porshnev, S.K. Roschin, V.A. Sosnin, A.N. Sukhov and others. However, the scope of such studies is now disproportionate to the significance and complexity of the turbulent and controversial social changes in the post-Soviet space, and the number of specialists included in them is unreasonably small. Therefore, it is more correct to consider the judgments presented below as preliminary and insufficiently complete, although they give ground for discussion.

Psychology of society (social psychology)- a holistic, systemic set of socio-psychological phenomena, inherent in the population living in a certain territory, the organization of life on which is carried out by the state.

By its very nature, it is a subjective image of the world, life, society that exists among the population, characterizing it psychologically and formed in the conditions of a common history and joint life activity. As a psychological phenomenon, this image includes not only cognitive components, but also axiological (value, evaluating), need-motivational (incentive) and behavioral-volitional (mastered and habitual ways of action). Therefore, the psychology of society is not only understanding, a “picture of the environment”, but also subjective regulator life of the population and its socially significant activity.

In cognitive terms, social psychology is a specific, holistic, interconnected system of knowledge, ideas, attitudes, feelings, value orientations, norms of behavior, motives, needs, aspirations, habits of behavior, relationships, and other things that have developed among the people, characterizing its history, manifesting themselves and affecting on his modern life and in a certain way influencing his immediate future.

The psychology of society is a unity public consciousness and subconscious. The first is a set of socio-psychological phenomena that characterize what is perceived by the people, finds expression in the views, ideas, beliefs, public opinion of the people, as well as in the achievements of science, teachings, theories, ideology, law, doctrines, scientific literature, etc. Second - the unconscious, not taking shape in clear judgments and justifications, but affecting the consciousness, attitude and behavior of people in society. The psychology of society combines elements of scientific and ordinary (empiricism), reliable and erroneous, conscious and unconscious.

The specificity of causality in the psychology of society is in its trinity : integrated influence objective conditions of life of people, contacts between them, jointactivities. However, a single activity as such, which is the main determinant of the psychology of small groups, is absent in society. Her place is taken by vital activity of the population in all its diversity, and the common features in it are set mainly by the type of socio-economic structure of society and the real events of its history. An increased role in influencing it is acquired by the dominant in the life of the population and prevailing in the past. social realities, type of social relations, economics, politics. Therefore, the main sources of difficulties in changing social psychology, which do not always contribute to the development of social life, are due to the difficulties of objective changes. in the lives of citizens and historical experiences that may or may not coincide with real change.

Common to the entire population are only contacts with the media and the press. The development of the latter in modern conditions has acquired a total, systematic, long-term nature of penetration into the immediate environment of almost all citizens, into every apartment. They became important factors in the social environment and contacts with it.

In the psychology of society, the most fully represented all kinds of socio-psychological phenomena , and above all bulk: motivational-need nature (public goals, needs, interests, values, aspirations, hopes and expectations, aspirations, intentions, attitudes, orientations), predominantly cognitive in nature (public opinions on various issues of society and the activities of the state, public views, beliefs, ideas , perceptions, memory, beliefs, superstitions, prejudices, rumors), predominantly emotional (public moods, feelings, experiences, affects, panic), predominantly behavioral-volitional (social movements, actions, behavior, norms, customs, traditions, tastes , fashion) and relationship between large social communities, groups, citizens.

The psychology of society, as the most complex systemic socio-psychological reality, has hierarchical structure. This is expressed by the presence of layers(strata, subsystems within which various socio-psychological phenomena are detected and interact.

At the first approximation, two socio-psychological layers. The first - backbone, stable (in other terminology "deep"). This layer includes social interests, needs, beliefs, ideals, memory, beliefs, traditions, customs, and other more complex ones, which are discussed below, from the already mentioned socio-psychological phenomena.

The second socio-psychological layer system-dynamic. This is a layer of constantly emerging and disappearing manifestations of the psychology of society, caused by changes in the complex of causes that affect it. It includes most of the above types of socio-psychological phenomena, especially clearly manifested in the emergence and changes in public opinion, moods, expectations, decisions.

At the level of social psychology, a general psychological pattern is expressed: external causes act through internal conditions.

To backbone, basic The components of the psychology of society include the following.

public consciousness - psychologically characterized by the self-identification of the population as a society, their awareness of their integrity and originality, their difference from the population of other states, the commonality of their life and destiny, the need to live together, their “mirror” - “We” (vision and assessment of themselves, as it were, through the eyes of other peoples) , self-assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, public interests and needs.

Public consciousness - a meaningful understanding and attitude to the world around, primarily to social reality, being both in one's own society and in humanity. It is expressed in the system of basic concepts, the specifics of their meanings and meanings, criteria for understanding and evaluating what is happening, axiomatic judgments (including proverbs, sayings, parables), beliefs, social ideals, recognized norms of behavior, public opinion, ideology, scientific achievements, etc. .

Spiritual and psychological culture - a historically determined level (degree) of development of the spiritual forces and capabilities of the people, the system of spiritual values ​​dominating in it. Usually, it distinguishes the culture of values, attitudes, norms of behavior, thinking, morality, good breeding, language, national symbols (coats of arms, flags, hymns, traditions, customs, rituals), culture of art, social, political, legal, etc. Accurate measurement criteria there is no level of development. It is evaluated by comparison with the achievements of modern human civilization, the trends of its development, with the level of culture of the peoples of other countries.

The mentality of the people - historically developed psychological way of thinking, way of thinking, assessments, spiritual attitudes, habitual social preferences and tastes. This is sometimes referred to as "social (folk) character". It presents the national uniqueness of the psychology of this society.

Socio-psychological climate in society - manifestation of social psychology as favorable or unfavorable for the life and activities of the population, its groups and citizens. It is most clearly expressed in satisfaction - the dissatisfaction of people, groups, communities with life in society and the social changes and processes taking place in it, the activities of the state apparatus. It manifests itself in public opinion and moods, in the socio-psychological well-being of citizens.

Public activity - real practice of the behavior of the population, assessed from social positions and focus on balancing the interests of the individual. Particular importance is attached to the mass activity of citizens and groups, initiatively and voluntarily directed to the creation of non-state public institutions, participation in their activities, independent of the state mechanism and aimed at improving life in society and self-realization of citizens in it (this is what is now associated with the concept "civil society".

All the basic components of the psychology of society are interconnected, penetrate each other, mutually determine the characteristics and systemic characteristics of each.

Social psychology is not a monolithic unity, and one can speak of its characteristic features only by the prevailing features. The features of the various social communities that form the main groups of the population discussed above confirm the diversity of social psychology, but do not exclude the presence in it of certain common, both system-forming and system-dynamic phenomena.

The study and evaluation of the totality of the basic characteristics of the psychology of society will help to holistically understand and evaluate its state, much of what is happening in society, in communities and small groups, in the socialization of the personality of citizens.

Society, like everything else in the world, is subject to continuous changes in structure, relationships, norms, properties, state, etc. These changes are called social. They influence the life of society and the people in it. One type of social change is socio-psychological, occurring in the psychology of society, groups, citizens. They can occur in all structural elements of the psychology of society and in it as a whole.

Sociocultural sociological theories assign a priority role to socio-psychological changes. Studies of social psychologists have established that they naturally precede, accompany or are the result of objective ones, influencing them and their results.

All social changes, especially radical ones, inevitably affect the interests of society, people, change the conditions and plans of their life, fate, naturally giving rise to a whole ensemble of personal and group socio-psychological changes. At the level of social psychology, each of the changes in social life that has at least some significance for the population is reflected in socio-psychological reaction (change), acting, figuratively speaking, as a socio-psychological "response", "echo", "shadow" of it. Features of socio-psychological changes (reactions), their varieties are determined on socially significant grounds.

scale(mass character, prevalence among the population) of socio-psychological reactions is determined by the number of social communities and groups whose interests are affected by objective social changes. They can be national or local. Thus, the psychological response to information about a change in the structure of local self-government in some rural area and the introduction of a new tax on the entire population of the country, at least in scale, will, of course, be different.

Socially important sign - degree of generality socio-psychological reactions. It is found in the similarity or differences of psychological changes in groups and social communities caused by the same circumstances. The greater the social stratification of a society, the more the psychology of the social communities and groups included in it differs, the less the commonality of socio-psychological reactions. Differences in reactions reveal and activate social contradictions and tensions within society.

According to socio-psychological fullness(saturation), the reaction can manifest itself in a change in one of the mass socio-psychological phenomena mentioned above, or in their entire complex.

Strength socio-psychological reaction is expressed in its different scale, fullness and severity. The reaction is the stronger, the more tangible (psychologically "more painful") the interests of large and small groups of people are affected.

Socio-psychological reactions differ in their depth. Most of them occur in the system-dynamic layer of the psychology of society and are in the nature of processes and states. They are dynamic, changeable, transient. For changes in the system-forming sphere, reasons that are more solid in terms of strength, duration, and repeatability are needed.

Sign is also important consequences changes taking place in the psychology of society. They can be direct and secondary, foreseen and unforeseen, immediate and delayed.

By adequacy a specific socio-psychological reaction may correspond in all respects to the objective reason that caused it (be regular, natural, “organic”, justified), or it may not: excessively strong or weak, deliberately expressed or unreasonably hidden, etc. Objective changes, affecting, for example, the interests of the entire population, can cause protests only from a part of it. This depends on the degree of understanding by the population of the ongoing objective changes, their approval or disapproval, the peculiarities of social psychology, or on special efforts to contain or, on the contrary, “inflate” reactions.

Not only research, but also simple observations of surrounding life reveal its saturation with socio-psychological reactions, processes of socio-psychological changes in social psychology, its actual state - a consequence of these changes and their undoubted influence on events in society.

special view socio-psychological changes advocated socio-psychological tension - increase in loads and expenditures of forces to maintain the balance of the psychological system during internal and external changes. Socio-psychological tension is a universal reaction that accompanies all other changes and ensures them. The more significant the goal, the greater the change, the more difficult the conditions, the less prepared people are for change, the higher the tension. Therefore, it is wrong to assess socio-psychological tension only negatively.

Socio-psychological stress is sometimes referred to as group stress and evaluate it negatively. However, socio-psychological tensions have their own characteristics and are divided into subspecies (varieties), depending on which the nature of their influence on behavior, people's lives and social changes is also located.

By system targeting socio-psychological tensions are characterized by those structures of socio-psychological reality that are undergoing changes. On this basis, they are local and systemic (that is, covering the entire psychology of society). Local ones are differentiated with greater accuracy: the socio-psychological tension of mentality, public opinion, moods, ideals, values, traditions, etc.

Sign of inconsistency expresses the presence, place, nature of contradictions between ongoing changes and other systemic phenomena. Thus, socio-psychological tensions in society can arise due to different interests in changes in the government and the people, property and national communities, contradictions between the ongoing changes and the experience of the people, between the promulgated promises and the real situation in society, etc.

sign intensity- the degree of tension and the costs of forces caused by this. There are optimal socio-psychological stresses, increased, overvoltages (high, extreme) and transcendental (causing mass affects, the dominance of feelings over the mind: a socio-psychological breakdown, shock, panic, hysteria, explosion, aggression, confusion). The intensity depends on the nature, extent and speed of the changes taking place. For example, changes that affect the main vital interests, values, traditions, mentality of the people, its main groups, are potentially “psychologically painful” and can cause significant tensions, conflicts, and fashion changes are smaller. There is another kind of tension associated with the exhaustion of forces and is called "psychological fatigue." It contains the potency of two polar manifestations - mass affects and mass apathy, anomie (complete indifference to what is happening; "the people are silent", but this is often more eloquent than outwardly expressed reactions).

With any socio-psychological changes, it is necessary to take into account the already existing socio-psychological tension, its changes (increase or decrease) and evaluate how it will affect the results of the planned changes.

Research and historical facts, modern Russian reality confirm that social development of society is more successful if among the ensuring changes is the corresponding development of the psychology of society. Victory will really come only when social innovations are organic, natural, if they ripe and psychologically those. correspond to the level of socio-psychological development of society, expected, understood, approved, accepted and implemented by the people. The history of any tyrannies, dictatorships, cliques, oligarchies testifies that their strength and apparent steadfastness are illusory.

It is reasonable somehow in the system aimed at ensuring the development of measures to provide for regulatory influences on the psychology of society.

In relation to psychological reality, targeted regulation is more effective not by pressure, command, command, order, coercion, violence (although they are not excluded in appropriate cases, especially at the level of individual psychology), but - motivation, persuasion, stimulation, motivation, encouragement, assistance, influence. it psychologically softer(not causing internal protest, rejection, resistance, counteraction in people) ways and means. In addition, they are designed for practically continuous and long action. The effectiveness of psychological influences is explained by the fact that they are focused mainly on the positive experiences of people, while the hard ones do not take into account feelings or are focused on fear, on the reaction of avoiding trouble. When we are talking about the psychology of society, then only mild forms, means and methods of regulation with the help of influences, the creation of favorable conditions, the persuasion of the masses of people mainly through experience, are appropriate here, and psychological and other violence is contraindicated.

To the number basic socio-psychological conditions, taking into account the specifics of socio-psychological regulation at the level of society and the main patterns of its socio-psychological development, include the following.

1. Comprehensive and correct taking into account all the features of social psychology, changes occurring in it, contributing to developing socio-psychological changes in the interests of each individual, the entire population and society.

2. Social development can be successful, if it meets the basic, backbone, stable, historically established features of social psychology,- the mentality of the people, value orientations, social habits, traditions, customs, memory of the people, "folk psychology". Each of the cultures embodied the features of the originality of the centuries-old lessons of the history of peoples: the American one - five hundred years of cruel colonization, the African one - long-term slavery, the Japanese one - thousand years of isolation from the world and self-development on the islands, the Russian one - the extremes of feudal fragmentation and total centralization.

It is impossible to adjust the life of the masses to fit any social ideas, but ideas must be "derived" from the life, psychology, experience and memory of the people. This is how all the "velvet revolutions" of modern times (in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.) were carried out, respecting the national dignity and uniqueness of their people.

3. Measures oriented towards social development can be successful, if they are timely, correspond to the achieved level of social development, the culture of society, including its socio-psychological sphere.

Socio-psychological development, as analysis of the historical experience of many nations shows, proceeds along the path of unhurried and contradictory accumulation, an increase in the share of those signs of psychology that are characteristic of a more perfect future. When the latter become predominant, a new level of socio-psychological development arises.

4. The process of social development of society should to be in agreement with the real dynamic socio-psychological phenomena in society

The current level of achievements of human civilization corresponds to measures to create in society social and psychological support systems his life and development.

Best of all, it includes:

Large-scale and continuous study of the psychology of society in all its components, and especially public opinion, moods, social expectations, social assessments by the population of ongoing social changes;

Ensuring that the population understands the state ideology, the prospects for the development of society, the practice of managing state and public structures;

Providing the activities of state and public structures with information about the state of the psychology of society, large and small groups;

Participation of social psychologists in the preparation, consultation and examination of the prepared measures aimed at the implementation of social development;

Anticipation of important social measures by socio-psychological forecasting of immediate and long-term consequences, the possibility of unexpected and side socio-psychological consequences;

The participation of social psychologists in the preparation of public opinion for the planned significant social changes, excluding their rejection by the population, members of specific groups;

Social and psychological support of social changes, bringing to the population positive information about the measures being implemented in all branches of government and management, achieving their adequate understanding, tracking the socio-psychological phenomena that arise in the course of them among the population, conducting additional socio-psychological work, preventing side negative social -psychological consequences;

Implementation of socio-psychological counseling and provision of socio-psychological assistance to the population, citizens;

Identification of socio-psychological factors associated with the negative phenomena common among the population, in certain groups, and participation in the localization of their spread and gradual overcoming;

Organization of socio-psychological education, education, raising the level of socio-psychological literacy of the population, employees of government bodies, managers and other categories of people whose activities have a pronounced socio-psychological aspect.

The most essential feature of modern society - its instability - excludes its analysis by methods and means formed for the analysis of stable situations. The term "crisis" is increasingly used to characterize the period being experienced. In the emerging new type of society, its norms - pluralism of opinions, the admissibility of various options for economic decisions, human rights - are perceived by many social groups rather hard. One can only designate those processes that the mass consciousness faces in a situation of instability and which require close socio-psychological attention. First of all, it is a global breaking of established social stereotypes. Changing the value system is the second block of socio-psychological phenomena that require special attention researchers. This concerns the question of the relationship between group (primarily class) and universal human values. Under the conditions of radical transformations, the "old" values ​​were largely destroyed, and the "new" ones were not accepted. The loss of guidelines regarding the hierarchy of values ​​gives rise to moral lawlessness. The identity crisis is another example of significant changes in mass consciousness in an era of change: older people experience a loss of identity, young people have difficulty defining their identity. The list of problems that give rise to a special - also unstable - state of mass consciousness in the era of radical transformations can be continued. Thus, social psychology is faced with a new social reality and must comprehend it. It is necessary to search for new fundamental approaches to the analysis of socio-psychological phenomena in a changing world, a new strategy for socio-psychological research.

Literature:

Literature:

Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M., 1998.

Aronson E. Social animal. Introduction to social psychology. / ed. 7.; per. from English. - M.: Aspect Press, 1998. - 517 p.

Bendas T. V. Psychology of leadership: Tutorial. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009. - 448 p.

Berne. E. The games people play. People who play games. M., 1999.

Bityanova M.R. Social psychology: science, practice and way of thinking. Tutorial. - M.: Publishing house "EKSMO-Press", 2001. - 576 p.

Borodkin F.M., Koryak N.M. Attention: conflict! - Novosibirsk.: NSU, 1989.

Baron R., Byrne D., Johnson B. Social psychology. Key Ideas. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. - 512 p.

Introduction to psychology. / Under the total. Ed. A.V. Petrovsky - M., Academy 1997.

Werderber R., Werderber K. Psychology of communication. - St. Petersburg: PRIME EUROZNAK, 2003. - 320 p.

Gozman L.Ya. Psychology of emotional relations. - M.: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1987. - 176s.

Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008. - 544 p.

Devyatkin A.A. The phenomenon of social attitude in the psychology of the twentieth century. – Kaliningrad: Kaliningr. un-t,

Diligensky G. Socio-political psychology. – M.: Nauka, 1994. – 304 p.

Zhuravlev A. L., Sosnin V. A., Krasnikov M. A. Social psychology: a textbook. – M.: Forum; Infra-M, 2006. - 416 p.

Zankovsky A.N. Organizational psychology. – M.: Flinta; MPSI, 2002. - 648 p.

Ilyin EP Psychology of communication and interpersonal relations. - St. Petersburg: Piter, 2009. - 576 p.

Ilyin EP Psychology of communication and interpersonal relations. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009.

Kon I.S. Sociology of personality. - M.: Politizdat, 1967. - 383 p.

Korolev A. A. Ethno-mentality: essence, structure, problems of formation. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow. humanit. University "Society", 2011. - 68 p.

Krichevsky R. L., Dubovskaya E. M. Social psychology of a small group: Textbook for universities. – M.: Aspect Press, 2001.- 318 p.

Krysko V.G. ethnic psychology: textbook for universities. - M .: Publishing Center "Academy", 2002. -320s.

Labunskaya VA Human expression: communication and interpersonal knowledge. - Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 1999. - 608 p.

Lionov P.F. 100 most popular communication tricks. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2011. - 176 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. / Transl. from English. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. - 688 p.

Myers D. Social psychology. Intensive course. - St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. - 512 p.

Methods of social psychology. / Ed. E. S. Kuzmina, V. E. Semenova. - L .: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1977. - 175 p.

Nazaretyan A.P. Psychology of elemental mass behavior. Lectures. - M:. PER-SE, 2001. - 112 p.

Novikov V.V. Social Psychology. Phenomenon and Science: Textbook. – M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2003. – 344 p.

Obozov N. N., Shchekin G. V. Psychology of working with people. Tips for the leader: Textbook. – K.: MAUP, 2004. – 228 p.

Orban-Lembrik L.E. Social psychology. - K .: Libid, 2004. - 576 p.

Parygin B.D. Social Psychology: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise, 2003. - 616 p.

Petrovsky A. V. Shpalinsky V. V. Social psychology of the team. Textbook for students ped. in-comrade. - M .: "Enlightenment", 1978.

Political psychology. / Under the general editorship. A.A. Derkach, V.I. Zhukova, L.G. Laptev 2001. - 576 p.

Pochebut L. G. Meizhys I. A. Social psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. - 672 p.

PochebutL. G., ChickerV. A. Organizational Social Psychology: A Study Guide. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Rech", 2002. - 298 p.

Psychology personality. Tutorial. / Ed. P. N. Ermakova, AT. A. Labunskaya. – M.: Eksmo, 2007 – 653 p.

Psychology. Textbook for humanitarian universities / Ed. V. N. Druzhinina. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 656 p.

Psychology. Textbook. / Ed. A.A. Krylov. - M .: Publishing House Prospekt, 2005 - 453 p.

Rudensky E. V. Social psychology: a course of lectures. – M.: Infra-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, 1997. - 224 p.

Sventsitsky A.L. Social Psychology: Textbook. - M.: OOO TK Velby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2005. - 336 p.

Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: History, theory, research. In 2 parts. Part 1. - Vladivostok: Far Eastern University, 2001. - 145 p.

Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: History, theory, research. In 2 parts. Part 2. - Vladivostok: Far Eastern University, 2003. - 135 p.

Social psychology in the modern world. / Ed. G.M.Andreeva, A.I. Dontsov. – M.: Aspect Press. - 2002. - 336 p.

Social psychology of personality in questions and answers: Textbook. / Ed. V.A. Labunskaya. – M.: Gardariki, 1999 – 397 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities. / Ed. A.M. Stolyarenko. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2001. - 543 p.

Social psychology: Textbook for universities. / Comp.: R.I. Mokshantsev, A.V. Mokshantsev. – Novosibirsk: Siberian Agreement; M.: INFRA-M, 2001. - 408 p.

Social Psychology: Textbook for High Schools./ Ed. A.N. Sukhova, A.A. Derkach. – M.: Ed. Center Academy, 2001. - 600 p.

Social psychology: Reader: Textbook for university students. / Comp. E. P. Belinskaya, O. A. Tikhomandritskaya. – M.: Aspect Press, 2003. – 475 p.

Stefanenko T. G. Ethnopsychology. - M .: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Academic project, 1999. - 320 p.

Harris R. Psychology of Mass Communications. - St. Petersburg: Prime Eurosign, 2003 - 448 p.

Cialdini R., Kenrick D., Neuberg S. Social psychology. Understand others to understand yourself! - St. Petersburg: PrimeEvroznak, 2002. - 256 p.

Cialdini R., Kenrick D., Neuberg S. Social psychology. Understand yourself to understand others! - St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2002. - 336 p.

Shevandrin N. I. Social psychology in education. – M.: Vlados, 1995. – 544 p.

Shestopal E.B. Political psychology. – M.: Infra-M, 2002. – 448 p.

Shibutani T. Social psychology. - Rostov n / D., 1998. - 521 p.

Yanchuk V.A. Introduction to modern social psychology: Textbook for universities. - Minsk: ASAR, 2005. - 800 p.