Any national culture is specific and individual in that it lies in the content of the concept of “national mentality”. Mentality is the most constant, deep structure of national self-consciousness and the national unconscious. These are habits of consciousness and stereotypes of behavior that are not realized by people themselves, but lie at the basis of their way of seeing the world and are manifested in everything that representatives of one national culture do and think. In other words, this is the presence among people of a particular society of a certain common mental toolkit, which allows people belonging to the same national culture to see and feel the world in principle the same way, to perceive and understand their natural and social environment and themselves in their own way. American cultural anthropologist Philip Bok very aptly defined culture as “that which makes you a stranger when you leave your home.” This fully characterizes the spiritual, emotional, sensory and socio-psychological “comfort” that people experience when they are in their own national-cultural environment, where they do not have to adapt to other people’s values, behavior patterns, norms, or integrate into someone else’s environment. national-cultural integrity with meanings unique to it. Mentality is transmitted primarily through the mechanisms of mass consciousness from generation to generation, determined by tradition, and ensures the unity of the spiritual sphere in the culture of a particular society.

In fact, the unity of language and way of thinking, or mentality, lies at the very foundation of any national culture. It finds its expression in forms of language of different sign representation (types (verbal, gestural, graphic, iconic, figurative, formalized languages) and its types - certain cultural orders (language of hairstyles, language of costume, etc.)). In other words, the universal-typological and national-specific in culture is fixed not only by the verbal means of language, but also by non-verbal ones. Here it is only important to differentiate those types of non-verbal signs or symbols that contain a relation to the universal or specific national in culture.

The “impenetrable” Japanese face, the “expansive gestures” of the Greeks or Italians, the Russian “bear hugs” and “heart kisses,” the Anglo-Saxon “pep on the cheek.” Stereotypes of this kind reflect the accumulated experience of cross-cultural comparison, and it would be foolish to simply dismiss them as not based on any scientific methodology. As Leonardo da Vinci believed, for example, “the more they speak with the help of skin, clothing, feelings, the more wisdom they will acquire.” .

As you know, clothing and costume can be a sign of nationality . The use of color, cut, ornament, and structural parts has national specificity. The types of clothing worn in similar situations by people of different nationalities often do not coincide. And vice versa, clothes that are identical in appearance differ in semantics. There are types of clothing that are unique only to a particular nation or even a separate social group within a nation. Of course, such clothing becomes a sign of a person’s membership in a given group. Moreover, in such characteristics as the type of cut, color, presence or degree of presence of small details, etc., the suit acts as a text containing manifestations of the specifics of the national mentality. A textbook example here may be the example of various types of clothing of the ancient Greeks, or the traditional women's clothing of the peoples of South Asia - saris, which are fused for us with the images of " ancient Greek" or "Indian". These are a kind of realological, “material” components of national-cultural stereotypes. Another striking example of a purely national sign is the kimono. This is one of the symbols of Japan, especially for European people. In traditional, oriental cultures, the national type of costume is invariably preserved. Today, the sari is still popular in India, and the kimono is still popular in Japan. The use of national motifs in European costume results in a folk style (for example, la rus style).

Another non-verbal language, the signs of which can be nationally marked, is sign language, since a person, forming as an individual in a specific social environment, learns the methods of gestures characteristic of this environment, the rules of their use and reading. G. E. Kreidlin rightly notes that every nation and every culture has its own “silent movie”; it is no coincidence that Charlie Chaplin once said: “Let me see how you move and gesticulate, and I will immediately tell you where you were born.” " There is even special area knowledge that deals with non-verbal components of language - kinesics. The general norms of gesticulation adopted by different peoples also differ significantly (conventionally, from restrained among northern peoples to temperamental among southern ones). This can be illustrated by the text of the joke: “Tbilisi. A visitor turns to a Georgian holding a large watermelon in his hands with the question: “Please tell me how to get to Rustaveli Avenue?” The Georgian responded: “Hold the watermelon.” Having given the watermelon, he spreads his hands wide: “I don’t know, genatsvale.”

There are often cases when the same gestures in different etiquette cultures are given different meanings, and vice versa: the same content can be expressed by different means. For example, the Japanese gesture “come here” is perceived by Russians as “goodbye”. But the Japanese understand the Japanese hand gesture at the throat - “fired from work” - as “I’m full” or “I’m desperately tired of all this.” A textbook example of the misinterpretation of gestures when they are formally identical are the diametrically opposed movements and meanings of “yes” and “no” among Russians and Bulgarians.

There are also gestures that are specific only to a particular national culture, that is, within a given culture such gestures have meaning, but from the perspective of another culture they have no meaning whatsoever. For example, the French and Italians, when they want to tell their interlocutor “I’m tired of you with your conversations,” stroke their cheek with their fingers, as if saying that a beard has grown during the conversation. Russians do not perceive this gesture in any way; it is neutral. Or, for example, the gesture of touching the lower eyelid. In Saudi Arabia, this gesture will mean that you consider someone a fool, and a senorita from South America will think that you have designs on her... Cross-cultural correspondence of gestures can also reveal antonymy, i.e. the same gesture in in different national cultures can mean things that are opposite in meaning. It would seem, what’s so special about an open palm? But in Greece there is no more offensive gesture. It also has its own name - mudza, and dates back to the times of Byzantium. When chained prisoners were escorted through the city streets, the townspeople threw lumps of dirt and scraps in their faces. Naturally, this cannot be done without palms. Moreover, in Greece there is a taboo on such a well-known gesture as two outstretched fingers, meaning the Latin V - Victoria - victory. In Greece, he is considered half a woman.

It’s about as difficult with the earlobe. It is generally dangerous to touch it. This gesture has five meanings. Four of them are offensive. For Spaniards, Greeks, Maltese and Italians, a hand near the earlobe means completely different insults. And only the Portuguese want to show with such a gesture that they did not hear what was said. If a resident of Sardinia asks a passerby in London whether it is easy to hail a taxi, and he responds by showing his thumb, then he risks facing major troubles, because in Sardinia such a gesture is addressed to women of easy virtue.

One of the most common gestures in the world is the thumb and index fingers closed and forming a ring. In the USA it means "okay". In France - zero. In Japan - money, and in Tunisia: “I will kill you.” For a Syrian, this gesture would mean: “Go to hell.”

And since kines have national specificity, one of the important and controversial issues of kinesics is the problem of intercultural correspondence of gestures. And this is an inherently extra-linguistic problem, since incorrect interpretation of gestures by speakers of one culture during interethnic communication can give rise to suspicion, fear, hostility and even aggression on the part of a person who has incorrectly interpreted the cultural meanings of another’s gestures.

Russians also have their own specific gesture etiquette. For example, among Russians it is very impolite to point at something, especially a person, with your finger. If you need to show, point with your whole hand. In general, when gesturing, Russians do not throw their arms forward much and do not throw them far from the body, but it is not customary to gesticulate by pressing the elbows. Comparing Russian gestures with European gestures, it should be noted that Russians almost do not use synchronous movements of both hands; gestures are carried out with one hand (the right). The second hand either does not gesticulate at all, or to a lesser extent and does not repeat the movements of the right one. When they gesture with their hands, they are not carried far forward from the body. Often hand movements are replaced by the head and shoulders. For example, when indicating a direction, Russians more often make movements in this direction with their heads, saying: “You need to go that way,” and instead of saying “I don’t know,” they shrug their shoulders. Finally, when observing Russians in gestures, representatives of other nations do not always correctly understand the stylistics of the gesture. Russian gestures, facial expressions and posture are determined by the situation, the relationships of the speakers and their social affiliation. The more polite and well-mannered a person is, the more restrained his gesture is.

Regarding gestures in Russian etiquette culture, there is one immutable rule - measure. Of course, increased emotionality requires an outlet. At the same time, excessive gesturing loses all meaning, not to mention the fact that it can be annoying and unpleasant to the interlocutor. Therefore, in Russian culture, at the formal etiquette level, it is considered impolite during a conversation to pat the interlocutor on the shoulder, twist the button of his coat, grab his sleeve, and also twirl anything that comes to hand (pen, spoon, glasses, watch bracelet, etc.). etc.), drum your fingers on the table, crack your fingers, scratch yourself, etc. Although the uncontrollable desire to touch the interlocutor (shake something non-existent from the shoulder, shake hands, touch the elbow, etc.) is one of the mental traits of Russians. Moreover, the features are significant, significant, because Russians are extremely interested in each other, emotionally experience their involvement in the fate of every Other and express this through touch.

With all the noted differences in gestures among different peoples, they have something universal that, in essence, constitutes the universal potential of a culture of etiquette. First of all, this concerns the content, the internal meanings of gestures of greetings, farewells, gratitude, conveying sympathy, friendly disposition, wishes for health and well-being, etc. Despite all the differences, these gestures carry a single content - sympathy, goodwill. The most famous and common gesture is the handshake. (In West Africa, for example, repeated snapping of the fingers is added to the handshake.)

The external expression of a person’s feelings, manifested in facial expressions, also has its own etiquette standards in different cultures. Modern ethnographers believe that all civilizations can be divided into two groups depending on the direction of a person’s gaze when communicating with others: contact and non-contact. Some people look at the eyes of their interlocutor when speaking. These are Arabs, Latin Americans, peoples of southern Europe (people of contact cultures stand closer to each other when talking, and touch each other more often). Although it should be noted that representatives of contact cultures also have different gaze durations: for example, Swedes and Russians look longer and more than, for example, the British. Non-contact people include Indians, Pakistanis, Japanese, and Northern Europeans. Among these peoples, it is considered impolite to look directly into the eyes, and therefore the gaze is directed to the side. If representatives of these two civilizations meet, then each understands the view in its own way. The gaze of Russians directed directly into the eyes is perceived by many Eastern peoples as impoliteness, insolence, and the gaze of these peoples to the side is perceived by Russians as shyness or unwillingness to be sincere.

These conclusions are confirmed by the research materials of two American scientists - K. Sitarama and R. Cogdell. They note that in Western cultures it is considered important to fixate your gaze on those you are addressing when communicating. The saying goes: “If someone stands in front of you and doesn’t look at you, don’t trust him.” In African and African-American cultures, eye contact is not a necessary attribute of communication. When a black person speaks to a white person, he usually does not look him straight in the eye. In Asian cultures, this behavior indicates respect. Asian women are not expected to look men directly in the eyes, nor are men expected to look women in the eyes. This is only allowed for husband and wife. But even then the husband has the right to look his wife in the eyes, but the wife does not. It is believed that only women of easy virtue look into men's eyes. Among the South American Indians of the Wituto and Bororo tribes, the speaker and listener look in different directions, and if the narrator is addressing a large audience, he must turn his back to the listeners and turn his gaze deep into the hut. Sometimes this rule applies only to certain cases of communication. Thus, among the Kenyan Luo tribe, the son-in-law and mother-in-law must turn their backs to each other during a conversation. In Japan, making eye contact while speaking is considered bad manners. A Japanese speaker, when speaking, usually looks somewhere to the side, and during a personal conversation they look at the interlocutor’s neck, somewhere under the chin, so that the partner’s eyes and face are in the field of peripheral vision. A person who looks little at his interlocutor seems insincere and cold to representatives of contact cultures, and a “contact” interlocutor seems intrusive, tactless and even impudent to a “non-contact” interlocutor. At the same time, one can even typologize peoples into those who build relationships with their gaze, for example, Russians (and only they can have the formulas “the eyes are the mirror of the soul”, “look at me as at a mirror...”, etc.), and those who communicate “on the eyebrows”. Moreover, for the former, the gaze as an element of facial expressions carries a personal-emotional, deeply individual content, while for the latter, facial expressions perform an exclusively external, supra-individual etiquette-sign function. This is why, for example, Russians find it so unpleasant to communicate with an interlocutor who averts or lowers his eyes.

A smile plays a huge role in establishing contacts in communication, which in any culture has approximately same value- joy, pleasure, friendliness, etc. And yet, depending on the specific etiquette standards of behavior, a smile in different ethnic groups can be interpreted differently. So, in countries Western Europe and in America it is more formal in nature than, for example, in Russia, where it represents a kind of spiritual gift to the person it is addressed to. For Russians, a smile is an individual choice of a person from the crowd, and it means that you are sincerely glad to meet him, that you like him, and sometimes it is the result of mental labor, when a smile is the first step towards reconciliation after a quarrel. A smile among Russians is expensive, and not everyone gets it. Therefore, a formal or social American smile is seen by Russians as stupid or deceitful, and Russians seem to many foreigners to be gloomy, unfriendly, unsmiling people.

For an Englishman, a smile is primarily a sign of politeness, but this does not mean at all that he enjoys the meeting. The so-called “Japanese smile” is also an etiquette element. It is natural for an American to greet another with a smile, stranger, including a woman, which often leads to misunderstandings in other countries, especially Arab ones. But despite all the ethnocultural differences, smiling and laughter have always been regulated by special etiquette and aesthetic standards of decency.

Fixed body positions and postures are also one of the forms of non-verbal language, which, in addition to universal (for example, emotional) information, can also carry exclusively national-specific information. The total number of different stable positions that the human body can assume is about 1000. Of these, due to the cultural tradition of each nation, some positions are prohibited, while others are fixed and supported. Thus, the Japanese have prescribed positions for sitting on tatami. The most ceremonious of them is to kneel down and sit on your own heels. Bows are made in the same position. It is rude to bow while sitting on a cushion, so first move to the floor. Sitting with your legs crossed is considered a cheeky pose among the Japanese, and stretching them towards your interlocutor is the height of indecency.

In Asian countries, a woman's posture is expected to depend on the type of situation. So, for example, an Indian bride in a wedding hall should sit with her left leg stretched along the floor and her right leg bent so that her knee touches her chin. In Asia, this pose is considered very feminine. In Japan, women always sit with their legs bent so that their buttocks rest on them, and their hands are folded on their stomachs. Asian women are generally expected to keep their hands no lower than their waist when standing or sitting. In many Eastern and Western cultures, women are not expected to sit or stand with their legs apart. A woman who spreads her legs is considered to have lost her shame. And in the West, women are expected to perform certain poses, depending on the situation and the composition of the company. A typical pose for them is to sit with their right leg in front of their left. When getting into a car, a Western woman first sits down on the seat and then puts her feet in the car, after which the man slams the door.

Personal space also carries national specifics and is regulated by the norms of etiquette that exist within a particular culture. For example, etiquette allows for minimal distance options among Arabs and Latin Americans. And the communication distance between North Americans and Northern Europeans is maximum. Therefore, for Latin Americans, the distance options that their northern neighbors choose are cold. Those, in turn, regard the distance familiar to southerners as dangerous and fraught with aggression, and therefore unacceptable from the point of view of etiquette. The official communication zone of Russians is usually determined by a distance equal to the length of two arms extended for a handshake, and the friendly zone is determined by the length of two arms bent at the elbow. Although it is common for Russians in the sphere of informal communication to reduce physical distance and violate the boundaries of the intimate (in the Western sense) zone. Thus, a Russian university teacher giving a lecture, feeling uncomfortably at a distance from the student audience, descends from the dais, leaves the pulpit and comes closer to the students; Russian audiences perfectly perceive any interactive experiments in theatrical art and are not horrified when actors come close to them, touch them, look into their eyes, etc.

Etiquette norms also regulate contact touching, which is just as specific among different peoples. These norms largely depend on factors such as the status of communication partners, their age, gender, and degree of acquaintance. For example, a handshake is more often used in greeting situations by Russians than by the British or Americans. In the United States, handshakes are not accepted if there is intense contact between people, which is completely different from the use of a handshake in Russian culture. Such an element as patting on the back and shoulder is possible provided there are close relationships and equal social status of those communicating. A kiss as an element of physical contact is observed in Russian culture in the behavior of both men and women, while among the British it is rare, only in intimate relationships. Among eastern and many European peoples, touching each other is much less developed than among Russians. Russians lead children by the hand much longer than, for example, Japanese parents. Russian girls and boys, women and men walk, holding each other's arms. Moreover, women also walk arm in arm, which surprises foreigners. And Russian male friends often kiss when they meet. In general, from the point of view of the peoples of India, China, Indonesia, Russians hug and kiss quite often, but from the point of view of the Spaniards and Italians, on the contrary, very little.

Currently, the situation of expanding intercultural contacts is making certain adjustments to etiquette forms of interethnic communication. Interpenetration and mutual adaptation of cultural norms and standards of behavior occur. In this regard, it can be noted that now Eastern peoples use a handshake when communicating with Europeans, but at the same time they try to maintain their distance. As a result, they stand further than Russians from their interlocutor when shaking hands and, in order to reach him with their hand, are forced to lean forward (the pose, in the opinion of Europeans, is too servile). The other extreme is when representatives of eastern peoples come within a handshake distance, but, trying to maintain a national distance, move their upper torso back, and what a European sees is a proud, arrogant greeting. One way or another, this indicates that in language and culture there is a clear tendency towards universalization and leveling out the nationally specific features of non-verbal language.

But despite this, non-verbal, or kinetic, language is the linguocultural space where, fortunately, national-cultural semantics and symbolism are still alive, where there are semantic units inherent only to these specific national languages ​​and cultures. This sphere of language contains national mental tools, cultural patterns, attitudes, moral and communicative assessments that determine the lives of people in a particular national culture from the point of view of shame, freedom, justice, respect, ethically appropriate gestures, postures, and space.

Literature

Grigorieva, S. A. Dictionary of Russian Sign Language / S. A. Grigorieva, N. V. Grigoriev, G. E. Kreidlin. Moscow - Vienna: Languages ​​of Russian culture: Vienna Slavistic Almanac, 2001. 256 p. (Language. Semiotics. Culture).

Zaitseva, G. L. Sign language. Dactylology / G. L. Zaitseva. M., 2000.

Kreidlin, G. E. Nonverbal semiotics: Body language and natural language / G. E. Kreidlin. M., 2002.

Epstein, M. A body at the crossroads of time. On the philosophy of touch / M. Epstein // Issues. philosophy. 2005. No. 8.

Ethnocultural identification
and stereotyping

Erich Fromm noted: an English gentleman who does not take off his tuxedo in the most exotic surroundings, or a petty bourgeois, cut off from his environment, feels at one with the nation or some of its symbols. An American farmer, cut off from civilization, begins his work morning by hoisting the US national flag. People are constantly in the process of an intense search for cultural identity.

Professor S. Huntington of Harvard once remarked that in the Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor, and the poor can become rich. But Russians will never be able to become Estonians, and Azerbaijanis - Armenians. At the same time, Huntington was referring to cultural differences between peoples, which, in his opinion, are most difficult to overcome. But how do national differences relate to culture? And is nationality the main form of personal identification?

Most people associate nationality with “blood.” It is not for nothing that the word “half-breed” is used in colloquial language, meaning those who were born in a mixed marriage. In this case, without knowing it, people treat their own kind like animals. In animals, “half-breeds” are born when pure and simple breeds are mixed; in people, when nations are mixed. Thus, behind the word “half-breed” there is a certain approach to a person. In accordance with it, nationality is inherited and expressed in body structure, facial features and much more related to congenital features person.

Everyone once thought so. Today the majority is confident of this. But there are also those who think differently. And if there were no people convinced that over time, blood kinship recedes as a unifying force, and culture comes to the fore, then the national question would not have anything to do with cultural studies. Here we are faced with more than just disagreements, a struggle of opinions or preferences. In essence, in this dispute two historical realities confront each other - ethnicity and nation. One method of unity and, conversely, identification in the course of history was replaced by another, but this process was long and painful and for many peoples has not yet been completed.

Ethnic culture is what distinguishes people from the “animal kingdom” at the earliest stages of development. Ethnographic studies have shown that even among the savages of South America, Africa and Polynesia, who today have not reached the stage of barbarism, there are ways of cultural identification, that is, dividing people into “us” and “strangers”.

“Identical” is translated from Latin as “identical,” and “identification” is the establishment of identity between objects, processes, etc. It is clear that complete identity even between relatives is possible only among twins. But in the human community, identification is the recognition of the coincidence between people not in details, but in the main. And at the early stages of development, the main thing that unites people into a team has clearly expressed, visible features. At the stage of savagery, people lived in close-knit consanguineous groups. And the savage distinguished “us” from “stranger” primarily by appearance. But among wild peoples, culture also plays an ethno-differentiating role. After all, “us” is distinguished from “strangers” here not only by skin color, but also by its coloring, not only by the nature of the hair, but also by hairstyle, as well as by household and religious objects, language and human behavior.

However, people, unlike animals, are capable of more, namely self-identification. And this happens at the stage of barbarism, when culture includes a complex system of rituals and myths in which people, identifying themselves with animals and natural forces, talk about the origins of their own family. Myth is a form of collective self-awareness. And in developed mythology, people begin to realize not only their difference from others, but also their ancestral unity in the person of a common ancestor (we talked above about totemism).

Modern culture increasingly uses the logic of ethnic differences only as a symbolic system, a mask or cover for economic and political processes. It is extremely difficult to find any large homogeneous ethnic structure in our time. But in the East they say: the world is great because it has not thrown away a single grain of sand. Humanity at the beginning of the 3rd millennium no longer knows the natural boundaries that previously separated peoples and tribes. Today, the state border is a much bigger obstacle than seas and mountains.

Although ethnic identity is still determined by genetic characteristics, in our era ethnic and national identity do not coincide. In modern nations there are many people of different ethnic origins - “Russian Americans”, “Russified Germans”, “Russian Jews”, etc. For example, Ivan Aleksandrovich (Jan Ignacy Necislav) Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1925) - Russian scientist, born in Poland. A convinced and passionate democrat, he came from an old French noble family that had settled in Poland since the 16th century, and was a descendant of the crusader Baldwin, the king of Jerusalem. (V. Shklovsky in his book “Once Upon a Time” says that when Baudouin in Kazan got tired of the police asking questions about his family ties, he ordered a business card with the text: “I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. King of Jerusalem.")

Modern ethnology is increasingly inclined to believe that the only adequate criterion of ethnic community is national identity, or intragroup identification. Members of an ethnic group are aware of their own identity, a certain identity, the “sameness” of all members of the ethnic group and at the same time distinguish themselves from other ethnic groups. The formation of national-ethnic self-awareness occurs according to the “us and them” scheme. In this case, as a rule, a preferential, overestimated assessment of one’s own ethnic group and an underestimation of external ethnic groups is formed. Such an idea, for example, is Negritude - a theory that asserts the absolute exclusivity and originality of the spiritual world, psychology and culture of Africans. According to this theory, Africa must create its own civilization, rejecting the experience of other peoples as “unacceptable and inapplicable in African conditions.”

The main element of national-ethnic self-awareness is the awareness of a common historical destinies, less often - a common origin, sometimes from a real or mythical hero of the past (such elements of ethnic self-awareness are more characteristic of the early stages of the development of an ethnos). Ethnic self-awareness also includes ideas about the ethnic homeland, ethnic territory, ethnic culture and psychology of one’s own people, and the role of one’s ethnic group in the history of mankind or a certain part of it.

According to modern psychological theories, every person, to one degree or another, has the need to belong to a group. For most people in the unstable situation of a transitional society, family and ethnic affiliation (perceiving oneself as a member of a “family” - small or large) becomes the most acceptable way to again feel part of a whole, to find psychological support in tradition. Hence the increased attention to ethnic identification, the need to consolidate the ethnic community, attempts to develop an integrating national ideal, “protection” and isolation of one’s national mythology, culture, and history from others.

An individual identifies himself not only by ethnic characteristics, so ethnicity can sometimes be on the periphery of personal motivation. The significance of ethnicity is influenced not only by objective social reality (“transition” of society, ethnic conflicts, migrations, etc.), but also by a number of subjective factors - the level of education of the individual, for example. The meaning of ethnic identification situationally. As a rule, the ethnic consciousness of groups and individuals is not actualized under the condition of the existence of stable ethnic relations or in a monoethnic environment. A factor that increases the possibility of ethnic conflicts and, accordingly, increases the role of ethnic identification, is migration. Another pattern is the fact that the sense of ethnicity is usually higher among non-dominant communities. In this sense, in Soviet and even post-Soviet times, the self-awareness of the Russian population on the territory of Russia was not and is not a significant factor in the everyday life of an individual. This is evidenced, in particular, by the results of the widely used “Kuhn test” (when respondents answer the same question several times: “Who am I?”), conducted in Russia. Mention of “Russianness” was rare in places where Russians dominated. But the situation changed in a foreign ethnic environment - in Kazakhstan, for example.

Ultimately, ethnic differentiation leads to awareness psychological characteristics both their own ethnic group and other ethnic communities. The image of “we” is recorded in the system autostereotypes , images of other ethnic groups - in heterostereotypes . We are talking about an involuntary and often unconscious psychological attitude in the perception of oneself and others by a member of a community. This level of ethnic identification is associated with the formation of relatively stable ideas and assessments of behavioral, communicative, and emotional styles typical of an ethnic group. Stereotypes are related; they form self-organizing system, which accumulates a certain standardized collective experience and is an integral element ordinary consciousness.

Stereotyping the image of the Other (stable, simplified views on the qualities, advantages and disadvantages of various national groups) is the central unit national psychology - the everyday-practical level of national consciousness, which constitutes the latter together with national ideology. National psychology functions in the form of emotional states, mindsets, everyday views, myths, anecdotes, etc., which reflect national-ethnic processes in society. National psychology has a pronounced evaluative nature. Routine assessments of national processes are often formed on the basis of inadequate sources ( chance encounters, minor events, stories, anecdotes, etc.).

An ethnocultural stereotype is a generalized idea of ​​the typical features that characterize a nation. “German neatness”, “French gallantry”, “Russian maybe”, “Chinese ceremonies”, “African temperament” - these common expressions embody widespread ethnocultural stereotypes. These characteristics are not informational, this is not knowledge about the people, but opinions gleaned from literature, everyday conversations about recent events, advertising, etc. Opinions about the hot temper of Italians, the coldness of the British, the stubbornness of the Finns, the hospitality of Georgians, the secrecy of Latvians, the breadth of soul, The disorganization and kindness of Russians become the basis of stereotypes.

A stereotype of a national character is a scheme, and like any scheme, it is flawed. In “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” N. Karamzin called the French “frivolous,” the Italians “insidious,” and the British “gloomy.” Some modern authors highlight such traits of the Russian (Russian?) character as servility, the need to feel dependent on something (“a need of dependence”) combined with dependence on power, authority (“relation to authority”), a slave mentality ( “Russian slave mentality”, “slave soul of Russia”, “Russian masochism”), dreaminess, etc. All these are examples of national stereotypes, you can argue or agree with each. If a stereotype is accepted, it becomes a psychological attitude, a kind of “rules of the game” that determine interethnic communication. In essence, we are talking about the mythologization of consciousness through stereotypes: a person is “encoded” with the help of stereotypical images, and the effectiveness of such “encoding” practically does not depend on how much these images correspond to reality.

As already noted, self-identification is inseparable from the image of the Other, a foreign culture. Anecdotes and parables about foreigners contain features of the mentality, characteristics of each nation and speak more about the character of the people-author than the people-character of such texts. An ethnic stereotype fixes some really existing features and qualities of ethnic groups, but unjustifiably absolutizes, simplifies and coarsens them. Depending on the context, the same stereotyped feature of an ethnic group can have both positive and negative connotations. Thus, the Japanese expression “smelling of butter” (“bata-kusai”) in a nation that traditionally does not consume milk means everything pro-Western, pretentiously un-Japanese, alien. Here, a completely neutral gastronomic trait has become a negative characteristic, bordering on xenophobia (a hostile attitude towards foreigners, towards everything foreign - language, way of life, style of thinking).

Book: Lecture notes Social psychology of personality and communication

3.2.8. Sociocultural and ethnopsychological features of communication.

A person’s involvement in a specific sociocultural environment in which he

develops, forms and becomes an individual, an obvious fact of the unity of personality

and society. Another indisputable fact is that in this relationship we are not talking about an abstract individual, but about a specific person with a certain system of national psychological characteristics. So, the ethnopsychological (from the Greek ethnos - people) context of communication requires taking into account the national psychological (from the Latin natio - people) features of the manifestation of people's behavior in the sphere of interpersonal interaction. Regarding the concept of “national psychological characteristics,” it is interpreted in ethnopsychological literature as socio-psychological phenomena that actually exist in the public consciousness, as specific forms of functioning of universal human mental properties. Close to this definition are such concepts as “national character”, “psychological makeup of the nation”, “mentality”, the study and analysis of which indicates that they are based on a number of common constants and features, namely: a set of mental attitudes, habits thinking; certain general mental tools, psychological equipment; socio-psychological state of the subject, group, nation; a quality of mind that characterizes an individual or group; the way of thinking inherent in an individual or group; features of sociocultural and ethnopsychological development; national identity.

The system of national psychological characteristics of an individual is based on several areas: motivational (the uniqueness of motives, driving forces of activity of representatives of a particular national community); intellectual-cognitive (originality of perception and thinking of the bearers of the national psyche, expressed in the presence of specific cognitive and intellectual qualities that make it possible to especially perceive the surrounding reality, evaluate it, build action plans, models of ways to achieve its results); emotional-volitional (the originality of emotional and volitional qualities, on which in many cases the effectiveness of activity depends); communicative-behavioral (this area covers information and interpersonal interaction, relationships and communication, shows the difference in such manifestations among representatives of different national cultures). To study these features in interpersonal interaction means to identify the essential characteristics of a particular culture of communication, to see, first of all, its national identity. However, it must be taken into account that the specificity of the national psychology of a particular people is not expressed in any unique psychological traits and characteristics of communication, but rather in their unique combination, manifestation in certain customs, historical traditions, behavior, actions, etc. It is extremely important to objectively assess the sociocultural and ethnopsychological characteristics of communication: their overestimation, as well as underestimation, only hinder the successful establishment of contacts. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the properties of the national culture of communication and the properties of the individuals who make up the ethnic group are not identical, and this causes certain disagreements between cultural and psychological studies. It is known that abstract, unfounded conclusions on both sides can offend the national feelings of a particular people.

Taking into account the listed problems, a set of problems related to the influence of traditional ethnocultural norms of communication on the business interaction of people is of great interest. First of all, we are talking about the sphere of group mentality, the important role of the group in realizing the needs of the individual, and the value of a person belonging to a specific group. Researchers warn against a possible psychological tendency in this case to perceive all life events from the perspective of one’s ethnic group, considered as a standard (the phenomenon of ethnocentrism). On the one hand, the very fact of awareness of the national psychological characteristics of one’s group does not contain prejudice against other ethnic groups, however, if one moves from stating these differences to assessing another group, then distortions in the assessment of the latter are possible. Although, according to the “contact hypothesis,” direct business interaction and communication between representatives of different ethnic groups reduces ethnocentrism and evaluative stereotyping, and sometimes destroys interethnic stereotypes, not all business contacts contribute to improving relations. That is why the effect of mutual misunderstanding can be eliminated only if certain requirements in interaction are met: recognition of the equality of the parties, an atmosphere of openness and trust in communication, respect for traditional norms, way of life, etc. All of the above considerations can be considered the basis for characterizing the sociocultural and ethnopsychological context of communication.

Communication is inseparable from the sociocultural situation, which influences its structure, functions, and modes of manifestation in different ways. Regarding the content of the concept of “culture” (from the Latin cultura - care, education, development), it is multifaceted and is considered in a broad and narrow sense. The broad plan of culture embraces everything characteristic of a person, acquired by upbringing, everything that shapes it and through which it becomes socially active, whole personality. At the same time, culture also includes socially sanctioned ways of activity and behavior of individuals. That is, culture is the opposite of nature, the totality of the results of human activity; this is the process and result of the separation of man from nature, the creation of a new reality and way of existence. Culture embodies a person’s thinking style, it covers all aspects of social life, characterizes the breadth and depth of a person’s knowledge, his upbringing, the ability to express his opinion, listen to another person and draw the right conclusions. It is this understanding of culture that assumes that its content is the historical change in natural and social conditions of life, the development of social forces and abilities, that is, the formation and revelation of both the essence of man himself and all the richness and diversity of the reality he creates. The narrow meaning of culture is associated with the way of human activity and communication, with the organization of these processes, with the identification of the ground that makes it possible to promote the effective functioning of society and the individual as a whole.

An integral part of a person’s culture and the social environment in which HIS interaction with his own kind occurs is the culture of communication. It reflects value orientations, positions, and social roles that an individual plays in society. The culture of communication determines the ways in which people interact in specific situations, based on norms, traditions, and the national identity of society. Each era is marked by a certain uniqueness of the culture of communication, which, on the one hand, corresponds to human values, and on the other, to the ethnopsychological specifics of a particular society. It is worth distinguishing two levels of cultural contexts. Regarding high-context culture, it is characterized by the fact that information is presented in an implicit form: it is understandable only to those who have experience in a given cultural environment. The essence of a low-context culture is that a certain psychological distance is constantly maintained between individuals, which is why the information that reaches the subjects must be open.

The culture of communication depends not only on the individual, his communication capabilities, but also on the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired by a person to establish contacts. The communicative attitudes of an individual to communicate with another person, who is considered as the highest value of society, are also important. The culture of communication is associated with the culture of speech, that is, the ability of an individual to use the language means and ethical standards that are optimal for a particular situation. According to modern ideas, communication culture can be determined by the following indicators and characteristics:

Degree of perfection in mastering the communicative knowledge system;

A set of conditions that ensure high communicative competence, as well as the level of a person’s communicative training;

Language and other auxiliary means of communication (gestures, art, and at the highest level of cultural development - writing), the degree of compliance of speech with literary norms;

Communicative attitude towards communicating with another person as the highest value;

A set of moral requirements that become for a person a component of his habits and skills, which are manifested in his everyday manner of communication;

The ability to apply ethical standards of communication, communicative knowledge in accordance with the ethnopsychological characteristics of the individual, the moral norms of a particular society and taking into account universal human values;

A system of socially recognized categories, attitudes, prejudices, customs, and traditions that regulate interpersonal relationships.

The listed characteristics will be complete if we add to them customs and regulations relating to such aspects of social life as family structure, sexual morality, division of labor, property relations, the structure of political power, comradely ethics, magical practice, faith, religious symbols, ideas about the world, nature and man’s place in it. Knowledge of the identified features and characteristics of communication culture, as well as its elements (symbols, rituals and values) can be used in the practice of both informal and business communication.

In general, the culture of communication can be defined as a set of theoretical knowledge and practical skills of interaction, ethical and psychological principles, principles and norms that are general in a particular society. This is a system of communicative knowledge that serves the practice of communication as a sociocultural and ethnopsychological phenomenon, a set of science and art of communication, various kinds of recommendations, generalizations regarding the construction of the communicative process, which have scientific and practical value and are organically, systematically interconnected. It is not without reason that the culture of communication is considered one of the decisive factors for success in establishing social contacts. It has nothing to do with lack of culture (dishonesty in conveying certain information, rudeness in communication, indifference to the interlocutor and his problems, pressure on the interaction partner, etc.). High culture communication is harmony professional knowledge, communicative and moral-psychological capabilities, which, of course, depend on the intellectual and cultural abilities of the individual who is in a state of interaction. It is a system of knowledge about the methods of transmitting information, the peculiarities of perceiving each other in the process of interaction, and is built on the basis of the disciplinary principles of communication and the capabilities of specific participants in communication.

Every special person or the group has its own specific culture of communication, which develops throughout their development and takes into account socio-historical, socio-cultural, socio-psychological, political-economic, legal, international, environmental influences. Regarding the culture of communication in a group, it is not limited to the special moral and psychological climate or values ​​that form the basis of interaction; it is formed over a certain period of time and cannot be easily manipulated. For example, the components of the culture of business communication in an organization can be: an ethical and psychological system of norms and values ​​of communication; means containing communication technologies and interaction style; ways of internal cohesion, etc. The influence of the culture of communication in an organization on the development of employees employed in it is manifested in their assimilation of communicative features of interaction, ethical and psychological norms of communication, values ​​and methods of behavior, types and forms of communication, ways of influencing partners, etc. The culture of communication in an organization influences behavior and the sphere of interaction between both the manager and all other employees, in particular on: the choice of form and style of communication; the use of tactical means of interaction from the point of view of moral, psychological and aesthetic values; personal manner of communication, tact, speech culture and speech etiquette; the scope and level of communication with relevant moral standards. The level of communication culture in a group (organization) is influenced by the following factors:

The level of general cultural development of the country, its material and spiritual state in a specific period of formation, which determines the communicative culture of a particular group and its subjects;

The level of development of a particular individual, the state of his communicative potential, connections with society;

The communicative level of development of the group, the state of its socio-psychological space;

The system of external relations, the presence of external partners for interaction, external channels of access to an outside culture of communication, the degree of intensity of such connections, their objective or subjective nature;

Communicative-legal and organizational-cultural order in a group, institution or educational institution;

General, national, industry, specifically group patterns of interaction between communication participants, which provide a given level of culture of communication between group members.

Considering the importance of communication culture in the life of an individual or group of people, let us take a closer look at those basic elements of culture that directly relate to the communication process. As for symbols, they mean words, things and gestures that have a purely conventional meaning. Symbols at the level of national culture include the entire linguistic spectrum, a specific group of concepts on the history of an ethnic group and its traditional emblems, and at the level of associative context - abbreviations, jargon, established expressions, manner of dressing and signs of belonging to a certain social circle, which makes it possible to distinguish each other friend to members of a particular social group. As we see, speech is one of the main signs of an ethnic group, the fundamental basis of any culture. In a culture of communication, language is a means of communication, a business relationship between participants in the communicative process. At the same time, the word proclaimed by the interlocutor becomes a reflection mental state the individual, his culture in communication. Today, the culture of communication and language are united in the field of spiritual values. Speech culture is a reliable support for communication participants in expressing opinions and developing ethical standards for business interaction. Here is how Taras Shevchenko writes about the meaning of words in human life:

Another element of culture - rituals (from the Latin ritualis - ritual) is characterized as a set of rituals, ceremonies, customs, used in communication as collective actions that have no technical meaning, although in a particular culture of communication they correspond to certain social needs. In communication, rituals are primarily used in meetings, business correspondence, discussion of plans, summing up results, etc. Rituals in communication are carried out according to tradition (from the Latin traditio - transmission; a form of transmission of social experience, ideas, customs, norms from generation to generation), which are an element of the general social and cultural heritage of the people, which is passed on from generation to generation and preserved in societies for a long time. In communication, traditions appear in the form of customs that reproduce norms of interaction and ensure the stability of communicative culture. In a particular culture of an ethnic group, traditions play a greater or lesser role. In particular, the British have a strong habit of resolving any matter, including those related to establishing relationships and contacts, according to tradition.

As an element of culture, values ​​are a kind of social mechanism that reproduces, preserves, protects, develops and transmits everything useful that has accumulated in society; they cover not always clearly recognized, but stable ideas about good and evil, beautiful and distorted, true or false, fair or unfair. In communication, value is understood as an individual’s ability to satisfy the human need for social contacts, as an awareness of one’s place in the system of social and interpersonal connections. If the importance of subjects of communication for each other is determined in qualitative and quantitative indicators, if the selection and use of the necessary communicative properties is characterized by the interests and needs of people, then the value is objective. Among subjective values ​​there are assessments, attitudes, norms enshrined in human consciousness as methods and criteria on the basis of which reality is assessed and communication is organized. The culture of communication contains a set of historically developed values, values ​​of the spiritual and moral world of people, which makes it possible to assess human needs, including the need for communication, ways to satisfy them, to understand communication as confirmation of “I” by others, to comprehend the world of social and interpersonal connections in which the individual lives. A component of a person’s cultural mastery of real relationships are social values ​​that characterize the significance for society or an individual of certain features of interaction.

There are various ways of manifesting values, which in communication have their own concretization and specificity. Let's look at some of them.

S Values ​​as a social ideal, as developed public consciousness and beliefs, an abstract idea of ​​the attributes of what is necessary in various spheres of social life. These are the so-called universal, “eternal” values, such as truth, beauty, goodness, justice, as well as specific historical ones (social order, democracy). In communication, the ideal is the most generalized idea of ​​the maximum possible level development of personality in society and realization of its communicative potential in the process of interaction. How do basic categorical values ​​influence the culture of communication? The category of Justice (Prosperity) uniquely regulates the norms of communication, the opportunity and rights of participants in the communicative process to use certain achievements in the field of establishing relationships. The next category - the category of Good - although it functions as a regulating regulator of the relations between participants in communication, is not as noticeable as the previous one. This category is based in its manifestation on the prevailing “public opinion”, on principles expressed in the concepts of “good” or “bad” in communication, socially acceptable for interaction or unacceptable. It can regulate the process of communication, based on ethical standards developed in society, which have varying degrees of emotional overtones. The category of Beauty extends to the style of communication, manner of speech, and contains clear requirements for presenting the good, the beautiful or the ugly in relationships with others. The category of Truth, on the one hand, is extremely abstract in nature and does not seem to have a direct relationship to interaction, and on the other hand, it quite clearly regulates our consciousness, determines a person’s ability to think rationally, affirms and largely consolidates the actions and manifestations of the three previous categories.

S Values ​​as objects of material and spiritual culture or as examples of human actions that personify the specific embodiment of social value ideals (ethical, cultural, aesthetic, political, communicative, legal, etc.). For example, the values ​​of the Chinese culture of communication personify the specific substantive embodiment of the ethnopsychological, sociocultural characteristics and social value ideals of the country:

Respect in communication for age and higher position in the status hierarchy;

Focus on group rather than individual values ​​in communication;

Conservatism and pragmatism in communication;

The influence of group reference models of communication on the characteristics of establishing contacts;

The importance of long-term preservation of relationships and relationships;

Restraint in conversations with little-known people and politeness during the conversation.

Social values, which, refracted through the prism of individual life activity, enter the psychological structure of the individual in the form of personal values ​​and become one of the sources of motivation for communication. Value orientations are formed in the process of assimilation and acquisition of communicative experience; they can manifest themselves in specific purposes communication, beliefs, interests and other manifestations of individual actions and behavior. Formal and informal relationships of people in social groups create group value orientations. That is, relationships between group members are built on the coincidence of value orientations, which ensures their cohesion and identity-orientation unity.

Citing the Chinese style of communication as an example, attention was drawn to the fact that the Chinese are characterized by an orientation in communication towards a system of group rather than individual values. We are talking about individual or collective self-control, which is one of the common criteria and according to which cultures in general and communication cultures in particular differ. In passing, we note that individualism is inherent in societies that are characterized by free connections between individuals, that is, priority is given to personal goals over the group, self-identification is carried out on the basis of personal qualities, and not through identifying oneself with the group.

Regarding collectivism, this characteristic those societies in which individuals from the moment of birth are integrated into cohesive groups, that is, group goals prevail. It is believed that Western society is characterized by the values ​​of individualism. Regarding communication, it manifests itself in one’s own opinion, independence of judgment, individual decision-making, satisfaction of one’s own interests, etc. At the same time, Asian cultures value collectivism more, which in communication is manifested in increased respect for the interlocutor, collective discussion and decision-making, etc. .P. There are many studies that highlight the fact that a collectivist can form relationships with fewer people, but these connections are deeper and last longer. For a representative of an individualistic culture, a good sense of self is associated with individual positive feelings, for example, with a feeling of pride. A collectivist associates a good sense of self with interpersonal relationships, in particular, with friendly feelings. In collectivist cultures, communication values ​​social solidarity, harmony, showing respect, modesty, and avoiding sensitive topics. For this culture, it is important to know which group a person belongs to and what the values ​​of this group focus are. If representatives of different cultures take part in communication, it is important to take into account the differences between systems of social relations, which helps to minimize moments of inconsistency. In such situations, RESEARCHERS of communication problems advise individuals who find themselves in a collectivist culture to avoid confrontation, cultivate long-term relationships, present themselves more modestly, be interested in the place of people in the group hierarchy, determine their own social status, etc. On the other hand, collectivists who find themselves in countries with an individualist culture culture, one should criticize more freely than usual, get straight to the point, demonstrate one’s skills and achievements, and attach greater importance to the personal qualities of the interlocutor than to one’s social status or membership in a particular group. In the context of analyzing the values ​​of individualist and collectivist communication cultures, it is important to point out the presence of an alternative concept that tries to combine the best of collectivist and individualist values ​​and is called communitarianism. We are talking, first of all, about balancing the right of individuality (respect for basic human rights) and the collective right to the well-being of society (concern for the well-being of family and society).

Regarding Ukraine, the basis for the formation of cultural values ​​of communication were different sources and different factors. Speech values ​​were formed under the influence of folk traditions. Folklore (kolomiykas, sayings, proverbs, historical songs, ballads, legends), images of the people's worldview, and mythological ideas contain data about people's behavior, their moods and attitudes. Interesting information You can learn about the culture of communication from historical monuments and literature. In particular, ancient book creativity had an important influence on the culture of communication. The chronicles contain not only reliable historical tales presented in chronological order, but also didactic advice and instructions that reproduce the peculiarities of communication in the society of that time. The peculiarity of ancient communication was that it was verbal and symbolic, since it was intended to attract the attention of the interlocutor " words of wisdom" Indicative in its plan is the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle, whose speech is symbolic, it uses many proverbs and sayings. In addition to verbal-symbolic communication, here, for example, in the legend of Yevshan-Potion, objective-verbal communication is used: in addition to the fact that the singer reminds of his native land with songs and words, he also gives the interlocutor a chance to smell the potion with native land. As we see, in this case, an important role was played not by verbal communication, which could not reach agreement, but by communication using signs, which turned out to be better than words. In the collection of Polesie monuments of the 5th-9th centuries, “Skrizhsya of the Life of the Ukrainian People,” you can glean knowledge about how people lived in those times, what they did, how they defended their land, and communicated with each other. Communication was a significant part of life for them: through the word they came to agreement.

From the point of view of cultural characteristics of communication, monuments deserve attention Kievan Rus. In particular, “The Tale of Bygone Years” contains both purely historical material and traditions, legends, stories of folklore and book origin. The main means of communication are linguistic. Dialogue communication predominates, but the dialogues are laconic. There is no mention of the characters’ movements, their attitude towards their interlocutors, or their impression of the information provided. Heroes behave with restraint even with those they hate. Not a hint of any feelings in direct relationships. The form of address is interesting - only “you”, despite social status. Often the remarks go unanswered and are perceived as an order, failure to comply with which will result in severe punishment. In the chronicles we come across numerous proverbs that enliven communication.

Traditions in the Ukrainian culture of communication developed through the imitation of ancestors (parents) and authoritative contemporaries. One of these authorities at that time was Vladimir Monomakh. After himself, he left the “Teaching” to his children, as well as descendants. This work resembles a testament addressed to future generations. Vladimir Monomakh first of all asks about what a person is, why he lives. The main advice of the Kyiv prince: do not be lazy, study, respect old age, communicate with others with respect, do not insult a person either by word or deed. Communion with God should play an important role in everyone's life, and God should be glorified daily. Most of all, you need to beware of lies; you should never be indifferent to a person. So, in the “Teaching” we read: to have a pure and immaculate soul, a thin body, a meek conversation and to keep the word of the Lord, to remain silent with elders, to listen to the wise, to obey elders, to abide in love with equals and younger ones, conversing without evil intent, to think more deeply. , do not rage with words, do not condemn with speech, laugh a little, do not let a single person pass without congratulating her and giving her gifts kind words. The basis of the culture of communication in this memo is the cognitive aspect.

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” reproduces the communication not only of a person with other people, but also with natural forces, which is associated with anthropomorphism typical of that time (anthropomorphic - humanoid). Communication is characterized by dialogue, but there are few dialogues and short remarks. The communication of Prince Igor with his soldiers is absolutely not reproduced, but there are only calls to battle, from which Igor appears as a talented commander, whose word had weight and commanded respect. An example of human communication with nature is Yaroslavna’s cry, in which she addresses the natural elements as if they were alive. In both cases, the following value values ​​are invested in this seemingly one-sided communication: mutual influence of partners, their interaction, management of group activities.

Polemical literature has made its own adjustments to the Ukrainian culture of communication and its values. Since polemical literature was condemning, the purpose of communication with a partner was to expose and show his shortcomings. One of the representatives of this literature was Ivan Vyshensky, a Ukrainian thinker late XVI - early XVII century. His communication had a dual character: in his youth it was sincere, direct, often reckless communication, which did not have an epistemological role; later, after taking monastic orders, it is communication with educated people, clergy; in recent years - refusal to communicate at all. While in a monastery on Mount Athos and professing moral asceticism, I. Vyshensky, in the form of a message, which was practically the only means of communication during this period of his life, addressed imaginary interlocutors, criticizing the feudal serfs. Often these addresses were harsh and abusive. This is a communication between irreconcilable enemies who will never come to a common agreement. Of course, such communication did not resolve conflicts, but exacerbated them even more.

The Kiev-Mohyla Academy had a great influence on the development of the culture of communication. The famous scientist, speaker, public figure Feofan Prokopovich, who gave a course of lectures at the academy, argued that with the help of words you can convince people and influence them. He viewed rhetoric as a means of cultural enlightenment, obtaining new knowledge, arousing feelings, etc. F. Prokopovich left to his descendants the doctrine of three communication styles: a high style should excite people, which is why it is necessary to use strong emotions, majestic methods of presentation; a colorful style should give pleasure; for this purpose, beautiful ways of expressing thoughts are used; the low style serves for edification. All feelings, according to the philosopher, revolve around two axes: to desire good and not to desire evil. Therefore, in order to evoke feelings in listeners, you should be guided by two rules: show a subject that is important to listeners; Before arousing feelings in others, awaken this feeling in yourself. The scientist thought about the main personality traits of a teacher: prudence, justice, moderation and courage. At the same time, he sharply condemned such a trait as hypocrisy.

The rich heritage of Ukrainian writers is also an indicator of the formation of communication values. Rudeness and cruelty in communication do not escape their creativity. Just as the topic of sum, grief, poor health, and indifference of others is not discussed. Here's how Lina Kostenko writes about it:

And in life, as in a minefield, I asked in this century for at least that store minimum:

People, be mutually polite! And if it were up to me, I would write it in italics everywhere:

There is so much grief in the world, people, be mutually beautiful!

With the advent of new literature, we can now talk in more detail about the cultural communication of the writers themselves. Quite often, eyewitnesses write in their memoirs about their impressions of their first meetings with writers. As a rule, in one’s own imagination, a person imagined a giant, a passionate fighter for an idea, which often did not correspond to reality. In communication, the writers were ordinary people: some were harsh and rude, others were moderate and well-mannered. For example, for Taras Shevchenko, communication was, first of all, a source of information. Ivan Franko could freely communicate on any topic, had his own opinion about everything, but gave preference to listening, and was a passive partner in communication. He behaved with everyone simply, in a friendly manner. True, tact in recent years has changed from life to sharp attacks, sometimes to unfounded criticism.

Even from a cursory review of historical and literary monuments, we can conclude that the formation of a culture of communication in Ukraine was a component of the development of human culture and society as a whole. Of course, the Ukrainian culture of communication was also influenced by other factors associated, for example, with the period of decomposition of the feudal-cripple system and the development of capitalism or with the conditions for the assertion of national sovereignty. The geopolitical position of Ukraine also shaped the socio-psychological culture and a unique type of borderland person. O. Kulchitsky notes in this regard that its location at the crossroads of historical paths has psychologically influenced for centuries life situation Ukrainian man, which modern existential philosophy aptly called “limitless.” This situation formed two main life attitudes: vita heroika and vita minima, where the first is associated with chivalry, maximum exertion of all forces, at the same time as throwing away routine, and the second was to wait out the next adversity in a kind of “social-anabiotic” state and preserve oneself, which turned out to be in individual concentration, in the limitation of external life activity, which is characterized by introversion (from the Latin intro - inside, versio - turn, rotate; the personality’s focus on one’s own subjective world). Y. Yarema, V. Yan regarding the inter-ness of Ukrainian culture and how it influences the self-actualization and individualization of the Ukrainian, they also note that the Ukrainian, with his introversion and escape from the world, has a greater ability of social sympathy, getting along with others, humanity”, that he “feels himself in others and becomes intimate with them.” Most researchers, paying attention to the introversion and individualism of the Ukrainian, certify that the Ukrainian people belong to the individualistic cultural cycle. At the same time, they highlight in Ukrainian national character such traits and values ​​that are inherent in collectivist cultures.

Summing up the general results on the sociocultural and ethnopsychological characteristics of communication, it should be noted that the problem of communication must be studied, analyzed, solved and solved in an integrated and at the same time differentiated manner both at the macro level in relation to individual countries (regions), and at the micro level in relation to a separate interpersonal situation interaction or a specific group, taking into account the existing culture and corresponding to universal human values. In other words, on the one hand, the culture of communication has no boundaries, that is, all the best that world theory and practice gives on communication problems should be the property of everyone, and on the other hand, traditional everyday, ethnopsychological characteristics of communication, behavioral characteristics, such as rituals of greetings and farewells, behavior with representatives of the opposite sex, relatives, guests, elders, means and attributes of communication (gestures, facial expressions, details of clothing), taboos, communication stereotypes, etc., play an important role in establishing contacts between people. Consequently, the phenomenology of communication captures both the standards of interaction and communication, as well as their sociocultural, ethnopsychological features.

Ethnopsychological features of communication

The section presents texts that reveal basic concepts and reflect areas of research into ethnocultural and intercultural characteristics and patterns of communication. The concepts of communication of cultures are given, the characteristics of the subjects of intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic communication are highlighted. The features of the relations of ethnic groups to their own and foreign ethnocultural and ethnoregional associations are presented. The social regulators of intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic communication and interaction are characterized. The relevant articles highlight the typology of interethnic and intraethnic communication; general and specific features the use of verbal and non-verbal means of communication among different peoples; The issues of using language as a means of interpersonal, interethnic and intrastate communication are considered. This section reflects research into personality as a native speaker of a particular language; the relationship between the means of communication and the construction of the semantic sphere of the individual’s consciousness; the significance and features of developing intercultural communicative competence. The psychological states that a person experiences in a new cultural environment of another nation are characterized and directions for research into the conditions and patterns of learning to communicate with representatives of certain nationalities and preparation for communication in a different ethnocultural environment are presented. The phenomenology and patterns of intercultural and interethnic interaction are described, as well as the causes of interethnic conflicts and methods and technologies for their resolution. The importance of tolerance in interethnic communication is indicated and the problems of communication between migrants are characterized.

Editor-compiler T. I. Pashukova

Ethnocultural adaptation(lat. adaptacio – adaptation) is the process of an individual’s active adaptation to the conditions of a different ethnocultural environment based on the individual’s target and value-orientation setting, individual achievement capabilities (knowledge, experience), the result of which is the choice of an adequate behavioral strategy and positive ethnocultural identity. Research on the assimilation of a foreign culture and adaptation to change remains one of the most popular and applicable in practice. Cultural diversity, increased intercultural contacts, deregulation of employment laws, intense migration flows and movements, social mobility increased the multicultural character of many countries, adding other ethnicities to the number of languages ​​and religions. and cultural backgrounds on the continent. The carrier contacts are fundamentally different. ethnocultural values ​​and norms of behavior, social patterns and stereotypes of perception, knowledge and cultural-historical experience, attitudes, and ideas have an innovative and dynamic character of development, which is quite problematic and not always adequate. In this regard, A. e. acts as a form of teaching culturally specific skills necessary to find common language with a new cultural environment. Taking this into account, culture can and should be considered as a result of human activity, as a prerequisite and as a consequence of an individual’s behavior, and not only as its determinant or a factor preceding this activity.

With a radical change in the habitat (for example, place of residence), activity and social environment of the individual, the so-called. “general adaptation syndrome” (the term was proposed by G. Selye). A change in habitat, activity and social environment can lead either to a transformation of cultural identity, including a set of beliefs and attitudes regarding oneself and one’s membership in cultural group; or to acculturative stress as an individual’s response to life events rooted in intercultural contact when they exceed his ability to cope with them (similar to the concept of culture shock). There are different strategies for coping with stress and increasing adaptability. For example: 1) attack (planning, curtailing other activities and active coping), while the level of depression decreases; 2) avoidance (ignoring at the behavioral level, denial, lack of positive interpretation), while depressive tendencies are aggravated; 3) acceptance (recognition of the problem and a restrained reaction to it); 4) seeking social support (the desire to find emotional and practical support).

To characterize the multiethnicity and multiculturalism of modern times. society, it seems appropriate to distinguish sociocultural adaptation (or acculturation) as a process, as a result of which a change in external appearance occurs. behavioral strategies of the individual in response to the demands of the new sociocultural environment, and psychol. adaptation as a process, as a result of which internal balance, psychol. and physical well-being, satisfaction in a new sociocultural context. Economy adaptation is predicted not only by the same parameters, but also includes the motivation for migration, the perception of lack or loss of status when first entering the working world. The inevitable result of massive international, interethnic. movements and contacts become different. options for interactions with the host ethnicity. the majority, the difficulty of building identity, accepting the values ​​of individuals, families and communities, and society as a whole. Essential are psychol. personality characteristics - motives, attitudes, values ​​and individual personal capabilities, very changeable, influencing the process of acculturation, which characterizes the state and development of intercultural relations. The most significant in this context is the presence of signs of distinctiveness of groups - numbers, power, rights, resources, involvement in intercultural relations as individuals or as groups. There are 3 criteria that make it possible to differentiate groups that assimilate a foreign culture - individual and ethnic group adapters: mobility - the presence or absence of movements in space (sedentary/migrants); degree of freedom of choice (voluntariness/forced action); stability (permanent/temporary). There is evidence of gender differences in identification and acculturation: boys and men assimilate more quickly, and women view assimilation more negatively, having a greater tendency to maintain identity with the culture of origin. The essence of the difficulties of interaction lies in understanding and accepting another culture, its differences from one’s own, predicting the behavior of others, and preserving ethnicity. originality and personal individuality. Meaning and meaning in understanding social behavior, frequency of occurrence different types behavior in a culture, elements of similarity (degree of similarity), and not just an emphasis on differences, allow us to avoid misunderstandings in the relationships between representatives of different cultures. Level A. e. It also depends on the degree of dispersion of the settlement of ethnolocal groups in the prevailing cultural and linguistic environment. The basis is ethnic. identity is a set of objective ethno-differentiating features (markers) - a common language, basic. features of material and spiritual culture, subjective characteristics: national. character, behavioral stereotypes, ideas about the general territorial and historical. origins, anthropological similarities and religion. The range of perception ranges from complete denial of the existence of other cultures to integration (“inculturation” - entry, “growing in”) into a new, different culture, when its norms and values, traditions and standards of behavior, etc. attributes begin to be perceived as their own. The general rule is that the greater the cultural or behavioral differences, the greater the potential negativity in their evaluation. The more negative and conflictual the relations between cultures, the lower the level of perceived cultural similarity. G. Triandis notes that the greater the cultural distance, the more unproductive cultural contacts.

A. e. may or may not improve the “fit” between the individual and the environment - one can adopt a position of identity, similarity (as a result of assimilation) or resistance, variability (through separation). It can be considered as a change from “primary control” to “secondary control”, as a long-term and ongoing process, where variations are possible from a very positive to a very negative indicator of lifestyle in a new cultural environment, i.e. adaptation to acculturation is changeable and multifaceted process. Psycho. adaptation is determined by personal variables - the quality and quantity of connections, social support and events that change life, while sociocultural adaptation is based on cultural knowledge, the degree of contact and positive intergroup attitudes, its changes are more predictable: at first adaptation is rapid, then the pace stabilizes. Relationships with both cultures, duration of residence in new country, general social skills, constant connections with compatriots, ancestral culture, and with members of the community of residence - especially if they meet expectations - are predictive indicators of successful adaptation.

Ethnic The diversity of most countries and regions requires a reorientation of societies. consciousness on the idea of ​​multiculturalism. Education, interest in another culture, friendship with native speakers of this culture will develop social skills and “social networks.” The emerging transition from the idea of ​​education for “culturally diverse” to “education for all” seems conceptually important, leading to knowledge of the diversity of the world, familiarity with the traditions of different people. peoples and instilling skills in interacting with people of different cultures.

Cross-cultural psychology. Research and application / J. Bury et al. Kharkov, 2007; Psychology and culture / Ed. D. Matsumoto. St. Petersburg, 2003.

G. V. Verzhibok

Acculturation(English) acculturation) is the assimilation of a new culture as a result of direct contact with it. In modern understanding, the term A. has 2 meanings: 1) the gradual acquisition by children of forms of behavior characteristic of the culture (subculture) within which they grow, and 2) the process of borrowing, perceiving the culture of another group in conditions of close interaction with it. Ethnopsychologists, as a rule, speak of A. in the 2nd meaning. The term A. was first noted in 1880 by Powell of the American Ethnographic Society, who, while studying the languages ​​of the indigenous population of the North. America, called A. psychol. changes that occur as a result of cross-cultural imitation. His colleague McGee spoke about agriculture as a process of exchange and mutual improvement, with the help of which societies go from primitiveness to barbarism, then to civilization and enlightenment. Redfield, Linton, and Herskowitz defined culture as “the result of direct, prolonged contact of groups with different cultures, resulting in a change in the cultural patterns of one or both groups.”

Factors influencing the course of A. and the success of adaptation are divided into group-wide and individual. General group factors are determined by the characteristics of interacting cultures. Of particular importance is the degree of similarity or difference between the source and host cultures, for the assessment of which Babiker proposed the term cultural distance index, determined by language, religion, family structure, level of education, material comfort, climate, food, clothing, etc. The cultural distance index is influenced by the history of relations between two peoples - the presence of conflicts, wars, genocide. He divides individual factors into demographic and personal. Among the demographic factors, the main one is age: young children adapt quickly and successfully, while for adults, especially older people, this process turns out to be difficult, often painful. Men tend to adapt more easily than women, and symptoms of culture shock are less common among highly educated people. Personal factors contributing to successful A. include: cognitive complexity, lack of authoritarianism, tolerance, flexibility, internal locus of control, tolerance for uncertainty; endurance, low anxiety, self-control, self-efficacy and self-control. These qualities contribute to psychol. comfort and help them master new social norms, values ​​and language. The process of A. and adaptation is easier for people with realistic expectations. The most important factor in successful adaptation and indicator of A. is knowledge of the local language, which helps overcome feelings of helplessness and dependence and helps establish contact with local residents. To reduce the negative impact of a new culture, it is important to have prior familiarity with the history, culture and life in the host country, as well as acculturation experience. The voluntary or forced nature of migration may be of particular importance. Interest in another culture and friendship with carriers of this culture, expanding contacts contribute to the improvement of social skills, which helps overcome stress and facilitates A.

Meshcheryakov B. G., Zinchenko V. P. Modern psychological dictionary. M., 2006; Stefanenko T. G. Ethnopsychology. M., 1999; Ward K. The ABC of acculturation // Psychology and culture / Ed. D. Matsumoto. St. Petersburg, 2003.

E. A. Grishina

Acculturation: theories. To foreign countries In psychology, there are quite a lot of theories of middle and lower rank (according to Kuhn’s classification) that explain the essence and mechanism of acculturation (A.). Rudmin describes 126 theories of A., developed in the period from 1918 to 2003. For a long time, A. was of interest only to anthropologists, ethnographers and sociologists, who studied the mutual influence and relationships of ethnocultural groups. Over time, A. became the sphere of interest of psychologists, and their use of the term A. concerned the individual. In psychology A. theories usually mean the transformation of value orientations, role behavior, social attitudes, as well as psychol. changes and dynamics of the emotional states of individuals in the process of adaptation to another culture. Ward notes 3 theoretical approaches to the study of A., considering this process from different sides and representing "ABC"(the ABC's of acculturation). The affective approach is represented by stress theory. According to this theory, moving to a foreign culture is understood as a series of life changes that cause stress, overcoming this requires the mobilization of adaptive resources. Moreover, a strong mental shock, which can be caused by contact with another culture, is designated by the term culture shock(suggested by Oberg). Within the framework of this approach, a five-stage model of the dynamics of A. has been developed: the 1st stage (“honeymoon”) is characterized by enthusiasm, high spirits and high hopes; at the 2nd stage unusual environment begins to cause negative feelings, the feeling of misunderstanding and rejection by local residents intensifies, disappointment, confusion, and frustration appear; at the 3rd stage, symptoms of culture shock can reach a critical level and manifest themselves in depression, illness, and a feeling of complete helplessness; at the 4th stage, depression gradually gives way to optimism, a feeling of confidence and satisfaction returns; Stage 5 is characterized by a relatively stable adaptation of the individual to the new culture

The behavioral, or behaviourist, approach appeals to social learning theory. A. is understood as the development of culture-specific skills, which are required to stay in a new cultural environment. This approach examines differences in communication styles, including verbal and nonverbal components, as well as laws, traditions and norms and their impact on the effectiveness of interaction between representatives of different cultures. Adherents of the behavioral approach pay considerable attention to the formation of adequate communication skills and preparation for intercultural interaction in the form of education, orientation, instruction or training, which has recently become particularly widespread, since the training process not only offers specific information, but also provides the opportunity to transfer the acquired knowledge to new situations. The cognitive approach is distinguished by its use of social identification theory. From the position of cognitivism, the emphasis is on such cognitive components of the process of A. as social attitudes towards representatives of one’s own and foreign cultural groups, the perception of the original and assimilated culture, ethnocultural identification and its change. Within the framework of this approach, various A. strategies, for example, Berry's 4-factor model. According to the 4-factor model, migrants face 2 main factors. questions regarding identity with the original and new culture and relationships with others: “Is my cultural heritage worth preserving?” and “Is it worth maintaining relationships with other groups?” The combination of answers to these questions allows us to highlight the trail. A.'s strategies: 1) marginalization - rejection of one's culture in the absence of close contacts with the new culture; 2) separatism - preserving one’s own culture and refusing contact with a new one; 3) assimilation - rejection of one’s own culture while maintaining contacts with another culture; 4) integration - preservation of one’s culture and at the same time. establishing close contacts with another. Integration and assimilation are considered the most adaptive strategies, separatism and marginalization are considered the least adaptive.

Ward K. The ABC of acculturation // Psychology and culture / Ed. D. Matsumoto. St. Petersburg, 2003; Rudmin F. W. Catalog of acculturation constructs: Descriptions of 126 taxonomies, 1918–2003 / W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds).

E. A. Grishina

Axiology of intraethnic communication. Axiology (from gr.????? - valuable, ????? – concept, doctrine) is understood (in ethics and social psychology) as a def. a system of personally and socially significant ideas, attitudes, behavioral stereotypes and regulation of relationships. The value guidelines, rules and norms of speech speech largely determine the topic, the choice of linguistic means, and the dominant tone of interpersonal discourse formed in the “force field of culture” (V.S. Bibler) of a particular ethnic group.

Russian speech culture has developed a unique communication strategy aimed at achieving complete mutual understanding, interaction, and relationships in interpersonal communication. System-forming role value orientation on reciprocity is manifested in the evolution of such relevant parameters of interpersonal discourse as: 1) the typical concept of the addressee and the community sought with him, which acts as a its content core, 2) the semantic-semantic field of O., fulfilling the role of its functional. basis, and 3) dialogical relations with a characteristic axiological modality, in which its genre-style design finds expression. The focus on achieving reciprocity as a sought-after value in interpersonal dialogue is also expressed in “allied expression”, energetically charged statements and in the intensive accumulation of universally significant thoughts, ideas and experiences, on the foundation of which the intellectual, emotional and spiritual common world of communicants is formed. Therefore, in Russian interpersonal discourse, words are not only carriers of definition. meanings, but reflect the emotional attitude and state of the speaker and the desired community with the addressee Functions. the significance of the ideal of reciprocity (compare with the principle of cooperation of G. P. Grice), which distinguishes Russian interpersonal O. This allows us to consider it as a relevant feature and ontological basis of the “dialogue of personalities”, and the principle of reciprocity is a quality historically established emotional and semantic dominant of interpersonal discourse. Understanding the value side of interpersonal discourse contributes to the understanding of its virtual development, which occurs in the absence of the addressee.

The originality of interpersonal O. is also manifested in its “interweaving” into various. discourses, including institutional. This is explained by the fact that various social contacts are perceived in the Russian language environment as a prospect that makes it possible to build interaction based on value concepts characteristic of interpersonal dialogue. As a result, a native speaker usually retains it in different ways. social roles internal identification with oneself and is not limited to the role of the language user in the programmed situation. Ethical assessments that predetermine national the uniqueness of speech interaction are the result of a long evolution of spiritual needs. The axiology of Russian speech behavior, which goes back to the Orthodox and partly pagan worldview, still retains, according to large-scale research, its orientation towards such value concepts as faith, conscience, justice, truth and community. Western European speech culture has chosen a model of the intellectual O. of ancient philosophers. This contributed to the further “personalization of the individual” (I. S. Kon) and the formation of such a style of speech behavior, in which the personal characteristics of independently and originally thinking communicants were manifested. The traditional emphasis on individuality led to the establishment of the rational dominant of O. and to the dominance in the assessment of a person of ideas about his freedom, personal dignity, initiative and ability for self-realization. As a result, the distinctive features of Western European speech behavior were: accentuation of the personal principle, the ability to control oneself, emphasized categoricalness and pretentiousness of statements, which are associated with the formation of an individualistic culture. Axiology of speech behavior in the countries of the so-called. the Confucian region, on the contrary, did not imply the autonomy of the individual and was built on the basis of the idea of ​​​​a hierarchical organization of society. Feeling himself part of a family clan, a person realized himself included in a single social chain and acquired the appropriate status (social “face”), which prescribes adherence to the definition. ethical rules. The ethics of “face” as the dominant feature of speech behavior practically neutralized individual originality, reducing O. to the demonstration of masks corresponding to etiquette. The common willingness of the heirs of Confucian ethical values ​​to adhere to traditional patterns of speech behavior formed nationally distinctive cultures of the collectivist type in this region. Thus, for example, Chinese philosophy is focused on demonstrating “universal love” and achieving “mutual benefit,” and its value guidelines invariably include the priority of strength, sober calculation, and practically useful results.

Thus, the axiology of speech culture is a kind of key that reveals its nationality. originality, and its inherent value ideals and ideas allow us to penetrate deeper into the language and the discourse created on its basis.

Bakhtin M. M. Towards a philosophy of action // Philosophy and sociology of science and technology. Yearbook 1984–1985. M., 1986; Russian mentality: questions psychological theory and practice / Ed. K. A. Abulkhanova, A. V. Brushlinsky, M. I. Volovikova. M., 1997; Kon I. S. Discovery of "I". M., 1978; Grice G. P. Logic and speech communication // New in foreign countries. linguistics. Vol. XVI. Linguistic pragmatics. M., 1985.

T. E. Vladimirova

Barriers to intercultural relations def. obstacles or problems arising due to misunderstanding of verbal or non-verbal signals of spatio-temporal action, complicating interaction and interfering with the exchange of information, which are accompanied by discomfort and negative experiences. In intercultural relations there are: barriers (communicative and psychological), difficulties (subjectively experienced or objective) or violations of communication contacts. This gradation of concepts is considered several. artificial and rather serves to differentiate research tasks or separate practical and scientific. language. What they have in common is the unintentionality of their occurrence and sometimes the lack of conflict in their manifestations, along with emotional stress. B.m.o. vary in severity, degree of involvement of partners, possibility of change, degree of effectiveness. Communication barriers include insufficient knowledge of communication techniques and techniques, social skills and abilities. Psychological barriers are based on prejudices, stereotypes, prejudices. B. D. Parygin identifies such varieties of socio-psychol. barriers, both internal (norms, attitudes, values, personal characteristics) and external (misunderstanding, lack of information, etc.). E. V. Zalyubovskaya points to the phenomenon of an “induced barrier,” often unconscious, that arises during contacts with constrained and tense people. The range of variables that influence the effectiveness of interpersonal interactions may include both ext. parameters (environmental and situational, social and normative characteristics, standards and orientation of cultures), and internal, individual characteristics (mental makeup and personality traits, communicative competence and experience of O., target and motivational-semantic aspects). Effective intercultural communication requires « isomorphic attributions », including identical interpretations of behavior by its participants. In the main General categories are used (language, education system, myths, family structures, etc.), but their content is often very different and there are differences in details. It is the details of cultural differences that give rise to a misunderstanding of social behavior, contributing to the emergence of barriers O. An indirect indicator of the presence of barriers can be their reflection in the minds of the participants in the interaction. This is especially evident when communicants have contacts in living conditions different from their usual habitat or residence, for example, in a different ethnocultural environment. Moving from one cultural environment to another, one can experience a state « culture shock » when adaptation to a different environment causes the manifestation of a number of physical. and psychol. symptoms. The greater the cultural distance between the “old” and the “new” (recognizable and unknown), the more pronounced these symptoms appear, including a feeling of loss of control. But they will be less pronounced if a person has more experience with the “other” (other). Ethnocentrism and cultural distance form the perception of dissimilarity, heterogeneity, and negative stereotypes, which leads to conflicts and barriers in the O. Barriers in O. are also associated with the changes to which both the individual and the culture are exposed. Barriers that reduce the effectiveness of interactions are differences in cognitive schemes used by representatives of different cultures. The differentiation of perception models manifests itself most clearly when confronted with a different worldview, worldview, etc. Stereotypes can also become an obstacle and hindrance to contacts if they: a) do not allow identifying the individual characteristics of people, despite personal variations; b) repeat and strengthen the definition. erroneous beliefs and beliefs until people begin to accept them as true; c) are based on distortions and give inaccurate ideas about the people with whom intercultural contacts are carried out. Individuals retain their stereotypes, even if reality and life experience contradict them. In a situation of intercultural contacts, it is important to be able to effectively deal with stereotypes, recognize and use them, or abandon them if they do not correspond to reality. Cultural contacts often turn out to be ineffective due to habits, self-determination and different perceptions of the situation, thus subjective culture - a set of typical ideas about one’s social environment and characteristic ways of perceiving and evaluating it - seems to be the basic information for predicting an individual’s behavior in response to the behavior of another person.

When interacting in different cultures, it is necessary to pay attention to the elements of subjective culture: categorization, associations, beliefs, goals, assessments, norms, roles, values, and other elements. For example, categorization allows you to form ideas about different things. forms of social behavior based on exchange. resources. To improve contacts, it is desirable to determine the limits of the functioning of terms, focus on the analysis of vocabulary (vocabulary), highlight the number of words and expressions used, and the frequency of their joint use. The more identical associations, the better the communication. The connections between categories and associations are quite complex in different cultures, and the interpretation of their content can differ significantly: the individualistic type of culture is characterized by dispositional judgments, while the collectivist type is characterized by contextual ones. Taking into account the complex nature of the elements of subjective culture allows us to make a definition. behavior forecast. Personal effectiveness (or the success of interaction in an unfamiliar environment) depends on a sense of control over the environment, the breadth of life experience and the ability to overcome obstacles, the degree of discrepancy between expectations and real events, social support and awareness, interaction skills, etc.

B.m.o. will disappear in the presence of knowledge about another culture, the acquisition of skills in the conditions of intercultural training, which increases the significance of the isomorphic characteristics of cultures and increases the chances of people perceiving each other as similar, causing interpersonal sympathy, reducing social distance and increasing their self-efficacy. The “intercultural sensitivity” model allows you to expand cultural knowledge and relieve anxiety/uncertainty in different cross-cultural situations.

Kunitsyna V. N., Kazarinova N. V., Pogolsha V. M. Interpersonal communication. St. Petersburg, 2001; Triandis G.K. Culture and social behavior. M., 2007.

G. V. Verzhibok

Dialogue in intercultural communication: harmonization of dialogue in the “author – addressee” structure. IN intercultural communication(M.K.) The “author-addressee” dialogue, for various reasons, can have different degrees of effectiveness. If this effectiveness is depicted on a scale, then one pole is maximum effectiveness, or dialogical harmony, and the other is minimal, or zero, effectiveness, up to and including communicative failure. In an effective communication process, there is adequate mutual understanding between participants in a communicative act who belong to different nationalities. cultures. On the contrary, in cases of low communicative efficiency, as noted by E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov, additional ones are included. risk factors that can deprive the dialogue not only of communicative harmony, but also of the communicative effect in general, leading to complete communicative failure. Harmonization of speech in this situation can be considered the elimination or weakening of the influence of factors of communicative disharmony. Much is determined already at the stage of the author’s intention when generating a text and is reflected in his verbal and mental activity, starting with the selection of specific content that needs to be conveyed, ending with the selection of linguistic means for the implementation (verbalization) of the author’s intention. The author strives to prevent any possible failure in his O. and for this he tries to explain everything that can lead to a decrease in understanding. For a narrative text, a universal method of harmonization is metatext, which can either be included in the fabric of the narrative or presented in an extra-textual version. The term “metatext” is a “text about a text” that implements a metalinguistic function and thereby explicates the author’s “concern” for the reader to understand it correctly, accurately, adequately. In a linguistic sense, the concept of “metatext” unites both a special kind of syntactic. constructions – explanatory and more detailed (beyond the scope of one sentence) extra-textual sociocultural or linguistic commentary. In M.K., at the linguocultural “border,” metatext acquires special significance; its necessity is due to the following. factors: 1) many unfamiliar realities of another culture (subculture), constituting ethnographic lacunae; or 2) their foreign language (or belonging to another subcultural code) names. In other words, explanatory metatext is generated by “concern” (G.P. Ukhanov) about the reader and nature. the author’s desire to expand his horizons and satisfy his cognitive interest.

Basic a condition for communication is considered to be background knowledge, i.e. “knowledge of realities and culture, which is mutually owned by the speaker and the listener.” S.G. Ter-Minasova notes that explanatory metatext is intended to fill the lack of background knowledge, and that it is a specific tool for “servicing” such situations. The explanation can be based on the model of a real definition, when a logical definition is given through “genus + species difference”. In other cases, a simple renaming, or “recoding,” may take place. In some cases, a little-known or foreign word is given a commonly used correspondence or Russian equivalent. In addition to intratextual methods of harmonizing the dialogue “author - addressee,” there are a number of extratextual methods: editorial prefaces, afterwords, comments, notes, footnotes, etc., the purpose of which is to ensure the most complete and adequate perception of the text. In terms of content, this can be a short definition, such as the translation of a foreign word. Sometimes the author needs to give a more extensive sociocultural commentary, to compensate for the lack of background knowledge, without which communication cannot be effective. Comments can vary not only in the nature of the information they contain, but also in who writes them. A special case is represented by such a type of harmonizing metatext as an author’s commentary, although it is not located on the border, but within the same linguistic and cultural tradition. For an interested reader, such a contextually oriented commentary is necessary, because it helps to more accurately understand the author’s intention and ensure that the text is perceived as closely as possible. In the absence of author's comments, comments from the translator, publishers, and editor can play a harmonizing function. By the type of comment, even by the very fact of its presence or absence, one can determine to whom the text is addressed, i.e., at what level of reader competence it is intended.

Vereshchagin E. M., Kostomarov V. G. Language and culture. M., 1983; Vorobyova O. P. Text categories and the addressee factor. Kyiv, 1993; Kotova L. N. Narrative in the mirror of the “author-addressee” dialogue. M., 2007; Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication. M., 2000.

L. N. Kotova

Discourse in intercultural communication. With the development of psycholinguistics, pragmatics and communication theory, the study of language as a system independent of reality was replaced by an understanding of language and speech, which reflect reality and create discourse. By absorbing speech/text activity together with the corresponding sociocultural context, discourse acts as the main custodian of common experience, knowledge, thoughts, value concepts and experiences. Therefore, in assessing oneself and personal existence, a person proceeds not only from his own I and the nature of relationships within O.’s circle, but also from discourse, which also gives definition. an assessment of both the reality that finds its expression in him, and the personality itself, which inherited his ideological and spiritual ideas. Of particular importance is the appeal to “the totality of everything spoken and understood in the definition. specific situation in a particular era in the life of a given society. groups,” as L.V. Shcherba puts it, acquires when considering intercultural communication. This is explained by the fact that representatives of different Linguocultural communities acquire value concepts, norms and rules of culture, scenarios for “building relationships” and a nomenclature of roles, primarily from discourse, which is ethnospecific in nature. If in a monocultural O. the process of perceiving an interlocutor is “collapsed” in nature due to the identity or proximity of previous experience, then when interacting with a speaker of another language and another culture, it can be complicated by the action of linguistic, communicative, value-semantic and other barriers. Therefore, in intercultural communication, knowledge of discourse ensures the perception of the axiological and behavioral characteristics of the interlocutor as illuminated by tradition and, therefore, as natural. and expected. For example, Russian discourse, which captures the features of the everyday consciousness of native speakers, is characterized by an understanding of O. as including not only the exchange of information (conversation), but also an idea of ​​​​the nature of the community (friends), mutual penetration (heart-to-heart conversation) and a positive attitude towards O .in general (the opportunity to speak out and gain peace of mind). The sincerity, sincerity, trust and intensity of relationships characteristic of Russian discourse are often perceived by representatives of other linguistic and cultural communities as undesirable and burdensome (in the assessment of representatives of Western European culture) or even shocking (from the perspective of representatives of East Asian culture). A disapproving attitude, as a rule, is caused by the attitude towards achieving reciprocity and the emotional-evaluative modality of O., which distinguishes Russian interpersonal discourse. On the other hand, achieving mutual understanding can also be complicated by O.’s emphasized etiquette and strict control over facial expressions, which is unusual for Russians, which is characteristic of all representatives of the East Asian region. Therefore, one of the conditions for achieving mutual understanding in intercultural communication is understanding and comparing nationalities. features of those discourses that underlie the speech behavior of communicants. So, for example, indirect, unobtrusive expression of thoughts and feelings and special delicacy, which excludes the introduction of any dissonance into the conversation, which are especially clearly manifested in Japanese discourse, do not fit well with the spontaneity characteristic of Russian O. According to Japanese ethics, friendly behavior should be strictly aimed at ranking relationships depending on status roles: Etiquette must be observed even in friendship. Therefore, Japanese discourse includes a basic conceptual grid, def. programming friendly interaction: shinyu – “ close friend”, tomodachi - “friend”, etc. The ethnocultural specificity of linguistic and speech-behavioral pictures of the world and inherited discourse predetermines the formation of a nationally distinctive existential picture of the world, a kind of “existential spatiality” (M. Heidegger), in which the personal existence of language speakers unfolds. Therefore, consideration of intercultural communication necessarily includes an analysis of the ethicopsycholinguistic features of discourse as the most important phenomenon that belongs at the same time. language, culture and personality.

Wierzbicka A. Language. Culture. Cognition. M., 1996; Vladimirova T. E. Called to communicate: Russian discourse in intercultural communication. M., 2007; Stepanov Yu. S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian culture. M., 2001; Sedov K.F. Discourse and personality: the evolution of communicative competence. M., 2004; Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication. M., 2004.

T. E. Vladimirova

Identity ethnic( English ethnic(al) identity, from gr.??????? – folk and Wed – lat. identicus – identical, identical) – a person’s experience of his belonging to the definition. ethnic group, awareness of the presence of typical qualities for its representatives, assessment of ethnically determined preferences in the field of clothing and activities. The first use of the term ethnic identity is attributed to Amer. sociologist D. Riesman and dates back to 1953. However, indirect descriptions of I. e. are found in anthropological and sociological. literature of the early 20th century. In the definitions of I. e. the awareness or experience of belonging to an ethnic group is emphasized. community, identification with its representatives while being isolated from other groups, the idea of ​​a common origin, emotional and value-based attitude towards ethnicity. territory (homeland), historical the past of the ethnic group and its place in modern times. world, involvement in ethnocultural traditions. T. G. Stefanenko defines I. e. as a result of the cognitive-emotional process of self-determination of an individual in social space relative to many ethnic groups, as awareness, perception, understanding, evaluation and experience of one’s belonging to an ethnic group. According to J. Finney, I. e. is a dynamic multidimensional construct relating to self-awareness as a member of an ethnic group. groups, current and changing understanding of oneself, constructed and modified awareness of one’s ethnicity.

Psycho. meaning of I. e. manifests itself when compared with such related categories as national. identity (identification not with an ethnic group, but with a nation), ethnic. self-awareness (the result of a person’s self-determination in the ethnic context of life), a sense of ethnicity. belonging (emotional perception of one’s involvement in an ethnic group), ethnicity (general social definition and self-determination of an individual in an ethnically significant world), ethnicity. identification (the process of acquiring I. e.), ethnic. self-identification (consciously identifying oneself as a member of an ethnic community). The most significant signs of I. e. are language, origin, way of life, traditional culture, values ​​and norms, history. memory and mythology, religion, sense of homeland, citizenship, character, appearance. Speaking about the structure of I. e., researchers usually emphasize the presence of conscious and unconscious levels (G. U. Soldatova), cognitive and affective components (M. Barrett). Cognitive includes knowledge and ideas about ethnicity. characteristics of a person and a group, awareness of belonging to an ethnic group, the content of ethnicity. auto- and heterostereotypes. The affective component includes attitudes towards ethnicity. communities, assessment of belonging to an ethnic group, ethnic orientation. stereotypes, ethnic preferences. Occasionally a behavioral component is added, consisting in ethnically colored specificity of actions and deeds. J. Finney identifies in I. e. ethnic awareness, ethnic. self-identification, ethnic. settings, ethnic behavior. I.e. can be positive or negative. G. U. Soldatova considers positive I. e. to be the norm; deviations from the cut can occur according to the ethnic type. indifference, hypo- and hyper-identity. In explanations of social psychology. nature I. e. 3 approaches predominate: primordialist, constructionist and instrumentalist (E.D. Smith, T.H. Eriksen). Supporters of primordialist views consider I. e. as an innate, pre-given essence of human existence - instinctive and natural, stable or unchanging. For constructionists I. e. – a social construct, a product of human interactions, established, conditioned and changeable, existing in situation-dependent perceptions, feelings and relationships. F. Barth notes the situational nature and relativity of I. e., emphasizing its comparative and relative nature. Instrumentalist interpretations deny the ontological reality of economics, which is just a tool for upholding individual and collective interests, a mechanism for achieving definition. goals and social stratification. To the main factors of formation of I. e. include: ethnic. structure of society, quantitative relationships between ethnic groups, their socio-historical status, nature of ethnocultural interactions. An important condition for the formation of I. e. is the presence of competing interactions 2 or several. ethnic groups. Monoethnicity or too diverse polyethnicity slow down the processes of ethnicity. identification. Representatives of ethnic most I. e. is formed on the basis of a feeling of completeness and superiority, and minorities - of infringement and inferiority. Acceptance of your I.e. contributes to belonging to the dominant in different. featured group. According to F. Barth, I. e. is the result of coordination of external regulations and internal self-identifications. The individual, as it were, chooses his own identity, although the determining influence is the environment, lifestyle and ethnic culture. groups.

Summarizing the views of J. Piaget, J. Finney, V. Yu. Khotinets, we can distinguish 3 main ones. stage of formation of I. e. Stage 1 - diffuse identity - begins in senior preschool and covers junior school age. Fragmentary ideas about ethnicity are formed. belonging, identification with others gradually acquires ethnicity. coloring The 2nd stage occurs during adolescence and is associated with a general search for identity. Interest in ethnicity is awakening. values, identification with reference groups and division into “us” and “outsiders” are strengthened. At the 3rd stage (early adolescence) there is a full awareness of one's ethnicity. belonging, develops ethnically. worldview. The essential quality of I. e. is its protective and psychotherapeutic orientation. Presence of I. e. helps a person find the meaning of life, provides a sense of belonging, provides psychotherapy. support and a sense of security, helps to increase self-esteem.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF INTRAFAMILY COMMUNICATION Interpersonal communication in a family is a key moment in its life, determines the effectiveness of its functioning and resources for growth and development. A feature of family communication is high