Russian national values lie at the heart of Russian culture. To understand what Russian culture is, you must first understand the historically established, traditional values of the Russian people, and understand the mental system of values of the Russian person. After all, Russian culture is created by Russian people with their own worldview and spiritual way of life: without being a bearer of Russian values and without possessing the Russian mentality, it is impossible to create or reproduce it in your own, and any attempts along this path will be fake.
Russian national values lie at the heart of Russian culture.
The most important role in the development of the Russian people, the Russian state and the Russian world was played by the agricultural peasant community, that is, the origins of the generation of Russian culture were embedded in the value system of the Russian community. The prerequisite for the existence of the Russian individual is this very community, or as they used to say, “the world.” It should be taken into account that for a significant part of its history, Russian society and the state were formed in conditions of military confrontation, which always forced the interests of individual people to be neglected for the sake of preserving the Russian people as a whole, as an independent ethnic group.
For Russians, the goals and interests of the team are always higher than personal interests and the goals of an individual person - everything individual is easily sacrificed to the general. In response, Russian people are accustomed to counting and hoping for the support of their world, their community. This feature leads to the fact that a Russian person easily puts aside his personal affairs and completely devotes himself to the common cause. That is why are the state people, that is, such a people who know how to form something common, large and extensive. Personal benefit always comes after public benefit.
Russians are a state people because they know how to create something common for everyone.
A truly Russian person is categorically confident that first it is necessary to organize common socially significant affairs, and only then this single whole will begin to work for all members of the community. Collectivism, the need to exist together with one’s society is one of the brightest features of the Russian people. .
Another basic Russian national value is justice, since without its clear understanding and implementation, life in a team is not possible. The essence of the Russian understanding of justice lies in the social equality of the people who make up the Russian community. The roots of this approach lie in the ancient Russian economic equality of men in relation to the land: initially, members of the Russian community were allocated equal agricultural shares from what the “world” owned. This is why, internally, Russians strive for such a realization concepts of justice.
Among the Russian people, justice will always win a dispute in the categories of truth-truth and truth-justice. For Russians it is not as important as it once was and as it is at the moment, much more important is what and how it should be in the future. The actions and thoughts of individual people have always been assessed through the prism of eternal truths that support the postulate of justice. The internal desire for them is much more important than the benefit of a specific result.
The actions and thoughts of individuals have always been assessed through the prism of justice.
Individualism among Russians is very difficult to implement. This is due to the fact that from time immemorial, in agricultural communities, people were allocated equal plots, land was periodically redistributed, that is, a person was not the owner of the land, did not have the right to sell his piece of land or change the culture of cultivation on it. In such a situation it was it is impossible to demonstrate individual skill, which in Rus' was not valued too highly.
The almost complete absence of personal freedom has formed among Russians the habit of rush jobs as an effective way of collective activity during agricultural periods. During such periods work and holiday were combined in a phenomenal way, which made it possible to a certain extent to compensate for great physical and emotional stress, as well as to give up excellent freedom in economic activity.
A society based on the ideas of equality and justice was unable to establish wealth as a value: to an unlimited increase in wealth. In the same time live prosperously to a certain extent was quite revered - in the Russian village, especially in the northern regions, ordinary people respected merchants who artificially slowed down their trade turnover.
Just by becoming rich you cannot earn the respect of the Russian community.
For Russians, a feat is not personal heroism - it should always be aimed “outside of a person”: death for one’s Fatherland and Motherland, feat for one’s friends, for the world and death is good. Immortal glory was gained by people who sacrificed themselves for the sake of others and in front of their community. The basis of the Russian feat of arms, the dedication of the Russian soldier, has always been contempt for death and only then - hatred of the enemy. This contempt for the possibility of dying for the sake of something very important is rooted in the willingness to endure and suffer.
At the heart of the Russian feat of arms, the dedication of the Russian soldier, lies contempt for death.
The well-known Russian habit of getting hurt is not masochism. Through personal suffering, a Russian person self-actualizes and wins personal inner freedom. In the Russian sense- the world exists steadily and continuously moves forward only through sacrifice, patience and self-restraint. This is the reason for Russian long-suffering: if the real one knows why this is necessary...
- List of Russian valuables
- statehood
- conciliarity
- justice
- patience
- non-aggressiveness
- willingness to suffer
- pliability
- non-covetousness
- dedication
- unpretentiousness
Basic national values - basic moral values, priority moral guidelines that exist in the cultural, family, socio-historical, religious traditions of the multinational people of the Russian Federation, passed on from generation to generation and ensuring the successful development of the country in modern conditions;
Patriotism as one of the manifestations of a person’s spiritual maturity, expressed in love for Russia, the people, the small homeland, in a conscious desire to serve the Fatherland.
Labor and creativity as distinctive features of a spiritually and morally developed personality.
Family as the basis of spiritual and moral development and education of the individual, the guarantee of the continuity of the cultural and moral traditions of the peoples of Russia from generation to generation and the vitality of Russian society.
Nature as one of the most important foundations for a healthy and harmonious life of a person and society.
A healthy lifestyle in the unity of components: physical, mental, spiritual and social-moral health.
Basic national values are derived from the national life of Russia in all its historical and cultural completeness and ethnic diversity. In the sphere of national life, one can highlight the sources of morality and humanity, i.e. those areas of social relations, activity and consciousness, the reliance on which allows a person to resist destructive influences and productively develop his consciousness, life, and the very system of social relations.
Traditional sources of morality are: Russia, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, civil society, family, work, art, science, religion, nature, humanity.
According to traditional sources of morality, basic national values are determined, each of which is revealed in a system of moral values (ideas):
- * patriotism - love for Russia, for one’s people, for one’s small Motherland, service to the Fatherland;
- * social solidarity - personal and national freedom, trust in people, institutions of the state and civil society, justice, mercy, honor, dignity;
- * citizenship - service to the Fatherland, rule of law, civil society, law and order, multicultural world, freedom of conscience and religion;
- * family - love and loyalty, health, prosperity, respect for parents, care for elders and younger ones, care for procreation;
- * labor and creativity - respect for work, creativity and creation, determination and perseverance;
- * science - the value of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the scientific picture of the world;
- * traditional Russian religions - ideas about faith, spirituality, religious life of a person, the values of a religious worldview, tolerance, formed on the basis of interfaith dialogue;
- * art and literature - beauty, harmony, the spiritual world of man, moral choice, the meaning of life, aesthetic development, ethical development;
- * nature - evolution, native land, protected nature, planet Earth, environmental consciousness;
- * humanity - world peace, diversity of cultures and peoples, human progress, international cooperation.
Basic national values underlie the holistic space of spiritual and moral development and education of schoolchildren, i.e., the way of school life that determines the classroom, extracurricular and extracurricular activities of students. To organize such a space and its full functioning requires the concerted efforts of all social actors involved in education: families, public organizations, including children's and youth movements and organizations, institutions of additional education, culture and sports, the media, traditional Russian religious associations. The leading, content-determining role in creating the way of school life belongs to the subjects of the educational process.
The system of basic national values underlies the idea of a single nation and the readiness of the main social forces for civil consolidation on the basis of common values and social meanings in solving national problems, including the upbringing of children and youth.
Achieving civil agreement on basic national values will strengthen the unity of the Russian educational space, giving it openness, dialogue, cultural and social dynamism.
Civil consent on basic national values has nothing to do with the uniformity of the values of the nation and the nation itself, spiritual and social unification. The unity of the nation is achieved through a basic value consensus in the constant dialogue of various social forces and is supported by their openness to each other, readiness to jointly solve national problems, including the spiritual and moral education of children and youth as the basis for the development of our country.
In the “Mathematics” course, in accordance with the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard, a significant place is devoted to the development of a sense of belonging to one’s homeland, people, history and pride in them; awareness of the importance of work, through familiarization with the world of professions; awareness of the value of family as the basis for spiritual and moral development and education of the individual; caring attitude towards the environment; healthy and safe lifestyle. Both textual and illustrative material contribute to achieving this goal.
I would like to pay special attention to text problems. The plot content of word problems, associated, as a rule, with the life of a family, class, school, events in a country, city or village, introduces children to different aspects of the surrounding reality; promotes their spiritual and moral development and education: forms a sense of pride in their homeland, respect for family values, respect for the environment, nature, and spiritual values; develops interest in activities in various clubs and sports sections; creates an attitude towards a healthy lifestyle. The development of patriotism, a sense of pride in one’s Motherland, the history of Russia, and awareness of the role of one’s native country in world development are facilitated by such illustrations and text material (2): information from the history of our country and its achievements at the present stage of development (for example, in the 3rd grade it is proposed to determine the age Moscow and the Russian fleet.
Thus, in the process of transformation of Russia, two value systems collided - the liberal one, which replaced the socialist one, and the traditional one, which had developed over many centuries and generations. Outwardly, the choice seems simple: either individual rights and freedoms, or traditional values, when the idea of communalism and emphasized anti-individualism comes to the fore.
However, such straightforwardness distorts and overly ideologizes the real meaning of this value confrontation and is fraught with a loss of continuity. In a liberal society, its own “community” is formed and functions, just as in a traditional society, bright individuals appear, internal freedom is preserved, initiative and initiative are valued and encouraged in their own way.
Of course, in their ideological and cultural preferences, both types of society differ significantly and noticeably from each other, but in the sphere of everyday values - family, security, justice, well-being, etc. - they have a lot of similarities and things in common. If traditionalism is usually reproached for conservatism, statism and paternalism, then on the same basis liberalism should be charged with destructive anthropocentrism and the replacement of rivalry with soulless competition.
In our opinion, a value split is dangerous because it, by constantly stimulating the growth of a person’s uncomfortable state, can lead to such social consequences that will practically destroy all the achievements of modernization. Being the core of thoughts, actions, creativity of people, social groups, society as a whole, the conflict of values as a phenomenon of social pathology forces people to maneuver, which leads to internal vacillations, to the struggle of both society and the individual with himself, to the constant reproduction of instability and, in ultimately, to the emergence of a desire to overcome the state of such a split.
The reason for the split in modern Russian society can be associated, first of all, with the unpreparedness of Russian society for innovation. The formation of a new type of society necessarily requires the development of new ideals, models of behavior, rules of communication, different motivation for work, etc. by each member of society. Not all Russians found such a task beyond their capabilities. This became the reason for the split between those who are capable of innovative behavior and those who cannot master it.
Another reason that creates a split is social differentiation. Russians were not prepared for the fact that the former “equality in poverty” was destroyed and gave way to a division into “rich” and “poor.” Social stratification has led to the fact that the previously uniform scale of values for all members of society, illuminated by ideology, no longer appears to be a monolith, and the first positions of numerous “ladders” of social preferences are occupied by unequal values.
The situation of split is also generated by the situation in the field of ideology. After the collapse of the communist ideology, which permeated all levels and structures of Soviet society, many group micro-ideologies arose, insufficiently substantiated, internally unbalanced, but thanks to their leaders, quite convincing and shared by part of society. There is a constant clash of some political ideas with others, some social programs with the opposite. It is quite difficult for an ordinary person to understand the nuances of the differences between them.
Another reason contributing to the reproduction of the split is the cultural heterogeneity of the reaction to modernization. Today, the discrepancy between the social changes taking place in Russian society and the cultural assessment of their long-term significance is quite obvious. These discrepancies are due to the sociocultural heterogeneity of society, in which today differences in economic, political, national, and cultural interests are officially recognized at the constitutional level. Accordingly, different points of view are expressed on the nature of the current sociocultural situation in Russia. For example, Russia is understood as a “split society” (A. Akhiezer) or a “crisis society” (N. Lapin), in which a stagnant contradiction between culture and the nature of social relations blocks the mechanisms of social development. According to A. Akhiezer, the brake is a split in public consciousness, blocking the transition of society to a state of more efficient reproduction and survival. Thus, the authors agree in diagnosing society, in determining the limits of social transformations, to which they include value restrictions of social consciousness, and the insufficient prevalence of liberal innovative values.
Following the methodology of sociocultural analysis, understanding and overcoming the schism, A. Akhiezer believes, must first of all be achieved in culture, in the growing reflection of history, for a schism is a state of public consciousness that is unable to comprehend the integrity, in this case, the history of Russia.
The conflict of values in Russia was also connected with the fact that there was a destruction of the traditional scheme of socialization, which was always based on three foundations - family, teacher and social ideals. The family as a social institution is called upon to play a vital role in the formation of a child’s personal qualities, the foundations of morality, ideas about norms and rules of behavior. But the family in modern Russia can no longer give children full socialization, moral lessons and healthy life, not only because many families are heavily infected with anomie and “deviant” behavior, but also because even cultured and morally healthy parents have lost clear guidelines regarding values and standards to which we should strive.
Mainly for the same reasons, there was a strong degradation of the school as a carrier of positive values, an agent of socialization. The teacher also transformed in society. The nature of his behavior in society and at school has changed. He ceased to combine himself as a teacher and an educator. The teacher has ceased to be a comrade, friend, adviser, he has turned either into an indifferent contemplator, indifferent to his work, or into a cruel tyrant, deliberately using an authoritarian way of controlling his students. A poor teacher is no longer an authority for many schoolchildren. Naturally, such a teacher and the values he instilled met resistance among teenagers; they were learned in a painful way or were not learned at all, which led to conflicts in the “teacher-student” system.
It is also necessary to take into account that, next to state educational institutions, private ones have become widespread - gymnasiums, lyceums, colleges, etc., which promise higher social statuses and roles in various spheres of society. The process of socialization cannot fail to take into account this reality of separating children through various educational systems into opposite social poles. Therefore, in general, socialization in childhood and school age, i.e. during the most important period in the formation of a person’s personality, it contains deep contradictions and dysfunctionality, laying the foundations for the deviant behavior of a huge number of people.
The crisis of family and teaching is accompanied by a crisis of former social ideals. It did not come with the beginning of market reforms. Its influence was felt even before the era of glasnost. In order for a social system to continue to exist for some time, it is required that each generation inherits at least part of certain socio-cultural attitudes adopted by the older generation, otherwise the “connection of times” will be broken. In other words, in order to overcome the split, it is necessary that in modern Russian society the sociocultural values and norms shared by the majority of members of society, and first of all, by the younger generation, are reproduced.
The marginalization of the transitional time could not be compensated for. Therefore, in the sphere of moral culture, the role of religion has increased significantly. In spiritual culture, pre-revolutionary works, creations of foreign compatriots, and traditional culture became the source of replenishment of values. The put forward liberal-democratic ideologemes did not correspond to real economic and social relations, as well as to the “crisis of consciousness” of the intellectual elite, deprived of the usual ways of social self-affirmation. In fact, in Russian culture the unified field of moral guidelines has been destroyed. Ideas about what is good and bad, what is desirable and undesirable, moral and immoral, fair and unfair, and many others, are extremely fragmented and most often reflect purely group interests. As a result, solidarity, consolidation, unity of goals, mutual trust, and open dialogue found themselves in deep decline. Everywhere and at all levels the principle “everyone survives alone” prevailed. In sociology, such a state of the social system is designated by the concept of “anomie.” Anomie is the disintegration of moral values, confusion of value orientations, and the onset of a value vacuum. Anomie is incompatible with the forward movement of society.
The country experienced a crisis of national spirit and self-awareness: the old one collapsed; communist system of values and, not having time to assert itself, its liberal alternative is called into question. Society found itself in a state of anomie, mismatch and loss of value guidelines, and psychologically - confusion and depression in the face of the failure of two social experiments - communist and liberalist. The twice interrupted and broken connection of times over the course of one century put society and the individual in a bewildered position in relation to their past, present and future. Frustration, existential vacuum, loss of meaning in life have become typical states of mass and individual consciousness. Protagoras said that man is the measure of all things. The world is stable if this measure is strong, the world is shaky if it turns out that this measure is unstable. The loss of value guidelines led to the emergence of a marginal “split” personality, whose thoughts and actions, whose decisions were based on aggression, were characterized by disorganization. The reproduction of the “split man” continues today.
The “divided man” of modern Russia, who, on the one hand, wants to live in a society professing traditional values, and at the same time benefit from the achievements of modern science and technology, is the main problem in the process of reforming Russian society. This person still doubts the value of the individual and relies on the power of an archaic, almost tribal “we”, on the power of authority. Existing in a situation of a value split, a cultural breakdown, such a person masters a contradictory culture and forms a tense, conflictual inner world. Hence, this conflict permeates all levels of Russian society, breaking the emerging positive changes.
The radical economic measures of the 90s to bring Russia out of the crisis had to correspond to a system of values different from the then dominant system, capable of neutralizing anomie and consolidating society.
It is important to note that sociocultural values could not and should not have been introduced by government decree. However, to believe that they could arise solely by themselves in the fabric of society - in the family, school, church, media, culture, public opinion, etc. - also wrong. There should have been a counter-movement between government and society, but this did not happen. The moral side of Russian reforms was ignored by both the authorities and the leaders of social movements and the creative intelligentsia. In this case, it is appropriate to once again draw attention to the fact that the Russian intelligentsia, always considered as a conductor of moral consciousness, did not fully fulfill its historical role. As the humanitarian-politicized elite of the intelligentsia lost their monopoly on the development of value systems, entrepreneurs and bankers put forward their values, and they selected from the symbolic values those that corresponded to their worldview and interests. In key areas of ideological discussions of the 90s, there has been a movement towards a synthesis of liberal-democratic and traditionalist values and attitudes, while radical value orientations are gradually being pushed to the periphery of public consciousness.
At the beginning of the new century, a synthesized system began to prevail in Russian society, including elements of various ideas - from liberal to nationalist. Their coexistence does not reflect ideological clashes between irreconcilable opponents or an attempt to synthesize opposing principles, but rather the incompleteness of the processes of developing new value and political-ideological guidelines in the mass consciousness, in the perception of the Russian government and the elite as a whole. Successive modernizations carried out over two centuries could not establish Western values in Russia - individualism, private property, and the Protestant work ethic. The most active resistance to reforms was provided by traditionalist consciousness and such features as collectivism, corporatism, the desire for equalization, condemnation of wealth, etc.
Modernization in Russia has a deep specificity associated with the fact that society has “split” and become polarized; value diversity turned not only into a conflict of values, but into a conflicting clash of civilizational types. The civilizational dualism of Russian society (a split in civilizational preferences between the modernization elite and the rest of the population) gave rise to contradictions that stopped the progress of modernization.
Values are generalized goals and means of achieving them, acting as fundamental norms. They ensure the integration of society by helping individuals make socially approved choices about their behavior in vital situations. The value system forms the internal core of culture, the spiritual quintessence of the needs and interests of individuals and social communities. It, in turn, has a reverse impact on social interests and needs, acting as one of the most important motivators of social action and individual behavior. Thus, every value and value system has a dual basis: in the individual as an intrinsically valuable subject and in society as a sociocultural system.
Typology of values
There are several reasons for the typology of values. Since values influence people’s behavior in all spheres of their life, the simplest basis for their typology is their specific purpose.
meticulous content. On this basis, social, cultural, economic, political, spiritual, etc. values are distinguished. Experts count many dozens, even hundreds of such values. And if we associate values with qualities, abilities, personality traits, then Allport and Odbert counted 18 such traits (XXI. and Anderson was able to reduce this list first to 555. then to 200 names. But the most general, basic values that form the basis of people’s value consciousness and latently influencing their actions in various areas of LIFE. not so many. Their number turns out to be minimal if we correlate values with the needs of people: Freud suggested limiting ourselves to two. Maslow five needs-values. Murray formed a list of 28 values. Rokeach estimated the number of terminal values in one and a half dozen, and instrumental ones - five to six dozen, but empirically studied 18 of each. In a word, we are talking about two to four dozen basic values.
Taking into account the results of empirical studies, including ours, on this basis four groups of values can be distinguished:
Values of the highest status, the “core” of the value structure;
Middle-status values that can move to the core or to the periphery, so they can be thought of as a “structural reserve”;
Values below average, but not the lowest status, or “periphery” - they are also mobile and can move to the “reserve” or to the “tail”;
Values of lower status, or the mentioned “tail” of the value structure, the composition of which is inactive.
The value core can be characterized as the dominant group of values in the public consciousness that integrate society or another social community into a whole (according to our data, these include those values that are approved by over 60% of the population).
The structural reserve is located between dominance and opposition; it serves as the area where value conflicts between individuals and social groups, as well as intrapersonal conflicts, are most intense (on average, 45-60% of the population approve of such values).
The periphery includes oppositional values (approximately 30-45% of the population approve of them), dividing members of a given community into adherents of significantly different, sometimes incompatible values and therefore causing the most acute conflicts.
Finally, in the tail are the values of a clear minority, which differs from the rest of the community members in the greater stability of their orientations, inherited from past layers of culture (less than 30% of the population approve of them).
Content:
1. Introduction
2. Values of modern Russian society
3. Conclusion
4. References
Introduction
Values are generalized ideas of people about the goals and means of achieving them, about the norms of their behavior, embodying historical experience and concentratedly expressing the meaning of the culture of a particular ethnic group and of all humanity.
Value in general and sociological value in particular have not been sufficiently studied in domestic sociological science. It is enough to familiarize yourself with the contents of textbooks and teaching aids on sociology published at the end of the twentieth century and in recent years to be convinced of this. At the same time, the problem is relevant, socially and epistemologically significant both for sociology and for a number of social and human sciences - history, anthropology, social philosophy, social psychology, government studies, philosophical axiology and a number of others.
The relevance of the topic is presented in the following main provisions:
· Understanding values as a set of ideals, principles, moral norms that represent priority knowledge in people’s lives, have a very specific humanitarian significance both for a particular society, say, for Russian society, and at the general human level. Therefore, the problem deserves comprehensive study.
· Values unite people on the basis of their universal significance; knowledge of the patterns of their integrative and consolidating nature is completely justified and productive.
· Social values included in the subject field of sociological problems, such as moral values, ideological values, religious values, economic values, national ethical values, etc., are of utmost importance for study and accounting also because they act as a measure of social assessments and criteria characteristics.
· Clarifying the role of social values is also important for us, students, future specialists who will carry out social roles in social reality in the future - in a work collective, city, region, etc.
Values of modern Russian society
The changes that have occurred over the past ten years in the sphere of government and political organization of Russian society can be called revolutionary. The most important component of the transformation taking place in Russia is a change in the worldview of the population. It is traditionally believed that mass consciousness is the most inertial sphere compared to the political and socio-economic ones. However, during periods of sharp, revolutionary transformations, the system of value orientations can also be subject to very significant shifts. It can be argued that institutional transformations in all other areas are irreversible only when they are accepted by society and enshrined in the new system of values that this society is guided by. And in this regard, changes in the worldview of the population can serve as one of the most important indicators of the reality and effectiveness of social transformation as a whole.
In Russia, as a result of changes in the social structure during the transition from an administrative-command system to a system based on market relations, there was a rapid disintegration of social groups and institutions, and a loss of personal identification with previous social structures. There is a loosening of the normative value systems of the old consciousness under the influence of the propaganda of ideas and principles of new political thinking.
People's lives are individualized, their actions are less regulated from the outside. In modern literature, many authors talk about a crisis of values in Russian society. Values in post-communist Russia really contradict each other. Reluctance to live in the old way is combined with disappointment in new ideals, which turned out to be either unattainable or false for many. Nostalgia for a giant country coexists with various manifestations of xenophobia and isolationism. Getting used to freedom and private initiative is accompanied by a reluctance to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s own economic and financial decisions. The desire to defend the newfound freedom of private life from uninvited intrusions, including from the “watchful eye” of the state, is combined with a craving for a “strong hand.” This is only a cursory list of those real contradictions that do not allow us to unambiguously assess Russia’s place in the modern world.
Assuming consideration of the process of development of new value orientations in Russia, it would not be amiss to first pay attention to the very “soil” on which the seeds of a democratic social order fell. In other words, what the current hierarchy of values has become under the influence of the changed political and economic situation largely depends on the general ideological attitudes that have historically developed in Russia. The debate about the Eastern or Western nature of spirituality in Russia has been going on for centuries. It is clear that the uniqueness of the country does not allow it to be attributed to any one type of civilization. Russia is constantly trying to enter the European community, but these attempts are often hampered by the “eastern genes” of the empire, and sometimes by the consequences of its own historical fate.
What characterizes the value consciousness of Russians? What changes have occurred in it in recent years? What has the previous hierarchy of values transformed into? Based on data obtained in the course of several empirical studies on this issue, it is possible to identify the structure and dynamics of values in Russian society.
An analysis of Russians’ answers to questions about traditional, “universal” values allows us to identify the following hierarchy of Russians’ priorities (as their importance decreases):
family - 97% and 95% of all respondents in 1995 and 1999, respectively;
The family, providing its members with physical, economic and social security, at the same time acts as the most important tool for the socialization of the individual. Thanks to it, cultural, ethnic, and moral values are transmitted. At the same time, the family, remaining the most stable and conservative element of society, develops along with it. The family, thus, is in motion, changing not only under the influence of external conditions, but also due to the internal processes of its development. Therefore, all social problems of our time affect the family in one way or another and are refracted in its value orientations, which are currently characterized by increasing complexity, diversity, and inconsistency.
work - 84% (1995) and 83% (1999);
friends, acquaintances - 79% (1995) and 81% (1999);
free time - 71% (1995) and 68% (1999);
religion - 41% (1995) and 43% (1999);
politics - 28% (1995) and 38% (1999). 1)
Noteworthy is the very high and stable commitment of the population to such traditional values for any modern society as family, human communication, and free time. Let us immediately pay attention to the stability with which these basic “nuclear” values are reproduced. The four-year interval did not have a significant effect on attitudes towards family, work, friends, free time, or religion. At the same time, interest in the more superficial, “external” sphere of life—politics—has increased by more than a third. It is also understandable that for the majority of the population in today’s crisis socio-economic situation, work is of great importance: it is the main source of material well-being and the opportunity to realize interests in other areas. At first glance, the only thing that seems somewhat unexpected is the mutual position in the hierarchy of values of religion and politics: after all, over the course of more than seven decades of Soviet history, atheism and “political literacy” were actively cultivated in the country. And the last decade of Russian history was marked, first of all, by turbulent political events and passions. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is some increase in interest in politics and political life.
Previously, the qualities desirable for the social system were, as it were, predetermined by communist ideology. Now, in the conditions of the liquidation of the monopoly of one worldview, the “programmed” person is being replaced by a “self-organizing” person, freely choosing his political and ideological orientations. It can be assumed that the ideas of political democracy of a rule of law state, freedom of choice, and the establishment of a democratic culture are not popular among Russians. First of all, because the injustice of today’s social system, associated with growing differentiation, is activated in the minds of Russians. Recognition of private property as a value may have nothing to do with its recognition as the object and basis of labor activity: private property in the eyes of many is only an additional source (real or symbolic) of consumer goods.
Today, in the minds of Russians, those values that are in one way or another connected with the activities of the state are updated first of all. The first among them is legality. The demand for legality is a demand for stable rules of the game, for reliable guarantees that changes will not be accompanied by a massive ejection of people from their usual niches in life. Russians understand legality not in a general legal sense, but in a specific human sense, as a vital need for the state to establish an order in society that actually ensures the safety of individuals (hence the high rating of the word “security” as the main need of a vital type). There is every reason to assume that in the minds of the majority of Russians, despite all the ideological shifts that have occurred in recent years, the correlation of the law with the usual functions of the former state, as a guarantor of public order and a distributor of basic goods, still prevails. A private person, formed in the Soviet era, sees in another private person (or organization) a competitor not in production, but exclusively in consumption. In a society where all sources and functions of development were concentrated in the hands of the state, in a society that tried to develop technologically without the institution of private property, such a result was inevitable. Currently, one of the main values of Russians is a focus on private life, family well-being, and prosperity. In a crisis society, the family has become for most Russians the center of attraction for their mental and physical strength.
The concept of security, like perhaps no other, captures continuity with the consciousness of the “traditionally Soviet” type and at the same time carries within itself an alternative to it. In it one can see nostalgic memories of the lost orderliness (traces of “defense consciousness”), but at the same time, the idea of protection of the individual who has felt the taste of freedom, protection in the broadest sense of the word, including from the arbitrariness of the state. But if security and freedom cannot become complementary, then the idea of security, with increasing interest in it, may well be combined in Russian society with a demand for a new ideological unfreedom of the “national socialist” kind.
So, the value “core” of Russian society consists of such values as legality, security, family, and prosperity. Family can be classified as interactionist values, the other three are vital, the simplest, significant for the preservation and continuation of life. These values perform an integrating function.
Values are the deep foundations of society; how homogeneous or, if you like, unidirectional they will become in the future, how harmoniously the values of different groups can be combined will largely determine the success of the development of our society as a whole.
As has already been noted, fundamental changes in society are impossible and incomplete without changing the value consciousness of the people who make up this society. It seems extremely important to study and fully monitor the process of transformation of the hierarchy of needs and attitudes, without which real understanding and management of social development processes is impossible
Conclusion
The most significant values are: the life and dignity of a person, his moral qualities, moral characteristics of human activities and actions, the content of various forms of moral consciousness - norms, principles, ideals, ethical concepts (good, evil, justice, happiness), moral characteristics of social institutions, groups, collectives, classes, social movements and similar social segments.
Among the sociological consideration of values, religious values also occupy an important place. Faith in God, the desire for the absolute, discipline as integrity, high spiritual qualities cultivated by religions are so sociologically significant that these provisions are not disputed by any sociological teaching.
The considered ideas and values (humanism, human rights and freedoms, environmental ideas, the idea of social progress and the unity of human civilization) act as guidelines in the formation of the state ideology of Russia, which becomes an integral part of post-industrial society. The synthesis of traditional values, the heritage of the Soviet system and the values of post-industrial society is a real prerequisite for the formation of a unique matrix of the integrative state ideology of Russia.
Bibliography:
- revolution.allbest.ru/ sociology/00000562_0.html
etc.................
