Communication trait. Different levels of communication - different context of statements

Types of business communication. Basic moments

The daily solution of various work problems and tasks for each of us is presented in the form of business communication. We constantly confer with someone, talk and come to an agreement. Types of business communication are presented in the following forms: business meetings (face-to-face or group); business conversations presented in the form of negotiations, meetings, round tables, discussions, debates and debates; public speaking (messages, reports, greetings and self-presentations); press conferences and briefings; meetings; business buffets, breakfasts, lunches and dinners; job interviews; communication using mass media (via the Internet, by telephone or by mail).

Characteristics of communication

All of the above types of business communication have their own characteristics, but they also have common features. I would like to dwell in more detail on this form of business interaction, such as communication between two people, called partners, or interlocutors. The unique technology of business communication is directly dependent on a specific life situation. They have significant differences, for example, conversations between a boss and a subordinate, a teacher with a student, or a meeting between a patient and a doctor. Moreover, each of these situations has its own manifestation. For example, when a boss and a subordinate are talking, it is often necessary to maintain a large distance (about one and a half meters) and avoid direct, long glances.

Communication between colleagues can be completely different - an increase in the distance between them and the lack of visual contact indicate the presence of a quarrel between the interlocutors. Types of business communication are reflected in other parameters that characterize the specifics of such situations. For example, pauses and intonations in speech or words that are often used. Therefore, the question of what exactly needs to be taken into account to increase the success and productivity of contacts often becomes relevant.

Formal and informal business communication

Consideration of this term will be incomplete without analyzing these types of business communication: official and informal. An example of official communication is a report from a subordinate to a boss about the work done over a certain period or a speech at a meeting.

The peculiarities of this type of communication are strict business language and limited topics of official assignments. Unlike the first type, informal business communication helps expand professional and general horizons. Communication skills in an informal setting are an important component of the professional culture of specialists. Any conversation can be built on the principle of ordering and structuring. In other words, experts identify the following phases of business communication: planning a meeting; start of a business meeting; statement of the problem during discussion and justification of its relevance; information exchange; summing up the conversation.

The essence of communication is most fully expressed in the fact that it is the most important aspect of human activity, which consists in the subject-subject relationship -the relationship of one person to another on the basis of mutual recognition of “self” and self-worth.

Main features and properties of communication:

it appears as activity, which emphasizes its active-procedural nature;

it is established that this activity consists of respect one person to another;

it is noted that these relations should be subject-subject character, in other words, they are entered into equal subjects, "I" and "You" are here target for each other and never a means (at least that’s how it should be);

communication establishes not only informational, but also personal-existential, subjective connection between people while maintaining the individuality of the communicating parties: each recognizes the other’s uniqueness and originality, his right to be himself and expects the same from him;

expected manifestation creative and improvisational nature of communication, revealing the deep qualities of the subject - his free activity, the ability to generate new meanings, and overcome behavioral stereotypes.

communication symmetrically, because it presupposes the functional equality of the persons participating in it as subjects of a single joint activity;

The most important distinguishing feature of communication is its dialogical.

Thus, communication- This interaction, based on needs person in person. This is not only (and not so much) luxury (A. de Saint-Exupéry), but necessity, the primary condition of a person’s existence as a person and his inclusion in society and culture. Communication is carried out using dialogue, the purpose of which is to establish understanding between people.

The value of interpersonal communication determined by it multifunctionality And global significance in human life and society. You can select a number of “role” functions of communication.

Communication is a condition for the formation and existence of a person. The phylogeny of humanity and the ontogenesis of each person individually confirm that the formation of man is impossible without communication, which is a “unique condition of human existence” (K. Jaspers).

Communication is a way of self-expression human "I": human essence is manifested only in communication, which allows a person to reveal all facets of his personality, make them significant for others, and assert himself in his own value. A “deficit” of communication gives rise to various complexes, doubts, and makes life incomplete.

Communication is the main means of communication, which manifests itself in informative the nature of communication, thanks to which accumulated knowledge is transferred in the process of communication and thereby social inheritance. At the same time, the communicative nature of communication is also manifested in the generation of new ideas, which reveals its creative character, and the exchange of ideas that determines praxeological the value of communication.

Communication is the main means of managing people. Currently, this function is used purposefully - as a means manipulation consciousness and actions of people, both in negative and positive terms, which is clearly visible both in public spheres - in economics and politics, and in the sphere of personal relationships.

Communication is a vital need and a condition for human happiness. This function is most significant for the individual’s sense of self, because it reveals intimate nature communication, which is an internal, often unconscious need of every person, a hidden motive for his actions and actions. At the same time, such features of communication as selectivity And focus to a specific object, Availability feedback, reciprocity of choice and understanding. This need is most fully realized in such higher forms of human communication as friendship And Love.

The identified role functions of communication allow us to consider it value in at least two aspects:

How utilitarian-pragmatic oriented towards achieving socially significant results;

How self-worth– communication for the sake of communication, the meaning of which is self-expression and spiritual connection of people who join the spiritual values ​​of their partner and thereby multiply their own.

This gives grounds to highlight levels significance communication:

for myself - I-significance,

for another - You are the significance,

for a group or society as a whole - We are significance.

The problem of communication culture.

The most important in solving the main tasks communication – establishing mutual understanding stands communication culture – a system of norms, principles and rules, as well as technologies for their implementation, developed by the human community in order to optimize and effectively communicate. Communication culture assumes knowledge, understanding and compliance basic norms of interpersonal communication, including the combined actions of many factors: moral, psychological, sociocultural, “technological”. But the level of communication culture is most closely related to moral attitudes, values, communicative ideals and stereotypes - with what constitutes the conceptmoral culture. Distinctive features moral culture of a particular society or individual are:

respectful attitude towards your partner, restraint, politeness, careful handling of words that can deeply hurt a person;

clarity of communication goals, willingness to understand, evaluate and accept the interlocutor’s judgments;

constant self-improvement, preparing yourself for communication;

compliance with the principle of tolerance, generating mutual trust and helping to prevent and overcome conflict situations;

culture of dialogue, manifested in compliance with the following conditions:

fundamental equality, autonomy of partners;

recognition by partners of each other’s uniqueness, “otherness,” and the impossibility of predicting in advance the position of the dialogue partner;

difference and originality of points of view, willingness to hear from a partner something that is not part of our ideas or plans;

everyone’s focus on understanding and correct interpretation of their point of view by their partner;

expectation of an answer and its anticipation in one’s own statement, complementarity of the participants’ positions;

the ability to perceive another as a person of equal level.

The higher the level of moral culture of an individual, the higher the culture of communication, and vice versa: the low level of moral culture, moral "protoculture" generates communication defects, painfully affecting the well-being of the individual and the atmosphere in society.

Moral protoculture can be traced on a number of “defective” levels of communication .

Moral vacuum – a person either does not know the norms and principles of behavior necessary for communication (ethical and psychological “protocultures”), or finds himself in a situation where his knowledge loses its meaning and does not “work” in new conditions.

Lack of moral initiative – a person takes a wait-and-see attitude, waits for care and attention from another and only then responds to them. This is a state of alert waiting and moral bargaining according to the principle “you - to me, I - to you.”

Moral camouflage - desire to make a good impression, mask the lack of genuine moral culture. The forms of manifestation of moral camouflage can be different, but, as a rule, they are always accompanied by moral demagoguery, ranting about the decline of morals, and calls for compliance with cultural norms.

Moral anachronism – a person is guided by outdated standards of communication that do not correspond to the expectations of others and the requirements of modern morality.

Moral regression – simplification and oversimplification of morals, loss of the achieved level of communication, accompanied by disrespect for traditions, disregard for experience and well-deserved authorities, reluctance to evaluate one’s own actions, to notice that they affect the interests of other people. Moral regression is also characterized by rationalism and pragmatism, rigidity, and sometimes “advanced aggressiveness.”

Moral deafness – lack of orientation towards another, inability and unwillingness to hear him. This is a peculiar form of manifestation of “deafness to calling out” (K. Jaspers), but not original, selfish, but arising as a result of the loss (due to life circumstances) of moral qualities previously inherent in the individual.

Moral primitivism – a shameless, naked transaction with one’s own conscience in the name of personal interest. Moral primitivism manifests itself in justifying one’s own shortcomings, arrogance, arrogance about past merits, and defending the rights to one’s own exclusivity and privileges.

Moral intolerance is characteristic of authoritarian one-dimensional thinking, which recognizes the only (“its own”) truth and rightness. Accompanied by suspicion, hostility towards dissent: political, ideological, cultural, religious. Intolerance is a manifestation anticultures in communication , moreover, it is the basis anti-communication , because it interferes with communication and makes it impossible. It is extremely unproductive: hostility prevents the other from being heard, even when he offers something rational and useful.

Moral and psychological “barriers” of communication – another manifestation of a person’s “protoculture”, which acts as an obstacle to full communication. Psychological communication barriers, associated with a particular mental state of the individual, his attitudes and expectations, can be classified as follows.

Barrier of suffering, mountains I - manifests itself in different forms: this is the desire to be alone (“leave me alone”), and selfishness (feeling sorry for yourself), and envy of other people’s joy, and even aggressiveness. Perhaps the best way out of this situation is to truly “leave the person alone.”

Anger Barrier – arises from resentment, dissatisfaction, injustice, rudeness. In this situation, a person often “gets fixated” on the root cause of his anger, and cannot and does not want to talk about anything else; communication is difficult: it is difficult to “reach out” to a person.

Barrier of fear - can be caused by various reasons: the child’s fear of punishment, which leaves him speechless and does not give him the opportunity to explain himself and justify himself; fear of a conscientious employee of failure to complete the assigned task; a conservative's fear of change, a lazy person's fear of work, etc. Considering that fear binds not only communication, but any productive activity, it is recommended to try not to instill fear in another during communication - even with good intentions.

Barrier of shame and guilt – is formed with a negative self-assessment of one’s actions in relation to another or with “wrong” criticism from another. Shame - this “kind of anger turned inward” makes a person withdraw into himself, “self-reproach” or “self-justify.” But in any case, communication is difficult.

In addition, “wrong” criticism - unfair in content, public and humiliating in form - is unproductive: a person’s energy is directed not to finding an optimal solution, but to self-justification (“everyone does this”, “I wanted the best”, “others do worse” ), withdrawal into oneself (a person stops listening to words that are unpleasant for him, “switches off”) or anger and resentment towards the critic.

Installation barrier – a negative perception of someone or something based on prior knowledge or prejudice. Negative attitude becomes an obstacle to an unbiased, friendly attitude towards another. Therefore, you cannot immediately and unconditionally perceive compromising information about someone: perhaps you are deliberately forming a negative attitude towards this person. The culture of communication presupposes in this regard the presence counter-installations– do not take any statements about a person on faith, demand evidence of them.

6. Barrier of Contempt - as a rule, this is the result of upbringing or ideological attitudes associated with the prevailing values ​​and ideals in society. Often arises on the basis of prejudices existing in society: professional, racial, national prejudices (“all sellers are thieves”, “persons of Caucasian nationality are bandits”).

7. Barrier of disgust, disgust – is associated with the psychophysiological characteristics of people’s behavior: unpleasant manners, repulsive habits, violation of personal hygiene rules, failure to maintain “communication distance.” In order not to cause such a barrier towards himself, a person must carefully monitor his manners, cleanliness, habits and at the same time be more tolerant towards others.

Mood barrier – may include all the previous ones, be of varying degrees of severity (from simply “getting off on the wrong foot” to deep depression), have different causes: interpersonal conflicts, quarrels, unwillingness to meet the other half, resentment towards each other, unfulfilled expectations, disappointed hopes, refusal of something that was hoped for. Considering that the mood plays a special role in communicating with others - it is very contagious and has a “boomerang effect”, i.e. comes back to us - we must be extremely attentive to the manifestations of our own mood and learn to control it.

Speech barrier – double barrier: it is both a “speaking” barrier and a “listening” barrier. The first is manifested in our linguistic lack of culture: insufficient vocabulary; slurred, monotonous speech; diction defects; repulsive (arrogant, ambitious) tone; lack of sense of humor; ignorance of speech etiquette The second barrier would be more correctly called the “barrier of non-hearing,” because the obstacle to communication here is precisely the inability to listen and hear another.

The inability to listen is manifested in the fact that, while listening to an interlocutor, a person

rushes to refute him without delving into the meaning of his speech and motives;

does not know how to restrain the desire to express his own opinion;

interrupts the interlocutor without waiting for the end of the argument;

distracted by unimportant, external things, missing the essence of speech;

believes that his knowledge is sufficient to defend his position;

is prepared in advance to disagree with the opponent.

WITH sociocultural « barriers" and marginality in communication. Some of the most serious are sociocultural barriers, among which a special place is occupied by a relatively new phenomenon - marginality in communication.

Marginality – This is the borderline position of an individual in relation to any social group, leaving a certain imprint on his psyche, behavior, and way of life. In a situation of marginality, the so-called “cultural hybrids” find themselves balancing between the dominant group in society with its cultural and moral values ​​and the “mother” group from which they separated (the situation of unadapted migrants). Of course, such a situation leaves its mark on the culture of communication, giving rise to certain, sometimes tragic, barriers to communication.

The basis of marginality in communication is hermeneutic misunderstanding – the inability to come to a common point of view and mutual understanding due to the fact that the partners belong either to different cultures or to different types, levels and traditions of the same culture. And although they communicate in the same natural language, they sometimes cannot agree, which is explained by differences in the categorical systems of their thinking, when the meaning embedded in what one person said causes inadequate associations in another (due to differences in culture and value system). Moreover, such misunderstanding does not necessarily arise when the parties are hostile to each other or when one turns out to be “right” and the other “wrong.” It’s just that signals about the good intentions of one side, due to cultural differences, are not caught or recognized by the other.

Marginality is most characteristic of transitional type of culture or For transition of an individual from one to another type of culture. Marginality can be spatial, temporal, cultural.Spatial marginality associated with a change of residence: emigration to another country, migration from a village to a city, etc. As a result of such forced or voluntary displacement, a person loses contact with his cultural rootedness(sometimes voluntarily renouncing it - say, from his village origin, traditions, national language), but he has not yet mastered the culture of his new position, has not “fitted” into it: after all, adaptation to a new way of life requires a lot of time, sometimes a change of several generations.

Temporal marginality is associated with changes of a different kind - when it is not a person who changes the environment, but the environment itself, or more precisely, the era; when habitual values ​​and ideals are broken; when old communication norms cease to operate or lose their value, and new ones have not yet been formed or, even if they exist, cannot - due to beliefs, misconceptions or simply laziness of people’s thoughts - become a “guide to action.” And again the person “falls” into a state of marginality, for which he is “not to blame,” but which one way or another makes him an “intermediate” person.

The essence "cultural" marginality – in underestimating or rejecting one’s own culture, the desire to become “above it.” This type of marginality today is characteristic, in our opinion, of those Belarusians who show disdain for their language, culture, and national customs.

Marginality in communication manifests itself in a number of ways.

1. It is characteristic of her narrowness of thinking and from here - "clanism", division into “us” and “strangers”. And if a person develops complete mutual understanding with “his own” (relatives, fellow countrymen, like-minded people), then in relation to “strangers” (or who have become “strangers” due to divergent views or life circumstances) he shows the same “ misunderstanding", which has already been mentioned.

2. The mentality of the marginalized is distinguished by a number of characteristics:

one-dimensional thinking(either-or thinking), inability to combine different points of view and find a common coordinate system;

monopoly on truth: only my point of view is correct, others have no right to exist;

inability and unwillingness to listen and hear partner: a person with this type of thinking is overcome by psychological deafness, and any arguments here are powerless - he does not perceive them;

intolerance To dissent, when anyone who disagrees with me is perceived as hostile and causes irritation and a desire to fight back.

3. The marginalized approaches the other with a purely utilitarian positions (often without realizing it). The style of his relationships with others (“strangers”) is a “vampire style”: he uses a person (in a variety of senses, not only in the primitive material, but sometimes in the spiritual), and then acts according to the “material” principle “ used it and threw it away.”

4. Marginality in communication is, as a rule, militant character. The marginalized person is distinguished by confidence in his own rightness and the right to reject others, pride in himself and his principles. Marginality crosses out any possibility of compromise and mutual understanding, putting forward “struggle” as the main value and program of action. This focus on confrontation can manifest itself in social life, professional activity or personal relationships, but in any case it is not only unproductive, but also introduces great moral evil into the system of interpersonal relations and communication.

Thus, if we take as a basis that the culture of communication presupposes an attitude towards the Other as a subject equal to me, for whom I am ready to recognize the right to selfhood, “otherness” and to whom I am ready to treat with tolerance and respect, then marginality is anticulture in communication.

The phenomenon of violence in communication – another manifestation anticulture of communication, and very close to marginality both in form and in essence. Violence in communication manifests itself in rejection of the partner’s right to autonomy, independence, selfhood; in resorting to forceful techniques and methods of pressure; in the use of fear and coercion. Violence as a principle of communication has certain roots: social, psychological, moral.

Social roots of violence in communication should be sought in the peculiarities of the twentieth century. Revolutions, wars, dictatorial and totalitarian regimes and repressions against individuals and nations - all this gradually devalued human life, made it a bargaining chip in the political games of “power fighters”, and taught people to “communicate” through the sight of a gun.

Psi chological reasons for violence in communication convincingly revealed Freudianism, showing that violence gives feeling of power over another, acting as a unique way of self-realization (see about this “Escape from Freedom” by E. Fromm). Moreover, the level and scope of such “self-affirmation” can be very different – ​​from Hitler’s totalitarianism to family tyranny.

Moral reasons for violence in communication First of all, “protoculture” and “barriers” of communication, which were mentioned above, appear. Moreover, it condones violence and anonymity moral life associated with urbanization, which hides from human judgment the lawlessness committed by other citizens.

Concerning areas of violence, then, unfortunately, it knows no boundaries, penetrating into a variety of spheres of communication– in interpersonal and family, group and intergroup, business and political, professional and other relationships.

Forms of violence can be different - psychological pressure, moral submission, physical coercion, sexual harassment. Aggressive, intolerant behavior in a quarrel, in a conflict, insisting on one’s own at any cost is also a type of violence.

The saddest thing is that violence is often perceived as norm, does not cause any protest and is not regarded as anticulture in communication, counteraction to which can only be a fundamentally different approach – principle of non-violence .

The culture of communication, the necessity and features of which were discussed above, does not exist, so to speak, in the abstract, in its “pure form.” It is realized and manifested in various spheres of human activity, in specific situations life. A large place in the general range of situational problems is occupied by problems that are purely personal for each of us, intimate nature, problems that make up the content ethics of intimate relationships.

Ethnoetiquette as a system of mental stereotypes that reflect traditional standards of behavior 1 cannot be studied in any detail without turning to the ethnopsychological side of communication. In this regard, let us turn to some historical sources that characterize the ethnopsychology of the Bashkirs quite objectively.

At the end of the 19th century, ethnographer-researcher L. Von-Berchholtz wrote about the Bashkirs: “They are quite hot-tempered, but not evil...” A Bashkir, according to Berchholtz, “loves to be paid attention to, to be praised by him or his horse, his daring, dexterity. The Bashkir is extremely proud, offended by the lack of attention to him, and even more so by the disrespect expressed...” 2. It should be noted that Berchholz correctly captured the characteristic psychological traits of the Bashkirs, some of which still exist today. At the same time, certain changes have occurred in this area - increased tolerance for the actions of others, condescension, a significant overcoming of straightforwardness and ingenuousness.

Lack of cunning and gullibility still continue to be the psychological quality of many Bashkirs, and from this logically follow such qualities as fast

1 Bayburin A.K. Some issues of ethnographic study
behavior. Ethnic stereotypes of behavior. L., 1985. P. 7-21.

2 Von-Berchholz L. Mountain Bashkirs-Catayans // Ethnographic
skoe review. 1893. No. 3. P. 79.

suggestibility and excitability, straightforwardness. It is unlikely that all of these psychological qualities can be assessed unambiguously: either only as positive, or, conversely, only as negative. In some cases, these mental traits play a positive role, and in others - a negative one. Without taking into account the above, it is hardly possible to correctly understand the ethnic features of communication between the Bashkirs.

In the ethnopsychology of the Bashkirs, an important place is occupied by the concept of sincerity, which expresses the state of openness of a person’s inner world, its accessibility. They say about such a person: “ikhlas”, “alsak” (sympathetic, sincere). It is probably no coincidence that the prominent Bashkir literary critic K. A. Akhmetyanov tried to introduce into circulation a new category of “sincerity,” which we have already written about. Supporting this idea, we consider the category of sincerity to be a junction between ethics, aesthetics and psychology.

The antithesis of sincerity is duplicity. The common assessment of a two-faced person is: “Ul ike yezle” (“He has two faces”). Another rating is also used: “Bitez” (“Without a face”).

Something similar is found in the customary law of the Nogais, who have a “bit” principle. “Bit yugaltu” - “to lose face, conscience” - meant “to lose public respect” 1.

Another concept in the ethnopsychology of the Bashkirs is “mots,” the content of which cannot be translated into Russian in one word, but approximately it will mean inner charm and inspiration. “Mots” is a harmonious state when everything in a person is presented in moderation: he is restrained, but not passive. "Motz" is kindness visible from the outside; attractiveness, thoughtfulness, inner concentration. In short, the concept of “mots” is universal in content, has a rich semantic load and many shades (moral, aesthetic and psychological).

When they say “motslo keshe” about a person, this can mean the state of a person who is not indifferent to his surroundings, who is able to understand another person; “Motslo Keshe” is a creative and proactive person. But sometimes this term conveys a state of slight sadness in a person, his thoughtfulness.

1 Victorin V.M. Social organization and customary law of the Nogais of the Lower Volga region (XVIII - early XX centuries): Author's abstract. dis.... cand. ist. Sci. L.: Volgograd State University Publishing House, 1985. P. 15.

A person who lacks these qualities is characterized by the expression “motspoz keshe”, which means indifference, inability to understand another person, lack of a valuable vision of the world, as well as lack of interest in oneself (self-esteem).

Sometimes the term “mots” is used in a narrow sense as a characteristic of the melody of a musical work, or this word characterizes the talent of performers of musical works. And, finally, it is necessary to know that the universality of the concept of “mots”, the multifaceted content brings it closer to the ancient Greek concept of “kolkagathia”, which expressed the syncretic unity of “good” and “beauty”.

Ethnic psychology of the Bashkirs, when assessing human behavior, often refers to the concept of “dert”, translated as “enthusiasm, energy” (intensity of desires, needs, interests, feelings); “Dert” is faith in one’s strength, and self-esteem. A person who has this feeling will not reach the point of sycophancy and will not become a servitor. But this concept cannot be reduced to any of the moral concepts (honor, dignity, conscience). The concept of “dirty” has a strong psychological element; it is also a measure of temperament. The main thing in the concept of “dert” is the power of spiritual impulse, high moral feeling. More or less roughly, the concept of “dert” could be translated as “inspired passion, inner pathos.” The Bashkirs have a proverb “Dertpez keshe - mondoz keshe” (“A dispassionate person cannot be charming”), and another proverb says: “Dertpezge dawa kzh >> (“For a person deprived of dert, treatment will not help”).

One of the main concepts of Bashkir ethnoetiquette, expressing the moral and psychological credo of communication, is “tyna”kly”k, which simultaneously serves as a requirement for communication and a measure of its assessment. The word "tyina"kly"k" is akin to the Russian word for "politeness." Let us remember in this regard Seneca’s saying: “Nothing is valued so highly and nothing is given so cheaply as politeness.” However, “tyina”kly”k” is not translated into just one word and has a whole range of meanings: modesty, restraint, and thoughtful behavior. Tyina "kly" is the neatness and neatness of clothing, it is not too expensive and a bright thing that catches the eye; this is an appropriate gait (not too fast and not too slow); this is the timbre,

And the volume of the voice; this is also the position when a person sits or lies in bed; this is the ability to eat at the table without attracting the attention of others; it is also contempt for luxury and arrogance, for acquisitiveness and materialism. Tyynaklyk: - this is modesty in everyday life, in consumption, the ability to forgive mistakes and mistakes of a person.

In its universality and moral and ethical content, the concept of “tynaklyk” is close to the basic concept of the Abkhaz ethnoetiquette “alamys” 1, which is the core point of communication among Abkhazians.

Forms and means of communication

The general requirements for communication among Bashkirs are wishes - appeals, which are usually pronounced by representatives of the older generation: “Dan bulaigk” (“Let’s be kind and nice”), “Yamanatly bulmaiyk” (“Let’s not leave a bad name behind us”), “Heter kaldirmayik” (“Let’s not leave a bad memory of ourselves”).

Ethnoetiquette is manifested in forms of address, in greetings, in methods of eating, in the rules of hospitality, in methods of performing labor operations, in hygiene standards.

The peculiarity of Bashkir ethnoetiquette, like that of other Turkic peoples, is that the age factor is strictly taken into account. When addressing, for example, any older man, it is customary to call him “agai” (literally, elder brother). If the person being addressed is older than the parents, he is respectfully called “babai” or “byuai” (literally uncle).

A woman who is older in age is addressed as “apai” (literally, older sister). If she is older than her parents, she is called "ebey" (aunt).

It is customary to address younger people accordingly: to males - “bush”, “enem” (lit., younger brother); to females - “endem”, “py-lyuym” (lit., younger sister).

The demonstrated differentiation of forms of communication has a certain moral meaning, since it expresses

1 Chesnov Y. V. Moral values ​​in traditional Abkhaz behavior // Field research at the Institute of Ethnography (1980-1981). M., 1984. S. PO.

A value-based approach to communication, the essence of which is respect for a person’s age, his life experience, and the function is to ensure the continuity of moral development. Etiquette also includes norms governing relationships between peers and people close in age. There are some characteristic terms of communication here. People of the same age usually call each other “yeshtash”, and among the Bashkirs of certain regions of the Kurgan and Chelyabinsk regions - “■kushaga”.

The existence of the above terms indicates that belonging to the same age served and serves as a factor of socialization, a means of introducing individuals to a certain community (to its interests, concerns, needs, etc.). The moral element also occupies a significant place here.

In the recent past, Bashkirs addressed each other only as “you,” but nowadays, under the influence of communication with representatives of other nations, the address to “you” has also appeared. Currently, addressing “you” is possible only to the closest people: father, mother, children, spouse, friends, colleagues of the same age, acquaintances. Addressing “you” is typical for communicating with strangers, with colleagues, older people, with representatives of official institutions and organizations.

The forms of greeting of the Bashkirs are: “Laumypygyz!” ("Hello!"); “Salem birzek” (“Helmet greetings”); "Salam!" ("Hello"). Then the questions begin, sometimes dragging on for a long time - this is, so to speak, preparation for moving on to a more serious part of the conversation.

The order of the messages of the good news is regulated by the ritualized custom of “Beyense”. A gift is awarded for sharing the good news. The one who reported it is told: “For your good news, I give you this and that.” The reward amount can be any.

If one person came to another and found him at work, the greeting is added: “Eshegez etsel bulpyn” (“Let work not be a burden”), if the guest found the owner eating, the greeting is usually added: “Agyayriztemle bulpyn” ( "Bon appetit"). If you come to a new house or apartment, the greeting is supplemented with wishes: “Eyegez tsotlo bulpyn” (“Let there be happiness in the house”).

Forms of socialization of Bashkir youth 20-30 years ago in villages were “aulats ey” - houses,

whose owners went on a visit or went away somewhere for a day or several days. Young people gathered in these houses, sang songs and danced. Lovers, brides and grooms met here, young people made acquaintances here. Currently, this form of leisure is gradually disappearing.

An important factor in ensuring the stability of relationships between individuals are forms of conflict resolution. A means of resolving the contradictions of communication is folk wisdom, embodied in a normative-imperative form in sayings and proverbs. The proverb: “Iser eite: “Endem,” -type, akylyeite: “Kuizym,” -type” (“A fool will say: “I am right,” a smart one will say: “I yield”) regulates a person’s orientation in a conflict situation, recommending one of the parties stop the dispute.

In some cases, folk wisdom calls: “Yau menen kilgende ash menen -kygu” - (“Meet the one who comes with war with bread and salt”). That is, it is not always necessary to respond to a hostile or unfriendly gesture in kind. Here one can clearly feel the influence of the idea that comes from time immemorial that good is stronger than evil.

In the ethnoetiquette of the Bashkirs there are many norms regulating family and marriage relations. Here you can find norms that express the attitude of folk wisdom towards loneliness, the number of children in the family, the relationship between parents and children, husband and wife, etc.

So, if a person is in no hurry to start a family, elderly Bashkirs say: “Yatsgyzly” k yauga kileshpen” (“A single person is suitable for war”), and if there is one child in the family, then they say: “Yatsgyz bala yauzan gkaty” (“One a child is worse than a battle"). In all this one cannot help but see the orientation of the people’s consciousness towards creating a strong family.

According to Bashkir etiquette, the relationship between elders and younger ones is subordinated to the task of achieving respect for elders. But the people never made this requirement absolute or dogmatized it. As a warning against an absolute, i.e., the same understanding of respect for elders in all cases, there is a proverb (it is also a norm of etiquette): “Kup yeshegen ni bela, kupte kurgan kup bela” (“It is not the one who has lived a lot who knows much, but the one who has seen a lot").

The norms of hospitality are of no small importance in the etiquette of different nations. The Bashkirs have long enjoyed the reputation of being hospitable people. There is a lot of writing about this

Sali Russian scientists and writers who visited the Bashkirs in the 18th-19th centuries. Along with traditional hospitality inherited from the past, the hospitality of modern Bashkirs also contains new elements associated with changes in their life and culture.

A traditional element of hospitality is when the host greets guests not at home, but before entering the house; Seeing off guests also takes place outside the house.

Guests are told: “Turge utegez” (“Come to the place of honor”). When treating guests, they use the following rule: “Kunatstarzyts aldyn ash kui; auyzyn-kulyn bush-kuy" (“Place food in front of the guests, but do not forget to keep their mouth and hands free”). There is a hidden meaning here, which is the requirement not to engage guests too much in conversation when eating.

If someone comes during a meal, it is customary to seat him at the table and treat him. If the visitor refuses, he is reminded of the rules of etiquette: “Ashtan olo bulyp bulmay” (“You cannot be above food”).

In the modern etiquette of Bashkir hospitality there are also undesirable elements that are currently rejected by life itself. We are talking about a form of leisure time that has become a tradition - a drunken feast, which, unfortunately, has managed to penetrate even into individual works of art. For example, in the musical comedy “Kodasa,” old man Yappar performs funny couplets while walking around the stage hugging an oversized bottle. Probably, here too, if you wish, you can find elements of humor. But humor is different from humor. In this case, the episode with the bottle, invented by the directors of the comedy, clearly misses the mark, because the audience develops a kind of condescending attitude towards the elderly man who, having become tipsy, decided to have a little fun.

The fight against drunkenness involves turning to certain undeservedly forgotten or half-forgotten folk forms of leisure. These are various national holidays, traditional games and forms of communication. These include the rogue's holiday - "Labantuy" - a spring sports festival, widespread among the Tatars and Bashkirs: "T\.az emebe" - an autumn rural holiday dedicated to the slaughter of geese (villagers take turns collectively slaughtering geese, plucking feathers and preparing goose meat for winter), ending with mutual invitations

niyami to visit; “KarFa bootkapi” - “crow porridge” - is a spring women’s holiday (the women of the village go out into the forest, prepare various dishes, have fun and sing), historically dating back to the times of the cult of animals, when festivities were held in their honor. During these holidays, a person liberates himself and becomes a direct participant in certain actions. At the same time, a living thread is stretched between generations, traditional forms of communication are revived.

Each of these holidays has a ritual and normative design: it proceeds in a certain sequence and is subject to certain rules. The ritualization of communication in modern life is necessary and valuable because with its help the shortcomings of verbal and verbal means of moral education are overcome. The artistic and visual form of rituals allows us to overcome moralizing and naked edification, which is why today’s ethical education and moral education are so “sinful”. Rituals enrich the world of human communication and enhance its value content.

Ritualization is necessary, firstly, because deeply thought-out and scientifically based rituals in the educational process have a greater effect than abstract moral teachings (moralizing). Secondly, ritualization acts as a means of removing alienation from the individual, instilled by previous failures in moral education, that is, it serves as a means of re-education through communication.

CONCLUSION

The approach to ethics implemented in this book allows us to consider morality as the potential of culture in the broadest sense of the word. This, firstly, is due to the fact that morality is the most important essential force of man, related to a special sphere of human activity. It is impossible to imagine human society without morality. Secondly, ethical thinking, through its paradigms, sets the necessary form of existence and normativity for all social institutions. Thirdly, the ethical models of behavior we have described characterize morality as a kind of universe. Based on this, we can confidently declare the primacy of morality in the entire culture. Only by being in such a position can one overcome the global moral crisis of human existence, which in our time covers more and more people on the planet.

To overcome the moral crisis, and on its basis the global environmental crisis, as well as the impending crisis in other areas - economics, politics, law and art - it is necessary for the community of people on planet Earth to become true humanity. Our planet today, unfortunately, is not like that, because there is still a lot of evil in it, evidence of which is the ongoing process of the emergence of an endless amount of alienated behavior (wars, crime, suicide...) associated with violence, deception and treachery. On this occasion, Yu. M. Fedorov correctly noted in his interesting book “The Universe of Morals”: ​​“Genuine communities are such collections of individuals, which are based on inalienable forms of communication. If genuine communities are total in the manifestation of their true human nature, then non-genuine communities (false communities) are totalitarian” 1. It was not our task to define such communities. This requires a carefully developed methodology that would meet all the criteria of strict science and the natural course of development of things, in accordance with common sense and humanism.

Fedorov Yu. M. Universe of morality. Tyumen: Sib. dept. RAS, 1992. P. 241.

References

1. Abdulatipov R. G., Boltenkova L. F., Yarov Yu. F. Federalism in
history of Russia. Book 1.M., 1992.

2. Aitmatov Ch. Scaffold // New world. 1986. No. 6.
Z. Aitmatov Ch. Price and life / Lit. gas. 1986. 13 Aug.

4. Alekseev S. S. Theory of Law. M., 1974.

5. Anisimov S. F. Morality and behavior. M., 1979.

6. Anthology of world philosophy. T. 1.4. 1. M., 1969.

7. Antoshkin V.N. Moral culture of a rural resident: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1990.

8. Argyle M. Psychology of happiness. M.: Progress, 1990.

9. Arkhangelsky L. M. Lectures on Marxist ethics. Part 1. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1969.

10. Arkhangelsky L. M. On the question of the essence and classification of ethical categories / Problems of the categories of Marxist-Leninist ethics. Proceedings of the symposium. Novosibirsk, 1969.

11. Arkhangelsky L. M. The nature of moral norms and the dialectics of their development // Questions of philosophy. 1978. No. 3.

12. Arkhangelsky L. M. Course of lectures on Marxist-Leninist ethics. M., 1974.

13. AtanovaL. Khalik Zaimov. Ufa, 1967

14. Akhmetyanov K. A. Beautiful and heroic in poetry. Ufa, 1982. Bashk.

15. Bayburin A.K. Some issues in the ethnographic study of behavior / Ethnic stereotypes of behavior. L., 1985.

16. Bakshtanovsky V.I. Modern ethical thinking:
Samotlor workshop experience // Morals and ethics. Morality in
cialist society. M.: Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1989.

17. Bandzeladze G. D. Ethics. Tbilisi, 1970.

18. Bgazhnokov B. X. Adyghe etiquette. Nalchik, 1978.

19. Bible. M.L., 1968.

20. Bikbaev R. Singing rocks. M., 1978.

21. Bongard-Levin G.M., IlyinG. F. India in Antiquity. M., 1985.

22. Burlatsky F. M. New thinking. M., 1988.

23. Valeev D. Zh. Origin of morality. Saratov: Publishing house Sarat. University, 1981.

24. Valeev D. Zh. Moral culture of the Bashkir people: past and present. Ufa: Bashk. book publishing house, 1989.

25. Valeev D. Zh. Potential of morality. Ufa: VEGU Publishing House, 1999.

26. Valeeva 3. R. The place of social etiquette in the mechanism of moral regulation of communication: Abstract of thesis. dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 2000.

27. Weber M. Favorites. M.: Lawyer, 1994.

28. Victorin V. M. Social organization and customary law of the Nogais of the Lower Volga region (XVIII - early XX century): Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. ist. Sci. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1985.

29. Vichev V. Morality and social psyche. M., 1978.

30. Vits B. B. Democritus. M.: Mysl, 1979.

31. Vorontsov B. N. On the emergence of a developed personality in history / Philosophical Sciences. 1972. No. 3.

32. Gamzatov R. My Dagestan. M., 1972.

33. Ganapolsky M. G. Morality of the region and ethical regionalism I/ Collection of expert surveys “Samotlor Workshop - 2”. M.; Tyumen, 1988.

34. Ganzhin V. G. Ethics and the formation of morality. M., 1982.

35. Ganzhin V. G., Aleksin T. A., Petyashev N. I. Global (country studies) ethics // Bulletin Mosk. un-ta. Series 7. Philosophy. 1989. No. 4.

36. Hegel. Philosophy of law. Op. T. VII. M.; L., 1934.

37. Gromova L. A. Ethical models of economic behavior. Autoref. dis.... cand. Philosopher Sci. St. Petersburg, 1995.

38. Gulua V. L. Dialectics of the emotional and rational in morality. Tbilisi, 1982.

39. Gumnitsky G. N. On the concept of morality / Morality, traditions, education. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1987.

40. Guseinov A. A., Apresyan R. G. Ethics. M., 1998.

41. Guseinov A. A. The Golden Rule of Morality. M., 1982.

42. Guseinov A. A. Great moralists. M.: Republic, 1995.

43. Guseinov A. A. Social nature of morality. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1974.

44. Galbraith D. Capitalism and socialism: from confrontation to convergence / Moscow News. 1987. 13 Sep. (No. 37).

45. Raripov R. Amanat. Efe, 1970.

46. ​​Bilezhev X. Kalemdashter. ©fv, 1984.

47 Drobnitsky O. G. The concept of morality. M.: Nauka, 1974.

48. Drobnitsky O. G. Discussion on problems of ethics / Questions of philosophy. 1971. No. 4.

49. Egides P. M. The main question of ethics as a philosophical science and the problem of moral alienation / Current problems of Marxist ethics. Tbilisi, 1967.

50. De Juvenel B. Ethics of redistribution. M.: Institute of National Economic Model, 1995.

51. Zhamaitis V. Yu. On the question of the essence of tolerance / Morality, traditions, education. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1987

52. Zybkovets V. F. Origin of morality. M.: Nauka, 1974.

53. Ivanov V. G., Rybakova N. V. Essays on Marxist-Leninist ethics. M: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1963.

54. Ivin A. A. Logic of norms. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1973.

55. IzardK. Human emotions. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1980.

56. Itkulova L. A. Moral choice in a folk tale: Av-toref. dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1996.

57. Kant I. Fundamentals of the metaphysics of morality. Op. T. 4. Part 1.

59. Cassidy F. X. Socrates. M., 1976.

60. Koblyakov V. P. Ethical consciousness. L., 1979.

61. Kogan L. N. Purpose and meaning of life. M, 1984.

62. Kon I. S. Sociology of personality. M., 1967

63. Kon I. S. Discovery of the “I”. M., 1979.

64. Konovalova L.V. Morality and knowledge. M., 1975.

65. Konrad N.I. West and East. M., 1972.

66. Kosven M. O. Essays on the history of primitive culture. M., 1957

67. Kryazhev P. E. Society and personality. M., 1961.

68. Leontyev A. N. Activity, consciousness, personality. M., 1977.

69. Ludwig von Mises. Bureaucracy, planned chaos. Anti-capitalist mentality. M.: Delo, 1993.

70. Malinauskas K. National aspect of the moral culture of society and the individual / Questions of moral culture. Vilnius, 1981. I,

71. Mamardashvili M.K. About philosophy / Questions of philosophy. I 1991. No. 5.

72. Marx K. From early works. M., 1956.

73. Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 21.

74. Moiseev N. N. Development algorithms. M., 1987.

75. Moiseev N. N. With thoughts about the future of Russia. M., 1997.

76. Muhammad Ali al-Hashimi. Personality of a Muslim. 3rd ed. M., 2000.

77. Science and humanity. M., 1976.

78. Ovchinnikov V. Sakura and oak. M., 1983.

79. Okladnikov O.P. Morning of Art. M., 1967.

80. Ortega y Gasset X. What is philosophy? M., 1991.

81. Orwell D. 1984. Animal Farm. T. 1. Perm: Kapik, 1992.

82. Orwell D. Essays, articles, reviews. T. II. Perm, 1992.

83. Palievsky P. Faulkner and Camus / Foreign literature. 1970. No. 9.

84. Parsons G. Man in the modern world. M.: Progress, 1985. "

85. Pershits A.I., Mongait A.L., Alekseev V.P. History of primitive society. M., 1982.

86. Peccei A. Human qualities. M.: Progress, 1977.

87. Popov B. N. Ethics. Lecture course. M., 1999.

88. PopovS. Politics, economics, morality. M., 1989.

90. Subject and system of ethics. M.; Sofia, 1973.

91. Russell B. Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morality /J Per. from English K.: Port-Royal, 1996.

92. Roginsky Ya. Ya. Modern problems of anthropogenesis. M., 1969.

93. Rawls J. Theory of justice. Novosibirsk: Publishing house Novo-Sib. University, 1995.

94. Sartre J. - P. Primary attitude towards another: love, language, masochism / The problem of man in Western philosophy. M.: Progress, 1988.

95. Sakharov A. D. Peace, progress, human rights. L.: Sov. writer, 1990.

96. Sen A. On ethics and economics. M.: Nauka, 1996.

97. Semenov Yu. I. How humanity arose. M., 1966.

98. Semenov Yu. I. On the periodization of primitive history / Soviet ethnography. 1965. No. 5.

99. Smolentsev Yu. M., Porokhovskaya T. I. Features of moral alienation / Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 7. Philosophy. 1995. No. 1.

100. Sokolov E.V. Culture and personality. L., 1972.

101. Sokolova N. P. Personality as an object of ethical research J/ Typology of social phenomena. Sverdlovsk, 1982.

102. Tylor E. B. Primitive culture. M., 1989.

103. Tatarkevich V. About happiness and human perfection. M.: Progress, 1980.

104. Tiittanen T. E. Language forms as an ideological reflection of being a social consciousness: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1985.

105. Titarenko A. I. Structures of moral consciousness. M., 1974.

106. Titov V. A. Cognitive aspect of morality /I The structure of morality and personality. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1976.

107. Topilina G. D. Problems of the biological foundations of moral consciousness I/ Philosophy of border problems. Perm, 1975. Issue. 7.

108. Tugarinov V.P. Personality and society. M.: Mysl, 1965.

109. Tukhvatullin M. N. Ethical thinking as a philosophical problem: Author's abstract. dis.... cand. Philosopher Sci. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1996.

110. Federalism of power and the power of federalism. M.: Intel Tech LLP, 1997.

111. Fedorov Yu. M. Universe of morality. Tyumen: Sib. dept. RAS, 1992.

112. Von-Berchholtz L. Mountain Bashkirs-Catayans // Ethnographic review. 1893. No. 3.

113. Frankl V. Man in search of meaning. M.: Progress, 1990.

114. Fromm E. Flight from freedom. M., 1990.

115. Fromm E. Psychoanalysis and ethics. M.: Republic, 1993.

116. Hubbard L. Ron. Introduction to Scientology Ethics. M., 1998.

117. Habermas Yu. Democracy, reason, morality. M.: Nauka, 1992.

118. Hayek F. The origin and effect of our morality / IVF. 1991. No. 12.

119. Hayek F. The Road to Serfdom / Questions of Philosophy. 1990. No. 10, 11, 12.

120. Khayyam O. Rubaiyat. M: Nauka, 1972.

121. Hilal al-Sabi. Establishments and customs of the court of the caliphs.
M, 1983.

122. Cherdantsev A.F. Specificity of legal reflection / Jurisprudence. 1973. No. 2.

123. Chesnov Y. V. Moral values ​​in traditional Abkhaz behavior // Field research at the Institute of Ethnography. (1980-1981). M, 1984.

125. Chistov K.V. Folk traditions and folklore. L., 1986.

126. Shvartsman K. A., Guseinov A. A. Historical images of morality. M: Progress, 1987.

127. Shcherbak F. N. Morality as a spiritual-practical attitude. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1986.

128. Efroimson V.P. Pedigree of altruism / New World. 1971. No. 10. P. 213.

129. Hume D. Op. T. 1. M: Nauka, 1965.

130. Yarkho V.N. Did the ancient Greeks have a conscience? / Antiquity and modernity. M., 1972.

131. Jaspers K. Speech in memory of Max Weber / Weber Max. Favorites. M.: Lawyer, 1994.

Preface........................................................ ........................................................ ... 13

Chapter I. On the status of ethics as a philosophical science.................................................... 15

Chapter III. Morality is the essential strength of man.................................................... 33

Chapter LGSspecifics of morality................................................. ............................... 40

§ 1. Signs of morality.................................................... ........................................... 40

§ 2. The structure of morality.................................................... ..................................... 43

§ 3. Functions of morality.................................................... ........................................... 48

Chapter¥Genesis of morality.................................................... .................................... 60

Chapter VI. On the problems of modern moral development.... 79

Chapter VII. Morality and culture of behavior.................................................. ......... 89

§ 1. Paradigms of ethical thinking.................................................... ............. 89

§ 2. Models of ethical behavior in various fields
human activity........................................................ ........................... 96

Chapter VIII. Religious morality................................................... .................... 114

§ 1. Morality of Judaism.................................................... ...................................... 117

§ 2. Moral culture of Buddhism.................................................. .............. 121

§ 3. Christian morality.................................................... ................................ 124

§ 4. Morality of Islam.................................................... ............................ 129

Chapter IX. National-regional component of education and
study of ethics (using the example of the Republic of Bashkortostan)................................... 135

§ 1. On the ethical features of morality.................................................... ............ 136

§ 2. About the moral culture of modern Bashkortostan.... 138
§ 3. Ethnoetiquette and culture of communication of the Bashkirs.................................................... ..... 151

Conclusion................................................. ........................................................ .. 161

References................................................ ........................... 162

Popular science publication

VALEEV Damir Zhavatovich

THE PATH TO THE TRUTH

Editor L. O. Khairova

Artist I. M. Sayfutdinov

Art editor A. R. Mukhtarullin

Technical editor 3. G. Chingizova

Proofreaders L. R. Bikbaeva, G. N. Gutova

Delivered for recruitment on 11/02/07. Signed for publication on 11/22/07. Format 84x108 Uzg.

Offset paper. Baltika headset. Conditional oven l. 8.82. Conditional-cr. Ott. 9.24. Educational ed. l. 10.19.

Circulation 2000 copies. Order No. 1.0161.07.

"Bashkir publishing house "Kitap"".

450001, Ufa, st. Levchenko, 4a.

State Unitary Enterprise of the Republic of Bashkortostan

"Ufa Printing Plant".

450001, Ufa, Oktyabrya Ave., 2.

“Every person has three characters: the one that is attributed to him, the one that he ascribes to himself, and finally the one that actually exists!” ©Victor Hugo

A person’s behavior in the process of communication is influenced by his character.

Translated from ancient Greek, the word “character” means “minting”, “seal”. In fact, on the one hand, life mints and casts a person’s character, and on the other, character leaves its mark on all a person’s actions, thoughts and feelings.

What is character? Conditions for character formation

Character is a set of stable individual characteristics of a person that develops and manifests itself in activity and communication, determining the individual’s typical modes of behavior.

Character is determined and formed throughout a person’s life.
Character is formed on the basis of the natural, biological properties of a person and as a result of the influence of the environment. Therefore, social conditions and specific life circumstances in which a person’s life takes place play a large role in the formation of character.

A person’s character is determined by his significant actions, and not by random reactions to certain stimuli or prevailing circumstances. Therefore, not all human features can be considered characteristic, but only significant and stable ones. If a person, for example, is not polite enough in a stressful situation, this does not mean that rudeness and intemperance are the main characteristics of his character.

In the article we will first of all consider the question of the meaning and influence of a person’s character on his communication. Let’s even be bolder and pose the question this way: “What character traits make communication special?”

Characteristics in communication. Character traits and properties

Character traits are characteristics distinguished in human behavior, called character traits. Any character trait is a certain stable stereotype of behavior - a stable form of behavior in connection with specific situations typical for a given behavior.

Human character has both general and specific traits and properties. Global character properties have an effect on a wide range of behavioral manifestations and human activities.

General human character traits:

1) self-confidence - uncertainty;

2) agreement, friendliness - hostility;

3) consciousness - impulsiveness;

4) emotional stability – anxiety;

5) intellectual flexibility - rigidity.

Particular traits and character traits:

sociability - isolation, leadership character traits, and vice versa, subordination, as well as optimism - pessimism, conscientiousness - shamelessness, courage - caution, impressionability - "thick skin", gullibility - suspicion, daydreaming - practicality, vulnerability - serenity, delicacy - rudeness, self-control - impulsiveness, peacefulness - aggressiveness, active activity - passivity, demonstrativeness - modesty, ambition - unpretentiousness, originality - stereotyping

.

In addition, a person’s character includes:

• intellectual(intelligence, observation, etc.),
• emotional character traits that manifest themselves in a person’s relationship to the world (excitability, rationality, etc.)
• strong-willed character traits that determine a person’s ability and willingness to consciously regulate their activities related to overcoming difficulties (decisiveness, determination).

Characteristics in communication: the importance of temperament

When communicating with people, a person’s character is manifested in his behavior, in the way he responds to people’s actions and actions. The manner of communication can be tactful or unceremonious, polite or rude.

And we should not forget about the importance of temperamental properties on the communication characteristics of a particular person. The properties of a person's temperament are extroversion and introversion, or in ordinary words, sociability and isolation.

Extraversion and introversion as character traits manifest themselves in communication and express a person’s openness or closedness in relation to the world and to other people. An extrovert is a sociable person who takes a special interest in what is happening around him.

Faced with the choice of going to a party with friends or sitting at home watching TV, an extrovert is more likely to choose the first, unlike an introvert.

An introvert directs all attention to himself. He is the center of his own interests, puts himself and his individual inner world above what is happening around him.

Psychologists argue that the nature of communication is significantly influenced by a person’s temperament and his properties more than character traits, because, unlike temperament, a person’s character is determined not so much by the properties of the nervous system, but by the culture of a person and his upbringing.

Personality traits in communication: What can you learn about a person from the way he communicates?

In any communication, you can identify character traits that indicate a person’s attitude towards:
1) other people (sociability, isolation, indifference, sensitivity, etc.)
2) to your business (hard work, laziness, responsibility, initiative, negligence, etc.)
3) to oneself (modesty, vanity, self-criticism)
4) things (neatness, thrift).

And also in communication you can get acquainted with the interests and beliefs of a person, which constitutes the structure of his character.

Conviction ensures the long-term direction of a person’s behavior, the desire to achieve set goals, and confidence in the importance of one’s work.
A person’s interests can also be indicative of understanding character. Superficiality and instability of interests are often associated with great imitation, with a lack of independence and integrity of a person’s personality. And, conversely, the depth and content of interests indicate the purposefulness and perseverance of the individual.

A person's character is revealed through the way a person acts. People can go towards achieving the same goals in completely different ways, using their own special techniques and methods. This dissimilarity determines the specific character of the individual.

Don’t be afraid to study the people around you, communicate and learn a person’s character, because through communication with other people we get to know ourselves!

Communication is the communicative and informational interaction of people. Interpersonal communication is associated with direct contacts of people in groups or pairs. Communication is a complex and multifaceted process. We rarely think about what communication is, what factors make it more effective, what helps and what hinders us from reaching an agreement with another person. It is a systematic understanding of the essence of communication and its versatility that will help make it more productive.

In Russian psychology, the very concept of “communication” covers a wide range of phenomena, which includes processes of interaction, mutual influence, mutual understanding, and empathy. Communication is multifaceted in its content and forms of manifestation. There are various psychological communication concepts. Communication is considered:

• - as a means of transmitting information;
• - activity (B. G. Ananyev, A. N. Leontyev);
• - specific form of interaction (B.F. Lomov);
• - a way of knowing another person (A. A. Bodalev, V. N. Myasishchev, etc.);
• - living condition (A. A. Bodalev);
• - a way of transmitting cultural and social experience (A. A. Leontyev and others);
• - method of influence (V. M. Bekhterev, E. L. Dotsenko, A. Yu. Panasyuk, etc.);
• - a means of revealing the subjective world of the individual (G. M. Andreeva and others).

In general, interpersonal communication can be carried out with primary reliance on two paradigms of psychological influences: “subject-object”, i.e. unequal, and, therefore, manipulative, and “subject-subject” - equal, developing.

There are various classifications types of communication. A. Yu. Panasyuk gives the following classification of types of communication:

• - subordination, service-comradeship, trust;
• - in the form of a monologue, dialogue and polylogue;
• - in the form of meetings, negotiations, speeches, listening, discussions;
• - direct and indirect, etc.

proposes to distinguish:

• - "contact masks";
• - primitive communication;
• - formal-role;
• - business;
• - manipulative;
• - social communication.

Structural components of communication (according to A. N. Leon-

Subject of communication - communication partner.

• Need for communication consists in the subject’s desire to know and evaluate other people and, through them, to self-knowledge and self-esteem.
• Communicative motives of communication - an act of communicative activity addressed to another person. Here we can distinguish two basic categories of communication actions - proactive and reactive.
• Communication tasks- the goal to achieve which in a given communicative situation various actions performed in the process of communication are aimed.
• Communication means- operations through which communication actions are carried out.
• Product of communication - formations of the material and spiritual plane, created as a result of communication.

Communication as an activity is a system of elementary acts. Each act is defined:

• - subject - initiator of communication;
• - subject to whom the initiative is addressed;
• - standards, by which communication is organized;
• - goals, which are pursued by participants in communication;
• - situation, in which the interaction takes place.

Domestic researchers identify several main communication functions:

• - communicative related to the actual transfer of information;
• - affective, manifested in the transfer of emotional attitudes;
• - regulatory, encouraging changes in behavior and attitudes;
• - perceptual, associated with the knowledge of man by man.

Communication goals reflect the needs of joint activities of people. Communication presupposes some result - a change in the behavior or activities of other people. Thus, interpersonal interaction is “a sequence of people’s reactions to each other’s actions unfolded over time.” Speaking about the goals of communication and summarizing the data of psychological research, it is necessary to note such goals as:

• - contact,
• - informational,
• - incentives,
• - coordination,
• - amotive,
• - installation,
• - developing,
• - related to achieving understanding and mutual understanding,
• - exerting influence,
• - knowledge of others and self-knowledge.

Often, several goals are combined in the communication process.

• - interpersonal
• - business,
• - specially professional,
• - scientific,
• - socio-political,
• - information and communication, etc.

In communication there is a distinction instrumental orientation(to accomplish a socially significant task, to a cause, to a result) and personal orientation(to satisfy personal needs).

Business communication is a subject-oriented activity and is aimed at organizing and optimizing one or another type of subject activity: production, scientific, pedagogical, etc. According to Yu. M. Zhukov, in business communication the subject of communication and the attitude of the participants towards it (their subject positions ) are the main determinants of the communication process. The ability to understand the subject positions of partners, including one’s own, is a necessary condition for successful communication. The main task of business communication can be called productive cooperation, the desire to bring together goals, and the establishment and improvement of partnerships.

Business communication, according to A.P. Panfilova, involves the implementation of the following conditions.

• 1. Mandatory contacts of all participants in communication, regardless of likes and dislikes.
• 2. Subject-target content of communication.
• 3. Compliance with formal role principles of interaction, taking into account job roles, rights and functional responsibilities.
• 4. The interdependence of all participants in business communication in achieving the final result and in realizing personal intentions.
• 5. Communicative control of interaction participants.
• 6. Formal restrictions:
  • A) conventional restrictions, i.e. compliance with legal and social norms, adherence to regulations (compliance with internal regulations, instructions, etc.);
  • b) situational, i.e. taking into account the situation of business communication (meetings, presentations, negotiations, etc.). Interaction is purposeful, within certain regulations, using adequate communication means and achieving the expected result;
  • V) emotional, i.e. manifestation of stress resistance, the ability to manage one’s feelings and emotions in a tense business situation;
  • G) violent, i.e. It is permissible to interrupt contact by either party in situations where the content of the information ceases to be substantive in nature, when the reactions of the communication partner are inadequate to expectations and established norms of behavior.

Ways of interaction depend on the goals of communication, the characteristics of its organization, the emotional mood of the interlocutors, and the level of their culture. It should also be noted that, as a dialectical process, communication represents the unity of two opposing tendencies: towards cooperation, towards integration, on the one hand, and towards struggle, differentiation, on the other. The most noticeable dualism of communication is in such a variety as business communication.

Scientists identify the following main communication characteristics:

• - functions,
• - content,
• - sides,
• - manner,
• - style 117, p. 21 25|.

Communication can be different content, which is expressed as follows:

• - transfer of information from person to person;
• - perception of each other;
• - mutual assessment;
• - mutual influence of communication partners on each other;
• - interaction between partners;
• - management of group or mass activities, etc.

Since business communication is a subject-oriented activity, the content of each communicative form (negotiations, discussion, report, etc.), as well as each speech structure (conclusion, opinion, remark, critical remark) depend on the communicative intention and the expected result. Each specific goal in business communication requires the content of communication that allows it to be realized and achieve the necessary results. The success of business communication, according to Yu. M. Zhukov, depends on the adequacy of attitudes, understanding of one’s subject and interpersonal position, knowledge of the patterns of various forms of communication and rules of behavior in various situations, the ability to form a tactical plan and implement it based on existing social skills. This provision is especially important in situations where there is an assumption of possible insincerity of a business partner. As norms, society develops a certain system of behavior patterns, the violation of which triggers mechanisms of social control, which, in turn, ensures the correction of deviant behavior.

Research by domestic scientists (G. M. Andreeva, B. F. Lomov, A. V. Petrovsky, M. G. Yaroshevsky, etc.) indicates that any communication contains three interconnected sides (Fig. 1.1):

• communicative - it is the transfer and exchange of information;
• interactive those. interaction;
• perceptual- mutual perception, mutual assessment in communication.

Rice. 1.1.

Let's look at them in more detail.

The communicative side of communication is characterized by:

• - the ability to establish psychological contact;
• - taking into account the characteristics of communicative influence;
• - reasoning, logic and adequacy of the communication situation;
• - the effectiveness of using verbal (words) and non-verbal means of communication.

In the communicative process, verbal (speech is used as a sign system) and non-verbal (non-speech sign systems) communication is usually distinguished.

Nonverbal communication structurally represented by the following systems:

• visual - these are gestures, facial expressions, postures, skin reactions (redness, paleness, sweating), spatio-temporal organization of communication, as well as auxiliary means of communication - emphasizing or hiding body features (signs of gender, age, race). The nature of movements reflects a person’s emotional reactions;
• acoustic - these are such features of speech as pace, laughter, crying, coughing, pauses;
• tactile is touching, shaking hands, hugging, kissing.

Interactive side (interaction). Communication as interaction characterizes the direct organization of joint activities. The goals of communication reflect the needs of joint activities of people. The reasons why people interact may vary. Let us list the types of motives for which a person interacts with other people:

The motive of maximizing the total gain (the motive of cooperation);

— motive for maximizing one’s own gain (individualism);

• - motive for maximizing relative gain (competition);
• - motive of maximizing the gain of another (altruism);
• - motive of minimizing the gain of another (aggression).

The nature of social motivation of interaction participants determines the means of communication, the result of interaction, and the relationship between communication partners. Accordingly, there are various tactics of behavior in interaction.

The perceptual side (perception, cognition and mutual understanding) includes:

• - self-knowledge in the process of communication;
• - knowledge and understanding of the interlocutor;
• - predicting the behavior of a communication partner.

For effective communication it is very important to understand

another person and be able to predict his behavior. That is why it is important to know the existing patterns that form the “pattern” of communication.