Cite this article as:

Ryaguzova E. V. Content Transformation of the “Significant Other” Representation in a Transitive Society. Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology, 2020, vol. 9, iss. 3, pp. 241-248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/2304-9790-2020-9-3-241-248


UDC: 
316.6:159.9
Language: 
Russian

Content Transformation of the “Significant Other” Representation in a Transitive Society

Abstract: 

The purpose of the study presented in the article is theoretical reflection on the meaningful transformation of the “Significant Other” representation in a transitive society. It describes the main attributes of a transitional society (instability, uncertainty, projectivity, multidirectionality, multivariability, innovativeness, etc.), indicating its institutional and value-related changes, their irreversibility, as well as unity of preservation and negation of rules, norms and values, old and new worldviews and world orders, their conflict and alternativeness. The study analyses features of personal socialization in a transitive society, highlights similarities and differences in the content, mechanisms and determinants of socialization. The author’s attention is focused on qualitative changes in the representations of Significant Other, which are the result of individual’s interaction with the Others, based not so much on perceptual processes, but rather on living and experiencing certain experiences and constructing existential meanings. It substantiates the increase in the number of representations of “Significant Other” in the modern society, due to expansion of communicative space, total globalization processes, development and dissemination of various information technologies. It is argued that meaningful content of the representation of “Significant Other”, is, on the one hand, expanding, including a wider range of ideas about significant figures (familiar and unfamiliar in everyday life, symbolic and virtual), a variety of assessments and established relations to the world, Others and oneself, while, on the other hand, it is reduced and schematized, broken up into separate components of significance (referentiality, attraction, power), and sometimes depersonalized, losing the descriptive and evaluative attributes of individuality and uniqueness. The applied aspect of the problem under study is the possibility of using the obtained theoretical generalizations in the practice of socio-psychological support of a person in the process of socialization (including digital socialization) in a modern transitive society.

 

References

1.  Gennep A. van. Obryad perekhoda: sistematicheskoe izuchenie obryadov [Rite of passage: a systematic study of rites]. Moscow, Vostochnaya literature Publ., 1999. 198 p. (in Russian).

2.  Voronina S. A. Theoretical prospects of transitive approach to the analysis of valuable transformation of the Russian society. In the World of Scientifi c Discoveries, 2015, no. 7.6 (67), pp. 2236–2245 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.12731/wsd-2015-7.6-5

3.  Narykova S. P. Features of implementation of the power in transitive society. Society and Law, 2013, no. 2 (44), pp. 256–260 (in Russian).

4.  Fedotova M. G. The subject of the concept «transitive society». Vestnik Vyatskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [Herald of Vyatka State University], 2010, no. 1 (4), pp. 28–31 (in Russian).

5.  Agranovich V. B. Transitive period of development of society and the quality of educational processes. Inzhenernoe obrazovanie [Engineering education], 2005, no. 3, pp. 158–163 (in Russian).

6.  Leont’ev D. A. Worldview as a myth and worldview as an activity. In: V. I. Kabrin, O. I. Murav’eva, eds. Mentalitet i kommunikativnaya sreda v tranzitivnom obshchestve [Mentality and communication environment in a transitive society]. Tomsk, Izd-vo Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2004, pp. 11–29 (in Russian).

7.  Fedotova M. G. The role of communication in a transitive society. Herald of Omsk University, 2011, no. 3 (61), pp. 53–56 (in Russian).

8. Dubovskaya E. M. Transitive society as a factor of personality socialization. Psihologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2014, vol. 7, no. 36, p. 7. Available at: http://psystudy.ru (accessed 31 January 2020) (in Russian).

9. Andreeva G. M. Social’naya psihologiya [Social Psychology]. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ., 2010. 362 p. (in Russian).

10. Shamionov R. M. Socialization of personality: systematicdiachronic approach. Psihologicheskie issledovaniya, 2013, vol. 6, no. 27, p. 8. Available at: http://psystudy.ru (accessed 20 February 2020) (in Russian).

11. Berger P., Lukman T. Social’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti. Traktat po sotsiologii znaniya [Social construction of reality] Moscow, Medium Publ., 1995. 323 p. (in Russian).

12. Yung K. G. Arhetip i simvol [Archetype and symbol]. Moscow, Renaissance, 1991. 304 p. (in Russian).

13. Arnett J. J. Broad and Narrow Socialization: The Family in the Context of a Cultural Theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1995, vol. 57, no. 3, pр. 617–628.

14. Kulikova A. V. Features of Internet communications. Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod, 2012, no. 4, pp. 19–24 (in Russian).

15. Soldatova G. U. Digital socialization in the culturalhistorical paradigm: a changing child in a changing world. Social Psychology and Society, 2018, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 71–80 (in Russian).

16. Cardon P. W., Marsall B., Valenzuala J. P. Online and offl ine social ties of social network website users: An exploratory study in eleven societies. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2009, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 54–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2009.11645362

17. Vojskunskij A. E., Evdokimenko A. S., Fedunina N. Yu. Alternative identity in social networkers. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, 2013, no. 1, pp. 66–83 (in Russian).

18. Mamina R. I., Tolstikova I. I. Phygital generation in free global communication. International Journal of Open Information Technologies, 2020, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 34–41 (in Russian).

19. Bauman Z. Retrotopiya [Retrotopia]. Sci. ed. O. A. Oberemko. Moscow VTsIOM Publ., 2019. 160 p. (in Russian).

20. Palfri J., Gasser U. Deti cifrovoj ery [Digital age children]. Moscow, Exmo Publ., 2011. 368 p. (in Russian).

21. Stillman D., Stillman J. Pokolenie Z na rabote. Kak ego ponyat’ i nayti s nim obshchiy yazyk [Gen Z@ Work: How the Next Generation is Transforming the Workplace]. Moscow, Mann, Ivanov i Ferber Publ., 2018. 272 p. (in Russian).

22. Slobodchikov V. I., Isaev E. I. Osnovy psihologicheskoy antropologii. Psikhologiya cheloveka: Vvedenie v psikhologiyu sub”ektivnosti: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human Psychology: An Introduction to the Psychology of Subjectivity. Textbook for universities]. Moscow, Shkola-Press Publ., 1995. 384 p. (in Russian).

23.  Petrovskiy A. V. Three-factor model of a signifi cant other. Voprosy psikhologii, 1991, no. 1, pp. 8–18 (in Russian).

24. Labunskaya V. A. “Human visible” as a sociopsychological phenomenon. Social Psychology and Society, 2010, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 26–39 (in Russian).

25.  Belinskaya E. P., Bronin I. D. Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception in Mediated Contacts in Social Media. Social Psychology and Society, 2015, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 91–108 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2015060407

26.  Kondrat’ev M. Yu. “Signifi cant Other”: Components of Interpersonal Signifi cance. Social Psychology and Society, 2011, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 17–28 (in Russian).

27. Zakharkin R. A. The role of signifi cant Others and media signifi cant others in the process of secondary socialization. Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogics, 2018, no. 2, pp. 41–44 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24158/spp.2018.2.7

 

Full text (in Russian):
(downloads: 5)
Short text (in English):
(downloads: 3)