Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology

Izvestiya of Saratov University.

ISSN 2304-9790 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9013 (Online)


For citation:

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

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 173)
Language: 
Russian
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
316.6:159.9

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

Autors: 
Ryaguzova Elena V., Saratov State University
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.

Reference: 

1.   Our Common Future. In: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, USA, Oxford University Press, 1987. 420 p.

2.   Norgaard R. B. Sustainable development: a co-evolutionary view. Futures, 1988, vol. 20, iss. 6, pp. 606–620.

3.   Ermakov D. S. Ocherk psikhologii ustoychivogo razvitiya [An essay on the psychology of sustainable development]. S. Yu. Zhdanova, M. М. О. Mdivani, V. I. Panov, eds. Ekopsikhologicheskiye issledovaniya-5: sbornik nauchnykh statey uchastnikov 8-y Rossiyskoy konferentsii po ekologicheskoy psikhologii [Eco-psychological research-5: scientifi c articles by participants of the 8th Russian conference on environmental psychology]. Perm, Perm State National Research University Publ., 2018, pp. 22–27 (in Russian).

4.   Еrmakov D. S. The Environmental Psychology in the Context of the Sustainable Development. RUDN Journal of psychology and pedagogics, 2012, no. 2, pp. 10–15 (in Russian).

5.   Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development: resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed 30 April 2020).

6.   Moiseyev N. N. Sobraniye sochineniy: v 3 t. T. 3: Vremya opredelyat’ natsional’nyye tseli [Collected works. Vol. 3: Time to determine national goals]. Moscow, MNEPU Publ., 1997. 256 p. (in Russian).

7.   Danilov-Danil’yan V. I., Piskulova N. A., eds. Ustoychivoye razvitiye: Novyye vyzovy [Sustainable development: new challenges]. Moscow, Aspect Press Publ., 2015. 336 p. (in Russian)

8.   Snakin V. V. Put’ k ustoychivomu razvitiyu: mify i real’nost’ [The Path to Sustainable Development: Myths and Reality]. Vek globalizatsii [Age of globalization], 2016, no. 1–2, pp. 80–86 (in Russian).

9.   McGregor S. L. T. Alternative communications about sustainability education. Sustainability, 2013, vol. 5, iss. 8, pp. 3562–3580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083562

10.  Selby D. ‘Go, go, go, said the Bird’: Sustainabilityrelated education in interesting times. In: F. Kawaga, D. Selby, eds. Education and Climate Change. New York, USA, Routledge, 2010, pp. 35–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203866399-9

11. Wals A. Message in a bottle: learning our way out of unsustainability. Wageningen, Wageningen University, 2010. 42 p.

12.  Jickling B., Wals A. Debating education for sustainable development 20 Years after Rio: a conversation between Bob Jickling and Arjen Wals. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2012, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 49–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821100600111

13.  Giddings B., Hopwood B., O’Brien G. Environment, economy and society: fi tting them into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 2002, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 187–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199

14.  Huckle J. Education for sustainable development. A briefi ng paper for the training and development agency for schools. Available at: http://john.huckle.org.uk/ (accessed 30 April 2020).

15.  Ireland L. Educating for the 21st century: advancing an ecologically sustainable society. PhD thesis. Stirling, University of Stirling, 2007. 539 p.

16.  Bolsunovskaya L. M. Critical discourse analysis of media discourse: “sustainable development”. Belgorod State University Scientifi c Bulletin. Philology Journalism Pedagogy Psychology, 2016, no. 21 (242), iss. 31, pp. 42–49 (in Russian).

17.  Buckley J. Re-storing the Earth: A phenomenological study of living sustainably. Phenomenology & Practice, 2013, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 19–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/pandpr21166

18.  Di Fabio A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, vol. 8, article 1534, pp. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

19.  Riggs L. W., Hellyer-Riggs S. Eco-psychological and phenomenological approach to sustainability. European
Journal of Sustainable Development, 2019, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 262–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n5p262

20.  Genov N. Challenges of individualization. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 142 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-34995828-3

21.  Panov V. I. Ecological psychology in the context of the ecological crisis and the concept of sustainable development. Panov V. I., ed. Ekopsikhologicheskiye issledovaniya-3 [Ecopsychological research-3]. Moscow, Psikhologicheskiy institut RAO Publ., St. Petersburg, Nestor History Publ., 2013, pp. 8–23 (in Russian).

22.  Wuelser G., Pohl C. How researchers frame scientifi c contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory. Sustainability Science, 2016, vol. 11, iss. 5, pp. 789–800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0363-7

 

Published: 
30.09.2020