Home Potato Modern problems of science and education. Law. Formation of public opinion, development of traditions of the collective of folk art

Potato

Modern problems of science and education. Law. Formation of public opinion, development of traditions of the collective of folk art

The multistage structure of the concept of "public opinion" as a state of public consciousness, reflecting a certain collective position on problems and phenomena, is considered. Public opinion today is considered powerful driving force, spiritual power in military organizations, a significant factor in the management, education and regulation of the educational process. A positively directed public opinion of a military collective develops the social activity of soldiers, helps to strengthen discipline and order, and raise the level of cohesion and combat readiness of units and units of the army and navy. Public opinion in a military collective performs the following functions: analytical, evaluative, constructive, directive and control. The features and stages of the formation of public opinion in military collectives are presented. The method of persuasion is described as an important component of the formation of public opinion in the military. educational organizations Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

evaluation

public opinion

higher education

technology

1. Vlasichev A.N. Pedagogical ways of forming public opinion among military personnel of the Strategic Missile Forces: dis. … cand. ped. Sciences: 13.00.01 / A.N. Vlasichev; Military University. - M., 2009. - 235 p.

2. Zheshko V.N., Bogatyreva O.V. Organization Basics educational work in the unit: textbook / V.N. Zheshko, O.V. Bogatyrev. - Penza: PAII, 2016. - 206 p.

3. Klimenko O.A., Patukhin A.A. Study of the process of forming public opinion using cellular automata // Young scientist. - 2014. - No. 16. - P. 161-164.

4. Markov K.V. Individual psychological characteristics of future military specialists / K.V. Markov // Innovative pedagogical technologies: materials of the international. scientific conf. (Kazan, October 2014). - Kazan: Buk, 2014. - S. 297-300.

5. Psychology and pedagogy. Military psychology and pedagogy: textbook / A.V. Beloshitsky, M.V. Petrovskaya, Yu.F. Semonenko, A.G. Tereshchenko, I.Yu. Ustinov; under total ed. G.V. Zibrova. - Voronezh: VAIU, 2012. - 333 p.

6. The role of public opinion in the military team. – URL: http://psyhologiya/114-voennaya-psyhologia.html?start=19.

Modern disintegration processes in society require a comprehensive analysis of their impact on the defense capability of our state. The new conditions also dictate new approaches to solving the traditional tasks of maintaining the combat readiness of units, military discipline and order, and the moral and psychological training of personnel at the proper level. At the same time, new tasks appeared, dictated by the defensive nature of the military doctrine, the reform of the Armed Forces, and their significant reduction. Acute problems have arisen related to the social and legal protection of military personnel and members of their families.

Today, a commander, a military specialist, needs comprehensive scientific knowledge of the specific features, essence and meaning of social skills, the conditions for its functioning and formation, the ability to study and take into account in practical activities the assessments and judgments of military personnel about facts and problems.

Public opinion today is considered a powerful driving force, spiritual power in military organizations, a significant factor in the management, education and regulation of the educational process.

Public opinion is one of the phenomena that with great difficulty lend themselves to comprehensive analysis and strict definition. Currently, there are many definitions of public opinion. However, at the moment, one point of view is reflected in most scientific works and is considered generally accepted. Public opinion is a form of mass consciousness in which the attitude (hidden or explicit) of various groups of people to events and processes of real life that affects their interests and needs is manifested.

A positively directed public opinion of a military collective develops the social activity of soldiers, helps to strengthen discipline and order, and raise the level of cohesion and combat readiness of units and units of the army and navy.

It is important to note that public opinion performs a number of main functions of management activities:

analytical;
appraisal;
constructive;
directive;
control.

When a problem or events arise that affect the interests and needs of the military collective, a systematic group discussion and analysis of the features of what is happening begins. At this moment, a kind of public examination of the event and facts takes place, the value and significance of which is due to the experience of people, their official position, level of knowledge and upbringing.

Analytical judgments inevitably lead to evaluative judgments. Coinciding assessments reflect a positive or negative attitude towards a fact or event. And these assessments cannot but be taken into account in the plans for the educational work of officials of military collectives. It must be borne in mind that value judgments, especially prevailing ones, create a general psychological mood of people for certain actions, behavior, relationships with the ensuing consequences. The attitude to the fact, event, problem is not limited to their analysis and evaluation. At the same time, people think about how to use the fact, how to solve the problem that has arisen in their own interests, in the interests of the team and society. Appropriate constructions of measures, approaches are built in the mind, the goals and means of achieving possible (desirable) results are comprehended. And if these constructions basically coincide and are fired by most of the social community, if they are reflected in the corresponding judgments, we are dealing with a constructive function of public, collective, group opinion.

The constructive function is closely related to the directive function. In the case when the constructive function is superimposed on the masses' understanding of the vital need to solve the problem in an appropriate way, public opinion acts as a directive force.

The control function also belongs to the managerial functions of public opinion. Control of the masses, control from below has always been and will always be an important tool democracy of governance. This form of control is distinguished by its versatility and continuity. Everything that affects the interests and needs of the masses is the subject of their constant close attention. They are always up to date. And with particular passion they follow how the decisions that have become their vital business are being implemented.

In military educational organizations higher education especially great is the role of group, collective and public opinion as upbringing factor, conscious, purposeful and systematic formation of the cadet's personality, his preparation for socially useful activities. The prevailing judgments and evaluations in the educational department, as well as in other social communities, play an educational role in two aspects. First, as a condition of education. Secondly, as a means of educational influence.

Public opinion has characteristics:

orientation ( opinions reflect the general quality assessment problems, attitude to it in the form of judgments);
intensity;
stability (opinions exist for a long time);
information richness;
social support;
scale;
connectivity (consistency);
prevalence.

The formation of public, collective opinion in a military collective is a complex and purposeful, specially organized process that has its own characteristics and directions.

Let us briefly consider the features of the formation of public, collective opinion in military educational organizations of the Ministry of Defense.

The ultimate goal of forming public opinion is the necessary, progressive, mature attitude of the absolute majority of the members of the military collective towards specific fact, event or problem. It is the goal that serves as the core of the criterion for assessing the formation necessary relationships to the fact.

The sphere of military activity is a special sphere. It is characterized by moral and physical stress, stressful situations, as well as a threat to life. That is why any military problem affects, as a rule, the interests not only of the collective, but also of each soldier. Many intra-military problems are perceived by servicemen more sharply, closer, more interested than the problems of the world, national, regional. Training in military educational organizations radically changes the conditions of their life, breaks the habitual civilian way of life, causes qualitative changes in the minds, instilling the spiritual values of the warrior's personality.

Public opinion is born gradually, having gone through the main stages.

On the first stage there is an indirect or direct perception, obtaining certain information about a fact, event, social life, the life of a military collective. The servicemen show interest, certain feelings begin to arise, ideas about the source of interest. Here it is very important to take care that from the very beginning the servicemen receive such information about the fact that will work for the necessary attitude to the fact. To miss this opportunity is to put yourself in the position of "remaking". And it is often harder to remake than to create a new one. Everything must be done so that information about a fact that distorts its essence is not decisive.

Second phase. There is a process of comprehension of the information received about the fact, and comprehension is of an individual nature. In the sphere of individual consciousness, the perception and evaluation of information takes place. It is at this stage, through the prism of their own experience, on the basis of interests and specific conditions forming a personal opinion. A feature of the period is an intense thought process. In the course of it, one's own position is developed, a personal attitude to the fact. At this stage, officials are required to notice the differences in individual opinions, assess their nature, focus, if necessary, correct them.

Third stage. It is characterized by the fact that the formed personal opinion begins to manifest itself. In the process of discussion and debate, there is an exchange of opinions and assessments. On the basis of this exchange, differences in opinions and judgments arise, their struggle takes place. This process involves both individuals and public consciousness. For example, a survey of graduate cadets of the Kazan branch of the Chelyabinsk Tank Institute showed that 75 percent of them continue to discuss the debatable problems of seminars in social and humanitarian disciplines in the unit, hostel, family, with friends outside the university. It is here that many people have a new opportunity in the process of communication to receive confirmation of their point of view, not only developed during the second stage, but also fixing the reaction of other listeners, that is, to receive not just semantic (knowledge), but also psychological (emotional) support for their position .

Fourth stage . Individual opinions and points of view revealed in the course of discussions and discussions are consistently grouped and united around the common fundamental foundations of the problems under discussion. Coinciding judgments and assessments are combined, points of view that oppose the prevailing ones become apparent.

It is important for everyone who is engaged in the study and formation of public opinion that any discussion, a clash of opposing opinions, must be completed. Therefore, when selecting a leader for such an event, one should take into account all possible options outcome of the discussion. The leader must be professionally trained, obligingly polite to all participants in the discussions, erudite, be able to subtly respond to all changes in mood during the dispute, predict the possible outcome, goal, end result.

Fifth stage. The stage of quantitative and qualitative building up of public opinion. Depending on its nature, positive functions are enhanced, negative ones are reduced.

In essence, each of these stages is associated with a single and integral process of forming public opinion among military personnel. All stages are in a certain relationship and interdependence.

It is important for officers, teachers and psychologists to remember the stages in the formation of public opinion among military personnel, their sequence.

In a military collective, the leading method that forms public opinion is suggestion. With the help of suggestion, a certain psychological atmosphere is created and favorable environment to form the necessary attitude towards the ongoing processes in the corresponding group of military personnel. It has been noted that through organized or random, direct or indirect suggestion (especially at the initial stage), a very strong and tangible influence is exerted on the formation of the opinion of soldiers. In this case, the degree of suggestion may be different. Usually it is directly dependent on the level of knowledge, general development, life and service experience, the will and character of the personality of a warrior.

When using persuasion as a method of forming public opinion, one should not lose sight of the active participation of military personnel in communication and perception of information. In the process of discussing this or that issue, people themselves develop certain beliefs based on their interests, goals, ideals and the specific conditions in which they live, are on combat duty, and perform military service duties. The process of communication of military personnel with each other, the discussion of sensitive issues turn them into the subject of opinion-forming. This moment is of exceptionally important and fundamental importance for guiding the process of forming public opinion.

The process of forming a collective opinion can be observed in various forms of communication between soldiers: during a meeting, in a comradely conversation during a rest, when discussing films, books, and printed materials. Participating in these forms of communication, observing how agreement is reached on positions and views on issues of concern to personnel, how differences are overcome, commanders draw conclusions about the essential moral and psychological characteristics of the team.

The mechanism for the formation of the necessary attitude of military personnel to a socially significant event, an important problem, is ultimately intended to eliminate the sign of the object of formation, i.e. that does not meet the requirements. In solving this problem, it is extremely important to take into account the dependence of the results of activities on the level of preparedness of the subject, on the correspondence of the means of forming opinions to the intended goals, on the availability of the necessary opportunities and real conditions, and of course on the starting position, from the stock of knowledge and beliefs from which the formation is carried out. These dependencies are permanent and objective. We rightfully consider them as regularities in the formation of the necessary relations of military personnel to social significant events and problems. It is these patterns that are the basis of the principles of formation of public opinion, most of which are general principles training and education. A number of principles should be emphasized:

focus on the elimination of the sign of the object of formation;
an integrated approach to the consideration and solution of problems of formation;
scientific organization of the forming process;
expediency of formative actions;
coordination of efforts;
unity of understanding of the goals of formation.

The study of public opinion is a process of obtaining, accumulating, storing and processing information, which records the state and dynamics of public opinion of a military collective, functioning in the form of servicemen's value judgments about socially significant events in their lives. This information is obtained by various methods. These include surveys, observations, the study of documents, scientific and practical conferences and other methods. The activity of commanders in the study of public opinion makes it possible to reveal a number of significant aspects in the life of military personnel, to record their reaction to certain measures related to the solution of tasks of combat readiness, combat training, to judge their effectiveness, which, in turn, is one of the important prerequisites increasing the social activity of military personnel and expanding the ties between the command and military teams. When determining specific methods for studying public opinion, it is advisable to proceed from general methodological principles that have been tested in practice, which allows a scientific approach to defining the subject of public opinion research, setting tasks and developing a research program, choosing appropriate research methods and practical advice for commanders and their deputies for educational work.

In order to successfully overcome the problems in the life of various military teams caused by the economic, political, social, spiritual situation in the country, it is extremely important to correctly and systematically study such a social phenomenon as the public opinion of military personnel and use it effectively to increase the effectiveness of military service.

Bibliographic link

Zheshko V.N., Evdokimova O.V. EVALUATION OF THE FEATURES OF FORMING PUBLIC OPINION IN MILITARY EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION // Contemporary Issues science and education. - 2016. - No. 3.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=24529 (date of access: 03/31/2019). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

Public opinion in a team is a set of those generalized assessments that are given among pupils to various phenomena and facts of collective life. The nature and content of public opinion, its maturity can only be revealed by observing pupils in real life conditions or by creating situations of free choice. It is customary to single out two main ways of forming public opinion in a team: establishing practical activities; carrying out organizational and explanatory activities in the form of conversations, meetings, fees, etc. If a meaningful activity of schoolchildren is organized with the active participation of everyone, they not only experience the joy of success, but also learn to be critical of shortcomings and strive to overcome them. In the presence of fundamental, healthy relationships between students, any impact on the team has an impact on its members and, conversely, the impact on one student is perceived by others and as an appeal to them.

Of great importance for the development of the team is organization of promising aspirations of pupils, those. autopsy A.S. Makarenko the law of motion of the collective. If the development and strengthening of the team largely depends on the content and dynamics of its activities, then it must constantly move forward, achieve more and more success. A stop in the development of the team leads to its weakening and disintegration. Therefore, a necessary condition for the development of the team is the formulation and gradual complication of perspectives: close, medium and distant. It is appropriate, in accordance with the requirements of the task approach, to correlate them with operational, tactical and strategic tasks and help each pupil, against the background of a general collective perspective, to single out his own personal one.

See also:

And pedagogy, and psychology originally existed in the bosom of philosophy, from which it first spun pedagogy and then psychology.

website/psychhologia-1/2.htm

Siberian State University. ways of communication. Psychology and pedagogy. Tutorial. Recommended.

website/psihologia-1/index.htm

So, Dr. Spock, it was emphasized in the press of past years, with whose name the humanistic pedagogy, made an article...

website/620/35.htm

Family education serves to improve the pedagogical culture of parents. pedagogy, which is the most important section of pedagogical science.

website/psihologia-1/53.htm

The family as a factor in the education of the personality of the child. Family pedagogy is integral part theory of communist education - purposeful ...

website/enc-Semya/36.htm

This publication is compiled in accordance with the State educational standard of the discipline "Psychology and pedagogy".

website/psychhologia-1/1.htm

Freud A. Psychology and defense mechanisms: Per. from English. - M.: Pedagogy, 1993. To section II. Atkinson R. Human memory and learning process.

website/psihologia-1/56.htm

The study of psychology and pedagogy is of practical importance for future specialists: the knowledge gained in the process of training is necessary in working with personnel and social ...

website/psihologia-1/4.htm

Kantor I.M. Pomoigisho-terminological system pedagogy: Logical and methodological problems. - M.: Pedagogy, 1980

website/nalogovaya-policy/128.htm

Pedagogyhumanism, implemented by him and his numerous followers with the help of the method of reference signals, is a genuine creative collaboration with students ...

Opinion is to the public in our time what the soul is to the body, and the study of one naturally leads us to the other. I can already hear the objection that public opinion has existed at all times, while the public, in the sense we have established, is of fairly recent origin. This is true, but we shall now see what the significance of this objection amounts to. What is public opinion? How is it born? What are his personal sources? How does it express itself in its growth and how does it grow in its expression, as modern ways of expressing it, the universal suffrage show? What is its fruitfulness and its social significance? How is it converted? And to what common mouth, if there is one, do its many streams aspire? We will try to answer all these questions as best we can.

First of all, it should be noted that the word opinion two concepts are usually confused, which, it is true, are confused, but which careful analysis should distinguish: opinion in the proper sense of the word - the totality of judgments, and the general will - the totality of desires. Here we shall deal with an opinion taken predominantly, but not exclusively, in the first of these two meanings.

However great the importance of public opinion, its role should not be exaggerated, despite the fact that in our time it is a flood. We will try to establish the limit of the sphere of his domination. It does not need to be confused with the other two factions of the public spirit, which both nourish and limit it, which are in constant struggle with it because of these limits.

One of them is tradition, accumulated and condensed extract of what constituted the opinion of the dead, a legacy of necessary and saving prejudices, often painful for the living.

The other is the one that we will allow ourselves to call a collective and abbreviated name - intelligence, meaning by this the relatively rational, though often reckless, personal judgments of the elect, who isolate and think and step out of the general stream to either dam or direct it. Priests in former times, philosophers, scientists, jurists, cathedrals, universities, courts of law, were alternately or simultaneously the embodiment of this steady and guiding reason, which rarely differed from the passions and herds of the masses, and from the engines or age-old principles laid down in the depths. their hearts. I would like to add parliaments, chambers or senates to this list. Were not their members chosen precisely to decide matters in complete independence and to serve to curb the public race? But the actual course of things is far from ideal.

Before acquiring a common opinion and realizing it as such, the individuals who make up the nation are aware that they have common tradition and consciously obey the decisions of the mind, which is considered the highest. Thus, of these three ramifications of the public spirit, opinion is the last to develop, but it increases most rapidly from a certain moment, and it increases to the detriment of the other two. No national institution will stand against its periodic attacks; there is no individual mind that would not tremble and be embarrassed before his threats or demands. To which of these two rivals does opinion do more harm? It depends on its leaders. When they belong to the intelligent elect, they sometimes manage to make a battering ram out of opinion, in order to break through the traditional wall and expand it, destroying it, which is not without danger. But when the leadership in the crowd is given to just anyone, it is easier for them, relying on tradition, to restore opinion against reason, which, however, triumphs in the end.

Everything would be better if opinion were limited to the vulgarization of reason in order to initiate it into tradition. Today's mind would thus become tomorrow's opinion and the day after tomorrow's tradition. But opinion, instead of serving as a link between its two neighbors, likes to take part in their strife, and then, reveling in new fashionable doctrines, destroys the usual ideas and institutions before it can replace them, then, under the rule of custom, expels or oppresses reasonable innovators. , or forcibly forces them to put on a traditional livery, forces them to hypocritically dress up.

These three forces differ from each other both in their nature and in their causes and effects. They act all together, but too unevenly and too changeably to constitute the value of things; and value is quite different, depending on whether it is primarily a matter of habit, or a matter of fashion, or a matter of reason.

Next, we will consider that conversation at all times and main source conversation in our time - the press - are important factors of opinion, apart from, of course, tradition and reason, which never cease to take part in it and leave their imprint on it. The factors of tradition, besides opinion itself, are family education, vocational training and school teaching, according to at least, in that they have the elementary. Reason in those societies where it is cultivated - legal, philosophical, scientific - has its characteristic sources of observation, experience, investigation, or in any case reasoning, conclusion based on texts.

The struggle or union of these three forces, their collision, their mutual mastery of each other, their mutual action, their numerous and varied relationships - all this is one of the most burning questions of history. There is nothing so organic, fruitful in social life as this continuous work of resistance and adaptation, often of a bloody nature. Tradition, which always remains national, is more compressed within immovable boundaries, but infinitely deeper and more stable than opinion: it is light and transient, like the wind, and, like the wind, capable of expansion, always striving to become international, just like reason. In general, it can be said that the cliffs of tradition are constantly undermined by the tides of opinion - this sea without ebbs. Opinion is the stronger, the less strong the tradition, but this does not mean that in this case the mind is even less strong.

In the Middle Ages, reason, represented by universities, cathedrals, and courts, had a much greater power than at present to resist public opinion and was more able to reject it; however, he had much less strength to fight the tradition and reform it. The trouble is that modern public opinion has become all-powerful not only against tradition, an element that is in itself very important, but also against reason, judicial, scientific, legislative reason, or state reason for a certain case. If it does not flood the laboratories of scientists - the only inviolable haven hitherto - then it floods the courts, drowns the parliaments, and there is nothing more alarming than this flood, the near end of which nothing forces us to foresee.

Having outlined its boundaries, we will try to define it more precisely.

Public opinion - this is an attitude expressed in the form of certain judgments, ideas and representations social groups to phenomena or problems of social life affecting common interests.

It is also essential that each of the persons who are potentially bearers (or spokesmen) of a particular opinion, which claims to be public in its significance, has a more or less definite consciousness regarding the identity of the judgments it holds with the judgments held by others; if each of them considered himself isolated in his assessment, then none of them would feel himself and would not be compressed in a closer association with his own kind, unconsciously similar. In order for this consciousness of the similarity of ideas to exist among the members of any society, is it not necessary that the cause of this similarity be the proclamation, verbal or written, or with the help of the press, of some idea, at first individual, and then gradually turned into common property? In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, society owed the transformation of individual opinion into public opinion, into "opinion", to the public word, in our time to the press, but at all times and above all to private conversations.

There are often situations when there are two opinions at the same time about a particular problem that arises. Only one of them manages rather quickly to overshadow the other by its more rapid and brighter radiance, or by the fact that, despite its smaller distribution, it is noisier.

In every epoch, even the most barbarous, there has been an opinion, but it differs profoundly from what we call by that name. In a clan, in a tribe, in an ancient city, even in a city of the Middle Ages, all people knew each other personally, and when, thanks to private conversations or the speeches of orators, some idea was affirmed in the minds, it did not seem like something that had fallen from the sky. a stone of impersonal origin and therefore even more charming; everyone imagined her connected with that timbre of her voice, with that face, with that familiar personality from where she came to him, and this gave her a lively physiognomy. For the same reason, it served as a link only between those people who, meeting and talking with each other daily, were not mistaken about others.

As long as the extent of the states did not pass through the walls of the city, or at least through the borders of a small canton, the opinion thus formed, original and strong, strong sometimes even against tradition itself, and especially against individual reason, played a predominant role in the management of people, the role of the choir in Greek tragedy, the role that modern opinion of a completely different origin seeks in turn to win in our big states or in our huge ever-growing federations. But in the extraordinarily long interval that separates these two historical phases, the significance of opinion falls terribly, which is explained by its fragmentation into local opinions, not connected by the usual connecting line and ignoring each other.

In the feudal state of the Middle Ages, every city, every town, had its internal divisions, its separate policies and streams of ideas, or rather whirlwinds of ideas that swirled in one place in these closed places, as different from each other as they were alien. and are indifferent to each other, at least in ordinary times. Not only in these individual localities did local politics absorb all attention, but even when they were only slightly interested in national politics, they were only concerned with it among themselves, they formed only a vague idea of how the same questions were resolved in neighboring cities. There was no "opinion", but there were thousands of individual opinions that had no permanent connection with each other.

This connection could only be formed first by a book, and then - with much greater force - by a newspaper. The periodical press allowed these original groups of like-minded individuals to form a secondary and at the same time higher order an aggregate whose units enter into close communion with each other, having never seen or known each other (in absentia), votes can only be counted, but not weighed. The press thus unconsciously contributed to the creation force of quantity and a reduction in strength of character, if not of reason.

With the same blow, she destroyed the conditions that made possible the absolute power of the rulers. Indeed, the latter was greatly favored by the division of opinion in places. Moreover, she found in this her right to exist and her justification.
What is a country, whose various regions, cities, towns are not united by a collective consciousness of the unity of views? Is it really a nation? Wouldn't it be only a geographical or at best a political expression? Yes, it is a nation, but only in the sense that the political subordination of various parts of the state to one and the same head is already the beginning of nationalization.

When the first parliaments began to be elected, a new step was taken towards the nationalization of the opinions of individual regions and regions. These opinions, similar or dissimilar to each other, were born in each of the deputies, and the whole country, looking at its elected representatives with infinitely less interest than in our days, presented then, as an exception, the spectacle of a nation conscious of itself. But this consciousness, temporary and exclusive, was very vague, very slow and dark. Parliamentary sessions were not public. In any case, for lack of a press, speeches were not published, and for lack of mail, even letters could not replace this absence of newspapers. In a word, from the news, more or less disfigured, carried from mouth to mouth after weeks and even months by foot or horse travelers, wandering monks, merchants, it was known that the deputies had gathered and that they were busy with such and such a subject - that's all.

Let us note that the members of these assemblies, during the short and rare moments of their association, themselves formed a local group, a hotbed of intense local opinion, generated by the infection of one person from another, by personal relationships, mutual influences. And precisely because of this higher local group, temporary, elected, the lower local groups, permanent, hereditary, consisting of relatives or friends by tradition in cities and destinies, felt themselves united by a temporary connection.

The development of postal relations, which increased first public and then private correspondence; the development of means of communication, which made it possible for more frequent communication between people; the development of permanent troops, allowing soldiers from different provinces to get acquainted and fraternally unite on the same battlefields; finally, the development of court life, which called to the monarchical center of the nation a select nobility from all points of the state, - all this greatly contributed to the development of the public spirit. But to bring this great work to the highest degree of development fell to the lot of the printing press. The press, having once reached the phase of the newspaper, makes everything local, everything that was in former times, whatever it was, national, cosmic. internal value, would remain unknown outside a very limited area.

Let's try to be more precise. In a large society, divided into nationalities and subdivided into provinces, regions, cities, there has always existed, even before the press, an international opinion, awakened from time to time; below it are national opinions, also intermittent, but already more frequent; beneath them are regional and local opinions, almost permanent. These are layers of the social spirit superimposed one on top of the other. Only the proportion of these different layers, in terms of importance, in terms of thickness, varied considerably, and it is easy to see in what sense. The more we delve into the past, the more local opinion prevails. To nationalize little by little and even to gradually internationalize the public spirit - such was the task of journalism.

Journalism is the suction and delivery pump of information which, being received every morning from all points of the globe, is distributed on the same day to all points of the globe, insofar as it is interesting or seems interesting to the journalist, taking into account the goal that he pursues. , and the party of which he is the voice. His information, indeed, little by little becomes an irresistible suggestion.
The newspapers began by expressing the opinion, at first purely local, the opinion of the privileged groups, the court, the parliament, the capital, reproducing their gossip, their conversations, their quarrels; they ended up directing and changing opinion, virtually at their own discretion, imposing most of their daily subjects on speeches and conversations.

No one knows, no one can ever imagine how much the newspaper has modified, enriched and at the same time equalized united in space and gave variety over time the conversations of individuals, even those who do not read the papers, but who, while chatting with the readers of the papers, are forced to follow the rut of their borrowed thoughts. One pen is enough to set millions of languages in motion.

Parliaments to the press so deeply diverged from parliaments after the appearance of the press, that it seems that both have only a common name. They differ in their origin, in the nature of their powers, in their functions, in the area and in the strength of their action.

Before the press, the deputies of the various parliaments could not express an opinion that did not yet exist; they expressed only local opinions, which, as we know, have a completely different character, or national traditions. In these meetings, nothing more than a simple, without any connection, comparison of heterogeneous opinions, which concerned private, unrelated questions, took place; here for the first time they learned to realize whether it is possible or impossible to harmonize these opinions. These local opinions were thus mingled with an idea of each other, again purely local, confined within narrow limits or showing some intensity only in the city where these meetings took place. When that city was a capital, like London or Paris, its municipal council might consider itself entitled to compete in importance with the Chamber of National Deputies; this explains even the monstrous claims of the Paris Commune during french revolution when she attacked or tried to subdue constituent Assembly, national assembly, convention. The reason was that the press of that time, deprived of the huge wings attached to it later railways and by telegraph, could bring parliament into rapid and intense communication only with Parisian opinion.

At the present time, thanks to the maturity of the press, every European parliament is able to constantly and instantly come into contact, and be in a living mutual relation of action and reciprocal action, with the opinion not only of some big city, but of the whole country; in relation to the latter, it simultaneously serves as one of the main elements of manifestation and excitation, is a convex mirror and an incendiary mirror. Instead of placing side by side local and dissimilar manifestations of the spirit, he forces numerous expressions, changing facets of the same national spirit, to penetrate each other.

Former parliaments were groups of heterogeneous powers related to different interests, rights, principles; the newest parliaments are groups of homogeneous powers even when they contradict one another, because they deal with identical concerns and are conscious of their identity. In addition, the former deputies did not resemble each other in the peculiar features of the methods of their election, entirely based on the principle of electoral inequality and dissimilarity of different individuals, on the purely personal nature of the right to vote. The power of quantity was not yet born or recognized as legitimate: for this very reason, in the meetings of assemblies chosen in this way, no one considered a simple numerical majority as a legitimate force.

In the most "backward" states, unanimity was mandatory, and the will of all deputies, except for one, was stopped by the opposition of this single dissenting person (the so-called "veto" right). Thus, neither in the recruitment of representatives, nor in the performance of their functions, the law of the majority was and could not be understood before the flourishing of the press and before the nationalization of opinion. After its flowering, any other law seems unthinkable; the universal right to vote, in spite of all the dangers and absurdities which it carries within itself, is accepted everywhere, step by step, in the hope that it contains in itself the capacity for reform; and in spite of strong objections, it is accepted that all should bow to a very important decision voted by a single majority.

The universal suffrage and the omnipotence of the majority in parliaments were made possible only by the continued and steady action of the press, the condition of a great leveling democracy (of course, we are not talking here about a small limited democracy within the walls of a Greek city or a Swiss canton).

The differences that we have just noted also explain the sovereignty of parliaments, which arose with the time of the appearance of the press - sovereignty to which parliaments before the existence of the press didn't even think about applying. They could become equal to the king, then higher than him only when they embodied the national consciousness as well as the king, and then better than him, emphasized the general opinion and general will that had already been born, expressing them, attaching them, so to speak, to their own. decisions, and began to live with them in such close unity that the monarch could not insist on being called their only or most perfect representative.

Until these conditions were met - and they were only met in the era of great states since the advent of journalism - meetings that were of the highest degree of popular character, even during revolutions, did not go so far as to convince the peoples or convince themselves that they have supreme authority, and at the sight of an unarmed, defeated king, they respectfully entered into a peace agreement with him, considered it lucky to receive from him, from some, for example, John the Landless, a charter of magistrates, thus recognizing, not by virtue of prejudice, but by virtue of reason, by virtue of the rationality of a deep and hidden social logic, the necessity of its prerogative.

Monarchies before the press could and should have been more or less absolute, inviolable and sacred, because they represented the whole national unity; with the advent of the press, they can no longer be such, because national unity is achieved outside of them and better than through them. Meanwhile, they can exist, but as different from previous monarchies as modern parliaments differ from the parliaments of the past. The highest merit of the former monarch was that he established unity and consciousness of the nation; the present monarch has a right to exist only in the sense that he expresses it is a unity established outside of it by a permanent national opinion, self-conscious, and applied or adapted to it without being subject to it.

To finish talking about social role press, we note that we owe mainly to the great progress of the periodical press a clearer and more extensive demarcation, a new and more pronounced sense of nationalities, which characterizes in the political sense our modern era. Hasn't the press nurtured, along with our internationalism, our nationalism, which seems to be its negation and could only be its complement? If increasing nationalism instead of decreasing loyalty has become new form of our patriotism, should not this phenomenon be attributed to the same terrible and fruitful force?

It is impossible not to marvel at the fact that, as states mix with each other, imitate each other, assimilate and morally unite with each other, the division of nationalities deepens, and their contradictions seem irreconcilable.

At first glance, one cannot understand this contrast of the nationalist nineteenth century. with the cosmopolitanism of the previous century. But this result, seemingly paradoxical, is the most logical. While the exchange of commodities, of ideas, of every kind of example, between neighboring or remote peoples, has accelerated and multiplied, the exchange of ideas, in particular, has progressed even faster, thanks to newspapers, among individuals of each people speaking the same language. How much has it decreased absolute the difference between nations, their relative and conscious difference has increased so much because of this.

Let us note that the geographical boundaries of nationalities in our time tend to merge more and more with the boundaries of the main languages. There are states where the struggle of languages and the struggle of nationalities have merged into one. The reason for this is that the national feeling has been revived thanks to journalism, and the power of the light of newspapers ceases at the borders of the dialect in which they are written.

The influence of the book, which preceded the influence of the newspaper, and which in the 18th century, as in the 17th, was predominant, could not produce the same consequences: the book also made everyone who read it in the same language feel their philological identity , but this was not about topical questions that at the same time arouse common passions. National existence is to a large extent witnessed by literature, but only newspapers kindle a national life, raise the total movements of minds and desires with their daily grandiose course.

Instead of, like a newspaper, exhausting its interest in the specific topicality of its messages, the book tries to interest, first of all, general and the abstract nature of the ideas it proposes. It means that, as the literature of the 18th century did, it is more capable of evoking a general human trend than a national or even an international one. International and universal are two different things: the European federation, in the form in which our internationalists can form a certain idea about it, has nothing to do with the “humanity” deified by the encyclopedists, whose ideas on this issue were dogmatized by Auguste Comte. Consequently, we have reason to think that the cosmopolitan and abstract character of the tendencies of the public spirit at the moment when the revolution of 1789 broke out is connected with the predominance of the book over the newspaper as an educator of public opinion.

In one of Diderot's letters to Necker in 1775 we can find the following very correct definition: , after they have thought, and which ceaselessly form centers of enlightenment in various parts of society, whence thoughtful errors and truths gradually diverge to the very last limits of the city, where they are affirmed as articles of faith.

If people did not talk to each other, newspapers could appear as much as they wanted (although, under such a hypothesis, their appearance would be incomprehensible), and they would not have a lasting and deep influence on the minds, they would be like a vibrating string without a harmonic decks; on the contrary, in the absence of newspapers and even speeches, conversation, if it were able to progress without this food, which is also difficult to admit, could eventually replace to a certain extent the social role of the tribune and the press as an opinion maker.

Public opinion in the team

Morozov A.V.

First of all, it should be noted that the word opinion usually confuses two concepts, which, it is true, are confused, but which careful analysis should distinguish: opinion in the proper sense of the word - a set of judgments, and the general will - a set of desires. Here we shall deal with an opinion taken predominantly, but not exclusively, in the first of these two meanings.

One of them is tradition, the accumulated and condensed extract of what constituted the opinion of the dead, a legacy of necessary and saving prejudices, often painful for the living.

The other is the one that we will allow ourselves to call the collective and abbreviated name - the mind, meaning by this the relatively rational, although often reckless personal judgments of the elect, who isolate themselves and think, and go out of the general stream to serve as a dam for it or direct it. . Priests in former times, philosophers, scientists, jurists, cathedrals, universities, courts of law, were alternately or simultaneously the embodiment of this steady and guiding reason, which rarely differed from the passions and herds of the masses, and from the engines or age-old principles laid down in the depths. their hearts. I would like to add parliaments, chambers or senates to this list. Were not their members chosen precisely to decide matters in complete independence and to serve to curb the public race? But the actual course of things is far from ideal.

Before acquiring a common opinion and realizing it as such, the individuals who make up the nation are aware that they have a common tradition and are consciously subject to the decisions of the mind, which is considered superior. Thus, of these three ramifications of the public spirit, opinion is the last to develop, but it increases most rapidly from a certain moment, and it increases to the detriment of the other two. No national institution will stand against its periodic attacks; there is no individual mind that would not tremble and be embarrassed before his threats or demands. To which of these two rivals does opinion do more harm? It depends on its leaders. When they belong to the intelligent elect, they sometimes manage to make a battering ram out of opinion, in order to break through the traditional wall and expand it, destroying it, which is not without danger. But when the leadership in the crowd is given to just anyone, it is easier for them, relying on tradition, to restore opinion against reason, which, however, triumphs in the end.

We shall further consider that conversation at all times and the main source of conversation in our time - the press - are important factors of opinion, apart, of course, from tradition and reason, which never cease to take part in it and leave their imprint on it. The factors of tradition, besides opinion itself, are family education, vocational training, and school teaching, at least in so far as they are elementary. Reason in those societies where it is cultivated - legal, philosophical, scientific - has its characteristic sources of observation, experience, investigation, or in any case reasoning, conclusion based on texts.

Having outlined its boundaries, we will try to define it more precisely.

Public opinion is the attitude of social groups to phenomena or problems of social life that affect common interests, expressed in the form of certain judgments, ideas and ideas.

As long as the extent of states did not pass through the walls of the city, or at least through the boundaries of a small canton, the opinion thus formed, original and strong, sometimes strong even against tradition itself, and especially against individual reason, played a predominant role in the management of people, the role of the choir in Greek tragedy, the role that modern opinion of a completely different origin seeks in turn to win in our large states or in our huge ever-growing federations. But in the extraordinarily long interval that separates these two historical phases, the significance of opinion falls terribly, which is explained by its fragmentation into local opinions, not connected by the usual connecting line and ignoring each other.

This connection could only be formed first by a book, and then - with much greater force - by a newspaper. The periodical press allowed these initial groups of like-minded individuals to form a secondary and at the same time higher-order aggregate, the units of which enter into close communication with each other, never seeing or knowing each other (in absentia), votes can only be counted, but not weighed. The press has thus unconsciously contributed to the creation of strength of numbers and the reduction of strength of character, if not of reason.

What is a country, whose various regions, cities, towns are not united by a collective consciousness of the unity of views? Is it really a nation? Wouldn't it be only a geographical or at best a political expression? Yes, it is a nation, but only in the sense that the political subordination of various parts of the state to one and the same head is already the beginning of nationalization.

Let us note that the members of these assemblies, during the short and rare moments of their intercourse, themselves formed a local group, a hotbed of intense local opinion, engendered by the infection of one person from another, by personal relations, by mutual influences. And precisely because of this higher local group, temporary, elected, the lower local groups, permanent, hereditary, consisting of relatives or friends by tradition in cities and destinies, felt themselves united by a temporary connection.

The development of postal relations, which increased first public and then private correspondence; the development of means of communication, which made it possible for more frequent communication between people; the development of permanent troops, allowing soldiers from different provinces to get acquainted and fraternally unite on the same battlefields; finally, the development of court life, which called to the monarchical center of the nation a select nobility from all points of the state, - all this greatly contributed to the development of the public spirit. But to bring this great work to the highest degree of development fell to the lot of the printing press. The press, having once reached the phase of the newspaper, nationalizes everything local, everything that in former times, whatever its inner significance, would have remained unknown outside a very limited area.

The newspapers began by expressing the opinion, at first purely local, the opinion of the privileged groups, the court, the parliament, the capital, reproducing their gossip, their conversations, their quarrels; they ended up directing and changing opinion, virtually at their own discretion, imposing most of their daily subjects on speeches and conversations.

No one knows, no one can ever imagine how much the newspaper has modified, enriched and at the same time equalized, united in space and given variety in time to the conversations of individuals, even those who do not read newspapers, but who, chatting with newspaper readers, are forced to stick to the rut of their borrowed thoughts. One pen is enough to set millions of languages in motion.

The parliaments before the press differed so profoundly from the parliaments after the advent of the press that it seems that both have only a common name. They differ in their origin, in the nature of their powers, in their functions, in the area and in the strength of their action.

Before the press, the deputies of the various parliaments could not express an opinion that did not yet exist; they expressed only local opinions, which, as we know, have a completely different character, or national traditions. In these meetings, nothing more than a simple, without any connection, comparison of heterogeneous opinions, which concerned private, unrelated questions, took place; here for the first time they learned to realize whether it is possible or impossible to harmonize these opinions. These local opinions were thus mingled with an idea of each other, again purely local, confined within narrow limits or showing some intensity only in the city where these meetings took place. When that city was a capital, like London or Paris, its municipal council might consider itself entitled to compete in importance with the Chamber of National Deputies; this even explains the monstrous pretensions of the Paris Commune during the French Revolution, when it attacked or tried to subdue the constituent assembly, the national assembly, the convention. The reason was that the press of the time, deprived of the huge wings attached to it later by railroads and telegraphs, could bring parliament into rapid and intense communication with only Parisian opinion.

The differences we have just noted also explain the sovereignty of parliaments since the advent of the press, a sovereignty that parliaments before the existence of the press did not even think of laying claim to. They could become equal to the king, then higher than him only when they embodied the national consciousness as well as the king, and then better than him, emphasized the general opinion and general will that had already been born, expressing them, attaching them, so to speak, to their own. decisions, and began to live with them in such close unity that the monarch could not insist on being called their only or most perfect representative.

Until these conditions were met - and they were only met in the era of great states since the advent of journalism - meetings that were of the highest degree of popular character, even during revolutions, did not go so far as to convince the peoples or convince themselves that they have supreme power, and at the sight of an unarmed king defeated by them, they respectfully entered into a peace agreement with him, considered it lucky to receive from him, from some, for example, John the Landless, a charter of magistrates, thus recognizing, not in the force of prejudice, and by force of reason, by virtue of the rationality of a deep and hidden social logic, the necessity of its prerogative.

Monarchies before the press could and should have been more or less absolute, inviolable and sacred, because they represented the whole national unity; with the advent of the press, they can no longer be such, because national unity is achieved outside of them and better than through them. Meanwhile, they can exist, but as different from previous monarchies as modern parliaments differ from the parliaments of the past. The highest merit of the former monarch was that he established the unity and consciousness of the nation; the present monarch has a right to exist only in the sense that he expresses this unity, established outside him by a permanent national opinion which is self-conscious, and applies or adapts itself to it without being subject to it.

To complete the discussion of the social role of the press, we note that we owe mainly to the great progress of the periodical press a clearer and more extensive delimitation, a new and more pronounced sense of nationalities, which characterizes our modern era in a political sense. Hasn't the press nurtured, along with our internationalism, our nationalism, which seems to be its negation and could only be its complement? If increasing nationalism, instead of diminishing loyalty, has become a new form of our patriotism, should not this phenomenon be attributed to the same terrible and fruitful force?

At first glance, one cannot understand this contrast of the nationalist nineteenth century. with the cosmopolitanism of the previous century. But this result, seemingly paradoxical, is the most logical. While the exchange of commodities, of ideas, of every kind of example, between neighboring or remote peoples, has accelerated and multiplied, the exchange of ideas, in particular, has progressed even faster, thanks to newspapers, among individuals of each people speaking the same language. As much as the absolute difference between nations has decreased from this, so much has their relative and conscious difference increased from this.

The influence of the book, which preceded the influence of the newspaper, and which in the 18th century, as in the 17th, was predominant, could not produce the same consequences: the book also made everyone who read it in the same language feel their philological identity , but it was not about topical issues that at the same time arouse common passions. National existence is to a large extent witnessed by literature, but only newspapers kindle national life, raise the total movements of minds and desires with their daily grandiose course.

Instead of, like a newspaper, exhausting its interest in the concrete topicality of its messages, the book tries to interest, first of all, the general and abstract nature of the ideas that it offers. It means that, as the literature of the 18th century did, it is more capable of evoking a general human trend than a national or even an international one. International and universal are two different things: the European federation, in the form in which our internationalists can form a certain idea about it, has nothing to do with the “humanity” deified by the encyclopedists, whose ideas on this issue were dogmatized by Auguste Comte. Consequently, we have reason to think that the cosmopolitan and abstract character of the tendencies of the public spirit at the moment when the revolution of 1789 broke out is connected with the predominance of the book over the newspaper as an educator of public opinion.

In one of Diderot's letters to Necker in 1775 we can find the following very correct definition: , after they have thought, and which ceaselessly form in various points of society centers of enlightenment, from where thoughtful errors and truths gradually diverge to the very last limits of the city, where they are affirmed as articles of faith ".

Techniques and means of forming public opinion in the military team, its use in the educational process.

Collective opinion is a set of individual opinions of the majority of personnel. It expresses the position of evaluation, views and beliefs of military personnel.

The opinions of the military collective are formed and developed under the influence of the social ideology of morality, the requirements of the military oath and regulations, orders of the commander, decisions of various kinds of meetings. Therefore, it acts as an indicator of the consciousness, ideological orientation of the maturity of the team, a factor actively influencing the psychology of the personality of a warrior. A correctly formed opinion helps to effectively influence the increase in the combat capability of the unit, the strengthening of discipline.

It is known that every soldier voluntarily or involuntarily measures his actions and activities with the opinion of the commander and the majority of personnel, as well as the most authoritative colleagues. This is a kind of regularity, because the collective opinion, expressing the mind, will and feelings of the majority, causes a person to strive for self-improvement. The motivating force of the collective opinion is also explained by the fact that the individual is afraid of the negative assessments of the majority, which reduce his authority in the team.

The cohesion of the military collective plays an important role in shaping public opinion. So, when a team is just being created, it is much more difficult for the commander to form a common opinion, because the soldiers have not yet come close and do not understand each other. It is known that a young soldier treats his commander, senior and authoritative soldiers with increased attention. During this period, there is a so-called pliability, or, in other words, the susceptibility of newcomers to the individual opinions of individual unscrupulous soldiers. It is then that an individual-group opinion may appear in the team, which differs from the opinion of the commander and the majority of the personnel. Since, as a rule, a negative group opinion takes careless, undisciplined persons under protection and conflicts with the general opinion of the collective.

Studies show that the opinions of commanders of officers of educational structures on various issues of service for the majority of soldiers play a decisive role in shaping their certain views and judgments. Power and experience, respect and trust make every word of a commander, an educator officer authoritative and impressive. This alone, not to mention other reasons, obliges the officer to avoid rash judgments and conclusions. Psychologists recommend: before uttering any thought aloud, the officer must carefully think it over, as it will certainly affect the behavior of his subordinates. Persuasiveness, categorical words of an officer, as practice shows Everyday life, leave no shadow of doubt about the correctness and clarity of the position, especially in combat conditions.

The action of collective opinion in combat, as well as in the conditions of performing responsible tasks in peacetime (combat duty, guard duty, exercises, etc.) is distinguished by a special unity of views and value judgments, a high degree compliance with statutory requirements.

The decisive prerequisite for the stability of the collective opinion is ideological conviction, love for the Motherland, faith in the commander and one's weapons. This position is confirmed by the experience of the military activity of the Armed Forces during the Second World War, local wars and conflicts. Deep ideological conviction, patriotism, unity of thoughts of commanders and subordinates provided our military teams in the most difficult conditions fortitude in battle, the will to win.

It is well known that politics gives the desired results when it is based on precise consideration of the interests of classes, social groups, and individuals. Society is specific people, they have specific interests, their own ideas about life, its real and imaginary values. This idea is also true for the military collective, in which the specific interests of specific servicemen become the source of group and collective assessments and judgments. Everyday practice confirms that the higher the quality of individual ideological influence on a soldier, the sharper his political vigilance and the more effective the opinion of the collective.

Close spiritual contact with a person, the ability to understand his thoughts and interests is a guarantee of mutual respect, unity of views and maintaining a healthy moral and psychological atmosphere in the unit. But where individual educational work is weakened, where they do not know how to carry it out, they do not listen to the voice of their subordinates, they do not give the necessary advice and recommendations in time, various unfounded judgments and even negative opinions arise.

Public opinion as a socio-psychological process has three conditional stages of development:

AT THE FIRST STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, warriors perceive, experience and evaluate an act or event, each one has his own subjective assessment and a strictly individual opinion - a judgment.

AT THE SECOND STAGE of forming a common opinion, the soldiers exchange thoughts, assessments, and judgments. This stage can take place quietly within each group.

AT THE THIRD STAGE, groups of warriors, as a rule, argue, defend their assessments, points of view, emotionally convince each other, coming to a unity of views.

In order to optimize the management of public opinion, an experienced commander or educator will not miss the moment of the first stage, when the soldiers are still experiencing the event that excited them and their attitude towards it has not yet been formed.
The main thing at this moment is to prevent the appearance of immature views, biased assessments. In this, the officer is assisted by activists, informal leaders among colleagues, they quickly react to the news, give it a correct assessment, and form a positive attitude towards the perception of information.

At the second stage, it is more difficult for an officer to change the wrong judgments of individual servicemen, since the individual-group opinion has a certain inertia. In this case, only by counteraction can the collective be informed additional facts no mention of misjudgments.

It is not easy to manage public opinion, to provide principled criticism and self-criticism. The experience of working on the formation of a mature collective opinion shows that it is necessary to criticize, first of all, not minor oversights and individual statements, but serious violations of military discipline or a stable negative orientation of the individual.

Unfortunately, when some individual young officers try to make almost every case of violation of the statutory provisions a subject of discussion of the personnel, trying to enlist the support of a collective opinion, which in practice does not justify itself.

Public opinion is formed successfully at general meetings. In advanced subdivisions, they are preceded by a great deal of organizational work. They also play an important role in group discussions.

The methodology for conducting these conversations is quite simple. Questions, as a rule, are put by an officer, and one of the soldiers answers them, others supplement or refute him. The officer directs the conversation in such a way that everyone speaks. Sometimes this does not work out, as individual warriors are silent, embarrassed to seem ridiculous, incompetent. A separate conversation is conducted with the silent ones, during which the commander finds out their opinion on this or that issue. The officer carefully analyzes the results of group and individual conversations and draws a conclusion about the nature of public opinion on this issue.

AT individual cases for the analysis of public opinion written questionnaires and personal conversations - interviews are used. They may contain questions that reveal information about an individual or a team, facts of behavior in the past and present, an assessment of events or attitudes towards an individual soldier, group, or team. It is advisable to conduct conversations as often as possible in order to fix the level of development of the psychology of the team and the dynamics of public opinion.

The material collected with the use of questionnaires, conversations, surveys, meetings and other methods about the judgments and views of groups and the collective as a whole is subjected to careful processing by comparing, comparing the answers received from their analysis.

Thus, constant and reliable communication with personnel, regular information about current events, improvement of the ideological, political and moral education of soldiers, an active offensive struggle against petty-bourgeois psychology are essential conditions managing public opinion. The military collective, psychologically prepared to overcome difficulties and dangers, quickly eliminates individual tension, does not allow emotional conflicts, panic mood. Such a team is able to successfully carry out any combat mission.