|
Public opinion in a team - this 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 conditions life or through the creation of situations of free choice. It is customary to distinguish 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, gatherings, etc. If the 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 principled, healthy relations 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. Great importance for the development of the team has organization of promising aspirations of pupils, those. opened by A.S. Makarenko the law of movement 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 setting and gradual complication of prospects: near, middle and distant. In accordance with the requirements of the task approach, it is appropriate to correlate them with operational, tactical and strategic tasks and help each pupil, against the background of a general collective perspective, to distinguish his own personal one. |
See also:
AND pedagogy, and psychology originally existed in the bosom of philosophy, from which pedagogy and then psychology.
website / psihologia-1 / 2.htm
Siberian State University... ways of communication. Psychology and pedagogy. Tutorial... Recommended.
site / psihologia-1 / index.htm
So, Dr. Spock, it was emphasized in the press of past years, with whose name the humanist pedagogy, made an article ...
website / 620 / 35.htm
Family pedagogy, which is the most important section of pedagogical science.
website / psihologia-1 / 53.htm
Family as a factor in the upbringing of a child's personality. Family pedagogy is an part of the theory of communist education - purposeful ...
website / enc-Semya / 36.htm
This publication has been compiled in accordance with the State educational standard of the discipline "Psychology and pedagogy".
website / psihologia-1 / 1.htm
Freud A. Psychology and defense mechanisms: Per. from English - M .: Pedagogy, 1993. To section II. Atkinson R. Human memory and the learning process.
website / psihologia-1 / 56.htm
Studying psychology and pedagogy has a practical significance for future specialists: the knowledge gained in the learning process is necessary in working with personnel and social ...
website / psihologia-1 / 4.htm
Kantor I.M. Help-terminological system pedagogy: Logical and methodological problems. - M .: Pedagogy, 1980
website / nalogovaya-policiya / 128.htm
Pedagogyhumanism, realized by him and his numerous followers using the method of reference signals, is a genuine creative collaboration with students ...
Parallel action pedagogy. An essential factor in the development and maturity of the team is the formation of a healthy public opinion. Public opinion should be understood as the prevailing assessment that is given among students to various phenomena and facts of collective life. Naturally, in the process of upbringing, it is necessary to form a healthy public opinion in the collective. How can you diagnose, i.e. to determine the maturity of students' public opinion? The "natural experiment" comes to the rescue here. For example, schoolchildren participated in landscaping a nearby road, but several of the children shied away from this work. And this fact can serve as a kind of indicator of how healthy and principled the public opinion of the collective is. If the students in their mass condemn the unfair act of their classmates, then we can talk about the presence of a healthy public opinion in the collective. If the majority of the class remains silent and does not show any desire to overcome such shortcomings, then this will indicate an insufficient maturity of public opinion.
But how can a healthy public opinion be formed and developed in a team? This task is solved only in the process and with the help of well-established practical activity of students, which covers teaching, socially useful and cultural work, labor and various educational activities: conversations, student meetings, evenings, etc. If all the main types of this activity are organized meaningfully, with the active participation of schoolchildren, then the latter not only experience the joy of success, but also are critical of the existing shortcomings and strive to overcome them. But this does not happen by itself. To foster adherence to principles and a healthy public opinion, it is important to bring up for collective discussion all more or less significant events and phenomena in the life of the school (class), give them a correct public assessment, and develop the spirit of pluralism and democracy among students.
In one of rural schools 7th grade students sponsored a site of the school garden. The schoolchildren worked well on their plots, but one of them did not quite conscientiously look after the trees assigned to him. Because of him, the class received a comment from the headmaster. This fact excited the students. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the behavior of a classmate. At the class meeting, it was discussed that one student can let the whole team down. Public opinion was clearly aimed at condemning unfair treatment of the assigned case. This became possible due to the fact that the majority of seventh-graders treated its implementation with great responsibility. Under these conditions, the negligence of one person caused condemnation from the entire class.
While fostering a healthy public opinion, it is necessary in every possible way to enhance the role of self-government bodies in the formation of discipline, adherence to principles and mutual exactingness among students in the collective.
Thanks to healthy public opinion, the position of A.S. Makarenko on the pedagogy of "parallel action". Its essence lies in the fact that in the presence of fundamental and healthy relationships between students, any impact on the team has an educational influence on its individual members and, conversely, the impact on an individual student affects the entire team. In other words, such a maturity of the collective is achieved when it really acts as a subject of education, when all grounds for mutual responsibility and closure in narrow group interests disappear. The team begins to function as a well-organized and socially healthy unit of our society.
Public opinion in the team
A.V. Morozov
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 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 meaning of this objection boils down to. What is public opinion? How is it born? What are his personal sources? How is it expressed in its growth and in its expression it grows, as it is shown modern ways his expressions, universal suffrage? What is its fruitfulness and its social significance? How is it transformed? And to what common mouth, if there is one, do its many streams tend to? We will try to answer all these questions whenever possible.
First of all, it should be noted that the word opinion usually confuses two concepts, which, it is true, are confused, but which must be distinguished by careful analysis: opinion in the proper sense of the word is a set of judgments, and the general will is a set of desires. Here we will concern ourselves with an opinion taken predominantly, but not exclusively, in the first of these two meanings.
No matter how great the importance of public opinion, one should not exaggerate its role, despite the fact that in our time it is a flooding stream. Let us 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 social spirit, which simultaneously feed and restrict it, which are in continuous struggle with it from outside these limits.
One of them is tradition, an accumulated and condensed extract of what was believed by the dead, a legacy of necessary and salutary prejudices that are often painful for the living.
The other is what we will permit ourselves to call by a collective and abbreviated name - reason, meaning by this the relatively rational, although often reckless, personal judgments of the elect, who isolate and think and go out of the general stream to serve as a dam for it or to guide it. ... Priests in former times, philosophers, scientists, jurists, cathedrals, universities, judicial institutions - were alternately or simultaneously the embodiment of this stable and guiding reason, which rarely differed from the passionate and herd hobbies of the masses, and from the engines or age-old principles embedded in the depths their hearts. I would like to add to this list parliaments, chambers or senates. Are their members not elected precisely to decide matters in full independence and serve to curb the public run? But the actual course of things is far from being ideal.
Before acquiring a common opinion and realizing it as such, the individuals making up a nation realize that they have a common tradition and consciously submit to the decisions of reason, which is considered superior. Thus, of these three ramifications of the public spirit, opinion begins to develop last, but it increases most rapidly, starting from a certain moment, and it increases to the detriment of the other two. No national institution can withstand his periodic attacks; there is no individual mind that would not tremble and be embarrassed before its threats or demands. To which of these two rivals does opinion do more harm? It depends on its leaders. When they belong to reasonable chosen ones, they sometimes manage to make a ram out of opinion in order to punch a hole in the traditional wall and expand it, destroying it, which is not without danger. But when the headship in the crowd is given to just anyone, it is easier for them, relying on tradition, to restore opinion against reason, which, however, in the end triumphs.
Everything would go for the 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, loves to take part in their strife, and then, reveling in new fashionable doctrines, destroys familiar ideas and institutions before it can replace them, then under the rule of custom it expels or oppresses rational innovators. , or forcibly forces them to wear traditional livery, forces them to disingenuous dressing.
These three forces differ from each other both in nature and in their causes and effects. They all work together, but too unevenly and too volatile to add value to things; and the value is completely different, depending on whether it is, first of all, a matter of habit, or a matter of fashion, or a matter of reasoning.
Further we will consider that the conversation at all times and main source conversations in our time - the press - are important factors 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 the opinion itself, are the essence of family education, vocational training and school teaching, at least in what is elementary in them. Reason in those societies where it is cultivated: legal, philosophical, scientific, - has as its characteristic sources observation, experience, investigation, or at least reasoning, conclusion based on texts.
The struggle or union of these three forces, their clash, their mutual mastery of each other, their mutual action, their many and varied relationships - all this is one of the most burning questions of history. There is nothing in social life so organic and fruitful as this continuous work of resistance and adaptation, often of a bloody nature. Tradition, which always remains national, is more compressed within fixed boundaries, but infinitely deeper and more stable than opinion: it is light and transient, like the wind, and, like the wind, is capable of expansion, always strives to become international, just like reason. In general, it can be said that the cliffs of tradition are continually undermined by the tides of opinion - this sea without ebb. The less strong the tradition is, the stronger the opinion, but this does not mean that in this case the mind is even less strong.
In the Middle Ages, the mind, represented by universities, councils and courts, possessed a much greater power than at the present time to resist public opinion and was more capable of rejecting it; however, he had much less strength to fight the tradition and reform it. The trouble is that modern public opinion has become omnipotent not only against tradition, an element that is very important in itself, but also against reason, judicial reason, scientific, legislative, or state reason for a certain case. If it does not flood the laboratories of scientists - the only inviolable refuge hitherto - then it floods the courts, drowns the parliaments, and there is nothing more alarming than this flood, the near end of which nothing makes us foresee.
Having outlined its boundaries, we will try to define it more precisely.
Public opinion is an attitude expressed in the form of certain judgments, ideas and perceptions 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 exponents) of a particular opinion, claiming in its significance to the public, have a more or less definite consciousness regarding the identity of the judgments that it adheres to with the judgments held by others; if each of them considered itself isolated in its assessment, then none of them would feel and would not be compressed in a closer association with those who are similar to themselves, unconsciously similar. In order for this consciousness of the similarity of ideas to exist among the members of a society, is it not necessary that the reason for this similarity was a verbal or written proclamation, or with the help of the press, some idea, at first individual, and then gradually turned into common property? The transformation of individual opinion into public opinion, into "opinion", society was obliged in antiquity and in the Middle Ages to public speech, in our time - to the press, but at all times and above all - to private conversations.
It is not uncommon for situations when there are two opinions at the same time about a specific problem arising. Only one of them quite quickly manages to outshine the other by its more impetuous and brighter radiance, or by the fact that, despite its smaller distribution, it is more noisy.
In every era, even the most barbaric, there has been an opinion, but it differs deeply from what we call by this 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 speeches of orators, some idea was established in the minds, it did not seem like something that fell from the sky a stone of impersonal origin and, as a result, even more charming; everyone imagined her connected with that timbre of 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 connection only between those people who, meeting and talking with each other every day, were not mistaken about others.
Until the length of states crossed the walls of the city or, at least, across the boundaries of a small canton, the opinion thus formed was original and strong, sometimes strong even against the tradition itself, especially against the individual reason, played a predominant role in the management of people. the role of the chorus in the Greek tragedy, the role that modern opinion of a completely different origin seeks in turn to conquer in our large states or in our huge ever-growing federations. But in that unusually long interval that separates these two historical phases, the importance of opinion falls terribly, which is explained by its fragmentation into local opinions that are not connected with each other by the usual connecting line and ignore each other.
In the feudal state in the Middle Ages, each city, each town had its own internal disagreements, its own separate policies and flows of ideas, or, rather, whirlwinds of ideas that swirled in one place in these closed places, as much diverging from each other as they were alien and are indifferent to each other, at least in ordinary times. Not only in these individual localities, local politics absorbed all attention, but even when they were weakly interested in national politics, they were only engaged in it among themselves, they only had a vague idea of how the same issues were resolved in neighboring cities. There was no "opinion", but there were thousands of separate opinions that did not have any permanent connection with each other.
This connection could only be formed at 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 of a higher order aggregate, the units of which enter into close communication with each other, never seeing or knowing each other (in absentia), the votes can only be counted, but not weighed. The press, therefore, unconsciously contributed to the creation of strength of quantity and the reduction of 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, this latter was to a large extent favored by the fragmentation of opinion in places. Furthermore, she found in this her right to exist and her justification.
What is the country like different areas which cities, townships are not united by the collective consciousness of the unity of views? Is this really a nation? Wouldn't it be just a geographic expression 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 chosen ones with an interest infinitely less than in our days, presented then, as an exception, a spectacle of a nation conscious of itself. But this consciousness, temporary and exclusive, was very dim, very slow and dark. Sessions of parliaments were not public. In any case, in the absence of a press, speeches were not published, and in the absence 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.
Note that the members of these meetings, during short and rare moments of their communication, themselves formed a local group, a hotbed of intense local opinion generated by the infection of one person from another, personal relationships, and mutual influences. And it was thanks to this higher local group, temporary, elected, that lower local groups, permanent, hereditary, consisting of relatives or friends according to tradition in cities and estates, felt themselves united by a temporary connection.
The development of postal relations, which increased first public and then private correspondence; the development of communication lines, which made it possible for people to communicate more often; the development of standing troops, allowing soldiers from different provinces to get to know and fraternally unite on the same battlefields; finally, the development of court life, which called the elite nobility from all points of the state to the monarchist center of the nation - all this greatly contributed to the development of the social spirit. But it fell to the printing press to bring this great work to the highest degree of development. The press, once it has reached the phase of the newspaper, makes everything local national, cosmic, everything that in former times, whatever it may be. intrinsic meaning 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 that aroused from time to time; below it - national opinions, also intermittent, but more frequent; below them - the opinions of regional and local, almost constant. These are layers of the social spirit, superimposed on one another. Only the proportion of these different layers in terms of importance, in terms of thickness has varied significantly, and it is easy to see in what sense. The more we go back in time, the more prevailing is local opinion. To nationalize little by little and even gradually to internationalize the public spirit - that was the task of journalism.
Journalism is a suction and pressure pump of information that, being received every morning from all points the globe, on the same day, are distributed to all points of the globe, because they are interesting or seem to be interesting for 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 privileged groups, the court, the parliament, the capital, reproducing their rumors, their conversations, their quarrels; they ended up directing and changing opinion at their own discretion, imposing most of their daily plots 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 added variety in time to the conversations of individuals, even those who do not read newspapers, but who, chatting with newspaper readers, are forced stick to the rut of their borrowed thoughts. One pen is enough to set in motion millions of languages.
Parliaments before the press differed so deeply from parliaments after the appearance of the press that it seems as if they both have only a common name. They differ in their origin, in the nature of their powers, in their functions, in the region and in the strength of their action.
Before the press, members of 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, there was nothing more than a simple, without any connection, comparison of dissimilar opinions that concerned private issues that had nothing in common with each other; here for the first time they learned to be aware of whether it is possible or impossible to reconcile these opinions. These local opinions were thus mingled with the idea of each other - again purely local, enclosed in a narrow framework or showing some intensity only in the city where these meetings took place. When this city was the capital, like London or Paris, its municipal council could consider itself entitled to compete in value with the chamber of national deputies; this explains even the monstrous claims of the Parisian 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, devoid of the huge wings attached to it later railways and by telegraph, could bring parliament into a quick and intense communication only with Parisian opinion.
At present, any European parliament, thanks to the maturity of the press, has the opportunity to constantly and instantly contact, and to be in a living relationship of action and reverse action with the opinion of not only one big city but the whole country; in relation to the latter, it serves simultaneously as one of the main elements of manifestation and excitement, is a convex mirror and an incendiary mirror. Instead of placing local and dissimilar manifestations of the spirit side by side, he forces numerous expressions, changing facets of one and the same national spirit to penetrate into 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 have to do with the same concerns and 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 selective inequality and dissimilarity of different individuals, on the purely personal nature of the right to vote. The rule of number has not yet been born or has not been recognized as legitimate: for this very reason, in the meetings of assemblies elected in this way, no one considered a simple numerical majority to be legitimate.
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 not and could not be understood before the flourishing of the press and before the nationalization of opinion. After its flowering, any other law seems inconceivable; the universal right to vote, in spite of all the dangers and absurdities that it carries in itself, is accepted everywhere step by step in the hope that it itself contains the capacity for reform; and despite strong objections, it is accepted that everyone should bow before a very important decision voted by a majority of one vote.
Universal voting and the omnipotence of the majority in parliaments became possible only thanks to the continuous and unswerving 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 Greek city or the Swiss canton).
The differences that we have just noted also explain the sovereignty of parliaments, which has arisen since the appearance of the press - a sovereignty that parliaments did not even think to claim before the existence of the press. 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 common opinion and common will that had already arisen, expressing them, attaching them, so to speak, to their own decisions, and began to live with them so closely together that the monarch could not insist on being called their only or most perfect representative.
Until these conditions were fulfilled - and they were fulfilled in the era of great states only from the time of the appearance of journalism - assemblies, which were of the highest degree of a 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 happiness to receive from him, from some, for example, John Lackland, a charter of liberties, 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 need for its prerogative.
Monarchies before the press could and should have been more or less absolute, inviolable and sacred, because they represented the entire national unity; with the advent of the press, they can no longer be so, because national unity is achieved outside of them and better than through them. Meanwhile, they can exist, but they differ from the previous monarchies as much 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 means of a constant national opinion, conscious of itself, and applies or adapts to it, without submitting to it.
To end the conversation about social role press, we note that we owe the great progress of the periodical press mainly to a clearer and more extensive demarcation, a new and more pronounced sense of nationalities, which characterizes in the political sense of our modern era... Has not the press nurtured our nationalism on a par with our internationalism, which seems to be its negation and could only be its complement? If increasing nationalism, instead of decreasing loyalty, has become a new form of our patriotism, shouldn't 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 delineation of nationalities deepens, and their contradictions seem irreconcilable.
At first glance, it is impossible to 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 goods, ideas, all kinds of examples between neighboring or distant peoples accelerated and multiplied, the exchange of ideas, in particular, progressed even faster, thanks to newspapers, among individuals of each people speaking the same language. As far as the absolute difference between nations has diminished from this, so much has their relative and conscious difference increased from this.
Note that the geographical boundaries of nationalities in our time tend to more and more merge with the boundaries of the main languages. There are states where the struggle of languages and the struggle of nationalities merged into one. The reason for this is that the national feeling has revived thanks to journalism, and the luminous power 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 well as in the 17th century, 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 a question of topical issues that at the same time arouse common passions. National existence is largely attested to by literature, but only newspapers ignite national life, raise the aggregate movements of minds and desires with their grandiose daily flow.
Instead of, like a newspaper, exhausting its interest in the specific topicality of its messages, the book tries to interest, first of all, in the general and abstract nature of the ideas it offers. This means that, as the literature of the 18th century did, it is more capable of evoking a universal human than a national or even international trend. International and universal are two different things: the European federation, in the form in which our internationalists can form a certain idea of themselves, has nothing to do with "humanity" deified by the encyclopedists, whose ideas on this issue were dogmatized by Auguste Comte. Consequently, we have reason to believe that the cosmopolitan and abstract nature of the tendencies of the public spirit at the moment when the revolution of 1789 broke out is associated with the superiority 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: "Opinion, this engine, the power of which for both good and evil is well known to us, originates only from a small number of people who say , after they thought, and which incessantly form educational centers at various points of society, from where deliberate errors and truths gradually diverge to the very last limits of the city, where they are established as dogmas of faith. "
If people did not talk to each other, newspapers could appear as much as they like (although, with 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, the conversation, if he was 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.
Page 14 of 24
Public opinion and intracollective traditions
All these groups of social and psychological phenomena are interconnected, but each is characterized by a special essence and, in its own way, affects the efficiency of the collective. The most significant of these is public opinion. What is collective public opinion and what are the prerequisites effective management this socio-psychological phenomenon?
Public opinion- this is a value judgment of a group, a team about an event, fact, phenomenon, which reflects the attitude of most of the team members to this information. It is not a simple average of dividing the sum of individual judgments by the number of team members. Public opinion is always somehow correlated, corrected, permeated with elements of public morality and professional experience. Once formed, public opinion becomes the leading regulator of the behavior of collective members.
It is not enough to state the high importance of public opinion for the life of the team of a firm or department. It is necessary to know the mechanism of its formation and, on this basis, learn to actively manage the process of forming public opinion.
Is it possible to identify the stages of the formation of public opinion? Yes, you can. Moreover, it is necessary!
In its development, the public opinion of the collective usually goes through three stages. At the first stage, there is a secret, confidential discussion of new information in small informal groups that unite employees for any private interests or sympathies. At this stage, the possible nature of the impact of new information on individual team members or on the unit as a whole is assessed. But, we will repeat again, this is a “local” discussion so far. If the primary information is reinforced, then the circle of employees participating in the discussion of new information expands. The second stage of the formation of public opinion is coming. Discussion takes the character of an exchange of information between informal groups or individual employees. It is often discrete, impulsive. An active discussion is replaced by an emphasized indifference to the topic, and after a while it "flares up" again with renewed vigor.
At the third stage, which is characterized by a broad, open exchange of opinions, public opinion is formed into an official decision of the collective. This may be the result of clarification of the essence of possible changes by the head, or it may be the decision of the trade union meeting.
In the practice of managing the process of forming public opinion, the following must be taken into account. Almost every team has one or more employees who, due to the nature of their character or official position, more often than others become “carriers” of new information. By transmitting it, they seem to assert themselves in the correctness of their position. Subsequently, when the period of official formation of public opinion begins, the “carriers” of the primary information most often retain their initial positions and, if they are not recognized at the official level, they become a difficult obstacle to overcome.
What to do? How to warn negative influence this kind of individual value judgments?
To know which of the team members, due to the peculiarities of their character (ambition, imaginary self-affirmation, a tendency to gossip, etc.), tends to be a source of "new" information. On the basis of such knowledge, to limit the possibilities of leakage of primary, unprepared and unverified information, primarily through these “unofficial” channels;
Always strive for the source of information that is important for the life of the company's team to be officials: a manager, a deputy, each to the extent of his rights and competence.
Along with public opinion, significant influence have on the life of the team intracollective traditions- unwritten customs and rules that have become norms of behavior for most members of the team of a firm or department.
Like no other socio-psychological phenomenon, traditions are rooted in the history of our state. But to the same extent they are always specific and unique. Traditions in any collective are similar, but none are the same, because their bearers are unique personalities. A characteristic feature of any tradition is the impossibility of doing otherwise.
Intracollective traditions are very stable. Once approved and recognized, they are passed on like a relay race and become the rule of conduct for new team members.
What is the secret of such strength in any tradition? At the heart of any tradition are two psychological element: a) the individual's trust in collective experience; b) the predisposition of most people to imitate a more experienced, authoritative one.
This is the essence of any intracollective tradition as a socio-psychological phenomenon. The question arises: is it possible to manage traditions? Yes, you can, but for this you need to know well the essence of each of them, registered in the team of a given company or department. What can you see? You can see and feel the traditional nature of relationships, speech, rituals, clothing, gestures, individual procedures. And this is where the management of traditions begins.
The pros and cons of the existing traditions are assessed. Emphasis is placed on the positive, positive. Undesirable traditions are carefully analyzed. Channels for their possible replacement with new ones that are significant for the life of the team are being thought out. The positions of “ardent” carriers of negative or neutral traditions are studied. Through repeated individual conversations, unobtrusively, but persistently, the undesirability of this or that tradition is explained. The confidence is instilled that only “he” and no one else can and should initiate the introduction into the life of the team of a new, significant for the company, department of the intracollective tradition.
Tradition has a cementing influence on the team, therefore the leader must be extremely attentive to each of them, boldly support and advocate for the preservation of good, positive, morally mature traditions in the team.
Public opinion plays big role in the development and formation of both a team and an individual. V art group public opinion is a kind of higher authority. It regulates all inner life collective. And persuasion, and censure, and encouragement always comes on behalf of and through public opinion. Public opinion, integrating the judgments of interested and well-informed people, is usually competent and objective.
Public opinion is an authority, a model for following an example, a standard of correctness, something high. The sanctions that the members of the communities (collectives) resort to support and reinforce this high position of public opinion. As an authority and a model, public opinion orients a person so that he does not find himself among the "outcasts" who oppose themselves to society.
On the other hand, public opinion is a tool for putting pressure on individual members of the collective, groups of participants who show self-will and willfulness. It determines what wrong actions should be sanctioned by the majority of members of communities and organizations.
The criteria of public opinion have significant stability. They are less subject to fluctuations than the mood, feelings and judgments of an individual. On the formation of public opinion great attention provides an assessment of the head, assessment from the public. Evaluation is the ultimate management tool. Any action individuals or microgroups, intermediate results and the overall results should be assessed in terms of their significance for the team as a whole.
Traditions play a huge role in the development of the team. Tradition - not any recurring elements in the life of a collective, but only those that characterize them as special collectives, not similar to others. A.S. Makarenko wrote: “Tradition adorns the collective, it creates for the collective that outer frame in which it is possible to live beautifully and which therefore captivates”. The skill of the head of the NHT team lies in the ability to find a beautiful, ideologically and emotionally capacious tradition.
It is necessary to form traditions at the early stages of the development of the team. A joint visit to concerts, exhibitions, excursions, walks in nature allow you to build comradely relationships in the art collective and are valuable for the development of personality. There are several types of traditions.
1. Traditions associated with intracollective activities. These include, for example, the beginning of rehearsal classes with a certain chant, actions; original forms of holding the first meeting in the new season and the last meeting in academic year; the ritual of admitting newcomers to the team, which includes recommendations, presentation of independently performed works, comic quality check, solemn promises, presentation of a membership card, a written order, etc.
2. Traditions associated with the creative activities of the team. These can be traditional meetings with cultural and art workers, professional artists; annual concerts for veterans, inmates of orphanages, meetings with similar groups from other cultural institutions, cities, countries.
3. Traditions associated with the repertoire. The inclusion of the works of the same author in the repertoire of the collective of folk art (for example, systematically include A.N. Ostrovsky's plays in the repertoire of the theatrical collective), the tradition of starting or ending a concert with the same song, etc.
The establishment of traditions is associated with the development of attributes, which represent a kind of symbolization of content with the help of external expression. These include the badges and emblem of the collective, the motto, the traditional form of announcements of the next classes, meetings, rehearsals, some symbolic objects, talismans.
Traditions are more easily perceived and approved when the participants in an amateur performance know the history of the emergence and development of the collective. Each participant should be aware of the milestones of the organizational and creative path your team. They do the right thing where they keep a chronicle of their lives, collect and store material relics, posters, programs, and even organize small museums.
Topic 2.6. Planning and accounting of the work of the collective of folk art
Planning is the informed development of methods and results of activities for a certain period.
The plans developed and used in the field of culture differ depending on the content of the planned activities, the level of planning decisions, the degree of directivity and the timing for which they are designed.
Depending on the level of making a planning decision, plans are divided into federal, regional, regional, city, district, plans of institutions and organizations and their divisions, individual.
Depending on the degree of directiveness, i.e. compulsory implementation, plans differ forecast - expressing some approximate ideas about the planned period; recommendatory - containing installation recommendations; prescriptive - subject to mandatory implementation.
Directive plans contain clear definition of targets in numerical indicators with clear deadlines. Indicators of recommendatory plans are of a control nature. This means that the institution must build its activities in such a way as to ensure the achievement of indicators not lower than the benchmarks. Forecast plans represent the identification of the most probable trends in the development of the sphere.
Depending on the terms for which plans are developed, they are divided into promising (medium and long term) and current (short-term and operational).
Long term plans are being developed for a period of at least 5 years. In the field of culture, such plans are being developed at the federal and regional levels.
Medium term planning covers a period from one year to 5 years and is usually more detailed.
TO short-term include plans developed for up to a year, as well as operational plans. They concretize tasks long-term plans for the current year, quarter, month, week. Therefore, short-term plans are also called plans. current work... Current planning is carried out at the same levels as long-term planning, as well as at the level individual institutions and their subdivisions (including amateur groups). The activities of cultural institutions are most fully expressed in annual work plans. Further detailing and concretization planned targets is achieved in quarterly, monthly, and other operational work plans. The operational plans include plans developed for a decade, a week, a day, as well as individual operational plans.
Distinguish strategic and tactical plans.
At the heart of any plan is the development of goals. The goals are close, achievable, promising and distant. Goals define the tasks that must be solved in order to achieve the set goal.
There are several methods for developing goals for the planned period; the development of any plan involves the sequential passage of the following chain:
OBJECTIVES - an idea of the desired result
CHALLENGES - to be solved for
achieving each goal
ACTIONS - to be done to
solving problems
SUPPORT - material, financial, personnel
and so on as needed to execute
Planning organizes and disciplines the activities of the amateur art collective. The leader, when planning his activities, can rely on the following sources:
Plans for the previous year;
Plans of the cultural institution in which it operates (both current and prospective);
Calendars significant dates(city, federal, world level);
Social orders;
Positive experience of a similar team of NHT;
The traditions of the collective or cultural institution;
Information about the direction of the leisure interests of the participants in the amateur performances, and wishes;
Creative plans the leader himself.
The structure of the plan can be varied by the leader himself. It is advisable to divide all creative and production activities into several blocks, such as organizational and methodological work, teaching and educational work, extracurricular work, concert activities. Each block can be filled, for example, with the following content:
Approximate plan structure
