Analyzing the phenomenon of political participation, it is impossible to avoid the issue of motivating a person's political activity. The most significant motives include ideological, normative, role-based.
Ideological motive means that a person participates in political life, sharing and supporting the principles of the official ideology of the state. This motivation for participation ensures the identification of the political values of the individual with the political values of the state and the majority of society. Time, differences in personal and political attitudes can cause a sharply negative, even hostile reaction against the state and political system. So, it becomes the basis for the formation of opposition views, ideas and political structures.
Normative motivation is manifested in the fact that political behavior is built according to the rules that are dictated by the political system and ascribed by the normative-legal subsystem. This motive for political participation is not necessarily combined with personal values and attitudes. Submission to the political system is viewed by a person as an exceptionally correct and valuable orientation, and political behavior (participation) by nature is always legitimate and law-abiding.
The role motive is associated with the social role that a person performs in a given political system, that is, with its social state and self-esteem: the lower the social position, the more likely the person's radical attitude against the existing government becomes. The desire of a certain part of people in society to raise their social status naturally pushes them to master new noticeable political roles, and, consequently, to raise their socio-political status.
Motivational theories of political participation in Western political science are presented by supporters of the so-called "humanistic" psychology. According to the statement of its founder A. Maslow, there are five main motives-needs of the individual: physiological; security needs; in love; in self-affirmation; in self-actualization. They form a stable hierarchy, where the last two are high and entail the needs to improve social status and prestige, the need to express and realize their beliefs and goals in the political sphere. But even under certain conditions, physiological needs, and love, and the search for security can be transformed according to the tendencies and requirements of political life (striving for peace, prosperity, law and order, for the preservation of national and cultural identity).
See also:
The concept of the political process, the dynamics of its developmentIt has long been noted that the attitude of people to the authorities is very ambiguous. At one extreme is the position "God forbid not to get caught up in power." On the other, there is such a strong desire for it that, in the words of N. Machiavelli, “they cannot protect all the virtues of the mind and heart ...”. At the same time, the latter type of attitude towards power is much more noticeable socially. As B. Russell noted in this regard, a person has two insatiable and endless passions - for fame and for power. It is not surprising that it is precisely the problem of the motivation of power, its source and manifestations that has constantly been at the center of attention of world social thought.
A multi-need approach to motivating power
Summarizing the above, we note that the identified bases of striving for power are by no means mutually exclusive. In reality, they are all in one way or another connected and interdeterminate each other. In light of this, the multi-need concept of power motivation, proposed by the Russian psychologist Security Council, seems to be quite reasonable. Kaverin. From his point of view, the need for power is a syndrome of five basic needs: freedom (power is used to achieve security), hedonistic (power is a means of satisfying material needs), self-affirmation (through power, prestige, respect, recognition are achieved), self-expression (power as the achievement of significant results, play, competition), the need to be a person (through the possession of power, the desire to do something for others, and not just for oneself, is realized).
The need for power itself as an integrative personal education is neither good nor bad. Its manifestation in behavior is determined both by external conditions and by the ratio of these needs. "The summation and simultaneity of the action of basic needs prompts the belief that each person exercising power is driven by motivation and independence, and domination, and benefits, and service to people," the scientist writes. Based on this, SB. Kaverin developed an original typology of people based on which of the needs prevails in the structure of power motivation:
Note that the position of the SB. Kaverina echoes the point of view of a number of foreign scientists, who also believe that the desire to dominate should not be considered solely as a sign of mental illness. So, K. Horney fundamentally separated the neurotic motivation of power, rooted, in its expression, in the weakness of the individual, from the normal desire for power arising from the strength of a person, his objective superiority and determined by the characteristics of socialization, the culture of society. E. Fromm adhered to a similar point of view, who noted that “psychologically, the thirst for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness ... Power is domination over someone; strength is the ability to accomplish, potency. "
The concept considered above allows us to characterize the phenomenon of power motivation as a multidimensional phenomenon that cannot be reduced to any one motivation. This is all the more important because, as follows from the studies carried out in recent years, there is a change in the hierarchy of motives during the period of reaching power and actually ruling.
On the other hand, speaking about the motivation of power, its multiple determination, it should also be remembered that human behavior (including political) is by no means exhausted by the desire to dominate others. Therefore, it seems very significant the position of A. George that the motive of power can both be strengthened by other motives of the individual, and come into conflict with them. In turn, the study of this kind of intrapersonal contradictions and their influence on political activity should become one of the important problems of the psychology of politics.
Power motivation
The personality of a political leader is a complex multidimensional formation and consists of many different interconnected structural elements. Not all of them are equally responsible for political behavior, they manifest themselves in it. However, after numerous studies carried out in American political psychology, it was possible to identify the most influential personality characteristics, which for convenience we will group into six blocks: the political leader's ideas about himself; needs and motives influencing political behavior; the system of the most important political beliefs; style of political decision making; style of interpersonal relationships; resistance to stress.
I am the concept of a political leader. The problem of compensation for real or imagined personality defects was posed by A. Adler, a colleague of Z. Freud's. This idea received its fuller development in the works of G. Lasswell. According to his concept, to compensate for low self-esteem, a person seeks power as a means of such compensation. Thus, self-esteem, being inadequate, can stimulate a person's behavior in relation to politically relevant goals - power, achievement, control, and others.
G. Lasswell's attention was focused on the development of a person's ideas about himself, the degree of development and the quality of self-esteem and their embodiment in political behavior. His hypothesis was that some people have an unusually strong need for power or other personal values, such as affection, respect, as a means of compensating for traumatized or inadequate self-esteem. Personal values or needs of this kind can be viewed as ego motives, since they are part of the ego system of the person.
A. George in one of his works continued the line of reasoning of G. Lasswell about the desire for power as compensation for low self-esteem. He examined in detail the possible structure of low self-esteem and believes that low self-esteem can be made up of five subjective negative feelings about oneself in their various combinations: a feeling of one's own unimportance, insignificance; feeling of moral inferiority; feeling weak; feeling of mediocrity; a sense of intellectual inadequacy.
Already after G. Lasswell drew the attention of political scientists and political psychologists to the role of self-esteem in the political behavior of a leader, a number of studies appeared on the politician's self-image.
A political leader in any situation, with rare exceptions, behaves in accordance with his own self-concept. His behavior depends on who and how he realizes himself, how he compares himself with those with whom he interacts.
Self-concept, that is, a person's awareness of who he is, has several aspects. The most significant of them are the “I” image, self-esteem and social orientation of the political leader. W. Stone cites the argument of the classic of psychology W. James that our self-esteem can be expressed as the ratio of our achievements to our claims. But although W. Stone himself believes that self-esteem is a positive feeling in relation to oneself, understanding it as self-esteem.
Social orientation refers to a sense of autonomy, as opposed to a feeling of dependence on others for self-determination. According to psychologist E.T. Sokolova, "the autonomization of self-esteem is finally formed in adolescence, and the predominant orientation towards the assessment of significant others or on one's own self-esteem becomes an indicator of persistent individual differences that characterize the integral style of the personality."
American researchers D. Offer and C. Strozaer consider the image of the self-politician, which corresponds to the “total sum of perceptions, thoughts and feelings of a person towards himself” ... “These perceptions, thoughts and feelings can be more or less clearly expressed in the image I, in which the I is divided into six different parts, closely interacting. " These six I am the following: the physical I, the sexual I, the family I, the social I, the psychological I, overcoming the conflicts of the I. As noted by E.T. Sokolova, "the value and subjective significance of qualities and their reflection in the image of the I and self-esteem can be masked by the action of protective mechanisms."
The physical I represents, from the point of view of these scientists, the political leader's ideas about his state of health and physical strength or weakness. A political leader must be healthy enough so that this does not interfere with his activities. The political science and psychological literature described the suffering that the poor health caused to the US presidents Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy.
With regard to the sexual self, that is, the politician's ideas about his claims and opportunities in this area, scientists note the absence of statistical data on how sexual preferences or sexual behavior is associated with leadership abilities. It is doubtful that a homosexual or an exhibitionist can become the president of a modern developed state. First of all, such inclinations would close his path to big politics, regardless of leadership qualities. In history, well-known tyrants were distinguished by the pathology of the sexual sphere and often suffered from various perversions.
Family I is a very important element of the personality of a politician. It is well known, and above all from psychoanalysis, what a huge influence relations in the parental family have on the behavior of an adult. Some political leaders cope with early trauma and conflict, others do not, and as they become leaders, they transfer the frustrations of their childhood to their surroundings in the country and in the world.
It is very important for people in top government positions to have the ability to work together with others. The politician's perceptions of this quality are reflected in the social self. The political leader must learn how to negotiate and how to stimulate his colleagues to show their best qualities. He must be able to use interpersonal skills to work effectively with various, sometimes hostile groups of people, with leaders of other countries.
Psychological I make up ideas about their inner world, fantasies, dreams, desires, illusions, fears, conflicts - the most important aspect of the life of a political leader. 3. Freud said that psychopathology is the fate of everyday life. Like ordinary people, leaders do not have an innate immunity to neurotic conflicts, psychological problems, and sometimes more serious forms of psychopathology such as psychosis. Whether a politician suffers from the realization of his own fears or takes it calmly, or even with humor, is manifested in his behavior, especially during periods of weakening of self-control.
Conflict Overcoming I - the political leader's beliefs about his ability to creatively overcome conflicts and find new solutions to old problems. The leader must have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to perceive the problem. He must be self-confident enough in his political decisions to be able to convey that confidence to others. Another aspect of the self overcoming conflicts is the leader's awareness of his ability to overcome the stresses associated with his role and activities in office, for example, as the head of state. Stress can lead to severe symptoms that severely limit the intellectual and behavioral capacity of a political leader. It can increase the rigidity of cognitive and thought processes in historically difficult moments, lead to a decrease in flexibility and composure, especially when they are needed.
R. Ziller and his colleagues understand the complexity of the self-concept as the number of aspects of the self perceived by a political leader, or as the degree of differentiation of the self-concept. In the early stages of self-awareness, a person separates himself from others. Further, the I in his consciousness is divided into an unlimited number of parts. Subsequently, the person has a tendency to evaluate himself in comparison with other people. This process has received a detailed analysis in L. Festinger's theory of social comparison. The main position of this theory is the assertion that the basis of a person's desire to correctly assess his opinion and abilities in comparison with other people is the need to have a clear and definite self-concept.
Through the process of social comparison, a framework for social consideration of the self as a reference point is established in a person. R. Ziller in another study, conducted in 1973, found that people with high complexity of self-concepts tend to seek more information before making a decision than people with low complexity of self-concepts. Since the complexity of the self-concept is related to the perception of similarities with other people, it is more likely that politicians with a high complexity of the self-concept will receive information from others. Political leaders with high self-concept complexity tend to more easily assimilate both positive and negative information and thus respond to situations based on feedback than leaders with low self-concept complexity.
At the same time, the higher the self-esteem of politicians, the worse they react to the situation, the lower their reactivity. Leaders with high self-esteem are less dependent on external circumstances, they have more stable internal standards on which they base their self-esteem.
Politicians with low self-esteem are found to be more dependent on other people and thus more reactive. They are more sensitive to feedback and change their self-image based on the approval or disapproval of others.
R. Ziller and his colleagues have developed a typology of the personality of political leaders based on the study of self-esteem and the complexity of the self-concept. The first type is made up of leaders with a seemingly contradictory name, apolitical politicians. These are figures with high self-esteem and high complexity of self-concept, who assimilate new information concerning them, without threatening their self-concept, but at the same time there are serious limitations for their reactivity. They feel disconnected from others and therefore have difficulty reacting to the behavior of their followers or the population of the state as a whole.
Another type who is most successful in politics is the pragmatist. They are political leaders with low self-esteem and high complexity of self-concept, responding to a wide range of social incentives. They listen to other people's opinions and modify their political behavior based on feedback.
The third type is made up of political leaders with high self-esteem and low complexity of the self-concept, who do not react to the opinions of others. Their cognitive processes and behavior are very tough, and their self-esteem is extremely stable. These are the "ideologists" so familiar to us from the Politburo of the CPSU.
And, finally, the fourth type is actors with low self-esteem and low complexity of self-concept, who intensively respond to a narrow circle of social incentives. They were named ((non-deterministic.
The self-esteem of a political leader leaves a very important imprint on the domestic and foreign policy of his country or the organization he leads. If during his life he developed a low self-esteem, then his constant dissatisfaction with himself could be the very driving force that pushed him to take more and more barriers in the field of domestic or foreign policy. These are the presidents of the United States R. Nixon, R. Reagan, domestic politicians I. Rybkin, I. Lebedev, Zhirinovsky Jr., etc. Low self-esteem pushes a political leader to take various steps in the international or domestic arena - large-scale military or peacekeeping actions, unexpected for surrounded by extravagant turns, passive contemplation, etc.
Leaders of states with overestimated self-esteem, overestimating their own qualities as a politician and commander-in-chief, often do not notice the general external and internal reaction to their course in the international arena. They revel in their own success (even if it is mythical) and classify criticism as vicious envious people. Here we can talk about a violation of the feedback between the consequences of a political action and the subject. Almost no consequences can make such a leader fearful or shudder at the thought of what his actions might lead to.
Another type of leaders with high self-esteem, faced with underestimation of their policies, both at home and abroad, suffers greatly from the affect of inadequacy. When their policies were being built, with their
their own point of view, on the principles of high morality, or seemed thoughtful and productive to them, but were perceived as immoral or senseless, such political leaders took the most unexpected steps. And the more they were offended and worried, the more often they repeated similar political actions, further causing disapproval.
Leaders with adequate self-esteem represent the best example of partners in the political arena. Their foreign and domestic policies are not motivated by the desire for self-assertion, the feedback between the consequences of the actions and themselves works unswervingly. A leader who adequately evaluates his political abilities, as a rule, respectfully and highly values other leaders. Not fearing that he will be humiliated, offended, bypassed, firmly knowing his own high price, considering himself no worse than those with whom he has to interact, such a leader will pursue a policy that would allow him to achieve his goals and would give mutual benefit. The absence of a neurotic component in self-esteem leads, as a rule, to its absence in political behavior.
Neurotic desire for political power. Seeking love and affection is one of the paths often used in our culture to gain relief from anxiety. The search for power is another such path.
Winning love and affection means gaining peace by increasing contact with others, while striving for power means gaining peace through weakening contact with others and through strengthening one's own position.
The feeling of power can arise in a normal person as a result of the realization of his superior strength, be it physical strength or ability, or mental ability, or maturity and wisdom. His desire for power can also be caused by some special reason related to his family, political or professional group, homeland or scientific idea. However, the neurotic desire for political power is born of anxiety, hatred and feelings of inadequacy. In other words, the normal striving for power is born from strength, neurotic - from weakness.
That neurotics in our culture choose this path is because in our social structure, power can provide a sense of greater security.
In the search for the conditions that give rise to the desire for this goal, it becomes obvious that such a desire usually develops only when it turns out to be impossible to find a means to relieve latent anxiety through love and affection.
The neurotic drive for power serves not only as a defense against anxiety, but also as a conduit through which repressed hostility can emerge.
The desire for power serves, firstly, as a protection against helplessness, which is one of the main elements of anxiety. The neurotic has such a strong aversion to any distant hint of helplessness or weakness in himself that he tries to avoid situations that the normal person considers quite common, for example, someone's guidance, advice or help, any kind of dependence on people or circumstances, any concession or agreeing with others. This protest against helplessness does not at all manifest itself in all its strength at once, but increases gradually; the more the neurotic feels oppressed by his inner prohibitions, the less capable he is of self-affirmation. The weaker he becomes, the more anxiously he has to avoid anything that, in the slightest degree, might reveal his weakness.
Second, the neurotic desire for political power serves as a defense against the danger of feeling or looking worthless. The neurotic develops a rigid and irrational ideal of strength, which leads him to believe that he is able to handle any situation, no matter how difficult it may be, and can deal with it immediately. This ideal acquires a connection with pride, and as a result, the neurotic views weakness not only as a danger, but also as a shame. He divides people into "strong" and "weak", admiring the former and despising the latter. He also goes to the extreme in what he considers weakness. He feels more or less contempt for all people who agree with him or give in to his desires, for all who have inner prohibitions or do not control their emotions so carefully that they always have a serene expression on their face. He also despises all these qualities in himself.
He feels humiliated if he has to admit his own anxiety or inner prohibition, and then, despising himself for his neurosis, he is forced to keep this fact a secret. He also despises himself for not being able to cope with neurosis alone.
The special forms that such a desire for power will take depend on the deprivation of which power the neurotic most fears or despises.
Another attitude that can characterize his desire for power is his desire to insist on his own. A constant source of acute irritation for him can be the unwillingness of others to do what he expects of them, and exactly when he wants it. Impatience is closely related to this aspect of the pursuit of power. Any kind of delay, any forced waiting will become a source of irritation. Often the neurotic himself is not aware of the existence of the attitude governing him or, at least, of the strength of its action. Of course, it is in his interests not to realize and not change such an attitude, because it has important protective functions.
Another attitude that forms the desire for political power is the desire to never give in, never give up. Agreeing with someone's opinion or accepting advice, even if it is considered correct, is perceived as weakness, and the mere thought to do so provokes resistance People for whom such an attitude is important tend to go to the other extreme and out of fear alone give in to stubbornly take the opposite side.
The search for power is a defense against helplessness and a sense of insignificance. A neurotic belonging to this group develops a pronounced need to impress others, to be the object of admiration and respect.
The desire for possession, property, can also serve in our culture as protection from helplessness and a sense of our own insignificance or humiliation, since wealth gives power.
The dominance characteristic of a neurotic drive for power does not necessarily openly present itself as hostility to others. It can be hidden in socially significant or friendly forms, manifesting itself, for example, as a tendency to give advice, a desire to direct the affairs of other people, in the form of initiative or leadership. But if there is hostility behind such a relationship, other people - children, spouses, subordinates - will feel it and react with either submission or resistance. The neurotic himself is usually unaware of the hostility introduced here. Even if he goes berserk when things don't go the way he wants, he still thinks that he is inherently a gentle soul who gets into a bad mood just because people behave so unreasonably trying to resist his.
Thus, the psychology of political power is a very multidimensional concept, it reflects the subject-object relations in society. Simplistically, subject-object relations boil down to the fact that some people seek to have power, while others are looking for this power over themselves. However, the former can only stay at the pinnacle of power on condition that the latter trust them, that is, under the condition of the real legitimacy of the authorities.
As we found out in the previous chapter, in a political campaign, managerial efforts are directed to form the target of influence motives for inclusion in one or another type of political activity. If a person does not want to go to the polling station and cast his vote for a certain candidate, then you cannot force him to do it by force. The challenge is to convince a person to make the right political choice, or to tempt him to do it. However, in order to realize this opportunity in any of the proposed options, it is necessary to know how beliefs are formed, how motives appear that push people to certain actions.
The main theories of the motives of political behavior:
· Long gone - the behaviorist (behavioral) model - is reduced in the formula "STIMULUS -> REACTION". If you look at it in large numbers, then problems arise - not everyone responds to a stimulus in the same way.
· The theory of needs - the motive is aimed at satisfying needs. Maslow's theory (pyramid) - at the bottom of the pyramid are physical needs, the second level is security needs, the third level is the need to join a group, the next level is the need for self-esteem, and finally, the highest level is the need for self-realization. Criticism is a pyramid - it is in the system of construction, it seems like a higher need cannot arise if the need of a lower level is not satisfied. In reality, this is not the case.
· If the previous theories arose before 2 MV, then after it a wave of new theories arises - theories of electoral behavior, and now there are 3 main theories, and they were created not only on the basis of inferences, but also on the basis of rich empirical experience. The reasons for the emergence of studies of electoral behavior: it is repeatable + materialistic reason (people are interested in knowing who will vote for whom). Theories:
o Structuralist / Sociological - the assumption that there are stable objective structures in society that have a strong impact - status, group, social affiliation + the influence of religious affiliations. As the middle class began to strengthen, social affiliation began to influence their political choices less => interest in this theory began to fade
o Socio-psychological - "Michigan theory" - the basis is an empirically proven conclusion: if a person has formed certain attitudes, they will certainly appear during the voting. They also created a toolkit that allows you to take measurements. Everything was fine as far as the United States was concerned. But in other countries this did not always work - people did not consider themselves adherents of the party, or were against everyone (70% - undecided, 30% can be predicted)
o Rational choice theory - could only arise in the United States. 3 important points: 1) a person always strives for a specific goal, which is determined by the standards "profitable-not profitable"; 2) recognition that a person is able to adequately assess information about the situation in which he is and is able to choose adequate ways to achieve the goal; 3) minimization of efforts to achieve goals. The criticism is as follows: a rational person does not go to elections at all (“my vote does not decide anything, why then waste my personal time”). This theory gives election organizers a good hint: if the situation in the country is stable, people feel protected, then they will vote retrospectively (for those who ensured prosperity and stability), if there is a crisis, then they will vote prospectively (that is, for the opposition) ...
At the end of the 20th century, they began to study the logic of informational influence. 2 theories:
· Contextual theory- a person, his behavior and consciousness are formed due to the fact that he establishes communication relations. Within the framework of this approach, it was indicated that differences in views are determined by the ability of people to build their own communication channels. A person checks information from the media by speaking this information in his immediate circle. But how does a person interpret information from the environment? Phenomenological vacuum cleaner theory has explored this issue.
· Cognitive theory of motivation... The main thesis of the authors of cognitive theories (from the English. cognitive-cognitive) was the belief that the behavior of an individual is guided by knowledge, ideas, opinions about what is happening in the external world, about causes and effects. Every person is influenced by external information. And what a person does and how he does it depends ultimately not only on his fixed needs, deep and eternal aspirations, but also on relatively changeable ideas about reality.
The cognitive dissonance Is a contradiction between external information and internal conviction. A person comes out of cognitive dissonance as a rule in this way: he ignores external information. Some people have an even greater conviction of their own righteousness. In order to overcome, change cognitive dissonance, a person must make certain internal efforts. Redefining your views requires inner work. Sometimes it is overcome when information that does not correspond to beliefs is provided by a significant communicator.
The behavior of people can be influenced by certain types of information, election campaigns are based on the injection of certain information.
The analysis of the motivation of political behavior is based on fundamental laws studied by psychological science. Thus, the classification of motives proposed by D. McLelland and J. Atkinson is generally recognized, who distinguish three main motives: the motive of power, the motive of achievement, the motive of affiliation (the desire to be with others). Sometimes the motive of power is complemented by the motivation of control, which is the fourth in this scheme.
Analysis of these approaches to the motivation of political behavior indicates the advisability of identifying and taking into account these motives.
D. McLelland's psychological concept deals not only with political power, but also with power in the family, in relations at work, in other spheres of life. Power is a kind of value that all people strive to possess to one degree or another. But there are people in whom this need dominates over others, and then the desire to achieve power becomes for them the highest value.
Conventionally, there are three types of reasons why power may be desirable: to dominate others and (or) limit the actions of others; so that other people do not dominate over him and (or) do not interfere in his affairs; to pursue political gains.
The motive of control over people and the situation is a modification of the power motive. Political psychologists attach particular importance to this motive, since they believe that behavior in politics is directly related to the development of this psychological indicator. It is known that as a person reaches social maturity, he learns to control his own behavior, this gives him a sense of confidence in his abilities, expands the boundaries of possible participation in various spheres of life, including politics.
The motive for achievement is manifested in political behavior, in concern for excellence, skill, in the desire to achieve the set goals with maximum effect. This motive can make a person a careerist, but it can also be found in a disinterested politician, whose behavior is determined by his desire for the public good. Achievement politicians view other people or groups in their environment as a helping factor or, conversely, a hindrance to their own achievements. However, they prefer to be independent and avoid such interpersonal relationships that could lead them to addiction.
Thus, there are two types of motivational schemes: motivation to avoid failure is higher than motivation to achieve success; motivation for achieving success, which is higher than the motivation for avoiding failure. This is a typical motivational pattern of behavior of real political leaders.
Affiliation motives also manifest themselves in political behavior. They create friendly, warm relationships with others. For a politician, the developed motivation of affiliation will make the partner's approval during negotiations, a friendly climate and a team of like-minded people significant. For ordinary citizens, the motivation of affiliation largely determines the affiliation to political organizations that not only defend certain interests, but also give a feeling of unity and security.
Thus, the analysis of the political culture of the subjects of politics indicates that it determines the nature of their political activity. It is a synthesis of the formed consciousness, the developed mentality and the political behavior caused by them. Consequently, for the formation of political culture, it is important to systematically master all the noted components.
