Left a reply Guru
Society is a complex and constantly evolving system in which all elements are somehow connected with each other. Society has a huge influence on a person and participates in his upbringing. Public opinion is the opinion of the majority. It is not surprising that it has a great influence on a person. It is believed that if many people adhere to a position, then it is correct. But is this really so? Sometimes public opinion regarding an incident, phenomenon, or person can be erroneous. People tend to make mistakes and draw hasty conclusions. In Russian fiction there are many examples of erroneous public opinion. As a first argument, consider Yakovlev’s story “Ledum”, which tells the story of the boy Kostya. Teachers and classmates considered him strange and treated him with distrust. Kosta yawned in class, and after the last lesson he immediately ran away from school. One day, teacher Zhenechka (that’s what the kids called her) decided to find out what was the reason for her student’s unusual behavior. She discreetly accompanied him after classes. Zhenya was amazed that the strange and reserved boy turned out to be a very kind, sympathetic, noble person. Every day Costa walked the dogs of those owners who could not do this on their own. The boy also took care of a dog whose owner died. The teacher and classmates were wrong: they made hasty conclusions. As a second argument, let us analyze Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment.” An important character in this work is Sonya Marmeladova. She made money by selling her own body. Society considered her an immoral girl, a sinner. However, no one knew why she lived like this. Former official Marmeladov, Sonya's father, lost his job due to addiction to alcohol, his wife Katerina Ivanovna suffered from consumption, and the children were too young to work. Sonya was forced to provide for her family. She “went with the yellow ticket”, sacrificed her honor and reputation in order to save her family from poverty and hunger. Sonya Marmeladova helps not only her loved ones: she does not abandon Rodion Raskolnikov, who suffers because of the murder he committed. The girl forces him to admit his guilt and goes with him to hard labor in Siberia. Sonya Marmeladova - moral ideal Dostoevsky because of his positive qualities. Knowing the history of her life, it is difficult to say that she is a sinner. Sonya is a kind, merciful, honest girl. Thus, public opinion may be wrong. People didn’t know Kosta and Sonya, what kind of personalities they were, what qualities they had, and probably therefore assumed the worst. Society made conclusions based only on part of the truth and its own conjectures. It did not see nobility and responsiveness in Sonya and Kostya.
1. Sofia’s role in the emergence of rumors.
2. Spreaders of public opinion.
3. The destructive nature of public opinion.
4. A person’s business card.
Public opinion is formed not by the wisest, but by the most talkative.
V. Begansky
Public opinion plays a huge role in people's lives. After all, we form an idea about this or that person because others think about him. Only with close acquaintance do we either reject any assumptions or agree with them. Moreover, such a consistent attitude towards a person has developed at all times.
A. S. Griboedov wrote about public opinion in his comedy “Woe from Wit.” In it, Sophia calls Chatsky crazy. As a result, not even a couple of minutes pass before the whole society agrees with great pleasure with the remark. And the most dangerous thing about such dissemination of information about a person is that practically no one ever argues with such judgments. Everyone takes them on faith and begins to spread them in a similar way. Public opinion, created by the skillful or involuntary hand of one person, forms a certain barrier for another.
Of course, one cannot say that public opinion has only negative value. But, as a rule, when they refer to such a judgment, they are thereby trying to confirm the unflattering characteristics of a person. It is not for nothing that Molchalin, who is sure that in his “years he should not dare to have his own opinion,” says that “evil tongues are worse than a pistol.” Compared to Chatsky, he accepts the laws of the society in which he lives. Molchalin understands that it is this that can become a solid foundation not only for his career, but also for personal happiness. Therefore, when the Famus society gathers, he tries to please those who can give a positive description of his person. For example, Khlestova. Molchalin stroked and praised her dog. She liked this treatment so much that she called Molchalin “friend” and thanked him.
Chatsky also knows how public opinion develops about a person: “Fools believe, they pass it on to others, / Old women instantly sound the alarm - / And here is public opinion.” But he is the only one who can resist him. However, Alexander Andreevich does not take into account the fact that his opinion is completely uninteresting to this society. On the contrary, Famusov considers him a dangerous person. The person responsible for the rumor of madness, Sofia, speaks unflatteringly about him: “Not a person, a snake!”
Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is new to this society, despite the fact that he was in it three years ago. During this time, a lot has changed, but only for the main character himself. The society that now surrounds him lives according to the old laws, which suit them quite well: “For example, from time immemorial, / That honor is given to father and son: / Be bad, and if you have enough / Two thousand family souls, - / He is the groom.” Sofia does not accept this state of affairs. She wants to arrange her personal life in her own way. But on this path she is hindered not only by her father, who predicts Skalozub as her groom, but also by Chatsky, with whom she is offended: “The desire to wander attacked him, / Oh, if someone loves someone, / Why search for intelligence and travel so far?”
The image of Sophia is important here not only because she started the rumor, but also because she was the source of the emergence of incorrect public opinion. The other characters’ idea of Chatsky takes shape at the moment of their communication. But each of them keeps these conversations and impressions to themselves. And only Sofia brings them into Famus society, which immediately condemns young man.
G. N.
How was he found upon his return?
S o f i i
He has a screw loose.
G. N.
Have you gone crazy?
Sofia (after a pause)
Not really...
G. N.
However, are there any signs?
Sofia (looks at him intently)
I think.
From this dialogue we can conclude that the girl did not want to announce Chatsky’s madness. With the remark “He is out of his mind,” she most likely meant that with his views, Alexander Adreevich did not fit into the society into which he found himself. However, during the dialogue, the image of the main character takes on completely different shapes. As a result, two people create a certain opinion about a person, which then spreads throughout society itself. Therefore, Chatsky began to be perceived in such a circle as crazy.
In the “age of humility,” Alexander Andreevich could not come to terms with the fact that people humiliate themselves in order to achieve rank and favor. He, having been absent for three years in order to gain additional knowledge, cannot understand those who condemn reading books. Chatsky does not accept Repetilov’s pretentious statements about secret societies, noting: “... are you making noise? And that’s all?”
Such a society is not capable of accepting into its circle a person to whom even the girl he loves gives such an unflattering description: “... ready to pour out bile on everyone.” However, we should not forget that Sofia, at least to some extent, does not agree with the laws Famusov society, but does not enter into a direct argument with him. Thus, Chatsky remains alone in this environment. And what comes to the fore is not he as a person, but the opinion about him formed by society. So why is it so easy for society to perceive and negatively characterize a young, intelligent and sensible person?
The author of the comedy gives the most complete answer to this question when guests begin to come to Famusov. Each of them represents a certain voice in the public opinion of a certain circle of people in which they move. Platon Mikhailovich falls under his wife's heel. He accepts for himself the laws of the world where he is, despite the fact that before “it was only morning - his foot in the stirrup.” Khlestova has a good reputation, which is why Molchalin is trying to please her, so that public opinion will be in his favor. Such an already recognized “master of service” is Zagoretsky. Only in such a society any opinion about a person begins to spread quite quickly. At the same time, the idea of him is not verified or challenged in any way, even by those who know Chatsky well (Sofia, Platon Mikhailovich).
None of them thinks that such a negative attitude ruins the young man. He alone cannot cope with the halo that his loved one has created for him. Therefore, Chatsky chooses a different path for himself - to leave. He utters not a single eloquent monologue, but remains unheard.
You have glorified me as crazy by the whole choir.
You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,
Who will have time to spend a day with you,
Breathe the air alone
And his sanity will survive.
Chatsky leaves the stage, but more people remain in his place. strong opponent- public opinion. Famusov, who will have to be in this environment for a long time, does not forget about him. Therefore, it is very important for the hero what opinion society has about him, despite the fact that it may be just one person: “Ah! My God! What will Princess Marya Apeksevna say?”
Using the example of one work, we saw what a destructive influence public opinion can have on a person’s life. Especially if he absolutely does not want to obey its laws. Therefore, opinion becomes a kind of calling card of a person. It should tell you something about the person in advance that others need to know before the meeting. Someone strives to create a good halo for themselves in order to freely move up the career ladder in the future. And some people don't care at all. But we should not forget that no matter how one views such a concept as “public opinion,” it exists. And it is impossible not to take it into account if you are in society. But what opinion is formed about you depends entirely on you.
It is clear that each time dictates its own laws for constructing such a characteristic. However, we should not forget that there is different people, and each person can form their own opinion, and we just need to choose wisely and listen to what they think about us. Perhaps this is what will help us, to some extent, understand what other people see in us and change their perception of us.
We are all accustomed to judging other people, even if we try not to do so. But any opinion, be it personal or public, may turn out to be wrong.
As he eloquently exclaims in one of his monologues main character comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” Alexander Andreevich Chatsky: “Who are the judges?..”. Really, who? Where does this condemnation and rejection of others who are not like us come from?
Why do we often consider kind, simple-minded people to be “idiots,” as everyone called Prince Myshkin behind his back in the novel of the same name by F. M. Dostoevsky. And we immediately classify everyone who rebels and rebels against the opinion of the majority as “Chatsky” and try to make them laugh?
Probably, it is important for every person to feel involved in something, which is why he is so eager to join the opinion of the majority. “If many people think so, then it makes sense,” he thinks and, forgetting about his reasonable doubts, joins “ strong of the world this."
But all this is good only until such a person stumbles and makes a mistake, after which his acquaintances begin to condemn him. And then, feeling their dissatisfied gaze on himself, he will understand what the majority opinion is and how unpleasant it can be if directed against you.
I think each of us has found ourselves in a similar situation at least once. Everyone felt like Chatsky, Myshkin, and perhaps even Bazarov. And how, at that moment, I probably wanted to prove to everyone that I was right, or at least defend my choice.
But this is not so easy to do, since public opinion does not tolerate attacks on its authority. It automatically classifies everyone who tries to do this in one way or another as a “black sheep.” Meanwhile, as a rule, it is precisely such non-standard individuals, having achieved success in the future, who become trendsetters and form this very public opinion.
08.12.2017 08:36
On December 6, 2017, the final essay (presentation) was carried out in the Vologda region. In the Cherepovets municipal district, the final essay was written by 63 eleventh-graders from 8 schools.
The essay topics became known 15 minutes before the start of the exam:
· When can betrayal be forgiven?(This topic was chosen by 13 people (20%) from the Cherepovets region).
· What actions of a person indicate his responsiveness?(32 people (50%) wrote an essay on this topic.
· Is it possible to have happiness built on the misfortune of others?(This topic was chosen by 4 people (6%).
· How is courage different from recklessness?(12 people (19%) wrote an essay on this topic
· Can public opinion be wrong?(An essay on this topic was written by 2 people (3%)
According to the requirements, the essay must be at least 250 words. When writing essays, participants were allowed to use a spelling dictionary. The work will be checked and assessed by a commission educational organization, on the basis of which the final essay was written according to the following criteria: relevance to the topic, argumentation and involvement literary material, composition and reasoning logic, quality writing, literacy. The expert commission includes teachers of Russian language and literature from the school where the exam is taking place. Original essays and presentations are sent to the regional information processing center.
Students will learn the results of the final essay and presentation within a week. Graduates who are dissatisfied with the result have the right to submit a written application to have their essay (presentation) rechecked by a commission from another school. If the graduate received a “failure” or did not come to the exam for a good reason, he can write the final essay (presentation) on February 7 and May 16.
The validity of the final essay as admission to the state final certification is unlimited. The result of the final essay, if submitted for admission to undergraduate and specialty programs, is valid for four years following the year in which such result was obtained.
Graduates of previous years can participate in writing the final essay, including if they have valid results of the final essay of previous years, while the result of the final essay of last year is cancelled.
Discover fact of fallacy public statements can, as is known, without going beyond the analysis of recorded judgments, by simply comparing them, in particular by detecting contradictions in their content. Let’s say, in response to the question: “What do you think is more characteristic of your peers: purposefulness or lack of purpose?” - 85.3 percent of respondents chose the first part of the alternative, 11 percent chose the second, and 3.7 percent did not give a definite answer. This opinion would be obviously false if, say, in response to another question in the questionnaire: “Do you personally have a goal in life?” - the majority of respondents answered negatively - a concept of a population that contradicts the actual characteristics of the units that make up the population cannot be considered correct. Precisely in order to discover the degree of truth of statements, questions that mutually control each other are introduced into the questionnaire, a correlation analysis of opinions is carried out, etc.
Another thing - nature of fallibility public statements. In most cases, its determination turns out to be impossible within the framework of consideration of recorded judgments alone. Searching for an answer to the question “why?” (why does public opinion turn out to be either right or wrong in its reasoning? What exactly determines the place of this or that opinion on the continuum of truth?) force us to turn to the sphere of opinion formation.
If we approach the issue in general, the truth and falsity of public statements depend primarily on the reasoning subject as well as those sources, from which he draws his knowledge. In particular, with regard to the first, it is known that different social environments are characterized by different “signs”: depending on their objective position in relation to sources and media, they are distinguished by more or less awareness in certain issues; depending on the level of culture, etc. - greater or lesser ability to perceive and assimilate incoming information; finally, depending on the relationship between the interests of a given environment and general trends social development- greater or lesser interest in accepting objective information. The same must be said about sources of information: they can carry truth or lies depending on the degree of their competence, the nature of their social interests (whether it is profitable or unprofitable to disseminate objective information), etc. In essence, considering the problem of forming public opinion means considering the role of all these factors (primarily social) in the complex “behavior” of the subject of the statement and the source of information.
However, our tasks do not include an analysis of the actual process of formation of public opinion. It is enough for us to outline the nature of public misconceptions in general view. Therefore we will limit ourselves, so to speak, to the abstract, devoid of social characteristics addressing these errors. In particular, keeping in mind the sources of information, we will characterize each of them as having, so to speak, its own certain reserve of “good quality”, “purity”, that is, truth and lies (from the point of view of the content of the opinion formed on its basis).
As is known, generally speaking, the following can serve as the basis for the formation of opinions: firstly, rumor, rumour, gossip; secondly, the total personal experience individual, accumulated in the process of direct practical activity of people; finally, cumulative collective experience, the experience (in the broad sense of the word) of “other” people, formalized in various types of information coming to the individual in one way or another. In the actual process of opinion formation, the importance of these sources of information is extremely unequal. Of course, the last of them plays the greatest role, since it includes such powerful elements as modern means of mass communication and the immediate social environment of the individual (in particular, the experience of “small groups”). In addition, the sources mentioned at the beginning in most cases “work” not on their own, not directly, but are refracted accordingly through the experience of the social environment, the action of official sources of information, etc. However, from the point of view of the interests of theoretical analysis, the proposed sequence of consideration seems to be the most expedient, and an isolated, so to speak, “pure form” consideration of each of the named sources is not only desirable, but also necessary.
Therefore, we will start with Ata’s area of activity. Already in Greek myths it was emphasized that she manages to seduce not only single individuals, but also entire crowds. And that's true. The source of information now being considered is very “operative” and the least reliable. Opinions formed on its basis, even if they do not always haveExternally, according to the mechanism of its distribution, this type of knowledge is very similar to what is called the “experience of other” people: rumors always come from others- either directly from that person who “himself” - with his own eyes (ears)! - saw, heard, read something, or from someone who heard something from some other person, former (according to at least claiming that he was a direct witness (participant) of the event under discussion. However, in reality these two types of knowledge are completely different. The point is, first of all, that the “experience of others,” unlike rumors and gossip, can be spread by many different ways, and not only through direct communications between two interlocutors, which are, moreover, private, confidential, completely free from elements of an official nature. But this is a particular thing. The main difference between the compared types of knowledge lies in their very nature, in their ways education.
As you know, any knowledge can be erroneous. Including those based on experience - individual or collective, including those cemented by the high authority of science or proclaimed as strictly official. But if a person or a collective, “mere mortal” or “god-like” can make a mistake, then the gossiper conveys information that from the very beginning deliberately contain lies. This is absolutely clear in relation to judgments, which, in fact, are called “gossip” - they are a complete fabrication, pure fabrication from beginning to end, not containing a grain of truth. But this is also true in relation to judgments-rumors, based on some facts of reality, starting from them. In this regard, the folk wisdom “There is no smoke without fire” does not stand up to criticism, not only in the sense that gossip and rumors often arise absolutely without any reason. Even when the “smoke” spreading across the earth in the form of rumors arises from “fire,” it can never be used to form an idea of the source that generated it. Or rather, this idea will inevitably be erroneous.
Why? Because the basis of knowledge, denoted by the terms “rumour”, “rumors”, “gossip”, is always a larger or smaller dose fiction, conjecture: conscious, intentional or unconscious, accidental - it doesn’t matter. Such a fiction is already present at the moment of the origin of rumor, since the person who first reports the information rumor-generating, never has the entirety of accurate, strictly verified facts regarding the object of judgment and therefore is forced to supplement them with his own imagination (otherwise the statement will not be a “rumor”, not “gossip”, but “normal”, positive knowledge) In the future, as information is transferred from one person to another and thereby moves away from the original source, these elements of fiction grow like a snowball: the message is supplemented with various details, depicted in every possible way, etc., and, as a rule, by people who no longer have any facts about the subject of conversation.
Of course, it is very difficult for a sociologist to distinguish such “human rumor” containing lies from true, fact-based and verified knowledge communicated by one person to another. However, given the specific nature of rumor, the sociology of public opinion identifies this type of knowledge as a special and very unreliable source of opinion formation. Moreover, from the fact that rumors extremely rarely convey facts as they actually exist, sociology also draws a practical conclusion: opinions based on the personal, direct experience of people are valued by it, other things being equal, much higher than opinions formed on the basis of “rumours”.
In our III survey, a group of young people was recorded who gave a sharply negative assessment of Soviet youth and said that they did not find any (or almost any) positive qualities in them. In quantitative terms, this group was insignificant. However, it is clear that this circumstance alone did not give grounds to conclude that the opinion of this group reflected reality less accurately than the opinion of the overwhelming majority, or, moreover, was erroneous. As in every case of encounter with pluralistic opinion, the task was precisely to determine which of the polemic positions contained the truth, or at least was closer to the truth. real picture things. And for this it was very important to understand what the named group of young people represented, why they judged their generation this way, what it was based on and how their opinion arose.
A special analysis showed that the assessment of reality in question was given most often by people standing aside from the great deeds of his generation. And this determined the researcher’s attitude towards her. Of course, so-called personal experience (here it was primarily the experience of the microenvironment) also played a significant role in the emergence of such an opinion. Therefore, in this case it was necessary to talk about another problem, which we will discuss below - the problem of the direct experience of individuals as a source of opinion formation. However, the main thing here was something else: the opinion of this part of the youth turned out to be the product not only of the facts of life, but also of people’s rumors and rumors.
|
quantity (remember that 83.4 percent of respondents gave a positive assessment of the generation). It was extremely important that the point of view of the bulk of the unanimous majority was not borrowed from the outside, not suggested from the outside, but developed on the basis of the direct experience of people, their life practice, as a result of their own reflections and observations of facts.
True, the sociology of public opinion has long shown experimentally that what people themselves define as their own personal experience, in reality, does not at all represent the direct basis for the formation of opinions. The latter, even in the presence of “personal experience,” are formed primarily on the basis of information related, according to our classification, to the “experience of others” - unofficial (if we are talking about the experience of the microenvironment to which a given individual belongs) or official (if we are talking about collective experience disseminated, say, by means of science, channels of mass communication, etc.). In this sense, the personal experience of an individual is rather a certain prism that refracts information coming “from the outside,” rather than an independent source of information. However, on the other hand, any collective experience includes the direct experience of individuals. Therefore, the latter must be considered independently. And in all cases, the fact of the presence or absence of the mentioned “prism” in the process of development individual opinion(and therefore public opinion) plays a very important role.
At the same time, when we emphasize the special value of an opinion confirmed by the direct experience of the speaker, it is necessary to take into account that the meaning of this opinion, the degree of its truth are not unconditional, but are directly dependent on both the mentioned “experience of others” (we will talk about it below ), and on the nature of the individual experience itself (its boundaries), on the measure of the individual’s ability to analyze experience and draw conclusions from it.
In particular, if we keep in mind the nature of individual experience, then it is determined by a number of indicators. One of them is duration experience. It is no coincidence that in practice, as a rule, preference is given to the opinion of an elderly person who has lived a long and difficult life, as they say, wise by experience, before the opinion of a green youth. Another important indicator is recurrence experience, its versatility - after all, it is one thing if an opinion is supported by a single fact, and another thing if it is backed by many repeating, complementary facts. Finally, it is very important that the experience is not contemplative, but active character, so that a person acts in relation to the object he is judging not as a passive observer, but as an active subject - after all, the nature of things is comprehended most fully only in the process of their practical development, transformation.
And yet, no matter how important the listed factors are, the degree of truth of an opinion based on personal experience (or rather, passed through the prism of personal experience) depends primarily on judgment skills speaker. Quite often found in life highest degree maturely reasoning “youths” and completely “green” elders, just like “theoreticians” who are far from direct practice, but nevertheless possessing the truth, and those who have fallen into the gravest mistakes “from the plow”. The nature of this phenomenon is simple: people, regardless of their direct experience, are more and less literate, educated, more and less competent, and capable of analysis. And it is clear that a person who has limited experience, but knows how to accurately analyze phenomena, is more likely to formulate a true judgment than someone who is familiar with a lot of facts, but cannot connect even two of them. The judgment of the first will be as limited in content as his experience is limited: if he doesn’t know something, he will say: “I don’t know,” if he knows something poorly, he will say: “My conclusion, maybe , inaccurate” - or: “My opinion is of a private nature, does not apply to the entire totality of phenomena,” etc. On the contrary, a person less capable of independent analysis, even with rich personal experience, can judge the world erroneously.
The nature of such errors can be very different. And first of all, it is associated with the effect of so-called “stereotypes” in the minds of people, in particular elements of social psychology. Walter Lippmann was the first to draw attention to the enormous role of this circumstance. Having shown that various kinds of emotional and irrational factors penetrated deeply into the process of opinion formation, he wrote that “stereotypes” are preconceived notions that control people’s perceptions. “They designate objects as familiar and unfamiliar, in such a way that the barely familiar seems well known, and the unfamiliar seems deeply alien. They are excited by signs that can vary from true meaning to vague analogy."
However, unfortunately, W. Lippmann, like most social psychologists in the West, firstly, gave “stereotypes” an erroneous subjectivist interpretation, and secondly, excessively exaggerated the significance of these elements of mass consciousness in the process of forming public opinion. Having focused on the “irrationalism” of mass consciousness, he fatally lost sight of another important point, namely, that public opinion is simultaneously formed at the level of theoretical knowledge, that is, at the rational level, and therefore includes elements not only of lies, but also and truth. However, there is more to it than that. Even within the framework of an analysis of the nature of what is erroneous in public opinion, the question cannot be reduced to the effect of “stereotypes” alone. Everyone must be involved in the matter mechanism of functioning of everyday consciousness with all its specific properties.
Take, for example, such a feature of everyday consciousness as its inability to penetrate into the depths of things,- after all, very often it is precisely because of this that the direct experience of an individual records not real, but seemingly such relations of reality. Thus, in our V survey, public opinion unanimously (54.4 percent of respondents) concluded that main reason divorces in the country is due to the frivolous attitude of people towards family and marriage issues. At the same time, to substantiate their point of view, the public referred to such facts of direct experience as “the short duration of disintegrating marriages,” “the youth of those entering into marriage,” etc. However, an analysis of objective statistics showed the fallacy of such an opinion: only 3.9 percent of those who were divorced marriages accounted for marriages lasting less than a year, while the bulk were marriages lasting 5 years or more; only 8.2 percent of men and 24.9 percent of women got married before the age of 20, etc.
How did the obviously incorrect idea about the dominant role of the “frivolity” factor develop? It seems that the reason here was primarily due to the fact that the idea of frivolity is the most convenient way of explaining complex phenomena. Almost any case of family breakdown can be summed up under this idea. And this is exactly what ordinary consciousness does, which does not know how to deeply analyze the essence of things.
Moreover, ordinary consciousness does not notice that it often confuses the real connections between phenomena and turns them “upside down.” What, for example, is the true relationship between people's casual approach to marriage and the length of time marriages end? Obviously, this is the case: if the marriage was truly frivolous and should be dissolved, then in the overwhelming majority of cases its dissolution actually occurs quite soon after the wedding. But not the other way around. Not every short marriage is short-lived due to human frivolity. In ordinary consciousness, an external connection is perceived as an essential connection. And so, instead of asserting: this marriage is frivolous and therefore short-lived, such consciousness believes: this marriage is short-lived and therefore frivolous.
An essential feature of everyday consciousness is that it is not able to exclude from experience the figure of the individual himself, his “I”. This circumstance conceals the roots of that subjectivism, due to which people often pass off their private, individual experience, which inevitably contains many elements of the individual, as a collective and even universal experience.
Most often this manifests itself in one-sidedness of judgment- unlawful generalization of a small range of facts that are actually limited in nature, while completely discounting facts of a different kind that contradict what is being generalized. It is precisely this kind of absolutization of things by ordinary consciousness that we encountered in the third survey. In particular, the opinion of the “nihilists”, formed, as we have already said, partly “from hearsay”, and partly on the basis of personal experience, more precisely, the experience of their microenvironment, in that part where it was based on experience, suffered from one-sidedness. It took into account one group of facts, the only ones known to the speakers, and did not take into account the opposite phenomena at all.
Just as one-sidedly erroneous as the judgments of the “nihilists” were the assessments of young people, expressed in directly opposite colors - the opinions of those who could not go beyond the bounds of unbridled enthusiasm and were in a hurry to declare an anathema to anyone who believed that Soviet youth had widespread negative features
Consequently, the degree of truth of an opinion supported by personal experience increases significantly if the speaker approaches experience critically, understanding its limited nature, if he seeks to take into account the entirety of contradictory phenomena of reality. From this point of view, in the III survey, the greatest interest for the researcher was, of course, the opinion of the majority - people who, regardless of whether they liked the generation as a whole or not, showed the ability to see in the world not only white and black, but also many different shades . On the basis of this kind of opinion, free from one-sidedness and subjective exaggeration, it was possible to obtain the most accurate and realistic idea of the appearance of the Soviet young generation.
Another expression of the subjectivism of ordinary consciousness is objectification individual of his individual“I” - mixing into the content of the issues under discussion one’s personal motives, experiences, problems, or even a direct affirmation of one’s individual properties, needs, characteristics of life, etc. as universal, inherent in all other people. In a certain sense, this error coincides with the first one - both here and there we are talking about the absolutization of limited experience. However, there is a difference between them. In the first case, the speaker was limited in his judgment by the narrowness and incompleteness of experience; he could not grasp the phenomenon in all its breadth, since he stood on the “bump of vision.” In the second, he judges the world, as they say, “from his bell tower,” and sometimes even claims that the world is limited by the walls of his bell tower, just like Swift’s Lilliputians, who naively believed that the whole world was structured in the image and likeness of their dwarf country . It is clear that the narrowness of thinking present in the latter case is no longer only of a logical nature, but is caused by insufficient social consciousness and education of the speaker, for example, his incorrect assessment of the relationship between personal and public interest, etc.
In the same III survey there was no shortage of examples of this kind of opinion. The general dissatisfaction of some young people with the generation as a whole turned out to be only a reflection of their personal disorder and was generated by purely personal motives.
Even more dangerous from the point of view of the accuracy of the final conclusions are cases when speakers directly put a sign of identity between their “I” and objective reality. The researcher must always keep in mind the possibility of such error. For example, we wrote that in our II survey, housing construction was named problem No. 1. However, was this opinion true? Did it convey the real need of society? After all, abstractly speaking, things could have turned out in such a way that only people who had a personal need for housing and passed off their individual experience as a general one took part in the survey. A special analysis showed that this opinion was not erroneous. This was evidenced with sufficient conviction, among other things, by the fact that it was expressed with equal force by people who have housing or have recently received it. Consequently, the question in the survey was not about personal, narrowly understood interest, but really about the interest of society as a whole.
On the contrary, in the III survey we continually encountered cases when, assessing their generation as a whole, speakers attributed to it qualities that they themselves possessed. And here the old rule was once again confirmed that there are no heroes for the valet, and heroes are often unaware of the existence of traitors...
It is clear that this kind of projection of personal experience onto the entire “universe” under study as a whole cannot contribute to the formation of a true opinion. Usually the opposite happens. However, more precisely, the degree of truth of an opinion thus formed is directly proportional to the number of persons expressing it. It will be absolutely true if the “universe” consists entirely of such “selves” identifying themselves with the “universe” (that is, in this case with each other!) “I”, and, conversely, it will be completely false if such “selves” identifying themselves with the whole “universe” as a whole, a little, so their personal experience is different from the personal experience of most other people. In the latter case, the opinion of the minority cannot be taken into account when characterizing the “universe” under study as a whole. However, this does not mean that it will not interest the researcher at all. On the contrary, false in itself, it can nevertheless be very important from the point of view of understanding certain individual aspects of reality, at least the nature and character of a given minority itself, etc.
An opinion supported by the personal experience of the speaker (the experience of his environment) that includes direct knowledge of other people's experiences(Wednesday).
This kind of judgment is not uncommon in surveys. Testifying, in particular, to the fact that in their desire to independently analyze the phenomena of reality, people are increasingly trying to go beyond the boundaries of individual existence, to actively intervene in life, they sometimes take the form of conclusions from microscopic examinations independently carried out by the respondents sociological research. For example, the personal experience of L. A. Gromov, a member of the Moscow City Court who participated in our fifth survey, included a special analysis of 546 court cases of divorce dating back to the end of 1959 and the first half of 1960. It is clear that, other things being equal, opinions formed by such way, reflect reality more deeply and more accurately than those that come from individual facts limited by the narrow “I”.
Now the question is: which opinion should be recognized as closer to the truth - based on a person’s direct acquaintance with the subject, on his “personal experience”, life observations, etc., or gleaned “from the outside”,based on the experience of other people (of course, excluding such “experience” as rumors, gossip, unverified rumors)?
This question is very complex. Moreover, placed in such general form, he has no answer. Each specific trial involves taking into account a number of circumstances. Some of them concern the qualities of personal experience (which we just talked about), others - the qualities of collective experience, or the experience of “others”. At the same time, the matter becomes extremely complicated due to the fact that the experience of “others” is a very broad concept. It includes various types of unofficial information (for example, a friend’s story about what he saw; some unspoken norms of behavior accepted in a given environment, etc.), and strictly official information, sanctified by the authority of state, religious and other institutions (for example, news reported by radio; school textbook; scientific information, etc.).
a) The immediate social environment. One of the most important types of experience of “others” is, as we have already noted, the experience of the individual’s immediate social environment, his microenvironment, the “small group” and, in particular, the leader of this environment (formal or informal). From the point of view of the process of forming public opinion, analysis of this area and, above all, the mechanism of influence of the environment on the individual seems extremely important. However, within the framework of solving our problem - from the point of view of determining the unique coefficient of truth or falsehood that a particular source of information possesses - this sphere of opinion formation does not represent any specificity in comparison with the direct experience of the individual discussed above. Both the opinion of the microenvironment as a whole and the leader’s judgment are also influenced by the “stereotypes” of consciousness, and are just as subject to all the vicissitudes of everyday consciousness, as is the opinion of an individual.
True, here, along with the nature of experience and the ability to judge, another factor begins to play a huge role, associated with mechanism for transmitting information from one person to another is a factor of installation on the truth of the source of information: it is known that not everyone who has the truth is interested in communicating it to others. However, the significance of this factor is best considered in connection with the action of mass media, where it manifests itself most clearly. Generally speaking, it is present in almost all types of collective experience, with the exception of science.
b) Scientific information. Science, which can make mistakes and be mistaken in its conclusions, cannot be untruthful in its attitude. She can't know one thing,but to say something else.
Of course, it happens in life that certified servants of Minerva, awarded with numerous honors, begin to betray her in favor of the dishonest Mom, and take the path of lies and falsification of facts. However, in the final analysis, such knowledge, no matter how diligently it is draped in the toga of the scientific, is always rightly classified as unscientific, anti-scientific, and not related to genuine science. True, before this happens, scientific falsifiers sometimes manage to win over public opinion and rely on it for a long time. In such cases, the masses, hypnotized by the authorities, fall into error. Public opinion that refers to scientific authorities is also erroneous when scientists have not yet “gotten to the bottom” of the truth, when they unintentionally make mistakes, come to false conclusions, etc. And yet, taken as a whole, science is one a form of experience of “others”, which contains information characterized by the greatest degree of universality and truth. That is why public opinion, based on the principles of science (the latter are acquired by people in the process of systematic learning, scientific activity, various forms of self-education, as a result of widespread propaganda of scientific knowledge, etc.), turns out, as a rule, to be as true as possible in the sense of reflecting the phenomena of reality.
c) Mass media. The situation is much more complicated with such official forms of experience of “others” as propaganda speeches and in general information supplied by the media - press, radio, television, cinema, etc. In a socialist society, this kind of information is also considered as close to the truth as possible. However, this is only true insofar as purpose its purpose is to communicate the truth to the people and because at the core it lies strictly scientific knowledge. The socialist press, radio and other media do an infinite amount to raise the consciousness of the masses to a scientific level in various ways; they are constantly busy disseminating scientific knowledge, popularizing it, etc. Both the state (represented by its various educational bodies) and public organizations solve this problem in their activities. The same must be said about propaganda as such. In a society where ideology has become a science, it represents, first of all, propaganda of science itself - Marxist-Leninist theory and is built on the basis of the provisions of this science.
At the same time, even in the conditions of a socialist society (and even more so under capitalism) it is impossible to put a sign of identity between the named information and the truth.
First of all because the goal is not always achieved. This becomes clear if we consider that in the total mass of information related to the form of experience of “others” under consideration, scientific principles themselves occupy a rather limited place. Let's say, if we are talking about a newspaper issue, this is, as a rule, materials of 200-300, well, at best, 500 lines (and then, of course, not every day). The rest is various kinds of messages and thoughts of journalists or so-called freelance authors, information about facts and events, etc. The same situation is in the work of radio or television, where art also plays a huge role.
The bulk of this information, reported by a newspaper or radio, no longer contains the same indisputable, “absolute” truth as the proven position of science. Having not passed, like scientific proposals, through the crucible of precise verification, not relying on a system of strict proof, all these “messages”, “thoughts”, “information” do not have the character of impersonal judgments, equally true in any presentation that distinguishes scientific knowledge itself, but they are “messages”, “thoughts”, etc. of certain specific people, with all their pros and cons as a source of information. Consequently, all of them have only relative truth: they can be accurate, corresponding to reality, but they can also be erroneous, false.
Since, we repeat, the purpose of mass communication is to communicate the truth, information coming to people from this side, as a rule, leads to the formation of true public opinion. However, they often contain errors and false content - then the opinion of the masses that they generate also turns out to be erroneous. You can easily be convinced of this if you carefully follow at least one newspaper section - “In the wake of our speeches.” In most cases, confirming the correctness of the newspaper's position, publications in this section no, no, and indeed note factual errors made by correspondents in their critical materials. Newspapers do not write about errors of the opposite kind, associated with embellishing the facts of reality. But we know that such mistakes also happen.
A fairly striking example of a massive public misconception can be the opinion about “hipsters” recorded during the period of our III survey.
Then we encountered an unexpected result: among the most common negative traits characteristic of Soviet youth, respondents named “passion for style” and “admiration for the West” as the second strongest trait (this trait was noted by 16.6 percent of all respondents). Naturally, the analysis had to answer the question: is this phenomenon really so widespread among young people or is public opinion mistaken and falling into exaggeration? There were all the more reasons for this kind of doubt because “styling” - a phenomenon, as is known, associated primarily with the life of the city, and primarily of a large city - found itself in the center of attention, including among rural residents.
A meaningful analysis of the statements made it possible to discover that public opinion’s assessment of the real danger of the phenomenon in question was incorrect. The point was, first of all, that due to the specific features of the functioning of everyday consciousness, the concept of “stylishness”, “admiration of the West” turned out to be completely boundless in its content in people’s interpretation. In some cases, “hipsters” were understood as parasites leading a “chic” lifestyle at the expense of others, epigones of the “Western style”, fans of fashionable rags and “original” opinions, flirting with their arrogant and contemptuous attitude towards others, black marketeers engaged in selling foreign things, etc. - here such essential features as people’s attitude to work, to other people, to society and public duty, etc. were taken as the basis for identifying phenomena. In other cases, “stylishness” was associated with purely external signs- with the tastes of people, with their manner of behavior, etc., as a result of which it turned out: you wear tight trousers, pointed shoes, bright shirts - that means you are a dude; changed his hairstyle to a more fashionable one - which means he is a fan of the West; If you're into jazz music, that means you're a bad Komsomol member...