What is the power of the individual. Types of personalities in politics and factors of their political behavior

Personality is a concept developed to reflect the social nature of a person, considering him as a subject of socio-cultural life, defining him as a carrier of an individual principle, self-revealing in the contexts of social relations, communication and objective activity. By "personality" is meant:

• 1) the human individual as a subject of relations and conscious activity (“face” - in the broad sense of the word);
• 2) a stable system of socially significant features that characterize an individual as a member of a particular society or community. Although these two concepts are the face as the integrity of a person ( Latin language: persona) and personality as its social and psychological appearance (Latin: personalitas).

Terminologically, these concepts are quite distinct, but sometimes they are used as synonyms.

Now consider the relationship between the concepts of personality and power. Each of us is a person (both in the broad and narrow sense of the word) and each of us has a certain power. But most of us just don't know how to use it to the fullest. Some will object to this statement - "no, I'm too small a fry and I don't have power, because nothing depends on me." This is not true. Everyone has power, but power is always limited - by your capabilities and specific circumstances. I'll try to explain.

From the point of view of the author, everyone, even the most seemingly “insignificant person”, has power. A lot depends on him! Moreover, it does not matter what his social status is (what position he holds, what income he has, how well known).

The main thing is that his internal status should be high enough! If such a person strives with all his might for self-realization, then he, one way or another, will raise his external status to the level of his internal status! And it doesn't really matter where he is at the moment. Even if this person is a prisoner in a strict regime colony, his desire to increase his status with a reasonable approach will always work. Of course, at the same time, you must always remember that no power is unlimited, including your power - it is always limited! In order to increase your external status, you must follow certain rules. These rules are:

• 1) Observe the correct posture - the back is straight, the shoulders are straightened, the stoop should be excluded. A stoop, a hunched back, and shoulders pushed forward are signs of a person who has a secondary status. Sometimes, of course, this is due to a disease or other reasons, but let such a “hunched” posture never become your usual!
• 2) In any situation, do not fuss, and remain calm. Fuss and nervousness are signs of a person who has a secondary status. Even if you need to act quickly - try to build your movements in the most rational way, move along the optimal trajectory.
• 3) If possible, wear only business and classic suits. The best option is a two-piece suit and a tie. If this is not possible, then at least avoid wearing baggy clothing that resembles a worker's overalls or a prisoner's overalls. Remember, jeans, denim jackets and baggy sweaters (regardless of their cost) are the clothes of peasants, workers and other individuals secondary to the social structure of society.

A business suit, dark trousers with an arrow (regardless of their cost) are a sign of a person's high status. The color of clothing should also be chosen wisely (red is the color of aggression, excitement; black is the color of psychological pressure, protest, refusal; gray is the color of disguise, detachment; green is the color of nature, optimism; brown is the color of weakness, a painful state, etc. ).

• 4) The concepts of GOOD and EVIL are always relative (subjective) and should be interpreted by you only in this way: Good is something that benefits you, expands your capabilities, helps you develop. Evil is something that harms you, narrows your possibilities, hinders your development.
• 5) The concepts of TRUE and FALSE are always relative (subjective) and should be interpreted by you only in this way: Truth is everything that you personally affirm. Lies are anything that contradicts your claims.
• 6) The concepts of ENEMY and FRIEND are always relative (subjective) and should be interpreted by you only this way: The enemy is the one whose interests are contrary to your interests and the one who deliberately causes you significant damage. A friend is someone whose interests are the same as yours, and someone who consciously helps you. Both of these categories are not permanent and those who fall into them can change places at any moment. The exception is when such a replacement will cause damage to your psyche. Follow from the principle that was expressed by one of the British politicians (presumably Lord Palmerston): "Britain has no permanent enemies and permanent friends, it has only interests." Always proceed from your interests, but do not show it to others! Learn "politics" from Niccolo Machiavelli.

Even persons occupying a seemingly rather low status in society have a certain power and are quite capable of exercising it! For example:

factory worker , factory, organization - performing their labor functions, using the rights granted to him, and professional skills, he may well sabotage manufacturing process or vice versa - to contribute to its optimization. With a strong desire, he can plan and create a situation in which his leader will have serious problems, and at the same time look like an “honest worker”, avoiding negative consequences for himself personally. Of course, in this case, the application of significant mental and volitional efforts is necessary (which not every worker is capable of).

The power level of a worker can change depending on the situation, place and time. For example, during a “strike”, an ordinary worker may well become a leader and focus the anger and indignation of the others in the direction he needs (I recommend watching the feature film “Fist”). In addition, a worker can use in his own interests the existing labor (Labor Code of the Russian Federation) or other legislation in the country. power manipulation state

It should be remembered that government officials really do not like private companies, considering them “subordinate structures” and always try to suppress their independence by looking for violations of the law (various state norms and rules) in their activities and are happy to apply various sanctions and fines. In addition, government officials of different services feel hostility towards each other (often this is caused by competition) and this can be taken advantage of by giving them, with the help of your complaint (statement), to get even with the enemy (for example, contact the prosecutor's office with a complaint against the police, or apply to the state labor inspectorate with a complaint against the employer - a state-owned enterprise). Of course, for this, the worker should not “sit idly by” - you will have to fuss and study the relevant section of the law (for example, several articles of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) or contact a lawyer for advice.

University student - also has a certain power over other students, teachers and even the rector. Of course, this power is limited and can only arise as a result of intelligent and well-planned actions. For example, a psychological technique aimed at successfully passing exams and tests is carried out in the form of using a stereotype common among teachers - Stereotype(from ancient Greek ufeset - solid, spatial and farpt - "imprint"). Initially "stereotype"- a metaphor for thinking that came from typography, where a stereotype is a monolithic printing plate, a copy from a typographic set or a cliché used for rotary printing of large-circulation publications. In modern social theory and psychology, there are various definitions of the concept "Stereotype", depending on the methodological direction of the scientific school. In general, stereotype- a well-established attitude to ongoing events, developed on the basis of comparing them with inner ideals. The system of stereotypes is understanding of the world. about "bad" and "good" students.

To use this technique, you need to strain and get an “A” in all the main subjects in the first year (here a lot depends on the level of the student’s intelligence - it will be easier for someone, more difficult for someone). As a rule, when coming to the exam, before the answer, the student gives the teacher a "record book".

Make sure that the "record book" always opens not immediately on a blank page, but first on those pages where there are "fives" (for example, lightly glue the corners of blank pages with glue, then the pages on the "fives" will open easily, but on clean ones - "to stick").

The teacher, whether he wants it or not, will fall under your psychological influence and, at the subconscious level, will evaluate you as “ good student". Even if your answer is “not very”, he will show “understanding” (well, he “overstrained” during preparation, he still earned “five” in other subjects) or generally skip most of your answer “by the ear” and put a good assessment. This trick works 95% of the time. One more take. If you know what your teacher is doing scientific work- writes articles, books, textbooks - do not be lazy, get these materials and run through them with your eyes, remembering a few small quotes. At the first opportunity, "amuse the vanity" of the author by asking him a couple of questions about the text of these materials.

At the same time, one can speak with respect about the opinion of the author and agree with some thesis (But remember! Do not “go too far”! In no case do not go over to primitive flattery!). Rest assured, on the exam, this will count towards you at least + one point when you receive an assessment. How to influence other students? First, they must be interested in you. Communicate with other students and then you will learn about their interests and desires. If they need you, then consider that you have a direct "lever" to influence them.

The main thing is to always demonstrate external friendliness and friendliness. But keep your dignity and, in any case, do not "fawn" with anyone. Having competently built a stepwise influence with the help of linguistic programming, you can control the behavior of other students and at the same time look like a “friend”, “good guy” (“good girl”). How to influence the rector?

The advice is simple - “shine” in front of him more often in the role of an “activist” and a “good student”. The rector, as a rule, does not remember the names and surnames of students, but if you become familiar, then he (she) will definitely remember your face.

If possible, help the work of the dean's office. Whenever possible, communicate with the rector with an air of self-confidence, but at the same time showing respect. What is the need for “contact” with the rector? It may well come in handy, for example, in some universities the rector is present at state exams, and may well "put in a good word" for you. The rector's word may be required in case of your reinstatement at the university after academic leave, when retaking an exam, etc.

In exceptional cases, you can go for "tough tricks", for example, competently "substitute" an objectionable teacher or even a rector by convicting you of a bribe. To do this, you need to contact the prosecutor's office or the police (after weighing what results this will lead to). This is an exceptional case, but this one can come in handy. If you are afraid of "revenge", then know that "inconvenient" and "problem" people are all kinds of employees educational institutions and other organizations are themselves afraid, and after the “initiation of a criminal case” against their colleague, they themselves will be especially careful. In addition, the decision of the examination committee can always be appealed, and in exceptional cases - transferred to another university. So, even in the event of a serious conflict with the leadership or teaching staff of the university, not everything is so terrible.

office worker (sales manager, personnel manager, office manager, secretary, etc.) - has considerable power, expressed in a whole range of possible influences on other employees of the organization. You can develop and implement intrigue and "set up" those employees who, in your opinion, deserve it. Naturally, everything should look like that you are “white and fluffy” and the one you set up is “complete mediocrity and a slacker”!

It is very important never to speak badly about someone directly! If you want to expose the "opponent" as a scoundrel, then you need to make sure that he (she) takes the main steps towards this. You should only slightly push and direct him (her) in the right direction.

Nervousness, tantrums, rude speech, neglect of official duties - should become attributes of your "opponent", but not yours. So never "break down" and always be cool! In a conversation with the “opponent”, show your confidence and smile slightly (for specific methods of psychological influence, see the section “Achieving power through manipulation”).

In a conversation with the “management” about an employee you don’t like, never go over to his (her) personal qualities! Speak only about the professionalism of the employee, and, as it were, neutrally, not interested, but do not overdo it!

During a conversation with the “bosses”, make a slightly worried look, they say, you are not happy that things are not going very well, but at the same time you are not interested in removing the “opponent” from the position (project) - say something like: “In principle he is a good guy (reasonable woman), and he seems to be trying, but what can you do, well, it’s not given to him (her) to lead this department (to do this work, to carry out this project).

According to his professional and psychological qualities, he (she) is more suitable for other work, less intense, with less workload. Recently, it has become a common practice among sales managers to take “their clients” with them when they leave.

Treat such behavior reasonably - that is, not in all cases it promises great benefits. If you have come into conflict with the head of a firna (company) and you do not have any friendly employees in this organization, then “taking your clients away” makes sense and is even necessary, because you are unlikely to return or maintain any contacts with employees. If there are people who are nice and loyal to you in the company, then think about how to establish private relations with them and use them as your “agents”. One way to establish a good relationship is to refer them to "your clients" or otherwise help in the work. In this case, you will look “positive” both for the company and for “your person” - after all, you did not take away the client, and at the same time helped your colleague.

If you decide to “sever all ties” with the firm (company) and nothing keeps you from revenge (for example, the employer tried to “throw” you on a salary, and you are very annoyed by this), then feel free to take “your clients” and create a company additional difficulties - complain to the State Labor Inspectorate, file a lawsuit, etc. Caution should be exercised only if you work in a rather specific (narrow) field in which information about employees quickly reaches different employers. That is, if other employers know that you have “thrown” any company, then they will treat you with fear and may even refuse to hire you.

State employee - can use the same range of possible influences on other employees of the organization (body) as an office employee of a private company. Moreover, the ability to use the “state power resource”, that is, the power of state coercion, which he possesses to one degree or another, depending on the position he holds, is added to his capabilities. As you understand, even the smallest state official is a person on whom something always depends.

For example, a lot depends on how some rank of some “inspectorate”, when applying to him for some kind of “permission”, will look at the observance by the person applying of the rules established by the state. Will this “rank” be overly pedantic and picky, or will it look at a minor violation “through the fingers”, will it interpret a minor inaccuracy “against” or “in favor” of the person addressing it.

In fact, the particular examples of the exercise of power that we have considered relate to methods of manipulating people, so we will consider the topic of “manipulation” in more detail.

University: VZFEI

Year and city: Moscow 2009

Introduction

Personality and politics did not always exist. In the initial state of human society, the individual constituted an organic part of the social whole, did not differ in any way from his own kind in terms of social qualities, and therefore did not represent a personality. He was a man of a clan, a tribe, who did not even have his own name.

In a normal, civilized society, politics is carried out for the people and through the people. No matter how important a role they play social groups, mass social movements, political parties, ultimately her main subject the personality comes forward, because these groups, movements, parties and other social and political organizations themselves consist of real personalities and only through the interaction of their interests and will is determined the content and direction of the political process, the entire political life society.

The political activity of an individual depends on many conditions for the development of society and the state of its political culture. In modern democratic states, citizens are endowed with broad rights and freedoms, which gives them the opportunity to participate in political life, influence power structures in order to take into account their interests and needs. Usually, only activities aimed at the violent overthrow of the existing system, inciting hatred and terror are prohibited. However, objective possibilities do not yet guarantee universal political participation; personal motives are an important factor. It is the personality with its needs and interests, value orientations and goals that acts as the driving force behind the political activity of social groups, classes, nations, parties. And here it is important to take into account the degree of development of the political consciousness of the individual and his political experience, moods, emotions that prevail among the masses at one time or another in the development of society.

Types of personalities in politics.

The general characteristic of the subjects of politics is that they all take an active part in the political life of society. These include classes, political parties, trade unions, social groups and organizations. But among all the subjects of politics, the individual is the initial, primary subject. Personality is the main creator of politics.

By the nature of participation in politics, they distinguish the following types:

People who are not specifically involved in politics and do not hold any positions in political organizations;

Representative of any political group. The charter and norms ascribe to him a certain mode of political conduct;

A political leader is a person exercising power functions, capable of influencing others in order to realize political interests. M. Weber wrote that for such people political activity is a matter of priority in life and the main profession;

Factors of political behavior of the individual.

The desire for power can be considered by individuals as a way of self-realization, a way of gaining honor, awards, privileges. The socio-political system has a great influence on political behavior. The most favorable conditions for political activity are created in a democratic society and the rule of law.

A significant influence is exerted by the degree of development of political culture in society, ideology, values, political traditions and customs. They can both contribute to the development of the political activity of the individual, and restrain it.

Also, the following facts cannot be ignored:

international situation;

Internal political situation;

Psychology of Personality;

Specific attitudes, goals, motives for participating in politics;

Political and legal factors.

An essential prerequisite for active political participation are also political and legal factors. These include a democratic political regime, the dominance of a democratic political culture in society, the legal security of democratic procedures for the formation of all power structures, the adoption and implementation of political and administrative decisions, and the participation of members of society at all stages of the political process.

The political activity of the individual is based on the aggregate

certain prerequisites that either contribute to the development of political activity, the disclosure of the potential qualities of a person as a socio-political figure, the formation of a person as a valid subject of the political life of society, or significantly complicate all these processes and preserve political apathy and passivity.

Rights and freedoms of the individual.

Rights and freedoms belonging to the individual can be divided into three groups:

Socio-economic, political and personal.

To the first group include such rights as the right to work, rest, education, and health protection. Ensuring socio-economic rights allows the individual to satisfy the most pressing material and spiritual needs, to create decent living conditions for a person.

Second group these are political rights - the right to elect and be elected to the highest and local bodies of state power. The right to unite in socio-political organizations, the right to hold rallies and demonstrations, the right to participate in the management of state and public affairs, etc. The meaning of political rights is to contribute to the formation of a person as a socio-political figure, to create prerequisites for his political participation, development of social and political activity.

Third group rights - personal rights the right to inviolability of the person, home, the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, etc. The implementation of them contributes to the creation of conditions for the free development of human life.

Political socialization of the individual.

Personality is both an object and a subject of politics. AT general plan socialization is a process of active reproduction by a person of social experience, a certain system of norms, values ​​and political relations.

Political socialization has two main functions:

Ensuring sufficiently effective political interaction with various political organizations within the framework of a given social system;

Preservation of the dynamic balance of the political system, and at the same time the society itself, thanks to the assimilation by new members of the norms and rules of political behavior adopted in it.

Political culture is a set of generally accepted value orientations, beliefs and norms of the political life of society.

Thus, the political socialization of the individual is always a two-way process in which the individual, on the one hand, experiences the influence of various kinds of political subjects, and on the other hand, as socialization itself becomes able to influence the political life of society.

Types of political socialization.

As already mentioned, the political socialization of the individual occurs in the process of its interaction with society. The nature of such interaction is due to the correlation of economic, political and other interests of a person and society, citizen and state.

Modern political science identifies four main types of political socialization of the individual:

- harmonic type- acceptance by the individual of the existing political order and power, respect for the state, political system generally;

- pluralistic type- A person is considered as a sovereign, equal and independent citizen, security and observance of human rights, universal responsibility of a person before the law;

- hegemonic type- characteristic of a closed society. Installation on a sharply negative attitude of the individual towards any political systems and organizations, except for the one with which she identifies herself;

If the Report, in your opinion, is of poor quality, or you have already seen this work, please let us know.

We fully agree with the opinion of J. Rudash that politics refers to those types of professional activities in which the motivation of power is a key professionally important quality of the individual, and its weak expression can reduce efficiency. This position is echoed by the point of view of the domestic scientist, according to which a politician should experience positive emotions from dominating others. However, this does not mean that a successful politician should be overly expressive of this motive.

As follows from foreign studies, politicians more often have a motivation of power, the level of which is only slightly above average. Moreover, the approach of this personality trait to the extreme mark affects the productivity of activity as negatively as its lack. An excessive desire for power, and even more so of a neurotic nature, interferes with the establishment of equal interpersonal relationships, repels followers from the leader. On the other hand, an objective perception of reality (manifested in the desire to “always be right”) is difficult. This often leads to extremism, hostility, inflexibility and stubbornness, unpredictability in behavior. According to research by American psychologists, there is a strong connection between the president's desire for power and the use of force in international relations.

At the same time, it should be noted that the constant focus on achieving power negatively affects the personality of a politician or other subject of power relations. This fact has been observed for a long time. Power, according to Plato, inevitably makes him (the tyrant) envious, treacherous, unfair, unfriendly and dishonest. What are the root causes of such transformations? .

Undoubtedly, an important influence is exerted by phenomena associated with the exercise of power - fame, honor, material status, which are beginning to be perceived as attributes of a person, and not a position. It is also undeniable that certain personality traits that have been found to be relevant political activity, can get excessive in its conditions, for example, the desire to achieve a goal, self-confidence.

We should also mention the original concept of “political drug addiction” put forward by the Russian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst A. Belkin [141, p. 186–198] He proceeds from the fact that during the performance of any activity, the more significant, in the human body, hormones are produced that are similar in action to drugs and give a person positive emotions.

Politics, in turn, is associated with both high energy costs and huge opportunities to meet the needs of power, self-realization, status, and the corresponding emotional states that produce the corresponding biochemical processes. Having become a politician, a person with certain mental characteristics can get used to receiving such “feeding” and after a certain moment “sits down on a political needle”. Accordingly, in order to obtain satisfaction, more and more shares of power, reverence, and more grandiose political projects are required. This process is accompanied by personality changes similar to the clinical picture found in people with drug addiction: uncritical attitude to what is happening, the overvaluation of one's own ideas, suspicion, etc. In connection with what has been said, one can cite the opinion of G. Lasswell that people who “completely separated from other values ​​during the achievement and retention of power are dangerous members of society” .

Power as a tool

Understanding power only as a means of compensation is very narrow. Possession of power, especially political, provides extensive opportunities to meet the relevant needs. As T. Hobbes noted, all passions (desires for power, wealth, knowledge or honors) “can be reduced to the first .., because (they) are different types of power.” In this regard, as another source of motivation for power, its instrumental function is singled out.

With the help of power, the achievement of security is facilitated (in various manifestations - from the ability to use force to influence others to parliamentary immunity). According to the prominent American psychologist D. McClelland, the power motive implies two vectors. If the first can be designated as the power "for" (to dominate others), then the second - as the power "from" (to ensure one's own freedom).

Behind the desire to have power may be hidden material motives (from the provision of daily existence to enrichment). Each person normally has a need, a desire to gain recognition from people, to consider themselves as an authoritative, popular person. Being on the upper floors of the pyramid of power also contributes to obtaining status, fame, significance. At the same time, according to D. McClelland, the motivation of power can be both egocentric and sociocentric. Therefore, the desire for power can be a means of realizing socially significant motives (which, although it is the essential task of politics, is very rare).

In this regard, it should be noted that at present there is an ambiguity in the very term "power". It, as a social phenomenon, is inextricably linked with the above-mentioned semantic consequences - honor, level in the hierarchy, material level, etc. Therefore, an outwardly expressed desire for domination can have a very different psychological basis. Moreover, as G. Lasswell noted, people more often think not in general terms in terms of “desire for power”, but in more specific ones - “become a deputy”, etc. .

Under the everyday expression "desire for power" can hide the desire to achieve a high position, and the search for social status, and power itself. In the latter case, the term "power motive" can be used in its narrower sense, as a synonym for dominance - "the desire for primacy over other people, to actively influence them and ... the social situation .., craving for self-assertion in the society of one's own and not an ordinary role".

As a rule, in any society, the economically dominant elite achieves that the state power and state will exercised throughout the country is its own will, elevated to state law, to universality. By imposing laws that are beneficial to society, the economically dominant class is forced to look for some kind of national idea that would cover up their selfish goals and help keep the leader who serves their interests in power. This phenomenon is also relevant for modern Russia.

Most often, power is exercised within the framework of certain institutions - the state, the army, the family, but it can also exist within informal communities. Almost every person has power in relation to a certain number of other people, and, at the same time, for each of us there is a mass of people who can force or convince us to do certain things, that is, they have power in relation to us. At the same time, the power of, say, the president or the chairman of the government for an ordinary person appears to be very indirect and may not be noticed at all, while the power of the immediate superior is, of course, realized and is a factor determining everyday life person.

In general, from the standpoint of political psychology, power relations can be presented schematically (see Fig. 7). Having determined the subjects, objects, driving forces and mechanisms of interconnection, it is possible to reveal the psychological characteristics of political power.

Rice. 7. Power Relations

Power as administrative and executive relations

Power, in its essence, is one of the sides of inequality in the relations of political subjects, in which domination and subordination legitimately take place, regardless of whether we are talking about individuals, groups of people, classes, nations or peoples. Power allows those who possess it to exercise their will, to exert a decisive influence on subordinates and in this way achieve their own goals.

Power is essential in any society. Power is a right endowed with a social subject - a person, a structure in society due to his social status in society or in its institution.

Of course, the power coming from above extends to a greater number of people than the power of those who are below, but the relationship itself between the bearer of power and those who obey him does not depend on

directly from the place of these two subjects on the social ladder. Thus, it would be wrong to believe that power is concentrated at the highest levels of society or the state. It is distributed across all levels of the social hierarchy. The same psychological patterns can be found both in big politics and in the relationships of ordinary citizens. At the same time, “concentrations” of power are found somewhere - in some structures someone has very great power in relation to other people, and somewhere - a kind of “rarefaction” - as if power does not exist at all, no one obeys anyone. At least, the holders of power and the management methods they use are not visible either to an outside observer, or, sometimes, even to the participants in the interaction themselves.

Relations of domination and subordination, i.e., relations of power, or relations of power, are naturally inherent in the social production, collectivist nature of man. It is possible to paralyze or subordinate the will of some to the will of others by various means: through feelings and with the help of reason, love and fear, nourishing wealth and requiring compassion by poverty, persuasion and coercion.

State power is not just one of the varieties of power along with the power of feelings, the power of reason, the power of prejudices, which is distinguished by the fact that it is carried out with the help of violence. This is the most important instrument of coercion of citizens, and the only one of its kind, if we bear in mind the power of this instrument, which has its branches in any region, in any settlement of the country, as well as the diversity of its impact on citizens. State power is not only its institutions, designed by their own means to protect the interests and implement the will, goals of the socio-political force dominant in the country, but also a wide variety of economic, ideological, information structures and their means and methods. The system of government in Russian Federation includes well-defined constitutional bodies (see Fig. 8).

It is important to note that the most essential signs of power are manifested in legitimacy and sovereignty. The legitimacy of power depends on the influence of such determinants as time, the success of power institutions, the credibility of power and its subjects, etc.

State power in Russia is exercised

Rice. 8. Public authorities

The legitimacy of power from a psychological point of view is a subjective legitimacy - the people themselves, and not just the relevant legal, ecclesiastical or international institutions, recognize the right of this power to govern. Quite often it happens that from a legal point of view, power is completely legitimate, everything is fixed by the relevant national and international documents, but the people themselves do not recognize this legitimacy. Actually, this is exactly what happens every time a revolutionary or violent change of political regime is carried out.

Sovereignty of power

An equally important concept that characterizes the willingness of people to follow the establishment of power is the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the right of the authorities to govern this particular territory and precisely at this time. The importance of this aspect of power relations can be seen in the analysis of separatist movements, which usually do not deny the legitimacy of the power of the center - they just do not agree with the extension of its power to their territory, i.e., they deny its sovereignty over this space.

In some cases, it is appropriate to speak of temporary sovereignty. It occurs in special emergency situations, possibly as a result natural disaster or some social cataclysm. Naturally, situations of emergence of temporary sovereignty are fraught with conflicts and discrepancies. One official may consider the situation to be sufficiently emergency for him to exercise special powers, while other officials or ordinary citizens may not agree with such an expansive interpretation of the state of affairs.

Similarly, conflicts can also arise over the determination of the moment of termination of temporary sovereignty. No instruction can foresee the whole variety of possible life situations, therefore, both officials and citizens have room for their own interpretations of whether it is already possible to return to the usual style of government or is it too early, and power should remain in the hands of state of emergency structures.

Legitimacy and sovereignty are closely linked. The loss of legitimacy inevitably leads to the denial of sovereignty over a given territory. For example, a sharp decline in the legitimacy of the power of the CPSU in the late eighties led to the loss of Moscow's sovereignty over the union republics, and then doubts about the sovereignty of the center and over some national regions in Russia itself. Similar processes can be traced in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon and other countries. The role of the psychological component is very important here - changing people's attitudes towards government institutions should by no means be underestimated. People don't oppose what they think is fair and legal.

The political-psychological approach to the problem of power raises the question of diagnosing the degree of manifestation of the desire for dominance. Note that the solution of this problem is associated with rather great difficulties. On the one hand, this is the lack of tools for assessing the actual motivation of power, although certain psychodiagnostic methods (for example, MMPI tests, Cattell tests, etc.) contain appropriate scales. It is also possible to use for these purposes (as was done by the American researchers R. Browning and G. Jacob) the TAT projective technique. However (and this is the second difficulty), the application of classical diagnostic procedures, primarily testing, to active and sufficiently high-ranking politicians is practically impossible.

As a result, when assessing the motivation of politicians (including the authorities), "distant" methods are most often used. These include various options for psychosemantic and psycholinguistic research methods. So, V.F. Petrenko proposed a psychodiagnostic semantic differential, R. Donley and D. Winter - a system of indicators that allows for a psychological analysis of various aspects of power and politics. A. George proposed a system of indicators reflecting the compensatory nature of the desire for power: unwillingness to allow others to share powers, refusal to accept advice, refusal to inform others, refusal to delegate tasks that are part of the perceived “own” field of power, etc.

The psychological dimension of political and power processes has a certain significance. Such a formulation of the question is implicitly embedded in the classic definition of M. Weber: "politics ... means the desire to participate in power or to influence the distribution of power ...". Who wants power? What kind psychological features belong to these people? What gives them power? What motives are they driven by? Why do people submit to authority? - the answers to these questions are extremely important for an adequate understanding of both politics and human psychology. Some scholars see the psychology of power as the core of political psychology. So, according to K.K. Platonov, the subject of this science lies in the "mental reflection in the individual and group consciousness of social phenomena associated with the conquest, retention and strengthening of state power" .

In general, the psychological analysis of various aspects of power makes it possible to ensure its high legitimacy. At the same time, the human factor is put at the head of increasing its effectiveness, which has the most effective influence on a subjective basis, when each conductor of political power acts as its active and original subject.

Control work on the discipline "Political Science" on the topic: Personality and politics

Completed by a student:
Mikhailova Anastasia Sergeevna
Faculty: IZSO
Speciality: Finance and credit
Well: 4

Voronezh 2013

Introduction ................................................ ................................................. ........... 3

1. Types of personalities in politics and factors of their political behavior.......... 4

2. Political socialization of the individual, its agents, main types and stages 8

3. Comparative analysis the alleged relationship of personality and politics in the ideologies of liberalism, conservatism and socialism ........... 13

Conclusion................................................. ................................................. ..... eighteen

Bibliography............................................... .................... 19

Introduction

Personality and politics did not always exist. In the initial state of human society, the individual was an organic part of the social whole, it was a person of a clan, tribe, not even having his own name. His public life was regulated entirely by customs, rituals, traditions, and not by political or legal norms. With the development of the economy, the emergence of an individual division of labor and private property, a social individuality arises - a person with specific interests and goals. At the same time, there is a division of social life. A policy is emerging, the specificity and main role of which is to harmonize the diverse interests and goals of individuals and groups in society and thereby ensure the needs of a sovereign individual and the integrity of society.

Most political scientists now recognize the need to study the personality factor in the course of the political process. One of the reasons why political scientists turned to studying this phenomenon was the inability of the institutional political approach to predict the cardinal changes that took place in the world after the start of perestroika in the USSR. Many then wondered how politics would have developed in the world if not M. Gorbachev, but A. Gromyko or V. Grishin had been elected General Secretary of the CPSU. The "weight" of M. Gorbachev's personal qualities in the changes that took place was so significant that it largely forced us to reconsider traditional approaches to the study of politics.

The purpose of the work is to analyze the relationship between personality and politics. In this paper, we will study the types of personalities in politics, the factors of their political behavior. We will also consider the concept of "political socialization", factors of political socialization, types of political socialization.

Types of personalities in politics and factors of their political behavior

In political science, a personality is understood not as a separate individual, and not as an individual, but as a set of quite definite, that is, repetitive, stable, inherent in many individuals, qualities. The concept of personality focuses on the “social component” in a person, which he develops, being a representative of one or another community of people. Therefore, a person is, first of all, a set of those social roles that she is “instructed” to perform, based on a well-defined social status occupied by a person. At the same time, a person has the ability to form his own attitude to reality, which is called the direction of the personality.

The degree of political activity of individuals is different. But no one can completely distance himself from politics, since the main issue of politics is the question of power, and every citizen is involved in the system of power relations. Modern political science connects the political behavior of an individual with the degree and form of his participation in the exercise of power. Political behavior can be both constructive and destructive in relation to the existing form of government and the political system. In the first case, a person is understood to be oriented towards the political support of power, and in the second - to its denial. Between these extreme types there is a mass of people who do not have a constant and clear orientation.

In relation to politics in general, the subjectivity of a person can manifest itself as a combination of awareness about politics, interest in it and specific political participation. According to these criteria, the following types of personalities are distinguished in political science:

· "activists" - actively looking for informed people who are positively inclined to participate in political life;

· "competent observers" - similar in characteristics to the first, but not striving for active participation (for example, scientists, writers, etc.);

· "competent critics" - informed and interested, but their attitude to politics and power is generally negative (critical);

· "passive citizens" - are, as a rule, negative or neutral in relation to the authorities, are not interested in politics, although they can be informed about it;

· “apolitical and aloof” - they know little about politics, are not interested in it, and are sharply opposed to any personal participation in political life.

Based on the motives of political behavior and the goals with which people go into politics, M. Weber classifies politicians into “living for politics” and “living at the expense of politics”. The former aspire to power in order to improve public life and serve society, the latter consider power as a source of wealth and glory. However, these motifs often intersect, and the opposite of these types is relative. A person can do both at the same time: live “for” some cause and at the same time “at the expense” of this cause. In their extreme manifestations, these motives give the type of either a political altruist or a political egoist (utilitarian).

To describe the phenomenon of political behavior, such concepts as "political participation", "political activity", "political activity" are used.

Political behavior can be defined as a subjectively motivated process in which one or another type of political activity is embodied. At the same time, political activity is understood as the whole set of forms of action of political factors, due to the occupation of a certain political position and related to the achievement of a goal, the realization of power interests.

Closely related to the concept of political behavior is the concept of political participation. We can define political participation as the more or less regular and, above all, instrumental use by factors of various forms of political activity, through which citizens try to influence the process of political decision-making. By the nature of participation in politics, the following types of personality are distinguished:

· a relatively sovereign ordinary subject of political life - a type of people who are not specifically involved in politics and do not hold any positions in political organizations and associations;

a representative of a political group - the role of a person turns out to be initially set, and he is obliged to fulfill it already by virtue of his status, belonging to a certain organization, the charter and norms of which prescribe a certain way of political behavior to him;

· political leader - a person exercising power functions, capable of influencing others in order to realize someone's political interests. Major political leaders act as chief. Weber noted that for such people political activity is the primary business of life and the main profession.

Different people can participate in politics with different intensity: some people only read newspapers, others also go to the polls, and still others are active in politics. To denote these differences, there is the concept of political activity. Political activity should be understood as the intensity of the subject's participation in the political process as a whole, as well as within individual forms of political activity.

In political science, there are various ways of typifying political behavior and political participation.

The political behavior of the individual, the degree of its activity is influenced by various factors, primarily the objective socio-economic conditions of human life. The leading role among them belongs to economic needs and interests. That is why the political struggle in society is for the right to own, dispose and use property. Economic needs and interests are not the only reason for political behavior. The desire for power can be considered by individuals as a way of self-realization, a way of winning awards, privileges, etc.

The socio-political system has a great influence on political behavior. The most favorable conditions for political activity are created in a truly democratic society and the rule of law. Here the individual is provided with ample opportunities for the manifestation of political will.

A significant influence on the political behavior of an individual is exerted by the degree of development of political culture in society, primarily such elements as ideology, values, political traditions and customs. They can both contribute to the development of the political activity of the individual, and restrain it.

On the features of political behavior and participation big influence renders the specificity of the socio-political development of a country, as well as the features of the national political culture. We are talking not only about the fact that in individual countries different forms of activity have a different degree of distribution, but also about the different meaning of this or that form of political participation.

The political behavior of an individual is also influenced by many other factors: the international situation, the internal political situation, the psychology of the individual, his specific attitudes, goals and motives for participating in politics. Thus, the factors of political behavior are both objective and subjective. At the same time, the objective conditions of political life create real opportunities for the manifestation of individual political will and political self-affirmation of the individual.

The personality of a political leader is the most complex multidimensional formation and consists of many different interrelated structural elements. Not all of them are "responsible" for political behavior to the same extent, they are manifested in it.

However, after numerous studies conducted in American political psychology, it was possible to identify the most influential personal characteristics, which for convenience we group into six blocks:

- representations of the political leader about himself;

Needs and motives that influence political behavior;

The system of the most important political beliefs;

Political decision-making style;

Style of interpersonal relations;

Stress resistance.

"I" - the concept of a political leader

The problem of compensation for real or imagined personality defects was posed by Freud's "companion" A. Adler. This idea received its fuller development in the works of G. Lasswell. According to his concept, a person, in order to compensate for low self-esteem, 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 riveted to the development of a person's ideas about himself, the degree of development and 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 injured or inadequate self-esteem. Personal "values" or needs of this kind can be considered as ego-motives, since they are part of the personality's ego-system.

A. George in one of his works continued the line of G. Lasswell's reasoning about the desire for power as a compensation for low self-esteem. He examined in detail the possible structure of low self-esteem and believes that five subjective negative feelings about oneself in various combinations can make up low self-esteem:

1) feeling of own unimportance, insignificance;

2) a sense of moral inferiority;

3) feeling of weakness;

4) feeling of mediocrity;

5) 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, there appeared whole line research 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 perceives himself, how he compares himself with those with whom he interacts.

The self-concept, that is, a person's awareness of who he is, has several aspects. The most significant of these are Braz "I", self-esteem and social orientation of a 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.

Although W. Stone himself believes that self-esteem is a positive feeling about oneself, understanding it as self-respect.

Social orientation refers to a sense of autonomy as opposed to a sense of dependence on other people for self-determination. According to the psychologist E.T. Sokolova, “autonomization of self-esteem is finally formed in adolescence, and the predominant orientation towards the evaluation of significant others or one’s own self-esteem becomes an indicator of persistent individual differences that characterize the holistic style of the individual” (1).

American researchers D. Offer and C. Strozaer consider the image of the I of a politician, which corresponds to "the total amount of perception, thoughts and feelings of a person in relation to himself" ... "These perceptions, thoughts and feelings can be more or less clearly articulated in the image of I , in which the Self is divided into six different parts, closely interacting. These six I's are next physical self, sexual self, family self, social self, psychological self, conflict self. As E. T. Sokolova notes, “the value and subjective significance of qualities and their reflection in the image of the Self and self-esteem can be masked by action defense mechanisms» (2). physical self represents, from the point of view of these scientists, the ideas of a political leader 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 has described the suffering caused to US Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson, and Kennedy by their poor health. The experiences of Hitler and Stalin in connection with their physical disabilities are also well known.

About sexual self, that is, the politician's ideas about his claims and opportunities in this area, scientists note the lack of statistical data on how sexual preferences or sexual behavior is associated with leadership abilities. We doubt that a homosexual or an exhibitionist can become the president of a modern developed state. First of all, such inclinations would close his way to big politics, regardless of his leadership qualities. In history, well-known tyrants were distinguished by the pathology of the sexual sphere and often suffered from various perversions.

family self 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 adult behavior Some political leaders overcome early traumas and conflicts, others do not, and, becoming leaders, transfer frustrations from their childhood to their environment in the country and in the world.

It is very important for people in the highest state position to have the ability to work together with others. The politician's concept of this quality is reflected in the social self. The political leader must learn how to negotiate and how to encourage his colleagues to manifest their best qualities. He must be able to use interpersonal skills to work effectively with different, sometimes hostile groups of people, with leaders of other countries.

Psychological Self 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. As with ordinary people, leaders are not inherently immune 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 self-control.

The conflict-solving self- ideas of a political leader 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 confident enough in making political decisions to be able to convey this 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 the post, for example, head of state. Stress can lead to severe symptoms that severely limit the intellectual and behavioral capabilities 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 self-control, especially when they are needed.

The complexity of the self-concept. R. Ziller and his colleagues understand it 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-consciousness, a person separates himself from others. Further, I in his mind is divided into an unlimited number of parts. Subsequently, a person tends to evaluate himself in comparison with other people. This process received a detailed analysis in the theory of social comparison by L. Festinger. The main position of this theory is the assertion that at the heart of a person's desire to correctly assess his opinion and abilities in comparison with other people, there is a need to have a clear and definite self-concept. Through the process of social comparison, a person establishes the framework for social consideration of the Self as a reference point. R. Ziller, in another study conducted in 1973, found that people with a high complexity of the self-concept tend to seek more information before making a decision than those with a low complexity of the self-concept. Since the complexity of the self-concept is associated with the perception of similarity with other people, it is more likely that politicians with a high complexity of the self-concept will perceive 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 do 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 appear to be more dependent on other people and thus more reactive. They are more sensitive to feedback and change their self-esteem depending on the approval or disapproval of others.

R. Ziller and his colleagues developed a personality typology 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 contradictory, at first glance, name. "apolitical" politicians. These are actors with high self-esteem and high self-concept complexity who assimilate new information that concerns them without threatening their self-concept, but there are serious limitations to 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, the most successful in politics, is "pragmatists". These are political leaders with low self-esteem and high self-concept complexity, responding to a wide range of social stimuli. They listen to other people's opinions and modify their political behavior based on feedback.

The third type consists of political leaders with high self-esteem and low self-concept complexity, who do not react to the opinions of others. Their cognitive processes and behavior are very rigid, and their self-esteem is extremely stable. It - "ideologists", so familiar to us from the Politburo of the CPSU

And, finally, the fourth type is people with low self-esteem and low self-concept complexity, who react intensively to a narrow circle of social stimuli. They were called "non-deterministic". In American history, neither this type of president nor major party leaders are known.

The self-assessment of a political leader leaves a very important imprint on the domestic and foreign policy of his country. If he has formed during his life 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. Such was President Nixon, such was President Reagan. With each of their victories, they constantly proved to themselves that they were something then they stand But the taken barriers no longer pleased them. And they strove for new ones in order to once again ascertain their own significance Low self-esteem pushes the political leader to "great" steps in the international arena Large-scale military or, conversely, peacekeeping actions, extravagant turns in foreign policy and much more

For a number of politicians international relationships become such a sphere in which they, as leaders of the state, can assert themselves, compensate for their low self-esteem. Both Nixon and Reagan were not products of the American establishment, and they clearly felt that he did not accept them. In the international arena, no one could look down on them. On the contrary, among other heads of state, they were the leaders of the most powerful military and economic power. Respect for them, fear of them, dependence on them from the heads of other states, people who stood above their own establishment, made it possible for these presidents to forget the humiliation and contempt that they had previously experienced. In Russian history, Stalin, Khrushchev had severely low self-esteem

State leaders from high self-esteem, overestimating their own qualities as a politician and commander in chief, they often do not notice the general and external and internal reaction to their course in the international arena They revel in their own success (even if it is mythical) and attribute criticism to malicious envious people. Here we can talk about a violation of the feedback between the consequences of political action and subject Almost no consequences can make such a leader frightened or shudder at the thought of what his actions might lead to.

Another type of leader with inflated self-esteem, faced with underestimation of their policies both at home and abroad, suffers greatly from the affect of inadequacy.

When their policies were built, from their own point of view, on the principles of high morality, or seemed to them thoughtful and productive, but 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, even more causing disapproval. American President Johnson suffered greatly that his Vietnam War began to cause a negative attitude both in the United States and in the world. His close advisers noted that very often, having received a report of a sharp negative reaction in other countries and in various sections of American society, complaining that he was not appreciated, not loved and not understood, he gave the order for another bombing of Vietnam. The circle is thus closed.

Leaders since 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-affirmation, the feedback between the consequences of actions and themselves works rigorously. A leader who adequately assesses his political abilities, as a rule, respectfully and highly evaluates other leaders. Without fear 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 as well.

The Needs and Motives of Leaders that Influence Political Behavior

The leader's political behavior is purposeful and motivated. There are many different personal needs that are somehow connected with his political activity. However, in numerous studies conducted by scientists from different schools, several basic needs have been identified that motivate the political behavior of leaders.

• need for power;
• closely related to the need for power, the need to control events and people;
• the need for achievement;
• the need for affiliation, that is, to belong to a group and receive approval.

The need for the power of a political leader has a long history of research. To date, there are various concepts of the need for power, one of the oldest is the concept of G. Laoswell and A. George, who understand the need for power as compensatory.

In his work “Psychopathology and Politics”, G. Lasswell developed a hypothesis according to which certain people have an unusually strong need for power and / or other personal values, such as love, respect, moral purity, as a means of compensating for injured or inadequate self-esteem. These personal values ​​or needs can be seen as an essential part of a political leader's motivational structure.

A. George, with the aim of his work "Power as a compensatory value", puts forward the expansion of the theoretical framework of the general hypothesis of G. Lasswell for its use in the study of specific political leaders by the method of psychobiography. From the point of view of A. George, all political leaders are "striving for power." Having received it, they often try to remake political institutions, reinterpret and expand the functions of political roles, or create new ones that would satisfy their needs.

In the concept of G. Lasswell, "power" is a certain value. A person feels a need to possess it or experience sanctions or influence in relation to other people. A. George defines the "need for power" as the desire to achieve power, this highest value.

The last point is especially important for understanding the motivation of a political leader. First, the politician's needs for power and achievement are in fact closely related. Secondly, the need for power suggests that it can be not only and not so much compensatory, but rather instrumental, that is, power can be desired to satisfy other personal needs, such as the need for achievement, respect, approval, security.

Sometimes the goal of no one dominating a politician can be an end in itself and more highly valued than others. The need for power, which has arisen as a compensatory mechanism, manifests itself in a politician in different ways depending on the conditions. This need can be strengthened by other needs or, on the contrary, come into conflict with them - with the need for love, affiliation, achievement, which the leader also seeks to satisfy. on the political stage.

In compensation, the political leader tries to find a field of activity in which he can demonstrate his competence and dignity. The importance of such processes for individuals suffering from low self-esteem is obvious. Achieving compensation in this field of activity, in some cases, however, narrow and specialized, creates a “field” for the individual in which the political leader functions quite productively and autonomously (this “field” is free from the interference of others), perhaps aggressively and presumptuously, for achieving personal balance.

The process of creating a sphere of competence is distinguished by a tendency to shift from one pole of subjective feelings to another - that is, from lack of self-confidence to high self-esteem and self-confidence in one's actions. Another view of the need for power, which is far from understanding it as a compensation for low self-esteem, is the concept of D. Winter, developed by him in a number of theoretical works, among which we note "The Need for Power". D. Winter believes that the need for power is a social motive and therefore is closely related to presidential behavior. Presidents with a high need for power will be active, lively and happy in a world of conflict and intense political bargaining. If necessary, to stay at the top, they will exploit allies, attack enemies. They usually have no tendency to consult with experts and change their behavior, so they may face unforeseen harmful consequences of the actions they have taken to maintain their prestige. In the situation that has arisen, they may see a threat to their power, experience stress and "retreat into an unreal subjective world of risk, prestige and concern for their inner sense of potency." In extreme cases, they can react to defeat by taking their world - their friends, enemies, civilization - with them, as Hitler did at the end of World War II.

An indicator of the need for power for the behavior of a political leader is the occupation of a position that gives formal social power. He shows concern for prestige and prestige, often consumes alcoholic beverages, shows a tendency to relatively high risk in gambling situations and hostility towards other persons of high status. He surrounds himself with few prestigious friends, is active and influential in small groups, and usually matures sexually early.

For many political leaders, the need for power is well developed. However, it can be moderate or hypertrophied. In many ways, the very post of head of state, with its inherent attributes of power, should already satisfy this need for a leader. But, since the leader acts on behalf of the state in the international arena, he, firstly, interacts with other leaders, thus not being the only top of the pyramid of power, which he has become in his own country, and there is a field for rivalry here. and competition. Secondly, acting on behalf of his own state, he seeks to assert his authority over other states.

The need for power in a political leader is a complex psychological characteristic for analysis, since it can manifest itself in his foreign policy activities in different ways, depending on the dominant image of power, on the presence of various kinds of “pain points”, an inferiority complex, life path and much more However, however difficult it may be, without studying this psychological characteristic, it is almost impossible to realistically assess many of the foreign policy steps of the leader of the state.

Closely related to the need for power are such traits as dominance in interpersonal relationships, Machiavellianism (the desire to manipulate people), persuasiveness, the need for achievement, each of which is accompanied by its own set of behavioral correlations.

The political leader's need for personal control over events and people

This need is a manifestation in political activity of the basic human need to control the external forces and events that affect our lives. When these forces and events are in the realm of politics, a connection is formed between personal control and political life.

Naturally, political leaders have significant individual differences in their need for personal control. Obviously, political leaders with low need will be satisfied with less, leaders with high level needs will require tremendous control over events and people in order to satisfy themselves. /p>

The sphere of control is the breadth of the area of ​​living space and activities that a political leader seeks to influence. The scope can vary from very limited, including only one specific area, to broad, including many policy areas. The wider the desired scope of personal control, the less its degree, as a rule, since the political leader has limited opportunities and skills, and each "sector" of the sphere of control requires the use of certain skills and capabilities.

A political leader can select certain areas for his control, relevant to his skills, and, moreover, makes this choice based on the perception of his own skills and abilities, where he is strong and where he is not. Thus, the correctness and success of a political leader's choice of an area for his control depends, to a large extent, on the adequacy of his self-concept and self-assessment.

The need of a political leader to control events and people also finds its satisfaction in foreign policy activities, as well as motivates his actions in the international arena.

The political leader's need to achieve

The need for achievement is manifested in the concern for excellence, mastery, behavior aimed at achieving. Usually the need for achievement is clearly visible in entrepreneurial behavior, when a businessman is inclined to moderate risk, modifies his behavior depending on the circumstances, uses expert advice. This entrepreneurial behavior is instrumental in achieving success in the business world.

Political psychologists have been wondering for quite some time whether such behavior would be equally successful in political leaders. Thus, the president can rely on the advice of top experts, but it can be flawed, leading to serious political consequences. Behavior modification based on feedback, no matter how good it is in business, in politics can be seen by the population as inconsistency, unprincipledness or lack of interest in the fate of political allies.

Therefore, the behavior of a political leader, in which the need for achievement is manifested, may not be very successful, but a happy career. According to D. Winter and A. Stewart, a president with a need to achieve will be active, although not necessarily loving his job, he will choose his advisers based on their expertise rather than from personal or political considerations, he will not necessarily achieve too much. a lot or will be rated as a "perfect" president. Alas, such a fate befell two politicians with similar personality profiles: Bush and Gorbachev. /p>

The need for achievement has become a special object of attention of political scientists and political psychologists after the studies of American scientists D. McClelland and J. Atkinson became known. They analyzed the structure of the need for achievement, the conditions for its formation and influence on behavior.

For us, the understanding of achievement presented by researchers is of particular interest, since one can often find in the literature narrowing this concept to achieve one's goals. According to the authors, the need for achievement has to do with mastery, manipulation, organization of the physical and social environment, overcoming obstacles, setting high standards of work, competition, winning over someone. As you can see, this is a rather broad interpretation of the concept of "achievement", and in this form it may be more consistent with the motivation of a political leader. /p>

The relative strength of the motive influences the political leader's assessment of the subjective likelihood of consequences, i.e., a higher motive for achieving success will contribute to estimating a higher subjective probability of success.

D. Winter and A. Stewart identified indicators of the need for achievement in the speeches and documents of political leaders, in behavior, in interpersonal relationships.

In the texts of political leaders, the need for achievement manifests itself in expressing concern for meeting the standards of excellence and excellence, unique achievements, long-term involvement in something, success in competitions. In the behavior of a political leader, this need manifests itself in successful entrepreneurial activity, current or past in his career, inclination to moderate risk and modification of political behavior based on the results obtained. Such a political leader chooses for himself good experts, not friends, to help him in solving problems. for breaking the law.

Images of achievement are found in the texts of political leaders in the form of comparisons of states - the most common example of competition with others - as well as in references to new, unique achievements. Long-term involvement is reflected in references to the establishment and expansion of various aspects of national greatness.

D. Winter and A Stewart emphasize that presidents with a high need for achievement are characterized by rapid changes in the composition of the cabinet - as a direct expression of the tendency of people with a high need for achievement to prefer working with experts rather than friends. In Russia, this was clearly manifested in the administration of B Yeltsin

DD. Winter and L. Carlson found that the need for achievement is brought up, in many respects, by parents, who are high standards for the future political leader

The need to achieve their goals is for many the core of their political career. When a politician becomes the head of state, the main goal, it would seem, has been achieved. However, the foreign policy sphere gives him the opportunity to set many hard-to-reach goals, the achievement of which brings him a certain psychological satisfaction. /p>

A political leader has to build for himself a hierarchy of strategic and tactical goals, subordinating one goal to another. Here, of course, the level of claims of the politician also affects. Many leaders conduct their political course based on their goals, “investing” in different ways. Some are distinguished by passion, others by enviable composure. To better understand both the leader himself and his policies, it is necessary to identify his main strategic goals.

The need to achieve one's goals is closely related to the belief system of a political leader. Here it is very important to know whether the principle "the end justifies the means" is acceptable.

Very often this need becomes so exaggerated that the political leader takes a serious risk. Such a shift towards risk leads to unjustified foreign policy actions, which sometimes hinder the achievement of the set goal.

The political leader's need for affiliation, i.e. belonging to a group and gaining approval

It manifests itself in the political leader's concern for close relationships with others. The need for affiliation implies friendly, social relationships with other people. But sociability arises, according to D Winter and L. Carlson, only in conditions of "security" (that is, with their own kind, with those who are mutual in this friendship). With people who are dissimilar or pose any threat, political leaders who have an affiliation need are often unstable and defensive disagreements. It is more likely that they, given these qualities, will choose loyal friends as their advisors rather than experts.

Political leaders with a high need for affiliation will tend to favor dyadic over group relationships. Presidents with affiliation needs look for secure friendships, though they don't necessarily find them. Because people with a high need for affiliation tend to be defensive and hypersensitive to risk or competition, presidents with such personality trait are often rated by society as less popular than those who have this need less developed.

In any case, such presidents are usually passive and easily influenced by other people in general, and specifically by those who are especially attractive to them, in particular, the quality of advice received from attractive, loyal, but not expert advisers is often very low. Often, due to the influence of advisers, as well as the specifics of their decision-making style, presidential administrations with a high need for affiliation can be embroiled in a political scandal. One important aspect of the need for affiliation is seeking approval from others. For a political leader, this search for approval is manifested in his foreign policy activities.

1. Sokolova E.T. Self-awareness and self-esteem in personality anomalies. M.: MGU, 1989 C 28
2. Ibid S.8-9.