M.Kunanbayeva

Kazakh National University, Kazakhstan

Ethnic peculiarities in the regulation of a personality social activity

I. Introduction. Theoretical analysis of different approaches to the problem of moral self-regulation as a functional – system process of self-actualization of a personality is made. Influence of ethnic factors on the process of moral self-regulation of self activity of a personality is regarded. It is suggested to differentiate as ethno-differential factor two types of moral self-regulation of a personality:eastern and western. Common theoretical conclusions ar made and ways to applied study of moral self-regulation of representatives of different nationalities in Kazakhstan are planned.

Present reality of Kazakstan society are such that in the conscience of each man ideological, political, social and ethno-psychological factors are closely interwoven and interact so that not only the changes in the social thinking of a man but also suppose sharpening of the problems of social and moral self-regulation on the background of a personal categorization of “I” image.

Analysis of psychological picture of a society of a transition period within the bounds of the state with the change nationalities and ethnic groups status may allow to clarify some issues important to stating problems of common and specific in the problem of defining ethnic and personal in self-regulation of behaviour and social determinant of “I” image. This problem of thousand of citizens finding themselves on the same place of living but already in another state (and as an ethnic minority).

Determination of psychological characteristics from the point of view of his life condition when interacting with such social factors, connected with national self - actualization growth, appear to be decisive at self –identifying and moral self-regulation. Agreement of external (implied by society and groups of people) and internal (personal, connected with sense forming and conscientious acceptance of definite systems of values) criteria in accordance with which a person forms an “I” image and becomes a personality as an individual of self – actualization( and not only an individual of action or communication).

In the conducted psychological research each participant is presented in the unity of two criteria as a carrier of ethnic (national) and common cultural and (state) self-actualization, as each society produce their own moral norms, social values and forms of sanctions, regulating people behavior. These norms are produced by history course.

Values and norms acceptable in one society may be denied in another. At the same time basic moral values reflected in world religious trends, philosophic concepts and world view contain relatively identical criteria of humanity. Therefore one may suppose moral consciousness based on the basic cultural postulates don’t have ethnic differences. As in each modern society content and mechanism of moral notions, ideas and laws are approximately the same. As theory of “cultural parallelism” state differences may be discovered only in social – historical development and economic conditions. In the process of human society development at different levels there were peculiarities connected with understanding and realization of these laws. There were moments of toughening or weakening of moral norms of behavior in the society. According to other approach which admits that each ethnos has its own unique specific features, ethnic differences exist and appear in the peculiarities of formation of moral consciousness and reflected in the social order and values.

Differences in self-regulated functions of moral consciousness of a person in each ethnos are connected with this. All ethnos and ethnic groups inhabiting Kazakhstan more than 70 years having common past, have formed common mental features, but in this process in each case adoption passed in different degree and with different speed, therefore our research was targeted to reveal these differences on the example of some ethnos, who coexisted together and interacted between themselves historically. What are the peculiarities in the mechanisms of moral self-regulation of personality of representatives of these ethnos living in Kazakhstan today?

Problem of regularities and peculiarities of self-regulation of social activity of personality occupies one of the central place in the common context of subjective approach to psychic life of a man. Methodological regulations about a man as a personality of his own random activity were developed by S.L.Rubinshtein, B.G.Ananyev, B.F.Lomov, A.N.Leontyev, A.M.Matyushkin, A.V.Petrovsky, A.A.Smirnov and others. Actuality of applied research of regulator psychic processes are corroborated by A.V.Brushlinsky, V.A.Ivannikov, A.O.Prohorov, V.I.Morosanov and others.

Ethnic peculiarities self-regulation process are actively studied and developed in the works of many authors who make attempts to single out types and levels of self-regulation. Self-regulation is studied as a system process ensuring adequate to conditions variability and plasticity on any level. Thus realized self-regulation of a person’s random activity (V.I.Morisanov) - this is holistic system of psychic means with the help of which a man can manage his own aim-targeted activity.

Systems of psychic self-regulation have universal structure for different types of a person activity and in this structure one may single out main components fulfilling different functions in the conscious random management.

The following: aims of activity, a model of significant conditions, program of performance actions, criteria of success, evaluation of the results, correction are marked as main functional components of self-regulation model. Self – regulation is subdivided into psychic and personal levels.

Theoretical review of modern idea about types and levels of self- regulation shows that understanding of self-regulation should be considered as integrative process. Processes of self-regulation appear in a holistic life activity of a person at different levels of its functioning including emotional, sense, cognitive, reflexive, motivation and behavioral processes. Moral self- regulation should be considered as one of the important parts a holistic dynamic system of functioning of different levels and aspects of self-regulation. Changes on the moral level will influence other levels and all system on the whole. E.g. changes of a moral aspect of self-regulation will influence its emotional, motivation and behavioral aspects.

Notion about formation of personal neo formation which are the result of joint- dialogue of cognitive activity of a personality (S.M.Jakupov) appeared to be methodological basis for the present research. On the basis of this concept, self-regulation is understood by us as system organized psychic process on managing by a person external and internal social activity.

Self-regulation process is formed at active interrelation of subjects when forming common sense fund. Random regulation of social activity has a system structure: aims of activity arising from value- sense structure and personality direction, model or standard which serves a basis for action and contains significant conditions, plan or program of advancing actions, self control on the basis of success criteria and self –effectiveness, correction of behavior.

Thus, it was supposed that moral – ethic valuable structure of each participant personality of the research may describe community of mental structure of a society whereas moral criteria of a personality may keep ethno-differntial aspects of social activity.

In the course of research two types of mechanism of moral self-regulation of social activity of a personality were revealed. These types correspond to two traditions of self-regulation description as western and eastern symbol. In the western tradition self-regulation is presented as a rider who “holds reins hard, his legs in the stirrups tighten horse’s sides which is in his whole power. He directs his horse where he wishes to control”.

And in the eastern literature there is another symbol, “vehicle drawn by the horse and sleepy coachman hardly keeps the reins in his hands”. In the western tradition a man controls himself by force, manages his behavior by mind nad will. In the eastern tradition the rule is to feel and to listen to himself. Thus in dzen –buddizm and in other eastern directions it was considered to defend enemies from outside one first must overcome own fear and alarm that is to cope with own internal enemies. Deletion of borders between conscious and unconscious are distinctive feature of eastern direction in emotional –psychic regulation of a man. Researchers both western and eastern theories of personality, P.Freyger, D. Feydimen point out also Asian types of psychology which as they consider “make accent mainly on the existential and transpersonal levels, paying little attention to pathology. They keep detailed description of different states of consciousness, levels of development and stages of enlightenment which get out of the borders of traditional western psychological schemes.”

Ethnic differences are in the differences of traditional education, world perception and culture of these ethnos who directly influence formation of personality. Moral formation of a personality happens through the influence of all social institutes. The main mechanism of moral education and formation of a personality is put in socialization and personification through familiarization of a child to culture achievements and civilization at that interiorization of national system and moral values.

In the basis of mechanism of moral self-regulation of a personality social activity two types (in the form of two traditions: eastern and western) were pointed out, two ways of self-regulation of a personality which have ethnic peculiarities: Personal structure through external regulation of behavior as a social condemnation(in the form of a shame) and internal self-condemnation (in the form self –blaming, feeling of guilt). Feeling of “guilt” and “shame” refers to regulators of social life of a man. Formation and ability to go through shame and guilt is predetermined by interpersonal social interrelation and interpersonal changes. Different theoretic and applied cross –cultural research in this field mark social – psychological and notably their ethnic conditionality.

Feeling of “guilt” and “shame” refers to regulators of social life of a man personality. Formation and ability of a subject to experience shame and guilty is stipulated by interpersonal social interaction and interpersonal conversion. Different theoretical and applied cross-cultural investigations in this field (O.H. Aimaganbetova), mark social – psychological, and exactly their ethnic stipulation. These regulations as personal structures of a man are identical to their social behavior control center. It is supposed that western type of self-regulation is situated inside and regulator is feeling of “guilt”, and of an eastern type center is situated outside and regulator is feeling of “shame”.

Moral social motives of a person behavior are directly stronger than all other motives. Involuntary moral behavior meets more the conditions of everyday which often demand immediate actions. Involuntary self-regulation is formed mainly in two ways. Firstly, in the process of spontaneous accumulation of moral experience which has ethnic peculiarities. In this case children imperceptibly for themselves master some moral norms which exist in the family, clan, in the nation. And mastering of moral demands is developed later under the influence of social institutions. Real moral sense of actions is understood by them rather later. This way, by means of which elementary rules and norms are strengthened on the first hand gives ground for mastering more complicated moral demands, which alreadyis fulfilled by the second way: firstly primarily ad arbitrium, under supervision of personal control, contrary to other wishes, and then - directly. Exactly on this stage when consciously mastered moral principles, enriched by corresponding social and common to all mankind suffering, becoming motives of behavior, formation of moral self-regulation in the true sense of the word takes place.

Thus, moral self-regulation is psychological process of a person which has dynamic of formation and development and specific in each ethnos. It fulfills orienting, directing and regulating function in emotionally- sensitive, cognitive and behavioral person life activity. Moral self – regulation of a person is realized by psychological mechanism both by internal and external locus control. As a result of a person self – regulation moral principles and views are developed, which are fixed on the basis of social values, in accordance with moral demands of common to all mankind culture. Moral self-regulation is actualized in living difficulties, in crisis or stress situations and become apparent in a man’s actions. This basic structure of a person is put in the family, in the early childhood and further on their basis formation of a social character takes place through the influence of all links of education system.

II. Methods of research. Choice of people of different of various professions of age from 28 to 40, man and woman. 10 people of Kazakh nationality and 10 of Russian nationality. Method of locus control study, developed by G. Rotter (1966) was used. According to this theory “there are people on one pole, who believe in their own ability to control life events (internality).On the other end of the pole there are people who are sure that life obstacles and punishments are the result of external events”.

Moral self and peculiarities of moral consciousness were measured by 16 factor person P.Kettell questionnaire (Factor G – moral self regulation of behavior, factor Q3- (self control of behavior),factor О – self- assuredness and feeling of guilt, factor FS –compulsivity, sociopathy, inclination to asocial behavior.

Through morphological tests (Authors V.F. Sopov, L.V. Karpushin) life and terminal values as attitude of a subject to objects, phenomena, subjects and acception of their life importance are studied. E.g. such as development of oneself, mental satisfaction, creativity, active social contacts, own prestige, high material state, achievements, reservation of own individuality, refer to them and to terminal: sphere of family life, sphere of social activity, as well as sphere of professional activity, education and etc. Questionnaire was directed to study system of a man value to understand sense of his actions and deeds. But personal values may not produce social values. In the construction of a questionnaire there is a scale of authenticity of a wish degree of a man of social approval of his actions. The higher the result the more behavior of probationer (on a verbal level) correspond to approved sample.

III. Results of research and their discussion. In the course of theoretical and experimental prior pilot research were revealed not in the bright kind of existence of two types of moral self regulation of a person “western” and “eastern”, which are interconnected with parameters «internality» and «externality». Positive correlation connection between life values of life values of individual and collective orientation.

IV. Conclusions. Results of fulfilled research testify the presence of ethnic peculiarities of moral self-regulation of a person which regulate social activity of a personality through psychological direction, which is formed in the process of socialization as “individuality” and “collective” direction.

V. Literature:

1.S.M. Jakupov. Management of students’ cognitive activity. Almaty, “Kazakh University”, 2001. p.9.

2.O.H. Aimaganbetova. Cross – cultural research of structure of interethnic relations, Almaty, 2006, p.20.

3.P. Freyger, D.Feydimen. Theory of a personality and personal growth, p.20.