Digest

Ryzhov B. N. The system of motivational oppositions as the basis of psychological individuality


Preuss F., Perevozkina Yu. M. Interconnection and types of social relations of role socialization system formation: metasystem approach


Ryzhov B. N. The actual-self, ideal-self and hidden-self (with Translation into English by L. A. Mashkova)


Ryzhov B. N., Tarasova А. А. Emotional Perception of Architectural Objects of 1920–1930s by Moscow Students (with Translation into English by L. A. Mashkova)


Kondratyev V. M. The Problem of Balance between Morality and Law in Human Education (with a Translation into English)


Ryzhov B. N. Psychological Age of Civilization (translated into English by L. A. Mashkova)


Aleksander T. A Review about Old Age and Disability (translated into English by A. Diniejko and into Russian by О. Leszczak)



A. A. Zych Silver University as an alternative for the polish solutions


B. N. Ryzhov THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AGE OF CIVILIZATION: the XV century, the North Renaissance


Yu. M. Perevozkina, V. G. Fedosov, F. Prusse Functional organization of impasa-role socialization of youth: metasystemic approach


T. Macho, I. V. Lebedeva, M. M. Bicharova. Migration in Europe as systemic phenomenon of the contemporary society


G. Gross, J. S. Frolova From London to Moscow coronations: perceptions of monarchy


Simons G. Tangible threats through intangible means: aspects of BRICS information and communication security


Ryzhov B. N., Mashkova L. A., Stolyarova G. I. Dynamics of motivational indicators in high school

B.N. Ryzhov - Sistem psychology
Partners

WWW.SYSTEMPSYCHOLOGY.RU

 

F. Preuss, Yu. M. Perevozkina,INTERCONNECTION AND TYPES OF SOCIAL RELATIONS OF ROLE SOCIALIZATION SYSTEM FORMATION: METASYSTEM APPROACH

Журнал » Journal_eng » Journal 35 : F. Preuss, Yu. M. Perevozkina,INTERCONNECTION AND TYPES OF SOCIAL RELATIONS OF ROLE SOCIALIZATION SYSTEM FORMATION: METASYSTEM APPROACH
    Views: 148

UDC 316.6.001.5

DOI 10.25688/2223-6872.2020.35.3.1

 

INTERCONNECTION AND TYPES OF SOCIAL RELATIONS OF ROLE SOCIALIZATION SYSTEM FORMATION: METASYSTEM APPROACH

 

F. Preuss,

EMAU, Greifswald, Germany,

franz@pruess.eu,

 

Yu. M. Perevozkina,

NSPU, Novosibirsk,

per@bk.ru

 

This paper considers one of the fundamental issues in social psychology regarding the problem of units nature impact on social relations within the interaction process. From the perspective of a systematic approach, role socialization considered as a system complex that composes three systemic constructions — an individual with one’s needs, values, pursuits; a society with its standards, rules, statuses, roles; and culture with its traditions, symbols, signs, rituals is introduced. The study deals with a multidimensional and complex phenomenon of role socialization within the framework of a systematic approach. Following the systematic theory, the role socialization is presented in the shape of a specific composition that combines general social integrities and displays relationship types. The conclusion that the consideration of a role socialization as a substantial-type systemic complex within the metasystem approach will contribute to personality issues elaboration in social psychology is made.

Although this article indicates a significant shift in understanding of the fundamental problem of social psychology concerning the question of how the nature of units in the process of interaction affects the types of relationships, it is obvious that further significant research and theoretical reflection is needed on the disclosure of the conditions for the implementation of these relationships.

 

Keywords: system; metasystem approach; system complex; social relations; role socialization.

 

For citation: Preuss F., Perevozkina Yu. M. Interconnection and types of social relations of role socialization system formation: metasystem approach // Systems Psychology and Sociology. 2020. № 3 (35). P. 5–26. DOI: 10.25688/2223-6872.2020.35.3.1

 

Preuss Franz, Doctor of Pedagogics, Professor. Professor at the Institute of Philosophy, Psychology and Pedagogy of the Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University, Greifswald, Germany.

E-mail: franz@pruess.eu ORCID: 0000-0001-9433-2046

 

Yulia Michaylovna Perevozkina, PhD in Psychological Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Practical and Special Psychology of the Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk, Russia.

E-mail: per@bk.ru ORCID: 0000-0003-4201-3988

 

Introduction

 

The research relevance is determined by the need to solve a fundamental problem of social psychology, regarding the issue of how the nature of units affects the types of relationships in the process of interaction. At the same time, it includes several methodological problems concerning the nature and types of social relations between individuals, as well as identifying the conditions for creating certain types of relations between common social units. In attempts to solve these theoretical issues, the dominant conceptual perspectives operate with a set of concepts, which, however, do not remove the identified problems. Thus, there are separate solutions for small groups, social institutions, individuals, and the description of relations between subjects, but the question of how the natural properties of units differ from

each other, how they are transformed into qualitative specificity acquired by units in the process of their interaction with each other is ignored.

These not trivial questions determine the need for conceptualization of the integrities occurring in the course of social relations. The personality in relation to the environment is a contradiction and paradox, it is included in the world and it opposes itself, besides, the personality includes the world in itself. In its turn, the society also represents rather a complex multi-level and multivariate system consisting of institutions, norms, rules, roles, and other categories.

The integration of the subject into society implies its activity, which is explicated in the form of the development of roles and their expectations, as well as the implementation of role behavior in certain situations [14]. However, not only the subject can be active, but the situation can also be active. In this context, role-based socialization, when viewed closely, consists of heterogeneous elements of the environment and correlates with different interests, needs, and other qualities of the subject. Role-based socialization is a number of events connecting the system of complex determinants of the subject's activity. Therefore, the study of the motion laws of such systems, their mutual transitions, development, and transformations is one of the main tasks of social psychology.

The main difficulty in studying the role of socialization of an individual is to take into account its integral, systemic qualities revealing the interdependence of various formations and temporary explication. This problem solution is possible within the framework of a systematic approach that provides an opportunity to describe the multivariability of the studied reality in the integrity and unity of its components. Only a systematic approach can explain the diversity of determinants that differ by multivariability and heterogeneity.

According to I. S. Kon, role-based socialization is unique for each subject: “Personal integration of social roles is unique, individual and depends on the whole set of circumstances” [5: p. 75]. The integration of social experience, presented in the form of roles in the structure of personality takes place. Thus, the individual assimilates the roles determined by values, needs, attitudes and becomin

colored. This understanding of role socialization to a certain extent helps to overcome the opposition between individualization and socialization, which is actively discussed in both domestic and foreign science. At the same time, it should be pointed out that such a problem statement, however, does not remove a number of questions that arise in this case regarding the features of the relationship between roles and personal characteristics, as well as mechanisms for interiorization of roles, analysis of determinants, etc. In this context, the system approach is the necessary methodological basis that can conceptualize and experimentally verify the transformation and interaction of social experience into a motivational and value system of the individual. The problem statement in this form provides for the creation of a theory based on a systematic approach and sufficient to explain the regularities of role socialization of the individual.

According to A. V. Karpov [7], any scientific knowledge should be based on a system platform. In the last century this thesis was put forward by B. F. Lomov [10: p. 35], who believed that mental phenomena are multidimensional, complex and multivariate and therefore they need to be studied in the system paradigm.

From the point of view of B. N. Ryzhov it is a systematic approach, that is based on the general laws of “the development of complex systems of physical, biological and social nature” [16: p. 8]. He writes about the need to apply a systematic approach to the study of complex phenomena and formations. The purpose of this research will be the discovery of the regularities of the organisation of role socialization of the individual through the definition of its structure, level structure and interaction of components, based on the differentiator criterion [7].

According to this criterion, all the components of the system can be distributed by levels, so that each higher level has the greatest integrating ability in relation to the lower one. In other words, each subsequent level is represented as a synthesis of the previous ones. Besides, each level must have high-quality specificity when included in the system, which is in line with the principle of heterochronicity. In particular, in the theory of functional systems described by P. K. Anokhin [2] it is postulated that the adaptation of an individual to the environment is closely linked

to the gradual and uneven maturation of functional components, both within the level and at the intersystem level. At the same time at each level the system itself and its components become more complex, and when consolidating they create a fully functional system. One of the main principles of the system approach, the principle of systemogenesis, reflects it [6].

Further, we note that the replication of role-based socialization as a system becomes impossible for a number of reasons. First, role-based socialization includes at least three systemic formations — the individual with its needs, values, and aspirations, society with its norms, rules, statuses, roles, and culture with its traditions, symbols, signs, and rituals. So, we're at a dead end. We are faced the problem of interaction of these system formations, which neutralizes such a basic characteristic of the system as integrity. Integrity in this case should be established, not given initially. Secondly, these systems are autonomous on the one hand, and interconnected on the other, which actualizes problems in structure and objectability. In this context, V. P. Kuzmin [9: p. 37] writes about open systems, to which he relates the personality and the society, and he calls the essence of their interaction a system complex. Therefore, the system approach in its classic version does not have the necessary resources to solve the problem of interaction of open systems. In this regard, A. V. Karpov [7] believes that the system approach in its classic form should be transformed into a metasystem approach which can explain the contact and coordination of open systems.

This reasoning leads to the conclusion that the study of role socialization as an epistemological construct is incomplete, since roles belong to several systems — personality, society, and culture at the same time. It means the content of role socialization reflects the complex and multidimensional structure that from the point of view of B. F. Lomov [10: p. 27], is one of the basic difficulties in the study of socio-psychological phenomena, namely that the latter are not isolated and do not form a closed system. Indeed, the individual is included in the content of the “partial dimensions of socialization”, transforming social reality into its own structure of

values, roles, experiences, etc. This structure, in turn, mediates the implementation of the subject's external activity in the social space [13].

An important and noteworthy fact in the study of role socialization is its understanding as a process and as a result, which creates difficulties in solving a number of tasks. At the same time, disregard to the conceptual synthesis of structural and temporal forms, underestimates main plans for studying this problem. V. P. Kuzmin [9: p. 62] believes that extensive knowledge of reality can only be obtained in the unity of procedural and statistical forms.

In this context, it is necessary to take into account both substantive and temporal forms of the role socialization organization that will contribute to paradigmatic development of the personality nature, its inclusion in social relations and determine the relationship between the total social units. Socialization, from the point of view of E. M. Nikolaeva [11: p. 66], is a fractal movement explicating the individual need for a moment relevance (role realization). This allows the subjects not only to integrate in the social space, but also to create themselves and thereby change themselves and the world around them. The author presents this symbiosis as a synergistic transformation from the cause to the consequence, which reflects the existence of the connection between systems. From the point of view of E. M. Nikolaeva, socialization is a dissipative system that functions in the information circulation between society, culture and the individual. It contributes to maintaining a low entropy within the system complex — role socialization. Moreover, according to Nikolaeva, socialization can be represented as a diachronic and synchronic process that explicates the coordination of personal potentials and requirements of the environment. Thus, the appeal to the temporal aspect of role socialization assumes its representation as a system complex of a substantial-temporal type.

Placing the existence of the individual at the center, procedural philosophy asserts the importance of the category of time, which, according to P. Tillich [28], reveals the existence of itself in its intrinsic organization. Existence, in his opinion, cannot be considered in statistical categories, since it is always in dynamics. From

the point of view of S. L. Rubinstejn [17], the ability of an individual to changing is the basis of the subject's activity and an important component of the individual's socialization. According to O. V. Golovashina [4: p. 53], social reality includes a successive variety of social acts, and the time aspect is the main characteristic of socialization of the individual. L. Muzzetto [25] believes that the actions of the subject are determined by the past experience, present experience of this action and goal-setting in future. Therefore, temporal characteristics, as well as substantive ones, are closely related to both the individual and socialization. This indicates that temporal systematic approach should complement structural and content analysis.

In accordance with an important methodological position described in the works of A.V. Karpov [8], the temporal and structural forms should take into account the system invariant.

Thus, role-based socialization of an individual can be considered as a system complex of a substantial-temporary type. Taking into account the multivariability and complexity of the examined phenomenon, it is advisable to use a post — non-classical variant — a metasystem approach for its research. Within the framework of this approach, role-based socialization can be represented as something combining common social integrities and revealing the types of their relationships.

Therefore, to study multidimensional reality, it is necessary to identify general patterns of role socialization in structural and functional plans. How do the specifying levels of the role socialization structure reflecting one of the main system formations, such as personality, culture, and society interact with each other?

 

Conceptualization of generalized integrities

 

The foregoing analysis clearly demonstrates the need to consider the integrities arising in the course of social relations between the main social systems. In this regard, it becomes important to determine how emerging phenomena affect social relations between their constructive sub-parts, as well as to identify the specific, natural for each socio-psychological category and receiving the special

within the system complex. This means that each level of social organization of role-based socialization should have specific characteristics that would reflect its difference from another level. J. Turner defines some general classes of phenomena: 1) the nature of the individual or personality; 2) the nature and types of social relations between individuals; 3) the nature and types of social relations between collective units of individuals; 4) the nature and types of emerging patterns of organization among various types of organized units [18: p. 393]. Preliminarily, let's assume that the proposed substantive-temporal system of role socialization has a number of definitions and means by which it will be possible to classify relations between social units.

So, the first class of phenomena, according to J. Turner, is the nature of personality. First of all, when talking about the personality, it is necessary to point out that it carries individual characteristics, such as the type of the nervous system, dynamic qualities, motivational and semantic guidelines, personal characteristics, orientation, etc. However, being included in the system complex, the personality begins to acquire social-specific characteristics. From the point of view of Russian scientists [1; 5; 7; 10; 17], the personality can only be analyzed within the framework of social relations; it represents a social product. The personality does not exist outside of social reality, therefore, it must be studied only “in the system of social bonds and relations” [1: p. 234]. Sociality as the main quality of a person is determined, according to I. S. Kon [5], by interiorized roles and its self-consciousness, which are products of social development. Localization of the personality in the social space is provided by the status [1; 5; 12]. At the same time, the implementation of status in public relations is closely related to the role that reflects the dynamic aspect of status — “the person as a social individual always performs a certain set of social functions” [1: p. 244]. On the other hand, the personality is unique, it has individual properties and characteristics. So, on the one hand, the personality is programmed, because it is influenced by socio-cultural relations, and on the other hand, it has its own activity, motivation, and ability to transform creatively the surrounding reality and itself. According to B. F. Lomov

[10], genetic, psychological, biological and other personality features can only be manifested in the system of social relations, otherwise they remain intangible. Therefore, the natural qualities of the personality as an autonomous system foundation are individual and functional properties, and non-specific-sociality, social activity, the involvement in role relationships formed in communication and activity.

The second class includes considering the nature and types of social relations between individuals. And as a result the answer to the question under what conditions the creation of certain relationship between social entities is likely to be answered. Such condition can be the creation of role interaction between individuals. In this regard, the category of role models occupies a special place in the hierarchy of the structural organization of social relations.

For the first time the term “role model” was proposed in the works of R. K. Merton [24], believing that individuals in the process of socialization strive for a certain role, which is performed by the reference subject. In terms of the author, a role model is an imitation or emulation of a set of role behavior or success that belongs to one person. From the point of view of T. Parsons [12], the role can be understood as an action regulated by culture and society that structures interpersonal interactions. We emphasize that the role contains adaptive potential, which is realized in the form of coordination of internal conditions and external requirements. The role model concentrates the initial conditions of interpersonal interaction in the form of traditions, rituals, archetypes, etc. [14: p. 19].

These conditions of role interaction counteract the entropy of social functioning and create a certain order. Thus, role models are a certain ideal and guide in the communication of individuals. M. Banton [22: p. 46] believes that among all types of roles, the main roles are the most unique, since they are associated with the basic categories of a person: gender and age.

They apply to a wide class of situations, regardless of their content, and they include other types of roles. The main roles define the outline of role behavior. Being

embedded in the structure of the individual as a role thesaurus, they express the coherence of individual and social reality.

All role diversity can be represented as a space located in three coordinates: inclusion in the social environment, the way of interaction in the social space, and orientation [15]. The criterial number of features includes individualism-sociality, activity-passivity, spontaneity-traditionality. The indicated criteria - differentiators together determine the necessary diversity of the main roles and implement the qualitative certainty and universality of role socialization of the individual (table 1).

 

Table 1

Inclusion in social space  The way of interaction in social space Orientation  Role model
Passivity  spontaneity individualism  Child
Activity  spontaneity sociality  Young Creative
Activity  spontaneity individualism  Destructive
Activity  traditionality  sociality  Adult
Passivity  traditionality  individualism  elderly

 

 

Thus, the introduction of these criteria allows you to divide the role space and assert that the main roles have specific features making it possible to transfer them to a separate class. The determination of the intrinsic nature of the components of the system complex allows them to be differentiated from each other both within and between other components. In other words, finding specific qualities of any of the system entities within the system complex contributes to the solution of a very important task — the definition of specific and general types of social units and their interaction. Thus, the identification of the phenomenon of differentiation opposite

the integration helps to distinguish role models from each other and from other systemic and subsystem entities. To a certain extent, the established differentiation demonstrates the phenomenon of diachrony. It is also possible to note such a feature as the universality of the main roles, which is expressed in filling the role with expectations socially and culturally fixed. The second aspect of universality is that such roles, initially acting as given, can be transformed into any other role depending on the sphere of human activity [14: p. 24].

It is important to note that social relations are possible under the condition of interiorization of the role repertoire, which occurs in several stages and with the help of the following mechanisms. At the first stage, the mechanism of inculturation is updated (I belong), and cultural codes are read simultaneously. At the second stage, the mechanism of imitation is implemented (I can), which is a discrete and fragmentary process of assimilation of certain elements of culture. The role of a generalized other personifying social norms is implemented. The third stage assumes involving the inclusion of an adaptation mechanism (I am like you), which supposes the analysis of public expectations about a specific role and the desire to meet them. At the fourth stage, the mechanism of individualization (I am), which is considered as “self-regulation”, as the ability to reveal the deepest uniqueness, and on its basis, the individual filling of the role is actualized. At the fifth stage, the integration mechanism is implemented (I can) as a way to overcome the conflict between my own ideas about the role and the collective's expectations. The violation in mechanisms, generates a certain type of a role conflict [14: p. 71–73].

The third class of relationships provides for the disclosure of the nature and types of social relations between the collective units of individuals. This allows us to introduce the following category — the life spheres of the individual, which represent subsystems. V. A. Yadov [21] highlights several spheres of human activity: 1) family; 2) immediate environment; 3) professional sphere; 4) general cultural sphere. B. F. Lomov [10] believed that the differentiation of psychic manifestations was caused by a certain sphere of existence. He argued that the individual, when incorporated into various spheres of life, demonstrated in his

behavior specific qualities that were not found in other spheres. In this regard, it can be assumed that the features of the manifestation of role models are differentiated by a certain sphere of life. Consequently, the specific qualities of social institutions, represented in the form of spheres, as functional entities, have the polyspheric and the institutional character. At the same time, the system quality they acquire in the system complex will be represented as a combination of roles. So, depending on the specific sphere of life, the role behavior of an individual will have specific qualities. In the family sphere, roles with the functional purpose of fulfilling family responsibilities and functions will be implemented. The sphere of informal contacts will be formed by the roles associated with informal interactions of communication subjects. The professional sphere contains roles related to the implementation of professional functions. In the intimate-sexual sphere, roles determined by the implementation of the sexual scenario are exploited. Therefore, in a certain sphere or situation of interaction, subjects based on their own motives are introduced into the circumstances of role contact which determines the choice of the relevant role for this situation. In this case, the well-known principle of potential unlimitedness [7] is implemented. The essence of this principle is to distribute the entire role set into two zones – actual and potential.

The potential zone contains an unlimited set of roles. While the current state includes only one role model that meets the needs of the individual and the conditions set in a particular situation [14]. This means that there is a hierarchy of the role set, which is local in nature, since it is aimed at ordering the role behavior in a separate sphere of life. Therefore, each sphere has a specific role set. In turn, roles combine a semantic conglomerate of expectation. All this takes the form of role interaction and results in social relationships. Moreover, in each sphere, in addition to the principle of potential unlimitedness role models exploit relationships on the principle of complementarity (regulatory diversity). This principle assumes that a complete representation of any phenomenon or process combines the opposites [3; 20]. So, in one of the modern works it is determined that the role that

has opposite qualities to the actual one and occupies the opposite pole of one, two or three criterion continuums is chosen as a potential role model [14].

In this regard, it can be stated that there is a manifestation of one of the main qualities of role socialization — diachrony — in the form of building a role composition depending on the motive, situation, personal characteristics, etc. Moreover, these relationships are mediated, suggesting that the following two elements can be separated by a third. In turn, the third element can both link and determine the previous two elements. This indicates the formation of specific complexes forming a temporal chain, which constitutes nonlinear sequence of elements and components. Such interaction, first of all, generates a time interval between events, which explicates another important attribute of time — its discreteness. Secondly, one of the principles of temporal consistency, the principle of changeable determination, formulated by A. V. Karpov [7], is implemented. The essence of this principle is that the structure of interrelated elements implies their disclosure in time, so that each subsequent step is mediated by the results obtained in the previous stages. In this case, another important property of temporal systems, which is designated as self-determination is explicated [4; 11; 19]. According to this property, the system complex can independently produce a generalized result and use it as a necessary condition for its own functioning. In this capacity, the temporal coordination of the system complex, which is discussed in a number of scientific papers is presented. So, the article of H. Gao [23] considers extended dissipative management-initiated events with finite time. S. Ostadhadi-Dehkordi and M. K. Amaleh study the problem of basic properties of dynamical systems using congruent relations [26]. S. K. Reed and R. R. Vallacher [27] studied the structure of a dynamical system in information processing. J. Wei and colleagues raise the problem of stability of linear switched singular systems [29]. In the work of J. Zang and colleagues [30], the conditions necessary and sufficient for linear and nonlinear systems changing in time are revealed. In the study of W. Zang and B. Guo [31] the personality is considered as a dissipative structure that exchanges information with the external and internal world. When using protective

cognitive-affective schema can remain stable and ordered by eliminating psychological entropy.

The fourth class according to J. Turner [18] reveals the nature and types of emerging patterns of organization among various types of organized units. From the point of view of T. Parsons [12] socialization or institutionalization involves the interaction of four systems — body, individual, society, and culture. However, according to J. Turner, the author of the theory of action does not use the system of concepts created by him to explain the types of social relations between social communities. Along with that, the metasystem approach discovers significant potential for implementing such a specification. Let's assume that within the framework of the metasystem approach, it is possible to explain constructively the structure of role socialization as a system complex of a distributed type formed as a result of the interaction of a number of heterogeneous systems — culture, society and personality. The implementation of the post-non-classical variant of the system approach to the phenomenon of role socialization allows us to say that the substantial-temporal form includes a system invariant consisting of five basic levels: metasystem, system-wide, subsystem, component and element [14: p. 79]. Each level of the system complex reflects one of the social organizations. The element level contains socio-cultural expectations that are included in the role as a semantic conglomerate and are closely related to a specific role model. At the element level, a one-time relationship is maintained. The component and subsystem levels reflect the system of the social. Besides, the component level includes discrete relationships represented as basic role models and are demonstrating diachronism — a succession of roles and expectations. At the subsystem level, on the one hand, roles are integrated into main spheres of socialization, and on the other hand, they are differentiated depending on the sphere. There is a regulatory disorderliness — a role composition consisting of an actual, potential, reserve and rejected role is drawn out. At the system-wide level, the system of personality is involved in interaction, which comprises the integration of roles and the implementation of role behavior depending on motivation. Target relationships arise between roles and expectations,

it involves building a unique role composition determined by the social sphere, motives, needs and personality settings. At the metasystem level, there is a synchronic connection of all the system formations of the individual, culture and society, which acquire the status of a structural formation in the system complex, but they are able to influence all other levels, regulating them. Relationships between levels are characterized by structural inter-determination, when on the one hand, motivation affects the level of integration of the role structure and determines the role behavior, and on the other hand, role structuring acts as a determinant of the subject's motivation to interact. These levels express the hierarchical principle, therefore, the functioning of role socialization is structured and ordered. As a result, it acquires the features of a system organization of the substantial and temporary type [14].

Thus, a thorough analysis of role socialization from the position of a metasystem approach has revealed its conceptual perspectives for solving a fundamental problem of psychology concerning the question of how the nature of units in the process of interaction affects the types of relationships.

 

Summary

 

The study of role socialization from the position of a metasystem approach allows us to draw a number of conclusions.

1. Role-based socialization is a complex and multi-dimensional formation — a great number of events connecting a system of complex determinants of the subject's activity. The main difficulty in studying the role-based socialization of an individual is to take into account its integral, systemic qualities, revealing the interdependence of various formations and their temporary explication. The problem statement in this form assumes the creation of a theory based on a metasystem approach and sufficient to explain the regularities of the role socialization of the individual.

2. Role-based socialization includes at least three systemic formations: the individual, with its needs, values, aspirations, society with its norms, rules, statuses, roles, and culture with its traditions, symbols, signs, and rituals. From this position, the personality is included in the content of “partial dimensions of socialization”, transforming the social reality into its own structure of values, roles, and expressions mediating the implementation of the subject's external activity in the social space.

3. An important and noteworthy fact in the study of role socialization is its understanding as a process and as a result. In this context, it is necessary to take into account both the substantive and temporal forms of organization of role socialization. Therefore, role-based socialization can be represented as a diachronic and synchronic process explicating the coordination of personal potentials and requirements of the environment and their misalignment.

4. It is determined that the consideration of role socialization as a system complex of the substantial and temporary type from the position of a metasystem approach will contribute to the paradigm development of the problem of personality. The proposed perspective theory of the substantial-temporal system of role socialization has a number of concepts and means by which it becomes possible to classify relations between social units.

 

Conclusion

 

Summing up the general semantic result of this work, we can point out the need to study socialization in general and role socialization in particular, since this is the main way of studying personality. Quantitative and qualitative transformations of the social space caused the processes of social stratification, increased the role multivariability and contradictions between the ideas of the role and its expectations. Actually, these contradictions determined the scientific and social relevance of the stated topic of research.

Solving the problem of role-based socialization from the position of the metasystem approach allows to present it in a contradictory unity of the general and

the single — the incorporation of personality in socio-cultural space (the development of socio-cultural norms, symbols, traditions and rules), exit to the outside in the form of subjective activity (the transmission of assimilated norms, symbols, rituals and rules), which is the basis of several systems: the individual, culture and society.

The foregoing analysis convincingly demonstrates that the consideration of role socialization from the position of a metasystem approach reveals the nature of those integrities that arise in the course of social relations between the main social systems. The presented theoretical theses fully contribute to the explanation of how emerging phenomena affect social relations between their constructive sub-parts, as well as the identification of the specific, natural of each socio-psychological category and its acquisition of the special within the system complex.

So, it is determined that the natural qualities of personality as an autonomous system formation are individual and functional properties, and non-specific — sociality, social activity, involvement in role relations formed in communication and activity.

The consideration of nature and types of social relations between individuals has shown that the category of role models occupies a special place in the hierarchy of the structural organization of social relations. All role diversity can be represented as a space located in three coordinates: inclusion in the social environment, the way of interaction in the social space, and the orientation.

The introduction of these criteria allows us to differentiate the role space and assert that the main roles have peculiar properties. First, they as products of cultural and social systems are characterized by stereotyping. Embedded in the structure of the individual as a role thesaurus, they explain the coherence of the individual and social reality. Secondly, when role models are included in the system complex, they have a regulatory diversity of order, adjusting the role behavior of the individual. The differentiation of role models and their different order reflect the pecularities of the relationship at this level, characterized by duration. The interiorization of the role repertoire occurs in several stages and through certain mechanisms.

The revealing of the nature and social relations types between the collective units of individuals allows us to introduce such a category as the life spheres of the individual, which represent subsystems. The specific qualities of social institutions, represented in the form of spheres as functional entities, have polyspheric and institutional character. At the same time, the system quality they acquire in the system complex will be represented as a combination of roles.

In a certain sphere or situation of interaction, the subjects are introduced into the circumstances of the role contact, taking into account their needs or motives, which determine the choice of a relevant role for this situation while the rest of the role models remain in the potential state. This reflects the manifestation of one of the main qualities of role socialization — diachrony, implemented in the form of indirect following of role models in various spheres.

The analysis of the nature and types of emerging patterns of organization among various types of organized units assumes the interaction of three systems —personality, society and culture. The implementation of the post-non-classical variant of the system approach to the phenomenon of role socialization allows us to establish that the substantial-temporal form includes a system invariant consisting of five basic levels: metasystem, system-wide, subsystem, component and elemental. Target relationships arise between roles and expectations, which suppose building a unique role composition determined by the social sphere, motives, needs and personality settings. Moreover, there is a synchronic connection of all the system formations of the individual, culture and society, which acquire the status of a structural formation in the system complex, but they are able to influence all other levels, regulating them. At the same time, the relations between system formations have the character of structural interdetermination.

Although this article indicates a significant shift in understanding the fundamental problems of social psychology, concerning the problem of how the nature of the units affects the relationships in the process of interaction, it is obvious that, further essential research regarding the disclosure of conditions of realization

of these relations, a more detailed study of relationship types, the determinants and mechanisms are necessary.

 

References

 

1. Ananiev B. G. Chelovek kak predmet poznaniya [Man as a subject of knowledge]. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2001. 288 p.

2. Anokhin P. K. Ocherki po fiziologii funkcional`ny`h system [Essays on the physiology of functional systems]. Moscow: Medicina, 1975. 448 p.

3. Wundt V. Vvedenie v psihologiyu [Introduction to psychology]. St. Petersburg: Rech`, 2002. 128 p.

4. Golovashina O. V. Temporal`nost` v issledovaniyah social`nogo: konstruirovanie vremeni i vremenem [Temporality in social studies: the construction of time and time] // Filosofiya i Obshhestvo [Philosophy and Society]. 2016. № 3. P. 42–56.

5. Kon I. S. Sociologicheskaya psihologiya [Sociological psychology]. Moscow: MPSI; Voronezh: NPO «MODE`K», 1999. 560 p.

6. Karpov A. V., Shadrikov V. D. Sistemogenez deyatel`nosti. Igra. Uchenie. Trud [Systemogenesis of activity. The game. Doctrine. Labor] // Integral`naya koncepciya sistemogeneza deyatel`nosti [Integral concept of the systemogenesis of activity]. Yaroslavl: Izd-vo YarGU, 2017. 446 p.

7. Karpov A. V. Psihologiya soznaniya: Metasistemny`j podhod. [Psychology of consciousness: A metasystem approach]. Moscow: RAO, 2011. 1088 p.

8. Karpov A. V. Metasistemnaya organizaciya individual`ny`h kachestv lichnosti [Metasystem organization of individual personality traits]. Yaroslavl: YarGU, 2018. 744 p.

9. Kuzmin V. P. Princip sistemnosti v teorii i metodologii K. Marksa [The principle of consistency in the theory and methodology of K. Marx]. Moscow: Politizdat, 1980. 312 p.

10. Lomov B. F. Metodologicheskie i teoreticheskie problemy` psihologii [Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology]. Moscow: Nauka, 1999. 350 p.

11. Nikolaeva E. M. Socializaciya lichnosti kak samoorganizuyushhayasya sistema-process [Socialization of personality as a self-organizing system-process] // Gumanitarny`e nauki. Filosofiya. [Humanities. Philosophy]. 2007. № 1. P. 65–72.

12. Parsons T. O strukture social`ny`h dejstvij [On the structure of social action]. Moscow: Akadem. proekt, 2002. 880 p.

13. Parygin B. D. Osnovy` social`no-psihologicheskoj teorii [Fundamentals of the socio-psychological theory]. M.: My`sl`, 1971. 352 p.

14. Perevozkina Yu. M. Substancional`no-temporal`naya sistemnost` rolevoj socializacii lichnosti: monografiya [The substantial-temporal system of role-based socialization of an individual]. Novosibirsk: NGPU, 2019. 306 p.

15. Perevozkina Yu. M., Preuss F. Metasistemnaya organizaciya social`no-rolevogo funkcionirovaniya molodezhi [Metasystem organization of the social-role functioning of youth] // Sistemnaya Psihologiya i Sociologiya [Systems Psychology and Sociology]. 2018. № 4 (28). P. 100–111.

16. Ryzhov B. N. Sistemnaya psihologiya. 2-e izdanie. [System psychology. Second edition] Moscow: T 8 Izdatel`skie Tehnologii, 2017. 356 p.

17. Rubinshtejn S. L. By`tie i Soznanie. Chelovek i mir [Genesis and Consciousness. Man and the world]. St. Petersberg: Piter, 2003. 512 p.

18. Turner J. Struktura sociologicheskoj teorii [The structure of sociological theory]. Moscow: Progress, 1985.473 p.

19. Shamionov R. M. Princip diahronii v issledovanii socializacii lichnosti [The principle of diachrony in the study of personality socialization] // Izvestiya Saratovskogo Universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya. Psihologiya. Pedagogika. [Bulletin of the Saratov University. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy]. 2013. № 1 (13). P. 79–84.

20. Yung K. G. Soznanie i bessoznatel`noe [Consciousness and the unconscious]. St. Petersburg: Akadem. proekt, 2009. 190 p.

21. Yadov V. A. Samoregulyaciya i prognozirovanie social`nogo povedeniya lichnosti: Dispozicionnaya koncepciya [Self-regulation and forecasting of social behavior of a person: dispositional concept]. Moscow: CzSPiM, 2013. 376 p.

22. Banton M. Roles: an introduction to the study of social relations. New York: Basic Books, 1965. 224 p.

23. Gao H. Finite-time event-triggered extended dissipative control for discrete time switched linear systems / H. Gao et al. // International Journal of General Systems. 2019. Vol. 48 (5). P. 476–491. DOI 10.1080/03081079.2019.1608983

24. Merton R. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press, 1949. 423 p.

25. Muzzetto L. Time and meaning in Alfred Schutz // Time & Society. 2006. Vol. 15 (1). P. 5–31. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X06061334

26. Ostadhadi-Dehkordi S., Amaleh M. K. Dynamical systems and congruence relations // International Journal of General Systems. 2019. Vol. 48 (1). P. 66–79. DOI: 10.1080/03081079.2018.1524468

27. Reed S. K. & Vallacher R. R. A comparison of information processing and dynamical systems perspectives on problem solving // Thinking & Reasoning. 2019. Vol. 26 (2), P. 254–290. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2019.1605930

28.Tillich P. Existential Philosophy // Journal of the History of Ideas. 1944. Vol. 5 (1). P. 44–70. DOI: 10.2307/2707101

29. Wei J. New finite-time stability conditions of linear switched singular systems with finite-time unstable subsystems / J. Wei et al. // International Journal of General Systems. 2019. Vol. 48 (7). P. 792–810. DOI: 10.1080/03081079.2019.1615907

30. Zhang J., Wang Q.-G & Sun J. On finite-time stability of nonautonomous nonlinear systems // International Journal of Control. 2020. Vol. 93 (4). Р. 783–787. DOI: 10.1080/00207179.2018.1536831

31. Zhang W. & Guo B. Resolving defence mechanisms: A perspective based on dissipative structure theory // The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 2017. Vol. 98 (2). Р. 457–472. DOI: 10.1111/1745-8315.12623