Social Psychology in The Soviet Union

Social Psychology in the Soviet Union
Author(s): Levy Rahmani

Source: Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 13, No. 3/4 (Sep. - Dec., 1973), pp. 218-250
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20098572
Accessed: 18-07-2016 01:55 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in Soviet Thought
This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016 01:55:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
LEVY RAHMANI
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SOVIET UNION
Along with the recent development of sociological studies, and largely as

part of it, we witness a revival of interest in social psychology in the Soviet
Union. After about 25 years of severe restriction of psychological studies
to the individual, there is now a flare-up of investigations into collective
psychology. Parygin (1967), the head of the Laboratory of Social-Psycho
logical Research at the Chair of Philosophy of the Leningrad Pedagogical
Institute 'A. I. Herzen' and one of the main advocates of a Soviet Marxist
social psychology, wrote about this change of attitude:
A characteristic feature of our times is the constant and increasing interest in man,
in his inner world and behavior. This is the result of a growing awareness that man is a
major social value and his development is the most important criterion of social
progress. The growth of man's creative activity, the broad perspective of the manifesta
tion of his talent, interests, skills, will, reason and energy due to socialism and Commu
nism have also contributed to this awareness, (p. 3)
Other writers have also pointed out that the technical development of
Soviet society has not only not reduced the role of the human factor but,
by contrast, has brought to the fore the role of people's motivation
(Prazdnikov, 1967; Pavlov and Kazimircuk, 1971; Gvisiani, 1970). They
emphasized the need to become acquainted with the psychological aspects
of the organization of people's work in any sphere of activity. A resolution
was adopted by the CC CPSU about the need to give social sciences a
more important role in the construction of Communism (Resenie, 1967).
The 24th Congress of CPSU was also concerned with this issue (Materialy,
1971). There is an implicit recognition by Soviet officialdom that the
shaping of a new Soviet man cannot be achieved by political and admin
istrative ways only. The need is felt to get acquainted with the psychology
of Soviet individuals and collectives, with their behavior in everyday life.
I. RESEARCH AND INSTITUTIONS
A wide range of topics are currently studied in Soviet institutions for
Studies in Soviet Thought 13 (1973) 218-250. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright ? 1973 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SOVIET UNION 219
sociological, psychological and pedagogical research. The Laboratory of

Social Psychology at the Research Institute of General and Educational
Psychology, affiliated with the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the
U.S.S.R. (headed by Menscikova), is studying the influence of concrete
social conditions on the intellectual life of students and on their inter
personal relations in class collectives. Among the topics studied by the
Laboratory of Social Psychology and the Chair of Social Psychology of
Leningrad University (headed by Kuzmin) are the interpersonal relations
in industrial collectives, the psychology of mass communication, and the
social adjustment of neurotic individuals. The laboratory headed by
Parygin is concerned with the role of the relations between macro- and
micro-environment in the development of personality features. Social
aspects of the psychology of personality are also studied at the Chair of
Philosophy of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute 'V. I. Lenin' (under
Petrovskij), including such topics as intragroup suggestibility and the
relations between conformism and collectivism. A main topic of research
of the Chair of Psychology of the Kursk Pedagogical Institute is the moral
behavior of groups. Finally, a wide range of topics - some of which will be
referred to in this article - are investigated by the Institute of Applied
Social Research of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. (Kon,
Mansurov, Jadov), the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy (Soroxova,
Platonov), the Department of Philosophy of Moscow University (Ugrino
vic), the Chair of Psychology of the Sverdlovsk Pedagogical Institute
(Perov), the Jaroslav Pedagogical Institute (Filatov), and the Minsk
Pedagogical Institute (Kolominskij).
Although sociology and social psychology are certainly far from having
reached the operational position they enjoy in the West, there are indica
tions that their voice is being ever more heeded by authorities. Following
are some illustrations given by Osipov (1969). The State Planning Commit
tee of the U.S.S.R. adopted proposals made by the Institutes of Philos
ophy, Economics, Government and Law of the Academy, based on their
sociological studies, regarding ways of raising the intellectual and technical
level of workers and peasants. Suggestions made by the Laboratory of
Sociological Research of the Philosophy Department of Leningrad
University and by the Leningrad Institute of Complex Social Research
regarding leisure time, the preparation of young specialists, and the effi
ciency of political propaganda and television broadcasting have been used
220 LEVI RAHMANI
by governmental organizations in Leningrad. Studies of the Laboratory of

Economic-Mathematical Research of the Novosibirsk University and the
Siberian branch of the Academy of Sciences have been considered in deci
sions regarding job placement of youths. The section for Applied Socio
logical Research of the Philosophy Institute of the Academy of Sciences
is providing the authorities with informational material about the rational
use of manpower of working women and about the process of urbanization.
The Central Committees of the Party in White Russia, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan and Estonia, the Regional Committees of Sverdlovsk, Celja
binsk and Voronez, as well as the territorial Party Committee of Stavropol,
have taken measures to improve the ideological propaganda on the basis
of studies done by a group attached to the Academy of Social Sciences of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. devoted
to the efficiency of ideological propaganda among various groups in the
Soviet Union. Studies are already being carried out to meet specific
requests. Thus, the sociological laboratories of Ural and Leningrad
Universities investigate why students drop out at the request of the Ministry
of Higher and Secondary Technical Education, and the efficiency in the
employment of young specialists and the organization of scientific work,
at the request of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. Moreover,
studies are being done on a contractual basis. Thus, the Leningrad Insti
tute for Complex Social Research has contracts with the State Committee
for Radio and Television and with the industrial firm 'Svetlana.'
II. A HISTORICAL OUTLINE
There has been considerable interest in social or collective psychology in

Russia since the 1917 revolution. Several trends have developed, aimed at
elaborating an objective and Marxist study of collective psychology. In
1918, Bekhterev, a reputed neurologist, published a volume, entitled
Collective Reflexology, which represented a further development of his
earlier views on an objective psychology (Bekhterev, 1917). Bekhterev
reduced mass psychology to the operation of certain basic physical rules
(the rule of inertia, the rule of opposition, etc). He was under the influence
of McDougal and of the French sociologist Tarde when he transferred the
mechanical 'rule of rhythm' or the 'periodicity rule* to social-psychological
phenomena (e.g., the oscillation of soldiers' militant mood in combat).
By the end of the 1920's, reflexology came under sharp attack and was
regarded as a vulgar-mechanical materialism, unable to develop scientific
views on individuals and society. It was a hindrance to the development of
a genuine Marxist psychology. The Second All-Union Conference of
Marxist-Leninist Research Institutes concluded that reflexology deviated
from the true Marxist position (Editorial, 1929).
A different 'psychoneurological' version of a Marxist social psychology
was proposed by Zalkind, who was affiliated with the Academy of Com
munist Education. In a series of papers, collected in a book entitled
Essays of a Culture of a Revolutionary Time (Zalkind, 1924), he combined
biological and psychoanalytic concepts with an ultra-revolutionary
phraseology. A critic pointedly named this 'pathological Marxism'
(Vainstain, 1924). Zalkind contended that man's physiology is directly
determined by the social class to which he belongs, and that the aim of a
Communist pedagogy should be the attainment of a stable system of re
flexes.
Reisner (1923), an expert in law theory who became interested in psycho
logy, also tried his hand at a synthesis of psychoanalysis and historical
materialism.
In the 1930's there was virtually no theory of social psychology in the
Soviet Union. In a major textbook of dialectical and historical materialism
(1932), edited by Mitin and Razumovskij (quoted by Parygin, 1965), it
was stated that the notion of 'social psychology' opens the way to the
idealistic theory of the subconscious. As recently as 1957, Rubinstejn,
who played a major role in laying the theoretical foundations of Soviet
psychology, while objecting against the distinction between a 'physiol
ogical' and a 'historical' psychology, wrote :
To maintain the separation of a historical psychology means nothing else but to defend
'social psychology' as the favorite of reactionaries, which essentially represents an
attempt to transform sociology into psychology - that is, to force through idealism in
the domain of the study of social phenomena, (p. 240)
In the late 1950's, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists began

manifesting a renewed interest in the subject of social psychology. An
extensive debate was initiated by Kommunist, Voprosy Filosofii (Questions
of Philosophy), Voprosy Psixologii (Questions of Psychology), and Vestnik
Leningradskogo Universiteta (Bulletin of Leningrad University). A confer
ence on social psychology was organized in 1963 in Moscow by the Insti
222 LEVI RAHMANI
tute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences, and a symposium took

place in the same year at the Second Convention of the Psychological
Association, in Leningrad. The initial publications focused almost
exclusively on problems related to the definition of the area of social
psychology. They were followed, however, by works dealing with specific
theoretical issues of a Marxist social psychology. There is currently an
increasing number of applied studies.
III. THE ATTITUDE TOWARD WESTERN APPROACHES
Soviet scholars have basically taken a critical position toward trends in

Western and, in particular, American social psychology. Some writers
presented it as a branch of 'bourgeois' psychology. This view was
expressed in the second edition of the Large Soviet Encyclopedia
(Vvedenskij, 1957). This was also the position of Mansurov (1963) in his
chapter on social psychology in a collective book entitled Contemporary
Psychology in Capitalist Countries. Kuzmin (1963), the author of a mono
graph on social psychology, took the same position. Other writers
presented social psychology as a trend in sociology - namely, that of
giving psychological explanations to social phenomena (Zamoskin, 1958;
Kon, Osipov, 1964).
Soviet publications have claimed that the occurrence of the study of
social psychology has been prompted by the interests of capitalism. For
instance, Mansurov (1963) wrote:
The appearance of a social psychology was not prepared by the precedent development
of schools of general psychology. Its birth almost coincided with the occurrence of many
of these schools and was an effect of the achievements of several social sciences (lin
guistics, ethnography, etc.). It was called forth by the need for an ideological justification
of the capitalist establishment in countries with an acute class struggle, when the bour
geois class particularly required theories able to present a distorted picture of social
reality and to justify its antidemocratic politics. The appearance of social psychology
is to be regarded primarily as a response to the intensified revolutionary activity of the
proletariat and not as a result of a synthesis of accumulated psychological findings,
(pp. 236-237)
Works of American sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers and

social psychologists are given as illustrations of what was said above. Thus,
Fraser's (1956) statement that in a capitalist enterprise there are neither
capitalists nor proletarians, but only groups to which both can belong,
has been quoted as a case in point. Malinovsky was among the authors
taken to task for his explanation of the fight of colonial peoples against
imperialistic exploitation as the transformation of the innate fighting in
stinct as a result of frustration. Cora du Bois, Kardiner, and Margaret
Mead were classified by Mansurov in the category of 'psychoracists'.
Finally, Moreno was singled out for his view that the notion of "class" is
old-fashioned and has to be replaced. A reactionary ideological role was
attributed to sociometry because of its defence of psychoanalysis and of
Bergson's mystical philosophy and, most of all, because of its discrediting
of Marxism and Leninism.
Soviet authors who tend to present an overdrawn picture of the negative
aspects of American life in such terms as a 'crisis of bourgeois consciousness
or a 'crisis of bourgeois individualism' (Baskin, 1962) point out, however,
that they
... are not inclined to regard these features and processes as absolute, as unique and
universal characteristics of the personality of contemporary Americans ... they re
present only one line, one direction, one aspect of the historical development. This line is
linked to the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism, to inner changes in bourgeois
consciousness, ideology, psychology and morality. (Zamoskin, 1967, p. 215)
Thus, somewhat paradoxically, Zamoskin criticized American scholars

for their opposite position. He wrote :
... many American sociologists and social psychologists who observe negative, patholog
ical features and processes in the consciousness and behavior of people, metaphysically
tend to regard them as absolute features and processes. As a matter of fact, this could
be said about the majority of American authors .... This could be said about such
sociologists as Riesman, Lerner, Fromm, Goodman, Bredmeier, Toby and even Mills,
etc. These ... negative phenomena are described more or less accurately. An empirical
investigation ... often persuades the sociologist or social-psychologist that phenomena
described by him are neither accidental nor unique but, conversely, are social-typical
phenomena that represent definite personality types, types of social characters, (p. 316)
There is also a positive side to the Soviet attitude toward Western sociol
ogy and social psychology. Expectedly, Soviet authors praise the work of
their counterparts who are critical of sociological theories in the West.
These are regarded as 'progressive' scholars. To this category belongs
C. Wright Mills, for his views that sociology has regressed from an acade
mic to a bureaucratic discipline and that it has become conformist -
that is, adjusted to capitalist reality. Sorokin is another scholar who is
appreciated for his criticism of both empiricist and overly abstract theories.
224 LEVI RAHMANI
However, Soviet scholars seem now ready to learn not only from their
'progressive' Western counterparts. The following statement by Semenov
(1969) is instructive. Although it refers specifically to sociology, it reflects
the author's position with regard to social sciences in general.
What actually happens in the development of contemporary sociology? We must admit

that in almost every sociological system (if it is not wrong through and through) there
is a sound kernel .... Marxist investigators borrow from some well-elaborated systems
useful methods and technical procedures, empirical findings, etc. But the extent of the
'healthy part' of a sociological system is determined by its gnoseological and method
ological foundations, the class and ideological-political positions of its author ....
A sociological system which has attained the highest level of development (that is,
is more 'healthy' on methodological and ideological grounds) already includes ...
rational elements of inferior sociological systems. For instance, Mill's system already
includes useful theoretical and methodological elements of the dominant bourgeois
sociological systems .... Marxist sociology develops as a qualitatively independent ...
system of social knowledge which gets ever richer by critically including useful aspects
of all the other sociological systems, in particular the many sound... theses of left
progressive sociological theories, (pp. 61-62)
We see, indeed, that the promoters of a Soviet Marxist social psychology

admit that there are Western achievements which have application to the
study of Soviet society. Particular attention is given to the study of small
groups. Among the works considered important by Kuzmin (1967) are
Bales' analysis of the factors determining the behavior of small groups,
Lewin and Lippitt's experimental study of democracy and autocracy in
small groups, the work of Sayles and Brown on the behavior of industrial
work groups, and Moreno's contribution to the analysis of the dynamics
and structure of groups and to the classification of groups. Another area
singled out for particular achievement is that of the status and role of
personality and of the process of socialization, as well as the works of
Sarbin, Parsons, Gordon Alport, Festinger, Asch, Osgood and Crutchfield,
mentioned in relation to the detailed study of conformism. Finally,
methodological developments have been appreciated and, in particular,
Lazarsfeld's contribution to the use of mathematical techniques in socio
logical research.
What are the theoretical developments underlying the increasing interest
of Soviet scholars in the concrete investigation of various social phenome
na in the Soviet Union, including such sensitive issues as the presence of
religious beliefs? What arguments are provided to convince officialdom
that deficiencies from the point of view of Soviet ideology cannot be
solved by administrative and political measures, but require taking into

account the hitherto-neglected psychological aspects? How do Soviet
Marxist scholars handle the touchy issue of the limits of the principles of
historical materialism to explain the occurrence of actual, including
negative, phenomena- and the need to embark on specific sociological and
socio-psychological studies? The remainder of this paper is devoted to
some of these issues.
IV. REASONS UNDERLYING THE RENEWED INTEREST
To be sure, the proponents of a Marxist social psychology have to fight

their way against dogmatic views. They have been expected to provide
good reasons for their endeavor to develop the study of social psychology
in the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, they have looked for support in the
works of the 'classics'. Parygin (1965, 1971) found ample references to
social psychology in the works of Marx and Engels. Kolbanovskij (1965),
another leading writer on this topic, pointed out that Lenin attributed
much significance to the problems of social psychology. We are even told
that Marxists have never doubted the need for a genuine study of social
psychology. Rozin (1965) wrote that... "it is well-known that the dialecti
cal-materialistic theory of a social psychology was formulated byMarx
and Engels before the occurrence of a bourgeois social psychology."
The label of'economic materialism', with the implied denial of the role of
psychological factors in the development of society, is attributed to
opponents of Marxism who wish to discredit it.
The reasons given by Soviet authors themselves for their renewed inter
est in the study of social psychology are instructive. Of course, they blame
the 'personality cult' for the past neglect of this field. In that period, no
genuine investigation of public opinion was possible in Russia. More
importantly, they explain the need to study the psychology of different
groups by the gradual disappearance of the class structure of Soviet
society. It is contended that since the Soviet people have for some time
collectively owned the means of production, the difference between groups
of the same social class - that is, the working class - has become more
pronounced. It was argued that as long as there was a class struggle, the
personality characteristics were more related to membership in a social
class. Although 'deviations' were possible, they did not influence the course
226 LEVI RAHMANI
of history. It is implied that nowadays there are significant intraclass

differences which have an impact on the development of Soviet society.
Along with the prevalence of collective feelings and beliefs, Soviet society
is said to consist of different social layers and professions, the members of
which have in common certain psychological characteristics varying from
one group to another - so that one may speak about the psychology of
teachers, physicians, engineers, workers in large plants, farm workers, etc.
Some further arguments have been provided for the study of people's
psychology (Bueva, 1968; Bueva and Koval'zon, 1969). The immediate
environment in which the individual lives is not identical with all the social
conditions of the society at large, neither in its content nor in its scope.
The individual's environment is more flexible and is subject to his influ
ence. The role of the objective social conditions in shaping the individual's
psychology cannot be separated from the subjective-psychological forms
of their manifestation in people's actual life. Otherwise, Marx's notion that
the individual's psychology is the sum of his social relations remains an
abstract skeleton. Here are some quotations about the need to study the
individual's psychology. "This is important not only for the study of the
way the objective laws manifest themselves in people's activity, but also
for the deliberate guidance of the objective processes of social development.
It is impossible to reveal the 'feedback' relationship without considering
the psychological 'corrections' to the action of the objective laws" (Bueva
and Koval'zon, 1969). "The orientation of people's activity," wrote
Alekseev, "is determined by their social existence and by the objective
postion and needs of the class of which they are members, as well as by
the conditions of life of every concrete individual. However, these objec
tive incentives stimulate people's activity, as Engels put it, only through
their consciousness. Social consciousness is mirroring in people's activity
the objective conditions of their existence, thus playing an essential and,
occasionally, a crucial role in the motivation of their actions" (p. 246).
Furthermore, Alekseev pointed out that ideology is created by individuals
who are the most cultivated representatives of their class, whereas people's
psychology develops spontaneously, unconsciously. The latter does not
reflect objective social relationships in a theoretical manner; it is not a
conscious expression of the basic interests and purposes of a social class.
People's psychology is primarily a result of the concrete interests of a class
or of a nation. It consists of feelings and emotions, habits, thoughts, and
illusions. It is based on a more restricted amount of information, related to

the immediate surroundings. Hence, the reflection of external reality in
habits, feelings, etc., of groups of people is less mediated than its reflection
in people's ideology. It develops at about the same time in all members of
the society and precedes historically the development of an ideology.
An important argument for the study of people's psychology is that
aspects of Soviet society, which are negative from the perspective of the
official ideology, cannot be regarded merely as remnants of the past in
people's consciousness. Everyone seems to admit that people's psychology
is lagging behind changes in their economic-social status and its corre
sponding ideology. But it is felt that this is not a satisfactory explanation
since, as Alekseev put it,
... it is not clear why people's collective psychology, which is the nearest to the economic
infrastructure and is a direct reflection of social relations, represents the best nutrient
medium for remnants of the past. Apparently, the reverse should be the case: changes
in the infrastructure should be immediately reflected in people's psychology, (pp. 259
260)
It is reasonably concluded that the psychology of people in Soviet society

is also formed under the influence of many conditions which do not corre
spond to the principles of socialism. Thus, the education of an individual
in the family, the behavior of close friends, of colleagues and of supervisors
at work are factors which influence the formation of his psychology
... completing the general features formed under the influence of objective, socialist
relations, with individual psychological features. When these primarily subjective
conditions do not correspond to the nature of our society, a negative psychological
structure is formed on this ground, fed by the remnants of capitalism which overshadow
collectivist tendencies in consciousness. (Alekseev, op. cit., p. 261)
Hence, the analysis of the factors which influence the formation of people's
psychology becomes important for the development of a 'socialist consci
ousness'.
A strong plea, indeed, has been made for the study of the psychology of
the actual Soviet man. Social psychologists have explicitly expressed the
need to move away from abstract formulations which are merely restate
ments of the principles of dialectical and historical materialism. Selivanov
(1965) even urged the study of the concrete individual without considering
the theoretical problems involved until the necessary material was obtain
ed. One can see in this statement an invitation to look at the Soviet man as
228 LEVI RAHMANI
he really is, and not as he is expected to be. Along the same lines, Tugarinov,
the author of several works on the relationship between individual and
society, made the following unconventional statement:
The study of the individual has to have a place in science. After all, people not only
create history, think about the laws of nature and the destiny of mankind. Man lives
his own life, has his diseases, experiences his joys and sorrows, meditates about
his life .... One can barely conceive that the life, attitude and consciousness of the
individual in the primitive society ... was fused with the collective, tribe, family, etc.
It is less conceivable that in the future Communist society, individual and collective
will become one. (pp. 11-12)
Tugarinov (1965) made another point which is particularly significant in

the context of the current challenge to dogmatic positions. He took issue
with the traditional denial of the idea that there are certain psychological
features of the human personality, over and above those resulting from
belonging to a certain society and social class. While Tugarinov admitted
that each economic-social formation has its own laws of development,
he pointed out that there are universal historical laws of development. To
him, the qualities of the 'new' Soviet man represent a synthesis of general
historical and specific Communist characteristics. Such characteristics are:
rationality, responsibility, freedom - that is, "... man's capability to
think or act not by external constraint, but in accordance with his own
will, individuality and dignity", (p. 61) It is not surprising that in an edi
torial note the state-owned publishing house mentioned that not every
statement in Tugarinov's book is acceptable.
V. THEORETICAL ISSUES
The argument over the right to existence of a Soviet Marxist social psy
chology has essentially focused on the relationship between people's
ideological convictions and their psychological characteristics. In Soviet
textbooks of historical materialism, people's collective ideology is gener
ally presented in a chapter entitled 'forms of social consciousness', by
which is usually meant science, law, ethics, esthetics, politics, and religion.
Social-psychological phenomena have long been considered an insigni
ficant part of their social consciousness. Moreover, in the case of the Soviet
people, these tended to be considered as a negative component of their
social consciousness. It was pointed out that psychology includes the most
negative manifestations of people's consciousness, such as careerism,
religious and nationalistic beliefs, narrow interests, prejudices, etc. In

recent years, there has been a gradual departure from this position.
It is currently generally accepted that collective psychology is an im
portant part of social consciousness. There is disagreement, however, over
the statement that there is a higher and a lower level of the latter: collec
tive ideological convictions and collective psychology, respectively.
Some writers, like ?uravlev (1967), likened the relationship between ideol
ogy and collective psychology to that between the two stages of knowledge,
notably the sensory and logical stages. Others, like Gak (1962), made an
analogy to the relationship between emotional and rational processes. In
both instances, the underlying thought is that collective psychology is a
direct and immediate reflection of people's conditions of life. Another
tendency is to identify collective psychology with mass consciousness.
The latter was defined by Udelov (1968) as
... a certain quality possessed by various psychological structures. For instance, the
widely-spread knowledge about physical, chemical, biological and other phenomena,
which is used in everyday life, have such a quality, (p. 239)
There is another school of thought, represented by Parygin, which is

critical of the position outlined above. Parygin contended that collective
psychology1 should not be reduced to sensations and perceptions, as it
includes those thoughts about social life yet without an accurate and
systematic ideological formulation. Parygin also disagreed with the pro
position that collective psychology expresses socio-economical conditions
directly, and that an individual's psychology is an immediate product of
his concrete and specific life conditions. He emphasized that life conditions
specific for an individual produce the individual characteristics of his
personality only, and cannot account for his professional, class and national
characteristics. For Parygin, it is necessary to consider the social condi
tions of the life of all the members of that social category, which means
that collective psychology is not an inferior level of immediate reflection
of specific social reality in comparison with ideology, but it is a mediated
reflection of aspects not expressed in ideology, notably in the Soviet
Marxist ideology.
Concerning its components, Parygin assumed that collective psychology
has various aspects, being the product of three sources of influence : (a) it
is the result of both a spontaneous and organized influence of the imme
diate conditions of life of an individual or a group; (b) it is the result of a
230 LEVI RAHMANI
spontaneous as well as organized influencing of life conditions of the

whole class of which the individual is a member, of the whole society, or
even of the whole of mankind (e.g., the threat of a thermonuclear war has
an influence on the psychology of the whole world); and (c) it is the result
of changes in the social-psychological relationship within the environment.
Parygin felt that two issues should be distinguished in the definition of
collective psychology: (a) its characteristics, as compared with the domain
of ideology, and (b) its components. Unlike ideology, collective psychol
ogy is not a theoretically systematized consciousness. It is not the product
of an intellectual activity. Social-psychological phenomena represent a
fusion of emotional and rational, of conscious and unconscious elements.
There is no internal consistency between these elements, as in the case of
the 'theoretical consciousness'. There are contradictions between them.
An emotional community can be stronger than ideological barriers, yet it
is more fragile than ideological solidarity. There is a certain correlation
between ideological convictions and frame of mind (nastroenie). An
optimistic mood, stimulating to activity, corresponds more to a dialectical
and a materialistic outlook, which includes a belief in the knowability of
the world and in a continuous progression - whereas idealistic (particularly
religious) beliefs are rather accompanied by submissiveness, humility,
apathy, skepticism, lack of confidence in reason, and by alienation. Parygin
conceded, however, that there are cases of lack of correlation between
ideology and mood (for instance, the religious protest against the value of
life or the Utopian socialism which emerged from a philosophically
idealistic conception). Finally, in Parygin's view, the study of the inter
action between people's ideology and their psychology should include a
study of the psychological content of all the forms of social consciousness.
He predicted an extensive development of theoretical and empirical
studies, from the Marxist perspective, of the psychology of religion, law,
politics, ethics, esthetics and science.
Hence we witness an extensive debate in Soviet publications about the
relationship between ideology and social psychology. This is far removed
from the blunt denial of the need to investigate people's feelings in rela
tion to social events. As a matter of fact, Plekhanov already made a distinc
tion between ideology and social psychology. But he was criticized by
Soviet authors, for instance Fomina (1946), who felt that the very concept
of social psychology implied the biologizacija of social consciousness.
At least two practical applications of such investigations have been

pointed out. (1) A psychological means of overcoming the conservative and
negative elements of people's psychology, explained as being related to
stereotyped behavioral acts leading from the formation of habit to tradi
tions transmitted from one generation to the next. A negative, destructive
criticism is not enough. There is a need deliberately to create new tradi
tions by the consolidation of repeated conscious acts of behavior. For
instance, new holidays must be created on the basis of convictions, and
through man's consciousness. (2) The utilization of people's frame of mind
(nastroenie) as a social barometer, without which no politician can act
successfully. People's frame of mind often expresses the objective processes
of social change which do not yet have a theoretical reflection in ideology.
The task of the sociologist and of the politician is to discover the objective
sources of the frame of mind and to formulate their social significance.
The debate about the relationship between ideology and psychology
has certainly led to an argument over the definition of the discipline of
social psychology. Until recently, there was a clear-cut distinction between
psychology and historical materialism: the first was considered the
study of the individual consciousness, whereas the latter was concerned
with the ideological forms of social consciousness. With the renewed
interest in empirical and applied studies of the sociological and psychic
sociological aspects of Soviet society, the definitions of sociology and
psychology have come to involve sensitive problems, since consideration
of the economic structure of the society is imperative to a Soviet Marxist
sociologist or social-psychologist. As a matter of fact, the very notion of
sociology has not been in favor until recent years (Katz, 1971). Soviet
scholars currently tend to substitute the term 'historical materialism' by
that of 'Marxist sociology'. Furthermore, the psychological study of the
individual personality is also an innovation. It is, then, understandable
that there are divergent views regarding the relation between sociology
and psychology. However, the view that Marxist sociology provides the
general theory of social psychology has gained ground. It is ever more
accepted that social psychology is a relatively independent science, like
pedagogy, ethics or esthetics, which also deal with sociological phenomena.
Sociology is said to be mainly concerned with the system of objective
social relations within a social structure, the interaction of which must
comprehensively account for the aspects of the life of that society, includ
232 LEVI RAHMANI
ing social psychology. People's collective psychology has specific laws of

development which are studied precisely by social psychology (Rozin,
1962, p. 38).
VI. PERSONALITY TYPES
Another subject of recent interest is that of the description of personality

types developed in Soviet society. Soviet publications on the topics of
personality and social psychology have introduced the concept of 'social
types of personality', meaning the characteristics of the individual devel
oped in a specific social environment which influence the formations of his
outlook. It has been pointed out that a social-typological study of the
individual personality does not coincide with the analysis of the class
structure of society (Dautov, 1970) so it is worth mentioning in this context
that Parson's notion of the individual's 'social role' is accepted by Soviet
writers. Evidently, they point out that the concept is valid only if it is
related to the economic structure of the society. In like manner, Merton's
proposal to distinguish between types of personality on the basis of the
attitude to goals and means is regarded as realistic (Smirnov, 1970).
Again, it is suggested that the concept be related to the structure of the
society. In this way, it is conceded, such notions and proposals could be
applied to the analysis of socialist types of personality.
Although there are writers of rather orthodox orientation, in terms of
Soviet Marxism, who are reluctant to speak about the disappearance of
social classes in socialist countries, for instance Glezerman (1967), there is
a marked tendency to accept the presence of intra-class differences between
groups and between types of personalities in the Soviet Union. There are
two direction in the study of types of personality. First, types of personal
ity are distinguished exclusively on the basis of attitude toward work and
involvement in social activities. These characteristics are regarded as an
expression of the degree to which an individual is guided by his Communist
convictions. It has been pointed out that an individual's orientation
(napravlenost) indicates: (1) the features of class, nation, or social group
of which he is a member, which make him representative of a certain
social type; (2) the influence of his inner world on the fulfillment of his
social role; and (3) the general and concrete-historical laws of personality
development. Accordingly, Soxan described the degrees of Communist
conviction and four corresponding categories of individuals: (1) a Com
munist conviction which penetrates the whole psychological structure of

the personality: the political, social-economical and moral consciousness,
as well as the volitional-emotional sphere; (2) a strong Communist
conviction which is manifest in the political and social economic areas but
which is not felt on the ethical plane; (3) Communist principles observed
to some extent in the sphere of everyday relations, but with political
consciousness lagging behind Communist demands; and (4) a discord
between ideals and needs.
Platonov, the author of several works on social psychology and the
editor of a monograph entitled Personality and Work, also described (1965)
three basic types of workers in the Soviet Union: (1) workers for whom
the Communist moral code is a principle of their personal life; (2) workers
whose personality does not sufficiently show the principle of priority of
the social interest, who do not manifest the feeling of moral responsibility
toward the collective so that there are cases of violation of work discipline ;
and (3) workers with considerable deficiencies in their moral education
(associated with bad esthetic tastes), having a negligent attitude toward
work and lacking the worker's conscience and honor - the elements of
'psychological parasitism'. This category is said to be the least numerous.
Finally, in a study done at the 'Vladimir Il'ic' plant, Olsanskij (1965)
used a single major criterion for classifying types of personality, describing
eight aspects of workers' attitude toward work.
A second direction of study seems to be developing in sociology and
psychology: the analysis of types of personality related to professional
differences. There are different approaches to this topic. One classification
was proposed by a group of investigators who studied readers' interests,
based on a sociological classification of professions advanced by Zdra
vomyslov and Jadov (1964), and Ajvazjan (1965). The criterion of this
classification is the level of mechanization and the workers' qualifica
tions and technical education. A classification of intellectuals was made by
Vigdorcik who distinguished between: (1) the technical sphere; (2) state
apparatus and social organizations ; and (3) scientific and cultural workers.
So far, there are only a few works in this promising direction.
VII. SMALL GROUPS
Soviet authors have gone out of their way to emphasize the basic metho
234 LEVI RAHMANI
dological difference between their own approach and that of Western

scholars to the sociology and psychology of small groups. They contend that
the characteristics of the 'micro-environment' can be understood only in
the context of general social conditions and that they should be studied as
an element of the structure of the society at large. Western authors, they
say, notably the representatives of empirical sociology, regard the group as
the model of all social relations and tend to reduce the social environment
and interactions within it to the dynamics of group behavior. Furthermore,
they take issue with the common view that direct, face-to-face contact is
the major distinctive feature of a small group and the most relevant factor
in the development of the individual personality and its consciousness.
They argue that the definition of a group as any number of people interact
ing directly with each other is too loose. Such a definition includes groups
with different social meanings - family, neighborhood, work groups, play
groups and even crowds. There is a leitmotif in the Soviet argument:
social psychology must study the concrete role which personal contact has
in the formation of the individual's consciousness, but that there is no
reason to contend that this is the main characteristic of a social group.
The concrete circumstances of communication between people - the
object and content of such communication - are more relevant than the
psychological mechanism of the direct contact among the members of a
group. The formation of the consciousness of the modern man is more
under the influence of class consciousness than of the small group of which
he is a direct member. The latter is only an intermediate factor responsible
for 'individual' corrections.2
Following the same line of reasoning, Soviet authors have objected to
the classification of groups into those with and without close relations,
formal and informal, official and unofficial, etc. To them, this is abstract
formalism. They concede, however, that there are characteristics of small
groups which require further study. They emphasize the need for a quali
tative, content-based classification of groups. The study of groups should
start from defining their concrete social ends, the society in which they
exist, the goals and directions of their activity, and the functions fulfilled
by their members. It is not surprising, then, that sociometry is criticized
as a formal analysis of small groups. The 'index of group cohesion' does
not express the real degree of cohesion of a collective; it does not indicate
on which ground the relations of solidarity occurred or their nature. The
sociometric method has nevertheless been used by Soviet investigators

who admit that it can provide a picture of the current status of a group.
For instance, this method was used to analyze the interpersonal relations
between classmates. The findings were interpreted, however, as contra
dicting the sociometric theory, notably the 'sociodynamiclaw' (Kolominski,
1963, 1965).
VIII. APPLIED STUDIES
This section illustrates the approach of Soviet researchers when touching

sensitive issues, and is meant to provide insight into some aspects of
Soviet society.
A. The Attitude Toward Work
The Soviet man has been traditionally depicted in Russian political

literature as an individual devoted to the public interest, who subordinates
his welfare and the material reward of his effort to social goals. This has
been the language not only of pamphlets aimed at ideological propaganda,
but has been presented in academic works as a major psychological feature
of the 'new' man. For instance, a conclusion of the study referred to below
(Platonov, 1965) was that "... the attitude toward work as a necessary
vital need, the awareness of the unity between personal and public
interests in work activity, and the highly-developed collective spirit and
work pride" hold a significant place in the individual consciousness of
Soviet workers. However, the attitude toward work has become a topic of
social-psychological research and a more realistic picture has come out.
While many Soviet authors still reject the possibility of alienation in the
Soviet society, there are authors like Zvorykin (1969) who admit that this
is a more complex problem than it appears to be. As a matter of facts
Western works on this topic (e.g., Robert Blauner's (1964) analysis of
four criteria of alienation) are found interesting. Ojzerman, the author of
several works in Marxist philosophy, stated in his address to the Inter
national Congress of Philosophy held in Mexico in 1963 that the elimina
tion of private property does not automatically result in the disappearance
of the alienation of work from man. Both Zvorykin and Ojzerman have
the view that private property and alienation are a product of underdevel
opment of the means of production. The liquidation of private property
does not lead to an immediate development of the means of production to
236 LEVI RAHMANI
make them appropriate to new social relations. Zvorykin concluded that

only the further mechanization of production in the Soviet Union, in
particular of hard physical work, will lead to the disappearance of aliena
tion. To him, as to other Soviet investigators, alienation is manifest in
Socialist countries when work does not give satisfaction. This is why the
attitude toward work has become, in recent years, an important area of
research.
One such study investigated the attitude of workers at the Stankolinija
plant in Gorkij to their work. This is a highly mechanized plant, which at
the time of the study had about 2000 workers, engineers and service
personnel (sluzascie). There were 500 women, about 1200 people beyond
30 years of age, 97 people with college education and 258 people with
polytechnical education. A part of the study included several factories in
the Gorkij area. The worker population was classified into five professional
categories according to the Central Institute of Statistics in Moscow:
(1) manual workers not working on machines (e.g., bricklayers, carpenters,
and longshoremen who do not use mechanized devices); (2) manual
workers on machines; (3) machine operators; (4) automated machine
operators and (5) adjusters. The workers were asked if their work was
interesting. Table I shows the distribution of responses of workers in the
Gorkij area.
TABLE I
Satisfaction with content of work
Group I II HI IV V
% 69 40 80 44 98
The finding that the fifth group of workers showed the highest interest
in their work was explained by the fact that this group differs from the
others - in particular, from the second and fourth groups - in the breadth
of their professional and scientific-technical interests. The satisfaction in
creased with the combination of jobs; for instance, adjusters also had a
management job, and many of them had a foreman job.
The following table shows the distribution of responses given by
Stankolinija workers to the question: "What do you like most about your
work?"
TABLE II
Satisfaction with job as a whole
Group I II III V
Public value of work 35 12 39 32

Work collective 50 18 28 49
Creative initiative 46 - 42 80
Possibility of professional advance 46 - 42 80
Organization of work 16 - 46 32
Independence in work 27 6 30 20
Good wage 27 26 30 20
No satisfaction 7 12 5
Did not answer 2 6 5 9
Thus, the workers of the second group, who perform hard physical work,
seek their satisfaction in good wages. The study also showed that there
were negative factors inhibiting the development of stable professional
interests. In addition to quite specific management aspects, certain general
deficiencies were mentioned by 98% of the fourth group, 78% of the fifth
group, 73% of the third, and 28% of the second. Among the shortcomings
were the systems of norms and wages, although these were also labeled as
'organizational' deficiencies.
Finally, the workers' answers to the question "How and why
did you choose your occupation?" showed that the selection of a profes
sion depended on a variety of factors and circumstances and that their
diversity was related to the character of their work. Thus, the workers of
the first, second, and fifth groups, whose work is more diverse, who
acquired new techniques and have the chance to get higher ratings, expressed
more diverse, stable and profound interests; they exhibited a conscious
need to work. By contrast, the workers engaged in a hard physical work
(the second group and a part of the third and first groups) showed narrow
and vaguely expressed professional interests. Furthermore, the study found
that professional groups of workers also differed from each other in
general outlook, not only in terms of content, but also regarding psycho
logical qualities. The unskilled workers (the second group and a part of the
first and the third groups) were said to manifest a discrepancy between
their views and values, on the one hand, and their deeds, on the other.
There were violations of discipline, contradictions between personal and
238 LEVI RAHMANI
public interests, indifference toward public causes (del?), willingness to

perform only more highly paid work.
Another group of studies on the attitudes of Soviet people toward work
was devoted to the investigation of occupational preferences of high
school graduates. These studies have also shown that, in general, the
aspirations of high-school students did not coincide with the needs of the
Soviet society. One of these studies was sponsored by the Institute of
Psychology of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR in
1962. 1366 8th-grade students in Moscow schools were asked about their
occupational interests. Of 658 boys and 708 girls, 21% did not yet have an
occupational preference; 28% aspired to be workers; 11.5% engineers and
technicians; 2.5% agricultural workers; 11.5% physicians; 6% educators;
7.5% writers and artists; and 12% other occupations. 40.5% were inte
rested in knowledge and 26% had predominantly practical interests.
Another study done by the sociological team of the Laboratory of Eco
nomic-Mathematical Research of the Novosibirsk University showed that
80% of the graduates of Novosibirsk schools planned to continue their
studies and only 8% planned to start working. However, only 44% of the
graduates who aspired to go to college were able to do so because of
objective conditions, whereas 32% of the graduates went to work. The
highest interest was expressed for occupations requiring higher education
or advanced qualifications. 'Radio technician' and 'geologist' were among
the most preferred occupations, whereas service professions were among
the least preferred. Work professions had an average attraction, among
the most popular being those of chemist, constructor, Diesel mechanic.
The least popular occupations were those of timber-cutting, house-paint
ing, telegraph and telephone operators. Among the agricultural occupa
tions, the most popular attraction was that of mechanizer and the least
preferred was that of cattle-breeder.
There is a growing tendency to acknowledge that there is a need for a
psychological preparation of cadres for the Soviet economy. The need to
study the psychology of professional groups has been emphasized. It has
been noted, for example, that supply and sales workers tended not only to
justify but also to praise individuals who assumed the unofficial role of
supply agents. Writers who stressed the need the change the youth's
attitude toward various occupations pointed out that this is a social
psychological problem. A particular point was made of the need to change
the psychology of technical and administrative personnel in industry. It

was mentioned that the old system of planning and control, which prevail
ed in the Soviet economy over the course of several decades, has laid
its imprint on the psychology of this layer of people. The endeavor to
produce at any cost, the unwillingness to take into account material
waste and to consider the efficiency of production, the attempt to conceal
the internal reserves of the plant in order to obtain lower norms - all these
and similar phenomena were described as characteristic of the conscious
ness and the behavior of a large segment of Soviet executive personnel.
B. Religion in the Soviet Union

A relatively extensive study of the nature of religious beliefs in the Soviet
Union has been conducted in the past decade. Although the validity of
some of the findings may appear doubtful, since the studies are expected to
prove certain tenets of the Soviet ideology, they are interesting and in
structive. It is certainly very difficult to do a genuine sociological and
psychological study of religion in the Soviet Union. The investigators
themselves have acknowledged this difficulty. Some have avoided the
method of questionnaires, which was thought inappropriate because the
believers mistrust questions and may give formal answers. Instead, these
researchers aimed at an open conversation focused on certain topics. For
example, in one such study the conversation focused on such questions as :
what circumstances led you to religion?; what does religion offer you?;
what do you consider good, bad, or a sin?; what is more important: your
own interests or the interests of the community?; can a non-believer be a
man of high morality?; do you know the moral code of the builder
of Comunism?; what do you accept of it, and what do you not
accept?
Several institutions have been involved in these studies, including the
Leningrad sector of History of Religion and Atheism of the Institute of
History of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.3 and the Chair of
Philosophy of the Academy of Social Sciences of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In some cases, the investiga
tions included large samples. For example, a study in White Russia
included 7000 adults and about 2000 school children (Drasnikov, 1966).
In this study two villages were selected per ten villages. In some villages the
study included the residents of a segment of a street, or of one or two
240 LEVI RAHMANI
multi-apartment buildings. In another study done in the Ukraine, another

method was employed. Rather extensive (Tancer and Duluman, 1964)
studies have been done in recent years in several regions of the Russian
Republic (Moscow, Leningrad, Voronez, Rjazan, Orel, etc.), the Ukraine,
Moldavia, White Russia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan.
The studies largely agree with the classification of Soviet believers into
the following categories: (1) people who are greatly under the influence of
religion; (2) people for whom religion does not play an important role,
although it is part of their outlook; and (3) people who actually do not
believe in God, but who observe religious rites by inertia. The majority is
said to belong to the second and third groups.
The Soviet studies generally show that rural people are inclined toward
religious beliefs because of their strong tendency to maintain ancestral
traditions. The observance of the old ethical norms is identified with the
observance of old religious traditions. It was noted that the influence of
the opinion of the members of a collective is exerted mainly within the
social-political and production sphere of activity of each member of the
collective farm. The members of the collective are not indifferent to how
their actions are regarded by their countrymen, neighbors, or relatives.
Thus, even non-believers, including young people, dare not violate the
unwritten laws of the old morality, and observe the ceremonies of christen
ing, marriage, funerals, etc. (Filimonov, 1967). The strongest influence of
parents on their children was noted in the Baptist, Adventist, and Jehova's
Witness sects. For instance, 402 of the 429 members of the Baptist com
munity in Pjatigorsk joined the sect under the influence of close relatives
(husband, wife, sister, brother). Only eight of the 43 people who left the
sect during one year had relatives who were not believers.
An instructive observation was made of the collective farm 'Put Il'ica'
in the Pskov province (Krasnikov, 1966). There was no active church in
the area. The farm had a school, a hospital, a library and a club. All the
residents had radio and many had television sets. Nevertheless, many
members of the collective farm were found to keep icons in their houses,
to participate in religious rites and to baptise their children.
Soviet researchers have pointed out/that the migration of millions of
peasants to cities has resulted in a transfer of old rural traditions and
habits related to religion. It is precisely these people who fill the ranks of
unskilled workers. A study found that in the Vyborg district of Leningrad,
the parents of 37% of the baptised children born in 1963 were construction
workers of rural extraction (Aptekman, 1965).
Another factor described as contributing to the presence of religious
beliefs is the educational level. The 1959 census found that 1.5% of the
population of the Soviet Union between 9 and 49 years of age were illiter
ate. At the higher ages, the percentage was considerably higher. A study
has shown that 82% of the members of the Orthodox church in the work
men's settlement Kosmynino in the Kostroma province were illiterate and
almost illiterate, 16.5% went through 4-6 grades, and only 1.5% had a 7-10
grade education (Karpovskij, 1964). 80% of the Moscow Adventist com
munity were found to be almost illiterate. The majority of the members of
many religious communities is said to consist of unskilled, maintenance
workers.
Finally, the studies have found that housewives play the most significant
role in the religious communities of the Soviet Union. They represent the
majority of believers and among them are activists in various sects.
(According to the 1959 census, 89% of the 12.8 million housekeepers are
women.)
A conspicuous feature of the studies on religion is the recognition of the
involvement of diverse social and psychological factors. Although the
presence of religious beliefs in the Soviet Union is consistently described
as a 'remnant' of the society preceding socialism and is explained by the
fact that the development of social consciousness is lagging behind changes
in the economic-social structure of the society, it is now largely agreed that
this is not enough to explain religion in the Soviet Union. The most im
portant conclusion of the studies done so far is that for believers in the
Soviet Union, religion is equivalent to morality; they feel that there is no
moral life without religion. The Christian religion is thought to consist in
the observance of certain generally human moral principles. Believers said
that they had had feelings of guilt and shame for their behaviour and had a
desire to correct themselves. They had had deviant behavior before becom
ing religious, had been in conflict with their surroundings, fellow workers
and family. The feelings of guilt developed under the influence of social
condemnation and opposition.
The new moral feelings were in acute contradiction to their bad aspirations, feelings and
deeds. An internal conflict arose. However, the energy of the new stimulation was
insufficient and the moral transformation of the personality did not take place. Why?
242 LEVI RAHMANI
First because the bad feelings, thoughts and actions became habits, stable stereotypes,
and deep-rooted features of character .... Second, because the influence of the environ
ment was not strong enough, temporary and unorganized. As a result, the individual
is in a state of confusion: he cannot live in the same fashion any longer, but yet cannot
change his way of life. In such difficult periods of his life, the individual particularly
needs the participation ... of the collective .... If he does not get the support of the
Soviet collective (unfortunately, such situations still happen), then appear the false
'helpers', churchmen and sectarians who take advantage of hard times in one's life to
attract one to religion. (Ugrinovic and Jablokov, 1967)
Along the same line, Koltunjuk, a candidate in philosophy and a depart

ment head at the Party Regional Committee of Rovno, pointed out the
need to analyze the psychological problems involved in atheist propaganda.
He wrote (1971): "Practice shows that the problems of atheist education
cannot be solved without the study of the reactions of various groups of
believers and non-believers to atheist propaganda." He referred to the
results of a study done at the Chair of Scientific Atheism of the Kiev
Pedagogical Institute, summarized in Table III.
These findings were interpreted as a demonstration of the relationship
between degree of religious belief and attitude toward atheist propaganda:
the stronger the religious attraction, the more negative is the attitude to
ward atheism. It was pointed out that 77.3% of the convinced believers
(158 out of 205 people) have a negative attitude toward atheist propaganda,
and only 17.2% (20 out of 116) have a positive attitude. It was also con
cluded that the church appartenance is related to the attitude toward
atheist propaganda: a positive or indifferent attitude was more character
istic of Orthodox believers (325 out of 463 who answered this question);
the majority of the Evangelical Christian-Baptists (ECB) (54 out of 103)
expressed a negative attitutde. Finally, it was pointed out that the majority
of the 205 believers who expressed a negative attitude toward atheist
propaganda were active religious propagandists.
Such findings have been prompting Soviet investigators to a deeper
understanding of the socio-psychological problems involved in their
atheist propaganda. For instance, Klibanov, the author of a monograph
on religion, offered a rather extensive analysis of the psychology of religi
ous sects and of 'religious alienation' (Klibanov, 1969). The conclusions
reached by Ugrinovic and Jablokov seem to be shared by other investi
gators. They pointed out that atheist propaganda should be differentiated.
The approach to the 'vacillating' believers who are not convinced by
religious dogma, but observe the religious tradition, should differ from
fc.S
NOfl\H"OTJ-H
O co co O o4 en en
31
Lt?
O
! t- -??i O Tf *-i -rt f-.
2
(S M fO (S O
il On on *-i oo t-* T-H in

1-H 1-1 ?O
II oo r- so o m cs so
o 13 so so co so cs *o
I
I
OrthnOO\00
ll
so ?rj r- oo m so ?r>
i ?o ?o rf ?r> so On
2?
O *o ~ ? <* <* ~ '3 s
J? ?S
g ? g*?3?D gt?
?> \?3
se 44-1 ' ?J te '-, *ZJ
'S &
< Ok
244 LEVI RAHMANI
the approach to convinced believers. With the first category, the most
important thing is to arouse a conscious attitude toward religion. It is
relatively easy to raise their interest in the questions of the origin and
essence of religion, the origin of religious holidays and rites, and to make
them realize the harm religion does to a socialist society.
On the other hand, Ugrinovic and Jablokov suggested that the approach
to convinced believers is more complex. The primary task should be to
overcome their alienation from Soviet society. It should consist not merely
in the criticism of their religious ideology from the vantage point of the
materialist philosophy. The psychological status of the believer should be
considered. A constant ideological attack might be perceived by such a
believer as a violation of his inner independence, of his spiritual freedom,
and may consolidate his resistance. The believers should be brought closer
to the community, they should be offered the perspective of their real
interests and joys. Finally, atheist propaganda should be directed to
specific aspects of the various religions - Orthodox, Baptist, Catholic,
Lutheran, Muslim, etc.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
There are several implications regarding the renewed interest in social

psychology in the Soviet Union:
(1) There is a recognition of the fact that the psychology of the Soviet
individual is not a direct and one-sided product of the Communist ideology
and that negative aspects are not simply remnants of the past. A basic
tenet of Soviet Marxism has been that the psychology of individuals and
of masses of people is an expression of the economic structure of the
society. The main psychological features of the Soviet man have been
regarded as reflecting the collective ownership of the means of production
and as being under the direct and unique influence of the Soviet ideology.
Underlying the acceptance of social psychology as a genuine science - this
has not been at all a smooth process - is, then, the acceptance of the exis
tence of other factors manifest in the psychology of Soviet people.
(2) It shows willingness to study aspects of the Soviet society considered
negative from the vantage point of Soviet ideology. As a matter of fact,
Lenin wrote about the 'non-antagonistic' contradictions of a socialist
society, which are distinguished from the antagonistic contradictions of the
societies divided into classes, and which are supposed to be the motive
force of the development of a classless society. However, the significance
of these non-antagonistic contradictions in the Soviet Union has been
traditionally played down, to say the least, and certainly has been denied
a sociological and psycho-sociological analysis. The negative aspects, the
existence of which were criticallly recognized in the political press, were
presented as remnants of capitalism in people's consciousness. The follow
ing four kinds of non-antagonistic contradictions have been described as
present in Soviet society (Smirnov, 1970) : 1) contradictions between innova
tion and conservatism, creativity and dogmatism, knowledge andignoran
ce; 2) contradictions between group interests: conflicts between different
professions, between intellectual and manual workers, between town and
country, between geographic areas; 3) contradictions linked to personal,
egoistic motivations; and 4) contradictions between expectations and
reality. The presence of contradictions of a political nature, considered as
antagonistic contradictions, has also been admitted as manifest in a
socialist society, but this kind of contradiction has not been mentioned as
manifest in the Soviet Union. Instead, the writer referred to the events in
Czeckoslovakia, which led to the Soviet intervention in 1968.
(3) It is recongized that historical materialism cannot serve as a substi
tute for concrete studies of social phenomena in the Soviet Union, that it
provides only the ideological background for specific social disciplines, in
particular for social psychology. This implies a departure from the idealized
image of the 'builder of Communism' and a growing interest in the under
standing of the actual psychology of Soviet people. The concomitant
encouragement of the study of collective psychology, as well as of the
psychology of the actual Soviet man, points to significant change in the
outlook of Soviet officialdom.
(4) There is an increasing recognition of the role of psychological
factors in the development of a socialist society in the U.S.S.R. We may
expect the use of psychological knowledge for the elimination of negative
aspects and for the penetration of the principles of Soviet ideology into
mass consciousness.
(5) There is a departure from the claim that social psychology is a tool
of imperialistic ideology. The significance of works done by Western, in
particular American, scholars is recognized and considered applicable
- albeit only partially and with 'corrections' - to the study of Soviet
246 LEVI RAHMANI
society. The acceptance of social psychology as a genuine area of study,

together with cybernetics and semiotics (the study of signs and symbols),
is to be seen in the framework of the 'rehabilitation' of disciplines formerly
regarded as an expression of the decadence of science in the imperialistic
phase of capitalist society.
Abstract. Following the evolution of Soviet social psychology is rewarding not only in
itself but also for the light it throws on current events and trends in contemporary
Soviet philosophy in general.
NOTES
1 The Russian term 'obscestvennaja psixologija', meaning 'social psychology', is used

for both the discipline and its subject matter; that is, group or collective psychology.
To avoid confusion, the second meaning of 'obscestvennaja' is translated in this text as
'collective', although it may not mean exactly the same thing.
2 Bueva and Koval'zon (1969) mentioned in a footnote that this was also the position
of Katz and Lazarsfeld, who wrote about a two-step flow of information.
3 A study of the religious beliefs in the Catcin district of the Leningrad region was
undertaken by the Sector, in collaboration with the Museum of History of Religion and
Atheism, at the request of the Leningrad Committee of the Communist Party, with the
purpose of analyzing the causes of the poor results of atheist propaganda.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ajvazjan, M. S., 'O metodike issledovanija vlijanija processa truda na li?nost' (Method.
of Study of the Influence of Work on the Person). Voprosy filosofii 1965,6, 73-82.
Alekseev, V. N., 'Vzaimodejstvie ideologii i obscestvennoj psixologii' (The Interaction
Between Ideology and Social Psychology), in Problemy obscestvennoj psixologii
(Questions of Social Psychology) (ed. by R. V. N. Kolbanovskij & B. F. Porsnev),
Mysl', Moskva, 1965, str. 235-272.
Allport, G., Pattern and Growth in Personality, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York,
1961.
Anufriev, E. A., Social'naja roV i aktivnost' licnosti (Social Role and Activity of the Per
son), Moskva 1971.
Aptekman, D. M., 'Priciny zivucestvii religioznogo obrjada krescenija' (Causes of
Vitality of the Religious Rite of Christening), Voprosy filosofii 1965,3, 84-89.
Asch, S., 'Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgement,
in Groups, Leadership and Men (ed. by H. Guetzkow), The Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh,
1951.
Bales, R. F., Group Dynamics Theory and Research, Illinois 1953.
Baskin, M. P., Krizis burzuaznogo soznanija (The Crisis of Bourgeois Consciousness),
Izd. AN SSSR, Moskva, 1962.
Bekhterev, V. M., General Principles of Human Reflexology (transi, by E. & W. Murphy
from the Russian of the 4th edition, 1928, International Publishers, New York, 1917.
Bekhterev, V. M., La R?flexologie Collective. Traduit du Russe, Adapt? et Compl?t? par

N. Kostleff (1951), Delachaux & Niestl?, Neuchatel, 1921.
Blauner, R., Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry, University
of Chicago Press, 1964.
Borin, A., 'The Psychology of the Penny and of the Million', Literaturnaja gazeta,
April 14, 1966.
Bueva, L. P., Formirovanie individual 'nogo soznanija v processeperexodak kommunizmu
(The Formation of Individual Consciousness During the Transition to Communism)
MGU, 1965.
Bueva, L. P., 'O metodologii izucenija soznanija licnosti v socialisticeskom obscestve'
(On the Methodology of Study of Individual Consciousness in Socialist Society), in
Obscestvennaja psixologija: kommunisticeskoe vospitanie, Moskva 1967.
Bueva, L. P., Social'naja sreda i soznanie licnosti (Social Environment and Conscious
ness of the Person), MGU, 1968.
Bueva, L. N. and Koval'zon, M. Ja., 'Social'naja sreda i formirovanie licnosti' (Social
Environment and the Formation of Personality), in Sociologija i ideologija (Sociology
and Ideology) (ed. by R. L. A. Volovik), Nauka, Moskva, 1969, str. 235-247. A
joint publication of the Institute of Applied Social Research and the Institute of
Philosophy (both affiliated with the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.), and the
Soviet Sociological Association.
Dautov, T. M., Licnost' kak sociologiceskaja problema (The Sociological Problem of
Personality), Alma-Ata, Nauka, 1970.
Du Bois, C, The People ofAlor: A Social-Psychological Study of an East Indian Island,
1944, Reprinted by The Harvard University Press, 1960.
Filimonov, E. G., 'Priciny suscestvovanija religioznyx perezitkov v Sovetskom Sojuze'
(Causes of Religious Remnants in the Soviet Union), in Nauka protiv religii:
Obscestvo i religija (Science Versus Religion : Society and Religion), R. P. N. Fedoseev
i dr. Moskva, Nauka, 1967.
Fomina, V. A., 'Recenzija na knigu G. V. Plexanova: O materialisticeskom ponimanii
istorii' (Review of Plekhanov's Book: The Materialistic Outlook on History),
Sovetskaja kniga 1946,2.
Fraser, J. M., Psychology: General, Industrial, Social, Philosophical Library, New York,
1956.
Gak, G. M., Ucenie ob obscestvennom soznanij v svete teorii poznanija (The Theory of
Social Consciousness in the Light of Epistemology), Izd. VPS i AON, Moskva, 1960.
Glezerman, G. E., Istoriceskij materializm i razvitie socialisticeskogo obscestva (Histor
ical Materialism and Development of Socialist Society), M., Gt., 1967.
Gorjaceva, A. L, 'O nekotoryx kategorijax social'noj psixologii' (Some Categories of
Social Psychology), in Problemy obscestvennoj psixologii (ed. by R. V. N. Kolbanov
skij and B. F. Porsnev), 1965, str. 196-234.
Gvisiani, D. M., Organizacija i upravlenie (Organization and Management), Nauka,
Moskva, 1970.
Jadov, V. A., Ideologija kak forma duxovnoj dejatel'nosti obscestva (Ideology as a Form
of Spiritual Acitivity of Society), GU., Leningrad, 1961.
Karpovskij, E. A., 'Priciny suscestvovanija religioznyx perezitkov v SSSR i puti ix
preodolenija' (Causes of Religious Remnants in the USSR and the Means of Over
coming them), Voprosy filosofii 1964,4.
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F., Personal Influence, Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois 1955.,
Katz, Z., 'Sociology in the Soviet Union', Problems of Communism 1971.
248 LEVI RAHMANI
Kelle, V. 2. and Koval'zon, M. Ja., Formy obscestvennogo soznanija (Forms of Social

Consciousness), Gospolitizdat, Moscow, 1959.
Klibanov, A. I., Religioznoe sektanstvo i sovremennost' (Religious Sectarianism and the
Contemporary World), Nauka, Moskva, 1969.
Kolbanovskij, V. N., 'Predmet, metody i aktual'nye problemy sovetskoj obscestvennoj
psixologii' (The Subject Matter, Methods and Current Problems of Soviet Social
Psychology), in Problemy obscestvennoj psixologii (Problems of Social Psychology)
(R. V. N. Kolbanovskij and B. F. Porsnev), Mysl', Moskva, 1965.
Kolbanovskij, V. N., 'V. I. Lenin i problemy social'noj psixologii' (Lenin and Problems
of Social Psychology), Ibid. 1956, str. 52-94.
Kolominskij, Ja. L., 'Put izucenija i formirovanija licnyx vzaimootnosenij mezdu
ucenikami klassa' (A Way of Study and Formation of Personal Relations Among
Classmates), Voprosy psixologii 1963,2, 101-108.
Kolominskij, Ja. L., Nekotorye eksperimental'nye dannye dlja kritiki sociometrii (Some
Experimental Findings for the Criticism of Sociometry), in Problemy obscestvennoj
psixologii (ed. by R. V. N. Kolbanovskij and B. F. Prosnev), str. 426-447.
Koltunjuk, S. V., 'K probl?me effektivnosti naucno-ateisticeskogo vospitanija' (The
Problem of Efficiency of Scientific-Atheist Education), Voprosy naucnogo ateizma
1971,12, 134-148.
Kon, I. S., Pozitivizm v sociologii. Istoriceskijocerk (Positivism in Sociology. A Histor
ical Study), LGU, 1964.
Kovalev, A. S., 'Psixologija licnosti i social'naja psixologija' (Psychology of Personality
and Social Psychology), Voprosy psixologii 1963,6, 23-24.
Koval'zon, M. Ja. and Ugrinovic, D. M., 'Obscestvennaja psixologija i kommunistices
koe vospitanie' (Social Psychology and Communist Education), in Obscestvennaja
psixologija i kommunisticeskoe vospitanie (ed. by R. D. M. Ugrinovic), MGU, 1967,
str. 3-39.
Krasnikov, N. P. (R.), Voprosy preodolenij religioznyx perezitkov v SSSR (Problems of
Overcoming Religious Remnants in the USSR). M.-L., Nauka, 1966.
Kremnev, B. S., Problema obscestva i licnosti v sovremennoj amerikanskoj psixo
sociologii (The Relation Between Society and Personality in Contemporary Amer
ican Psycho-Sociology), 1959.
Kuzmin, E. S., 'O predmete social'noj psixologii' (The Subject-Matter of Social
Psychology), Voprosy filosofii 1963,1, 142-145.
Kuzmin, E. S., 'K voprosu o social'noj psixologii' (The Question of Social Psychology),
in Problemy obscej i industrial'noj psixologii (Problems of General and Industrial
Psychology) (ed. by R. B. C. Ananev and B. F. Lomov), LGU, 1963, str. 141-155.
Levitov, N. D., Psixologija (Psychology) (A Textbook for Teachers at Professional and
Technical Schools) Izd. Vys. skola, Moskva, 1964.
Mansurov, N. S., 'Social'naja psixologija' (Social Psychology), in Sovremennaja psixo
logija v kapitalisticeskix stranax (Contemporary Psychology in Capitalist Countries)
ed. by R. E. V. Soroxova, Izd. AN SSSR, Moskva, 1963, str. 236-278.
Materialy XXIV s'ezda KPSS (Proceedings of the 24th Congress of the CPSU), Gt.,
Moskva, 1971.
Mills, C. W., The Marxists, Dell Publ. Co., New York, 1962.
Ojzerman, T. I., Celovek i ego otcuzdenie' (Man and his Alienation), in Celovek iepoxa
(Man and his Time), R. P. N. Fedoseev i dr. Moskva, Nauak, 1964, str. 104-119.
Ojzerman, T. 1., 'Filosifija i obydennoe soznanie' (Philosophy and Ordinary Conscious
ness), Voprosy filosofii 1961,A.
Ot?anskij, V. B., 'Licnost' i social'nye cennosti' (Personality and Social Values), in

Sociologija v SSSR (Sociology in the U.S.S.R.), Vol. I, R. G. V. Osipov, Mysl',
Moskva, 1965, str. 471-530.
Osgood, C. E., 'An Analysis of the Cold War Mentality', Journal of Social Issues, 27
(1961), 12-19.
Osipov, G. V., Sovremennaja burzuaznaja sociologija (Contemporary Bourgeois
Sociology), Nauka, Moskva 1964.
Osipov, G. V., 'Celi i opyt sociologiceskix issledovanija v SSSR' (The Goals and Results
of Sociological Research in the U.S.S.R.), in Sociologija i ideologija, 1969, str. 303
315.
Parsons, T., Theories of Society, Vol. I (Reprinted in 1965), Free Press, New York, 1961,
Parygin, B. D., Sovescanie po problemam social'noj psixologii (A Conference on
Problems of Social Psychology), Voprosy psixologii, 1963,3, 181-183.
Parygin, B. D., Social'naja psixologija kak nauka (Social Psychology as Science), iz. 2,
Lenizdat, Leningrad, 1967.
Parygin, B. D., Osnovy social'no-psixologiceskoj teorii (Foundations of Social-Psycho
logical Theory), Mysl', Moskva, 1971.
Pavlov, I. V. and Kazimir?uk, V. P., (R.), Upravlenie, Sociologija, Pravo (Government,
Sociology, Law), Jurid. Lit., Moskva, 1971.
Platonov, K. K. (R.), Licnost 'i trud (Personality and Work), Mysl', Moskva, 1965.
Platonov, K. K. (R.), Cto izucaet obscestvennaja psixologija (What is the Subject of
Social Phychology?), Znanie, Moskva, 1971.
Platonov, K. K. (R.), 'Problema licnosti v obscestvennoj psixologii' (The Problem of
Personality in Social Psychology). Voprosy psixologii, 1972,1, 122-129.
Platonov, K. K. (R.), 'Problema licnosti v obscestvennoj psixologii', in Problemy
obs?estvennoj psixologii, 1965, str. 11-51.
Platonov, K. K. (R.), 'Voprosy social'noj psixologii v rabotax G. V. Plexanova'
(Questions of Social Psychology in Plekhanov's Works), Ibid, 1965, str. 95-116.
Porsnev, B. F., 'Elementy social'noj psixologii' (Elements of Social Psychology), in
Problemy obscestvennoj psixologii, 1965, str. 171-195.
Postanovlenie CK KPSS, 'O merax po dal'nejsemu razvitiju obscestvennyx naukax i
povyseniju ix roli v kommunisticeskom stroitel'stve' (Resolution of CC PCSU on
Measures for the Further Development of Social Sciences and the Increase of Their
Role in The Building of Communism), Pravda, 1967, August 22.
Reisner, M., 'Problema psixologii v teorii istoriceskogo materializma' (The Problem of
Psychology in the Theory of Historical Materialism), Vestnik socialisticeskoj akademii
1923,3 210-255.
Rozin, V. P., Vvedenie v marksistskuyu sociologiju (Introduction to Marxist Sociology).
LGU, 1962.
Rozin, V. P., 'Marksistskaja sociologija i obscestvennaja psixologija' (Marxist Sociol
ogy and Social Psychology), in Problemy obscestvennoj psixologii, 1965, pp. 119-126.
Rubinstejn, S. L., By tie i soznanie (Being and Consciousness), Izd. AN S.S.S.R., Mos
kva, 1957.
Sarbin, T. R., 'Role Theory', in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I (ed. by G. E.
Lindsey and Aronson), Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1954; 2nd. edition, 1968.
Sayles, L., Behavior of Industrial Work Groups, Wiley, New York, 1958.
Selivanov, V. I., 'Konkretnye uslovija zizni i formirovanie licnosti' (Concrete Life
Conditions and the Fomation of Personality), in Problemy formirovanija licnosti i
volevoi process (Problems of Personality Development and the Volitional Process)
250 LEVI RAHMANI
(ed.by R. V. 1. Selivanov) (Ucenye zapiski, Vol. 59) Prosvescenie, Moskva, 1968.

(A publication of Ryazan State Pedagogical Institute; transactions of the Department
of Psychology.)
Semenov, V. S., 'Problemy razvitija i bor'by marksistskoj i burzuaznoj sociologii'
(Problems of Development and the Antagonism between Marxist and Bourgeois
Sociology), in Sociologija i ideologija, 1969, str, 55-66.
Smirnov, G. L., Sovetskij celovek. Formirovanie socialisticeskogo tipa licnosti (Soviet
Man. The Formation of a Socialist Type of Personality), Gt., Moskva, 1971.
Soroxova, E. V., Mansurov, N. S., and Platonov, K. K., Problemy obscestvennoj
psixologii' (Problems of Social Psychology), Voprosy psixologii 1963,5.
Sublin, V. N., 'Molodez vstupaet v zizn' (Youth Starts out in Life), Voprosy filosofii
1965,5. Translated in Sociology in the U.S.S.R. (ed. by S. P. Dunn), International
Arts and Sciences Press, White Plains, New York, pp. 18-30.
Tancer, V. K. and Duluman, E. K., 'Opyt konkretnogo issledovanija xaraktera
religioznyx predstavlenii' (An Applied Study of the Nature of Religious Beliefs),
Voprosy filosofii 1964,10.
Trapeznikov, S. P., 'Razvitie obscestvennyx nauk i povysenie ix roli v kommunistices
kom stroitel'stve' (The Development of Social Sciences and the Increase of Their Role
in the Building of Communism), Voprosy filosofii 1967,11.
Tugarinov, V. P., Licnost' i obscestvo (Personality and Society), Mysl', Moskva, 1965.
Udelov, A. K., Struktura obscestvennogo soznanija (The Structure of Social Conscious
ness), Mysl', Moskva, 1968.
Ugrinovic, D. M. and Jablokov, I. N., 'Izucenie religioznogo soznanija verujuscix v
socialisticeskom obscestve i zadaci ateisticeskogo vospitanija' (The Study of Religious
Consciousness of Believers in a Socialist Society and the Tasks of Atheistic Propagan
da), in Obscestvennaja psixologija i kommunisticeskoe vospitanie, 1967, str. 140-164.
Vainstajn, I., Review of A. Zalkind's Book Ocerk kultury revoljucionnogo vremeni
(Essay of a Culture of a Revolutionary Time), Pod znamenem marksizma (Under the
Banner of Marxism) 1924,4-5, 297-300.
Vvedenskij, B. A. (R.). Bol'saja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija (Large Soviet Encyclopedia),
1957, 2nd edition, Vol. 40, pp. 196-197.
Vigdorcik, V. E., 'Intelligencija i ee struktura' (Intelligentsia and its Structure), in
Klassy, Social'nye Sloi i Grupy v SSSR (Classes, Social Layers and Groups in the
U.S.S.R.) (ed. by R. C. A. Stepanyan and V. S. Semenov), Nauka, Moskva, 1968
pp. 167-170.
Zalkind, A. V., Ocerk kul'tury revoljucionnogo vremeni, Rabotnik Prosvescenija,
Moskva, 1924.
Zamoskin, Ju. S., 'Krisiz burzuaznoj ideologii i licnost" (The Crisis of Bourgeois
Ideology and the Person), Voprosy filosofii 1965,2, 101-109.
Zamoskin, Ju. S., Krizis burzuaznogo individualizma i licnost' (The Crisis of Bourgeois
Individualism and Personality), Nauka, Moscow, 1966.
Zdravomyslov, A. G., Rozin, V. P., and Jadov, V. A., Man and his Work. (English,
translation in 1970), International Arts and Sciences Press, New York, 1967.
Zvorykin, A. A., 'Social'nye uslovija, texnika i probl?me otcuzdenija truda' (Social
Conditions, Technology and the Problem of Alienation of Work), in Sociologija i
ideologija, 1969, str. 67-79.
2uravlev, V. V., Marksizm-Leninism ob otnositel'noj samostojatel'nosti obscestvennogo
soznanija (Marxism-Leninism on the Relative Independence of Social Consciousness),
Vys. skola, Moskva, 1961.

Social Psychology in The Soviet Union

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology in The Soviet Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology in the Soviet Union

Author(s): Levy Rahmani

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SOVIET UNION

Along with the recent development of sociological studies, and largely as

I. RESEARCH AND INSTITUTIONS

A wide range of topics are currently studied in Soviet institutions for

Studies in Soviet Thought 13 (1973) 218-250. All Rights Reserved.

sociological, psychological and pedagogical research. The Laboratory of

by governmental organizations in Leningrad. Studies of the Laboratory of

II. A HISTORICAL OUTLINE

There has been considerable interest in social or collective psychology in

In the late 1950's, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists began

tute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences, and a symposium took

III. THE ATTITUDE TOWARD WESTERN APPROACHES

Soviet scholars have basically taken a critical position toward trends in

Works of American sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers and

Thus, somewhat paradoxically, Zamoskin criticized American scholars

What actually happens in the development of contemporary sociology? We must admit

We see, indeed, that the promoters of a Soviet Marxist social psychology

solved by administrative and political measures, but require taking into

IV. REASONS UNDERLYING THE RENEWED INTEREST

To be sure, the proponents of a Marxist social psychology have to fight

of history. It is implied that nowadays there are significant intraclass

illusions. It is based on a more restricted amount of information, related to

It is reasonably concluded that the psychology of people in Soviet society

Tugarinov (1965) made another point which is particularly significant in

religious and nationalistic beliefs, narrow interests, prejudices, etc. In

There is another school of thought, represented by Parygin, which is

spontaneous as well as organized influencing of life conditions of the

At least two practical applications of such investigations have been

ing social psychology. People's collective psychology has specific laws of

Another subject of recent interest is that of the description of personality

munist conviction which penetrates the whole psychological structure of

VII. SMALL GROUPS

dological difference between their own approach and that of Western

sociometric method has nevertheless been used by Soviet investigators

This section illustrates the approach of Soviet researchers when touching

A. The Attitude Toward Work

The Soviet man has been traditionally depicted in Russian political

make them appropriate to new social relations. Zvorykin concluded that

Public value of work 35 12 39 32

public interests, indifference toward public causes (del?), willingness to

the psychology of technical and administrative personnel in industry. It

B. Religion in the Soviet Union

multi-apartment buildings. In another study done in the Ukraine, another

Along the same line, Koltunjuk, a candidate in philosophy and a depart

! t- -??i O Tf *-i -rt f-.

il On on *-i oo t-* T-H in

There are several implications regarding the renewed interest in social

society. The acceptance of social psychology as a genuine area of study,

1 The Russian term 'obscestvennaja psixologija', meaning 'social psychology', is used

Bekhterev, V. M., La R?flexologie Collective. Traduit du Russe, Adapt? et Compl?t? par

Kelle, V. 2. and Koval'zon, M. Ja., Formy obscestvennogo soznanija (Forms of Social

Ot?anskij, V. B., 'Licnost' i social'nye cennosti' (Personality and Social Values), in

(ed.by R. V. 1. Selivanov) (Ucenye zapiski, Vol. 59) Prosvescenie, Moskva, 1968.

You might also like

il On on -i oo t- T-H in