Category of mentality has additional heuristic capabilities as compared to traditional categories of the mental life. Firstly, it serves as an integral characteristic of the uniqueness of the man’s mental world, and secondly, gives an understanding of the specific type of perception of the world by the subject, thirdly, it explains the distinct way of subject’s activity – his behavior, communication, performance. Because the mentality determines the mode of activity of a social group or an individual; the human activity orientation and it’s specificity, so the mentality can be interpreted as a core for the group and personal culture, also as a strategic cultural program of the subject. One of the basic clashes of society has the form of a contradiction between the mentality, containing new cultural forms, and the social relations. In the course of the individual cultural creativity development as a response to the multiple challenges of history, new mental characteristics are generated in the mentality of the intellectual elite representatives. They represent innovative programs of human being activity – performance, behavior, communication. The new mental characteristics spread in society and become components of group mentalities. This accrued contradiction between the mass mentality and the old social relations generates a constructive tension; negotiation the tension through the reproductive activity of subjects can establish the more progressive social relations. Old elements of mentality, in turn, inherent social inertia and conservatism. They can obstruct the new social relations establishment. Therefore, mentality has the contradictory nature, embodying the dual opposition of tradition and innovation. In the same time mentality is a social progress stimulating factor, and a factor that holds back excessively large and excessively rapid social changes. There is a difference between the mentality of the creators of innovative cultural meanings and the mentality of the masses. In the mentality of the creators that make up the intelligent elite of the society, the innovational component is more intense than the traditional. In the mentality of the masses is vice versa - the traditional component dominates over the innovational. There are many driving motives of the society development: changes in a way of material production, in the culture in general and in education in particular, in engineering, in science. But the most significant force, apparently, displays the changes in mentality that generate new forms of reproductive activity of the subject in the economic, political, social and mental spheres.
mentality, culture, history challenges, socio-cultural tension, constructive tension, mentality functions, innovation and tradition
Категория менталитета, или ментальности, в советском обществознании не фигурировала. Познавательные и регулирующие функции духовного мира коллективного и индивидуального субъекта описывались и объяснялись посредством категорий общественного, группового, индивидуального, массового сознания, субъективной реальности, идеального, общественного настроения, общественной психологии, мировоззрения, идеологии. В сравнении с ними понятие менталитета обладает дополнительными эвристическими потенциями. Во-первых, оно служит интегральной характеристикой уникальности духовного мира человека, во-вторых, обеспечивает понимание особого способа восприятия субъектом мира и, в-третьих, дает объяснение специфического типа его активности — поведения, общения, деятельности.
Менталитет мы определяем как «возникшую на основе генотипа под влиянием природной и социальной среды и в результате собственного духовного творчества субъекта систему качественных и количественных социально-психологических особенностей человека или социальной общности; эта система детерминирует специфический характер восприятия мира, эмоционального реагирования, речи, поведения, деятельности, самоидентификации субъекта, обеспечивает единство и преемственность существования социальной общности, а также стимулирует социальный прогресс посредством продуцирования культурных новаций» [9, с. 24]. Учитывая эвристические возможности категории менталитета, некоторыми авторами менталистика справедливо рассматривается в качестве самостоятельного направления социальной науки [2]. Наиболее важным, но вместе с тем и наименее разработанным вопросом в менталистике и теории социокультурной динамики является вопрос о способах функционирования менталитета и его роли в социально-исторических процессах. Предложенный в статье вариант представляет собой социокультурную гипотезу функционирования менталитета. И как любая гипотеза она должна служить объектом критического рассмотрения.
1. Agatstsi E. Ideya obshchestva, osnovannogo na znaniyakh [Idea of a society based on knowledge]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2012, I. 10, pp. 3–19.
2. Akopov G.V.Mentalistika kak istoriko-psikhologicheskoe napravlenie nauki [Mentalistika as a historical and psychological branch of science]. Istoriya otechestvennoy i mirovoy psikhologicheskoy mysli: Postigaya proshloe, ponimat´ nastoyashchee i predvidet´ budushchee [History of domestic and global psychological thought: Comprehending the past, understand the present and anticipate the future]. Moscow, Institut psikhologii RAN Publ., 2006, pp. 453–455.
3. Akhiezer A.S. Rossiya: kritika istoricheskogo opyta (Sotsiokul´turnaya dinamika Rossii). Ot proshlogo k budushchemu [Russia: historical experience of the critic (Sociocultural dynamics of Russia). From the Past to the Future]. Sibirskiy khronograf Publ., Novosibirsk, 1997, V. 1, 804 p.
4. Akhiezer A.S. Filosofskie osnovy sotsiokul´turnoy teorii i metodologii [The philosophical foundations of social and cultural theory and methodology]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2000, I. 9, pp. 29–45.
5. Barulin V.S. Sotsial´no-filosofskaya antropologiya. Obshchie nachala sotsial´no-filosofskoy antropologii [Socio-philosophical anthropology. General principles of social and philosophical anthropology]. Moscow, Onega Publ., 1994, 256 p.
6. Vizgin V.P. Mental´nost´ [Mentality]. Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya [New Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. Moscow, Mysl´ Publ., V. 2, 2001, 525 p.
7. Gershunskiy B.S. Mentalitet i obrazovanie [The mentality and education]. Institut prakticheskoy psikhologii Publ., Moscow, 1996, 144 p.
8. Gerder I.G. Idei k filosofii istorii chelovechestva [Ideas for the philosophy of history]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1977, 705 p.
9. Gubanov N.I., Gubanov N.N. Mentalitet: sushchnost´ i funktsionirovanie v obshchestve [Mentality: the nature and function in society]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2013, I. 2, pp. 22–32.
10. Denisov V.V. Politicheskaya kul´tura. Teoriya i praktika [Political culture. Theory and practice]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo [Philosophy and Society]. 2006, I. 1, pp. 19–30.
11. Dyubi Zh. Istoriya mental´nostey [history of mentalities]. Istoriya mental´nostey, istoricheskaya antropologiya. Zarubezhnye issledovaniya v obzorakh i referatakh [History of mentalities, historical anthropology. Foreign studies in reviews and abstracts]. Moscow, Institut vseobshchey istorii RAN, Rossiyskiy gos. guman. un-t Publ., 1996, pp. 18–21.
12. Emel´kina I.V. Rossiyskiy mentalitet: sushchnost´, ob"em ponyatiya i sotsial´naya rol´. Kand Diss [Russian mentality: the nature, scope and concept of the social role. Kand Diss]. Moscow, 2011, 52 p.
13. Karmin A.S. Filosofiya kul´tury v informatsionnom obshchestve: problemy i perspektivy [Philosophy of Culture in information society: problems and prospects]. Vestnik RFO. 2005, I. 2, pp. 49–62.
14. Kiyashchenko N.I. Kul´tura grazhdanskogo obshchestva [Culture civil society]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2010, I. 10, pp. 62–66.
15. Naumova T.V. Mentalitet kak bazovaya kategoriya v ob"yasnenii osobennostey tsennostnogo soznaniya sovremennoy rossiyskoy molodezhi [Mentality as a basic category in explaining the features of value consciousness of modern Russian youth]. Vestnik MGU. 2001, I. 1, pp. 65–75.
16. Nemirovskiy V.G. Massovoe soznanie i bessoznatel´noe kak ob"ektpostne-klassicheskoy sotsiologii [Mass consciousness and the unconscious as a obektpostne-classical sociology]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. 2006, I. 2, pp. 13–19.
17. Orlov O.A. Etnopedagogika i etnopsikhologiya [Ethnopedagogics and ethnic psycholog]. Available at: http://1987.ucoz.org/index/lekcija_5/0-28 (accessed 04 September 2012).
18. Orudzhev Z.M. Sposob myshleniya epokhi i printsip apriorizma [The way of thinking era and a priori principle]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2006, I. 5, pp. 18–33.
19. Pelipenko A.A. Teoreticheskaya kul´turologiya v epokhu krizisa kul´tury [Theoretical cultural science in the era of the crisis of culture]. Chelovek [Man]. 2010, I. 4, pp. 12–27.
20. Simonyan R.Kh. Faktor ob"ektivnykh usloviy v perekhode ot sotsializma k kapitalizmu [The factor of the objective conditions of the transition from socialism to capitalism]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2012, I. 11, pp. 163–172.
21. Stepin V.S. Kul´tura [Culture]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 1999, I. 8, pp. 61–71.
22. Stepin V.S. Filosofiya i poisk novykh tsennostey tsivilizatsii [Philosophy and the search for new values of civilization]. Vestnik RFO. 2005, I. 4, pp. 10–24.
23. Stepin V.S. Kul´turologiya kak nauka: za i protiv [Cultural Studies as a science: the pros and cons]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. 2008, I. 11, pp. 27–31.
24. Fromm E. Begstvo ot svobody: Chelovek dlya sebya [Escape from Freedom: A man for himself]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2004, 571 p.
25. Shevakov M.Yu. Mentalitet: sushchnost´ i osobennosti funktsionirovaniya. Kand Diss [Mentality: the nature and features of functioning Kand. Diss]. Volgograd, 1994, 21 p.
26. Yakovenko I.G. Dialog cherez protivostoyanie — faktor rossiyskoy istorii [Dialogue through the standoff — a factor in Russian history]. Filosofskie nauki [Philosophical sciences]. 2010, I. 2, pp. 15–20.
