O.B. Istomina

Russia, Angarsk State Technical Academy.

THE ANALYSIS SOCIOCULTURAL OF DISPOSITION

«NATIVE» – STRANGE»

The article is devoted to the disposition «native – strange», that characterizes sociocultural, linguistic, informational, political and, of course, ethnic and national relations. This antinomy allows to define itself by its opposite. The subject realizes the specificity of his existence during the interaction. The interaction of world view’s types is reached by the dialogue of cultures. The dialogue is a condition of achievement of the transcendentity, rationalization of communication and has a humanitarian importance.

The ordinary human consciousness is a certain theoretical whole, where there are four components: sensory-receptive, logical-conceptual, emotive and moral. The last of these components takes an important part in formation of a specific national picture of the world and is reflected in moral orientations and valuable priorities of a community. The national picture of the world is subjective, it reflects the world’s comprehension of a concrete ethos and includes subjective opinions, esthetic and ethical categories, world-perception’s special features, which are reflected in national language.

Every cultural tradition has its national stereotypes of communicative behaviour (verbal and non-verbal). «The language consciousness of an ethnic culture’s native speaker formed during enculturation, «entry» in a given culture, differs by certain qualities» [1; 99].

The divergences in national specific practices of different language communities result in misunderstanding and are the reason of the communicative conflicts. An extreme point of difference between communicative behaviour’s stereotypes is an interpersonal or an interethnic conflict. To avoid such cases and sometimes to level the conflict a social and cultural disposition «native – strange» is studied actively in a modern science.

This antinomy is studied by social philosophy, sociology, ethnosociology, ethnopsychology, culturology, sociolinguistics and other sciences during one century and half. There are some branches in theoretical and empirical studies of this subject: the study of ethnonational, class, sociocultural, sociolinguistic, communicative-informational, religious-confessional, political, organizational and institutional relations.

In these relations the disposition «native – strange» causes a functioning of different social processes. For example, an antinomy can reveal ethnonational solidarity or estrangement in ethnonational relations; integration or disintegration, enculturation or assimilation in sociocultural relations; faith tolerance or religious hostility in religious and confessional relations, bilingualism or monolingualism, as a result of assimilation in sociolinguistic relations.

The concept of class disposition is presented in K. Marks’ methodology as an analysis of class character of estrangement of one man from another. According to K. Marks’ theory, the man is similar to goods. He was born without a mirror; that is why he looks at other man to cognize himself. Perceiving other man as a person everyone begin to appreciate oneself as a person.

The concept of «mirror» as a social phenomenon is considered in the theory of Ch. Kuly. According to this theory, the individual’s social «I», i.e. his social individuality, can be formed and autoidentified only by the reflection in another person. That’s why Ch. Kuly calls social individuality reflected or mirror. «Not simply our mechanical reflection, but an opinion ascribed to somebody, imaginary impact of this reflection on other consciousness makes us be proud or be ashamed» [4; 136].

During everyday interaction not only persons, but also their consciousness, life experience, their ideas i.e. different social realities contact with. Each person has his own reality, so sociocultural world consists of many social realities. According to G. Mid’s terminology, in society an individual interacts with different «generalized other people» which are identification’s instrument of the individual and the group. In G. Mid’s opinion the role of «another person» is fundamental in formation of social «I» and in individual’s behaviour. «Generalized another» has become a figurative expression of an aggregate of impersonal axiological instructions, society’s values.

According to the phenomenological theory, individual’s everyday life depends on orientations to «another», which corresponds with the M.Veber’s concept of «social action». «Action, which corresponds with other people’s actions and is oriented to «another» by a sense supposed by one or some characters» [3; 603] can be called «social action». Phenomenological explanation of mutual understanding of A. Shutz says, that «the experience and the consciousness of Another are not my experience and my consciousness. But my experience and my consciousness is a reaction to «another»’s experience and consciousness. Intentional subject of my own experiences is «another» ‘s experience perceived through the system of marks and in sign system [3; 865]. In A. Shutz’s opinion, the concept «I» in relation to another's activity is defined as a concept to «another».

After A. Shutz, P. Berger and T. Lukman continued the analysis of sociocultural disposition «native – strange». The basis of this theory is a statement, that the society is dual. The society is represented as an objective reality which doesn’t depend on our will and at the same time as «a vital world», a system of sense which is constructed by people i.e. subjective reality. The people can attach a meaning subjects or phenomena during the interaction. «We not only live in the same world, we take part in the life of each other» [2; 212]. «The perception of other people is the most important in a situation face to face which is a prototype of social interaction. Formation of generalized another in consciousness is a determinative factor of socialization. It includes an internalization of a society, hence established objective reality, at the same time it includes a subjective establishment of complete identity» [2; 207]. The interaction of the people determines a continuous identification, as a result of which «the reality is socially designed» [8; 30].

In most cases the differentiation «native – strange» acts in a role of opposition: native – strange, natural – unnatural. «Native» is close and clear, «strange» is unknown, potentially dangerous. «Native» is the world «I» of the subject of consciousness, and «strange» is the world of «others». «The life knows two principally different but correlated with each other valuable centers: I and other; around these centers all concrete moments of being are allocated [12; 66]. The antinomy of these concepts is expressed in their axiological heritage. These are primary binary codes of thinking, communication, interaction, which accelerate the processes of orientation and adaptation in a society. The interdetermination, which is a result of opposite concepts’ conflict; self-determination through «another», through the opposite take place on a basis of restriction «I» and «non - I».

Recipient’s attitude to «other» culture is formed as a result of interaction with «other»culture; it is determined by national-specific distinctions. After I.U. Marcovina, the specific characteristics of national cultures can be determined by the term «lacuna». The lacunas form the ideas about other culture’s environment and are a special signal of «other» culture. The differentiation «native» – strange» – «is a marking of oneself by the original forms of a native culture, which is the basis for a self-identification of a society» [5; 12].

A starting point of human knowledge is a self-realization as a part, separated from the entire world, an identification of one’s «Ego» through the distance. The man quite consciously begins to study the world with himself, for him the world is a cognizing subject. «Another» is a mirror, what I am looking at to see my reflection. My activity is always directed to «another» … I live and I work among «others» [5;8]. The subject realizes a specificity of his existence during interaction.

Each individual has some forms of identity, for example, social-class, professional, age, sexual, confessional, ethnic etc. An ethnic identity is very important for individual’s self-identification, because it is a factor of formation and at the same time a result of a realization of special features, lacunas of the world’s national picture. It is possible to penetrate in other culture’s picture of the world, only if you have some knowledge about national prototypes, which are the world’s model in a consciousness of a nation.

The need of ethnic identity, as well as need of welfare, safety, is basic, life-asserting. By definition of G.U. Soldatova [10; 153], the identification by an ethnic group have three components: the need of an ethnic element, the need of a positive ethnic identity and, at last, need of an ethnic safety. The need of an identity follows the individual’s aspiration to find the social status. E. Fromm [13] determined this desire as a psychological mechanism of«flight from freedom». These components of the mechanism of «flight from freedom» generate following motives: а) affiliative (motives of attachment); b) status (motives of self-respect and dignity); c) archetypical (motives of safety).

Thus, the formation of an ethnocultural identity is connected to the ability to find a way in a wide cultural context; it is connected to the creation of stereotypes, concepts, models of verbal and non verbal communication. An ethnic character is considered at a personal features’ level, i.e. values introduced in the person. It is a result of a long process of features of a genotype’s interaction with a culture and their mutual adaptation.

The ethnic as a communicative resource is not always involved in the process of social interaction; it is one of the resources of adaptation, one of the opportunities in an individual’s communicative arsenal allowing building its behaviour according to the social environment’s requirements. The ethnic can contribute an individual’s social competence, and limit it.

A national identity is a total combination of primordial factors: historical, areal-chronological, territorial, linguistic, ethnic, political, and any displays of social being of the man. National identity is expressed through the speech practices. A native language organically combines an orientation to the people’s past, history of its culture, and contributes a realization of an individual’s correlation with the form of a national-linguistic unity – an ethnic group. The ethnic is a resource, which is constantly supported by narrations – myths about the heroic past of a certain society, about its cultural – historical uniqueness and predetermination of the special historical mission. The ethnic symbols and myths are those forms, which each generation finds finished and which direct its interpreting and creative activity. Becoming a part of ethnic identity, archetypes, ethnic values and symbols, including consciousness of language unity, receive a real mobilizing force.

A designing of individual I and formation of its self-consciousness are based on self-orientation, i.e. on comprehension of the fact of its existence in the world, on implicit knowledge of its location in the space and in the time predetermined by the specificity of culture and a national picture of the world, on motivational orientation, on the idea of a moral order formed according to a set of cultural-specific criteria of an appreciation of own behaviour and others’ behavior.

Identity is a consequence of an open process of identifications, in which the man is involved during socialization and social adaptation and for this reason is subjected to constant transformation. The ethnic identity as one of identification opportunities under certain conditions or their absence can become an ethnic dogmatism or, on the contrary, indifference.

As a result of individual identification some signs typical for certain social group (group identity) are found. One of these types is the language identity. To unit a certain social group with the help of the language, it is possible to carry out the distance «we» and «others». This process of separation of itself from others forms steady antonymous pair: a concept of identity – a concept of distance from other social groups.

Dispositional relations always cause the phenomenon of a distance, which scale depends on many social, ethnocultural, ethnopsichological and other factors. In dialogical philosophy there is a problem of proximity studied a distance between interlocutors (individuals, social groups or even cultures) and which depends on ethnic elements. With a physical proximity there are psychological – a degree of a psychological distance, linguistic etc.

A reduction of a distance, leveling of conflict situations, removal of social intensity are achieved under condition of a possibility and a success of subjects’ dialogue. The dialogue of cultures is a process of interaction of national pictures of the world, types of world view; it is a combination of contacts and relations, which different cultures are characterized by.

О.Nadler, actualizes a role of dialogue as away of mutual teaching, puts forward the theory about «the dialogue of metaphors». Heuristic potential is attributed to a metaphor and it is consider as condensed mental form. According to О.Nadler, the interaction of these forms results in the knowledge of different types of thinking, different pictures of the world. During the dialogue it is possible to achieve an act of transcendentity, in other words, a transition to higher metaphor, which absorbs the former competing forms.

U. Habermas considers discourse «native - strange »from a position of sociocultural nature and dynamics of the communication. The ethics of discourse in the Habermas’s theory are an ethical result of the theory of social development and the theory of communicative action: « the equal respect for everyone is spread not only to oneself, but to the personality of another or others in their difference. And a joint guarantee for another as for one of us corresponds with changeable «we» of such community, which resists to all substational and develops its vague borders more widely» [6; 48]. According to Habermas’ theory, it is possible to simplify the intercultural conflicts on the basis of rationalization of communicative action, i.e. «of a vital world ». It is necessary to rationalize the communications which has not been deformed by purposeful action. «It results in liberation from domination, in free and open dialogue, in elimination of limited communications» [7; 495]. The rationalization of the communications is perceived as liberation of«a vital world» from pressure of technical system (from pressure of authority, from egocentric success, mercantilism, mercenary spirit, rational action). «Liberated» discourse gives back a comprehension and universality, provides with authenticity and moral legitimacy.

A dialogical philosophy of M. Bahtin considers moral principles of cultures’ interaction by the type «native – strange». The moral attitudes of mutual respect, tolerance will help to avoid a risk of «ontological loneliness of unrecognized», and also a risk to exploit «another» as a tool of self-knowledge. A dialogical intercultural communications recognize inevitability of cultures’ meeting and at the same time their originality. «Ontological, axiological and gnosiological vectors of modern culture have been displaced to polycultural forms of social life» [5; 11]. Modern dialogical sociocultural reality finds out bright tendencies of integration in different spheres of culture.

It is obvious, that today the dialogue is not only a form of cultures’ interaction, and a law of a semantic exchange, but also an opportunity to avoid false antihuman ideas, a moral principles, an ability to accept «another» in conditions determining a possibility of its understanding, recognition of its point of view. An intersubjective dialogue solves the problems of intensity between «native» and «strange». Thus, the universal culture makes a necessary ideal plan of its any concrete historical form of interaction with «others» and finds out a humanistic importance.

References

1. Ageev V.S. Intergroup interaction: Social-psychological problems. – Moscow, 1990. – 240 Р.

2. Berger P., Lukman T. Social design of reality. – Moscow, 1995.

3. Veber M. Selected works. – Moscow, 1990.

4. Kuly J.H. Human nature and social order. – Moscow, 2000.

5. Disposition «native - strange » in a culture. – Voroneg, 2007. – 257 Р.

6. Habermas U. Drawing into strange: Sketchs of political theory. – Moscow, 2000.

7. History of sociology in Western Europe and USA. – Moscow, 1999.

8. Lukman T. Planning of contact and intersubjective suitability of perspectives of communicative genres // Social process at the turn of the century: Phenomenological perspectives. – Moscow, 2000.

9. Marks K. Capital // Marks K. and Engels F. Compositions. – Т.23. – Р.62.

10. Soldatova G.U. Psychology of interethnic tensity. – Moscow, 1998.

11. Sorokin U., Marcovina I. Conception «strange» in linguistic and cultural context // Language: ethnocultural and pragmatic aspects. – Dnepropetrovsk, 1988.

12. Philosophy of M. Bahtin and ethics of contemporary world. –Saransk, 1992.

13. Fromm E. Flight of liberty. – Moscow, 1995.