The dialectic of the spiritual content of humanistic culture and the person it creates should be associated primarily with the harmonization of such essential forces as the ability to think and the ability to feel ("rational" and "emotional").
The problem is that the late 50s - early 60s were marked by a very noticeable scientization of our culture, which resulted in an almost complete triumph of poor forms of rationalism in all its spheres. This was most vividly expressed, perhaps, in architecture and household design. The domination of straight lines, laconicism, reaching the extreme rigorism, were designed for a person devoid of all emotions.
Among the reasons that gave rise to this cultural situation, it is necessary to name, firstly, the scientific and technological revolution, which turns the rationalization of all aspects of life into an objective law. In addition, it should be noted that there was an uncritical borrowing of some negative features of formal rationality with complete disregard for its positive aspects.
The protest against the illegal expansion of formal rationalism is very clearly expressed in the epigraph to the collection of poems by A. Voznesensky "Temptation". Instead of the famous Descartes' aphorism "I think, therefore I am", which inspired the development of European culture of the new time, A. Voznesensky proclaims: "I feel, therefore, I exist" 1. Probably, a humanistic solution to this problem is possible according to the formula: "I think and feel, therefore I exist."
The implementation of this principle in life requires, first of all, the further development of a new type of rationality, which was discussed earlier. New rationality is impossible without and without new emotionality, which, using a well-known expression, can be defined as “smart heart”. Thus, we are not talking about emotionality in general - in that case, the ideal would be a medieval fanatic - but about emotionality, closely related to the new rationality through a system of humanistic values.
The developed emotional sphere turns out to be no less important than the intellectual one when anticipating the future, which is of great importance for the life of an individual in an increasingly complex world. The creative potential of the personality in general depends on it to a large extent, since it helps the human spirit to free itself from the chains of simple unambiguity, it, like nothing else, determines the degree of brightness of the human individuality. It follows that the cultivation of human emotionality and rationality has a direct impact on the development of other essential human forces.
Thus, we once again note the regularity of the anthropological structure of culture: each of the pairs of opposites that make up it is not adjacent to all the other pairs, but contains them in itself, as in a chrysalis, the imaginary alignment can only be a consequence of abstraction.
1.6. Biological - social
The consideration of the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in the anthropological structure of culture is even more convincing of the presence of this regularity.
To begin with, it is necessary to make a reservation that one should distinguish between the general philosophical and the philosophical-anthropological meaning of the concepts "biological" and "social". In the first case, they mean certain levels of organization of matter, in the second, their content is much narrower, since they refer only to a person.
So, the biological in a person is his physical substrate (body) and an elementary layer of the psyche. By their origin, both can be structured into phylogenetic and ontogenetic. The social in a person is an ensemble of his personal properties, in connection with which the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person can be formulated as the problem of the relationship between the organism and the personality.
The mechanism that unites these two principles in a person together in one way or another, in one way or another, is culture, and therefore the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social is not only general philosophical and not only philosophical and anthropological, but also philosophical and cultural.
Functions of culture in the implementation of the interaction of biological and social in a person are diverse. The most important of them constructive, that is, the use of a biological substrate as an arsenal of initial elements. Of great importance in the performance of this function is the content of cultural values and norms, which are the subject of the development of a developing personality.
The conditions and methods of upbringing also play an equally important role. As specialists emphasize, the distribution curve according to the size of the inclinations is superimposed on the distribution curve according to the conditions of education and training.
Culture also fulfills in relation to the biological in man selective function: it "sorts" the biological content in a person - it declares some of the properties of this order desirable - evaluates them in the categories of goodness, beauty, others, on the contrary, undesirable and accordingly evaluates them in the categories of evil, ugly, etc.
Humanistic culture should use an extremely broad criterion for selecting the biological properties of a person, this criterion is a harmoniously developed person.
In this regard, in a humanistic culture, the value of repressive the function of culture, which is closely related to selective and plays a particularly large role in a culture of a religious type. It may consist, as it seems, in strengthening the action of all other functions of culture, which should lead to the suppression or change in the nature of the action of undesirable, from the point of view of society, biological properties.
In this regard, the function of socially acceptable sewers biological properties of a person, which have a double orientation. Thus, aggressiveness can be viewed as both good and evil, but it is more productive to approach it as a biological given. For example, zoology knows that in the animal kingdom, males, as a rule, differ from females in more aggressiveness. The psychology of sex notes that this difference, inherited from animals, and, of course, socially modified, is noticeably reflected in the difference between female and male character, and developmental psychology notes corresponding differences in the psychology of girls and boys. Age pedagogy should draw appropriate conclusions from this. At the same time, it turns out that if she follows the path of repression, punishment for boyish fights, cocky behavior, etc., the character of the future man is deformed. This means that there is another way: the channeling of aggressiveness through sports, various games, competitions, etc.
One of the most important functions of culture is developing. In a narrower sense, it manifests itself in the development of a person's natural giftedness. It is quite understandable that the performance of this function by culture is mediated by a socio-psychological factor: not every government is interested in a nation of exclusively gifted citizens.
The developmental function of culture can be understood more broadly - as the enrichment of the initial biological data. In a human-centered society, this function of culture takes on special significance: society will be more dynamic and viable if each individual is given the opportunity to develop and realize his abilities to the maximum.
In full measure, all that has been said applies to such a function of culture in relation to the biological in a person, as control its biological development - its pace, rhythm, the duration of individual periods (childhood, adolescence, maturity, old age), the nature of their course and the duration of life in general. This function of culture is especially clearly manifested in solving the problem of old age. Here, not only the achievements of gerontology and geritaria are important, but, perhaps, first of all, moral factors, that is, moral norms and forms of attitude towards the elderly, adopted in society. Humanistic morality contributes to a significant mitigation of the hardships associated with old age, and thereby pushes its age limits at the expense of the period of maturity. However, the moral consciousness of the individual himself is also of great importance in solving the problem of old age. So, vigorous activity, inspired by humanistic ideals, an optimistic outlook contribute to physical longevity, and, conversely, indifference to people or anger, envy, inability to break out of the vicious circle of loneliness destructively affect physiological processes, reduce the biological time of a person.
Apparently, it is necessary to highlight and stimulating the function of culture, expressed in the upbringing of the personality of the ability to self-strain. Such a turn in solving the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person makes it possible to highlight new sides in the question of the dialectics of his subject-object properties. In this case, the role of the object is its biological nature, and the role of the subject is the social essence.
Of great importance in relation to the biological component of a human being is also the function of culture, which can be conventionally called defectological, that is, the correction of biological pathology. And here again, we should talk not only about the achievements of the relevant sciences and practice of health care, but also about the moral context of culture, which determines the directions of research and the nature of their use.
Closely related to the previous compensatory the function of culture, the meaning of which is to make up for certain manifestations of human biological pathology by means of culture. In this case, in addition to those moments of culture, which were discussed in connection with the defectological function, questions about the distribution of types of cultural activity acquire importance. So, for example, the compensatory role of amateur art of the corresponding genres is great for persons affected by blindness, deafness, speechless, lack of movement, etc.
Apparently, there is reason to believe that the most important function of culture and the social principle as a whole in relation to the biological component of a person is refinement initial, biological in nature, moments in human activity ( eugenic function). One cannot but credit the adherents of sociobiology, one of the directions of Western science, for the fact that their work makes one think about the presence of biological roots of all, without exception, aspects of human activity. The point is, without stopping at this statement, to seek and find these roots in each individual case and, most importantly, to seek and find ways, forms, ways of growing on this basis a viable tree of truly human, and not at all animal relationships ... Thus, sociobiologists show the biological background of altruism in a very impressive way. In this regard, an idea arises about the responsibility of culture, designed to ennoble, humanly form this source of such relations between people as mutual assistance, mutual assistance, selflessness. Competition, competition, a sense of the owner, a sense of community, etc., are also biological in their basis, and you need to learn to build a harmonious building of human life not aside from this foundation, but on it.
So, the harmonization of the biological and the social in a person through the mechanisms of culture is simultaneously associated with the harmonization of other elements of the anthropological structure of culture - object and subjective, emotional and rational, spiritual and physical, personal and social, individual and universal.
A detailed examination of the anthropological structure of humanistic culture makes it possible to clarify the methodological status of this concept. In fact, at all stages of the analysis, it was not about substratum units, but about the functions of culture for the development of the essential forces of a person. These functions form a certain system, the content of which is the image of a person, the most adequate to the characteristics of a particular society.
In relation to the actual culture, the concept of "anthropological structure" seems to have constructive possibilities: proceeding from the concept of man, we can draw conclusions about the proper state of the anthropological structure and then about the proper state of all other cultural structures derived from the anthropological one. Further along this path, it becomes possible to correlate the results obtained with the real state of affairs and, on this basis, to develop practical recommendations.
paradox of absolute morality
Psychologists most often define emotions and feelings as "a special form of a person's relationship to the phenomena of reality, conditioned by their compliance or non-compliance with a person." Since any human activity is aimed at satisfying one or another of his needs, then emotional processes, reflection of the correspondence or inconsistency of the phenomena of reality with the needs of a person, inevitably accompany and induce any activity.
The main difference between rational thinking and feeling is that, in their essence, feelings are intended to reflect only what affects the needs of a given person, while rational thinking reflects and what has not yet become a person's need does not personally affect him.
A person often has to deal with a discrepancy or even a conflict of mind and feelings. This conflict poses with particular urgency the problem of the relationship between emotions and reason in morality.
Situations of conflict of mind and feelings in reality are resolved in different ways. It is possible with sufficient evidence to fix attitudes towards the emotional or the rational as a means of making moral decisions, a means of orientation in moral practice. There are no absolutely unemotional people, however, for some people, emotions are enough to make decisions and assessments, while others try to check the correctness of their feelings with the help of rational analysis. Both of them resort to their own way of making decisions and evaluations unconsciously. But often there is also a conscious orientation towards an emotional or rational way of making decisions. One person may be convinced that “feelings will not be deceived,” while another tries to make decisions with clear and rational reasons.
Activity is impossible without feelings and emotions. Only being emotionally colored, this or that information can become an impetus for action. It is no coincidence that the theory and practice of moral education persistently puts forward the problem of education of feelings, since only knowledge of moral norms does not lead to appropriate behavior. Based on this position, the conclusion is often made about the decisive role of feelings in morality. Feelings reflect the deepest characteristics of a person: her needs. But this is mainly at the same time a disadvantage: they are too subjective to be a reliable means for finding an objectively correct solution, an objectively correct line of behavior. The mind is more objective. Rational procedures are precisely aimed at obtaining an objective one that does not depend on a person's emotions. Thinking, prompted by certain emotions, tries not to let itself be carried away by them, in order to get an undistorted, true meaning. This understanding of the relationship between reason and feeling is characteristic of most of the teachings of the past. It also corresponds to the definition most widespread in modern psychology.
However, a person's mind does not insure him against mistakes, which can be caused both by the objective complexity of situations and by the content of already formed feelings. The latter is especially important for understanding the limitations of reason in morality, the definitions of its dependence on needs, and therefore on feelings. Feelings guide the train of thought, and often determine their content. Sometimes the mind of a person becomes only a means of justifying his feelings.
A sophisticated intellect can come up with dozens of arguments to justify essentially immoral behavior. However, the weakness of his logical premises and constructions is usually not visible only to the owner of this intellect and to those whose living conditions have formed similar needs. Such efforts of the intellect, aimed only at justifying feelings, in fact, are not much different from the implementation of the "emotional attitude", because the mind here is entirely at the mercy of the feelings and is only called upon to serve them, thereby distracting from its main purpose: the search for truth, and representing intelligence only in form, i.e. on the means used, not on the merits. The rational attitude presupposes objective, impartial control over one's feelings, their critical analysis.
Control over your feelings, the ability to manage them is a necessary condition for correct moral behavior and an indicator of the level of moral culture.
The power of reason over feelings, of course, should not be presented as a complete suppression and repression of feelings. Of course, immoral feelings must be suppressed, but this suppression itself occurs through the conscious formation of the opposite feeling. In the case of morally neutral emotions, the role of reason is reduced to, firstly, to restrain them at the border beyond which they begin to interfere with the normal functioning of the mind, and secondly, to determine their place in the valuable hierarchy of the personality and, activating in the necessary cases of higher feelings, do not allow them to manifest themselves in immoral acts. Finally, the consistent and correct implementation of the rational attitude leads to actions that evoke in the individual a specifically moral sense of satisfaction from their commission. Consequently, the realization of a rational attitude does not result in the repression of feelings by reason, but their harmonious combination.
All over the world, Americans have a solid reputation for being pragmatists. “The pounding of an ax is the natural philosophy of America,” writes E. Rosenstock-Hussi. “Not spiritualized writers, but cunning politicians, not geniuses, but“ people who made themselves ”—that's what is needed” (Rosenstock-Huessy; cited in Pigalev 1997 :). Americans tend to feel uncomfortable with anything intangible. "We do not trust that which cannot be combined," writes K. Storti (1990: 65). Hence comes a logical, rational approach to emotional problems and situations.
American researchers quite often point to anti-intellectualism as a typical feature of Americans. For a long time, Americans have viewed culture with suspicion and condescension. They have always demanded that culture serve some useful purpose. "They wanted poetry that could be recited, music that could be sung, education that prepared for life. Nowhere in the world did colleges proliferate and flourish. And nowhere in the world were intellectuals so despised or reduced to such a low status" (Commager: 10).
In Russia, on the other hand, the word pragmatist has a negative connotation, since pragmatism is perceived as the opposite of spirituality. Russians are emotional by nature and tend to go to extremes. "The traditional structure of the Russian character<...>developed individuals prone to sudden mood swings from delight to depression "(Mead; cited in: Stephen, Abalakina-Paap 1996: 368). A. Luri discusses the cult of sincerity and spontaneity characteristic of Russian culture. He believes that Russians have a richer emotional palette than Americans and have the ability to convey more subtle shades of emotion (Lourie, Mikhalev 1989: 38).
The analytical mind of the Americans seems to the Russians cold and devoid of personality. Americans are characterized by measured moderation, which stems from a rational mindset. Emotions do not drive Americans' actions as much as Russians do. "They believe that words alone are the vehicle of meaning (sense) and ignore the more subtle role of language in communication," writes K. Storti. The Russian penchant for self-sacrifice, love for suffering (according to Dostoevsky) attracts and lures Americans as something exotic and difficult to understand. The Americans themselves tend to base their actions on facts and considerations of expediency, while for Russians the stimulus is feelings and personal relationships. Often, Russians and Americans speak different languages: the voice of reason and the voice of emotion do not always merge together. Russians consider Americans to be overly businesslike and lacking in heart. Americans, for their part, perceive Russian behavior as illogical and irrational.
Russian emotionality is manifested in the language at all its levels (nuance of lexical meanings, abundance of emotional vocabulary; syntactic possibilities of the language, including free word order, which allows expressing the subtlest nuances of feelings, etc.), a high degree of explicitness of expressed emotions, as well as in the choice linguistic and paralinguistic means in the process of communication. S.G. Ter-Minasova notes Russian emotionality, realized through the possibility of choosing between pronouns you and you, the presence of a large number of diminutive-affectionate suffixes, the personification of the surrounding world through the category of the genus. She also indicates a more frequent use of the exclamation mark than in English (Ter-Minasova, 2000: 151-159).
American pragmatism manifests itself in the size and nature of speech messages, which tend to be concise and specific (both in oral and written messages, which, in particular, are facilitated by such new forms of communication as e-mail, where minimalism is taken to an extreme), businesslike even in personal situations (for example, when making appointments or planning events), some dry style in business discourse, as well as in energetic and assertive communication strategies.
As noted by J. Richmond, in negotiations, American businessmen prefer a phased discussion of one item after another and systematic progress towards a final agreement, the Russians are leaning towards a more general conceptual approach without specifics. On the other hand, the emotionality of Russians demonstrates their interest in negotiating and establishing personal contacts, which are considered an important component of any communicative interaction (Richmond 1997: 152).
Cooperative spirit and competitiveness
A manifestation of psychological identity is also the way of interaction of YL with other people. Crops differ in their specific gravity cooperation(joint activities to achieve the goal) and competitions(competition in the process of achieving the same goal) as two forms of human interaction.
American individualism has traditionally been associated with a competitive attitude. In American culture, it is customary to move forward and up the corporate ladder more through competition than through cooperation with others. According to S. Armitage, "life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness" (a phrase from the US Constitution) is defined more as a personal interest than a desire for the common good (Armitage). The principle by which Americans are brought up is the so-called. success ethic: work, move forward, succeed ( work hard, get ahead, be successful) Is alien to Russians who believe that it is immoral to achieve success at the expense of others (Richmond 1997: 33). The American idol is a man who made himself. Apart from the token already given above self-made man, has no equivalent in Russian achiever... In American culture, both of these concepts are key.
It would be unfair to argue that Russian culture is not at all inherent in the desire for competition - a vivid confirmation of the opposite is the long-term competition between the two superpowers - Russia and America. However, we believe that the share of competitiveness in the American communication system is greater than in the Russian one, where cooperativity is the predominant form of communicative interaction. In the United States, there are a number of reasons that stimulate a competitive attitude in communication: 1) competition as a result of a long-term development of market relations in the economy; 2) multiculturalism; 3) the wide scope of the movement of women, ethnic and sexual minorities for their rights; 4) blurring the lines in social relations between age groups, 5) peculiarities of the national character and the historical development of discourse.
If, in connection with the above, analyze the words team(team) and collective then we will observe a big difference between these concepts. Team- something constant and homogeneous, united for long-term cooperation by the unity of spirit and aspirations. Team- a group of individuals united to achieve a specific goal. The position of group ethics deeply rooted in the minds of Russians, embodied in the Soviet formula: "do not break away from the team", alien to the Americans. Teamwork as a form of collaboration in America is based on a purely pragmatic approach.
Since intercultural communication is by definition a form of human interaction, the attitude to cooperation or competition can play a key role in how the relationship between communicants - representatives of different linguistic cultures, will develop. A clear example of intercultural divergence between Russians and Americans on this parameter is the nature of the relationship between students in the academic environment. Here is the opinion of an American researcher: "<…>Russian students work very effectively in a group. They try to prepare for classes based on their personal skills and interests, and thus contribute to the success of the whole group. "In situations where Russians prompt each other or share cheat sheets with each other, American students prefer to remain silent." impolite, probably because it is assumed that everyone should be able to cope on their own. "According to the American system of values, honesty in learning is about everyone doing their job independently." American students place great importance on fairness, or rather the principle equality. Everyone should be sure that they are doing no less and no more than others "(Baldwin, 2000).
Russians, for their part, disapprove of the behavior of American students who sit at a distance from others and cover the notebook with their hand. Although Russian excellent students, without much enthusiasm, allow lazy people to write off what they got as a result of considerable efforts, they, as a rule, cannot refuse - it will be "not comradely", and those around them will condemn them. Therefore, when Russian schoolchildren or students come to the attention of an American teacher, a conflict arises between value systems and attitudes towards cooperativity or competition.
Participants and witnesses of business negotiations between Russians and Americans note that the nature of the interaction between them is largely determined by different attitudes towards the concept. success, which is formed on the basis of the above-described attitudes. Americans perceive success as the achievement of specific short-term goals (successful deal, project, profit from investment), while the Russian understanding of success presupposes beneficial long-term cooperation - a process, not an event. For Russians, successful deals are natural ingredients or even by-products of this kind of relationship. Americans trust the system, and Russians trust people, so for Russians, personal trust is a prerequisite for success. As a result, Americans strive for success more purposefully, and the communicative behavior of Russians seems to them non-business and unprofessional. Russians, on the other hand, often perceive American behavior as arrogant and short-sighted (Jones).
Forms of manifestation of competitiveness in communication are also considered to be witty responses to the remarks of the interlocutors, which are more like a dive than an exchange of opinions; the desire to oppose the statement of the interlocutor with his own statement, comparable to him in the volume and amount of information; an attempt to retain the last word, etc.
Optimism and pessimism
The traditional parameters of the opposition of Americans and Russians are also optimism / pessimism... Americans are considered "incorrigible optimists," they believe in the ability of individuals to "forge their own destiny," they try their best to be happy, and they view happiness as an imperative. In this connection, K. Storti quotes the poet who said: "We are the masters of our destiny and the captains of our souls" (Storti 1994: 80). He also makes an interesting observation: in American society it is considered the norm to be happy, while for Russians, a happy mood is the norm no more than sadness and depression, for both are an integral part of life (op. Cit .: 35). In the United States, it is unnatural, abnormal and indecent to be unhappy - under any circumstances one must preserve the semblance of success and well-being and smile. For Russians, sadness is a normal state. It gives us pleasure. They sing songs and write poems about this.
N. A. Berdyaev explained the tendency of Russians to depression and melancholy this way: “Huge spaces were easily given to the Russian people, but it was not easy for them to organize these spaces into the world's greatest state<…>All the external activities of the Russian person went to the service of the state. And this left a bleak stamp on the life of a Russian person. Russians hardly know how to rejoice. The Russian people do not have the creative play of strength. The Russian soul is suppressed by the immense Russian fields and the immense Russian snows<…>"(Berdyaev 1990b: 65).
Americans, unlike Russians, are not inclined to complain about fate and discuss their own and other people's problems in their free time. It is well known that the question: "How are you?" Americans answer under any circumstances: "Fine" or "OK". As T. Rogozhnikova rightly asserts, “distance from other people's problems and revelations is a kind of self-defense and protection of one's own living space.<...>You just have to answer with a smile that everything is OK with you. It is indecent if you have problems: solve them yourself, do not burden anyone, otherwise you are simply a failure ”(Rogozhnikova: 315).
From the Russians to the question: "How are you?" most likely to hear: "Normal" or "Slowly." Here Russian superstition is manifested, the habit of belittling one's successes ("so as not to jinx it") and a dislike for self-glorification. American optimism seems insincere and suspicious to Russians.
Confidence in the future is another important feature of the psychological portrait of Americans. As a result, they are not afraid to make plans even for the distant future. Russians, on the other hand, are accustomed to living in a state of uncertainty, which has reasons in the historical development of Russia, as well as in the events of recent years. “What are we?<...>We have our own strong point ", which" runs through unplowed unsteady fields, where there are no plans, but there is a quick reaction and flexibility of the psyche "(Sokolova, Professionals for cooperation 1997: 323). Russian phraseology reflects a tendency towards fatalism and uncertainty about the future: maybe yes, I suppose; grandmother said in two; God knows; how God will put it on your soul; what God will send; it's still written with a pitchfork on the water.Americans prefer to act on the principle: Where there’s a will there’s a way and God helps those who help themselves.
Western businessmen who come to collaborate with Russians or teach business seminars complain that they find it most difficult to convince Russians to plan their activities. Russians claim that they are used to living and working in difficult situations and are ready to quickly adapt to changed conditions. As a result, communication does not work out, deals fail. It is also difficult to collaborate in situations where long-term planning is required. The Russians send invitations to important events at the last moment, while the Americans have other things planned for these dates six months ago. Cooperation on grants and projects is not easy. Russian teachers cannot get used to the fact that the timetable for classes in American colleges and universities is drawn up six months before the start of the semester.
These psychological characteristics are also manifested in the choice of communication strategies. Americans lack Russian superstition, so their statements about the future are confident, as opposed to Russian caution and modality. A good illustration of this situation is the following excerpt from the correspondence between an American and his Russian acquaintance (congratulations on the eve of buying a car):
American: Congratulations on your imminent car purchase!
Russian: I think by now, after having known us so long, you are expected to know how superstitious we, Russians, are. Never, never congratulate us in advance. So please, take your congratulations back!
American: I take my congratulations back, but this superstition is another thing I cannot understand about you. For an expecting mother, understandable. But a car?
This difference is one of the most noticeable and vividly manifested in MK.In terms of communication, it lies in the fact that Russians are less preoccupied than Americans with the desire to avoid the unknown (the American term uncertainty avoidance is one of the important concepts of MK theory in the United States).
Tolerance and patience
Two key concepts directly related to communication are - patience and tolerance- are often mixed in Russian linguistic culture due to the fact that they are assigned to the same root words. In English, the corresponding concepts are largely delineated at the level of the signifier: patience and tolerance... Word tolerance is used in the Russian language to convey a foreign cultural phenomenon rather than a concept that is organically inherent in Russian linguistic culture.
Patience is traditionally perceived as one of the most striking features of the Russian national character and manifests itself in the ability to resignedly endure the difficulties that fall on the lot of the Russian people. Americans, on the other hand, are considered more tolerant. The origins of this phenomenon lie in the peculiarities of the historical development of the United States and the polyphyny of American cultural life. Large numbers of immigrants, with their own cultural patterns, traditions, habits, religious beliefs, etc., required a certain level of tolerance for the people in the United States to live in peace and harmony.
However, the degree of American tolerance should not be exaggerated. In this sense, H. S. Commager is right, who notes that American tolerance in matters of religion and morality (especially in the twentieth century) is explained not so much by openness to the perception of new ideas as by indifference. This is conformism rather than tolerance (Commager: 413 - 414).
Manifestations of patience and tolerance in MK are relative. Americans do not understand why Russians endure disorder in everyday life, violation of their rights as consumers, non-observance of laws by officials, vandalism, cheating, violation of human rights. Russians, in turn, wonder why Americans, who show a high degree of tolerance towards sexual minorities or some manifestations of religious hatred, do not allow an alternative point of view in connection with such issues as women's rights, politics (for example, Chechnya), the role of the United States in the world, etc.
A different level of tolerance is manifested in the fact that the Americans in the negotiation process are much more striving than the Russians for compromise and smoothing over contradictions, while the Russians are prone to emotions and extremes. On the other hand, as more impatient, Americans expect quick decisions and actions, while Russians tend to wait, testing the reliability of their partners and establishing closer, trusting relationships with them. There are many known cases when the Americans, without waiting for quick results of negotiations with the Russians, abandoned the planned deal. When discussing painful issues at school and university, the American audience is more explosive than the Russian.
Many authors also emphasize that one should not confuse totalitarianism and authoritarianism of the political system of Russia at certain periods of its history with intolerance as a property of the Russian national character. “Russians respect the authorities, but are not afraid of them” - this is the conclusion of J. Richmond (Richmond 1997: 35).
This conclusion, however, should not be absolutized. Because the relationship between a boss and a subordinate in the United States is more democratic, there tends to be a greater degree of tolerance between colleagues. Coming to teach in Russian schools, American teachers cannot accept an authoritarian tone in the relationship between the school principal and teachers and the teacher with students, which sometimes becomes the cause of intercultural conflicts.
Degree of openness
Speaking about openness, it should be emphasized that American and Russian openness are phenomena of different orders.
American openness, most likely, should be viewed as a communication strategy, and in this sense, Americans are more direct, explicit in expressing information and categoricality than Russians. This trait of Americans is expressed by the adjective outspoken that does not have a Russian equivalent.
For Russians, openness in communication means a willingness to reveal their personal world to the interlocutor. "Russians are the most sociable people in the world, writes N. A. Berdyaev. Russians have no conventions, no distance, there is a need to often see people with whom they do not even have particularly close relationships, to twist their souls, to plunge into someone else's life<...>, lead endless quarrels about ideological issues.<...>Every truly Russian person is interested in the question of the meaning of life and seeks communication with others in the search for meaning "(Berdyaev 1990b: 471).
A. Hart makes an interesting observation: “In some respects, Russians are freer and more open [than Americans]. At first, my friends and I thought that Russians were quarreling and swearing; but suddenly, to our surprise, they began to smile. Later we realized that the postures and the tone that we thought was aggressive was actually expressive "(Hart 1998). Americans are more open in expressing their own opinions, Russians - in their emotions.
American openness in communication is often perceived by Russians as tactless and categorical. When conducting feedback surveys after seminars and other training courses, Americans focus on shortcomings and provide critical comments. Such a reaction for Russian teachers is often a shock, since the Russian approach is, first of all, a desire to express gratitude to the teacher. Russians often limit themselves to oral criticism, and record positive reactions or, in extreme cases, cautious recommendations in writing.
3.1.2 Social identity of a linguistic personality
A man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind.
