CC BY
20
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
SOME ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE NORM OF BEHAVIOR Kincans V.P. (Republic of Latvia) Email: [email protected]
Kincans Vladimir Protazjyevich - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, FACULTY OF EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND ART, UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA, RIGA, REPUBLIC LATVIA
Abstract: the main goal of this article is to an alyze the concept of "n orm of b ehavior". Even today the meaning of this notion remains vague, uncertain and open for debate. There is no clear understanding of its nature and origin. The specific description of the system of normative behavior is non-existent and the trends of its development are not established. Those short comings are probably connected with the complexity of the phenomenon itself, with the fact that it includes both verbal and non-verbal components. When normative behavior is discussed in scientific literature, it is often connected with such features as stability, acceptance by the social tradition, compulsion to comply and the formation of habitual modes of behavior. It is those properties that will be reviewed in this article.
Keywords: standard of behavior, etiquette, tradition, habit, normative, culture, education, deviant behavior, unbecoming conduct, rule of conduct, conservatism.
НЕКОТОРЫЕ АРГУМЕНТЫ В ЗАЩИТУ НОРМ ПОВЕДЕНИЯ Кинцанс В.П. (Латвийская Республика)
Кинцанс Владимир Протазьевич - доктор философии, профессор, факультет педагогики, психологии и искусства, Латвийский университет, г. Рига, Латвийская Республика
Аннотация: целью данной статьи является анализ концепта «норма поведения». Содержание и значение этого понятия являются проблематичными, что вызывает многочисленные дискуссии. Нет четкого понимания природы поведенческих стандартов и их функционирования. Не существует непротиворечивого описания системы нормативного поведения, основанного на общепринятой теории, как и не установлены тенденции его развития. Трудности анализа связаны со сложностью самого явления, с тем, что оно включает как вербальные, так и невербальные компоненты. Нормативное поведение часто связано с такими атрибутами, как стабильность, наличие социальной традиции, принуждение к подчинению и формирование привычных способов поведения. Это те свойства, которые будут рассмотрены в этой статье.
Ключевые слова: стандарт поведения, этикет, традиция, привычка, норматив, культура, образование, девиантное поведение, правило поведения, консерватизм.
Introduction
The sweeping political and economic changes we are witnessing are destroying adopted laws, rules and standards.
Liberal politics plays a special role in strengthening skepticism about traditional values and generally accepted norms of behavior. The basic idea of modern life says that no one needs to adhere to any sustainable principles, since the individual is in the process of continuous development and change. This means that etiquette with its norms, logic and common sense is an obstacle to human self-realization.
A person who observes the generally accepted rules in general and the rules of etiquette in particular, is not free. He is the slave of the dominant system and of those specific principles that support this established order. Etiquette cannot and should not require a person to give up his desires and interests. The final decision on how to behave should be made by the person
43
himself, taking into account his subjective views and ideas. The person knows better what is right and what is not.
The ideology of liberalism and genuine freedom has already significantly changed a number of daily ethical, pedagogical and behavioral conventions qualities that were highly valued in the past. Such value as chivalry, dedication, chivalrous attitude to a lady, responsiveness and mutual assistance disappear from our lives and are recognized as not tolerant. Enlightened romanticism is being replaced by technological pragmatism.
Satisfaction of natural needs in public, the realization of their own sexual desires, spiritual and physical effects, trolling, obscene language, etc. have become the norm in our day. The absence of any norms has become the norm. In other words, the refusal of norms quickly came into vogue, because it is much more difficult to limit yourself, to submit to certain imperatives, than to follow your passions.
Instead of a sense of responsibility, freedom and democracy come to the fore. Instead of a hierarchy of values and absolutes, one should recognize the principle of consent. Instead of law -freedom or in the best case consensus or "effectiveness" in accordance with the ideas of J. - F. Lyotard [1], or "practicality" - the idea of R.Rorti [2]. Instead of teaching children logic, order, rules of behavior in a society and life modern pedagogy are discoursing on the death of God, about multiculturalism, integration, tolerance.
In the long run one may endlessly deny existing rules and norms of behavior, but they however will not cease performing their function. Rejection of form itself is possible only in case when something is perceived as such. Besides, any breach is always made and is noticeable against a background - norm. We would not have a possibility to talk about vulgarity, rudeness and delicacy, if there was not norm or standard.
Correct behavior is one of the most essential elements of human culture as such. The knowledge of modern rules of behavior gets the increasing value in a life of each separate person and for normal functioning of society as a whole. Norms of behavior play a role of an original filter, which does not pass through roughness, vulgarity, which does not allow humiliation of one person by another.
Arguments that are built up in favour of necessity of expansion of limits of what is permitted and accepted, as a matter of fact work on liquidation of any limits and by that destroy etiquette, and at the same time such part of culture that is responsible for maintenance of a communicative balance. Therefore, if we understand etiquette, as a phenomenon directed on overcoming of the second law of thermodynamics, we do not have any opportunity to consider rudeness and uncivilized behavior as a new step on the way to achievement of spiritual perfection.
All these facts go as if without saying. But some other facts are obvious too. A lot of aspects related to the norms of behavior remain unclear and disputable until now. The nature of behavioral norms is not fully explored, there is no precise description of a system of norms of behavior, the direction of development of etiquette norms is not clear, etc. It can be explained by the complexity of the given phenomenon, which consists of nonverbal forms of behavior as well as of language norms. Furthermore person's real behavior is determined by interaction of factors that at times contradict each other. These factors are the norms fixed in etiquette codes and patterns of behavior that are common in the given cultural and historical situation.
Strictly speaking, norms of behavior are a complex and inconsistent phenomenon. Difficulties of definition of this concept are caused by its attributes, which at first sight seem to be mutually exclusive, but they are recognized as equally correct.
When we talk about a behavioral norm, as its basic features we usually specify its stability, universal prevalence and compulsion of observance of normative rules, connection with tradition and habitualness (custom) of functioning. Depending on the purposes of research, when characterizing standards of behavior, this or that attribute may become dominant. On the other hand, behavioral norms, as well as anything in this world, constantly change, evolve. Norms that were widespread and obligatory in the past, become doubtful in present, and may become an anachronism in future, lose their general importance and turn to anti-norm, i.e. behavior that no longer corresponds to common representation. This process sometimes does not require quite a lot
44
of time. Metamorphoses related to norms of behavior quite often happen during life of one or two generations, and even in our eyes. The requirement of stability and continuous change, the general importance and possibility of change of a norm are the basic antinomies included in the notion 'norm of behavior'.
Attributes of behavioural norm
Let's consider some most essential attributes of behavioural norm in more detail. First of all we shall notice that the expressions 'norm of behaviour' always perform a function of evaluation. A norm of behaviour is always a designation of a certain external point of view according to which actions and acts of people are considered as proper or wrong, good or bad etc. Moreover, the notion 'norm of behaviour' in general has some sense for that simple reason that people do not act according to norms. The norm may exist only on a background of infringement. If there would be no infringement, there would be no sense in speaking about normative behaviour as such. The complete triumph of norm in modern culture is nonsense as from the theoretical as well as from the practical point of view. It is possible to speak about behaviour that does not have any alternative only with reference to a traditional society.
Real behaviour of a person it is almost always something in the middle between the norm and its denial. Thus, each society has the standards of severity or tolerance to violation of norms of behaviour. Functioning of such standards depends on cultural traditions, religious representations, a political system and set of other factors. One thing is, if the norm has been violated by a foreigner, and quite another, when the same is done by an insider. Quite in the same way different standards of tolerance will be applied to a child's and an adult's behaviour. For example, the majority of pedagogical systems, even if they reckon with deviation from the norm, they would never recognize it as a constructive principle of formation of a personality. Orientation to violation of the norm, aspiration to originality, singularity is typical for literally all representatives of marginal groups, whose ideology is always in opposition to the official culture.
One more, essential feature of a norm of behaviour is stability. Stability of norms of behaviour, their relative stability and conservatism, provides continuity of cultural traditions. Preservation of behavioural norms follows from practical needs of society. The experience of joint interaction is the base, on which the very opportunity of existence of mankind and separate collectives rests. Natural, each community is interested in accumulation, preservation and transfer of the achieved results. Conservatism of a behavioural norm links generations, creates a possibility of formation of the so-called national etiquette, within the framework of which the cultural and historical continuity of the produced values and models of behaviour is carried out. However, in parallel with the conservatism of functioning norms there is a continuous and functionally justified process of evolution of behavioural norm. Its stability becomes relative, because excessive preserving influence may result in adverse effect and slow down lively and fruitful process of objective development of forms of human behaviour.
People begin to feel the influence of the following factor, namely a role of tradition in the process of functioning of norms and standards of behaviour, only when there are no traditions. Traditions act as a link of time and their absence immediately creates problems in life. Traditions as connecting force link us not only to the past. Due to them norms of behaviour that exist in the present get additional force. A person who lives without observing any tradition finally finds himself in a constant state of uncertainty. It occurs for the reason that outside of tradition we can inherit rules of behavior only in their formal form. To acquire the force of the law, norms of behavior should be consecrated by authority of tradition. And the tradition makes norms of behavior not casual, but objective. It forms the respectful attitude to daily norms in consciousness of people.
The huge role in the process of integration of external, impersonal requirements of society into the structure of an individual consciousness is played by the law of a habit, which was described by William James more than hundred years ago. He thought that all our life is nothing else but a set of different habits. Hence, a habit is as though the second nature of a person. People dress, undress, eat and drink, lift a hat, when they meet, make way for ladies and etc., and all these actions are carried out almost as reflexes, due to their reiteration [3]. Really, the more actions we can hand
45
over to the automatic side of our organism, the more spiritual forces will be released for solution of creative problems. Norms of behavior are fixed in consciousness of people not because repeated admonitions, but as a result of their constant practice. People should make a habit as much as possible useful daily actions make them flesh and blood of their nature. Thus, paraphrasing the philosopher, it is possible to say that behavioral skills that are acquired in communication should be first capitalized, and then we can live carefree on interests received from this capital.
Next important characteristic of a behavioral norm is a degree of common use, i.e. purely quantitative parameter. This factor should be taken into account when we describe behavioral standards. The typicality, prevalence factor of a model of behavior is a basic factor for non-coded behavioral systems. Real behavior is not determined by book instructions, but by behavioral stamps and clichés that are actually practiced. A norm is the way how people actually behave in the given situation. Speaking more precisely, such behavior becomes a norm in the course of time. And then it may be formulated as the general principle of the appropriate behavior.
The nature of a behavioral norm
Here it is necessary to return to a question related to the nature of a behavioral norm. Is the nature etiquette norms is objective? Is a norm of behavior the custom, which reflects peculiarities of communication and behavior that are internally independent of a public judgment? Or a norm is an establishment, the law, which is offered on a basis of subjective evaluation of communicative practice. Can we see objective factors in change of a norm of behavior, in establishment of new models of behavior, or it is mainly based on subjective preferences, taste, aesthetic parameters, authority of names etc.
The objective character of normative regulators was convincingly demonstrated by O. Drobnitsky in his research of morals. Drobnitsky reasonably thought that formation of norms is a way of crystallization of historical experience of society [4,239]. Norms are rather ancient effective instrument. Using it people took under control and learned how to manage elements of social life. Norms of behavior are the result, reflection of objective needs of public life. Thus, they simply express cultural historical necessity of certain rules of public communication using a form of 'an instruction'.
In order to win recognition the system of norms should not be a result of aesthetes' caprice or whim; it must not bear a resemblance with a museum relict. It should meet all requirements of modern society and be based on values closely related with objective percepts of present situation and modern life.
The nature of behavioral norm is dual. Objective communicative laws and external, social factors are combined in this notion. Without norms existence of a civilized mankind would be impossible.
All this brings us to a possibility to give at least working definition of such complex, ambiguous and dynamical phenomenon as a norm of behavior.
The norm of behavior is a set of communicative standards that take the most suitable form for society. The norm is developed as a result of selection of behavioral elements from the number of known, newly created elements or elements that have been taken from the passive stock of the past and considered by society as valid.
Norms of behavior are rather steady forms of communicative interaction reflecting cultural and historical regularities of development of society, fixed in the best samples and preferred by the educated part of society.
Thus, the behavior of people due to various sorts of conventions, agreements, arrangements, instructions, norms and standards. Life has doubtlessly shown that disregard of values having normative character leads society to disorder and disorganization.
In reality etiquette and norm of behavior in no case infringes man's freedom and sovereignty. Moreover regular signs of attention formulas of politeness may become a habit and second nature of a person. Our own courtesy and delicacy triggers in its turn analogous reaction of other people. And finally, there comes such a moment when external forms become internal, turning into internal content of a person's activity. Herewith as it was pointed out by Helvetius etiquette is transformed from common politeness into genuine good breeding.
46
Conclusion
Our analysis suggests that "standard" or "normative" behavior is an ancient but effective instrument developed by human beings as a means to control their social environment. It has its origin in the objective needs of the community, in the cultural and biological necessity to define the most efficient ways of public communication.
This phenomenon has a dual - it is both a custom and a law, its social parameters are interconnected with objective laws of communication without which, functional behavior in society is impossible.
Norm of behavior is a set of society's most effective standards of communication and interaction. It comes into existence through the process of selection: society evaluates the efficiency of behavioral patterns both new, emerging ones and the ones passively stored in its collective memory, and establishes the most suitable of them as a standard. Thus normative behavior is a relatively stable form of communicative interaction which reflects cultural and historical algorithms of social development.
Norm of behavior is a relative phenomenon and teachers should feel the main tendencies of its development better than others. For without it education can turn into an unsuccessful attempt to force the youth to accept outdated, obsolete patterns of behavior unsuitable in modern society.
Scientists who deal with culture and behavior must help educators to achieve this goal: they have to supply them not only with topographic maps of behavior but also with a behavioral compass which will create the opportunity for orientation, and efficient action according to the particular circumstances.
References / Список литературы
1. Lyotard J.-F. (1983), Answering guestion: What is postmodernism.// Innovation/ Renovation: New perspectives on the humanities. / Ed. by Hassan I., Hassan S. Madison, p. 329-341.
2. Рорти Р. (1997), Релятивизм: найденное и сделанное// Философский прагматизм Ричарда Рорти и российский контекст. Москва, Традиция, 236 с.
3. James William (1980), Principles of psychology. Vol 1-2, New York, Publisher: Dover Publications, 720 p.
4. Дробницкий О.Г. (1974), Понятие морали. Москва, Наука, 1974, 388 с.
