Ethical component of child's outlook formation

- «Emotional stability» - tlerance to external factors that help concentrate on the essential.

These people seldom show signs of disorganization in their behavior. Persons with high degree of Machiavellianism show «cold syndrome»: resistance to external social influences, ignoring goals and feelings of others, aims to control the external situation. The low degree of Machiavellianism leads to the syndrome of «soft contact» that has an alternative definition.

Machiavellian personality denotes Western model of masculinity to the middle of the XX century. The focus on existential and humanistic values gives manipulation the negative character. However, Western culture upholds personal values of personal growth (the power of «I», integrity, self motivation, pragmatism, the orientation on success), and human suffering associated with the weak force of «I», which is reflected in the educational methods (psychoanalytically oriented pedagogy, learner-centered pedagogy by Rogers). Interpersonal relationships are appropriate to the values as friendliness and politeness. Representatives of Transpersonal Psychology emphasize super personal values of human growth: Love, Friendship, Creativity, and R. Assagioli tried to delineate the field of transpersonal by a system of cultural symbols. The idea of psychosyn thesis is that a person developing mainly along the axis of «personal property», has manipulative behaviors. So politeness and friendliness, on the one hand, can be manipulative, and on the other - they are not the only interpersonal reserves of personal growth as success in life. Moreover, it appears that a strong «I» may not be the panacea for failures in life, but their cause. Pedagogical strategy within this approach - is transcending into supra plan. From this point of view, any communication technology (from practical advices of D. Carnegie to communicative skills in social behaviorism, etc.) carries the risk of manipulation and barriers of transpersonal growth. To some extend, communicative technologyies are similar to technologies of love between oversexed teenagers - they do not create anything new, but erotize more.

Some researchers put together the manipulation and the «surviving» behavior, contrasting it with the self-actualization. If our ignorance realizes the diverse needs of the biological, psychological and social survival (vital, in safety, belonging, self-esteem), the behavior is fundamentally manipulative. E. Byrne, for example, conceptualizes this as a game. Destruction of games by E. Berne, transcending self-actualization by A. Maslov, integration of subindividual in psychosynthesis, etc. derive personality to nonmanipulative lifestyles.

E. Jones described ingratiation (literally «ingratiate», «to ingratiate oneself») as manipulation at the level of behavior. «The term ingratiation... belongs to the class of those behaviors that are aimed at increasing the attractiveness of the subject in relation to the partner of interaction with the help of «illegal» means»[5]. Meaning of the term «illegal» E. Jones explains, in terms of Hoffman's social drama theory, who viewed interaction as a kind of ritual. During the ritual, the partners adhere to the rules that prescribe mutual assistance in the performance of roles. Ingratiator, from this point of view, would be the one who signals to the partner of interaction that he follows these rules, and in fact violates these standards, carrying out his plan, improving his position in the interaction. E. Jones examined the phenomenon of ingratiation also in accordance with the concept of social exchange. Ingratiator in this case is the person who violates the rules of equivalent exchange. E. John described three techniques of ingratiation: Raising the partner profile (praise, flattery), conformism and self-presentation. According to E. Jones, the praise of those traits of the object of ingratiation (partner), due to which he has reasonably high or low self-esteem is inefficient. It is effective to praise those features that people want to have, and doubt whether they have them. The technique of conformism is effective only than when it relates to the thoughts and attitudes of the partner, which are important for him and require support. A third technique has two forms: positive (creating a positive «self-image») and negative (creating a negative «self-image») presentation. The second form is more hidden and appeals to norms of help («The weak ones are always helped!»).

Thus, the concept of manipulation can describe a person and may refer to specific behavioral acts. Therefore, the genesis of manipulation should be considered as the genesis of appropriate behavior and personal traits. The manipulation mechanism generates interpersonal (for example, upbringing that indulges to hypo protection with the fixation of a child as an «idol in the family,» and etc.) and intrapersonal factors (demonstrative accentuation, etc.). Manipulative attitude towards others is a rejection of personal growth, and in clinical respect - is a variety of symptoms from psychosomatic pathology to deviant and delinquent behavior.

We should note that manipulation is often fused with the psychological defense. Protection distorts the personality and manipulation implements these personal strains.

However, knowledge of ethical standards and possession of ethical motivation does not guarantee the implementation of ethical experience. As the Japanese proverb says: «To know and not to do means not to know.» Ethical assessment of anything is not synonymous with change; it is only the first step in the process of changing. In the transition from the desire for action and awareness of it the important role is played by purely human, psychological quality, which ignored both by national and foreign pedagogy and psychology - that is will.

Historically, «will»» has a lot of features and functions, and often conflicting. According to Aristotle it is a «mental state that is prior to action.» According to Arendt, «the will - is a mental» organ of the future « - as well as a memory - is a mental body of the past. Kant considered will to be an ability to begin a series of successive actions spontaneously. According to Wels it is a «decisive factor in the translation of balance in the process of change... an act that takes place between insight and action and is experienced as an effort or determination.» This is acceptance of responsibility - as opposed to a sense of responsibility. According to Ariett it is a part of psychic structure, which has the «ability to make and implement the decision.» This is a force, consisting of energy and desire, «trigger efforts», «mainspring of action.»

One important source of controversy related to «will», is the fact that the will is linked with freedom (it is meaningless to speak of non-free will, if we like Hobbes and Spinoza change the will the way that it becomes more elusive and subjective state rather than the actual location of the power of will). [1] In cause of time the idea of free will was inadequate to the dominant view of society. Though the debates about free will are continuously going on, the opponents of the concept changed over the centuries.

Thus, the Greek philosophers had no term for the freedom of the will; the concept was incompatible with the dominant faith in the eternal repetition, with the belief, as Aristotle put it, that the emergency of the existence inevitably denotes pre-existence of something that exists potentially but not in reality. «Stoic fatalists who believed that everything that is, or will be, «should be» rejected the idea of an agent of free will in man. Christian theology could not reconcile faith in divine providence, in the Omniscient Almighty God with the terms of free will. Later, the concept of free will came into conflict with the scientific positivism, with the idea of Isaac Newton and Pierre Laplace of explainable and predictable universe. Later Hegelian idea of history as a compulsory progress of universal spirit collided with the ideology of free will, which by its very nature rejects this obligation and keeps to the point that all that has been accomplished, might not have been done just as well. Finally, free will is rejected by all deterministic systems, regardless of whether they are based on the economic, behavioral or psychoanalytic principles.

Let's consider only those concepts that address the issue of forming the will and it usage for personal growth.

O. Rank introduced the concept of the will to psychological practice for the first time, he reinterpreted the Freud's model of the psychic apparatus: retaining the concept of instinctual drives, but placed them under the jurisdiction of the will. «I understand will as a positive directing organization that uses creatively and suppresses instinctual drives and controls.» During the development of the individual, Rank believed that will is formed together with instinctual impulses. The formation of will is influenced by that how parents are involved in the process of impulses' upbringing. First, the environment is concerned about limited impulsivity of a child to make him suitable for their community. The child responds to these parental limitations with the help of opposition ~ that is the first step in the development of the will, or, as it is interpreted by Rank - as «negative will». Gradually, the child begins to exercise personal control over his impulses and decisions - for example, due to the love to parents child can restrain his aggressive impulses. Thus, the function of will is initially interconnected with its impulse: it either controls the impulse or resists to external attempts to control this impulse. The emotional life of the child, said Rank, also develops in relation to the instinctive impulses. Emotions differ from impulses: we strive to discharge impulses but emotions ~ to extend or to retain. Therefore, «we can say that the emotional life is responsible for slowing down or retaining the life of impulses.»

Thus, O. Rank has put forward the idea that the emotional life is like a mirror reflection of the life of impulses, whereas the will is a separate executive essence, and it is equal in power to system of impulses. «Will is an impulse that is positively and actively put at the service of the Ego, and it is not the blocked impulse, as an emotion.» Rank later spoke of the will as an «Ego-impulse.»

O. Rank viewed the parent-child relationship, and in fact the whole process of assimilation as a battle of wills, and insisted that parents should be very sensitive in this situation. One shouldn't destroy the negative will, but it must be handled in such a way that it could transform into a positive, or «creative» will.

O. Rank believed that other important issues of early life are derived from the fundamental struggle of wills. «Oedipus complex doesn't have another meaning but that of great - if not the first - a conflict of wills between the growing individual and the will of the millennial moral code, personified in his parents... The child must submit to it - not because he should have his father alive and should not marry his mother, but because he does not have to assume that he can do what he wants and he must not trust his own free will.»

O. Rank has described three stages of the will development:

1. antiwill\negative will - opposition to the will of another,

2. positive will - a manifestation of human will to what he must.

3. creative will - a manifestation of the will of man to what he wants.

The purpose of upbringing a child is to transform the first two stages into creative will. The main «mistake» in the process of upbringing, according to O. Rank, is the suppression of the life of impulses and early will («antiwill» or «negative» will). If parents teach children that every free expression of impulses is undesirable and every negative will is bad, the child suffers from two effects - the suppression of all his emotional life and stunted will, burdened with guilt. The child grows into an adult that suppresses his emotions and considers the act of the will expression as something bad and forbidden.

O. Rank has described the three main types of character: the creative, neurotic and antisocial. Creative character has access to emotions and volitional acts due to his appeal. Neurotic character has the will, which is caught in a tangle with guilt, and delayed emotional life. Antisocial character has suppressed will and is controlled by impulses.

While supporting the idea of O. Rank, L. Farber raised the problem of the relationship between the act of volition and will, based on a psychological process of change. He brought into the psychology of the will «a vital change that is an exaggerated emphasis on the conscious will.» He believes that attempts to determine the will were unsuccessful because there are two different kinds of will, so different from each other, that only the meaningless definition could cover both of them.

The first type of will according to Farber and, therein lies his most important contribution, is not consciously experienced in the process of volition act and the conclusion about it must be done after the event, this will is said to be unconscious.

Thus, L. Farber concludes that the important choices that people make in their life are not consciously experienced as choices. Indeed, only after the event, a person can come to the conclusion that the choice have been made. This kind can be understood of as an underground stream of life, which has a direction, but does not have discrete objects or purposes. It provides individual progress, but escapes from the immediate and direct research.

The second type of will is conscious: it is experienced directly during the event. A person without much difficulty can be characterized by its presence, shape and strength. The second type of will motivates an individual to a specific purpose (as opposed to the first, which is a pure movement) and is utilitarian by its nature: «I do it to get something.» The purpose of the manifestations of this kind of will is known from the very beginning.

Accordingly, in the process of bringing of these two types of will one should approach in different ways. With the second type of will (conscious) one comes into contact through exhortations and appeals to the will energy, effort and determination. The first type of will is not available for these statements, and it must be, according to L. Farber, interacted indirectly.

The importance of the will in the formation of ethical attitudes and values of the child is also conditioned by its close relationship with the desires. In his famous work «Love and Will» R. May suggests that the desire is the predecessor of the will, and that without the initial desire there can not be meaningful action. Manifestation of will - it's not only the energy and determination, but also the potential which is closely associated with the future. Due to the will a person projects himself in the future, and the desire is the beginning of the process. Desire - «this is the recognition that we want future to be this or that, the ability to penetrate deep within ourselves and to be filled with the desire to change the future.»

R. May emphasizes that the desire are different from the needs, forces or tropisms in one important respect: the desires are meaningful. The individual does not have desires blindly. The desire is selective and highly individualized. The desire that May calls «an imaginary game with the possibility of some act or condition» is the first step in the process of manifestation of will. Only after there is a desire, an individual can click on the «trigger of efforts» and initiate the left part of the volition act that is concerned with the adoption of internal commitment and choice, which reaches its culmination.

The «desire» gives the «will» warmth, content, imagination, child's game, freshness and variety. The «will» gives the «desire» self-direction, and maturity. Without the «desire», «will» loses its vitality, viability and tends to fade away in selfcontradiction. If you have only the «will» and no «desire», you are a dry man Victorian, Neo-puritan. If you have only the «desire» and no «will», you are an obsessed, non-free, infantile person, adult, remaining a child, who can turn into a human-robot.»

Therefore, based on the above said, the ethical component of the integrative model of worldview formation as a system, we take the principle of formation of ethical experience, that is understood as the knowledge of our ethical standards, organized internal position of the child in relation to them (i.e., ethical motivation [2]), and their implementation (the formation of the volitional component and liability).

List of reference