Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

36

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

L.S. Vygotsky's theory and ingroup identification cross-cultural differences (an American-Russian research)

Cross-cultural psychology is regarded abroad as the forth strength in psychology, which is doomed to become a leading psychological force in the twenty-first century. Despite that outstanding Russian psychologists L.S. Vygotsky and A.R. Luria have been recognized all over the world as founders and pathfinders of cross-cultural psychology, in Russia cross-cultural psychology has not gained its full-scale development yet. This research of ours should be referred to as an attempt to make a deposit into the cross-cultural psychology development on the part of the home science of psychology.

Neglecting a cross-cultural perspective brings about confining a scientific discussion of identity issues in contemporary multi-cultural communities to a specific set of research issues, without grounding in a strict methodology, nor establishing a logically consistent and internally structured scientific field. Scientific discussions which emerge at diverse levels are related either to societal or to personal aspects of identity topics, failing to produce an integral generalization of an available body of research.

Culture and self-conception researches are also in a significant way coordinated with an idea that an identity is both a personal, and a social phenomenon. Crosscultural differences are rather a matter of degree than that of quality. A cross-cultural perspective has revitalized a concern in social facets of self and in a degree to which people define themselves in a sense of their relations to other people and to social groups. The core idea of this perspective consists in that an identification is not merely an affiliation or alliances between the self and others, however some fundamental differences in the way by which the self is constituted have been presupposed. The social self represents a self-conception expansion towards something more inclusive than an individual personality.

The core issue of social psychology is a matter of why do people communicate with each other. Despite a long history of an identity phenomenon research, a logically consistent psychology of identity has not shaped yet.

In this respect, our research objective is to perform a factor analysis of an in-group ethno-cultural identification of Russian and American respondents; to find out a psychological content of these factors, which produce a set of identifying «we» - aspects; to compare the factors obtained in both samplings for the sake of determining cross-cultural similarities and differences concerning an in-group ethno cultural-identification.

An empirical basis of our research is constituted by data obtained through a series of field researches carried out by author during 2001-2006. Totally during 2001 in the USA 202 respondents were examined both in Woodrow Wilson International Scholars

Center, a branch of which is George Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies (Washington, DC), and in Maryland State University (College-Park, Maryland). During the second part of out research in Russia in 2005 we examined 244 respondents who were students of Saratov State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky (Saratov, Russia).

Our methodology of empirical research consisted in a process of a complex (consecutive) applying of qualitative methods: a co-relational, a variance, and a factor analysis. A general design of our empirical research confirms a measured ethnic correlates model, adopted by cross-cultural psychology.

The basis for a questionnaire offered for our respondents has been formed by Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (by J. Pheanny), and AIQ-IIIx Aspects Identity Questionnaire (by J.M. Cheek and L.R. Tropp). Data obtained by a questionnaire method, have been subjected to a statistical processing by means of SPSS for MS WINDOWS Release 6.1 computer software. Mean values and standard deviations for variables from these two questionnaires have been calculated. We have applied a principal components method, which enables singling factors out of a data entity. The SPSS for MS WINDOWS Release 6.1 envisages a Bartlett test check concerning the data distribution spherisity. The Bartlett test check has confirmed a multi-dimensional normality of our data distribution. For the sake of increasing the factors interpretability, a factors charges matrix distinctiveness has been improved by a VARIMAX rotation method (Keiser normalization).

Since as early as L.S. Vygotsky's theory on a mediated action [1; 15 - 17], a rebirth of interest towards socialization investigation has become evident among adherents of diverse conceptions [8]. From the viewpoint of L.S. Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory, a «self» is a linguistic process, it is always an activity [8]. An action based (a functional) approach towards a «self» development enjoys an advantage, namely processes of socialization are located in a daily discourse forms and functions. From this standpoint, a «self» appears a dialogical process, permanently grounded in an interpersonal interactive dialogue with oneself and with others. This dialogical process is a reflexive one, i. e. it is performed through shifts from the present (an «I») to the past (a «me») and to the future (a «you»).

Within a structure of variables constituting an in-group ethno-cultural identity of both American and Russian respondents, there are (1) firstly, active actions; (2) secondly, emotions and subjective experiences, concerned to an ethno-cultural in-group belonging.

Targeting at an American and Russian respondents' in-group identity «we» - aspects structure exploration, we have applied a method of principal components, which enables singling factors out of a data entity. In both groups two psychological factors have been determined.

Factor 1 correlates chiefly with psychological experiences of an individual concerning one's ethno-cultural belonging caused by a cognitive identification with one's in-group, not concerning at all or to a vary little degree concerning to performing specific actions, necessarily resulting from one's identification with an in-group, nor with committing such actions which bear one's in-group belonging awareness, potentially capable to effect a destiny of a human being who identifies oneself with an in-group.

Therefore we call factor 1 an «intrapersonal in-group commitment» factor.

Variables constituting factor 2 structure express a «me», therefore we call factor 2 an «interpersonal in-group commitment» factor.

As an ethno-cultural identity develops starting from an immersion stage to a cultures synergetic adjoining and accepting stage through an introspection stage [3; 198], i. e. from a foreclosure status to an achieved identity status (in terms of J. Marcia's approach), a meaning of factor 2 as «interpersonal in-group commitment» will decrease, since such a status approach and a development of a personality along the mentioned direction is accompanied by a personality dependence from its in-group diminishing, and a personal autonomy increasing, as opposite to a personal heteronomy, thus a meaning of factor 1 as «intrapersonal in-group commitment» will decrease for a personality as an autonomous identity formation process is going on.

At the cultures' synergetic stage a personality maintains its loyalty and devotion to one's ethno-cultural group, though one does not consider obligatorily to oneself to obey norms and values of the ethno-cultural group. Recognition of every human being's unique individuality and a human personality's autonomy becomes a determining disposition of a human behaviour at the cultures synergetic stage. As a result of this process an effect on a personality of the factor 2 as «interpersonal in-group commitment», which presupposes an exploration of new alternatives by the personality, will get decreased as the achieved identity status condition will be approached.

In our American sampling factor 1 as «intrapersonal in-group commitment» correlates with the variables which reflect not an emotional-affective facet of an implicit in-group identification, but its cognitive facet. We suppose that within our American sampling a cognitive awareness to a less degree ensures experiencing positive emotions related to an ethno-cultural in-group, than a degree of proximity and close ties to the in-group. Otherwise stated, positive emotions and positive self-relation in connection with an in-group identification emerge within our American sampling on the grounds of close relations to other in-group members, not on the grounds of a reflection about these relations. Cognitive comprehension of an ethno-group identification may in a half of cases bring about positive emotions, and in another half - negative emotions.

Active co-action within an in-group is in the strongest way linked to a subjective experiencing of one's affiliation, and to an objective maintenance of cultural traditions of an in-group. In other words, a cultural «co-action», an in-group belonging, an in-group commitment are inseparable from an intrapersonal experience of «co-action» of an in-group belonging, of an in-group commitment. Intrapersonal and interpersonal «co-actions», an in-group belonging, an in-group commitment are stiffly intertwined, thus confirming a cardinal proposition of L.S. Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory that the intrapsychical gets born from the interpsychical [2].

An active in-group commitment revealing through specific actions targeting at a close approaching in-group members is accompanied by an emotional and a cognitive spheres of a personality activation. To such a human being, who is engaged into active actions, determined by an identification with one's in-group, this identification seems natural and goes without saying, without inclining to any new alternatives. Consequently, thinking over one's self-identification alternatives by a personality gets minimized, consciousness of such a personality is less developed. It rather resembles a foreclosure identity status (J. Marcia) or an immersion stage (D.R. Atkinson, G. Morten, D.W. Sue), while the latter is characterized by a strong feeling of being proud for identifying oneself with one's in-group. Both personal identity and autonomy become dimmed by a group self-identification. Our data prove an L.S. Vygotsky's statement that the intrapsychical gets born from the interpsychical.

A high level of positive self-reference resulting from one's ethno-cultural belonging awareness is peculiar not exclusively of specific non-dominant ethno-cultural in-groups within an American society (e. g., Afro-Americans, Latin-Americans, Asian Americans), but also of quite a diffuse and to a certain extent artificially shaped nonspecific non-dominant in-group of American respondents born to mixed marriages. The high level of positive self-reference resulting from their cultural and ethno-racial belonging awareness among the latter may be explained by their awareness of their own unique proper heterogeneity and their non-identity to any other ethno-cultural groups of the American society. It needs to be admitted that the priority meaning for an (intrapersonal) self-identification is represented by an awareness of one's own cultural and ethno-racial peculiarity, and that an awareness of one's being different is exactly a self-identification.

A one's cultural and ethnical identity awareness is escorted by a positive self-reference independently of which proper ethno-cultural group a personality identifies oneself with, be that group dominant or non-dominant, specific or would-be. One's own proper cultural and ethnical identity awareness is escorted with a positive selfreference independently of which ethno-cultural group in particular a personality identifies oneself, be that a dominant or a non-dominant one, a specific or a would-be one. It would be incorrect to say that an identity awareness brings about a positive self-reference. It would be more precise to say that one's own proper cultural or ethnic belonging awareness at the cognitive level reveals itself as a positive self-reference at the emotional level. Self-identification is experienced in a positive way even if this is a self-identification with a non-dominant culture. A self-identification lack at the cognitive level (a marginal or diffuse identity) is experienced in a negative way at the emotional level. An integral phenomenon of self-identification bears two inseparable aspects: a cognitive (a cultural and ethnic belonging awareness) one, and an emotional-affective (a positive self-reference) one.

A lack of correlations between an ethno-cultural belonging to a certain in-group, and a positive self-reference make guess that an ethno-cultural belonging and a positive self-sensation resulting from its awareness are not two separate variables, but rather two facets of one and the same variable: on the one hand, there is an identity and an ethno-group belonging as a phenomenon, and, on the other hand, there is a phenomenal awareness of an identity and that of an in-group belonging, and a positive self-reference, which is inseparable from it.

A larger degree of an ethno-cultural identity awareness at the group level among members of specific ethno-cultural groups, who do not identify themselves with a dominant culture, is explained by a degree of a distance from the dominant culture and either an impermeability or transparency of in-group boundaries. It is evident, that as an intercultural distance increases, a mechanism called by h. Tajfel a social comparison process starts acting tougher [11]. Therefore, the most categorical answers have been obtained from respondents, who belong to an ethno-cultural group, which displays the most distinctiveness in comparison with the dominant culture, where an intercultural distance between this group, and a dominant culture is the furthest, consequently, a social comparison process functions in the mot intensive way, and increases a group identity awareness, and an in-group commitment at the interpersonal level. First and foremost, Afro-Americans are spoken of here. however, because in the course of the past centuries the proper African culture had turned out lost by Afro-Americans themselves, the Afro-American ethno-cultural in-group is to a great degree a diffuse one. Therefore the most assured and maximal indices of a group identity awareness, and those of an interpersonal commitment into an in-group have been obtained by us from members of an ethno-cultural in-group with the most impermeable boundaries, which are Latin Americans.

An intermediate position between these two groups - an Afro-American one, and a Latin American one - is occupied by an in-group, an intercultural distance of which from the dominant culture is not that far, as that of Afro-Americans, and which ingroup boundaries impermeability are not that sealed, as those of Latin Americans - we speak of Asian Americans here.

The highest intrapersonal commitment into an in-group may be stated for nonspecific ethno-cultural in-groups members of American society, who do not belong to the dominant white culture, e. g. among Latin Americans a share of respondents who have chosen «Agree» and «Strongly agree» alternatives when answering the corresponding items, i. e. who have confirmed their own intrapersonal commitment for an in-group turns out high and stable (from 79,0% up to 100,0%), so as for AfroAmericans (from 84,5% up to 96,6%). An Asian Americans' share of respondents who have stated their own proper intrapersonal commitment into an in-group distributes within the limits of 72,4% up to 89,7% on various aspects of the psychological factor at question, i. e. quite a high and stable one as well.

A share of respondents who represent a non-specific non-dominant ethno-cultural in-group of Americans descending from mixed marriages is unstable and varies within a broad range from 29,2% up to 95,8% respondents, who have stated their intrapersonal commitment into an in-group. A range of answers from respondents from the group at question permits to allege an uncertainty and instability of an intrapersonal commitment into an in-group characteristic of the American respondents descending from mixed marriages.

A share of the dominant culture representatives who have alleged their intrapersonal commitment for the dominant ethno-cultural in-group stands close to a moderately average, and locates within the limits from 53,8% up to 83,3% on various aspects of the discussed psychological factor. We may justly conclude that an in-group identity of the White Americans is stably diffuse. The stably diffuse identity possibly plays a negative role for the cultural self-consciousness of the White Americans, however, for the American society as a whole the stably diffuse personal identity of the dominant majority is positive, hence it unfolds a psychological room for maintaining an ethnocultural identity of the non-dominant ethno-cultural groups' members, and, firstly, it ensures maintaining a unity and an integrity of the society by means of expanding the ethno-cultural space, and, secondly, it imparts an important feature to this ethnocultural space, i. e. a tolerance to other cultures. One may debate a degree of an ethnocultural tolerance in the USA in respect of non-dominant cultures, however, there is a must to admit the fact that the white European culture, while being a dominant one, simultaneously provides a recognized measure of a tolerance in respect of other ethno-racial cultures.

The shares of respondents who have affirmed their interpersonal commitment for an in-group a little bit decrease. Among the Latin Americans an interpersonal commitment embraces on any aspect of this psychological factor more than a half of the respondents and equals to the limits from 52,7% up to 94,7%, i. e. an interpersonal commitment of the Latin Americans is rather categorical.

Among the Asian Americans a share of respondents who have affirmed their interpersonal commitment for an in-group for various aspects of the psychological factor being discussed here equals to the limits from 55,2% up to 89,7%, i. e. it is also high and quite stable. however, the interpersonal commitment, and, consequently, the in-group identity of the Asian Americans is less categorical, and does not exceed 90,0% as distinct from Latin Americans. Perhaps, this difference finds its explanation in a larger diffusion of in-group boundaries in comparison with the Latin American respondents.

Among the Afro-Americans a corresponding share of respondents is somewhat lower, than shares in the two former groups, and equals to a range from 48,3% up to 86,2%, i. e. it insignificantly ascends lower the fifth percentile. The reason for this drop of the interpersonal commitment for the in-group as compared to the intrapersonal commitment for the in-group of the Afro-Americans proper hides in a relative diffusion and transparency of the Afro-American ethno-cultural in-group boundaries.

The Afro-American culture in contemporary America is to a certain extent a conditional and artificial notion, existing rather for the sake of self-confronting the White culture, but not an authentically African one. The furthest distance from the dominant White culture among all the ethno-cultural groups in the USA which we have considered ensures sufficiently high indices of the Afro-Americans' commitment for their in-group, however this in-group lacks distinct boundaries.

The next non-dominant in-group which lacks its distinct boundaries is the mixed marriages Americans. Within this artificial ethno-cultural in-group the share of respondents who have alleged their interpersonal commitment for the in-group is not stable and on various aspects of the given psychological factor varies within the limits from 16,7% up to 91,7%. One may justly acknowledge that this in-group is not stable and eventually is not actual, but artificial (non-specific) due to a large ethno-racial heterogeneity of its members.

A huge ethno-cultural heterogeneity is also typical of the White Americans. In our research the dominant ethno-cultural group incorporates not exclusively the White Americans born in diverse states of the USA from Maryland to Alaska, and the hawaii, but also descendants from such culturally heterogeneous countries as Italy, the Great Britain, Canada, Macedonia, and Russia. The heterogeneity and numerousness of the ethno-cultural elements amalgamated under a common title of the dominant (White) culture of the USA facilitates a diffusion of the group at issue, as well as a decrease of the ethno-cultural belonging awareness. The share of the White Americans who have affirmed their own proper interpersonal commitment for their in-group at various items of the discussed psychological factor is average and below average (from 27,7% up to 64,6%), i. e. the group identity of the White Americans, who have participated in our research is slightly aware and this unawareness looks like a stable feature.

The contemporary American society and the ethno-cultural identity of the Americans are implicitly characterized by a moderate level of the intrapersonal commitment (mean value = 2,4076), and an average level of the interpersonal commitment (mean value = 2,6128).

The average values of the both factors within the American sampling are approximately equal, and the specific intercultural differences in the Americans' in-group identity are explained, firstly, by the differences in transparency/impermeability of ingroup boundaries (the transparency is more evident within the dominant culture, and within the Afro-American in-group); secondly, by the intercultural distance dimension, which activates the intercultural intergroup comparison process, the course of which is explained by the h. Tajfel's law [9].

Otherwise stated, the contemporary American society is to a significant extent atomized and individualized as far as the ethno-cultural aspect is concerned. however, a separate existence of the ethno-cultural diversification and divergence system, on the one hand, and of the social-economical differentiation, on the other hand, ensures maintaining a firm stability of the American social world.

The lack of a distinct and conscious in-group commitment of the dominant culture representatives creates certain prerequisites for the ethno-cultural situation in the USA to develop along the way of integration [4; 201 - 234]. Assimilation as the acculturation strategy existing in the USA disposes of opportunities to preserve for an indefinitely long term, since the high intrapersonal, and interpersonal commitment peculiar of the non-specific ethno-cultural groups comes to a contradiction with the diffuse essence of the intrapersonal, and interpersonal commitment of the dominant culture members, and with the open and tolerant essence of the American social world.

In general, in the same way as the American respondents in-group identity, within the Russian sampling the highest positions are occupied with such «we» - aspects, which predetermine committing certain actions, concerned with the conscious selfidentification with an ethno-cultural group, and the lowest positions are occupied with the «we» - aspects, which express a personality's experience of self-identification with an ethno-cultural group. however, as a whole, the mean values of all variables within our Russian sampling stand higher than the corresponding values within the American sampling. If for the American respondents an evaluation of actions concerning their self-identification with an ethno-cultural in-group is characterized as average with alternatives «Agree» or «No opinion», while their evaluation of their own proper experiences relating to their self-identification with a certain ethno-cultural group is characterized by «Strongly agree» and «Agree» alternatives, though as far as the Russian respondents are concerned, their evaluation of their own proper actions, which relate to their identification with a certain ethno-cultural group is characterized as average by «No opinion» and «Disagree» alternatives, while their evaluation of their own proper experiences relating to their self-identification with a certain ethno-cultural group is characterized as average by «Agree» and «No opinion» alternatives. This permits us to conclude that among the Russian respondents the in-group identity is more diffuse, while the self-identification with a certain ethno-cultural in-group reveals implicitly weaker in comparison with the American respondents.

The cross-cultural difference between the American and the Russian samplings consists in that within the Russian sampling's in-group identity structure the «in-group interpersonal commitment» factor is in no way related to a variable «I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to». Indeed, the Russian respondents refer to one's belonging to an ethno-cultural in-group in such a natural way that this kind of a belonging causes no emotional-affective experience, neither an experience of happiness, nor an experience of grief. This phenomenon, which is peculiar for an indigenous collectivist Russian culture, indirectly testifies a high tolerance of the Russian sampling to one's ethno-cultural belonging, as well as that within the Russian sampling of our research the ethno-cultural belonging does not play a determinative part of interpersonal relations. Ethno-cultural groups of Russia are historically slightly detached from each other, as distinct from the USA, where the in-group and the out-group boundaries are well enough visible and distinct, though they may be dim.

Opposite to the American sampling, the in-group intrapersonal comittment within the Russian sampling stronger correlates with cognitive variables, not with emotional ones, unlike the American respondents. The Russian respondents perceive their ethno-cultural group belonging rather as something natural, that goes without saying, and to a less extent accompanied with experiencing emotions. This may be viewed at as a case of a more reflexivity of the Russian respondents «self» - conception.

Within the immigrant individualistic American culture the respondents' both positive emotions as well as their positive self-reference concerning their in-group self-identification, or to put it in a more precise way, concerning their own proper intrapersonal commitment for the in-group emerge on the grounds of their relations to other in-group members, not on the grounds of their reflection of such relations. Within the Russian sampling a reverse phenomenon has been observed, i. e. the respondents' both positive emotions as well as their positive self-reference concerning their in-group self-identification and their own proper intrapersonal commitment for the in-group emerge right exactly on the grounds of their reflection, while their relations with other members of the in-group for the Russian respondents are rather

optional, than obligatory.

Within the indigenous collectivist Russian culture the phenomenon at question finds its explanation through a representation of an ethno-cultural in-group belonging as an inevitable reality, which by force of its inevitability does not demand its exploration nor performing any active doings towards it. The Russian respondents accept it exactly as a given fact, not as an imperative stimulus to commit actions, which might reinforce it, as opposite to the American respondents.

Within the indigenous collectivist Russian culture, as opposite to the immigrant individualist American culture, the interpersonal commitment for a certain in-group is characterized first and foremost by reflexive variables, not by variables, which express actively performed actions. Therefore, it would be legal to speak primarily about a cognitive peculiarity or feature of the ethno-cultural identity, that has been called by the word «commitment» by J. Marcia et al. [6].

Once again the L.S. Vygotsky's idea that the intrapsychical emerges from the interpsychical [2], however among the American sampling the corresponding variables virtually dominate within the «interpersonal commitment for the in-group» factor content, while among the Russian sampling the same variables retreat facing the necessity to reflect own proper in-group commitment.

Performing active doings, by which an interpersonal commitment for an in-group is characterized (e. g., maintaining cultural habits, exploring history, habits, and customs of the ethno-cultural in-group), and the positive self-reference, caused by this commitment, concedes within the Russian sampling to the necessity first of all to reflect such a commitment.

The interpersonal commitment of the Russian sampling for the ethno-cultural ingroup is characterized by a weakness of an active participation in organizations and events, in comparison with the American sampling, for which right exactly their active participation in organizations and events the majority of members in which are representatives of the same ethno-cultural in-group appears the principal variable, shaping the «interpersonal commitment for in-group» factor. henceforth, we should one more time draw attention to the passively speculating essence of the in-group interpersonal commitment of the Russian sampling. A Russian respondent, as a rule, lives all one's life within the circle of one's ethno-cultural group members. S/he gets used to one's own proper interpersonal commitment and ceases to notice it. Consequently, s/he is little inclined to experience joy in this respect, referring to one's own interpersonal

commitment for the in-group as natural and inevitable. The activity extent effects little the Russian sampling interpersonal commitment, leaving more freedom for one's own personal self-determination, and for the synergetic autonomy development.

On the grounds of the both samplings of our research data we suggest that the specific ethno-cultural groups' members, independently of the degree of their dominance within the ethno-cultural room of the social world, the cultural and ethnic belonging as such are accepted as a natural phenomenon, which goes without saying and does not require any conscious reflection at this very instance, much likely an archetype does not demand any conscious reflecting commitment.

On the contrary, the non-dominant and/or non-specific ethno-cultural groups' members need exactly such a conscious reflection, a conscious choice or a commitment [7] concerning that, which culture and ethnicity to identify oneself implicitly with. The personal conscious choice and a conscious commitment for the in-group result in diminishing the discussed «we» - aspect diffusion, and in a more positive selfreference in relation to one's own cultural and ethnical belonging, which cause shaping a consciously chosen or an achieved status of ethno-cultural identity. Thus, the foreclosure status of an ethno-cultural identity corresponds to an archetype, while an achieved ethno-cultural identity status corresponds to a commitment. This statement seems us an ethic (a universal) one, since it is proved both in the American immigrant individualistic culture, and in the Russian indigenous collectivist culture.

The Russian sampling of our research is characterized with quite mediocre indices of the in-group ethno-cultural belonging awareness, evenly distributing over all discussed ethno-cultural groups. Obviously, within an indigenous collectivist culture, such as the Russian one, the intercultural distance proves subjectively short, therefore the mechanism called by h. Tajfel the social comparison process [10], though does not cease, however is not aware implicitly.

A share of the dominant culture representatives who have alleged their own proper intrapersonal commitment for the dominant ethno-cultural in-group equals close to moderately average, and locates within the limits from 47,2% up to 66,3% at various «we» - aspects of the psychological factor at question. Among the non-dominant specific ethno-cultural in-groups representatives corresponding shares of the respondents are estimated within the limits from 39,1% up to 69,5%. A share of the respondents who represent the non-dominant non-specific ethno-cultural in-group of the Russians originating from mixed marriages, who have affirmed their own proper intrapersonal commitment for their in-group, varies within a range from 37,2% up to 62,8% respondents.

Within the dominant ethno-cultural group a range bottom boundary is a little bit higher as compared to non-dominant groups, independently of their ethno-cultural specificity degree. however, since in all groups of the Russian sampling the intrapersonal commitment factor range is characterized of approximately equal boundaries, therefore we are just to say assuredly that the intrapersonal commitment of the Russian respondents for a certain in-group appears stable and rather indefinite.

The ranges' boundaries change slightly when we come to analyze our data on the interpersonal commitment factor. Among the dominant culture representatives values of various «we» - aspects of the discussed psychological factor disperse within the limits from 28,1% up to 75,2%. The interpersonal commitment factor «we» - aspects values range for the non-dominant specific ethno-cultural groups is characterized by the indices from 30,4% up to 69,5%. The interpersonal commitment of respondents who belong to the non-dominant non-specific ethno-cultural group is characterized by a range of values from 21,0% up to 74,7%.

The largest gap between the upper and lower boundaries of the range is found within the non-dominant non-specific ethno-cultural group, and also within the dominant ethno-cultural group. Obviously, here the interpersonal commitment for the ethno-cultural in-groups is rather diffuse and disperse, unstable by nature. Within the non-dominant specific ethno-cultural group the interpersonal commitment for a certain ethno-cultural in-group is more conscious, and less diffuse.

We may legally allege that the contemporary Russian society, and the ethno-cultural identity of the Russians are implicitly characterized by a rather moderate level of the intrapersonal commitment (a mean value = 2,436), and by an even more moderate level of the interpersonal commitment (a mean value = 2,8154).

These values are approximately equal to the corresponding American indices, cross-cultural differences among them are insignificant. however, an ethno-cultural atomization and individualization, affordable in an individualist immigrant culture, are capable of bringing about tensions in a different type of culture, namely an indigenous collectivist one. In the Russian culture we have not found an active process of the intercultural intergroup comparison because of the implicitly short intercultural distance, as opposed to the American culture. Though, for a more complete ethnocultural harmonization of the Russian social world, in our opinion, it is necessary that a structural modernization of Russia would take into consideration the millennia Russian ethno-cultural specificity. Otherwise stated, the stable diffuse intrapersonal and interpersonal commitment, peculiar of the Russian ethno-cultural groups ought not to come to a clash with efforts for transforming the originally collectivist Russian culture.

Literature

intercultural psychology vygotsky

1. Выготский Л.С. Проблема культурного развития ребенка // Вестник Московского университета. Сер. 14. Психология. 1991. №4. С. 5 - 18.

2. Выготский Л.С. Собрание сочинений в 6-ти томах. М.: Педагогика, 1983.

3. Atkinson D.R., Morten G., Sue D.W. Counseling American Minorities: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1979.

4. Berry J. Psychology of Acculturation. // Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990.

5. Berry J.W. Ethnic Identity in Plural Societies. // Ethnic Identity: Formation and Transmission among hispanics and Other Minorities. New York: State University of New York Press, 1993.

6. Marcia J.E. et al. Ego Identity: A handbook for Psychosocial Research. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1993.

7. Matteson D.R. Alienation vs. Exploration and Commitment: Personality and Family Correlaries of Adolescent Identity Statuses: Rapport fra Projekt for Ungdomsforskning. Kшbenhavn: Projket for Ungdomsforskning, 1974.

8. Shotter J. Cultural Politics of Everyday Life: Social Constructionism, Rhetoric and Knowing of the Third Kind. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

9. Tajfel h. Social Categorization. English MS. of La Catйgorisation Sociale // Introduction а la Psychologie Sociale, Vol. I. Paris: Larousse, 1972

10. Tajfel h. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14. London: Academic Press, 1978

11. Tajfel h. human Groups and Social Categories. Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1981.

Размещено на Allbest.ru