Motivation and prerequisites for political activity. Motivation of political power Motivation of political behavior

As we found out in the previous chapter, in a political campaign, management efforts are aimed at creating motives for the object of influence to become involved in one or another type of political activity. If a person does not want to go to the polling station and cast his vote for a certain candidate, then you cannot force him to do this. The task is to convince a person to make the desired political choice, or to seduce him to do so. However, in order to realize this opportunity in any of the proposed options, it is necessary to know how beliefs are formed, how motives appear that push people to certain actions.

Basic theories of motives for political behavior:

· Long gone is the behaviorist (behavioural) model – summarized in the formula “STIMULUS -> RESPONSE”. If you look at it en masse, problems arise - not everyone responds to the stimulus to the same extent.

· The theory of needs – the motive is aimed at satisfying needs. Maslow's theory (pyramid) - at the bottom of the pyramid are physical needs, the second level is safety needs, the third level is the need to join a group, the next level is self-esteem needs, and finally, the highest level is self-realization needs. Criticism is about pyramids - precisely in the construction system, it seems like a higher need cannot arise if a lower level need is not satisfied. In reality this is not the case.

· If previous theories arose before WW2, then after it a wave of new theories appeared - theories of electoral behavior, and now there are 3 main theories, and they were created not only on the basis of inferences, but also on rich empirical experience. The reasons for the emergence of research on voting behavior: it is repeatable + mercantile reasons (people are interested in knowing who will vote for whom). Theories:

o Structuralist/sociological – the assumption that in society there are stable objective structures that have a strong impact - status, group, social affiliation + the influence of religious affiliations. As the middle class began to strengthen, social affiliation began to influence their political choices less => interest in this theory began to fade

o Socio-psychological – “Michigan theory” - is based on an empirically proven conclusion: if a person has formed certain attitudes, then they will certainly manifest themselves during the voting process. They also created tools that allow you to take measurements. Everything was fine as long as we were talking about the USA. But in other countries this did not always work - people did not consider themselves adherents of the party, or were against everyone (70% - undecided, 30% can be predicted)

o Rational choice theory – could only arise in the USA. 3 important points: 1) a person always strives for a certain goal, which is determined by the standards “beneficial or not profitable”; 2) recognition that a person is able to adequately evaluate information about the situation in which he finds himself and is able to choose adequate ways to achieve a goal; 3) minimizing efforts to achieve goals. The criticism is this: a rational person does not go to the polls at all (“my vote does not decide anything, then why waste my personal time”). This theory gives election organizers a good hint: if the situation in the country is stable, people feel protected, then they will vote retrospectively (for those who provided wealth and stability), if there is a crisis, then they will vote prospectively (that is, for the opposition) .

At the end of the 20th century, the logic of information influence began to be studied. 2 theories:

· Contextual theory– a person, his behavior and consciousness are formed due to the fact that he establishes communication relationships. Within this approach, it was indicated that differences in views are determined by the ability of people to build their own communication channels. A person checks information from the media by talking about this information in his closest circle. But how does a person interpret information from the environment? The phenomenological vacuum cleaner theory explored this issue.

· Cognitive theory of motivation. The main thesis of the authors of cognitive theories (from English. cognitive-cognitive) was the belief that an individual’s behavior is guided by knowledge, ideas, opinions about what is happening in the external world, about causes and consequences. Every person is influenced by external information. And what a person does and how he does it ultimately depends not only on his fixed needs, deep and eternal aspirations, but also on relatively changeable ideas about reality.

Cognitive dissonance is a contradiction between external information and internal belief. A person usually gets out of cognitive dissonance in this way: he ignores external information. Some people become even more convinced that they are right. In order to overcome and change cognitive dissonance, a person must make certain internal efforts. Reconsidering your views requires inner work. Sometimes it is overcome when information that does not correspond to beliefs is given by a significant communicator.

People's behavior can be influenced by certain types of information; election campaigns are based on the injection of certain information.

Motivation for political behavior

Each form of political behavior (typical or individual) is based on a certain motivation. Motive (from Latin moveo - I move) is a material or ideal object, the achievement of which is the meaning of activity. The motive exists in the form of specific experiences (positive emotions from the expectation of achieving a given object or negative emotions associated with the incompleteness of the present situation), rational, conscious needs or irrational, purely psychological manifestations. The motivation for political activity is rarely associated only with the sphere of politics. It has an extremely deep social nature and is determined by numerous, diverse factors.

The deepest level of formation of political motivation can be considered the biopsychological characteristics of each individual. The most important ones include the following:

Volitional attitudes (will is a person’s ability to achieve his goals in the conditions of overcoming obstacles),

Degree of emotionality

Impulsivity of behavior,

The relationship between rational and irrational factors of motivation,

Temperament (temperament is the individual pace and rhythm of mental processes, the degree of stability of feelings),

Reactive thresholds (threshold is the magnitude of the stimulus, upon reaching which an individual’s reaction to it occurs),

The presence or absence of aggressiveness as a special form of self-affirmation,

The degree of psychological self-sufficiency,

Phobias or manias that have deep, biopsychological roots.

Along with the manifestation of deeply personal psychological characteristics, political activity also characterizes objectively existing, stable lines of interaction between a person and various components of the social system, including the political system. These interactions create external, social and institutional factors of political motivation. Depending on the level of education and the action of these factors, they can be divided into macroenvironment (state, class, stratum, nation, cultural community) and microenvironment (institutional group communities, informal group communities, family, educational institutions, individuals). Experiencing the influence of these factors and reacting to them, the individual not only corrects internal motivational attitudes, but also acquires special, extrapersonal characteristics. Among them are:

Status is the stable position of an individual in the social structure, creating certain rights and obligations, opportunities and prohibitions (and, as a consequence, behavioral stereotypes);

A role is a special way of behavior that reflects mandatory, desirable or possible norms of behavior characteristic of a particular social community, institution, structure, type of activity;

A form of behavior is a complex of consciously chosen or externally imposed behavioral models.

Political activity is a set of organized actions of subjects both within the political system and outside it, subordinate to the implementation of common social interests and goals. At its core, political activity is the leadership and management of social relations with the help of institutions of power. The specific content of political activity is: participation in state affairs, determining the forms, tasks and directions of state activity, distribution of power, control over its activities, as well as other influence on political institutions. Each of the noted points generalizes diverse types of activities: for example, the direct performance by people of political functions within the framework of institutions of state power and political parties and indirect participation associated with the delegation of powers to certain institutions; professional and non-professional activities; leadership and executive activities aimed at strengthening a given political system or, conversely, at its destruction; institutionalized or non-institutionalized activities (for example, extremism); systemic or non-systemic, etc.

Forms of political participation: activist (professional, ex officio), episodic (voting in elections, participating in demonstrations), political protest (a form of participation aimed at controlling the actions of the authorities using negative methods)

The motivation for political activity is the subjective desire to influence political processes.

The political activity of citizens in a democratic society is manifested mainly in participation in voting in elections of representative bodies of government and elected officials at the local and national levels, in referendums, and in participation in local self-government. During election campaigns, a large number of citizens are involved in various forms of practical activity - collecting signatures, meetings with candidates, rallies, etc. Democratic constitutions also provide for various forms of direct pressure from citizens on government authorities when making decisions, in particular, legal forms of demonstrations, rallies, collecting signatures on petitions, and direct contacts with officials.

The essence and features of social stratification of modern society. Social groups as the main subjects of politics

Stratification is the relationship of social equality and inequality, the rights and responsibilities of groups arising from their social status, the differentiation of a set of people in a hierarchical rank. There are always higher and lower strata; its basis is the uneven distribution of rights and responsibilities.

Groups, being the main subject of politics, are involved in competitive relations regarding state power in a specific way. In general, the concept of “group” captures the similarity of people, both in terms of innate and acquired characteristics during life. At the same time, having the same traits and qualities with other people, each person simultaneously belongs to different social groups (for example, at the same time he is the father of a family, a member of a certain professional and also national group, a resident of a particular city, etc.). d.). At the same time, a person is characterized by some most significant group affiliation, expressing his basic interests and values, attitude towards life. Types of social stratification: territorial, demographic (sex and age characteristics), ethnonational, confessional, socio-economic, positional.

Related information:

1. A. Yes, they are legal, since this is the basis for collecting a debt, that is, civil liability. 1 page

When analyzing the phenomenon of political participation, it is impossible to avoid the issue of motivation for a person’s political activity. The most significant motives include ideological, normative, and role-based.

An ideological motive means that a person participates in political life, sharing and supporting the principles of the official ideology of the state. This motivation for participation ensures the identification of the individual’s political values ​​with the political values ​​of the state and the majority of society. Time, differences in personal and political attitudes can cause a sharply negative, even hostile reaction against the state and the political system. So, this becomes the basis for the formation of opposition views, ideas and political structures.

Normative motivation is manifested in the fact that political behavior is built according to the rules that are dictated by the political system and assigned by the normative-legal subsystem. This motive for political participation is not necessarily combined with personal values ​​and attitudes. Submission to the political system is considered by a person as an exclusively correct and valuable orientation, and political behavior (participation) in nature is always legitimate and law-abiding.

The role motive is associated with the social role that a person performs in a given political system, that is, with her social state and her own self-esteem: the lower the social position, the more likely the individual’s radical attitude against the existing government becomes. The desire of a certain part of people in society to improve their social status naturally pushes them to master new noticeable political roles, and, consequently, to raise their socio-political status.

Motivational theories of political participation in Western political science are presented by supporters of the so-called “humanistic” psychology. According to its founder A. Maslow, there are five main motives-needs of the individual: physiological; security needs; in love; in self-affirmation; in self-actualization. They form a stable hierarchy, where the last two are high and entail the need to increase social status and prestige, the need to express and realize their beliefs and goals in the political sphere. But even under certain conditions, physiological needs, love, and the search for security can be transformed according to the trends and requirements of political life (the desire for peace, prosperity, law and order, and the preservation of national and cultural identity).

See also:

In order to understand the essence of this or that political step by the leaders of our state, we must find out why such steps were taken, what goals the politician set when taking such a step, and what benefits he will receive as a result of such actions.

To understand this mechanism of political actions, we must analyze the motivation for political activity.

When we begin to find out why a person chooses this or that type of political behavior, it turns out that all the same mechanisms are at work here that we studied earlier, talking about the needs and motives in people’s political relations.

Central here is the category of need as the basis for motivating political activity. As you remember, the first attempt to systematize needs that can be recognized and act as motives for human activity was made by the American psychologist A. Maslow.

All these needs can act as motives for political behavior. When considering motivation along the lines of material needs, if we are talking about the passive, verbal, electoral political behavior of the masses, then it will be directly related to what material needs of the individual (according to his perception) will be satisfied as a result of this or that political choice. At the level of active political behavior, a person goes into politics to improve his financial situation.

Motivation along the lines of the need for security gives rise, as a rule, to the orientation of political behavior towards a strong personality, which is associated with the concept of “order”. If a person chooses non-participation, then in this case it may be due to the fear that political action will entail some kind of sanctions from the authorities. The need for security, as a rule, determines passive or verbal forms of political behavior. If it is associated with active political behavior, then a person will choose parties or organizations with a rigid organizational structure and a clearly defined leader-chief with whom he can identify.

The need for communication (a way of interacting with other people) is realized in the form of active political behavior or, most likely, in the form of so-called “near-political behavior”, when, as a result of the fact that a person moves in political circles, he occupies a certain social status in society .

The need for assessment at the verbal level can be realized, for example, when people, speaking about politics, try to demonstrate knowledge of something that is unknown to others. The need for validation from others in such situations often contributes to the spread of rumors. They are distributed in order to increase their self-esteem. The personality immediately conveys to others what they want to hear. At the electoral and active level, this is a specific form of political activist who is less interested in the goals of the organizations, and more in demonstrating himself and his activity. In this case, the individual may forget about the goals of the organization and its actions may contradict them. A person who is oriented towards evaluation by others is often more inclined to participate in informal forms of political behavior in order to demonstrate his difference from others.

Her actions can be expressed by the formula: “I’m not like everyone else, that’s why I’m the best.”

The need for self-expression through politics gives rise to political activists and, to a lesser extent, administrators, since administrative activities do not provide such personal results. Self-expression requires results.

There is another specific motive for political behavior, which is studied within the framework of psychoanalysis and is associated with the problem of an inferiority complex.

In the classical psychoanalysis of S. Freud, the problem of the inferiority complex is mentioned, but not specifically analyzed. This problem was developed by one of S. Freud’s students, A. Adler, and after he formulated his theory, his paths with S. Freud diverged, and he continued his research in his own version.

A. Adler himself and his followers proceeded from the fact that a person satisfied with himself does not feel an inferiority complex (an individual’s internal dissatisfaction with himself and, as a consequence, the desire to compensate for this by acquiring power over other people) and, accordingly, should not engage in politics. Political activity is one of the options being considered to compensate for some kind of inferiority complex. K. Adler studied various complexes, especially male ones. One of the options for compensating for an inferiority complex is through politics, i.e. desire for power. Feeling inferior, worse than others in some respects (for example, physical characteristics), a person seeks to compensate for this by acquiring power over other people. This can be done not necessarily through politics, but it can raise the social status of an individual above all else. A. Adler believed that everyone has an inferiority complex and each person compensates for his complex to one degree or another through the sphere of activity available to him.

Need as a motive for behavior (including political behavior) operates indirectly. In order for a need to become a motive for activity, we must form an idea of ​​the goal in our minds. And for this it is necessary to take into account categories such as values ​​and attitudes.

The same need may motivate different forms of political behavior, or the same political behavior may be the result of different needs. Based on behavior as such, without special analysis, we cannot draw a conclusion about what need underlies it. Needs act not directly, but indirectly, through the process of goal setting (the value system of the hierarchy, on the basis of which Maslow’s pyramid of needs is built). This is the essence of motivation for an individual’s political activity.