Thought and blurted out

Social psychologist - about the nature of the sharp statements of Russian officials and about the reaction to them from society

Over the past two weeks, the words of several regional officials have caused a big resonance in the country about how the Russians need to behave and how they live. In one case, the Saratov Minister of Labor Natalya Sokolova said that living for 3.5 thousand rubles a month is normal, since "pasta is the same everywhere." Another situation happened with the director of the Department of Youth Policy of the Sverdlovsk Region Olga Glatsky: she stated that "the state in general, in principle, owe nothing to you." “Your parents owed you. Because they gave birth to you, the state did not ask them, ”said Glutsky.

The Saratov minister was quickly removed from his post, nothing is clear from Glotsky, since it is on vacation in the Seychelles: versions are discussed - from reprimand to dismissal of his own free will. But in both situations, officials fell under a huge flurry of criticism from ordinary people. Meanwhile, no one really tried to figure out why officials in Russia (Saratov and Sverdlovsk stories - far from one of a kind) use just such sharp verbal constructions to express their thoughts.

Do they think so seriously or is it a form of unsuccessful trolling? Did the communication between society and the authorities disappear completely? And why, in some cases, are the words of officials outraged not only those to whom these phrases are addressed? For answers to these questions, the “New” turned to the doctor of psychological sciences of the Higher School of Economics, Olga Gulevich, who studies, among other things, the psychology of political behavior.

- When officials offer to live 3.5 thousand rubles a month or claim that “the state did not force children to give birth,” they say it seriously?

“I can’t guess and I don’t know what they really think.” But given that these statements are rather unpopular and sharp, it is unlikely that a person will say this if he does not think so. At the same time, it can be simply unsuccessful expressions of ideas that are present in the discourse. The officials spoke out about them crookedly due to their understanding or language knowledge.

For example, a story about the fact that “the state owes nothing” - about independence, that a person must be responsible for himself, and to what extent the state should provide citizens. The idea that a person is independent, independent that his opinion and actions are important, speaking the language of our political discussions, is quite liberal. Different groups of people have this idea.

The second idea - also did not undertake from the air. She is about the fact that our people are long -suffering, he will withstand everything, as he had taken out before, then the second, and then also hunger. Well, we will live 3 thousand a month, we are a great people.

These officials did not broadcast alien ideas at all, they already hung in the air. It was just that their words were in a certain economic context (and it was broadcast by people who achieved success in their profession). Agree, if this were said during the conditional war, it would not cause such indignation and rejection. The point is still in the way of expression, in its relevance and how much your phrase can be pulled out of context.

- Why do such statements cause such a reaction in society?

-There are polls of the Levada Center, which show that it is important for society. In the first places there are problems with unemployment, with the economic situation, with the material side, and some freedom of speech will be at the end. The statements of these officials are against human expectations.

In fact, representatives of the authorities say: "Guys, you will not receive support, there will be no resources." Therefore, they caused such a reaction, unlike many other topics.

- Vladimir Putin, Maria Zakharova very often speaks sharply about certain problems. Is the mechanism of imitation in the case of lower officials in this regard?

- I don’t know how much the imitation mechanism works in the situation with these officials, but no one canceled the influence of social norms. If social norms are broadcast by some people important to me, then I read them: what to do and what not. If an important group of people for me - for example, is a higher official - so expresses, then I will try to do the same way. If there is sharpness, then I will also try to be sharp. These are the rules of the game. This is a general mechanism that concerns not only officials.

In this case, the norms were applied to a completely different content. It is one thing when someone scolds other countries whose representatives you will never see, and indeed all this happens far from you-you will not react so much to this. Another thing is when it comes to an important problem for you. If the official comes out tomorrow and says that people normally live four in the 18-meter room, as in Soviet times, and let's now everyone will live like that, this will also be convicted. People do not oppose sharp statements as such, but against sharp statements of a certain position .

- Both officials are quite young. In my opinion, they should understand the social and economic situation in the country. Why, having come to power, something changed sharply in their worldview and they began to speak out like that?

- We practically do not know anything about their life, we saw only some statements. In addition, the worldview can gradually vary depending on the type of activity. But indeed, against the structure, against the system in which you are, is difficult to go. When all your environment shows what to do so, it is very difficult to do somehow differently. You have to be very confident in yourself, or you just get out of the system.

- There is a theory of a social contract between people and power. Power gives benefits, and society abandons its rights and, accordingly, does not make a claim. Not so long ago, the authorities stated, roughly speaking that there was no money, decided to increase the retirement age, and people began to believe that the social contract was over. And, accordingly, they began to make claims. Do you agree with such a thought? Is it really so?

- The idea of ​​exchange, as it is called in psychology, is quite rational. But it seems to me unfair the statement that the contract has ceased to be executed. This is only one of the factors that launch collective activity. If we proceed to protests, from signing the petition to street rallies, there are several factors there. The first thing that should be is a group identification, that is, I must consider myself a member of the group that is offended, which is subjected to some unfair actions. The group is different each time, but it should be. And I must perceive myself as part of this group.

Now I will say for your newspaper, probably a seditious thing, but I am for calling a pension reform, because I like to work and I do not attribute myself to a group of people who quickly want to retire. The farther the retirement age, the better. In order for me to take part in supporting the activity against pension reform, I would need to be aware of myself part of the people who suffer from this. At the same time, I could become part of people who suffer from problems with freedom of speech - I can.

There is another factor called political self -efficiency. This is the belief that I can do something. If I am aware of injustice and have high self -efficiency, then I act in a more legal way, sign the petitions and go to rallies. If I do not feel that I can change something, but there is a feeling of straightforward injustice, then this can move me to the actions of an illiginal nature that is not accepted in this country.

- Do you think society really wants a dialogue with the authorities, but does not know how to conduct this dialogue?

- I believe that the authorities as a monolith is not, there are different groups of interests. The first reason is that there is faith (it can be sincere) that there is a world in which everything is controlled. In 2002, I was at the conference - and they were present from the FSB.

Then I was trembling from the fact that they allegedly know how people should live: they proceeded from a simple idea that the punishment decides everything (gingerbread - punishment).

This is an insanely simple look, psychologists have long been abandoned.

The second is a simple misunderstanding that people really want to enter this dialogue. Again, people are an abstract concept. There are groups of interests, and each from this dialogue most likely wants his own. Someone will not enter this dialogue at all and say: "Leave me alone." In these conditions, it is difficult to understand with whom and how to talk.

- Why are against pension reform (well, or words about “pasta” and 3.5 thousand rubles a month) are expressed not only, as you say, “groups of interests”, but in principle everything?

- This applies to all -Russian identity. “Levada Center” recently released the results of the survey about how long people plan their future. In society, a feeling of uncertainty, ignorance, which will be further with the country and with you as well. You can get into this group. For example, according to the age principle, when you get old, you will retire and leave work.

And when they say to me: “Guys, well, you will live like that,” it is easy for me to put myself in the place of people who live 3 thousand. Because I don't know what will happen next.

The second version is that, for example, under the slogan against pension reform, people went out for completely different occasions. People go to a rally under the slogan, which they really adhere to, in a country where it does not have a prison sentence and huge fines. And in a country like ours you, in fact, do not like something else, but you show your protest simply on an appropriate occasion.