Sergey, 42, a university education. He is married and has one daughter. The “left” political preferences. High values on the scale of authoritarianism.
The nature of the respondent’s socialization can be defined as “authoritarian”.
Family respondent to 6 years consisted of father and mother, then her parents divorced, and Sergei mother brought with her second husband.
Respondent’s mother was a woman of authoritarian, violent and even quite severely punish the boy, “it was always a very sophisticated way, I’ve always been very difficult to move it, because if she beat – then just beat on the head.” Respondent’s mother was very vindictive, “I always knew exactly what any, even the most innocent prank I certainly will remember, and it could even be in a few years.”
The image of the mother of the respondent is very negative, nothing good about Sergei mother can not speak. Respondent father was a prominent designer, but as a child he almost did not take part in the upbringing of his son. The respondent “did not know what he was like a man,” my father began to influence him later when he “stood up like an engineer.”
Also on the respondent, in his words, was influenced by my grandmother, for which he is usually sent for the summer. My grandmother was a very religious man, but at the same time tough, “if you had to be tough, it can be tough.” Grandmother and grandson punished for any small pranks “snapped not what we need”, and the punishment did not differ humanity, “a couple of times she spanked me”, “put in the corner,” “she pricked me with a needle, could leave without the sweet.” Stepfather also affected the respondent, but the period of this effect did not last long – before the birth of her brother. Stepfather helped stepson homework, “forced to do their homework” and from “,” helped to explain, of course, “” It was some kind of mutual work. ”
отрицательно, если хорошо”>However, the respondent says that as a child he was free, he could afford “anything” is either “not reached” to the parents, or “if it was bad, then <rated> is negative, if well – that is positive. ”
In general, the respondent was extremely authoritarian, even violent socialization, as a result of the traumatic experience he has emerged as an authoritarian people.
For example, a respondent takes an authoritarian aggression, it is generally very intolerant people. Respondent to the extent hates his mother that says “to be honest, when she died, I was glad.” So, thinking about the people who, according to the respondent, “plundered and destroyed the country,” the respondent has to punish a “very painful. Such people are not hung up on twigs and torn birches. ”
About the aggressiveness of the test results and say “nonexistent animal” – the respondent drew a sphinx, which “eats people.”
Authoritarian submission of the respondent shows a very peculiar way. On the one hand, he has the authority (father, friends), he said, some issues over it “dovleli great” and on the other – an authoritarian submission is manifested in the form of inversirovanom – “revolt” against the authorities. So, the father of the respondent on many issues, “was the unquestioned authority.” The respondent argued with him, “always tried to object, oppose. And, perhaps, not because I was convinced, and because I wanted to at least somewhat contradict him. ” Sergey also tried to argue with the teachers in the school (which, according to him, were “dictatorial” type), the institute – with teachers, so one of the courses respondent, according to him, handed over 39 times. Respondent probably corresponds to the distinguished Adorno subtype “authoritarian personality” – the type of “rebel-psychopath.” This type occurs when, instead of identifying with parental authority manifest rebellion, which leads to irrational and blind hatred of any authority, accompanied by a secret willingness to “surrender” and lend a hand, “hated force.”
As for conventionalism, its manifestations in an interview with the respondent is not observed. Moreover, the respondent sometimes tend to behave outside the box – so, in 38 years, began to play chess. Cognitive style respondent is obviously different integrative complexity – in the course of the interview the respondent uses metaphors metaphors.
Political socialization of respondents held in the end of the board, NS Khrushchev – the beginning of the board of LI Brezhnev. The respondent trust all that he had heard in the media about the Soviet Union, believed that our country – the “great power” and “we live in the greatest, most powerful country in the world.” The respondent was a pioneer member of the Komsomol, the Communist Youth League and joined two years later, because he thought that the “unworthy”, and the party has not come for the same reason. However, such an atmosphere of fear, and a degree of subordination leaders, as we have seen above, in the case of the previous respondent, in the socialization process of the respondent was not. Moreover, the father of the respondent “strongly resented this corn, that he cut aviation, navy,” father’s friends “on what light a bonfire of Khrushchev,” and respondent took it “as a given.” Therefore, NS Khrushchev made upon the respondent’s “miserable experience.” However, the perception of LI Brezhnev our respondents twofold: on the one hand – purely a boy’s reaction – “fairly weak person, always reading a piece of paper,” and on the other, “and then I realized, maybe the person is right, because the high level, high responsibility for every word. ” Moreover, now the respondent believes Brezhnev worthy leader of the country, said it “extraordinary intuition”, “colossal exposure, because lead the country at this time, and here and so the years passed quietly, without anything – just fantastic.”
Thus, the political socialization of the respondent held in Khrushchev’s “thaw” when criticism of the government, not official, but “the kitchen” was perfectly acceptable phenomenon, in contrast to the Stalinist era, when criticism of the authorities is not tolerated even in thought. However, the political socialization of the respondent took place in an authoritarian political system, and, in spite of lower stiffness compared to a totalitarian, he learned quite firmly relayed authoritarian system of values. Moreover, he shares it still considers himself a communist (though adapted to the capitalist system, says a businessman and not without success). Probably, the political socialization of the respondent, despite its greater “tolerance” in comparison with the previous case, the key issue – the issue of the relationship to the supreme power in the country, has strengthened authoritarian tendencies inherent in the respondent in the course of primary socialization.
Images of Power
In the perception of power that the respondent (Sergei) traced several trends. First, the worship of force, a “strong leader.” Thus, the respondent believes that the political leader must be strong. Respondent refers to Stalin with “great respect”, and the main criticism that the policy – “it was essentially a weak man,” “when the Germans attacked us, he threw himself into a panic.” At the same time it gives a very peculiar assessment of repression: “Excuse me, what kind of repression? Repression were mainly former Soviet party workers, who for whatever reason do not want, do not want, do not know how to work. Before Joseph Stalin was indeed a very difficult task. After all, the revolution of the foam floated to the leadership of so many people who are incapable of leadership. And they had to be replaced. ”
Second, another characteristic feature of this perceived power of the respondent – ambivalence – both rational and at the unconscious level. So, by Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, and Joseph Stalin at the respondent “complex”, “ambivalent” attitude. Vladimir Lenin, in his view, was “very hard and very soft.”
In the third, striking an extreme intolerance of politicians who do not like the respondent. Thus, post-Soviet and the current government is perceived very negatively by the respondent. About Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, he does not say otherwise, as “scum”, and Grigory Yavlinsky, in his opinion, in general, “has long been a need to put against the wall.”
By G. Zyuganov respondent is negative, do not trust him, but voted for him “we must vote for someone to be determined.” The only advantage of this policy – “a brilliant master of compromise.” The main drawback of Zyuganov – a complete lack of “leadership.” Do not like the respondent and the moral and ethical characteristics of the policy – “take care of their own pocket.” The unconscious perception of the image corresponds to the rational – Zyuganov perceived as worm (“animals – they somehow wiser and cleaner”), pale pink in color, smelling carrion – the image is very negative, highlights the weakness of the policy, as well as the perception of anxiety.
Yavlinsky respondent perceives negatively, do not trust him. He did not name any of his positive qualities. He does not like “all”: psychological qualities – “intellectual limitations,” the moral and ethical qualities – “aplomb”, ideological – “advocating anarchy.” The power he needed as a “feeder”, “is a product that sells it favorably.” At an unconscious level Yavlinsky is associated with the “hyena”, gray color, smell, “shit”, which confirms the negative and disturbing perception of a politician, the politician causes aggression.
It is also a negative attitude to Putin, the respondent did not trust him, do not vote for him. In his opinion the main drawback Putin – “cowardice”, “he is not able to act.” Also, the respondent does not like the moral and ethical qualities of this policy – “corruption”, “no values in life.” He does not need the power, but he has to be in power, because it “has dirt”, ie Again – because of cowardice. At an unconscious level, policies associated with the “chameleon”, “yellow” smell “shit”, which confirms the perception of politics as a weak and insignificant – the image of a negative, but a positive association with a yellow somewhat contrary to that image, because yellow is associated with perception of the future, is associated with hope.