Aggressive Behaviour of Different Social and Demographic Groups in Post-Totalitarian Society

The project looked at aggressiveness in different age and social groups of modern post-totalitarian society, beginning with the hypotheses that the greatest risk groups are teenagers and the unemployed, and that there is a link between aggression and the level of meaningfulness of life. The groups studied comprised about 200 persons from urban areas of eastern Ukraine, including schoolchildren, students, white collar workers, self-employed persons, the unemployed and pensioners. Workers in industry were not included as this group has virtually disappeared in Ukraine at present since most enterprises have ceased to work and most workers have moved into the groups of the unemployed or self-employed. Participants were divided into age groups of 13-14, 16-17, 18-22, 24-45, 46-60 and over 60, with each group including approximately equal number of men and women. Research methods included Buss-Darky techniques, the "hand test" (E. Wagner), the "non-existent animal" technique, a Rozenzweig picture frustration study, purpose-in-life tests and an interview. The Buss-Darky test showed that schoolchildren have the highest level of aggression, followed by students. These groups have high indexes in virtually all types of aggression, including its open form. The self-employed have relatively lower indexes, although they are more likely to manifest it openly, while such open manifestations are less likely among white-collar workers, pensioners and the unemployed. The least aggressive were the unemployed and pensioners, although the latter had a relatively high level of hostility. In terms of age, aggression was shown to decrease with age, which Ms. Ivanova attributes to the still imperfect control mechanisms of teenagers and their less mature personalities. Among the younger groups girls showed a slightly higher level of aggression, although this situation was reversed among older people. The risk groups inclined to manifest open forms of aggressiveness can therefore be seen to be teenagers and students. Other tests used show aggressiveness as a feature of the current state, rather than as an inherent feature and the results obtained were somewhat different. In the interviews, all adults referred to the increased aggressiveness in society and most stated that they themselves had become more aggressive and bad-tempered. The ability of individuals to adapt to their social environment was also investigated and schoolchildren turned out to have the lowest adaptation index and the unemployed the highest. MS. Ivanova attributes that latter, rather surprising, result to the fact that the constant frustrations facing the unemployed force them to actively seek ways and means of adapting in order to survive. The final aspect considered was the possible connection between human aggressiveness and the meaningfulness of life. Here the groups with the most meaningful lives were the self-employed and pensioners. The latter result, again rather surprising, was attributed to the desire of people who have already lived the greater part of their lives to place more weight on what they have already done, in order to prove to themselves that they have not lived in vain. The hypothesis that aggressiveness is conversely related to the meaningfulness of life was only partially confirmed. In the two extreme cases (schoolchildren and pensioners) this was indeed the case, but the remaining groups did not show any such connection. From the data obtained, Ms. Ivanova concluded that life in modern post-totalitarian society does indeed foster a rise in people's aggressiveness, and this was supported by the fact that indexes of aggressiveness proved to be higher than the norm. Her original hypothesis as to the groups in society most at risk from open aggression confirmed in the case of teenagers but not of the unemployed, who had relatively low aggressiveness indexes and the highest degree of adaptation.

Tolerance and Critical Thinking

Post-soviet countries are in the process of transformation from a totalitarian order to a democratic one, a transformation which is impossible without a profound shift in people's way of thinking. The group set themselves the task of determining the essence of this shift. Using a multidisciplinary approach, they looked at concrete ways of overcoming the totalitarian mentality and forming that necessary for an open democratic society. They studied the contemporary conceptions of tolerance and critical thinking and looked for new foundations of criticism, especially in hermeneutics. They then sought to substantiate the complementary relation between tolerance and criticism in the democratic way of thinking and to prepare a a syllabus for teaching on the subject in Ukrainian higher education. In a philosophical exploration of tolerance they began with relgious tolerance as its first and most important form. Political and social interests often lay at the foundations of religious intolerance and this implicitly comprised the transition to religious tolerance when conditions changed. Early polytheism was more or less indifferent to dogmatic deviations but monotheism is intolerant of heresies. The damage wrought by the religious wars of the Reformations transformed tolerance into a value. They did not create religious tolerance but forced its recognition as a positive phenomenon. With the weakening of religious institutions in the modern era, the purely political nature of many conflicts became evident and this stimulated the extrapolation of tolerance into secular life. Each historical era has certain acts and operations which may be interpreted as tolerant and these can be classified as to whether or not they are based on the conscious following of the principle of tolerance. This criterion requires the separation of the phenomenon of tolerance from its concept and from tolerance as a value. Only the conjunction of a concept of tolerance with a recognition of its value can transform it into a principle dictating a norm of conscious behaviour. The analysis of the contemporary conception of tolerance focused on the diversity of the concept and concluded that the notions used cannot be combined in the framework of a single more or less simple classification, as the distinctions between them are stimulated by the complexity of the realty considered and the variety of its manifestations. Notions considered in relation to tolerance included pluralism, respect and particular-universal. The rationale of tolerance was also investigated and the group felt that any substantiation of the principle of tolerance must take into account human beings' desire for knowledge. Before respecting or being tolerant of another person different from myself, I should first know where the difference lies, so knowledge is a necessary condition of tolerance.The traditional division of truth into scientific (objective and unique) and religious, moral, political (subjective and so multiple) intensifies the problem of the relationship between truth and tolerance. Science was long seen as a field of "natural" intolerance whereas the validity of tolerance was accepted in other intellectual fields. As tolerance eemrges when there is difference and opposition, it is essentially linked with rivaly and there is a a growing recognition today that unlimited rivalry is neither able to direct the process of development nor to act as creative matter. Social and economic reality has led to rivalry being regulated by the state and a natural requirement of this is to associate tolerance with a special "purified" form of rivalry, an acceptance of the actiivity of different subjects and a specification of the norms of their competition. Tolerance and rivalry should therefore be subordinate to a degree of discipline and the group point out that discipline, including self-discipline, is a regulator of the balance between them. Two problematic aspects of tolerance were identified: why something traditionally supposed to have no positive content has become a human activity today, and whether tolerance has full-scale cultural significance. The resolution of these questions requires a revision of the phenomenon and conception of tolerance to clarify its immanent positive content. This involved an investigation of the contemporary concept of tolerance and of the epistemological foundations of a negative solution of tolerance in Greek thought. An original soution to the problem of the extrapolation of tolerance to scientific knowledge was proposed based on the Duhem-Quine theses and conceptiion of background knowledge. In this way tolerance as a principle of mutual relations between different scientific positions gains an essential epistemological rationale and so an important argument for its own universal status. The group then went on to consider the ontological foundations for a positive solution of this problem, beginning with the work of Poincare and Reichenbach. The next aspect considered was the conceptual foundations of critical thinking, looking at the ideas of Karl Popper and St. Augustine and at the problem of the demarcation line between reasonable criticism and apologetic reasoning. Dogmatic and critical thinking in a political context were also considered, before an investigation of critical thinking's foundations. As logic is essential to critical thinking, the state of this discipline in Ukrainian and Russian higher education was assessed, together with the limits of formal-logical grounds for criticism, the role of informal logical as a basis for critical thinking today, dialectical logic as a foundation for critical thinking and the universality of the contemporary demand for criticism. The search for new foundations of critical thinking covered deconstructivism and critical hermeneutics, including the problem of the author. The relationship between tolerance and criticism was traced from the ancient world, both eastern and Greek, through the transitional community of the Renaissance to the industrial community (Locke and Mill) and the evolution of this relationship today when these are viewed not as moral virtues but as ordinary norms. Tolerance and criticism were discussed as complementary manifestations of human freedom. If the completeness of freedom were accepted it would be impossible to avoid recognition of the natural and legal nature of these manifestations and the group argue that critical tolerance is able to avoid dismissing such negative phenomena as the degradation of taste and manner, pornography, etc. On the basis of their work, the group drew up the syllabus of a course in "Logic with Elements of Critical Thinking, and of a special course on the "Problem of Tolerance".