The types of group subjectivity in adolescents in a developing social environment

Abstract

In recent decades, Russian psychologists have been paying quite a lot of attention to the ‘group subject’. The very concept of a ‘group’ or ‘collective’ subject has not yet acquired an unambiguous interpretation, and researchers describe it variously as: an indicator of the level of activity in relation to the group as an object of influence; an alternative to the individual subject; a specific special quality of a group which speaks of the group’s ability to act as a single community in the course of joint activities; or the unity of views and behavior of group members (Zhuravlev 1999, 2018). Our study relied on K.M. Gaidar’s definition of the group subject as a systemic and dynamic quality of a social group that manifests itself in fairly significant social situations associated with the implementation of various types of activity and allows the group to act as a single whole, consciously and purposefully changing both the situation and itself (Gaidar 2008). In our opinion, the study of the specifics of the development of group subjectivity in adolescents of generation Z is of great importance today. There is a sufficient number of psychological and pedagogical technologies that make it possible to effectively manage the development of a teenager’s subjectivity at the individual level. However, there have been few achievements so far with regard to the development of the group as a subject of communication and activity. Our study uses real temporary small groups to examine the relationship between three types of group subjectivity in generation Z adolescents: potential, real and reflective subjectivity. We analyze the development dynamics of the groups in a social environment that has a developmental impact on the groups and compare the indicators of the adolescents who first encountered this influence and those who already have a similar experience. It turned out that in both cases there is a positive dynamic in the degree of manifestation of the types of subjectivity under consideration. However, in the first group of adolescents the initial indicators do not exceed the average level, while in the second group the types ‘potential subjectivity’ and ‘real subjectivity’ are at a high level from the start, the ‘reflective subjectivity’ type being above average. This confirms both the ability to effectively influence various characteristics of the subjectivity of a group of adolescents, and the prolonged nature of this influence.