The Civic Identity of a Personality as A Reflection of the Mental Reality of the Organizational Environment of the State
Borysenko Natalia*
Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine
Submission: December 16, 2022; Published: December 20, 2022
*Corresponding author: Borysenko Natalia, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine
How to cite this article: Borysenko N. The Civic Identity of a Personality as A Reflection of the Mental Reality of the Organizational Environment of the State. Psychol Behav Sci Int J. 2022; 20(1): 556030. DOI: 10.19080/PBSIJ.2022.20.556030.
Abstract
The question of the nature of civic identity as a socio-psychological phenomenon has remained open for a long time and is gaining relevance even now. Civic identity is considered from the standpoint of political science, psychology, and sociology, actually combining aspects of the listed sciences in its definition. It arises in the process of subjective reflection and active construction by a specific citizen or a group of citizens of their social reality. In this context, the community of citizens and the state with its organizational environment is important, which community should set common values, orientate in the surrounding world, form a sense of security, ensure the preservation of sufficient orderly and reliable information. The presence of such factors contributes to the understanding of socio-political processes, and accordingly, the formation of a personal attitude towards them, one’s own position and connection with the possibility of realizing oneself as a part of a certain public society, which has certain functions and roles. For the successful formation of identity, constancy is also desirable, not only intra-personal, but also external, which is reflected in the state of society and the country with the part that associates and identifies the citizen. Given that our society is constantly undergoing transformation, this stability on the one hand cannot be guaranteed by the state and power structures, and on the other, changes in the natural plan, demographic movement, migration are also a destabilizing factor. The organizational environment of the state acts as a socio-psychological field in which the personality develops, therefore it also affects the mental processes of a person, in particular, the formation of civic identity. In this article, we will consider how the organizational environment affects the human psyche and the formation of civic identity.
Keywords: Civic identity; Organizational environment; Psychological reality; Mental reality; Mental field; Citizen; Identity; Psychology of civic identity; Dynamics of civic identity
Mini Review
The question of the nature of civic identity as a socio-psychological phenomenon has remained open for a long time and is gaining relevance even now. Civic identity itself is often seen as identifying oneself with the community of citizens of a nation-state entity; the phenomenon of conscious and active citizenship, awareness of oneself as a member of civic society.
Civic identity is considered as a component of social identity, that is, individual knowledge that an individual belongs to a certain society. group together with the emotional and valuable personal meaning of group membership (G. Tejfel), N.V. In her works, Hazratova analyzes it in comparison with other types of personal identity (Khazratova, 2015) and also says that the psychological nature of civic identity is connected with the basic tendency of a person as a social being to self-determine by assigning oneself to a group, self-identification with it, and also, identity is characterized by its organizational origin, it is meant that a person identifies himself with a member of the organization that constitutes the state, this means that civic identity is a type of organizational identity [1]. I.R. Petrovska, in turn, considers civic identity from the point of view of structural ontological components. Therefore, civic identity involves the self-determination of an individual as a citizen regardless of ethnic roots and national origin. Therefore, citizens are united not only by national interests and values, but also by common opportunities and limitations of the organizational environment of the state [2]. Also, it defines the civic identity of an individual as a complex multi-level systemic formation, which is the result of self-categorization, the understanding of one’s belonging to the community of citizens and the state (as a citizen) and the subjective attitude (emotional and conative) of a person to his membership (Petrovska, 2017).
In our opinion, each of the above statements complements each other and in sum outlines a clear understanding of the phenomenon of civic identity as a socio-psychological phenomenon. in our studies, we come to the conclusion that civic identity is to some extent reflected in the ratio of personal and social value orientations, moral attitudes, the level of civic and political activity of an individual, which as a result gives a kind of gradation of self-perception as an element of the society of a certain state and a certain evaluative judgment about their own position in this context. The mechanism of identification, which is the process of relating oneself to a certain group of people based on certain characteristics, is one of the main ways of forming civic identity.
In our previous publications, we examined in more detail the process of personality formation and correlated it with the formation of civic identity and came to the conclusion that it experiences the greatest transformation between the ages of 7 and 16, since during this period the personality is exposed to the long-term influence of the educational system, which as a result gives basic attitudes towards the state. The additional formation of a citizen’s identity depends on a person’s personal experience, which he receives when he has a personal desire to contact state structures, learns the real rules of their work, and forms his vision and emotional attitude towards the state. According to our theoretical studies, this age ranges from 18 to 23 years. Starting from this period, the dynamics of civic identity decreases and can remain at a certain level for a long period of time. It is accepted to distinguish external and internal factors. Internal ones include life and psychological crises, drastic changes in life initiated by the person himself, for example, a change of environment, place or city of residence. The external ones are things that are not under the control of people personally, that is, a change in the external environment of the state, a change in the political regime, significant social and political changes, such as revolutions, a change in the borders or status of the state. In this case, a vivid example of the influence of external factors on the formation of civic identity is migration as a fact of changing the country and as the probability that at the time of making a decision to change one’s place of residence on civic identity may be influenced by internal factors (dissatisfaction with life, motivation to change, etc.). ). Also, when a person has already migrated, he will find himself in a completely new organizational environment, he will be influenced by the mental field of another state, and his civic identity will undergo (or not undergo) changes already under the influence of external factors of this environment. Within the framework of the civic-game direction, we consider organizational identity as a type of organizational identity (Petrovska), which becomes selfdetermination in the organizational environment of the state, as well as self-identification with the role of a citizen in the context of game and scenario interactions with state institutions and fellow citizens, and is the main psychological regulation. civic behavior In this article, we will consider how the organizational environment affects the human psyche and the formation of civic identity.
First of all, let’s clarify the concept of “organizational environment”.
Usually, this concept is most often found in management, and when we talk about the state, it is necessary to understand that it is also a kind of political organization, which was created and united at least by a common cultural, historical, political past. Therefore, this system forms a single mechanism with its traditions, laws and morals, accordingly it forms the organizational environment of the state.
The organizational environment of the state is perceived, experienced, evaluated by every citizen, since he is vitally involved in it [3].; it produces a system of values, norms and rules. The activity of an individual in the organizational environment of the state is determined by his psychological needs, in particular, in social selfrealization, in safety and the meaning of life [4]. This activity is regulated by laws and involves contact with representatives of the state. The experience of this activity determines the inclusion of the individual in the organizational environment of the state - value, emotional, cognitive and behavioral. Value inclusion means the social perception of the axiological field of the state, the terminal values of statehood in general and a specific state in particular; cognitive - understanding the normative field of the state and the real practice of organizational interaction in it; emotional - emotional experiences related to relations with the state as an organization; behavioral - implementation of civic behavior. Civic identity at the community (group) level involves affiliation with fellow citizens. The common experience of experiencing typical problems (from household to state-political) forms a specific phenomenon - a consortium of citizens (differs from civic society, which means a fairly high level of citizenship development). Long-term joint experience of overcoming typical problems does not in itself cause cohesion, mutual support or positive evaluation of fellow citizens, but it lays the foundations of civic solidarity as a result of the shared value and significance of this experience. The unifying formation of citizens is civic mentality - a worldview specific to citizens of different states, focused primarily on the perception of the organizational reality of one’s own state, the quintessence of the life experience of many generations of its citizens (Petrovska., Khazratova N.).
According to the systems approach to management, every organization is an open system, the integrity and viability of which is ensured by the elements from which it is formed. Some scholars believe that the internal environment is the structure of the organization, its resources and culture; others refer to the internal environment as the structure, level of division of labor and organizational communications, as well as the personnel of the organization, labor and technological processes used to transform resources into a product needed by society.
People, as an element of the organization’s environment, determine the possibility of achieving its goals and the effectiveness of solving tasks by the extent to which they are included in the general activity, perform their duties efficiently and successfully. This, in turn, is largely determined, on the one hand, by the level of a person’s personal and professional resources, and on the other, by the features of his value-meaning and motivational sphere [5]. based on what was written earlier, we can consider the organizational environment in two directions. firstly, as a material reality in the context of which this environment is understood as a complex system of elements and connections between them, which is the object of control and regulation by governing bodies. and secondly, as a social and psychological reality. when we talk about socio-psychological reality, we mean it as an element of the socio-psychological space of the organizational environment. The socio-psychological environment, in turn, is an objective form of subjective perception, represented by a system of certain assessments, ideas and images; social activity of people or groups, relations and interactions between them, their intentions, positions and goals, relationships and interdependencies. The socio-psychological space directly affects people’s activities. It is mediated by the objective, physical environment, the materialized space of community, its systemic properties: integrity, structurality, functional uniformity, etc. [6].
Socio-psychological reality arises on the border of social and mental, has essential features of each of them and in which the laws and mechanisms of social and mental interrelation, their interaction, interdependence and mutual influence are important. This is important to understand, because the content of this reality consists in the mental reflection of social phenomena, in the existence and regulation of the social through the subjective, in the human perception of social relations and social communities. Therefore, the organizational environment of the state is a socio-psychological reality for society. Some social psychologists believe that socio-psychological reality is a set of views, intentions, feelings, thoughts that express readiness for certain actions. In their opinion, it arises in the process of communication, interaction between people, binds the individual and social elements into a single entity according to the internal laws of society, and therefore has a coercive force in relation to individuals. By influencing the behavior of an individual, the social psyche brings it in accordance with the requirements of a specific community. At the same time, it is not the bearer of “truth” or “norms of value”, but only the approval or disapproval of a group, acceptance or rejection of a certain action, trust or distrust of the subject - the carrier or consumer of information (Orban-Lembryk). In this context, it will be important to mention Kurt Lewin’s psychological theory, which studies patterns of interaction between an individual and the surrounding field, that is, the environment. The field theory explains human behavior as a phenomenon that can be obtained from the “total coexistence of facts”. These coexisting facts produce a “dynamic field,” which means that the state of any part of the field depends on the state of any other part of that field. Behavior depends on the current state of the field, not the past or future [7]. Analyzing this theory, we can make an assumption that the human psyche, reacting to changes in the organizational environment, reacts to them in the socio-psychological environment, and this, in turn, may later have an impact on the mechanisms of the formation of the individual’s civic identity.
Kurt Levin, describing the factors that can determine the behavior of an individual, gave a special role to the life space, which is often called psychological, later these concepts became key in his field theory. The content of this term includes the whole set of real and unreal, actual, past and future events that are in the psychological space of an individual at this moment. Based on this, behavior is a function of the individual and his life space at this moment in time. Levin recognized the influence of non-psychic events on human behavior. Therefore, even unconscious influences related to socio-economic, political, cultural or physiological factors are also included in the analysis of his psychological space. Changes occurring in the outside world affect the state of the living space, and changes in the living space affect the outside world (Stolyarenko). Therefore, everything that happens in the organizational environment of the state in one way or another affects the individual, just as the individual can change the environment of the state with his personal attitudes. This means that there is a close connection between a specific person and the state as an organizational environment in which he lives and with which he stably interacts, which is necessarily reflected in all aspects of life. The organizational environment thus affects all processes, including mental ones. The formation of civic identity, accordingly, is one of such processes, which is very important, because it belongs to the most important functional elements of modern political systems. Modern society is “a space of constantly changing identities.” Civic society becomes an indispensable partner of the state in the formation and defense of a new identity, in the construction of its institutions, in overcoming the resistance of the privatized institutions of the former identity. In today’s world, “those who preserve their identity despite the change in the objective social situation and are unable to accept new social realities are more prone to the risk of being marginalized” [8].
Kurt Lewin’s field theory approach allows studying the phenomenon of civic identity with a total perspective, without dividing the analysis into separate parts. The influence of the psychological field on behavior is as follows: if there are no changes in the field, there will be no changes in behavior, but with their appearance in behavior, dynamics that can be monitored, including empirically, should be observed. This confirms our assumptions that changes in the organizational environment induce changes in the dynamics of an individual’s civic identity. Thus, a person who has migrated, for example, enters a new organizational environment with new laws, customs, social attitudes, etc. This is primarily reflected in her mental state, because there is a possibility of culture shock. Culture shock is a state of bewilderment, disorientation, and emotional disturbance caused by a person’s sudden entry into an unfamiliar environment or another culture. in other words, it is a conflict of old and new cultural norms and orientations, the old ones characteristic of the individual as a representative of the society he left, and the new ones representing the society that arose in cases of migrations, social revolutions, etc. As a result, the meaning of one’s own existence is determined or redefined, and the transformation of the lifestyle begins. it is a kind of crisis of the social identity of the individual, which is closely related to the revaluation of life values, and represents an existential problem. We can assume that in the context of the crisis of social identity, there is also a crisis of civic identity. A person is dissatisfied with his own status in his state, perhaps he feels pressure from social institutions, traditions and moral institutions dictated by the organizational environment. Accordingly, so that such a situation does not bring discomfort, a person can create an environment (microorganizational environment) that will satisfy him, it will be comfortable and favorable for development. But it is also possible that a person can look for a ready-made environment that will meet his needs, or in which these needs can be realized with less time and energy, that is, he can change the country of residence, region or social environment. Understanding such trends, we see that under the influence of changes in the socio-psychological reality and organizational environment of the country in which a person lives, his system of values and habits changes, and therefore, the civic identity undergoes changes in order to adapt to new conditions [9].
Conclusion
Сiviс identity is considered as a mental mechanism that is naturally influenced by the organizational environment and the socio-psychological reality of the state in which the individual lives. According to our research, the final formation of a citizen’s identity depends on a person’s personal experience, which he receives when he personally begins contact with state structures, learns the real rules of their work, and forms his vision and emotional attitude towards the state. We can see this in practice, because a vivid example of the influence of external factors of the organizational environment on the formation of civic identity is migration as a fact of changing the country of residence, and therefore, changing the environment. The state is considered as an organizational environment, as it is a political and legal form of organization of a particular country, has its own attributes, norms, laws, traditions, and is united by the common cultural and socio-psychological reality of citizens. The unifying entity of citizens is civic mentality - a worldview specific to citizens of different states, focused primarily on the perception of the organizational reality of one’s own state. Since the state, like every organization, the organization is an open system, the integrity and viability of which is ensured thanks to the elements from which it is formed, therefore it is possible to study the organizational environment of the state in two directions. First, as a material reality in the context of which this environment is understood as a complex system of elements and connections between them, which is the object of control and regulation by governing bodies. And secondly, as the social and psychological reality. The socio-psychological space directly affects the activities of people because the socio-psychological reality arises on the border of the social and the mental, has essential features of each of them and in which the laws and mechanisms of the relationship between the social and the mental, their interaction, interdependence and mutual influence are important. Guided by the approach of K. Levin, we can make an assumption that the human psyche, responding to changes in the organizational environment, reacts to them in the social-psychological environment, and this, in turn, may later have an impact on the mechanisms of the formation of a person’s civic identity. As a result, the meaning of one’s own existence is determined or redefined, and the transformation of the lifestyle begins. it is a kind of crisis of the social identity of the individual, which is closely related to the revaluation of life values, and represents an existential problem. Under the influence of changes in the socio-psychological reality and the organizational environment of the country in which the individual lives, his system of values and habits changes, and therefore the civic identity undergoes changes in order to adapt to new conditions.
References
- Khazratova NV (2016) // Do pytannia pro psykholohichnu pryrodu hromadianskoi identychnosti ta yii dynamiku. Pedahohichnyi protses: teoriia i praktyka - 2016. Vyp 3: 78-83.
- Petrovska IR (2020) Tryrivneva struktura hromadianskoi identychnosti osobystosti. Naukovi studii iz sotsialnoi ta politychnoi psykholohii 46(49): 130-137.
- Kazmirenko VP (2004) Socio-Psychological Regulation of Organizations. Psychology and Society 2: 5-29.
- Khazratova NV (2004) Psychology of the Relationship between the Individual and the State: monograph. Lutsk: RVV VSU "Tower".
- Seleznyova EV (2017) Psychology of management: textbook and practical for academic bachelor's degree / E. V. Seleznyova.
- Orban-Lembryk LE (2003) Social psychology: Handbook. In: K Akademvydav, (Ed.), p. 448.
- Stolyarenko OB (2011) Personality psychology (a course of lectures and a workshop): Study guide. - Kamianets-Podilskyi: PP "Medobory 2006". p. 220.
- Bevz T (2014) Features of the development of civic identity in contemporary Ukraine. Scientific notes of the Institute of Political and Ethnonational Studies named after IF. Kuras of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 3(71): 411.
- Reznik OS (2006) Hromadianska identychnist // Entsyklopediia Suchasnoi Ukrainy: elektronna versiia [onlain] / hol. In: Dziuba LM, Zhukovskyi AI, Zhelezniak MH, (eds.), ta in.; NAN Ukrainy, NTSh. Kyiv: Instytut entsyklopedychnykh doslidzhen NAN Ukrainy.