sociolpolitolВестник Московского университета. Серия 18. Социология и политологияMoscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science1029-37362541-8769Publishing House of Lomonosov Moscow State University10.24290/1029-3736-2018-24-3-24-40sociolpolitol-423Research ArticleТЕОРИЯ, МЕТОДОЛОГИЯ И ИСТОРИЯ СОЦИОЛОГИИTHEORY, METHODOLOGY AND HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGYТеории референтных групп и революции: общая теоретическая матрица относительной депривацииTheories of reference group and revolution: general theoretical matrix of relative deprivationСвищёваА. Н.SvishchevaA. N.

Свищёва Анна Николаевна, аспирант кафедры современной социологии социологического факультета

Ленинские горы, 1, стр. 33, Москва, 119234

Svishcheva Anna N., postgraduate student of Faculty of sociology, Сhair of modern sociology

Leninskiye Gory, 1-33, Moscow, 119234

annysv@yandex.ruМГУ имени М.В. ЛомоносоваРоссияLomonosov Moscow State UniversityRussian Federation2018210920182432440Copyright © Свищёва А.Н., 20182018Свищёва А.Н.Svishcheva A.N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://vestnik.socio.msu.ru/jour/article/view/423

Статья представляет собой обзор первого этапа становления теорий относительной депривации на протяжении 1940–1970-х гг.: теорий референтных групп и революции. Понятия “относительная депривация” и “референтная группа” появились одновременно в 1949 и 1942 гг., соответственно. Дальнейшая конкретизация положений теории референтных групп Г. Хайменом, Р. Мертоном, У. Рансименом, Р. Уильямсом способствовала оформлению концепции относительной депривации. Определение форм референтных объектов (отдельный человек, коллектив, социальная категория), типов сравнений, сущности и функциональных типов референтных групп (сравнительная, нормативная, идентификационная, аудиторная) позволило описать типы относительной депривации, ее сущность, содержательные элементы (когнитивный и аффективный), а также уровни: индивидуальный и групповой. Однако теоретиками референтных групп было выявлено также множество проблемных вопросов, требующих дальнейшей научной разработки. Один из таких вопросов, проблемы формирования относительной депривации, рассматривался в рамках теорий революции посредством анализа социальных изменений. В рамках теорий революции 1960–1970-х гг. оформились два подхода к пониманию сущности относительной депривации: теории фрустрации-агрессии (Т. Гарр, Дж. Дэвис, Д. Лернер, И. и Р. Фейерабенды) и статусной несогласованности (Дж. Урри, Ш. Джонсон, Э. Хоффер). Работы приверженцев первого похода позволили расширить область изучения относительной депривации, но и стали предметом широкой критики. Подход Дж. Урри лучше встроился в традицию изучения относительной депривации. Посредством акцента на теории референтных групп и проблемах исследования коллективной идентичности подход Дж. Урри лучше встроился в традицию изучения относительной депривации.

The article is an overview of the first stage in the development of relative deprivation theories during the 1940–1970s: theories of reference group and revolution. The concepts of “relative deprivation” and “reference group” appeared in 1949 and 1942, respectively. Further specification of reference group concept statements by H. Hyman, R. Merton, W. Runciman, R. Williams contributed to the formulation of relative deprivation theory. The definition of the forms of reference objects (individual, collective, social category), types of comparisons, essence and functional types of reference groups (comparative, normative, identification, and audience) allowed to describe types of relative deprivation, its essence, content (cognitive and affective), and also it’s levels: individual and group. However, reference group theorists have also identified a lot of problematic issues requiring further scientific development. One such issue, problems of relative deprivation formation, is considered within the framework of the theories of revolution through the analysis of social changes. Within the theories of revolution of the 1960s–1970s two approaches of understanding the essence of relative deprivation have emerged: theories of frustrationaggression (T. Gurr, J. Davies, D. Lerner, I. and R. Feierabends) and status inconsistency (J. Urry, C. Johnson, E. Hoffer). Works of the adherents of the first approach have made it possible to expand the field of relative deprivation study, but also they have become the subject of wide criticism. Focusing on the reference group theory and problems of collective identity research J. Urry’s approach was better integrated into the tradition of relative deprivation studying.

относительная депривациятеория референтных групптеории революциитеория фрустрации-агрессиитеория статусной несогласованностиrelative deprivationreference group theorytheories of revolutionfrustration-aggression theorytheory of status inconsistencyReferencesAlbert S. Temporal comparison theory // Psychological Review. 1977. Vol. 84. N 6. P. 485–503.Albert S. Temporal comparison theory // Psychological Review. 1977. Vol. 84. N 6. P. 485–503.Beaton A., Tougas F. The representation of women in management: the more, the merrier? // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1997. Vol. 23. N 7. P. 773–782.Beaton A., Tougas F. The representation of women in management: the more, the merrier? // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1997. Vol. 23. N 7. P. 773–782.Benoit-Smullyan E. Status, status types, and status interrelation // American Sociological Review. 1944. Vol. 9. N 2. P. 151–161.Benoit-Smullyan E. Status, status types, and status interrelation // American Sociological Review. 1944. Vol. 9. N 2. P. 151–161.Berkowitz L. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation // Psychological Bulletin. 1989. Vol. 106. N 1. P. 59–73.Berkowitz L. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation // Psychological Bulletin. 1989. Vol. 106. N 1. P. 59–73.Burke P., Stets J. Identity Theory. N.Y., 2009.Burke P., Stets J. Identity Theory. N.Y., 2009.Crosby F. A model of egoistical relative deprivation // Psychological Review. 1976. Vol. 83. N 2. P. 85–113.Crosby F. A model of egoistical relative deprivation // Psychological Review. 1976. Vol. 83. N 2. P. 85–113.Davies J. Toward a theory of revolution // American Sociological Review. 1962. Vol. 27. N 1. P. 5–19.Davies J. Toward a theory of revolution // American Sociological Review. 1962. Vol. 27. N 1. P. 5–19.Davies J. When men revolt and why. N.Y., 1970.Davies J. When men revolt and why. N.Y., 1970.Davis J. A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation // Sociometry. 1959. Vol. 22. N 4. P. 280–296.Davis J. A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation // Sociometry. 1959. Vol. 22. N 4. P. 280–296.Dollard J. et al. Frustration and aggression. New Haven, 1939.Dollard J. et al. Frustration and aggression. New Haven, 1939.Ellemers N., Bos A. Individual and group level responses to threat experienced by Dutch shopkeepers in East-Amsterdam // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1998. Vol. 28. N 21. P. 1987–2005.Ellemers N., Bos A. Individual and group level responses to threat experienced by Dutch shopkeepers in East-Amsterdam // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1998. Vol. 28. N 21. P. 1987–2005.Feierabend I., Feierabend, R. et al. Social and political violence // Violence in America / Ed. by H. Graham, T. Gurr. Washington, 1969.Feierabend I., Feierabend, R. et al. Social and political violence // Violence in America / Ed. by H. Graham, T. Gurr. Washington, 1969.Finkel S., Rule J. Relative deprivation and related psychological theories of civil violence: a critical review // Research in Social Movements: Conflicts and Change. 1987. Vol. 9. P. 47–69.Finkel S., Rule J. Relative deprivation and related psychological theories of civil violence: a critical review // Research in Social Movements: Conflicts and Change. 1987. Vol. 9. P. 47–69.Foster M., Matheson K. Double relative deprivation: combining the personal and political // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1995. Vol. 21. P. N 11. 1167–1177.Foster M., Matheson K. Double relative deprivation: combining the personal and political // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1995. Vol. 21. P. N 11. 1167–1177.Geschwender J.A. Continuities in theories of status consistency and cognitive dissonance // Social Forces. 1967. Vol. 46. N 2. P. 160–171.Geschwender J.A. Continuities in theories of status consistency and cognitive dissonance // Social Forces. 1967. Vol. 46. N 2. P. 160–171.Goffman I. Status consistency and preference for change in power distribution // American Sociological Review. 1957. Vol. 22. N 3. P. 275–281.Goffman I. Status consistency and preference for change in power distribution // American Sociological Review. 1957. Vol. 22. N 3. P. 275–281.Gurney P., Tierney K. Relative deprivation and social movements: a critical look at twenty years of theory and research // Sociological Quarterly. 1982. Vol. 23. N 1. P. 33–47.Gurney P., Tierney K. Relative deprivation and social movements: a critical look at twenty years of theory and research // Sociological Quarterly. 1982. Vol. 23. N 1. P. 33–47.Gurr T.R. Why men rebel. Princeton, 1970.Gurr T.R. Why men rebel. Princeton, 1970.Hoffer E. The ordeal of change. N.Y., 1964.Hoffer E. The ordeal of change. N.Y., 1964.Homans G. Social behavior: its elementary forms. N.Y., 1961.Homans G. Social behavior: its elementary forms. N.Y., 1961.Hyman H. The psychology of status // Archives of Psychology. 1942. N 269.Hyman H. The psychology of status // Archives of Psychology. 1942. N 269.Hyman H., Singer E. Readings in reference group theory and research. N.Y., 1968.Hyman H., Singer E. Readings in reference group theory and research. N.Y., 1968.Jasso G. Social consequences of the sense of distributive justice: small-group applications // Equity Theory. Psychological and Sociological Perspectives / Ed. by D. Messick, K. Cook. N.Y., 1983.Jasso G. Social consequences of the sense of distributive justice: small-group applications // Equity Theory. Psychological and Sociological Perspectives / Ed. by D. Messick, K. Cook. N.Y., 1983.Johnson C. Revolutionary change. Boston, 1966.Johnson C. Revolutionary change. Boston, 1966.Lenski G. Status crystallization: a non-vertical dimension of social status // American Sociological Review. 1954. Vol. 19. N 4. P. 405–413.Lenski G. Status crystallization: a non-vertical dimension of social status // American Sociological Review. 1954. Vol. 19. N 4. P. 405–413.Maier N. Frustration: the study of behavior without a goal. N.Y., 1949.Maier N. Frustration: the study of behavior without a goal. N.Y., 1949.Merton R. K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, 1957.Merton R. K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, 1957.Meyer J.W., Hammond P.E. Forms of status inconsistency // Social Forces. 1971. Vol. 50. N 1. P. 91–101.Meyer J.W., Hammond P.E. Forms of status inconsistency // Social Forces. 1971. Vol. 50. N 1. P. 91–101.Miller N. The frustration-aggression hypothesis // Psychological Review. 1941. Vol. 48. N. 4. P. 337–342.Miller N. The frustration-aggression hypothesis // Psychological Review. 1941. Vol. 48. N. 4. P. 337–342.Morrison D. Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social change // Processes and Phenomena of Social Change / Ed. by G. Zaltman. N.Y., 1973.Morrison D. Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social change // Processes and Phenomena of Social Change / Ed. by G. Zaltman. N.Y., 1973.Newcomb T. Personality and social change. N.Y., 1943.Newcomb T. Personality and social change. N.Y., 1943.Patchen M. A Conceptual framework and some empirical data regarding comparisons of social rewards // Sociometry. 1961. Vol. 24. N 2. P. 136–156.Patchen M. A Conceptual framework and some empirical data regarding comparisons of social rewards // Sociometry. 1961. Vol. 24. N 2. P. 136–156.Relative deprivation: specification, development, and integration. Cambridge, 2002.Relative deprivation: specification, development, and integration. Cambridge, 2002.Runciman W. Relative deprivation and social justice: a study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth century England. L., 1972.Runciman W. Relative deprivation and social justice: a study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth century England. L., 1972.Runciman W., Bagley C. Status consistency, relative deprivation, and attitudes to immigrants // Sociology. 1969. Vol. 3. N 3. P. 359–375.Runciman W., Bagley C. Status consistency, relative deprivation, and attitudes to immigrants // Sociology. 1969. Vol. 3. N 3. P. 359–375.Sampson E. Status congruence and cognitive consistency // Sociometry. 1963. Vol. 26. N 2. P. 146–162.Sampson E. Status congruence and cognitive consistency // Sociometry. 1963. Vol. 26. N 2. P. 146–162.Sherif M. An outline of social psychology. N.Y., 1948.Sherif M. An outline of social psychology. N.Y., 1948.Stouffer S., Suchman E. et al. The American Soldier: adjustment during army life. Princeton, 1949.Stouffer S., Suchman E. et al. The American Soldier: adjustment during army life. Princeton, 1949.Taylor M. Improved conditions, rising expectations and dissatisfaction: a test of the past/present relative deprivation hypothesis // Social Psychology Quarterly. 1982. Vol. 45. N 1. P. 24–33.Taylor M. Improved conditions, rising expectations and dissatisfaction: a test of the past/present relative deprivation hypothesis // Social Psychology Quarterly. 1982. Vol. 45. N 1. P. 24–33.Turner R. H. Role taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior // American Journal of Sociology. 1956. Vol. 61. N 4. P. 316–328.Turner R. H. Role taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior // American Journal of Sociology. 1956. Vol. 61. N 4. P. 316–328.Turner J. Psychoanalytic sociological theories and emotion // Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions / Ed. by J. Stets, J. Turner. N.Y., 2006.Turner J. Psychoanalytic sociological theories and emotion // Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions / Ed. by J. Stets, J. Turner. N.Y., 2006.Urry J. Reference groups and the theory of revolution. Lancaster, 1973.Urry J. Reference groups and the theory of revolution. Lancaster, 1973.Williams R. Relative deprivation // The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton / Ed. by L. Coser. N.Y., 1975.Williams R. Relative deprivation // The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton / Ed. by L. Coser. N.Y., 1975.Zimmermann E. “Bringing common sense back in”: some neglected assumptions in status inconsistency theory and research // Archives Europeennes de Sociologie. 1978. Vol. 19. N 12. P. 53–73.Zimmermann E. “Bringing common sense back in”: some neglected assumptions in status inconsistency theory and research // Archives Europeennes de Sociologie. 1978. Vol. 19. N 12. P. 53–73.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.