SELF-GOVERNMENT AS A FUNCTION OF THE PRIMARY STUDENT COLLECTIVE

V. I. Kunchenko

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Scientific Communism)

The collective of a student group, like any social system, for optimal functioning in its activity requires coordination of the actions of the component parts and members that make it up. A well-performing and socially active student group is characterized by cohesion based on all its members’ awareness of the collective’s main tasks and goals, and by unity of action in their realization. The main goal of the primary student collective follows from the main goal of the higher educational institution and of the system of higher education in general: the formation of specialists who meet the requirements of modern production and society. This task is in large measure solved individually, since in the final analysis, without the acquisition of knowledge and skills by each particular student, no specialist will come of him. But collective forms of study, established in the system of the higher educational institution, are of great importance in the formation of the specialist and his personality. Therefore the student, being in a collective, understands his work not as purely individual, but as directed toward the achievement of a collective, socially necessary goal. Joint work is characteristic of the collective of a student group.^1 From the needs of joint activity and the self-development of the student collective follows the necessity of coordinating its actions, that is, of management.

K. Marx noted: “Every directly social or joint labor carried out on a comparatively large scale requires, to a greater or lesser degree, management, which establishes coordination between individual labors and performs the general functions that arise from the movement of the entire productive organism, as distinct from the movement of its independent organs.”^2

Thus, management is a function of the collective, is generated by its very activity and, by ensuring that the direction of its work corresponds to the given basic goal, promotes its successful activity and development.

^1 We shall not dwell in greater detail on the analysis of these points, since this is the subject of a separate work.
^2 K. Marx, F. Engels. Works. 2nd ed., vol. 23, p. 342.

The problem of governance in the primary student collective is one of the most urgent and least developed. Some authors touch upon it when considering the formal and informal structure of a student group¹, but they usually confine themselves to noting the mismatch between actual and official leaders and to certain recommendations in this regard. The key aspects of this problem—such as the functions of student self-government in the collective and their distribution within the subject of governance, the foundations of the leader’s authority, the type of leadership and the need for it to correspond to the type of collective and to the relationships that have developed within it, and others—still remain without attention. In turning to an analysis of these questions, we do not claim to offer an exhaustive solution to them, since this cannot be done in a single article.

The specific feature of the primary student collective is that it is a self-governing collective whose bodies operate on a voluntary basis. Its governance structure is characterized by the presence of two components (or links): the organizing and the subordinate. The organizing component, or the subject of governance of the student group, usually includes three units: the group monitor, the Komsomol organizer, and the trade-union organizer (if there is a Party group, a Party organizer is also elected). The subordinate component consists of all the remaining members of the collective. Governance comprises a complex of functions determined by the system of tasks solved by the collective. The main goal for the sake of which a given collective is created is achieved through the consecutive solution of a complex of tasks. Each specific task gives rise to a definite function of governance.

The formation of the personality of a specialist includes the following constituent elements: the formation of a scientific worldview, the inculcation of knowledge and skills in the specialty, and moral, aesthetic, and physical development. These tasks give rise to the corresponding functions of the subject of governance of the student group. For the successful work of the collective, a division of functions and flexible coordination of actions within its governing link are necessary. The group monitor stands at the head of the collective and performs administrative functions connected with the group’s academic work. The Party organizer and the Komsomol organizer direct the ideological-political and cultural development of the collective; the trade-union organizer handles the everyday-life aspect of its existence. But such a delimitation of functions is highly conditional, since questions of academic performance are at the center of attention of both the Komsomol and the trade-union organizations. In reality, academic work falls within the competence of all units of the governing link in the student collective. Therefore the functions of the group monitor, the Komsomol organizer, and the trade-union organizer overlap and are duplicated. When work is well organized, and when there are businesslike and benevolent relations among the leaders of the collective, this does not hinder but, on the contrary, contributes to the success of the matter. At the beginning, the governance structure in the student collective is created arbitrarily, without taking into account its internal ties and relations, since they are still in an embryonic state. On the basis of the available characteristics of students and personal conversations with them, the dean’s office, the Party bureau

the faculty and the curator appoint the group monitor and recommend candidates for election as Komsomol organizer and trade-union organizer.

The success of the activity, the formation and cohesion of the collective depend to a great extent on what kind of people stand at the head of the collective and by what methods they manage it. For the activity of the collective it is very important that its leadership consist of people possessing organizational abilities, a developed intellect, a set of positive moral qualities, and enjoying great respect among the students. There are different foundations for the authority of individuals in the student milieu. Observations give grounds for distinguishing three such foundations:

1) authority of position;
2) authority of competence;
3) authority of qualities of character.

Authority of position is the very first and least durable foundation of authority, when a person exerts influence on a collective by virtue of the leading position he occupies in it. In the formation of a student collective, it is initially precisely this foundation of authority that operates for the group monitor, the Komsomol organizer, and the trade-union organizer. But the authority of a leader cannot be maintained for long on this foundation alone. Authority of competence is a firmer foundation for the prestige^4 of a leader. Knowledge and experience make it possible to understand more deeply the questions of the collective’s main activity and to guide it competently. This quality is one of the most necessary for a leader. V. I. Lenin emphasized that in order to manage, “one must be competent, one must know fully and precisely all the conditions of production, one must know the technique of this production at its modern level, one must have a certain scientific education.”^5 A person’s qualities of character also have very great significance for authority and constitute its third foundation. A strong-willed, persistent, and consistent leader, fair in his actions, is highly valued in a collective. He must possess the ability of an organizer, the skill of winning people over, and be to a certain degree a psychologist, in order to understand people and correctly assess their merits and shortcomings. V. I. Lenin repeatedly drew attention to the necessity, in a leader, of such qualities as principledness, truthfulness, sensitivity, respect for the opinions of the members of the collective, and reasonable use of one’s rights.

But the Komsomol organizer, the trade-union organizer, and the group monitor must also possess specific qualities of character, since they perform different functions. In our view, for the group monitor such qualities are willpower, organizational abilities, intellectuality, and principledness; for the Komsomol organizer, in addition to these qualities, what is needed above all is profound ideological and political training, all-round development, a high capacity for interpersonal communication, and personal charm; for the trade-union organizer—sociability and kindness of soul. If the leader’s authority in the collective is based on all three foundations, then one may speak of a high level of development of authority, of its durability.

In the student milieu, personal qualities and competence are highly valued. This was also confirmed by a study conducted by Rostov sociologists.

^4 Authority and prestige are interrelated concepts. By authority we understand a property, the capacity of an individual to exert influence on another individual or on a collective. Prestige, however, is the reflection of an individual’s authority in the consciousness of another individual or collective.

^5 V. I. Lenin. Collected Works. 5th ed. Vol. 40, p. 215.

They found that a student’s prestige depends 69.6% on moral conduct, 60.9% on academic success, 33.5% on organizational abilities and social activity, etc.^6 Among personal qualities, students highly value honesty, purposefulness, kindness, responsiveness, and absolutely reject obsequiousness, boorishness, cowardice, ostentatious “worldly wisdom,” and skepticism.^7

The essence of a collective is manifested in its interrelations, which take shape in the process of joint activity. Their character depends on the particular features of the personalities making up the collective, on leadership, on the external and internal conditions in which it functions, and also on the tasks being solved jointly. A student’s prestige and place in the system of collective relations are determined both by his social and by his biological-psychological characteristics. Members of a collective are usually at different levels of development. By the level of development of a personality we mean the degree of its socialization—that is, its adaptation to living in the collective and in society, its assimilation of social experience and norms, and also its awareness of its responsibility for the affairs of the collective and of society. People who have risen to a sense of personal responsibility for the collective form its active core and occupy a significant place in its interrelations. The biological-psychological individuality of a person is also of great importance.

I. P. Pavlov distinguished two types of character: strong and weak. He noted: “A person of the weak type, having found himself in new conditions of life, is completely lost; whereas another cannot be taken by anything—whatever conditions he is placed in, he acts in accordance with what those conditions require.”^8

People of the weak type are often very unsure of their actions and inclined to submit to others. Strong personalities, on the other hand, orient themselves easily in situations and either transform and subordinate conditions to themselves, or else adapt to them comparatively easily. They usually lead in the collective.

Behavior undoubtedly also depends on a person’s temperament. Temperamental people become more actively involved in the life of the collective and react more quickly in situations. But the attempts of bourgeois philosophers to explain all human behavior by temperament, even one’s political position, are absolutely illegitimate. Thus, for example, they believe that cholerics are inclined toward an authoritarian regime of government; sanguines toward opportunism; apathetic natures toward conservatism; phlegmatics toward democratic freedoms, and are not interested in politics or power.^9 A political position is determined by the worldview of the personality, not by its psychological characteristics.

In the literature there is an attempt to typify people’s behavior in connected activity.^10 The authors identified four types of behavior in the group performance of a task: 1) a striving to subordinate the other members of the group to oneself; 2) a striving toward individual actions; 3) a striving to adapt to the group; 4) an orientation toward collec-

^6 B. Rubin, Yu. Kolesnikov. The Student Through the Eyes of a Sociologist. Rostov, 1968, p. 168.

^7 R. S. Mironenko. On psychological-sociological studies of the student collective. — In: Youth and Socialism. “Molodaya gvardiya.” Section 8, 1967, p. 31.

^8 Pavlovian Wednesdays. Moscow, 1949, pp. 382–383.

^9 H. M. Keyser. Power Without a Future. Moscow, 1967, p. 126.

^10 I. V. Golubeva, I. M. Ivanovich. Efficiency of the work of small groups. — In: Problems of Mental Development and Social Psychology. Moscow, 1966.

…joint work. Such an approach helps to understand the position of the individual in the collective and his place in the system of relationships.

But a person’s behavior is also influenced by the surrounding environment, the nature of the joint work, and the role he has to perform. In some situations certain qualities of his may be manifested, in others—different ones. All this accounts for the multiplicity of interpersonal ties and their complexity. On the basis of sympathies and antipathies, interests, moral ideal, and orientation, each student develops a circle of those who are “accepted,” “preferred,” “not preferred,” and “neglected.”² On this basis contact groups are formed, which exert a great influence on the behavior of the individual. For the development of the collective, the presence within it of communication and contact groups along the main lines of activity that promote the realization of its principal task (professional, ideological-political, aesthetic, etc.) is of enormous importance. In contact groups leaders appear,³ who exert a great influence on relations among students and on the formation of common ideals and opinions. A leader is a person who not only takes an active part in communication, but who stands out not only by the amount of his influence, but by the general energetic level of his influence and participation in the activity of the group.⁴

Leadership can be analyzed from the standpoint of the goals and tasks of the collective. In this connection it is advisable to distinguish the concepts of an absolute and a relative leader. A relative leader is a personality that dominates in the collective and has influence on it in some one direction or relation. An absolute leader, by contrast, dominates in the main directions of the collective’s activity. Consequently, the nature of relations and ties within it depends to a large extent on the personal qualities of leaders, on their development, and on their awareness of the tasks and goals of the collective. In student groups, mutual relations are basically of four types: principled, collectivist (when the cohesion of its members is manifested in the principal activity—in matters of study, discipline, etc.), friendly (good relations on the basis of secondary forms of activity), indifferent (each person for himself), and conflictual.

One of the most important problems in managing a student group is the correspondence of the type of leadership to the type of collective. Three types of leadership are known: authoritarian, democratic, and liberal.⁵ Authoritarian leadership requires absolute power; it is distinguished by the tendency to reduce the internal ties among members of the collective to a minimum, to channel them through one’s own influence, and to concentrate them in one’s own hands. The democratic leader, on the contrary, is oriented toward the collective, seeks to develop the activity of each member, and to distribute responsibility. The liberal type of leadership is characterized by yielding, by the absence of exactingness. In reality, leaders combine in their activity features of all types, but there is always a predominance of some one tendency.

It is obvious that democratic management is more progressive and acceptable in developed collectives, where principled

relations. In such associations there predominate individuals who have become aware of their significance in the collective and of their responsibility for the common activity. They usually have a broad active group of leaders who strive for conscious participation in the affairs of the group, for collective solution of problems. Democratic leadership has a positive influence on the development of independence and individuality among the members and on the cohesion of the collective, since it helps to increase contacts and strengthen mutual ties within it. In this case there are all the conditions for the formation of common views and a collective moral ideal, which has a beneficial effect on the formation of both the ideological and the psychological compatibility of its members.

As socialism grows into communism, the democratic principles of leadership receive ever greater development. V. I. Lenin emphasized that the “democratic principle of organization” presupposes that “every representative of the masses, every citizen must be placed in such conditions that he can participate both in the discussion of the laws of the state, and in the election of his representatives, and in the implementation of the laws of the state,”⁶ and that such an arrangement “immediately begins to prepare the complete withering away of every state.”⁷

In undeveloped collectives, where friendly, impersonal, and conflictual relations have taken shape, democratic leadership is impossible. Here it may even do definite harm: give rise to anarchy, lack of principle, and mutual cover-up. Students in such collectives are simply not yet ready for the joint solution of problems. At certain stages of development the collective needs suppression, authoritarian leadership.⁸

The one-person method of administration is applicable in some cases even in developed collectives: when there are major disagreements on some question, when immediate execution of a task is required without discussion, and also in a number of simple cases where no collective decision is required.

Liberal leadership, in our view, is in general unacceptable as a serious type. The absence of strict demands and currying favor cannot have a positive effect on the upbringing of the collective. This method of leadership is encountered in student groups with friendly relations.

The type of leadership of a collective influences its activity and the character of the relationships within it. A discrepancy between the principles of leadership and the character of the relations that have developed in the collective gives rise to its disunity, to opposition of the governing component to the subordinate one. But the collective itself, in turn, determines the behavior of the leader and the method of administration. As B. F. Porshnev asserts, “in the final analysis one can suggest to people only that which, in general, corresponds to the direction of their needs and interests, their convictions and will.”⁹ The collective will not allow authoritarian leadership if the character of the relationships within it does not correspond to the principle of authoritarianism.

Of great importance for the functioning of the collective is also the correspondence of methods of leadership within the governing link itself—among the group monitor, the Komsomol organizer, and the trade-union organizer. Different styles in their work cannot give rise—

...will not create coordination of actions and will not contribute to the consolidation of their authority.

Thus, the problem of leadership in the primary student collective is one of the most urgent issues in its development. In practice, however, it is often ignored, and the mode of relations along the line of “leadership—collective” is established intuitively, by trial and error. The main requirement of the dean’s office for the group monitor is the successful performance of administrative duties. How this is done, how it affects the development of the collective, and what prestige the group monitor has among the students—such questions are not taken into consideration.

V. I. Lenin emphasized that “the masses must have the right to choose for themselves responsible leaders. The masses must have the right to replace them; the masses must have the right to know and to verify every smallest step of their activity. The masses must have the right to promote all, without exception, working members of the masses to administrative functions.”^19

We do not undertake to assert which is better: to appoint or to elect group monitors in student collectives. But the question of approaching the selection of a candidate for group monitor in a very well-grounded way, taking into account not only the person’s characteristics but also his conduct and authority in the collective, requires urgent and constant attention on the part of dean’s offices, departments, and public organizations. If the group monitor does not enjoy authority in the collective, then he is only an administrator, not a leader. He can issue orders, but he cannot persuade and lead others.

The situation is somewhat different with the Komsomol organizer and the trade-union organizer, since these positions are not appointed but elective. At first glance it may seem that election in itself ensures the coincidence, in one person, of manager and leader. But in elections a formal approach is often allowed. The positions of Komsomol organizer and trade-union organizer require considerable expenditure of energy, time, and effort. Students sometimes do not want to take on this difficult work and, in elections to these posts, act according to the principle “anyone but me.” That is why the Komsomol organizer and the trade-union organizer are not always, in fact, leaders in the collective.

Studies of student groups in Voronezh higher educational institutions showed such a discrepancy in six cases out of ten.^20 Our local study at TPI revealed that in almost half of the groups studied, the Komsomol organizers and trade-union organizers are not leaders; and in the remaining collectives, if they are leaders, then only quite rarely in the main areas of activity. Group monitors most often are authorities in studies, and they are far from always noted as good organizers.

In six student groups of Voronezh higher educational institutions an experiment was conducted: elections were held with due regard for the real structure of authorities in the collective. People who had great prestige in the contact groups of the collective and who met the ideological requirements for a Komsomol organizer were elected as Komsomol organizers. The results, as the author of the study notes, were positive in all cases.^21 Consequently, it is necessary to take a more conscious and serious approach to forming the leading echelon in the student collective, and, in selection, to use not only characteristics and the method of personal conversations with students, but also sociometric testing, which helps to reveal the interrelations in the collective and the prestige of its individual members.

^19 V. I. Lenin, Complete Collected Works, vol. 36, p. 157.
^20 V. S. Rakhmanin, “Ideological Work and the Structure of Collectives,” in: Youth and Socialism. “Molodaya Gvardiya,” Section 8, 1967, p. 34.
^21 Ibid., p. 35.

1. V. S. Rakhmanin, “Ideological Work and the Structure of Collectives,” in: Youth and Socialism. “Molodaya gvardiya,” Section 8, 1967; R. S. Mironets, “On Psychological-Sociological Studies of the Student Collective,” ibid.; I. Nastavshev, “An Experience in Studying the Structure of Personal Relationships in Student Groups,” ibid.; I. V. Sukhanov, “The Collective of a Student Group. Sociological Studies of Educational and Upbringing Work in Higher Education.” Gorky State University, Scientific Notes, Issue 91, Gorky, 1969, and others. ↩

2. M. Volkov. Distribution of behavioral patterns in the structures of interpersonal communication.—In: Man and Society. Issue IV, Leningrad State University, 1969, p. 58. ↩

3. Leader, from the English leader—a leading person, a guide, a person going in front and leading others after him. (Dictionary of Foreign Words. Moscow, 1955, p. 401). ↩

4. N. S. Zherebova. Types of leaders in informal groups. Problems of Philosophy and Sociology. Leningrad State University, 1968, p. 50. ↩

5. N. G. Polekhina. On the components of mutual relations between teachers and pupils of the senior grades.—Vestnik LGU. Issue 2, No. 11, 1970. ↩

6. V. I. Lenin. Complete Collected Works. Vol. 36, p. 156. ↩

7. V. I. Lenin. Complete Collected Works. Vol. 37, p. 501. ↩

8. In this connection arises the problem of supervision by instructors of student groups not only in the lower years, but also in the senior years. ↩

9. B. F. Porshnev. Social Psychology and History. Moscow, 1966, p. 146. ↩