Cherepovets municipal district. Public opinion: reality

Society is a complex and constantly evolving system in which all elements are somehow connected with each other. Society has a huge impact on a person, participates in his upbringing.

Public opinion is the opinion of the majority. It is not surprising that it has a great influence on a person. It is believed that if many adhere to a position, then it is correct. But is it really so? Sometimes public opinion regarding some case, phenomenon, person can be erroneous. People tend to make mistakes and jump to conclusions.

In Russian fiction there are many examples of erroneous public opinion.

As the first argument, consider Yakovlev's story "Ledum", which tells about the boy Kostya. Teachers and classmates considered him strange, treated him with distrust.

Kostya yawned in class, and after the last lesson he immediately ran away from school.

One day, the teacher Zhenya (as the guys called her) decided to find out what was the reason for such an unusual behavior of her student. She discreetly accompanied him after school. Zhenechka was amazed that the strange and withdrawn boy turned out to be a very kind, sympathetic, noble person. Every day Kostya walked the dogs of those owners who could not do it on their own. The boy also took care of the dog, the owner of which died. The teacher and classmates were wrong: they jumped to conclusions.

As a second argument, let us analyze Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. An important character in this work is Sonya Marmeladova. She earned by selling her own body. Society considered her an immoral girl, a sinner. However, no one knew why she lived like this.

The former official Marmeladov, Sonya's father, lost his job due to addiction to alcohol, his wife Katerina Ivanovna was ill with consumption, the children were too small to work. Sonya was forced to provide for her family. She “went on a yellow ticket”, sacrificed her honor and reputation in order to save her relatives from poverty and hunger.

Sonya Marmeladova helps not only her loved ones: she does not leave Rodion Raskolnikov, who suffers because of the murder he committed. The girl makes him admit his guilt and goes with him to hard labor in Siberia.

Sonya Marmeladova - the moral ideal of Dostoevsky because of his positive qualities. Knowing the history of her life, it is difficult to say that she is a sinner. Sonya is a kind, merciful, honest girl.

So public opinion can be wrong. People did not know Kostya and Sonya, what kind of personalities they were, what qualities they possessed, and that is probably why they assumed the worst. Society has drawn conclusions based only on part of the truth and its own conjectures. It did not see nobility and responsiveness in Sonya and Kostya.

We are all used to judging other people, even if we try not to. But any opinion, be it personal or public, can be wrong.

How eloquently exclaims in one of his monologues main character comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky: "And who are the judges? ..". Really, who? Where does this condemnation and rejection of others, not like us, come from?

Why do we often consider good, simple-hearted people “idiots”, as everyone called Prince Myshkin behind his back in the novel of the same name by F. M. Dostoevsky. And all those who rebel and rebel against the opinion of the majority, we immediately classify as "Chatskys" and try to ridicule them?

Probably, it is important for every person to feel involved in something, which is why he is so eager to join the opinion of the majority. “If many people think so, then this makes sense,” he thinks and, forgetting his reasonable doubts, joins the “powerful ones”.

But all this is good only until such a person stumbles and makes a mistake, after which acquaintances begin to condemn him. And then, feeling their dissatisfied look on himself, he will understand what the opinion of the majority is and how unpleasant it can be if directed against you.

I think all of us have been in this situation at least once. Everyone felt like Chatsky, Myshkin, and perhaps even Bazarov. And how at that moment, probably, I wanted to prove to everyone that I was right, or at least defend my choice.

But this is not so easy to do, since public opinion does not tolerate encroachments on its authority. Anyone who in one way or another tries to do this, it automatically classifies as "white crows". And, meanwhile, as a rule, it is precisely such non-standard personalities, having achieved success in the future, who become trendsetters and form this very public opinion.

1. The role of Sofia in the emergence of rumors.
2. Spreaders of public opinion.
3. The destructive nature of public opinion.
4. Business card of a person.

Public opinion is formed not by the wisest, but by the most talkative.
V. Begansky

Public opinion plays a huge role in people's lives. After all, we form an idea about this or that person because others think about him. Only with close acquaintance do we either reject all assumptions or agree with them. Moreover, such a consistent attitude towards a person has developed at all times.

A. S. Griboyedov wrote about public opinion in his comedy “Woe from Wit”. In it, Sophia calls Chatsky crazy. As a result, it doesn’t take even a couple of minutes for the whole society to agree with the remark with great pleasure. And the most dangerous thing in such a dissemination of information about a person is that practically no one ever argues with such judgments. Everyone takes them on faith and starts to distribute in this way. Public opinion, created by the skillful or involuntary hand of one person, forms a certain barrier for another.

Of course, one cannot say that public opinion has only a negative value. But, as a rule, when they refer to such a judgment, they thereby try to confirm the unflattering characteristics of a person. It is not for nothing that Molchalin, who is sure that in his “summer one should not dare to have his own judgment,” says that “evil tongues are worse than a gun.” Compared to Chatsky, he adopts the laws of the society in which he lives. Molchalin understands that it can become a solid foundation not only for his career, but also for personal happiness. Therefore, when a Famus society gathers, he tries to please those who can give a positive description of his person. For example, Khlestova. Molchalin stroked and praised her dog. She liked this treatment so much that she called Molchalin "friend" and thanked him.

Chatsky also knows how public opinion is formed about a person: “The fools believed, they tell others, / The old women instantly sound the alarm - / And here is public opinion.” But he is the only one who can resist him. However, Alexander Andreevich does not take into account the fact that his opinion is completely uninteresting to this society. On the contrary, Famusov considers him a dangerous person. Sophia, the culprit of the rumor about madness, speaks unflatteringly about him: “Not a man, a snake!”

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is new in this society, despite the fact that he was in it three years ago. During this time, a lot has changed, but only for the main character himself. The society that now surrounds him lives according to the old laws, which suit them quite well: “For example, we have been doing it from time immemorial, / What an honor for father and son: / Be poor, but if you have enough / Souls of two thousand tribal ones, - / He and the groom. Sofia does not accept this state of affairs. She wants to arrange her personal life in her own way. But on this path, she is hindered not only by her father, who predicts Skalozub to be her suitor, but also by Chatsky, whom she is offended by: “The desire to wander attacked him, / Ah, if someone loves whom, / Why look for the mind and travel so far?”

The image of Sophia is important here not only because she started a rumor, but also because she was the source of the appearance of an incorrect public opinion. The idea of ​​other characters about Chatsky is formed at the moment of their communication. But each of them leaves these conversations and impressions to himself. And only Sophia takes them to the Famus society, which immediately condemns young man.

G.N.
How was he found on his return?

S o f i i
He is not quite all there.

G.N.
Have you gone crazy?

S o f i i (after a pause)
Not quite...

G.N.
However, are there any clues?

S o f i i (looks at him intently)
It seems to me.

From this dialogue, we can conclude that the girl did not want to announce Chatsky's madness. When saying “He’s out of his mind,” she most likely meant that, with his views, Alexander Adreevich did not fit into the society he fell into at all. However, in the process of dialogue, the image of the protagonist takes on a completely different shape. As a result, two people create a certain opinion about a person, which then spreads in society itself. Therefore, Chatsky began to be perceived in such a circle as crazy.

In the "age of obedience" Alexander Andreevich could not accept the fact that people humiliate themselves in order to achieve ranks and location. He, having been absent for three years in order to gain additional knowledge, cannot understand those who condemn the reading of books. Chatsky does not accept Repetilov's pathetic statements about secret societies, noticing: “... are you making noise? Only?"

Such a society is not capable of accepting into its circle a person to whom even a beloved girl gives such an unflattering description: "... ready to pour out bile on everyone." However, one should not forget that Sophia, at least to some extent, does not agree with the laws. Famus Society, but does not enter into a direct dispute with him. Thus, Chatsky remains alone in this environment. And it is not he as a person that comes to the fore, but the opinion about him, compiled by society. So why does society so easily perceive and give a negative description of a young, intelligent and sane person?

The author of the comedy gives the most complete answer to this question when guests begin to arrive at Famusov. Each of them represents a certain voice in the public opinion of a certain circle of people in which they move. Platon Mikhailovich falls under the heel of his wife. He accepts for himself the laws of the world where he is, despite the fact that earlier "only morning - a foot in the stirrup." Khlestova has a good reputation, which is why Molchalin is trying to please her so that public opinion is in his favor. Zagoretsky is such an already recognized “master of service”. Only in such a society any opinion about a person begins to spread quite quickly. At the same time, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bhim is absolutely not verified and is not disputed even by those who know Chatsky well (Sofia, Platon Mikhailovich).

None of them think that such a negative attitude is ruining a young man. He alone cannot cope with the halo that his loved one created for him. Therefore, for himself, Chatsky chooses a different path - to leave. He utters not a single eloquent monologue, but remains unheard.

Insane you glorified me with all the chorus.

You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,

Who will have time to spend the day with you,
Breathe the air alone
And his mind will survive.

Chatsky leaves the stage, but a stronger opponent remains in his place - public opinion. Famusov does not forget about him, who will have to stay in this environment for a long time. Therefore, it is very important for the hero what opinion about him will develop in society, despite the fact that it can be just one person: “Ah! My God! What will Princess Marya Apeksev-na say!

On the example of one work, we saw what a detrimental effect public opinion can have on a person's life. Especially if he absolutely does not want to obey his laws. Therefore, the opinion becomes a kind of visiting card of a person. It should tell about the person in advance what others should know before the meeting. Someone strives to create a good halo for themselves in order to freely move up the career ladder in the future. And some people don't care at all. But do not forget that no matter how they treat such a concept as “public opinion”, it exists. And it is impossible not to take it into account if you are in a society. But what opinion about you to develop, entirely depends on you.

It is clear that each time dictates its own laws for constructing such a characteristic. However, do not forget that there are different people, and each person can form his own opinion, and we only need to choose correctly and listen to what they think of us. Perhaps this is what will help to some extent understand what other people see in us, and change their perception of us.

Loyal and devoted people are valued at all times. But it often happens that the one from whom you do not expect betrayal will change. What brings a person to a fatal point? What allows him to stumble? Can this offense be forgiven? I'll try to figure this out.

In my opinion, in a situation of danger, a person can sometimes behave unpredictably. During hostilities, when there is a threat to life, moral stamina and fearlessness are tested. The one in whom there is no inner strength is able to betray his own, forget about honor and military duty. I think that this kind of betrayal is impossible to forgive.

In the novel by A.S. Pushkin " Captain's daughter"The image of a person is given, whose actions there is nothing to justify - this is Shvabrin Alexei Ivanovich. It would seem that he dared, sent to the Belogorsk fortress for "death" during a duel, but in a moment of danger, seeing that Pugachev is strong, he goes over to his side. What brings him to this decision? In my opinion, Shvabrin is capable of any meanness: to slander Marya Ivanovna in the eyes of Grinev, to write to Petrusha's parents about the duel. Already before the capture of the fortress by Pugachev, it was clear that such a person would not talk about what was honest and noble, and what was vile and dishonorable. The lack of moral guidelines leads to treason. It is difficult to forgive such a person, his actions cause only contempt.

You can change not only in times of upheaval, but also in ordinary family life. What leads to such an act of one of the spouses? I think that the reason is the lack of mutual feelings of love and respect. Is forgiveness possible in this situation?

In the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" main character Katerina, a married woman, is cheating on her husband Tikhon. Her character is completely different from that of Shvabrin. She is sincere, sincere, open nature. Why is it capable of change? I think that it was more honest for Katerina to show feelings for Boris than to pretend that she loves Tikhon, whom there is nothing to even respect for. Katerina's betrayal of her husband is not perceived as a vile act, but, on the contrary, as a manifestation of her strength and ability to protest. This step was prompted by Tikhon's inattention, the oppression of Kabanikhi, the constant feeling of lack of freedom. Katerina's act is justified from a moral point of view, which means that she deserves forgiveness. After her death, Tikhon will also exclaim to Kabanikha: “It was you who ruined her! You!" He does not hold a grudge against her, he understands the inevitability of what happened. Such a betrayal can be forgiven.

In whatever situation a person finds himself, the choice of how to act remains with him. In my opinion, forgiveness is only worthy of one in whom the reason for betrayal was not inner weakness, but strength of mind and a sincere conviction that he was right.

What actions of a person indicate his responsiveness?

The ability to respond to someone else's pain, caring for your neighbor - these qualities are not inherent in everyone. How to distinguish a sympathetic person from an indifferent one? What actions will be characteristic of people with this quality?

The very concept of "responsiveness" includes thoughts about others, a willingness to give, not to take. A responsive person will strive to make the world around him a better place.

This is exactly how we see the heroine of the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" Olga Ilyinskaya. She wants to save Ilya Ilyich from eternal sleep, dreams of how to fill his life with movement, meaning, return him to conscious activity, and perform a miracle. It is thanks to her efforts that Ilya Ilyich gets up early, reads books, walks, there is not a trace of sleep or fatigue on his face. And all this is the beneficial influence of Olga. Is this not a manifestation of responsiveness? Another thing is that Oblomov only for a while rose from his sleep and died out again. The heroine tried to change Ilya Ilyich, but she could not do it.

Responsiveness can manifest itself in relation to different people who need help to those in need.

In the story of Maxim Gorky "Childhood", an example of a person who cares about others is grandmother Akulina Ivanovna. The entire Kashirin family rests on her spiritual attitude to everything around. During a fire that happened to them, she worries that the fire does not spread to a neighboring house. For her, the well-being of her neighbor is important. She is distinguished by a disinterested love for the world, pity for people, sensitivity to someone else's insult and pain. She tries to help everyone, support, cares for the sick, treats children, sorts out family disputes and quarrels. It is the grandmother who helps the blind master Gregory, gives him alms. And for Alyosha, she becomes the closest and dearest person.

The ability to think about who needs support, about who needs participation, is inherent, in my opinion, in sympathetic people. It is necessary not to pass by someone else's pain, not to isolate yourself in your own world, but to respond to misfortune and, if possible, try to help.

Is happiness built on the unhappiness of others?

The desire for happiness and spiritual harmony is characteristic, perhaps, of all people. Each of us wants to bring our life closer to a certain ideal. What means can be chosen to achieve personal goals? Is it possible to build happiness on the unhappiness of others? Let's try to figure this out.

In my opinion, caring only about their own good, forgetting about others, a person makes himself unhappy. Achieving imaginary happiness, he remains dissatisfied with the result, comes to the realization of the meaninglessness of his actions.

In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time", we are presented with the image of such a person - Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, thirsting for life, looking for it everywhere and involuntarily bringing misfortune to everyone around. Pechorin, in pursuit of revealing the secrets of smugglers, destroys their well-established course of life. Love for the savage Bella also does not bring him the expected happiness. She was sincerely able to fall in love with Pechorin, but he quickly lost interest in her, became the unwitting culprit of her death. Princess Mary also becomes a victim of his selfishness and inability to change his life. Pechorin himself will say about himself: "... My love did not bring happiness to anyone, because I did not sacrifice anything for those whom I loved."

Striving for happiness at any cost, a person does not achieve it himself and brings only trouble to others.

The hero of the novel by A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" Alexei Ivanovich Shvabrin is in love with Marya Ivanovna, wants to force her to marry him, forces her to do so. In a letter to Pyotr Grinev, Marya Ivanovna will write about Shvabrin's cruel attitude towards her, who keeps her under guard, on bread and water, hoping for the possibility of personal happiness. But, bringing her only torment, Shvabrin is not able to achieve what he wants.

It turns out that you really cannot build your happiness on someone else's misfortune. It is necessary to carefully choose the means to achieve your goals, without making those around you suffer.

How is courage different from recklessness?

Courage is the quality that manifests itself in moments of danger. But someone can, without hesitation, risk his life, not realizing the possible consequences, and someone, having carefully weighed everything, will commit a heroic deed.

It is in the ability to soberly assess the situation, to understand how dangerous the situation is, that the difference between courage and recklessness is. L.N. Tolstoy makes us think about this in the novel “War and Peace”.

His heroes are able to show the best human qualities in moments of danger. Dared Captain Tushin, who found himself in the thick of things, without reinforcements. He does not experience "the slightest unpleasant feeling of fear", on the contrary, he becomes "more and more cheerful." He skillfully fights, imagining himself as a powerful, huge man who can handle everything. Tushin's sincerity, his simplicity, concern for the soldiers, modesty and, of course, courage command respect.

If a person is driven only by feeling, instead of courage comes recklessness, an unjustified risk of one's own life.

Such is the young Petya Rostov, possessed by a thirst for achievement, "without a moment's hesitation, he galloped to the place where the shots were heard and the powder smoke was thicker." Petya dies while still a child. He did not calculate the situation, he so wanted to be in the thick of things, to become a real hero. The absurd death of Petya helps us understand that reasonable courage is needed, and not a heroic impulse.

Whether this or that person is bold or reckless depends on what is more developed in him: reason or feeling.

In N.V. Gogol's story "Taras Bulba", Ostap and Andriy behave differently in battle. Ostap can calmly assess the situation, in him "the inclinations of the future leader" are noticeable. Andriy, on the other hand, plunges "into the charming music of bullets", without measuring anything in advance, sees "frantic bliss and ecstasy" in the battle.

During difficult trials, people show fearlessness. In my opinion, reasonable courage is more important in battle than stupid recklessness. The winner is not the one who, in a fit of feelings, rushes towards danger, but the one who is able to calculate the convenient moment and achieve the result. This is the difference between courage and recklessness.

Is public opinion wrong?

A person lives in society throughout his life. It would seem that it is not difficult for any of us to find a response to our spiritual experiences. Unfortunately, this is not so. And, revolving in society, being an active person, one can remain misunderstood and even rejected. Public opinion is often wrong. When can this happen?

In my opinion, those whose beliefs are progressive and ahead of their time are not accepted by the majority. In the works of Russian classical literature there are examples of this type of people.

In A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”, Chatsky is rejected by the “famus” society. This is an advanced person of his time, who understands that career advancement should be due to merit and specific deeds, and not the ability to please superiors. He appreciates Russian culture, criticizes the dominance of the foreign, the inveterate morals, cringing and bribery. Chatsky is educated, intelligent, progressive, but lonely both in society and in love. None of the heroes of the comedy shares his views, Sophia spreads the rumor about his madness. Oddly enough, everyone willingly believes this gossip, because this is the only way to explain why Chatsky thinks differently than all those who ended up in Famusov's house. The hero is lonely from misunderstanding, his views are different from the opinion of the majority - this is the reason for such an attitude towards him. The opinion of the "famus society" about Chatsky is erroneous because he was ahead of his time.

But not only the bearer of progressive views may not be accepted in society, but also the one who is strong in spirit, who is better than his numerous surroundings.

So, in the story of M. Gorky "Old Woman Izergil" there is a legend about Danko. This hero saved all people from certain death, he led them through impenetrable forests. The path was difficult, people were exhausted and blamed everything on Danko, the man who walked ahead of them. They reproached him for his inability to manage them. Danko tore out his heart and lit the way with it, saved people at the cost of his life, but his death went unnoticed. He made a feat in the name of saving people. The accusations against Danko were unfair.

When can public opinion be wrong? I think that this happens if a person is ahead of his time in his views, worldview, understanding of life, or turns out to be brighter, stronger, more courageous than those who surround him.