natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Authoritarianism is one of the most well-known constructs of social psychology, and can be used in particular to forecast political activity (Adorno et al. 1950).
Avtoritarnost je eden najbolj znanih socialnopsiholoških konstruktov, ki naj bi napovedoval predvsem smer političnega delovanja (Adorno et al., 1950).
Originally it was said to be a predictor of Nazi participation and behaviour among the Germans, and more generally a predictor of right-wing and xenophobic, generally intolerant actions and viewpoints.
Izvirno naj bi pri Nemcih predvideval nacistično udeležbo in vedenje, splošneje pa naj bi predvideval desničarsko in ksenofobno, posplošeno nestrpno delovanje in stališča.
And inversely, its absence is said to be a predictor of moderate, tolerant and democratic political orientation.
In nasprotno, njegova odsotnost naj bi predvidevala zmerno, strpno in demokratično politično usmerjenost.
A prevalence of authoritarianism would therefore express crisis conditions, the absence of legitimate authority and a preparedness to participate in movements opposed to democratic institutions and democratic treatment of political matters.
Prevlada avtoritarnosti pa bi prav tako izražala krizne razmere, odsotnost legitimne oblasti in pripravljenost na udeležbo v gibanjih, ki nasprotujejo demokratičnim institucijam in demokratični obravnavi političnih zadev.
Anti-democratic and totalitarian potential is said to arise in such conditions.
V takih razmerah naj bi se porajal protidemokratični in totalitarni potencial.
Authoritarianism is supposed to relate to the “deep structure” of the personality, which is formed in early childhood (Adorno et al. 1950).
Avtoritarnost naj bi se nanašala prav tako na »globinsko strukturo« osebnosti, ki se oblikuje v zgodnjem otroštvu (Adorno et al., 1950).
It is said to be a form of inappropriate socialisation.
Šlo naj bi za neustrezno socializacijo.
The authors based their writings on prejudice, although in the background they used various methods of interpretation, including psychoanalytic (Sanford 1972).
Avtorji so sicer v ospredju izhajali iz predsodkov, čeprav so ozadje tolmačili na različne načine, predvsem psihoanalitično (Sanford, 1972).
Later they stated that authoritarianism is also associated with other undesirable characteristics and behaviour, such as prejudice, intellectual narrow-mindedness, dogmaticism and discrimination.
Pozneje so trdili, da je avtoritarnost povezana tudi z drugimi neželenimi lastnostmi in vedenjem, kot so predsodki, intelektualna ozkost, dogmatičnost in diskriminacija.
Authoritarianism as a concept has survived six decades and has been operationally modified several times.
Avtoritarnost je kot koncept preživela šest desetletij in bila operacionalno večkrat spremenjena.
Principled challenges (Eysenck 1999) have not led to the abandoning of the construct, and the existence of extreme left-wing authoritarianism in addition to right-wing has also not been proved (Sanford 1972, Transue et al. 2008).
Načelna izpodbijanja (Eysenck, 1999) niso pripeljala do opuščanja konstrukta, tudi ni dokazano, da bi poleg desničarske obstajal tudi skrajna levičarska avtoritarnost (Sanford, 1972; Transue et al., 2008).
It is known that authoritarianism is negatively correlated with education and other components of functioning democratic society (Christie 1991).
Znano je, da je avtoritarnost negativno povezana z izobraženostjo in drugimi sestavinami delujoče demokratične družbe (Christie, 1991).
It continues to be of interest as a predictor of political definition and various other traits and behaviours.
Še vedno je zanimiva kot prediktor političnega opredeljevanja ter nekaterih drugih lastnosti in vedenja.
Researchers of authoritarianism have never achieved the methodological ideal of homogeneity of factors; the original authors established the existence of as many as nine factors, while later three (aggression, submission and conventionality) received the greatest amount of attention.
Raziskovalci avtoritarnosti niso nikoli dosegli metodološkega ideala faktorske homogenosti, izvirni avtorji so ugotovili obstoj celo devetih faktorjev, pozneje se je govorilo predvsem o treh (agresija, submisija in konvencionalnost).
The primary emphasis was always on prejudice and intolerance of other groups, conduct on that basis and its deep explanation.
V ospredju so bili vedno predsodki in nestrpnost do drugih skupin, vedenje na tej podlagi in njegovo globinsko pojasnjevanje.
In the Youth 2010 survey we had the opportunity to use an instrument that was used with Slovenian youth 25 years ago, and thus determine whether there have been any changes, regardless of whether these changes were irreversible (as would arise from a modernised approach) or not.
V raziskavi Mladina 2010 smo imeli priložnost uporabiti inštrument, ki je bil na slovenski mladini uporabljen že pred 25 leti, in tako ugotoviti, ali je prišlo do sprememb, in to ne glede na to, ali so te spremembe nepovrnljive (kot bi izhajalo iz modernizacijskega pristopa) ali ne.
The statements we used and which were used in 1985 in the JUPIO survey (Radin 1986) were:
Trditve, ki smo jih uporabili in so bile uporabljene leta 1985 v raziskavi JUPIO (Radin, 1986), so bile:
4. “Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.”
4. »Homoseksualci niso nič drugega kot kriminalci in jih je treba ostro kaznovati.
In the original research (1985), Cronbach's alpha was slightly higher (α = 0.54) than in the Youth 2010 survey (α = 0.46).
V izvorni raziskavi (1985) je bil Cronbachov nekoliko višji (a = 0,54) kot v raziskavi Mladina 2010 (a = 0,46).
Prevalence of authoritarianism and correlation with other variables in the Youth 2010 survey
Razširjenost avtoritarnosti in povezanost z drugimi spremenljivkami v raziskavi Mladina 2010
Our basic intention is to determine whether there has been any change in the level of authoritarianism in the past 25 years.
Naš temeljni namen je ugotoviti spremembo v stopnji avtoritarnosti v 25-letnem obdobju.
The average level of agreement with JUPIO-Authoritarianism among Slovenian youth in 1985 was M = 3.52 (SD = 0.72), which was substantially higher than the normative average (3).
Povprečje strinjanja z JUPIO-avtoritarnostjo je bilo pri slovenski mladini leta 1985 M = 3,52 (SD = 0,72), kar je bilo precej nad normativnim povprečjem (3).
The average level of agreement with JUPIOAuthoritarianism among Slovenian youth in 2010 was M = 3.16 (SD = 0.74), which means that it is still a prevailing phenomenon, although slightly lower than it was 25 years ago (taking account only of respondents up to age 24, comparable to 1985; otherwise the level of authoritarianism among people older than 24 is lower).
Povprečje strinjanja z JUPIO-avtoritarnostjo je leta 2010 M = 3,16 (SD = 0,74), kar pomeni, da gre še vedno za prevladujoč pojav, čeprav nekoliko nižji kot pred 25 leti (ob upoštevanju samo anketirancev, starih do 24 let, primerljivo z letom 1985, sicer pa je pri starejših od 24 let avtoritarnost nižja).
This drop can be explained from various viewpoints of the socio-political changes that have occurred in Slovenian society (abandonment of the one-party system, the development of democratisation, the introduction of permissiveness, the expansion of education and increase in the number of educated people among the population) and which are manifested in major social dissatisfaction with issues in modern times.
Upad lahko pojasnimo s številnimi vidiki družbenopolitičnih sprememb, ki so doletele slovensko družbo (opuščanje enostrankarskega sistema, razvoj demokratizacije, uveljavitev permisivnosti, širitev izobraževanja in povečanje števila izobraženih med prebivalstvom) in se kažejo v večji družbeni nezaželenosti postavk v današnjem času.
Authoritarianism still prevails, but this does not indicate the prevalence of deep support for democratic processes of tolerance.
Avtoritarnost sicer še vedno prevladuje, kar ne kaže na prevlado globinske podpore demokratičnim postopkom strpnosti.
Two years ago we might have established a lower level of authoritarianism, as it is well known that it increases in crisis conditions.
Verjetno bi lahko pred dvema letoma ugotovili pomembno nižjo avtoritarnost, saj je znano, da jo krizne razmere povečujejo.
In the last 25 years, authoritarianism as an indicator of antidemocratic potential shows a modest prevalence over the opposite orientation, although it has fallen slightly.
V 25-letnem obdobju avtoritarnost kot kazalnik nedemokratičnega potenciala kaže neznatno prevlado nad nasprotno usmerjenostjo, čeprav je nekoliko upadel.
It correlates with right-wing orientation at a level of r = 0.151 (p < 0.01), which confirms its validity.
Z desničarsko usmerjenostjo korelira na ravni r = 0,151 (p < 0,01), s čimer se potrjuje njena veljavnost.
We also studied authoritarianism using Adorno et al.'s three classical statements, which include the three main points, although the measure relating to submissiveness is slightly weaker.
Avtoritarnost smo opazovali tudi s pomočjo treh klasičnih trditev Adorna in sodelavcev, ki zajemajo tri glavne sestavine, vendar je mera, ki se nanaša na submisivnost, nekoliko šibkejša.
These are the above statements from 1 to 3, which we called authoritarianism (α = 0.61).
Gre za zgornje trditve od 1 do 3, kar smo poimenovali avtoritarnost (a = 0,61).
This construct includes the classical statements, but did not turn out to be predictive with regard to authoritarianism.
Ta konstrukt vsebuje klasične trditve, vendar se ni izkazal kot prediktiven v smeri avtoritarnosti.
It does show a statistically significant correlation with the political definition of left/right (r = 0.108; p < 0.01), but shows practically no correlation with school performance and school achievements, while it does show a negative and statistically significant correlation with deviance (r = 0.151; p < 0.01).
Sicer statistično značilno korelira s političnim opredeljevanjem levica - desnica (r = 0,108; p < 0,01), vendar praktično ne korelira s šolsko uspešnostjo in šolskim dosežkom, z deviantnostjo pa korelira negativno in statistično značilno (r = -0,151; p < 0,01).
It is probably an example of the harmless variety which indicates the “integrative” aspect of authoritarianism (Feldman 2003).
Verjetno gre za neškodljivo različico, ki kaže na »integrativno« plat avtoritarnosti (Feldman, 2003).
In general it is more weakly associated with the phenomena that are generally associated with authoritarianism.
V splošnem je šibkeje povezan s pojavi, s katerimi naj bi bila povezana avtoritarnost.
We also noticed that authoritarianism is present in various statements that indicate intolerance, which is particularly associated with sex and sexual behaviour.
Opazili smo tudi, da je avtoritarnost prisotna v nekih trditvah, ki kažejo na nestrpnost, ki je še zlasti povezana s spolom in spolnim življenjem.
excessive maintaining of strict adherence to unimportant rules (Adornoet al. 1950).
»Homoseksualci niso nič drugega kot kriminalci in jih je treba ostro kaznovati.
“Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.”
»Večina del v gospodinjstvu po svoji naravi bolj ustreza ženskam.
“Same-sex partners can raise children just as well as heterosexual partners.” (inversely coded)
»Istospolni partnerji lahko prav tako dobro vzgajajo svoje otroke kot raznospolni partnerji« (inverzno kodirano).
These are statements that refer to concrete, clear actions and life situations and which are also the subject of the debate about the authoritarian personality.
Gre za trditve, ki se nanašajo na konkretna, nazorna dejanja in življenjske situacije, ki so tudi predmet razprave o avtoritarni osebnosti.
We called this scale “social (authoritarian) intolerance” (α = 0.59).
To lestvico smo imenovali »socialna (avtoritarna) nestrpnost« (a = 0,59).
They are statements which refer to contentious issues in public discourse.
Gre za trditve, ki se nanašajo na sporna vprašanja v javnem diskurzu.
The first of these statements is taken directly from Adorno's authoritarianism F scale (F-16).
Prva teh trditev je neposredno prevzeta z Adornove lestvice avtoritarnosti (F-16).
The second and third statements, which in the past indicated traditionalism, today indicate authoritarian aggressiveness.
Druga in tretja trditev, ki sta v preteklosti kazali na tradicionalnost, danes kažeta na avtoritarno agresivnost.
This scale correlates to a right-wing orientation (r = 0.188; p < 0.01), which is the highest level among the three studied variants.
Omenjena lestvica korelira z desničarsko usmerjenostjo (r = 0,188; p < 0,01), kar je najvišja stopnja med tremi opazovanimi različicami.
Among all three this summary variable, which does not even mention politics, also shows the strongest and most statistically significant correlation with support for the principles of democracy (“… is democracy good in general?”) (r = 0.093; p < 0.01), which additionally confirms it as a genuine measure of authoritarianism.
Med vsemi tremi ta sumarna spremenljivka, ki sploh ne omenja politike, tudi najmočneje in statistično značilno korelira s podporo načelom demokracije (»…ali je demokracija v splošnem dobra?«) (r = 0,093; p < 0,01), kar jo dodatno krepi kot pristno mero avtoritarnosti.
Taking account of the fact that social intolerance was shown to be the most prevalent, we will indicate only its relative extent.
Ob upoštevanju, da se je socialna nestrpnost izkazala za najveljavnejšo, bomo nakazali samo njeno relativno razširjenost.
It is a minority phenomenon (M = 2.32; SD = 0.75) and is slightly more present among younger respondents (r = 0.069; p < 0.05).
Je manjšinski pojav (M = 2,32; SD = 0,75) in je neznatno bolj prisotna pri mlajših anketirancih (r = 0,069; p < 0,05).
It is also more present among men, which could be a consequence of the orientation of the statements towards men.
Prav tako je bolj prisotna pri moških, kar je lahko posledica usmerjenosti trditev na moške.
The construct shows a characteristically negative correlation with secondary-school performance (r = 0.122; p < 0.01) and school achievements (r = 0.172; p < 0.01).
Konstrukt je značilno negativno povezan s šolsko uspešnostjo v srednji šoli (r = -0,122; p < 0,01) in šolskim dosežkom (r = -0,172; p < 0,01).
Social intolerance is negatively correlated with stress (r = 0.127; p < 0.01), which can be explained by saying that while under exposure to stress it is a safety valve for negative energy.
Socialna nestrpnost je negativno povezana s stresom (r = -0,127; p < 0,01), kar lahko razlagamo tako, da ob izpostavljenosti stresu pomeni varnostni ventil za negativno energijo.
13.4 Anomie
13.4 Anomičnost
He described an allegedly transitional phenomenon which supposedly arose from the imbalanced and conflicted nature of modernisation.
Predvsem družbena pravila izgubljajo svojo prisilno naravo ter s tem tudi svojo usmerjevalno in sankcijsko moč.
Instead of the correct division of labour strengthening social integration, a transitional period occurs in which conflicts erupt and “anomie” therefore ensues.
Anomičnost lahko operacionaliziramo v socialnopsihološki konstrukt, in sicer kot osebno zaznavo odsotnosti prisilne narave družbenih pravil in prisotnost širše dezorientacije oz. izgube družbene usmeritve.
This is a lawless state in the legal, customary and moral senses.
Posameznik čuti, da nima opore v družbenih pravilih in širše v družbenih institucijah.
Above all, social mores lose their coercive force and thus also their directive and sanctioning power.
Te ga ne vodijo, ne nakazujejo obvezne smeri vedenja.
Anomie can be operationalised within a social-psychology construct as a personal perception of the absence of the coercive power of social mores and the presence of general disorientation or loss of social direction.
Inštrument Anomičnost smo raziskovali s tremi trditvami z lestvice po McCloskyju in Schaarju (1965): »Danes ni nobenih resničnih pravil, po katerih bi živeli.
They do not direct him/her or indicate compulsory behavioural guidelines.
»Danes je vse tako negotovo, da se ti lahko pripeti karkoli.
“With everything so uncertain these days, it almost seems like anything could happen.”
»Problem današnjega sveta je, da ljudje ne verjamejo v nič.
Prevalence of anomie and correlation with other variables in the Youth 2010 survey
Razširjenost anomičnosti in povezanost z drugimi spremenljivkami v raziskavi Mladina 2010
Anomie is a prevalent phenomenon among the respondents to the Youth 2010 survey (M = 3.41; SD = 0.75).
V raziskavi Mladina 2010 je anomičnost prevladujoč pojav pri anketirancih (M = 3,41; SD = 0,75).
Anomie could not be studied longitudinally on a general sample of young people, but we were able to check whether anything had changed in three years among the secondaryschool students who took part in a study of factors of success in school in 2007 (Flere et al. 2009).
Anomičnosti ni bilo mogoče preučiti longitudinalno na splošnem vzorcu mladine, smo pa lahko preverili, ali se je kaj spremenilo v treh letih pri srednješolcih, ki so bili vključeni v raziskavo o dejavnikih šolske uspešnosti leta 2007 (Flere et al., 2009).
We found that anomie had increased among this group by approximately one tenth.
Ugotovili smo, da se je pri tej skupini anomičnost povečala približno za eno desetino.
In 2007, anomie among grammar school students was only slightly higher than the normative average (M = 3.06), while today it is significantly higher (M = 3.31).
Leta 2007 je bila anomičnost pri gimnazijcih samo za odtenek višja od normativnega povprečja (M = 3,06), danes pa je precej višja (M = 3,31).
The comparison however does not allow us to make a completely reliable generalisation, but anomie is noticeably higher among secondary-school students, which could be explained by the straitened social circumstances in a transitional period (the economic and social crisis).
Primerjava sicer ne omogoča povsem zanesljivega posploševanja, vendar je med srednješolci opazno povečanje anomičnosti, ki pa ga lahko razložimo z zaostritvijo družbenih razmer v vmesnem obdobju (gospodarska in družbena kriza).
Anomie is more present among women and increases with age.
Anomičnost je bolj prisotna pri ženskah in raste s starostjo.
It does not exhibit any characteristic correlations, even with deviance.
Sicer ne kaže nekih značilnih povezav, celo z deviantnostjo ne.
The statements with which we measured anomie were mostly accepted.
Trditve, s katerimi smo merili anomičnost, so večinsko sprejete.
There is a clear perception that anomie among young people has increased in the last three years.
Obstajajo jasna znamenja, da se je anomičnost mladine v zadnjih treh letih povečala.
13.5 Alienation
13.5 Odtujenost
Alienation is a well-known concept in social science, which was introduced to sociology by Marx.
Odtujenost je splošno znan družboslovni koncept, ki ga je v sociologijo uvedel Marx.
Studies of alienation can be understood as one of the principal measures of the subjective sense of one's existence and belonging in the environment and rootedness, and is similar to a positive or negative affect, which we have otherwise not studied in detail.
Raziskovanje odtujenosti lahko jemljemo kot eno od glavnih mer subjektivnega čutenja lastne eksistence in umeščenosti v okolje, zakoreninjenosti in je podobna pozitivnemu oz. negativnemu afektu, česar sicer nismo podrobneje raziskovali.
“I sometimes feel uncertain about who I really am.”
»Včasih nisem povsem prepričan/-a, kdo sploh sem.
The statements formed a unitary factor (a = 0.54).
»Življenje je prazno in zame brez pomena.
Therefore an absence of alienation prevailed; the observed average is far from the normative average (3).
Povprečje ocen na lestvici v raziskavi Mladina 2010 je bilo M = 1,91 (SD = 0,69).
However, agreement with the statements was not uniform.
Prevladuje torej odsotnost odtujenosti, opaženo povprečje je daleč od normativnega povprečja (3).
“Not accepting me when I'm just being myself« is the most widespread (social aliena
Toda strinjanje s trditvami ni bilo enakomerno.
tion; 13.2 per cent of respondents agree with the statement), while theabsence of personal identity “I sometimes feel uncertain…” is significantly lower (only 8.1 per cent of respondents agree).
»Nesprejemanje takega, kakršen sem« je najbolj razširjeno (družbena odtujenost; 13,2 odstotka anketirancev se s trditvijo strinja), odsotnost osebne identitete »Včasih nisem prepričan…« pa precej manj (strinja se le 8,1 odstotka anketirancev).
The fewest young people (5 per cent) agree with the nihilistic third statement “Life is empty and meaningless for me”, which refutes the hypothesis of Slovenian youth as apathetic and without a meaningful life.
Najmanj mladih (5 odstotkov) se strinjanja z nihilistično tretjo trditvijo »Življenje je prazno in zame brez pomena«, kar zavrača tezo o slovenski mladini kot apatični in brez osmišljenega življenja.
Sex does not indicate statistically significant differences, but alienation decreases with age, particularly above the age of 25.
Spol ne kaže statistično značilnih razlik, odtujenost pa upada s starostjo, zlasti po 25. letu.
This indicates a correlation between growing up and the end of youthful alienation, although it remains characteristically present among the oldest youths.
To kaže na povezanost odraščanja s prenehanjem mladostniške odtujenosti, čeprav ostaja značilno prisotna tudi pri najstarejših.
Alienation is a markedly minority phenomenon, but it is clearly associated with all of the most signiﬁ cant “desirable” and “undesirable” psychological and behavioural phenomena.
Odtujenost je izrazito manjšinski pojav, je pa jasno povezana z vsemi najpomembnejšimi »želenimi« in »neželenimi« psihološkimi in vedenjskimi pojavi.
If we compare our respondents from secondary school with the secondary school students from our research in 2007, in which the same statements were used and a correlation was established between alienation and low school performance, we can detect a decrease in alienation among secondary school students, from M = 2.16 (SD = 0.75) in 2007 to M = 1.96 (SD = 0.69) in 2010.
Če primerjajo naše anketirancev iz srednjih šol z dijaki iz naše raziskave leta 2007, v kateri so bile uporabljene enake trditve in je bila ugotovljena povezanost odtujenosti z nižjim šolskim uspehom, opazimo upad odtujenosti med srednješolci, in sicer z M = 2,16 (SD = 0,75) leta 2007 na M = 1,96 (SD = 0,69) v tem letu.
Alienation correlates positively relatively strongly with “desirable” phenomena and relatively negatively with “undesirable” ones.
Odtujenost korelira pozitivno dokaj močno z »zaželenimi« pojavi in dokaj negativno z »nezaželenimi«. Med pomembnimi dejavniki, ki vpli
The socialisation style of the parents is one of the important factors affecting alienation.
vajo na odtujenost, je socializacijski slog staršev.
All three in fact show a statistically significant correlation (permissive socialisation r = -0.223; p < 0.01; authoritarian socialisation r = -0.287; p < 0.01; authoritative socialisation r = 0.156; p < 0.01).
Vsi trije namreč statistično značilno korelirajo (permisivna socializacija r = -0,223; p < 0, 01; avtoritarna socializacija r = -0,287; p < 0,01; avtoritativna socializacija r = 0,156; p < 0,01).
Additionally, all of the time perspectives show statistically significant correlations, which is to be expected, since they are partially related constructs, even if explained differently.
Tudi vse časovne usmerjenosti kažejo na statistično značilne povezave, kar je mogoče tudi pričakovati, ker so delno sorodni konstrukti, čeprav drugače pojasnjeni.
Deviance is strongly associated with alienation (r = 0.283; p < 0.01).
Deviantnost je z odtujenostjo močno povezana (r = 0,283; p < 0,01).
The same holds for performance in secondary school (r = 0.163; p < 0.01).
Enako velja za šolsko uspešnost v srednji šoli (r = -0,163; p < 0,01).
Thus alienation is shown to be highly predictive in comparison with the previously discussed anomie.
Torej, odtujenost se kaže kot zelo prediktivna v nasprotju s prej obravnavano anomičnostjo.
13.6 Deviance
13.6 Deviantnost
Deviance or deviant behaviour in society is not an unexpected or exceptional phenomenon.
Deviantnost oz. odklonskost v družbi ni nepričakovan oziroma izjemen pojav.