Sergey Iuchenkou – doctor of sociological sciences, professor, ьhead of the department of sociology, dean of the sociology department of Saratov state research university named after N.G. Chernyshevsky, (Russia, Saratov), E-mail: ivchenkovsg@mail.ru

Igor Malinskij – ph.d., vice-rector on educational-organizational and educational work, head of the department of social informatics sociological faculty of Saratov State research University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky, (Russia, Saratov), E-mail: mig@info.sgu.ru

Abstract. Presents the results of empirical sociological research carried out through a questionnaire study full-time students four graduate kvotno-target sample (n = 468 people). Allocated and disclosed the 5 categories of students with varying life position: creators, activists, passive, fatalisty, undecided. Disclosed the impact of these characteristics on the student’s perception of life, security, sources of risk, conflict, methods to ensure personal safety. Shows that the dominant view of students (with the exception of the creators), effective ways to ensure the personal safety of no. Therefore, most students, especially activists, said they can be aggressive to personal safety, use of deem acceptable for personal safety, society disapproved, by law. The more active stance of students, the more they frighten hidden threats. Than the courts in their stance, the more students consider conflicting riskogennuju situation as external to him, not requiring their intervention, and the more orientation to physical methods of personal security.

Keywords: students, life position, riskogennaja the situation, security.

References:

1. Bek U. Obshchestvo riska. – M. 2010.
2. Giddens EH. Uskol’zayushchij mir: kak globalizaciya menyaet nashu zhizn’. — M.: Ves’ mir, 2004.
3. Zubok YU.A., Rostovskaya T.K., Smakotina N.L. Molodezh’ i molodezhnaya politika v sovremennom rossijskom obshchestve. – M.: ITD «PERSPEKTIVA», 2016. – 166 s.
4. Luman N. Ponyatie riska // THESIS: teoriya i istoriya ehkonomicheskih i social’nyh institutov i sistem. — 1994. — № 5. — S. 135—160.
5. Duglas M., Lildavski A. Risk i kul’tura. – M. 2011.
6. Solonina V.P. Regional’naya bezopasnost’ kak sistema napravlennosti i obespecheniya ustojchivogo social’nogo razvitiya. – M.: Social’no- gumanitarnye znaniya, 2008.
7. Bekhmann G. Sovremennoe obshchestvo: obshchestvo riska, informacionnoe obshchestvo, obshchestvo znanij. – M.: Logos, 2010.
8. Vvedenie v social’nuyu riskologiyu: uchebnoe posobie. – Saratov. 2010.
9. Vishnyakov YA.D., Radaev N.N. Obshchaya teoriya riskov. – M., 2007.
10. Volkova N.G. Cennostnye osnovaniya ehkstremal’nosti v riskogennom sociume. – Saratov, 2011.
11. Kravchenko S.A. Dinamichnaya priroda social’nogo riska: neobhodimost’ nelinejnogo myshleniya i adekvatnogo teoreticheskogo instrumentariya // Social’naya politika i sociologiya. 2008. – № 3(39). – S. 44-60.
12. Obshchestvo riska: strategii upravleniya i al’ternativnye stili myshleniya. – Saratov, 2009.
13. Smakotina N.L. Osnovy sociologii nestabil’nosti i riska: filosofskij, sociologicheskij i social’no-psihologicheskij aspekty. – M., 2009.
14. YAnickij O.N. Sociologiya riska / Ros. akad. nauk. In-t sociologii. — M.: Izd-vo LVS, 2003 (PIK VINITI). — 191 s.