Physical Adaptation and rehabilitation model: social aspect

Фотографии: 

Dr.Hab., Associate Professor S-A.M. Aslakhanov1
PhD, Associate Professor М.А. Elmurzaev2
A.I. Kovalenko2
1
Chechen State Pedagogical University, Grozny
2St. Petersburg Mining University, St. Petersburg

Keywords: physical recreation, adaptation, prevention, rehabilitation, physical activity, social health.

Background. Adaptation to the natural environmental conditions comprises one of the key aspects of the physical recreation model under consideration. This aspect refers to the most ancient biological regulatory mechanisms subject to special interest, mobilization and development efforts at this juncture. Historically, physical activity was considered one of the most successful mechanisms for the bodily adaptation to the volatile natural environmental conditions.

The first knowledge of the human body structure and relevant influences of natural environmental factors were poorly supported by theoretical grounds, and the adaptation process was largely instinctive and natural, with the bodily changes triggered by physical activity noted and rated by a variety of external manifestations, wellbeing rates, immunity to diseases etc. The more professional was the labour, the higher was the need for the psychophysical resource recreation, with a special priority given to the leisure-time physical practices.

Objective of the study was to provide theoretical grounds for the social aspect of the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model.

Study results and discussion. The adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model is applicable to the virtually healthy people diagnosed with minor health disorders due to the job-related negative impacts or other external influences; since physical recreation cannot be applied to cure pathological and/or chronic diseases. This is the reason why the notions applied by the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model shall be differentiated from the similar notions of the traditional health service including therapy, recovery, prevention, rehabilitation etc. The latter notions are considered and applied by the medical sciences rather than the modern social and education sciences [1].

Different aspects of the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model analyzed herein consider the human body functionality specifics and physical capacities, and comprise the study fields for the proposed model. Studies of the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model often apply the notion of health improvement in addition to rehabilitation albeit in some cases these terms are considered synonymic that is not always justifiable enough.

Notwithstanding the similarity of the above definitions, they appear still different in the sense that the rehabilitation process implies some reference health standards being attained in the process; whilst the health improvement is the process unlimited by some standards and timeframes as it takes the whole individual lifetime. To put it in other words, the health improvement process cannot be reduced to the body rehabilitation as such.

The proposed health improvement concepts give a key role to the interpretations of the modern health building mechanisms; health rating (quantification) methods and tools; and ways and models to attain some optimal age-specific health standards. Such a conceptual approach helps widely expand the adaptive resource of the physical recreation model to make it not limited by the human body, timeframes and standards any more [3].

One more field for research in the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model is its social domain. Every physical activity, even at the earliest stages of the human civilization, was socially predetermined and designed to accommodate to the social group for successful cooperation in different forms of social relationship driven by certain social standards for a variety of social roles. As far as the physical recreation component of this domain is concerned, the relevant issues cannot be fairly isolated since the social adaptation issues are very wide, far-reaching and contradictory and, hence, still unexplored.

The very opinion that social adaptation exists as personality adaptation to a social environment is still not commonly acknowledged, with the definitions of the notions of socialization and social adaptation still needed to be clearly defined and separated. In some cases they are interpreted as synonymic and in other cases social adaptation is considered as one of the socialization process stages.

We believe that the notions are unlikely fully synonymic or one of them is fully inclusive for the other. We interpret them as close and interrelated in many aspects but still different in their meanings and senses. In general terms, socialization may be interpreted as the relationship of the society and personality with the relevant logics of the individual growing acceptance (in the ontogenetic development process) of the historical and present social experience and cultural values critical for the full inclusion of the individual into social life. Broadly speaking, socialization may imply the inclusion of an individual into one or another social group.

We believe, the key distinction of the notions of socialization and social adaptation is that the notion of socialization is wider – for the reason that in the socializing process the individual not only accumulates social experience and adapts to current social conditions, but also accommodates the external inflow of experience to the already shaped individual experience and turns it into own priority values and reference points for further development to build up his identity.

However wide are the analytical approaches to the subject, most of analysts tend to operate with the following key specifications of an efficient socializing educational technology: systemic and integral design; sound conceptual basis; theoretical grounding, accuracy, inclusiveness, controllability; progress testing capacity; efficiency; and repeatability [2].

As distinct from socialization, the notion of social adaptation basically refers to the individual social development within the ‘subjectively perceived social reality’. It is important that the socialization process standards are set by the society whilst the social adaptation standards are customizable to the internal needs and capacities of the socializing individual striving to meet the standards set by the society. It should be mentioned that the socialization and individualization may be viewed as the two flows in the integrated personality development process.

Social adaptation may be widely different to vary from a full compliance with the existing social standards to the total refusal of such standards. Positive socializing effect may be found only in those cases when the social requirements and standards are more or less compliant to the actual individual needs and capacities [4].

As far as the biological and social adaptation domains are concerned and further clarified in their interrelation with the socializing process, it may be argued that physical recreation falls within both the biological and social adaptation domains. It should also be noted that the biological adaptation has been extensively addressed by the existing physical recreation models albeit the social adaptation domain is still largely underexplored in modern science.

As soon as the science qualifies physical recreation as a biosocial phenomenon, it has to answer the question of what the actual relationship of the biological and social adaptation elements is within the frame of the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model.

The relationship of the biological and social elements in physical recreation is ranked among the key problems that are still the least addressed and resolved in science. It should be mentioned that the phenomenon of physical recreation includes neither biological nor social component. Since the human nature bears both biological and social qualities, many of the phenomena genuine for the human nature are largely due to its biosocial domain. It is the human biosocial domain that determines the physical recreation process range and formats; and on the other hand the physical recreation system operations tend to change the manifestations of the human biosocial nature.

Therefore, the notion of biological and social aspects of physical recreation may be viewed as the theoretical abstraction only. In the efforts to identify the biological and social aspects of the physical recreation process, some general interpretations of the biological and social aspects in the human nature as such shall be clarified.

The problem of the human biological and social domains may be generalized on different levels. Their array may be classified on a systemic basis as follows: biological and social elements of the human nature as such; biological and social elements of human mentality; and biological and social elements of a personality. Since a human is a part of nature, its biological essence is determined by the body. The biological domain gives the means for a human to successfully adapt to the natural environments albeit the biological element of the human nature is unlikely the dominant one. The biological element may be interpreted as the material and natural foundation for the social element – that contains, manages and effectively limits the biological element.

The individual body development process is formatted by the social conditions albeit the individual social qualities are formed within the bodily systems and within the individual biological development process. This is the essence of physical recreation as far as the biological and social elements are considered in their relationship. However, considering the sense of the physical recreation system only in the context of its biological and social elements is as misleading as the underestimation of manifestations of the general human values in every field of human life and activity. Furthermore, it is misleading to believe that the development of some element – biological or social – is isolated and self-reliant. The traditional notions of human development, body development, personality development and their meanings and definitions in the physical recreation domain are apparently the scientific abstractions focused on the specific aspects of an integrated process. This practical principle could effectively solve the issue of the relationship of the biological and social elements in the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model.

The relationship of the biological and social adaptation mechanisms within the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model shall also be considered by the modern psychological research toolkit. The very logic of the human knowledge system building underlines the need for the psychological science to be mobilized to solve the relevant problems. The concept of the psychical element of the human nature serving as a supreme regulator of its biological and social elements demonstrates how the relationship of the biological and social aspects within the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model shall be analyzed [5].

Conclusion. The social aspect of the adaptive-rehabilitative physical recreation model may be interpreted as the individual social adaptation to the community driven both by social health protection and improvement and social behavior control standards and rules geared to efficiently format and facilitate the personality development process for its comfortable progress in the social environments.

References

  1. Ashmarin B.A. Teoriya i metodiki fizicheskogo vospitaniya [Theory and methods of physical education]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie publ., 1990, 287 p.
  2. Grakhov V.P., Kislyakova Yu.G., Simakova U.F. Formirovanie i razvitie tvorcheskogo potentsiala lichnosti studentov tekhnicheskikh VUZov [Formation and development of creative potential in technical university students]. Zapiski Gornogo universiteta, St. Petersburg, 2015, vol. 213, pp. 110-111
  3. Kobyakov Yu.P. Model zdorovya cheloveka kak strukturnaya osnova teorii zdorovya [Human health model as structural basis for health theory]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2006, no. 1, pp. 23-24.
  4. Lubysheva L.I. Sotsiologiya fizicheskoy kultury i sporta [Sociology of Physical Culture and Sports]. Moscow: Akademiya publ., 2001, 240 p.
  5. Elmurzaev M.A. Vvedenie v teoriyu fizicheskoy rekreatsii. Ucheb. Posobie [Introduction to theory of physical recreation. Study guide]. St. Petersburg: PU publ., 2015, 249 p.

Corresponding author: m.a.08@mail.ru

Abstract

Modern physical recreation service system gives a special attention to the recreation system role in the prevention and mitigation of the health risks associated with a variety of modern negative physical, psychological and social factors; with such studies always ranked among topical due to their high theoretical and practical importance. However, modern societies have faced a number of so-called civilization diseases (cardiovascular, mental etc.) that are not always directly connected with the living conditions. Moreover, many projects to improve the living conditions are seldom if ever beneficial for the communal health. The study considers the issues of individual adaptation to versatile and rapidly changing natural environmental and social conditions.