In Soviet times, the representation of a person in psychological literature was largely idealized. In the textbooks of that time, in accordance with the theory of activity, a person was always a person, adequately reflected reality, thought creatively, made conscious choices, and always strived for development. It is clear that this was not entirely true: most people lived and live mainly as organisms, and such descriptions are not about them. On the other hand, reminding people that they are not born as a person, they become a person, that you can not only live your life harmoniously, but also build it constructively — these reminders pushed many people to real development.
At present, in the literature and at trainings, in one way or another describing their vision of a person, psychologists most often care about being understood, so that their readers recognize themselves in their descriptions. As a result, the portrait of a person turns out to be an organism swaying with emotions and driven by needs. In such a description, the role of feelings is usually emphasized and distrust is instilled in reason, which only justifies irrational and not at all lofty human aspirations.
This film teaches children to live like everyone else, to live like children, without a head and without thinking. I wonder what will be the result?
download video
How to treat it? It must be admitted that such a description is realistic, it is largely true. At the same time, we must not forget that the representation of a person in psychological literature not only reflects reality, but also forms it. The picture of how a person lives performs not only a descriptive-presentative, but also a normative function. Describing a person in the status of an organism, we voluntarily or involuntarily inspire people with not the highest life patterns. By telling people about life in the status of a person, we help people to live in the status of a person, to live as people.
When I wrote «Philosophical Tales», in many chapters I described a person as an organism: see «The Difficult Life of the Inner Man», «Soul Pots and General Tenderness» and many other chapters. However, my task was not only to fix the existing state of affairs, but also to provoke an internal protest to this: “Yes, it seems, but I don’t want to be like that! I won’t!»
Those who turn to Gestalt therapists, as a rule, easily recognize themselves in their descriptions, for them all this is vital, realistic and natural. Moreover, calmness gradually comes when they explain to you that it is normal and natural to live like this. Tension arises when a person does not fit into the descriptions of the Gestalt approach and begins to protest: in response to his protests, the Gestalt therapist often states that there are failures in the life of this organism. However, something else seems more problematic to us, namely, when a person who is faced with a choice of how to live, having the choice to live in the status of a person, gives in to the therapist’s suggestion and descends to being an organism, forgets about the possibility of being a person and really becomes only an organism.