Contents
Politician, psychologist and lecturer at Moscow State University Leonid Gozman on the situation in the country, how we perceive it, and whether we can influence it.
He is known as a politician with liberal convictions. Less like a psychologist who has lectured on political psychology at Moscow State University for many years. What does he see today in our reality “from the inside”, as a participant in events, and “from the outside”, as an expert? Since politics has returned to our lives, it seems to some that it has become too much, despite the fact that we still have no chance to influence the situation. But Leonid Gozman is sure that the public awakening is not accidental, it satisfies our psychological need … for a political choice.
Psychologies: How important is knowledge of psychology in politics?
Leonid Gozman: Psychology forms a system of priorities: what are you looking at. This is not a set of some skills and methods, but rather a point of view. A very revealing incident in this sense happened to me when, together with my partner, an economist, we were to meet with a delegation from one of the former Yugoslav republics. The partner was late, I started the conversation alone. And I asked them all sorts of questions: what do the people in the country think about this and that, and how do they relate to this … And then my partner came and asked: do you have your own dinar or are you still guided by the former, common central bank? It’s not that this question is more correct, it’s just completely different. From another point of view. It never occurred to me to ask about the dinar, although, of course, it was very important.
However, many political technologists claim that psychology can almost guarantee success in negotiations or debates.
L. G. I’m afraid this is a common scam. If every day you show a person on TV and praise him enthusiastically, will they treat him better and recognize him more often? Yes, they will, but is it really necessary to graduate from university to understand this? It’s elementary. Those who claim that with the help of secret psychological knowledge you can achieve something, they are telling a lie. In general, people are not so easy to manipulate. Yes, there are many technologies in political work. How to organize elections, how to negotiate with volunteers, how to distribute tasks, and so on. But a psychologist is needed here only to pay attention to what others will not pay attention to.
What do you mean?
L. G.: Human feelings, of course – what else can interest a psychologist? Feelings drive politics and social change. I do not deny economic, natural or any other influences, but they work only when they move into this emotional plane. Revolutions, for example, do not occur when life is especially hard, but when life improves, but more slowly than people want it to. Or take the stability of power. Why did the House of Romanov fall so rapidly, terribly and with catastrophic consequences? Because the last Russian tsar lost in the eyes of the people the right to be a tsar. And I can probably tell when it happened. It happened on Bloody Sunday. When Father Georgy Gapon (who, I’m sure, was not an Okhrana provocateur, it was all invented by the Bolsheviks) said: “We no longer have a tsar.” The king cannot shoot at people. Yes, the king has great power, but there are things he cannot do. And now he cannot shoot at people who came in a peaceful procession with a petition, with icons and banners. And if he shoots, he is no longer a king. The rest was a consequence. The feelings of the people who lost the king, and led to the revolution.
Read more:
- Do we really want to be free?
Do you think those who live in Russia have particularly strong political feelings?
L. G.: I think no. Look at the intensity of passions in the Arab countries, in Latin America. In Brazil, they raise prices by 20 centavos – and the whole country says that it does not need any World Cup. Brazil doesn’t need it! I think that this is generally a property of a person: to react emotionally to political events. In quite prosperous, by our standards, United States during the first Obama elections, there were divorces, because one of the spouses supported him, and the other was against him: it was an existential choice that provoked a very strong emotional reaction. Moreover, we need such experiences: when there is not enough politics in life, this inevitably causes displeasure.
“Our political views are the few really important things that we can choose for ourselves”
But why is politics so important?
L. G.: Self-identification through political choice is an important part of our image of ourselves. After all, we do not choose gender, parents, the country where we are born, and the era of birth, we do not choose nationality and a great many other things that determine for us. But we can choose our political “orientation”. This group, which we define as our own, is the few really important things that we can choose for ourselves. This is very valuable for each of us, because it is precisely a personal decision.
Then explain how in our country in the XNUMXth century the authorities managed to ignore this important need?
L. G.: The Soviet government did not just ignore it. People have been kept in fear for decades. It’s not even about the numbers of murders, which are terrible in themselves. And in the regime itself, where by definition, absolutely any person could become the next victim …
You know, my late grandfather was, as they say, a simple man. Born in 1900 in the Pale of Settlement in Ukraine. During the war he was a militiaman, a truck driver. In peacetime, he worked as a sewing machine repairman. So, in 1986, my grandfather was dying in the hospital. When I last came to visit him, he did not recognize me, consciousness was already leaving. And, mistaking me for a doctor, he began to complain about the nannies, about something else. Naturally, I began to play along, saying that I would arrange it, I would figure it out … And in the course of the conversation, I suddenly realized with horror that I was no longer a doctor for my grandfather, he was turning to someone else. And this other one is an NKVD investigator. And his grandfather, that is, me, explains that he is not a spy and does not need to be arrested. Surprisingly, but a fact: no one was repressed in our family. And the grandfather, although he did not like the Soviet regime (and who really loved it so much?), Never entered into special contact with it, and even more so in conflicts. Neither he nor his relatives were in prison. And yet … I said that “we” know that he is an honest Soviet man, and no one will touch him. Soon the grandfather fell asleep, and in the morning he died. And the last person on earth with whom he spoke was for him an NKVD investigator. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Soviet regime held out for so long.
Read more:
- It is difficult for us to part with the Soviet past
But after all, many had a sincere love for Stalin. Was it not also one of the prerequisites for this stability?
L. G.: Of course it was. But from a psychological point of view, everything is very easy to explain. Fear was repressed, and love took its place as a substitute content – this is a typical neurotic syndrome. I myself still remember how in the Brezhnev era, when Stalin again began to appear in some films, at first even without words, applause was heard in the darkness of cinema halls. Well, did the KGB agents specially go to the cinema to clap? No, of course not. Psychologist and psychiatrist Theodor Reik said that there are three possible responses to overwhelming evil. The first is an uprising, a struggle, and if we take our history, then these are dissidents. The second way is to accept evil. This, for example, is Ivan Denisovich Solzhenitsyn: he perfectly understands where he lives, but does not rebel and, therefore, accepts what is happening. And the third reaction is to love the source of evil. Because if you love him, then you can not be afraid. Then, of course, most likely, it turns out that it was necessary to be afraid, but it will be too late.
From a psychological point of view, how can you describe the current political situation in Russia?
L. G.: It seems to me that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin had a stormy romance with the country. But now, again, it seems to me that the country has fallen out of love with him and wants to divorce him. This is absolutely normal. Once upon a time, his famous phrase “wet in the toilet” became almost an expression of a national idea. People were very tired then of the failures in the Chechen war, of the elusiveness of the militants, and Putin’s tough statement really reflected the feelings of many. And when he flew to Chechnya on New Year’s Eve 2000 and presented award knives to our soldiers, it was a strong move. He also expressed the feelings of a significant part of the fellow citizens who wanted to be proud of the army. Well, then – a direct analogy with interpersonal relationships. When you are in love with a girl, you like everything about her, including some strange features. Well, for example, she wrinkles her nose thoughtfully, and you suffocate with emotion. And if the feeling passes, the same traits begin to annoy you. And now she wrinkles her nose in the same way, and you longingly think: “Well, why make such faces ?!” And Putin’s endless harsh remarks are already irritating, even among those who initially admired them. If the trip on the yellow “Kalina” happened in 2000, it would have caused only positive responses. But time had passed, and they were already laughing at her. People in whose relations there has been a cooling, cease to understand each other. Well, it seems like yesterday I said the same thing, and she was happy, but today I say – and she argues, takes offense … Just something left the relationship, that’s all.
Read more:
- Lyudmila Petranovskaya: “This country is turning into ours”
It’s natural, isn’t it?
L. G.: Certainly. And in personal relationships, most novels, starting from school years, end in cooling and parting. In a normal political process, there is no subject for conversation at all: well, we fell out of love, so we will choose another next time. And thanks also to the foundation with the library named after him. But the trouble is that we don’t have a normal political process. And this is very dangerous: there is less and less chance for gradual changes. We are told: nothing will work out for you, you will not choose anyone. Ah well? Then the cobblestone is the tool of the proletariat.
You have lost many TV duels*. Doesn’t that make you sad? Why do you keep accepting invitations?
“When feelings cool down, we stop understanding each other. In politics too
L. G.: Abraham Maslow, one of the founders of humanistic psychology, stated: “If you deliberately choose less than what you are capable of, then I warn you: you will be deeply unhappy for the rest of your life.” And since my name is, since I can do it – according to some personal qualities, according to the current situation – then I need to do it. Another reason is to state your position. It doesn’t matter what the outcome of the vote will be. Once upon a time, I came up with such an image – an engineer from the city of Kovrov. A man of views close to me – let’s say, European. In the late 1980s, he believed that everything would be fine. And then it got worse and worse. And in the early 2000s, they told him: “Guy, you generally shut up. You were left alone, that’s all, there are no more of you. And say thank you for letting us breathe. After all, they also tell us this in Moscow, but we have a lot of sites. But not in Kovrov. And for this person it is extremely important, turning on the TV, at least sometimes to hear what he believes in. And about the defeat – here, after all, how to look. Here I had a meeting with Nikita Mikhalkov. He won, but the votes for me were about 35-40% of the votes for him. Are you sure this is such a loss? He is a handsome man, a Russian nobleman, brigade commander Kotov, an Oscar winner. And I am a cross-eyed Jew, a liberal, a friend of Chubais. Do you understand? There aren’t many votes for me. And it turns out we are still alive. It is too early to write off us, we are here, here we are, holding the flag.
Well, the last. These duels are very difficult, it’s scary to stand there. You stand and understand that every word and every gesture of yours will be heard and seen by millions of people now. But in fact, this is not an invitation, but a challenge, and it is not I who call – me. And you can’t turn down calls. So, you need to go.
* “To the Barrier” (NTV), “Duel” (“Russia-1”).