How did it happen that in just a few weeks at the end of last year society suddenly woke up from hibernation? Why did many of us, people indifferent to politics, suddenly come to vote and then hold a meeting? And now what will follow? We decided to discuss these new and important questions with the psychologist Lyudmila Petranovskaya.
Psychologies: We are talking at the end of January about events that no one seemed to have imagined a couple of months ago. How do you explain the sudden surge in civic activity?
Lyudmila Petranovskaya: I wouldn’t call it sudden. It seems to me that already on September 24 it became clear that something would happen. On this day, we were told that our leaders, without our participation, agreed to change places and continue to lead us. If you remember, then for several days there was such a strange silence in the society. And then there was a feeling that some action was needed. Because for another twelve years of the power that we have already had for twelve years, we simply do not agree.
But the authorities have not listened to our opinion for a long time, and for many years we, in general, put up with this. What changed?
Not what, but who. We ourselves have changed. In the last half-century, of course, there have been very difficult times in our country, but that extreme form of state violence that breaks the psyche of citizens still did not exist. And 50-60 years is about two generations. The period during which the mental tissue of the nation can begin to recover. A new, free and active generation has grown up, young people are entering life, ready to actively participate in it. Of course, there are still a lot of traces of the past in our psyche. Violence, for example, is perceived not as something exceptional, but as a norm of life. There is a lot of doublethink when we approach ourselves, those we like, and everyone else with different standards. It is difficult to have an opinion, especially to defend it. And along with this, there is a lot of intolerance for other people’s opinions, accumulated anger, irritation, willingness to obey, unwillingness to think.
And yet, many already fully grown people stop repeating: “Nothing depends on me,” and ask themselves: “What can I do?”
Yes, a large stratum of mature people has appeared, whose basic needs are satisfied, their life is arranged. I remember well the mid-90s and the general boom of “European-style renovations”. Then everyone who could afford it recklessly equipped the material environment around them. And then the boom passed. And today we just make repairs – when it is needed, and without putting so much passion into the process. But we energetically engaged in the arrangement of relations. Books about raising children are published in mass circulation, psychological trainings have become popular, Psychologies is a resounding success. The attention of people who satisfied the need for comfort around them switched to the inner world. The meaningfulness of relationships has become something that must be strived for. A striking example: last year, five men came to me for advice with the same problem. Each of them decided to get a divorce and pondered how best to act in this situation so as not to injure the children. Previously, the spouses focused exclusively on themselves, on their own experiences and grievances, but they wanted only one thing: to break the partner and prove their case. And here – how not to injure children. Five such appeals in a year is an incredible figure, this has never happened before! This means that the arrangement of life has reached a more subtle level: relationships, feelings. And then more and more people are already thinking about arranging the environment in a social, civil sense. It was they who came to Bolotnaya Square, Sakharov Avenue, went to rallies in other cities.
Read more:
- The decisions of our authorities cause me an acute feeling of protest…
But are they still in the minority?
Yes it is. But in sociology there is an almost universal proportion: 20 to 80. For example, 20% of the world’s population consumes 80% of the beer produced on the planet, and so on. It sounds funny, but this proportion really works in most areas, not only in the field of beer consumption. So the 20% of society, the most active citizens, become the source of 80% of the energy that leads to social change. Therefore, I would not underestimate what is happening.
The protest movement did not have a leader, and without this it is impossible to win the presidential elections.
I believe that the elections on March 4 in themselves do not matter at all. What difference does it make who wins them? These elections are just a simulator that makes it possible to work out lost voting skills, nothing more. This is exactly what happened with the Duma elections: Alexei Navalny very well formulated and suggested his attitude towards them. Go and vote for anyone, but against the government. And see what comes of it. A lot of people came out to vote. And this simple action launched a serious process: now it is no longer possible to think as before, how to relate to what is happening before. And whoever wins the elections, the government will have to change, otherwise it simply will not hold. Because for once we began to consider the country our own! Within just a few weeks, the familiar expression “this country” almost disappeared. Instead of “this” appeared ours.
What does it mean – “our”? After all, the authorities also consider the country their own …
Either we learn to understand “we” as “all of us living here”, or not – such a choice now stands. If under the requirement “Observe the law!” keep in mind “observe it in relation to me and to good people who think like me, and let everyone who doesn’t like me know their place”, then we act in the same way as the authorities: we create the same conditions for ourselves and our approximate and completely different – for everyone else. The slogan “This is our country” makes no sense if “we” means “those who think like me.” There are different people in our country: liberals, communists, nationalists, glamorous journalists, officials, military, teachers, rich, poor… We must start with the realization that those who we don’t like are “we” too.
“THINKING FREELY IS THE ONLY CHANCE TO GET CLOSE TO THE TRUTH”
So we have to deal with our own prejudices?
Yes, there is a lot to change and a lot to learn. For example, learn to speak in such a way that even those who disagree with us listen to us. People come to the square because they want to and consider it important for them to do so. They want to listen to those they want to listen to. They want to wave the flags they want to wave. And they can whistle whoever they want to whistle. I do not like? Wave your flags. Whistle back. There is one distinct limitation: violence and a direct call for violence. In order to negotiate, sympathy is not required. Enough recognition and respect. Not for merit, position, mind, honor and conscience – but simply recognition and respect for another person as a citizen like ourselves. And you can negotiate with anyone who is ready to negotiate.
Why is it so difficult to reach an agreement?
Labels and clichés get in the way. By reducing a person to a label (a party, a position, a psychological type), we commit a fundamental attribution error. These words in psychology call the property of our thinking to explain the actions of other people by the fact that “they are like that”, and our own – by the situation, specific circumstances. This applies not only to politics. They have little money in the family – they are just lazy, they do not want to work. I have – no luck, crisis. They push in the subway – because boors. I – well, what can I do, I just can’t be late, the boss will kill me. Absolutely everyone is subject to the attribution error – both you and me. The only question is degree. The stronger the error, the more false estimates we make. And when we treat other people evaluatively, it deprives us of the opportunity for dialogue and cooperation. What to talk about with someone who has “such genes”? What can you talk about with the left? They want a revolution. With the right? They only think about profit. With a nationalist? He sleeps and sees the start of the genocide…
Is there a cure for labels?
Try to try on someone else’s role, at least mentally. Look at the situation through the eyes of another person, consider it from the inside. And then it will suddenly become clear that he does what he does, not because “he is like that”, but because he feels this and that and he has such and such a choice and such and such a price in front of him. question. Or maybe he just doesn’t know something, can’t, can’t bear it. It is worth doing such a thought experiment – and the power of the attribution error is weakened. The situation is seen differently. Versions, complexity, volume appear. This means that the ability to think freely, and not within the framework of ready-made clichés, returns. By itself, knowledge of the truth is not guaranteed. But this is the only chance to get closer to her.
For the first time in many years, we felt like citizens of our country. How can you keep this amazing feeling?
Think about what’s happening. Talk about it. Before our eyes, the system of Russian statehood that took shape in the Middle Ages and found its highest expression in the Stalinist USSR is gradually falling apart and dying. And now it is important how much social fabric can be built up by the time it collapses completely. Therefore, in my opinion, the most important and necessary work today is done by all those who organize fire fighting, search for missing children, raise money for operations, who defend their small park near the house from bulldozers, united with neighbors, who protect children, the elderly, prisoners , dogs, forests, creates social networks of all kinds, who dare to trust, unite, believe in normal values - in a word, create and increase social capital. We all have to learn what we have not done yet. Those who didn’t vote, go vote. Those who were not observers should become observers. Who has never been to a rally – go to the square.
Are you afraid to call to rallies? After all, the confrontation can turn into more severe forms.
You know, my eldest son is 21 years old. And I’m much more scared when he returns home in the evening, having seen the girl off, than when he goes to a rally. Because there are conditional “football fans”, there are the same conditional “Caucasians”, there are quite unconditional cops, and there are many others. And I’m afraid of them all, and I don’t even know who more. And to be afraid, going to a rally? It is natural for a person to be afraid of danger. But you can be guided by fear only in a situation where there is a choice. And the situation in our society now is such that there is no choice. Well, developed countries cannot exist in the XNUMXst century with such a model of the state, in which the government exists absolutely separately from its citizens. So change is inevitable. And our common participation in them is just a chance that they will be less traumatic for us. On this occasion, I really like the idea of Seneca: there are situations in which fate leads us. And our only choice is to go ourselves with our heads held high, or to resist when we are dragged by the scruff of the neck. In this we have a choice. But the fact that we will go there anyway is undoubted.
See also:
“We tend to choose by trusting our feelings”