Contents
The first thing you need to start getting acquainted with the psychological reasons for the changes in moral consciousness that are happening now is to distinguish between the psychology of two successive cultures — Russian and the Soviet one that replaced it (Bratus VS Psychology. Morality. Culture. M. 1994).
However, how legitimate is such a statement of the question and can a psychologist claim to analyze such a global concept as culture?
I think that such a move is possible, because in the end peoples and societies can be likened to moral personalities, as P.Ya. Chaadaev said — “Peoples are moral beings to the same extent as individuals. They are brought up by centuries, as individual people are brought up by years. (Chaadaev P.Ya. Articles and letters. M., 1989, p.44)
Let’s start, as in every psychological analysis, with some phenomenology, a description of external manifestations.
If we turn to classical Russian literature and other monuments and sources of culture, it becomes quite obvious that the Russian type meant a fine mental organization, vulnerability, lyricism. Turning to the sources of Soviet culture, one can also clearly see in the Soviet type an ogu.e.ness, lack of subtlety and lyricism. For the Russian type, the concept of pity, mercy, compassion for the humiliated and offended was considered valuable.
Suffice it to recall that the words on the monument to Pushkin are engraved, as if summing up its main value for Russia: “And for a long time I will be kind to the people, / That I aroused good feelings with my lyre, / That in my cruel age I glorified freedom / And mercy to the fallen called.» The other was glorified and formed as an ideal and aspiration of the Soviet type.
It is interesting to compare in this regard the external appearances of two Moscow monuments: Pushkin, the greatest Russian national poet, and Mayakovsky, according to Stalin’s verdict, the greatest poet of the Soviet era. Thoughtful, as if withdrawn into himself, Pushkin and deployed for battle, chest forward «agitator, bawler, leader» Mayakovsky. And it doesn’t even matter that Ilya Ehrenburg, a contemporary and acquaintance of Mayakovsky, wrote that, passing by the monument to Mayakovsky every day, he sees on the pedestal a person whom he never knew like this in life. Maybe Pushkin was rare in the pose and manner in which Opekushin placed him in front of the Passion Monastery. The point in this case is the image of the Poet, the spokesman and driver of thoughts, as he was seen, symbolized in two cultures. And if Pushkin called for mercy, then Mayakovsky called for reprisal, passing the last word as an argument to «comrade Mauser.»
The comparison will be incomplete, unless it is specifically noted that the Russian was characterized by lofty idealism and religiosity. For the Soviet — gu.e.y materialism and militant atheism.
We are not talking about all, of course, people who lived in Russia or in the Soviet Union, but only about the type of Russian person and the type of Soviet person. About what the Russian soul aspired to and where its spiritual history, ideology and life called for, and about what the whole Soviet history, ideology and life aspired to and planted. That is, we are talking about directions, types of culture, crystallized in certain moral images of the individual.
We have been talking so far about external, phenomenological differences, behind which there must also lie quite definite internal, structural ones. However, in order to consider them, it is necessary to put forward some psychological grounds.
Relationship to another person
The most important for the characterization of a personality is the typical, predominant way of relating to another person, other people, and, accordingly, to oneself. Many authors have come to this, but in relation to psychology, S.L.u.e.shtein, perhaps, says the most penetratingly: “… The first of the first conditions of a person’s life is another person. Relationship to another person, to people is the basic fabric of human life, its core. The “heart” of a person is all woven from his human relations with other people; what he is worth is entirely determined by the kind of human relations a person aspires to, what kind of relations he is able to establish with people, with another person. The psychological analysis of life, aimed at revealing the relationship of a person to other people, is the core of true psychology. Here, at the same time, is the area of the “junction” of psychology with ethics” (U.E.shtein S.L. Being and Consciousness. M., 1957, p. 262 263.).
Based on the dominant way of relating to oneself and another person, several fundamental levels were outlined in the structure of personality.
egocentric level
The first level is egocentric. It is determined by the predominant desire only for one’s own convenience, profit, prestige. The attitude towards oneself is here as a unit, self-worth, and the attitude towards others is purely consumeristic, only depending on whether the other person helps personal success or not. If it helps, then it is evaluated as convenient, good, if it does not help, hinders, makes it difficult, then it is assessed as bad, an enemy.
group-centric level
The next, qualitatively different level is group-centric. A person who gravitates towards this level identifies himself with some group and his attitude towards other people closely depends on whether these others are included in his group or not. At the same time, the group can be the most diverse, not only small, narrow like a family, for example, but large enough, for example, an entire nation, people, class. If the other is included in such a group, then he has the property of intrinsic value (or rather, “group value”, because he is valuable not in himself, but by his belonging, kinship to the group), worthy of pity, compassion, respect, indulgence, forgiveness, love. If the other is not included in this group, then these feelings may not apply to him.
The next level we will call pro-social or humanistic. For a person who reaches this level, the attitude towards another is no longer determined only by whether he belongs to a certain group or not. Behind each person, even if narrow-minded, not included in my group, is implied self-worth and equality in relation to rights, freedoms and duties. Unlike the previous level, where the semantic, personal orientation is limited by benefits, well-being, strengthening the position of a relatively closed group, a truly pro-social level, especially its higher levels, are characterized by an internal semantic aspiration of a person to achieve such results (products of labor, activity, communication, knowledge ), which will bring equal benefit to others, even personally unfamiliar to him, «foreign», «distant» people, society, humanity as a whole.
If at the first level described by us the other person acts as a thing, as a pedestal of egocentric desires, if at the second level others are divided into a circle of “us”, having self-worth, and “them”, devoid of it, then at the third level the principle of self-worth of a person becomes universal. In fact, only from this level can one speak of morality, only here the old “golden rule” of ethics begins to be fulfilled — treat others as you would like to be treated, or Kant’s well-known imperative, requiring that the maxim, the rule of your behavior was equally suitable, could be distributed as a rule for all mankind. At the previous stages, we are not talking about morality, although, of course, we can talk about morality — egocentric or group, corporate.
Spiritual (eschatological) level
The prosocial, humanistic stage would seem to be the highest possible for the development of the personality. However, above this wonderful and high level there is another one. It can be called spiritual or eschatological. At this stage, a person begins to realize and look at himself and the other not as finite and mortal beings, but as beings of a special kind, connected, similar, correlated with the spiritual world. As beings whose life does not end with the end of earthly life. In other words, this is the level within which a person’s subjective relationship with God is decided, a personal formula for connection with Him is established. If we talk about the Christian tradition, then the subject comes here to understand a person as the image and likeness of God, so the other person acquires in his eyes not only a humanistic, reasonable, universal, but also a special sacred, divine value.
Levels of personality development and ideas about the good and happiness
It is clear that at each stage a person’s idea of goodness and happiness changes. At the first stage (egocentric) it is personal well-being and happiness, regardless of whether others are happy or unhappy. (It’s even better if they were unhappy, so that your happiness shines brighter against their background.)
At the second stage, good and happiness are associated with the prosperity of the group with which the person identifies himself. He cannot be happy if his group suffers misfortune. At the same time, if people who are not part of his group suffer damage and misfortune, this has little effect on his feeling of happiness.
At the third stage, happiness and well-being implies their distribution to all people, all of humanity. Finally, at the fourth step, a feeling of connection with God and the idea of happiness as service and union with Him are added to this.
In order to get closer to understanding the real complexity, it is also necessary to add that in addition to the intended vertical of the soul, its elevating levels, there is a scale of degrees of assignment of certain semantic content and motivational aspirations belonging to different levels.
So, we can talk about unstable, situational semantic contents, characterized by episodic nature, dependence on external circumstances; further — about stable, personally appropriated semantic contents, included, woven into the general structure of the semantic sphere; and finally, about personal values, defined as the most general, generalized meanings of his life realized and accepted by a person.
If the levels of the semantic sphere make up the vertical, the ordinate of the grid of semantic relations, then the intended degrees assigned by their personality (situational, stable, personal value) make up the horizontal, the abscissa of this grid. Therefore, the same internal semantic impulse or its external manifestation, deed, deed can have different internal justification and emotional resonance, depending on whether they are purely situationally conditioned or are a consequence of the values suffered and consciously professed by the individual. This circumstance greatly complicates the characterization of psychic life, making it an arena for the internal struggle of various tendencies, levels, and directions, with varying degrees of intensity, declaring themselves.
Recall the aphorism: «I am a man and nothing human is alien to me.» If everyone is strictly “disassembled” into their constituent desires, thoughts, needs and sorrows, then the individual details of this constructor called the “human soul” will turn out, firstly, in many respects similar, and secondly, their set, name is largely the same. It is not the individual parts snatched out of context that are important, but their unique correlation, combination, common aspiration, confrontation, which make up a fascinating picture of the human spirit, its ascent or descent, asceticism or vegetation, achievement or fall.
Therefore, I am very far from the idea that people can be classified, each one can be placed at a certain level. All four levels are present in one way or another, cohabiting in each, and at some moments, at least in an episode, one level situationally wins, and at some other. However, it is quite possible to speak about some typical profile for a given person, a typical aspiration.
So, although a pronounced egocentrist can be visited by group-centric, humanistic, and even spiritual impulses, they, as a rule, lose, are defeated, retreat in real life before egocentric motives that have managed to acquire the status of personal values in his soul.
You can use here to illustrate the church image of the «transparency» of man. The egocentrist is for the most part transparent, open only to egocentric impulses, while in relation to the higher levels he is clouded, incorrect, accidental, sees them as if in a haze, distortion, bad refraction. Climbing the stages of personality development is an ever greater openness, transparency of a person to ever higher meaning-forming levels. The spiritual, eschatological stage makes a person open, transparent to God Himself.
This can happen situationally, for a while and then get muddied for a long time, or it can become a relatively permanent state. That’s when we see and say that a person shines all over, studies goodness and light. But he is not from himself, but through him, who has become transparent to God.
Do I need to add that a person of a pro-social or spiritual warehouse does not just stay in an ivory tower, but is in a hard and constant struggle with the lower levels of the soul. It is indeed an ascent with all its dangers. And therefore, under certain conditions, an egocentrist, under certain conditions, a feat and daring of the soul, can rise, and a spiritual, religious person can fall, fall overnight into the abyss.
Internal moral differences between a person of Russian culture and a person of Soviet, as well as Western
Now, after this psychological digression, let us return to the problem of the internal moral difference between a man of Russian culture and a man of Soviet culture. Let us add to this, for comparison, Western man, more precisely, Central and Western European.
Is it necessary to emphasize again that we are talking, of course, about abstraction, and about what the corresponding culture aspired to — Russian, Soviet and Western as its model, goal, hope.
Russian culture, with all its costs, strove for the formation and realization in a person of a spiritual, eschatological level as the main one and determining his moral character. Any deed, in order to be recognized, good, necessary, had to be justified, correlated with the Christian intention, with Christ. All other deeds, even if they bring external, material benefits, were considered as evil.
France was called beautiful, and Russia a saint, not at all because in the first one everyone is so good-looking, and in the second everyone is holy, but because in France, as nowhere else, they worshiped and valued beauty, and in Russia — holiness.
With all the power of the totalitarian system, Soviet culture formed (one might say gu.e.e., and more precisely, molded, pressed) a different type of personality — group-centric. The main ones were the class, the party, the communist society, and everything around was the enemy, against which any means of struggle were possible. Everything was directed precisely towards such an essentially pre-moral position.
Western culture endured a pro-social, humanistic orientation. The desire, ideally, to bring good to all people, to humanity as a whole. These orientations were facilitated and at the same time reflected by a great many circumstances and conditions.
Take, for example, the Western version. Western statehood was formed as a desire for law, such an order in which each member of society would be equally protected by law and responsible to it. The concepts of honor, justice, law became central here. Hence the deep development, the real legal, juridical support of humanistic tendencies.
Russian history did not know the law, it is all saturated with the arbitrariness of tsars, the governor, any boss, any, as Dostoevsky wrote, deacon in the church. The people, the man, in fact, always felt completely powerless. If he could appeal to something, it was not to the law, but to the conscience, compassion, Christian mercy of another. That is, he, as it were, bypassed the humanistic, legal authority and turned immediately to the spiritual level. Therefore, in the profile of the Russian soul, there is, as it were, a failure, a damage to legal consciousness, but it was he who contributed, pushed him to spiritual life. The king could pardon, or he could execute. And this did not depend on the law, but on whether he heeded the prayer, the request, whether he would forgive «for Christ’s sake», and not for the sake of such and such a paragraph of the law. Thus, the word “conscience” is the key word here.
As for Soviet morality, it was said to be expressly group-centric, and the key here is the concept of «class consciousness». That is, for condescension or justification, it was necessary to appeal not to law and honor, not to conscience and God, but to class benefit. (It is known that some participants in the show trials of the 30s took on non-existent guilt only because they thought it would be better for the Communist Party and the proletariat).
This classification finds quite a lot of other confirmations. Take, for example, such a sensitive indicator as language. In Russian, there is no strict definition of the place of verbs and the order of other words; it is a language, as Brodsky noted, of whirlwinds of subordinate clauses. But it is precisely such a language that is most suitable for describing spiritual realities that are far from unambiguous and difficult to express. This is just the structural side. The Russian language differs from others in the meaning of many, and especially everyday words — it is an unusually sacred language, perhaps the most sacred, Christian of the world’s languages.
In fact, the usual gratitude “thank you” is God save, the name of the seventh day of the week “Sunday” is a reminder of the central sacrament of Christianity of the Resurrection of Christ, fate is the judgment of God, etc.
As for the Soviet language, this is also a very special newspeak, a new language of the era. This is a language in which the collective principle was emphasized in every possible way.
Let us recall the common clichés — “all as one”, “we will rally even closer around the party”, “the people and the party are united”, “all Soviet people greeted the decision of the congress (meeting, plenum) with a feeling of deep satisfaction”, etc.
Moreover, one should not think that these were only some external formulas, completely alienated from individual consciousness, they were completely imprinted, correlated with the everyday level, since both of them were formed as a result of one culture, one approach to man.
Who does not remember such everyday, everyday phrases as “do you need the most?”, “Are you better than others?”, “I am like everyone else”, etc., where the meaning of “everyone”, the mass, the group was emphasized in every possible way and insignificance of the individual. I remember how a man timidly entered the seminar of our famous old professor, and the following exchange of remarks took place between him and the professor. «Who are you?» the professor asked. “I am nobody,” answered the newcomer. For a Westerner, this dialogue looks, probably, as extremely impolite and at the same time ridiculous, incomprehensible, while in the context of Soviet culture its meaning is quite clear: the professor asked the person who entered, from which institution (organization, community), and the person who entered answered that it was not from any, it does not belong to any particular one, it was not sent by anyone, therefore “no one”.
Another characteristic touch of Soviet newspeak is the abundance and significance of vague, impersonal constructions: “He was given 10 years” (about a convict), “Yesterday they threw away his shoes” (about the unexpected appearance of goods), “there is an opinion”, “they think upstairs” (about tacit decision of the management), etc. All these judgments also excluded the personality (or rather, reflected, stated its exclusion) and appealed to some kind of impersonal force that dominates a particular person.
Type of personality of the perestroika era
Let us now try to move on to that type of personality, or, more precisely, to that type of culture with the corresponding personality type formed by it, which we now find in our state as a determining one.
The first, quite obvious, is that we live in a post-totalitarian society, namely, a post-communist one. The second (also, apparently, quite obvious) characteristic is that the type of personality that arose in this case, the type of culture, is rather temporary, transitional. And, finally, the third, largely composed of the first two, is a society that is simultaneously in the agony of the old and in the throes of the birth of a new one, this is a society of collapse, the breakdown of one ideology and culture, and the still unformed culture of another.
Transitional need-motivational state
If we turn to the psychological conceptual apparatus, then in relation to the personality, its activity, a similar state can be designated as a transitional need-motivational state.
Its difference from the period of stable existence is as follows. A need has a sufficiently delineated subject, a name, it is named, it is always a need for something (food, knowledge, etc.). Man in this plan is a disjointed being, he needs to be outside of him, he is separated, separated by space, obstacles, time, circumstances.
In ancient Greece, close friends, parting, broke a thing, a tablet with an inscription or a drawing, and after sometimes long years of separation and wandering, meeting again, they connected both parts, which formed a whole, one, waiting for one another, that together, in such an assembled, united state was called a symbol.
No matter how simple or complex the need, in order to carry out activities to satisfy it, it is necessary to build an image of the need and know the goal, the object of aspiration, mastery, the connection with which becomes a symbol, a sign of this activity.
Other in the transitional need-motivational state. It has a desire, aspiration, but there is no stable, definite object that answers it. This desire seems to be saying — go there, I don’t know where and bring something, I don’t know what. Yes, hurry up, I can’t wait to get it there.
A person in such a state can still say about what he does not want, but not about what exactly he really needs. He does not have an image of the whole, there is no image of a broken half, the desire for connection, the mastery of which should become the basis, sign, symbol of his meaningful activity. So he rushes about in this state, often capricious, fooling around, when painfully and passionately, and when lazily and listlessly sorting through possible objects, as if adjusting one or the other half of the symbols scattered, encrypted in being.
This condition is very dangerous. Firstly, by its burdensomeness, possible despair, and secondly, by the likelihood of deception, the choice of a false object that does not actually correspond to the essence of personal growth, which is a false symbol of a meeting with an enemy, and not with a friend. Moreover, one must clearly understand that the choice of an object is in fact the choice of a path, because finding an object means the end of a transitional need state and the formation of a qualitatively new psychological formation — a need (i.e., a need that knows its subject), which in turn encourages activity towards her satisfaction. This activity can go on for years before the item is found to be false and dangerous. Therefore, in a crisis of transitional states, we actually choose a path, a destiny. As they said earlier in the words of the marriage proposal to the object of their passion: «You can make up the happiness of a lifetime.» And you can, — we add, — make up the misfortune of a whole life.
So, the current state from the standpoint of psychology is a transitional need-motivational state that does not know its specific object of the path, does not know itself, but tries to find out, objectify, based on the available, visible, recognizable circle, the fan of possible objects. There is a search, a passion for one or the other, but not one of the choices is final, on the contrary, they change with unusual speed, and so far everything is possible and everything is extremely unstable. One passion is replaced by another, and what was praised yesterday, today is overthrown and blasphemed. All the signs of a transitional culture are present, a culture without a cult, without a clear dominant aspiration.
But such a situation is not eternal, for that it is designated as a transitional one. Dominant directions, a stable subject will be chosen, the era (both in the life of the individual and in the life of society) will acquire a new symbol, a new fate and sign, a new path. It is clear that this choice, for all its external randomness, is not accidental. It is determined both by moments of a spiritual, visionary plan, which we will not talk about for now, and by intrapsychological settings. What is the most characteristic of these latter?
Intrapsychological attitudes of the future choice
We have seen that the Soviet era formed a group-centric orientation of society and the individual and, accordingly, group-centric internal, often unconscious attitudes. Now, in the current conditions, many objects and symbols crowning these installations have turned out to be discredited, having lost their former attractiveness. The objects are gone or faded, but the attitudes remain, because they usually have great inertia, heaviness and do not change overnight due to external causes.
Indeed, now we are witnessing a seemingly sharp, radical change in symbols and hobbies, but in their inner essence, in the meaning of the personal attitudes that gave rise to them, they remain the same. In a certain sense, group-centrism has not only not been overcome, but, on the contrary, has flourished, acquired new forms and incarnations — separatism, nationalism, all kinds of forms of grouping, clustering and confrontation.
In the history of the twentieth century there were two monstrous apotheoses of the group-centric orientation — communism and fascism. Communism is based on the centrism of the class idea. At the heart of fascism is the centrism of the nation. Both grow from the same psychological root, from the same temptation — the Luciferian idea of separation from the general and pride in the particular. Our modernity only confirms this commonality: now these two branches, initially as if hostile, have united — red-brown ones have entered the scene.
But even where, fortunately, this does not happen, group-centrism still comes to the fore, albeit in other, milder forms. Moreover, it is characteristic that group-centric, separatist tendencies are headed by the same communist leaders, but usually not the first, who has clearly discredited himself, but the second, third echelon of power. Literally — the second, third secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the republics, secretaries for ideology, etc. Moreover, now advocating for national independence, as opposed to their previous talk about internationalism and the unity of the Union, they do not really prevaricate, because from the psychological, internal side they continue to serve the same thing — the group-centric idea. In this regard, the prophecy of one of the Polish dissidents came true: «Nationalism is the last stage of communism.»
Group-centrism also played a cruel joke on the Russian democratic movement, the first post-totalitarian love of many. Democracy is possible only on a solid foundation of legal statehood, which in turn generates and is based on the pro-social type of personality as a model, the hope of society. Lacking this support, the democratic movement slipped into the same group-centrism with unusual speed, gave rise to new nomenklatura ranks, privileges, «demo-bureaucrats,» and so on. (These are even worse than the old ones, entrepreneurs complain, they got their own, and these have an unsatisfied appetite). “Democratic” itself was reduced to a widespread weakening, atrophy of state power and control, which turned into a complete insecurity of people and the absence of any uniform rules, guarantees and limits (it’s not for nothing that the purely thieves word “lawlessness” has now entered into journalistic and everyday life, meaning ignoring all rules and the rejection of all norms).
Against this background, the romantically colored national idea begins to gain more and more weight, and democracy is subjected to more and more criticism. At the same time, it is not taken into account that these phenomena are purely of different orders. Democracy is a way of government, not the idea of the state, so the idea does not contradict democracy, but, on the contrary, can be most fully implemented precisely in a democratic way.
But group-centrism, that the one on the other side does not have time for these subtleties, is important to quickly divide into yours and ours, and the fact that in one case we are talking about the wheels of the carriage, and in the other about where he should go, is not distinguished by arguing . Some are in a hurry to get into a carriage without wheels, while others are so carried away by testing and adjusting the wheels that they don’t even want to think about the purpose and significance of the journey.
At the same time, if we continue the analogy, instead of round wheels, the latter are still stubbornly experimenting with square ones or suddenly they let a shaky, stuck-together wagon downhill without building a brake. Nevertheless, people associate the inconveniences and dangers (frankly, deadly) of such a ride with the name given by the experimenters to this wagon — with democracy, which in fact has little in common with this wild structure, and which has been tested for centuries not only on the paths and spaces of Western and overseas countries, but also our own history (the principle of communality, catholicity, the veche republic of Novgorod).
Nationalism and separatism — a way to resolve the crisis?
Is it possible, however, to say that nationalism and separatism are exactly the subject content that will resolve the crisis of the transitional state, become the cult of a new culture, form a stable need and a steady desire for activities to satisfy it?
It is very similar, but one must be fully aware that this line, being carried out to the end and consistently, is fraught with extreme dangers. As a stage, as an important, but intermediate step in the revival, it is, in fact, inevitable, but freezing, stagnation at this level leads to a dead end, to the two marked forms of consistent group-centrism — communism and fascism, or to their displacement. To look for any new, good form of group-centrism elevated to the rank of statehood is a dubious occupation. It’s enough for us that for three quarters of the twentieth century we served as a testing ground for communism. The path of fascism — from the earliest, outwardly innocent forms to catastrophe — was demonstrated by Germany, which remained, however, in relation to us in a better position — this plague raged there for only 12 years.
Before trying to figure it out, let’s ask ourselves the following essential question — which of the two outlined groups of aspirations of our transitional state is the main, leading one — politically social or spiritual, what should now lead our life — the political and economic sphere, and the spiritual only accompany, shade, protect from extremes, to cultivate it or spiritual aspirations, and politics and economics only to realize, obey, be determined by it.
The question in the current situation seems redundant, and the very statement itself is either naive, or beautiful-hearted, Manilovian, is it up to the problems of the priority of spirituality now? Of course, why not talk, why not pay attention, not take an interest in this in moderation, but the main thing is that people need to be shod and fed, fields should be sown and harvested, cars should be filled with gasoline, crime should be curbed, medicine should be given medicines, education should be provided, etc. . etc.
At the same time, of course, they look to the West with its clean, well-groomed, decent life. We should at least get closer to this, take a break from dirt, rudeness, starvation and disorder, then we will already raise spirituality, but for now it’s not up to attractive illusions.
The objection is, of course, a serious one. However, under one condition: if we consider spirituality as something separated from everyday life, worries, labors, creative activities. But let us turn again to psychology and try to consider this conflict with its help. Let’s use it for clarity as follows. When discussing the painting by Nicholas Roerich “The Messenger”, L.N. Tolstoy, apparently, not so much about the painting itself, but in parting words to the then young artist said: “Has it happened in a boat to cross a fast-moving river? You must always rule above the place where you need it, otherwise it will blow you away. So in the field of moral requirements, one must always steer higher — life will blow everything away. Let your messenger hold the steering wheel very high, then he will swim. Let’s put it in a simple diagram:
The river of being, of life with its strong downward current, the subject (C) and the goal he wants to achieve (D). The paradox, however, lies in the fact that, conscientiously striving for this goal, he will not be able to achieve it, but will be lower (for example, at point B), sometimes much lower than what he was striving for, and in order to finally achieve what was planned, he must set himself other, much higher, superior goals (A).
This model can be extended both to individual moral destinies and to entire historical epochs, including the fatal epoch of materialism for us.
In our country now, in certain circles, the idea of alien influence, secret and powerful forces that are corrupting the people is very much in vogue. The idea is typically group-centric, group-centric semantics of consciousness (remember — “they threw away their shoes”, “there is an opinion”, “they gave 10 years”, “they think at the top”) — everything comes from the fact that there is someone, someone who controls, throws out, gives us , laymen, manipulative. And now, layers with a group-centric psychological heritage (and we have enough of them) are persistently looking for (and if they are looking for, they find, as with any heightened, turning into paranoid attention), secret reasons.
Of course, everyone has a host of enemies — visible and invisible, as well as an abundance of viruses around and inside the body, but despite this abundance, someone gets sick, and someone does not. And in the spiritual sphere of the people, whether the person is the same. Meanwhile, the complete, real, not rejected truth is such that the goal of “real happiness of a real person” is not directly achieved if it is set as such, and then consciously and systematically followed to it in any way you like. It inevitably disappears in the course of this movement, becomes a swamp fire, and we suddenly find ourselves instead of paradise in a different place — terrible, bloody, at every step humiliating and trampling on a person. And as a result, we get not a “real person”, consciously, systematically formed, but a person in our case, “Soviet”.
The general conclusion, therefore, is that the conscious goal of social (personal) being set by society (man) as the ultimate conscious goal is essentially impossible. Or, in a slightly different way, the visible socio-political (social psychological) incarnations are in fact the consequences of a certain kind of shifts that arise as a result of movement towards an often hidden, difficult to formulate, but by the inevitable nature of a theoretical, ideologically, ideologically worked out goal. The direction of these displacements is obvious: from the highest to the lowest. The goal, therefore, should not coincide with the goal, should not be equal to itself, but in order to achieve the real and possible, one must strive for the ideal and the impossible.
Through such an understanding, the fundamental mistake (illusion) of modern post-Soviet designers of socio-economic policy can be clarified. The latter, and we, who have suffered, want a life “like in the West” — really clean, decent, socially protected, and strive, head towards this goal, not realizing (and this is a fatal delusion) that this goal is fundamentally not achieved through striving for it. as such. After all, its achievement by the West is the result of correlation with well-defined cultural principles, ideology, religion, which were orienting, leading, pulling the whole process, while the visible reality is the result of the displacement that has occurred, the embodiment of these aspirations.
As one of the publicists noted, the French Revolution proclaimed freedom, equality and fraternity, and as a result, Rastignacs came out. We, however, consciously and directly go to the Rastignacs. What will we get as a result?