Main schools of psychoanalysis. Psychosomatics, training. French Psychoanalytic School School of Structural Anthropology

The psychoanalytic concept of culture arose on the basis of the psychological study of culture at the beginning of the 20th century. Psychologists of the 19th century tried to find out the reasons for the “spirit of peoples”, their self-awareness, problems of mentality, group psychology, etc. Among the classics of the psychological movement are S. Freud (1856 - 1939), K. Jung (1876 - 1961), E. Fromm (1900 - 1980 ), who viewed culture from a psychological perspective. Psychoanalysis studies the deep forces of the personality, its drives and tendencies, which are often not even realized by the person (the so-called unconscious motivation). From these positions, various cultural phenomena, creative processes, religion and the development of society as a whole are explained.
Sigmund Freud - an Austrian neuropathologist, psychiatrist and psychologist, the founder of psychoanalysis - believed that culture is the result of a compromise between the spontaneous drives of people and the demands of reality. Culture acts as a unique mechanism of social suppression of the free inner world of individuals, as a conscious refusal of people to satisfy their natural passions. According to Freud, culture covers all the knowledge and skills accumulated by people, allowing them to master the forces of nature to satisfy their needs, and also includes institutions for regulating human relationships and, especially, for sharing the benefits obtained. Freud explored the so-called subconscious: the irrational and “dark” part of the human psyche. Among the elemental drives, the main ones that unite all people, he singled out the instinct of procreation, the sexual instinct (the so-called libido), and later included here the desire for death (thanatos). The energy of affective drives, not finding a way out, is transformed and switched to the goals of social activity and cultural creativity (so-called sublimation). Thus, the main premise of culture is dissatisfaction, renunciation of desires. This energy, not finding a direct outlet, since it is blocked by culture and its norms, manifests itself in roundabout ways in pathologies or unconscious forms, which can be judged by neuroses that perform protective functions, by dreams - “gates to the unconscious”, hysteria, unmotivated rigidity, propensity to violence and other forms of deviant human behavior. The system of general psychological principles developed by Freud (the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious, the priority of sexual desire, the Oedipus complex as a theory of the individual’s entry into culture, cultural phenomena such as the sublimation of libido) allowed for a new approach to the study of culture. Freud's achievements include expanding the subject of research by cultural scientists, understanding the role of the unconscious in human activity and the functioning of culture, analyzing the relationship between personality and culture, a better understanding of the compensatory (psychotherapeutic) function of culture and the causes of deviant behavior.
At the same time, Freud’s concept has a lot of shortcomings: it is unacceptable to reduce the entire diversity of culture to purely biological principles, to pathology, to exaggerate the role of sexuality, and to diverge from the data of anthropological science. Therefore, it is no coincidence that his ideas were criticized, including by his students and followers, among whom K. Jung occupies a special place.
Carl-Gustav Jung - a Swiss psychologist, a collaborator of Z. Freud - moved away from classical Freudianism. Studying psychoses, folklore, and myths, he came to the conclusion that in the human psyche, in addition to the individual unconscious, there is a deeper layer - the collective unconscious. Its content consists of archetypes - universal human prototypes, which contain the experience of previous generations (mother earth, hero, wise old man, demon, etc.). The dynamics of archetypes underlie myths and the symbolism of artistic creativity. Jung believed that myths did not remain in the past, but continue to live as a collective unconscious and play a decisive role in the culture of today. The history of culture is not a departure from myths, but their sublimation, i.e. transformation and existence in the form of seemingly completely modern phenomena of science, art, social psychology and ideology. Apparent differences between cultures are the result of people’s misunderstanding of their unity: external and internal. Jung developed a typology of characters, dividing people into extroverts (i.e., outward-facing) and introverts (i.e., inward-looking). This theory allowed Jung to create works devoted to the main differences between the civilizations of the West and the East, their religions, philosophical systems and worldviews. Jung developed problems of the relationship between thinking and culture, the role of the biologically inherited and cultural-historical in the life of peoples, analyzed mystical phenomena in culture, clarifying the meaning of myths, fairy tales, legends, dreams. He considered not only logic, but also intuition. The study of intelligence as a cultural phenomenon is complemented by the desire to understand the deep feelings of man and humanity.
Eric Fromm is a German-American psychologist and sociologist, a representative of neo-Freudianism, based on neo-Marxism and social psychology. He moved away from Freud's biologism. Fromm's focus is on the development of personality problems as a result of the interaction of social and psychological factors, social character, and alienation. He criticized capitalism as a sick, irrational society, and developed methods of “social therapy.” Fromm identified the following essential needs in a person: the need for communication, which is most fully realized in love; the need for creativity; the need to feel one’s roots, the inviolability of being; the need for assimilation, identification; need for knowledge. But in modern culture these needs are often replaced by others. A person prefers not to think about creativity, about knowledge, about love; it is as if he is consciously running away from himself and from freedom, turning into a necrophiliac, i.e. strives to turn everything living into mechanical and dead.
Fromm belonged to the Frankfurt School, which emerged in the 1930s. and collapsed in the 70s. XX century It included such prominent theorists as M. Horkheimer, T. Adorno, G. Marcuse, J. Habermas and others, who relied on Marxism and reformed Freudianism when analyzing modern culture. They revealed the problem of alienation in modern society, showed the main tendency of the Western model - towards total control of society and the disappearance of free initiative. In the West, a type of mass “one-dimensional person” has formed, who lacks a critical attitude towards society, as a result of which social change is prevented. Modern culture, in their opinion, is the imposition of false needs on a person and the suppression of true ones. Philosophers criticized technocracy, which kills high culture, mass culture, which descends to barbarism, and the “industrialization of culture,” which destroys creativity. They actively opposed fascism. The philosophy of culture of the Frankfurt School gained worldwide fame and had a significant influence on science.

The psychoanalytic literary system is otherwise called Freudianism, after the name of its founder. Z. Freud(1856–1939). Austrian practicing physician, neurologist, pathologist, who recorded his medical observations in a kind of philosophical and aesthetic theory. His works: “The Interpretation of Dreams” (1900), “The Psychology of Everyday Life” (1904), “I and It” (1923), “Totem and Taboo” (1913), “Psychology of Masses and Analysis of the Human Self” (1921), “Lectures on introduction to psychoanalysis” (vol. 1 - 2, 1922), “Essays on the psychology of sexuality” (1925), etc.

Revealing the essence of his method, Freud says: “Psychoanalysis rarely disputes what others claim; as a rule, he adds something new, however, it often happens that this previously unnoticed and newly added thing is precisely essential.” These “additions” of Freud concern mainly the sphere of the irrational. In his lectures and publications, Freud cites numerous real facts that he observed of deviations from the norm in people in their psyche and sex, starting from childhood.

Freud opens his lectures with the study and interpretation of sleep and dreams. Against the backdrop of intensifying towards the end of the 19th century. interest in the world of the otherworldly, spiritualistic, mystical, Freud’s appeal to the depths of the human psyche looks quite natural. To designate the deep force that characterizes a person’s mental, sexual energy on a subconscious level, Freud introduces the term and concept “libido” (Libido). This is a feeling of unconscious “attraction”, similar, according to Freud, to such concepts as, for example, hunger, attraction to food. Libido characterizes sexual desire in Freud, along with sexual arousal and satisfaction. Freud states that “from the age of three, the sexual life of a child is not subject to any doubt. From this age, the child’s sex life largely “corresponds” to the sex life of an adult. Studying human neuroses with the help of psychoanalysis, Freud addresses the problems of the “evolution of libido,” noting “even earlier” phases of its development.

The “first love object” for the “little man,” says Freud, is his mother. This is the moment of “sexual preference”, and the main “interference” in “possessing” the mother is the boy’s father. Freud calls this situation the “Oedipus complex,” referring to Sophocles’ tragedy “Oedipus Rex,” in which the hero kills his father and marries his mother. Freud points to a similar situation with a daughter who would like to eliminate her mother in her relationship with her father. This situation can be considered the "Electra complex." Freud is ready to admit that the tragedy of Sophocles is an “immoral play” that “removes moral responsibility from a person”, if not for the “secret meaning” of the “Oedipus complex”, in which humanity, even at the beginning of its history, “acquired its consciousness of guilt, the source religion and morality." The “Oedipus complex,” according to Freud, is one of the “most important sources of guilt consciousness,” which “often torments neurotics.” Freud notes “libidinal” moments in Shakespeare’s “Prince Hamlet” and Diderot’s “Ramo’s Nephew.”

In contrast to libido (“sexual drive”), Freud refers to the “ego drive,” a term under which he combines all “non-sexual drives.” The ego and libido are in conflict, from which neuroses also arise. The main goal in the “mental apparatus” of the “I” is to receive pleasure. Freud calls this the “pleasure principle.”

The most intense pleasure, according to Freud, available to humans is pleasure during sexual intercourse. However, of necessity, “modifications” of the “pleasure principle” are possible, when the “I” becomes “reasonable”, obeying the “reality principle”. At the same time, on the one hand, Freud has a close connection between libido and unconsciousness, and on the other, “I,” consciousness and “reality.” Neuroses based on libido in adults, according to the scientist, can be either congenital or acquired.

The highest “reality” for Freud is not “material” but “psychic reality”, which serves as the basis for neuroses. Freud considers psychoanalysis as a science applicable not only to determining the specifics of neuroses (fear, neurasthenia, hypochondria), but also in almost all other sciences (in the history of culture, religion, mythology), using not the material, but the technique of psychoanalysis. At the same time, Freud explores delusions of grandeur and narcissism, focusing on eliminating the causes of the disease, the so-called “causal therapy.”

Putting forward his concept of “psychic personality,” Freud is not at all inclined to consider this personality integral, homogeneous. In the structure of the “psychic personality” he identifies a “prohibiting”, “criticizing”, i.e. control, “instance”, which he places above the “I”, designating it as the “super-ego” (Super Ego). “I” appears here both as a subject and as an object. The “super-ego” performs two functions. One of them - “self-observation” - at the same time serves as a prerequisite for another, more complex function - “conscience”, which acts as a “judicial” authority for the “I”. Without denying the “divine” origin of the concept of “conscience,” Freud at the same time considers it present “in us,” although not initially, unlike libido. Thus, Freud’s “conscience” is “the complete opposite of sexual life” and is initially brought up by parental authority, which performs the function of a “super-ego” for the child. Another function of the “super-ego” according to Freud: “It is the bearer of the I-ideal,” encouraging the individual to improve. The “super-ego,” in addition, is an authority that displaces certain mental forces to the level of the unconscious. Freud, relying here on Nietzsche, has three levels of personality: the unconscious, which Freud calls “It” (Es). This is the “region of the soul”, the “alien I”. This is followed by the preconscious level, designated “I,” and, finally, the conscious level, the “super-ego.” These are, according to Freud, “three kingdoms, spheres, regions” into which he divided the “mental apparatus of the personality.” “The id,” says Freud, is “the dark, inaccessible part of our personality,” where the symptoms of neuroses and dreams originate. The scientist compares “It” to “chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitement”; heterogeneous unorganized impulses and instincts dominate there. These impulses exist outside of time and are “virtually immortal.” Only by knowing them can one count on medical success. Only in the “W - Bw system”, where the “I” is closest to the outside world, does the “phenomenon of consciousness” arise, according to Freud.

Moving from “It” to “I”, the pleasure principle is replaced by the “reality principle”. This is what Freud's drawing of the structure of the mental personality looks like (see diagram on the right). Here the “super-ego” of the Oedipus complex enters into an intimate relationship with the “Id”. As can be seen from the diagram, there are no strict boundaries between the three spheres of personality. How does Freud translate the doctrine of psychoanalysis into the phenomenon of creativity?

To do this, he introduces the concept of “sublimation” (from the Latin sublimio - I lift up), which in psychology means “switching”, “withdrawal”. Sexual drives that are not realized in life, according to Freud, are replaced and then sublimated in creativity. There is a “long-term attachment” to a new “object” of desire - creativity. From the point of view of neuroses, the work of Dostoevsky (“Dostoevsky and Parricide”), Leonardo da Vinci, Schiller, and Shakespeare is explained.

Neo-Freudianism of the 20th century. (G.S. Sullivan, E. Fromm) supplements Freud’s theory of sexual neuroses with fears and neuroses of society, neurosis of power, submission to power, neurosis of possession. Existentialists bring Freudianism to the problems of life and death (see: Neufeld N. Dostoevsky. Psychoanalysis, 1925).

For A. Adler, creativity is the result of the action of “compensation mechanisms” (for Schiller, lack of vision, for Beethoven, lack of hearing). In psychopoetics (J. Lacan), the linguistic reading of the text is focused on Freud’s psychoanalysis. There are exits to the so-called “medical” reading of the text, related to the parameters of human health. Of all the possible competitors to the science of psychoanalysis, Freud recognizes competition only from religion, which, as he says, “masters the strongest emotions of man.”

Art with its “illusions,” according to Freud, is “harmless,” philosophy “overestimates” the importance of such “operations” as intuition or Marxism with its “economic” theories, “natural science” principles and Hegelian “dialectics.”

"Formal School"

We put the term “formal school” in quotation marks, thereby emphasizing its conventionality. Other terms used in this context - “formalism”, “formal method” - are also not adequate, since they contain an indication of a certain “bias” towards form in the works of representatives of this methodological system. We would like to note as the main component in their works the predominant interest in the art of words. The form of a work of art is the result of the highest skill and art: this is the final result of the sometimes passionate searches of this group of scientists, and “shape studies” is the semantic code of these searches. The evolution of literary criticism has long “rehabilitated” the scientists of the “formal school”, confirming the high educational value of their works.

Strengthening by the beginning of the 20th century. interest in the problems of artistic form was caused in Europe and in Russia not only by the actualization of this issue at the level, so to speak, of scientific chronology, but also was a reaction to the dominance in literary studies of works related to the content of works of art; European and Russian literary scholars and critics for many decades of the 19th century. wrote about artistic methods, trends, styles, images at the level of ideas, classes, classes, peoples, nations. From these positions, fiction was analyzed not only by democratic critics, populists or Marxists, but also by the writers themselves. This is the journalism of Goncharov, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy. There was a seemingly “natural”, logical switch from literary science to problems of artistic form.

The first steps in this direction were made in German philosophical science, in the works of O. Walzel, G. Wölfflin, W. Dibelius.

O. Walzel(1864 - 1944). German scientist. Author of the works “The Essence of a Poetic Work”, “The Architectonics of Shakespeare’s Dramas”, “Artistic Form in the Works of Goethe and the German Romantics”, “Comparative Study of the Arts”.

The preface to the Russian translation of Walzel’s book “Problems of Form in Poetry” was written by one of the representatives of the Russian “formal school” V.M. Zhirmunsky. Zhirmunsky titled his preface “On the Question of the Formal Method.” In Walzel’s scientific methodology, Zhirmunsky notes the priority of form, interest in “how” and not “what” is depicted in a literary work. Walzel's main idea: methods of analysis (“technique”) of works of music and painting should be extended to poetry and literature. Unlike the Russian formalists, Walzel does not use the terms of linguistics, but the terms of other arts (painting, music, architecture).

G. Wölfflin(1864 - 1945). Art and literary critic. Professor at the University of Berlin. Representative of the “formal method” in art history. He was engaged in the comparative study of fine arts. Studying artistic styles, his conclusions come to the problems of the “psychology of the era.” He proposed his own methodology for “vision” of form, considering its elements as carriers of signs of the specific existence of peoples and eras. One of the works is “Renaissance and Baroque”.

V. Dibelius(1876 - 1931). German scientist. Author of the works “Morphology of the Novel”, “Leitmotifs in Dickens”, etc. Considers issues of genre specificity of literature from the standpoint of the “formal method”. The emergence of the “formal method” in Europe dates back to the 1910s. By this time, the collective works of the “formalists” were also published, in particular “Problems of Literary Form” (authors: O. Walzel, W. Dibelius, K. Vossler, L. Spitzer).

Almost at the same time, the works of these German scientists were published in Russian translation. If they were primarily interested in the problems of the form of various types of art - music, painting, architecture, and carried out their comparative analysis, then the representatives of the Russian “formal school” focused mainly on the problems of the form of language and literature. These were writers, art historians, and philologists.

B.N. Bugaev (Andrey Bely)(1880 - 1934). Literary critic and writer. Born into a noble family. Most researchers find the origins of the “formal method” in Bely. In this case, his work “Symbolism” (1910) should be mentioned. Coming to literature from the natural sciences (he studied at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow State University), Bely wants to extend the “exact” method of these sciences to philology. At the same time, he is interested in the philosophy of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, the depth of creative technology in music and literature. He is interested in the work of OPOYAZ representatives - Zaitsev, Shklovsky, Tynyanov, Yakobson. Bely studies “techniques”, “groups”, ways of creating a symbol. He explores the subtleties of rhythm and meter of verse: the works “The Meaning of Art”, “Lyrics and Experiment”, “An Experience in Characterizing Russian Iambic Tetrameter”, “Comparative Morphology of Rhythm” (1909), “On the Rhythmic Gesture”, “On the Word in Poetry” ( 1917). He develops the concept of a sound image (“Poem about Sound”).

It seems that Bely is not just passionate, but called to study precisely the mechanism of creating a work (“Rhythm as dialectics and “The Bronze Horseman”” (1929). Already at the end of his life, in 1934, he wrote a monumental work in his favorite key - "The Mastery of Gogol". There is something to learn for a researcher of any level by becoming familiar with the diagrams, diagrams, and statistics presented in this book by Bely. And here Bely remains true to his previous ideas; moreover, his interest in literary forms deepens. Already in the first chapter, Comparing the creative process of Gogol and Pushkin, Bely writes: “Gogol’s production process is like the circulation of blood washing individual organs; its stream, having run through everything, does not merge with any one; hence the imbalance of form and content, which are in a constant dispute of roots and branches Krylov's fable, one or the other seems to predominate: this is pulsation; thesis-arsis; integrity - in the style of rhythm, not embodied anywhere. In Pushkin, the unity of form and content is given in the form; In Gogol, the unity of form and content is given in the content.” This contrast between Pushkin and Gogol is more than controversial, as is the statement about the “Doric phrase” of Pushkin and the “Gothic phrase” of Karamzin. We are unlikely to agree now with the formula of Gogol’s prose style proposed by Bely: “Gogol’s speech fabric is, first of all, the sum of phrases separated by punctuation marks and divided into main and subordinate clauses.” But Bely’s interpretations of the problems of literature, and above all the various categories of literary form, are original, based on the text (on “material,” as the “formalists” said) and are in many ways of interest for our time.

The emergence of the Russian “formal school” is associated with the activities of the Petrograd circle of the 1910s OPOYAZ (“Society for the Study of Poetic Language”). At various times, literary critics and linguists Yu.N. were members of the Society or were associated with it. Tynyanov, V.B. Shklovsky, B.M. Eikhenbaum, O.M. Brick, P.G. Bogatyrev, G.O. Vinokur, A.A. Reformatsky, V.V. Vinogradov, B.V. Tomashevsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky and others. It is unlikely that A.A. Potebnya and A.N. Veselovsky were the immediate predecessors of the Russian “formal school”.

In this case, we should return to earlier times, for example, to I. Kant with his concept of “purposeless” creativity. “Formal school” in Russia is a reaction to ideologized democratic and academic literary criticism. This was facilitated by the works of European scientists of the “formal” direction.

The leader of OPOYAZ was a young philologist at that time (as were all members of society) V.B. Shklovsky, who, like Tynyanov and Eikhenbaum, came out of the Pushkin scientific seminar of S.A. Vengerov at St. Petersburg University.

V. B. Shklovsky(1893 - 1984). A versatile philologist, writer and poet who studied in Russia and Europe. The programmatic work for OPOYAZ was his work “The Resurrection of the Word” (1914). It was in it, and then in the works “On Poetry and Abstruse Language” and “Art as a Technique” (1917), “Rozanov” (1921) that the theoretical foundations of the Russian “formal method” were laid.

Relying largely on Walzel, Shklovsky, however, proceeds in his concepts from the possibilities of the word. At first, the ideas of OPOYAZ members correlated with the corresponding protests of the Symbolists and Futurists. However, then the attention of the Opoyazovites was entirely focused on the problems of artistic form. The work of art is considered here in the totality of the “techniques” of the image. “Resurrecting” a word, seemingly forgotten in the works of scientists of the cultural-historical school, Shklovsky gives the word a key functional meaning in the work.

At the same time, Shklovsky not only identifies the speech sphere of the work as basic, he proposes to update the speech sphere of the work, putting forward the theory of “defamiliarization” of language. “Destrangement” comes from the word “strange”, i.e. unusual. An unexpected, unusual context, according to the Opoyazovites, was supposed to attract the reader’s attention, update the plot and narrative. This can be a tale or folklore beginning, a rearrangement of sounds or syllables. In this case, the usual standard of speech is, as it were, violated, freeing perception from language stereotypes. Stylization, satire, and subtext can be used here. The “defamiliarized” language seems to soften the automatism of perception, “tired” of the cliches of form. In the first five years of the existence of OPOYAZ, members of the circle master new forms of literary technique (the first stage of development of the circle).

In the next five years (1920 - 1925) the “formal method” in Russia reached its peak. The “troika” of OPOYAZ in the person of Shklovsky, Eikhenbaum, Tynyanov - participants in Professor Vengerov’s Pushkin seminar at Petrograd University - are joined by employees of the Institute of Art History Zhirmunsky, Vinogradov, Tomashevsky and others, and then members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle Yakobson, Vinokur. The active creative activity of young, talented members of the circle attracted attention to them and strengthened the scientific influence of the “formal school”. In 1925, Shklovsky published his work “On the Theory of Prose,” in which he proposed developing the principles and techniques of the “formal method.”

The positive factor itself - the presence in society of a large number of talented philologists - was at the same time one of the reasons for the collapse of OPOYAZ. On the one hand, each member of the circle followed his own path in science, and on the other, the circle was subjected to sharp criticism from a number of philologists, as well as officials. The society published six “Collections on the theory of poetic language” (1916 - 1923).

The downward development of OPOYAZ began, in fact, after the discussion in 1924. From that time on, the last (crisis) period in the development of the circle began, when each of its members, realizing the validity of many of the claims made to the “formal school,” began to develop their own directions in science. Already in the works “The Third Factory” (1926), “The Hamburg Account” (1928), Shklovsky moved away from the extreme positions of the “formal school”, and in the article “Monument to a Scientific Error” (1930), recognizing the fallacy of his previous ideas, at the same time as if saying goodbye to the “monument”.

B.M. Eikhenbaum(1886 - 1959). A talented philologist, literary theorist, author of works related to the work of Russian classics. Second participant in Vengerov’s seminar at the Faculty of Philology of Petrograd University. In 1918, along with Shklovsky, he joined OPOYAZ. His most famous works are those related to the “formal school,” “Melody of the Russian Language” (1922), “Around the Question of the Formalists” (1924), and “My Time Book” (1929). Fundamental to the “formal method” is Eikhenbaum’s 1919 article “How Gogol’s “Overcoat” was Made.” It is in the “how” system, and not “what”, proposed by Walzel, that Gogol’s story is analyzed. Unlike Walzel, Eikhenbaum analyzes the compositional structure of “The Overcoat”. Adopting the methodology of the "formal school", he considers literary forms in their evolution, without real time or social determination. He is interested in “technique”, based on the specifics of the word. “Contrast”, “shift”, “parody” determine the innovation of a writer or poet, from Eikhenbaum’s point of view. A work of art is valuable in itself and autonomous, not connected with reality. Eikhenbaum in his analysis notes even small details, but not to establish their causal relationship, but to demonstrate the playful intersection of compositional structures.

Having later abandoned the one-sided concept of “autonomism” of works of art of the “formal school,” Eikhenbaum presented in his research examples of a holistic analysis of the works of L. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Lermontov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Mayakovsky, and Gogol. At the same time, Eikhenbaum’s works are characterized by the mastery of structural analysis, the skills he acquired during the years of his involvement in the “formal method”, during the years of deep reflection on the problems of artistic form.

Yu. N. Tynyanov(1894 - 1943). Famous Russian writer and literary critic. Third participant in Vengerov's seminar at the Faculty of Philology of Petrograd University. Having been left to work at the university by Vengerov, in 1918, like Eikhenbaum, he joined OPOYAZ. For ten years, Tynyanov worked as a teacher, then as a professor at the Institute of Art History. Tynyanov’s theoretical works: “Dostoevsky and Gogol (towards the theory of parody)” - “Archaists and Pushkin”, “Pushkin and Tyutchev”, “Imaginary Pushkin” (published in the first half of the 1920s), “The problem of poetic language” (1924 ), “Literary Fact” (1924), “Archaists and Innovators” (1929).

While studying literature, Tynyanov named language as its main component. “Literature is a dynamic speech construction,” he writes. Tynianov’s “core constructive factor” for verse is rhythm, and for prose it is plot, which he defines as a “semantic grouping” of material. At the center of Tynyanov’s analysis is the “constructive principle”, with the help of which a “survey” of any literary “factor” can be carried out “on the widest possible material” “not for the purpose of clarifying its functions, but in itself, i.e. such an isolated study , where the constructive property is not determined.” From the point of view of academic literary criticism, this was an extra-content analysis. Tynyanov writes: “The task of the history of literature is, among other things, to expose the form.” From this point of view, the history of literature, which studies literary works, according to Tynyanov, is “like a dynamic archeology.” Style series and genre systems are dynamic, but their dynamics “are not a planned evolution, but a leap, not development, but displacement,” the scientist asserts.

Tynyanov defines the factor of literary tradition in his own way. Important for him is the need to “correlate” literature with “neighboring rows,” of which the closest to literature is everyday life. Everyday life correlates with literature “primarily by its speech side.” “The expansion of literature into everyday life” (and vice versa) is, according to Tynyanov, “the immediate social function of literature.”

For understanding the specifics of literature, Tynyanov attaches great importance to the epistolary factor, writing. He sharply criticizes “academic eclecticism,” to which he classifies Zhirmunsky’s works, and “scholastic” “formalism,” which, in his opinion, is characterized by the substitution of terminology, the transformation of literature from “systemic” science into “episodic” and “anecdotal” genres. Tynyanov puts forward the principle of “repulsion” in the history of literature, “destruction” of old and creation of new stylistic traditions. Considering literature as a system, he proposes to “go from a constructive function to a literary function, from literary to speech.”

Both Shklovsky and Tynyanov reject the Hegelian formula: “Art is thinking in images,” accepted by many democratic literary critics. According to Shklovsky, a work is a pure form that appears in intangible “relations.” Rejecting the rigid pattern of connections between the elements of a literary work, Tynyanov puts forward the idea of ​​“subordinating” the factors of a literary work to one of the elements “pushed” to the fore.

Formulating in his 1928 work “Problems of the Study of Literature and Language” the nine most important scientific points necessary in the study of literature and language, Tynyanov, in view of the importance of “theoretical” and “concrete” tasks and the importance of their “collective development”, considers it necessary to “revive OPOYAZ chaired by Viktor Shklovsky."

But OPOYAZ was closed forever. However, by the beginning of the 1930s, the unacceptability of his principles, and even more so, giving them universal meaning, became clear to all members of society. And Tynyanov, having freed himself from the one-sidedness of the “formal method” and developing the most fruitful directions of his work, became a major Russian theoretician and philologist. Unlike Jacobson, Tynyanov considered the problems of poetics mainly on the basis of literature.

V.M. Zhirmunsky(1891 - 1971). As a student at Petrograd University, at Vengerov’s seminar on the works of Pushkin, he met Eikhenbaum. Sent to Germany to continue his studies. Privat-docent at Petrograd University, then professor at Saratov University. After 1917 - professor at Leningrad University, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Zhirmunsky’s works: “German Romanticism and Modern Mysticism” (1931), “Overcoming Symbolism” (1916), “Two Directions of Modern Lyrics” (1920), “On Classical and Romantic Poetry” (1920), “Composition of Lyric Poems” (1921 ), “Tasks of Poetics” (1919). He was influenced by OPOYAZ and the ideas of the “formal school,” which was clearly expressed in the 1923 work “On the Question of the Formal Method,” which served as a preface to the Russian translation of O. Walzel’s book “The Problem of Form in Poetry.” Zhirmunsky says at the beginning that he knows the direction of Walzel’s thinking, which in Russia was called the “formal school”, with the widest field of its interests. Zhirmunsky names I.A. as the predecessors of the “formal school”. Baudouin de Courtenay, A.N. Veselovsky, A. A. Potebnia, V.N. Peretz.

Trying to protect the “formal school” from “frivolous”, “philistine”, as Zhirmunsky says, criticism, he puts forward here the concept of “intrinsic values ​​of scientific knowledge” (regardless of the importance of the issue), specifically referring to “work on metrics”. He claims that the “intrinsic value of scientific truth” is generally a product of a “system of abstract knowledge.” On the other hand, he sees the reason for criticism of the ideas of the “formalists” in the “lightness”, “lack of thoughtfulness” of the speeches of the “formalists” themselves, who become active “at debates and rallies”, in publications for the “average reader”.

Therefore, an article, for example, by a “young philologist” who first established the sources of one of Gogol’s stories remains misunderstood. Zhirmunsky considers the study of problems of poetics useful for educational purposes. Recognizing the legitimacy of the existence of a “formal method,” he calls the work of Jakobson, Shklovsky, and Eikhenbaum no longer a method, but a “worldview,” a “fruitful” direction of scientific activity. From Zhirmunsky’s point of view, the new method should no longer be called “formal”, but “formalistic”. At the same time, he seeks to establish the “boundaries of application” of the “formal method”, focusing around four problems: “1) Art as a technique; 2) Historical poetics and history of literature; 3) Theme and composition; 4) Verbal arts and literature.” Zhirmunsky recognizes the legitimacy of considering a work in a system of techniques as a unity of elements of the whole. The system of techniques for characterizing a work is as legitimate, according to Zhirmunsky, as any other - religious, social, moral. But for Zhirmunsky, the absolutization of “technique” as the only “hero” of literary science is unacceptable, as was the case with Jacobson in his work “Newest Russian Poetry. First draft..." (1921). A literary device, according to Zhirmunsky, can be applied both in tendentious (“rhetorical”) and in pure art.

Zhirmunsky considers the idea of ​​mechanically replacing old literary forms with new ones unacceptable, and the technique of “defamiliarization,” proposed by Shklovsky as an “organizing” method for the formal method, considers it “secondary,” necessary for “readers who have lagged behind in their demands for art.” Zhirmunsky argues that tastes are different, and therefore “inhibition” will be a “working form” for some and adequate for others. Zhirmunsky concludes that the concept of “defamiliarization” “denotes the inability to construct an unusual aesthetic object.” He believes that Kant’s formula: “What is beautiful is that regardless of the meaning” is an “expression” of the “formalistic doctrine” of art. Considering the specifics of the arts from these positions, Zhirmunsky distinguishes two principles of composition corresponding to two types of art: for spatial (“simultaneous”, according to Zhirmunsky) arts, i.e. for painting, architecture, sculpture, the “principle of symmetry”; for temporary (“successive”), i.e. for music, poetry, the principle of rhythm; for mixed (dance and theater) - the principles of symmetry and rhythm.

In subject-thematic arts (painting, sculpture, theater, poetry), according to Zhirmunsky, “the laws of artistic composition cannot completely dominate.” As for poetry, according to the scientist, “verbal material does not obey the formal compositional law,” because the word does not serve art entirely, but is also a means of communication. Therefore, meaning is important for poetry, and in this regard, the choice of topic is essential. At the same time, for Zhirmunsky, every word, every motive can serve as a theme. He believes that in some cases it is possible to prefer composition to thematic problems as a “conscious” task of the “formal method”. However, according to the formalistic principles of the study of literature, the field of poetics”, in addition to metrics and plot composition, necessarily includes “poetic themes”, the so-called “content”. And although Zhirmunsky uses the combination “so-called” in relation to the term “content,” the reader of the “Preface” is presented with the concept of a holistic analysis of a literary work. Noting the achievements of the “formal school” in Europe and Russia in the works of Dibelius, Shklovsky, Eikhenbaum, Zhirmunsky at the same time criticizes the desire to solve issues of composition “at the expense of issues of subject matter.” Shklovsky’s statement: “A literary work is a pure form” is also unacceptable for Zhirmunsky.

Zhirmunsky distinguishes between the functions of words in lyric verse and in prose. If in a lyric poem the word is subordinated to an “aesthetic task” in meaning and technique and is an element of verbal art, then in prose the word is aesthetically neutral and performs only thematic, semantic, and communicative functions. Here Zhirmunsky contradicts himself: he is ready to recognize the theme, that is, the content, as “aesthetically neutral”.

Zhirmunsky notes the features of formalism in Russian futurism and points out the differences in the concepts of formalism among European and Russian scientists. Thus, the German scientist Walzel (in his book “Comparative Study of the Arts,” 1917) is characterized by the desire to rely not so much on linguistics (like Russian scientists), but on the terms of other arts. Nevertheless, for Zhirmunsky these “new methods” of Walzel are “essential”, since they can “protect our young science of historical and theoretical poetics from narrow dogmatism in scientific matters.” As you can see, for Zhirmunsky linguistics alone is not enough to develop principles for the study of poetic art.”

R.O. Jacobson(1896 - 1982) Famous Russian, then American theorist of literature and language, one of the founders of the Russian “formal school”. It was with his active participation that OPOYAZ was created in 1916. In his study “Newest Russian Poetry. First draft: Approaches to Khlebnikov" (written in 1919 and published in 1921 in Prague) the basic principles of the "formal method" were developed. The first of them is the priority of language in the poetics of literature.

Jacobson directly and decisively states: “Poetry is language in its poetic function.” Meanwhile, he says, literary historians “instead of the science of literature” are creating “a conglomerate of home-grown disciplines” - everyday life, psychology, politics, philosophy, history. As a result, the subject of literature turns out to be “not literature, but literariness.”

Jacobson strikes here at the broad scientific principles of academic literary criticism, and above all the cultural-historical school. In fact, according to Jacobson, “if the science of literature wants to become a science,” it must recognize “reception” as its only “hero.” As a model, he points to the poetry of Russian futurism, which was the “founder” of the poetry of the “self-sufficient, self-valuable word” as “canonized naked material.”

“Renewal” of form through the destruction and replacement of old systems with new ones represents, according to Jakobson, the historical and literary process, its main pattern. Thus, any trope in the form of a “poetic device” can enter “artistic reality”, turning into a “poetic fact of plot construction.” The choice of techniques, their systematization is that the “irrational poetic construction” in symbolism is “justified” by the state of the “restless titanic soul”, “the willful imagination of the poet.”

Thus, putting forward the principles of the “formal method,” as can be seen, Jacobson thereby acts as a theorist of futurism. Jakobson believes that “science is still alien to the question of time and space as forms of poetic language” and should not force language, adapting it to the analysis of “spatially coexisting parts” of a work, which are arranged in a consistent, chronological system.

“Literary” time, according to Jakobson, is analyzed in the “technique of temporal shift”: for example, the “temporal shift” in “Oblomov” is “justified by the hero’s dream.” Anachronisms, unusual words, parallelisms, and associations act as means of updating linguistic forms.

At the same time, in 1919, Jacobson wrote a short article “Futurists” (published in the newspaper “Iskusstvo” in the same year, signed “R.Ya.”). He writes here about the techniques of “deformations”: hyperbole in literature; Chiaroscuro, specularity, tripling in “old” painting; “decomposition of color” among the impressionists; caricature in humor and finally the “canonization of the plurality of points of view” among the Cubists. Futurists have slogan paintings.

Among the Cubists, the technique is “exposed” without any “justification”: asymmetry, dissonance become autonomous, “cardboard, wood, tin are used.” The “main tendency” in painting is to “dissect the moment of movement” “into a series of separate static elements.”

Manifesto of Futurist artists: “Running horses have not four legs, but twenty, and their movements are triangular.” If the Cubists, according to Jacobson, “constructed” a picture based on the simplest objects - a cube, a cone, a ball, giving a “primitive painting”, then the Futurists “introduce a curved cone, a curved cylinder into the picture... destroy the walls of volumes.”

Both cubism and futurism use the technique of “difficult perception,” opposing the “automaticity of perception.” In the same 1919, the newspaper “Iskusstvo”, signed “Alyagrov,” published a note by Jacobson “Tasks of Artistic Propaganda.” At this time he was already working in various Soviet structures. Here he again puts forward the idea of ​​“deformation” of the old form as relevant, reinforcing it with the need for “genuinely revolutionary artistic enlightenment.” Supporters of the conservation of old forms, writes Jakobson, “scream about religious tolerance in art, are likened to the zealots of “pure democracy,” who, as Lenin put it, accept formal equality as actual.”

Since the summer of 1920, Jacobson worked at the Soviet permanent mission in Czechoslovakia and shuttled between Moscow and Prague. It was at this time, in 1920, in the magazine “Artistic Life” signed “R. ... I." Jacobson published an article on painting issues - “New Art in the West (Letter from Revel).” Jacobson writes here about expressionism, which, as he says, in Europe means “all new things in art.” Already impressionism, characterized as a rapprochement with nature, came, in the words of Jacobson, “to color, to expose the brushstroke.” Van Gogh is already “free” with paint, and the “emancipation of color” is taking place. In expressionism, “unnaturalness” and “refusal of verisimilitude” are canonized. Yakobson defends the “new” art from “White Guard persecution,” which, in his opinion, is represented by I. Repin’s critical article.

Another article from this period is “Letters from the West. Dada" (about Dadaism) was published by Jacobson under the initials "R.Ya." in 1921 in the magazine “Bulletin of the Theatre”. Dadaism (from the French dada - wooden horse; baby talk) - emerged in 1915–1916. in many countries there is a protest movement in art, based on an unsystematic, random combination of heterogeneous materials and factors; non-national, non-social, often theatrical shocking, outside of tradition and outside of the future; lack of ideas, eclecticism and diversity of the “cocktail” of abstruseness. According to Jacobson, “Dada” is the second “cry” against art after futurism. “Dada,” says Jacobson, is regulated by so-called “constructive laws”: “through assonance to the installation of any sound relationship,” then “to declaring a laundry bill a poetic work. Then letters in random order, tapped out at random on a typewriter - poems, strokes on the canvas of a donkey’s tail dipped in paint - painting.” Poems of vowels - music of noises. Aphorism by Dada leader T. Tiara: “We want, we want, we want... to urinate in different colors.”

“Dada emerges from a cosmopolitan mix,” Jakobson concludes. Western new statements by art critics have not developed, according to Jacobson, in a direction: “Western futurism in all its variations strives to become an artistic movement (the 1001st),” he writes. Dada is "one of countless isms" that "parallel the relativistic philosophies of the current moment."

The “Moscow” period of Jacobson’s work (1915 - 1920) is characterized by his interest in the problems of interaction between language, literature, painting, and general problems of art, as can be seen from the above analysis of his works of these years. The "Prague" period of Jacobson's work (1921 - 1922) is characterized by more mature works. This period opens with his meaningful, original article “On Artistic Realism” (1921). A subtle typology of literary movements is proposed here. Speaking about Russian realism of the 19th century, Jakobson suggests taking into account the features of details as a specific difference between directions: “essential” or “insignificant”. From his point of view, the criterion of “truthfulness” applied to realism is rather arbitrary.

Writers of the Gogol school, the scientist believes, are characterized by “condensation of the narrative with images drawn by contiguity, that is, the path from proper term to metonymy and metaphor.”

During the “American” period of his creativity, Jacobson created numerous works on poetics, Slavic languages, and issues of the creativity of Khlebnikov, Pushkin, Mayakovsky, and Pasternak.

V.V. Vinogradov(1894/95 - 1969). A prominent Russian philologist. Professor of Moscow State University, dean of the philological faculty of this university. Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Linguistics. Works on the theory of language and literature, stylistics, poetics. Initial performances in the early 1920s as part of the Moscow Linguistic Circle, which arose under the influence of OPOYAZ and the so-called “formal school”. Works of the 1920s: “The style of the St. Petersburg poem (by F.M. Dostoevsky) “The Double” (An experience in linguistic analysis)” (1922), “On the tasks of stylistics. Observations on the style of “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum” (1923), “On the poetry of Anna Akhmatova (Stylistic sketches)” (1925), “Sketches on Gogol’s style” (1926), “The problem of the tale in stylistics” (1926), “On the construction theories of poetic language. The doctrine of speech systems of literary works" (1927), "The Evolution of Russian Naturalism. Gogol and Dostoevsky" (1929), "On artistic prose" (1930). During this period, Vinogradov views the evolution of language as the development of various structural “systems”. Working on the problems of style, Vinogradov came to the idea of ​​text stylistics and various forms of speech stylistics. His works develop the idea of ​​the unity of the Russian literary language as a system. This system also requires unity of “techniques” for using linguistic means.

“Style,” writes Vinogradov, “is a socially conscious and functionally conditioned, internally unified set of techniques for using, selecting and combining means of speech communication...” Speech style, according to Vinogradov, is a “semantic unity” that arises in the “synthesis” of “elements of language” " The scientist rejects the extremes of literary and linguistic points of view on the problem of interaction between word and image, arguing that the word is a “means of image formation,” without fetishizing the functions of the word or image. His definition of a literary work strictly takes into account the function of verbal and extra-verbal elements: “A verbal work of art,” he writes, “is a picture of a unique world, embodied in the forms of language and illuminated by the poetic consciousness of the author, - subjective or objective (depending on the method of creativity).” For Vinogradov, Jakobson’s statement, which goes back to the “formalism of the 1920s,” is insufficient, proposing to reduce the function of poetic speech to “message.”

Vinogradov agrees with Tynyanov’s statement that literary prose is not indifferent to rhythm. For Vinogradov, abstractionism as “poetry without images” is unacceptable. The scientist agrees with Zhirmunsky, who included non-verbal elements in the artistic style: theme, composition, images. The language of fiction, according to Vinogradov, cannot be “revealed” with the help of linguistic techniques alone, as futurists and representatives of the “formal school” Yakobson, Shklovsky and others believed. “The historical study of the language of fiction,” asserts Vinogradov, “cannot be separated from research socially-ideologically conditioned and dominant views in a particular era..."

The composition of a work of art for a scientist is not an autonomous category: “In the composition of a work of art,” he writes, “the dynamically unfolding content is revealed in the change and alternation of different forms and types of speech...”

As you can see, Vinogradov’s interpretation of the specifics of the structural elements of language and literature, almost from the very beginning of OPOYAZ, is inadequate to the principles of the “formal school,” although in his work it is the structural elements that are the priority.

G.O. Distiller(1896 - 1947). Famous Russian linguist, specialist in vocabulary, poetic language, and speech culture. Works: “Culture of Language” (1925), “On the Tasks of the History of Language” (1941).

Vinokur came to science through the Moscow Linguistic Circle, which existed in 1915 - 1924. parallel to OPOYAZ. The Moscow linguistic circle, whose participants were students of the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow State University, was supervised by academician F.E. Korsh, who prepared the circle’s charter and presented it to the 2nd department of the Academy of Sciences. The permission to form the circle was signed by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov. Yakobson was elected as the first chairman.

Vinokur chaired the circle in 1922 - 1923. Vinokur came to the form of a literary work from linguistics. He believed that a literary work should be studied from a linguistic perspective, and poetic language, from his point of view, is a mixture of heterogeneous elements. In poetic speech, he asserts, “not only everything mechanical is revived, but also the arbitrary, accidental from the different forms of language is legitimized.” As can be seen, according to the initial positions, Vinokur is also involved in his views with the concepts of the “formal method”.

B.V. Tomashevsky(1890 - 1957). Russian scientist, literary theorist, researcher of Russian classical literature. Born in St. Petersburg into a noble family. He received his education abroad. He taught textual criticism at the Petrograd Institute of Art History (1921), then at the Institute of Russian Literature and Leningrad University. Participant in the publication of the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by D.N. Ushakov, “Dictionary of the Pushkin Language”, “Pushkin Encyclopedia”. His Poetics went through several editions.

In the 1920s, Tomashevsky became close to OPOYAZ and was persecuted as a “formalist.” Tomashevsky attributes the emergence of fiction to ancient times, to its elements that accompanied the labor process, funerals, and games. Tomashevsky considers it “unthinkable” to give one definition of literature that would take into account all its “forms.” However, he notes first of all its “verbal” character: a literary work, he writes, “is a verbal construction” in which the “monologue” speech is designed for “all those interested” and has “long-lasting interest”, in contrast to the “dialogue” of two interlocutors. He calls the field of non-fiction literature (books about politics, economics, scientific works in general) “prose,” literature that “corresponds to reality.” Fiction, according to Tomashevsky, is only “similar” to reality, but in fact speaks “about fictional things.” Tomashevsky examines fiction, or “poetry,” from a “historical” point of view, that is, “in connection with the environment that gave birth to it,” and from a “theoretical” point of view, determining the degree of its compliance with the “laws of the creation of a work of art.” Tomashevsky retains the most productive, from his point of view, methods of studying fiction of the “formal school”. He studies not so much the “orders of his time” embodied in fiction, but rather “the skill of executing these orders.” “Skill” for him is realized in literary “techniques.” He calls the science of the “functions” of literary “techniques” “poetics.” It is poetics that Tomashevsky’s main works are devoted to. Mainly, these are works related to the work of specific Russian writers, especially the work of Pushkin.

Tomashevsky said goodbye to the “formal method” in its narrow meaning (understood as an autonomous analysis outside the social context) back in 1925 in the article “Instead of an obituary.” But in the future he continued to work on the problems of artistic form, using his experience from the OPOYAZ period. His works “From Pushkin’s manuscripts” (1934), “Editions of [Pushkin’s] poetic texts” (1934), “Pushkin’s amendments to the text of “Eugene Onegin”” (1936), “Pushkin and French literature” (1937), “ The poetic heritage of Pushkin (lyrics and poems)" (1941), "K.N. Batyushkov. Poems" (1948), etc.

Founder psychoanalytic school became Sigmund Freud(1856–1939), Austrian psychiatrist and psychologist.

● Most famous works: “On Psychoanalysis” (1911), “Interpretation of Dreams” (1913), “Psychology of Everyday Life”(1926), etc.

◘ Main idea – hypothesis about the existence of the unconscious as a special level of the human psyche. The driving force in the development of humanity is spontaneous instincts, the main of which is the instinct of procreation, i.e. « libido ». Switching libido energy (sublimation ) Freud viewed creativity as the only healthy and constructive strategy for curbing unwanted impulses. It was the sublimation of sexual instincts, in his opinion, that served as the main premise for great achievements in science and culture.

Thus, strong and unconsciously aggressive drives can be sublimated in a socially useful direction. From the point of view of classical psychoanalysis, the transformation of libido into creative inspiration is most clearly manifested in art. The great and well-known “I remember a wonderful moment...” A.S. Pushkin dedicated A. Kern because she turned out to be inaccessible to him. The three months of forced isolation he spent in Boldino produced 50 inspired works, but his happy “honeymoon” produced only five small poems.

Freud's concept contains the statement that it is the conflicts of the individual's psyche, which have a biological basis, that act as the motivating reason for the development of culture and its content, which includes moral norms, art, state, law, etc. Religion, according to his views, is a fantastic projection of unsatisfied desires into the external world. In the most cultured people, Z. Freud noted, the natural principle is suppressed with particular force, which makes them especially susceptible to mental illness, sexual disorders, and heart attacks. Suicide, which is a characteristic feature of developed civilizations, is practically absent among primitive peoples. Thus, Freud, exploring human culture from the perspective of psychoanalysis, in his work “The Discontents of Culture” (1930), warns society against unnecessary restrictions and prohibitions, considering them a threat to the psychophysical well-being of humanity.

Modern researchers see significant shortcomings in Freud's concept. Nevertheless, they also note undoubted advantages, which consist in highlighting the significant role of the unconscious in human life and the functioning of culture, the study of the psychotherapeutic function of culture, the formation of scientific interest aimed at studying the relationship between norm and pathology in various cultures, etc.

10. The concept of the collective unconscious

Swiss psychologist and philosopher Carl Gustav Jung(1875–1961) was strongly influenced by Freud and, in his time, supported his theories. However, in 1913, a rupture occurred in their relationship due to C. Jung’s rejection of S. Freud’s completely original statement that the brain is “an attachment to the gonads.” K. Jung based his own research on the analysis of dreams, delusions, schizophrenic disorders, as well as on a deep study of mythology, the works of ancient, late antique and medieval philosophers.

● Main works: “Psychological types” (1921), “Analytical psychology and education” (1936), “Psychology and alchemy” (1952), “Archetype and symbol” and etc.

◘ The main idea is to concept of collective unconscious, i.e. simultaneously with the existence of the unconscious in the individual, it recognizes the existence of the unconscious in the collective.

● Jung introduced the concept of “archetype” into cultural studies.

From the fact of the existence of the unconscious in the collective, Jung concludes that monotony is a property inherent in all humanity, the structural elements of which are represented by “archetypes.” From these, each individual spirituality subsequently developed. “All basic forms and basic stimuli of thinking are collective. Everything that people unanimously regard as universal is collective, just like what is understood by everyone, is inherent in everyone, is said and done by everyone.”

According to Jung, the collective unconscious exists in the human soul in the form of archetype 1 already at birth. Archetypes accompany a person throughout his life and manifest themselves through symbols. Therefore, mythology is an expression of the collective psyche. In his research, Jung gave a special place among the archetypes to the persona, shadow, anime, animus and self.

A person(from Latin mask) represents the public face of a person, i.e. the way he behaves around other people. It is necessary in everyday life, but at the same time it is also, to a certain extent, a source of danger, because... can lead to personality degradation, constantly replacing individuality.

Shadow represents the unconscious opposite of what the individual seeks to establish in his consciousness. It is a source of unacceptable aggressive impulses, immoral thoughts, passions, etc. However, at the same time, the shadow also represents the source of vitality and creativity, because By curbing his own negative impulses, a person develops a personality within himself.

In addition, Jung believed that the unconscious has features inherent in the opposite sex, and man in his integrity is a bisexual being. Thus, anima acts as the unconscious feminine side of the male personality, which is expressed in such symbols as mother, woman, soul, Virgin Mary. Hence, animus represents the internal image of a man in a woman, which is associated with the symbols of father, man, hero, Jesus Christ. Over the course of centuries of interaction between the sexes, these archetypes evolved in the collective unconscious.

Self Jung identified the archetype as the most important and called it the core of personality, around which other elements are united. An individual experiences a feeling of harmony and integrity of his own personality in cases where the integration of all aspects of the soul has been achieved. Thus, the development of self is the main goal of human life. Its symbol is the mandala and its many interpretations: an abstract circle, a halo of a saint, etc. According to Jung, these symbols are found in dreams, fantasies, myths, religious and mystical experiences. Moreover, he considers religion to be a unique force that helps a person in his quest for integrity 1 .

C. Jung is credited with creating the theory of psychological types (extrovert-introvert), which became the starting point in his comparative analysis of different types of cultures. According to his point of view, thinking is represented by two types: logical, i.e. extroverted, and intuitive, i.e. introverted. He identifies the development of Western culture with extroverted thinking, and traditional thinking, including the countries of the East, with introverted thinking. In cultures with introverted thinking, dreams, hallucinations, rituals, etc. are of particular value, since they allow one to come into contact with the collective unconscious and create a kind of balance between the conscious and unconscious.

Unlike Freud, Jung's concept libido identified with creative energy. In the process of researching and analyzing the development of Western culture, he came to the conclusion that the Age of Enlightenment, which brought a new look at long-familiar things, led humanity to atheism. The realization that gods do not exist, however, did not lead to the disappearance of their inherent functions; they only went into the realm of the unconscious. This contributed to an overabundance of libido, which previously found expression in the cult of idols. As a result, the reverse flow of libido greatly strengthened the unconscious. It exerted powerful pressure on consciousness and led to the French Revolution, which resulted in massacres. Thus, Jung associated socio-political crises and upheavals in Western European countries with the invasion of archetypes into the life of society.

He saw the most important task of culture in the liberation of man from a state of obsession and unconsciousness. Based on this, the person himself, Jung believed, must penetrate the unconscious and make it conscious, but not remain in it and not identify himself with it.

Jung's concepts caused lively debate and criticism. But the fact is absolutely obvious that the initial development of culture is closely connected with the fairly strong influence of the unconscious, and this influence has left its traces in many areas.

"Patients with psychosomatic functioning represent an extreme version of borderline functioning" (Andre Green).

The main difference between dual psycho-somatic [the term is written with a hyphen, thereby emphasizing the attitude towards the soul and body as separated from each other] medicine [combining pathophysiology with psychoanalytic concepts] from monistic psychoanalytic psychosomatics [in which a person is perceived as a psychosomatic unit] in that the latter’s interest is not related to the disease, but to the mental functioning of the patient.

“The psychosomatic (PS) symptom is stupid” - the statement of Michel de M'Uzan emphasizes the lack of hidden, meaningless meaning in PS symptoms, and, therefore, the impossibility of applying the technique (which Freud not by chance proposed for the treatment of neuroses) “where it was It should become I".

Three ways of coping with excitement: mental, behavioral, somatic (Pierre Marty).

Distinguishing conversion hysterical somatic symptoms from other somatizations (Other somatizations appear not as a result of unsuccessful repression of aggressive or sexual incestuous desires, but due to regression and/or progressive disorganization).

Good, active functioning (even pathological) of the psyche apparatus protects against somatization.

Irregular functioning of the psychic apparatus of each person. No person has a fully integrated psyche. apparatus. The psychic apparatus of each of us consists of different (operational, psychotic, traumatic) parts with floating, unstable integration in each period of time.

Catherine Para and Pierre Marty point out the peculiarities of working with patients with psychosomatic functioning. For example, idealization has been respected for a long time (we don’t talk about it) and we don’t work with it. They emphasize that such tactics in working with other patients would be incorrect and toxic. The idealization of the analyst allows such patients (with PSF) to tolerate their own deficit narcissism. We also do not interpret erotic transference, except perhaps in particularly pronounced cases.

The fundamental is correctly formulated to such patients as an opportunity rather than an imperative. Maintaining neutrality is very important.

It is important to teach patients to create connections between their affects and thoughts, between their present and their past and projects about the future. The work of binding is in the foreground, it is the most important in working with such patients. The analyst's task is to make the patient interested in his own mental functioning, enriching and expanding his preconscious.

The technique of working with patients with PSF is aimed at caring and preserving the somatic symptom (which is the object for patients with PSF), it is based on the work of binding. Interpretive techniques in psychosomatics are ineffective and harmful. During interpretation, the neurotic part of the patient is deconstructed (K. Bolas, J. Schweck) and then the traumatic part comes to the fore. And instead of thinking (mental path), it will turn on obsessive repetition (behavioral path).

Raw dreams are not interpreted. Idealization and erotic transference are not interpreted. Lateral transferences are not interpreted (as in work with neurotics) as resistance to analysis.

Psyche and soma are communicating vessels (Jacques Andre). The healthier and more active the psyche, the more protected the body.

Perception (the work of all senses, the perception-consciousness system) and representation (the work of the mental apparatus, preconsciousness).

Somatization is a primitive, pre-verbal way of expression and communication (Joyce McDougall), “when psychesomas that are still divided among themselves are forced to appeal to another through anorexia, mericism, colitis, colic, eczema, asthma...”

Prelude (K. Smadja) somatization. The phenomenon of erasing mental products. The concept of negative [decrease (example: low mood, slow speech, movements - depressive triad), up to complete erasure of function - abulia, apathy] and positive [increase in functions (example - manic triad: increased mood, accelerated speech/thinking, movements) up to the appearance of neo-products in the form of hallucinations, delusions] psychosymptomatics.

The path of somatization.

Psychosomatic functioning (PSF) and its features: an abundance of negative symptoms and an almost complete absence of positive ones, low oneiric, phantasmatic, symbolizing activity, the predominance of repression/suppression (M. Feng: “suppression is repression for the poor”), inability to grieve (in personal the histories of such patients reveal both old unmourned losses (both object and narcissistic) and unmourned new ones (one should pay attention to the importance of narcissistic losses for such patients), the absence of neurotic defense mechanisms, repression, the inability to hallucinatory fulfillment of desire, to dreams and dreams.Climate speech, devoid of affective coloring.

Phallic narcissism. Hyperactivity without elevated mood, without accelerated speech and thinking.

Deficiency of primary narcissism (due to lack of maternal investment, operational, grieving or large mother), early development of the self, “imperative of conformity” (M. Feng) up to the complete erasure of individual differences, over-adaptation - “normopathy” (Joyce McDougall), complete lack of pretentiousness, theatricality, individuality, correctness, conformity “there is no place for sin here” (K. Smadzha).

Operational thinking (OM): interest in the present, clinging to reality, perception (perception instead of representation), speech duplicating behavior, predominance of the factual, affective scarcity, weak mentalization (the ability to associative thinking, symbolization, to form representations) up to dementalization ( degradation of representations to the original perceptions from which they were created, inability to form representations, to associative thinking).

Essential depression, or WITHOUT-object, or more precisely, PRE-object depression. [The personal history of the patients reveals] anaclitic depression by R. Spitz, “dead mother complex (physically present but emotionally absent mother, suddenly plunged into grief due to the death of a loved one, miscarriage) by A. Green.

[Benign, transient] somatic regression leads to mild diseases that disappear without treatment and [malignant, often fatal] progressive disorganization, beginning with disorganization of the psyche, then the soma, leads to the appearance of severe diseases that are difficult to treat, often with rapid fatal outcome in the shortest possible time. The reason lies in the unleashing of drives.

Reduced circulation between the mental authorities of the first topic (between sz, psz and bsz): “The unconscious accepts, but does not give out” (P. Marti). The presence of a low-dynamic psz and quasi-paralyzed psz (new representations do not appear, and old ones cannot be united due to libidinal leakage. Normally, libido is the energy thanks to which representations move within the psz).

Psychosomatic paradox (K. Smadja). Patients who learn of an incurable disease paradoxically experience a narcissistic high. This is partly explained by the presence of moral masochism with its characteristic insubstantial sense of guilt, requiring punishment and maintaining a certain level of suffering. Most often - the presence of essential depression (ED). It is noteworthy that ED, which patients almost do not feel, but say: “everything is good, but there is no strength,” “nothing happened, everything is fine, but I can’t do anything,” “the mood is good, there are a lot of plans, there is a desire, but I have no strength,” [ED] disappears after the onset of the disease (it should be noted that it does not last long). Patients generally feel much better and have more strength.

Illness as an object for reorganization. The b-n is the object around which patients reorganize. The medical staff performs a “maternal function” (P. Marti) and provides narcissistic feed to the patient.

Secondary hysterization (K. Smadja, J. Schweck), the “meaning” of somatization found or imposed [by the analyst on the patient]?

Laura Fusu

Dr. Gérard Szwec - psychiatrist, IPA training analyst, titular member of the SPP, president of the IPSO (Paris Institute of Psychosomatics), medical director of the Psychosomatic Children and Adolescent Center. Leon Kreisler, co-founder and director of the French Journal of Psychosomatics. A prominent representative of the French psychoanalytic school.

Claude Smadja - psychiatrist, doctor of medicine, psychoanalyst, training analyst, titular member of the Paris Psychoanalytic Society, member of the International Psychoanalytic Association, chief physician of the Institute of Psychosomatics in Paris, chairman of the International Association of Psychosomatics. Piera Marty, founder and former editor-in-chief of the newspaper Revue Française de psychosomatic, laureate of the Maurice Bouvet Prize.

Without exaggeration, we can say that the Austrian psychologist and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) is one of those scientists who largely influenced the entire further development of modern psychology.

No psychological movement has become as widely known outside of this science as Freudianism. This is explained by the influence of his ideas on art, literature, medicine, anthropology and other branches of science related to man.

S. Freud called his teaching psychoanalysis - after the method he developed for diagnosing and treating neuroses.

Freud first spoke about psychoanalysis in 1896, and a year later he began to conduct systematic self-observations, which he recorded in diaries for the rest of his life. In 1900, his book “The Interpretation of Dreams” appeared, in which he first published the most important provisions of his concept, supplemented in the next book “The Psychopathology of Everyday Life”. Gradually his ideas gained recognition. In 1910, he was invited to give lectures in America, where his theory gained particular popularity. His works are translated into many languages. A circle of admirers and followers is gradually forming around Freud. After the organization of the psychoanalytic society in Vienna, its branches opened all over the world, and the psychoanalytic movement expanded. At the same time, Freud becomes more and more dogmatic in his views, does not tolerate the slightest deviation from his concept, suppressing all attempts to independently develop and analyze certain provisions of psychotherapy or personality structure made by his students. This leads to a break with Freud among his most talented followers.

The fact that Freud's thought was governed by the general logic of transformation of scientific knowledge about the psyche is evidenced by a comparison of the path by which he came to the concept of the unconscious psyche with the paths of creativity of other naturalists. Rejecting the alternative - either physiology or psychology of consciousness, they discovered special psychodeterminants that were not identical either to neurodeterminants or to the phenomena of consciousness devoid of real causal significance, understood as a closed incorporeal “field” of the subject. In this general progress of scientific knowledge of the psyche, an important role, along with Helmholtz, Darwin, and Sechenov, belongs to Freud.

Freud's merit lies in the introduction into scientific circulation of various hypotheses, models and concepts covering the vast unknown area of ​​unconscious mental life. In his research, Freud developed a number of concepts that captured the real uniqueness of the psyche and therefore firmly entered the arsenal of modern scientific knowledge about it. These include, in particular, the concepts of defense mechanisms, frustration, identification, repression, fixation, regression, free associations, the strength of the self, etc.

Freud brought to the fore vital questions that never ceased to worry people - about the complexity of a person’s inner world, about the mental conflicts he experiences, about the consequences of unsatisfied instincts, about the contradictions between “desired” and “ought.” The vitality and practical importance of these issues contrasted favorably with the abstractness and dryness of academic, “university” psychology. This determined the enormous resonance that Freud’s teachings received both in psychology itself and far beyond its borders.

At the same time, the socio-ideological atmosphere in which he worked left an indelible stamp on the interpretation of the problems, models and concepts he put forward.

Freud's views can be divided into three areas: the method of treating functional mental illness, the theory of personality, and the theory of society. At the same time, the core of the entire system is his views on the development and structure of personality. Freud identified several defense mechanisms, the main ones being repression, regression, rationalization, projection and sublimation. The most effective mechanism is what Freud called sublimation. It helps to direct the energy associated with sexual or aggressive aspirations in a different direction and to realize it, in particular, in artistic activity. In principle, Freud considered culture a product of sublimation and from this point of view he considered works of art and scientific discoveries. This path is the most successful because it involves the complete realization of accumulated energy, catharsis, or cleansing, of a person.

Libizous energy, which is associated with the instinct of life, is also the basis for the development of personality and character. Freud said that in the process of life a person goes through several stages that differ from each other in the way they fix libido, in the way they satisfy the life instinct. In this case, it is important how exactly the fixation occurs and whether the person needs foreign objects. Based on this, Freud identified three large stages.

Freud considered libidinal energy to be the basis for the development of not only the individual, but also human society. He wrote that the leader of the tribe is a kind of father of the clan, towards whom men experience an Oedipus complex, trying to take his place. However, with the murder of the leader, enmity, blood and civil strife come to the tribe, and such negative experience leads to the creation of the first laws that begin to regulate human social behavior. Later, Freud's followers created a system of ethnopsychological concepts that explained the peculiarities of the psyche of various peoples by the methods of the origin of the main stages in the development of libido.

The most important place in Freud's theory was occupied by his method - psychoanalysis, to explain the work of which the rest of his theory was actually created. In his psychotherapy, Freud proceeded from the fact that the doctor takes the place of a parent in the patient’s eyes, whose dominant position the patient unconditionally recognizes. In this case, a channel is established through which an unhindered exchange of energy occurs between the therapist and the patient, that is, a transfer appears. Thanks to this, the therapist not only penetrates into the unconscious of his patient, but also instills in him certain principles, first of all, his understanding, his analysis of the causes of his neurotic state. This analysis occurs on the basis of a symbolic interpretation of the patient’s associations, dreams and mistakes, that is, traces of his repressed drive. The doctor not only shares his observations with the patient, but also instills in him his interpretation, which the patient uncritically understands. This suggestion, according to Freud, provides catharsis: taking the position of a doctor, the patient seems to become aware of his unconscious and frees himself from it. Since the basis of such recovery is related to suggestion, this therapy has been called directive - in contrast to one that is based on an equal relationship between the patient and the doctor.

Although not all aspects of Freud's theory have received scientific recognition, and many of his provisions today seem to belong more to history than to modern psychological science, it is impossible not to recognize that his ideas had a positive influence on the development of world culture - not only psychology, but also art, medicine, sociology. Freud discovered a whole world that lies beyond our consciousness, and this is his great service to humanity.

Not a single movement in the history of psychology has caused such mutually exclusive judgments and assessments as Freudianism. The ideas of psychoanalysis, according to the testimony of many writers, have penetrated so deeply into the “blood” of Western culture that many of its representatives find it much easier to think about them than to ignore them. However, in many countries psychoanalysis is subject to sharp criticism.