CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL DETERMINATION OF EXPERIENCE

Exploring in the previous chapter the features of different life worlds, we, for the sake of rigor and purity of analysis, were forced to abstract ourselves from the specific diversity of the content of these worlds. For this reason, the experiences identified as a result of the pattern are of a non-historical, formally psychological nature. Knowledge of this kind of patterns allows us to describe and explain the course of the processes of experience, but they are completely insufficient for understanding the specific content of the experience of a particular person living in a certain historical era and in a particular cultural environment. Therefore, a typological analysis of the experience must be complemented by a cultural-historical analysis aimed at identifying its specific historical, substantive patterns.

It must be said that such an orientation in the study of experience is not something new for the activity approach in psychology: 40 years ago, under the direct influence of the ideas of L. S. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leont'ev and A. R. Luria (90, p. 538) set the task "to consider complex human experiences as a product of historical development ..."

In fact, in every human experience it is not difficult to discover its cultural-historical mediation. Why, say, in the example mentioned more than once about the prisoners of Shlisselburg fortress (86), the situation of forced physical labor turned out to be intolerable for them and became psychologically acceptable only as a result of an experience that internally restructured the motivation of this alienated, forced activity so that, remaining the same its operational structure, it transformed into a psychologically completely different - free and arbitrary activity? That is, why is the free form of activity in this case psychologically more acceptable and the experience tends to depict any other form of activity as (or transform into) free? It is necessary to think that for the ancient slave, for example, a similar situation would not require any experience at all, but not, of course, because he was simply used to obeying, because this fact of habit requires its explanation. The slave could come to terms with his life position (even if he was born free, and only then became a slave), because in his mind there were objective and “schematicisms” that grew up on the basis of the slave-owning formations that were directly phenomenological for him. ), according to which the slave was "only an inanimate thing (in Roman law the slave is called res," the thing ") or, in extreme cases, a domestic animal" (96, p.34). It is extremely important for us that it is not only that the slave-owning type of society objectively and “requires the presence of a slave, that is, a person understood and acting as a thing” (ibid, p.53), but also the absence "in the very man of consciousness that he is a man, and not a thing" (ibid.), about the absence in antiquity of "the very experience of the human person" (ibid, p.52).

And completely different schematisms determine the consciousness and self-consciousness of a person of modern European culture. In the experience of the revolutionaries, prisoners of the Shlisselburg fortress, the central of these schematisms, which can be called the "Personality", was perhaps manifested. In the field of action of this schematism, such characteristics of human life as consciousness, arbitrariness, initiative, responsibility, etc., in a word, freedom, receive the highest value. To the extent of the real psychological involvement of a person in a given cultural institution, the listed characteristics of activity are for him actually tense and vital requirements, and experience, if possible, seeks to restructure or re-formulate and rethink the situation so that it responds to them. In other words, a certain substantive orientation of the process of experiencing is by no means naturally inherent in the human psyche in general. Primitive man, for example, will not come up with the question of whether he personally is responsible for failing to hunt or not. The blame is placed on witchcraft, damage, evil influence, from which he is protected by magical procedures (82), thus experiencing this situation completely differently than it would be experienced by a modern European.

However, to state the historicity of the processes of experience is half the battle. In fact, the psychological formulation of the problem consists in applying to the analysis of the experience a general scheme of the socio-historical determination of the psyche, already tested by L. S. Vygotsky and his students on a variety of psychological material (49; 50; 84; 87; 98; etc.) , namely, to understand the experience as a process mediated by "psychological tools" (50), which are artificial, social in nature education (ibid., p. 224), mastered and internalized by the subject in the course of communication with other people.

The implementation of the cultural-historical approach to the study of experience involves the analysis of three interrelated questions: what are the specific cultural means of experiencing? What are the features of their mastering process? and, finally, what is the nature of the participation of other people in this development and in the experience of the individual?

Neither the erudition of the author, nor the scope of this work does not allow to give exhaustive answers to these questions. Their detailed study is a subject of special research. Now we, outlining the perspective of these studies, see our task in first, on the basis of the general ideas of the cultural-historical approach, put forward at least the most schematic representations that could serve as primary orienting hypotheses for studying this problem, and then illustrate these ideas. the data of a specially analyzed analysis of a particular case of experience, in which the cultural-historical mediation of this process was manifested especially vividly.

What are the specific cultural means of experiencing? It is logical to assume that in one way or another the historically accumulated experience of experiencing typical life situations should be concentrated in them, that, referring only to one type of these situations, each of them must have sufficient substantive certainty and at the same time being potentially applicable to the life of any individual, i.e. generally, it should be very formal. Further, in accordance with the general concepts of the cultural-historical approach in mediating the mental process (and experience including) sign formations, the individual finds not just an “instrument” or a means, quantitatively increasing its capabilities, but also a formative structure, the introduction of which qualitatively rearranges the entire process .

All these features are answered by well-known (but, by the way, poorly known, bearing in mind the distance between the known and the known, which Hegel spoke of) to the majority of the humanities, special substantive schemes, an idea of ​​which exists, it seems, since philosophy exists. . [ 63 ]

Connecting to this or that cultural “schematism of consciousness” (if we use the term of famous Soviet philosophers (102)), individual consciousness begins to obey its particular “form-building patterns” (6). These schematisms are capable of serving as a form of reflection and rethinking by a person of events and circumstances of his life, and hence, a culturally-given form of individual experience.

As for the question of mastering schematism, this process is very different from the process of intellectual mastering. Although schematism is, from a certain point of view, a system of meanings, it cannot be learned as a system of scientific knowledge, for schematism is always symbolically saturated and, like any symbol, it is characterized by "semantic depth , semantic perspective , requiring a difficult entry into yourself" (5, p. .826), and the occurrence is not only the mind, but the whole life. “Entering” into schematism is possible only by reaching a certain state of consciousness corresponding to the structure of this schematism. [ 64 ]

The following analysis of the particular case of experiencing allows one to suggest that the experience can be carried out by “joining” schematism. The same analysis shows that “entering” into schematism is not a one-act process, but consisting of many stages. Moreover, the first "occurrences" are accidental and fleeting in nature, consciousness as it falls into schematism due to the fact that certain actions of the subject and the life situations in which he finds himself objectively adjust his consciousness in accordance with schematism. But in order to firmly “enter” into schematism and in order to survive the crisis, it is necessary not only the corresponding tuning of consciousness, but its deep restructuring.

This complex operation on his personality cannot be performed individually. The Other is absolutely necessary in it. And, apparently, not just any Other, but only a person whose image is for the experiencing living embodiment of the world outlook, corresponding to the schematism into which he is to "enter." The role of the Other in experiencing is especially clearly seen in a historical perspective. If a person belonging to modern urban culture, experiencing, for example, the death of a loved one, often seeks for solitude (155; 217) and sometimes perceives collective acts of burial and commemoration of the deceased simply as a tribute to tradition, custom, which has absolutely no relation to his intimate loss. , then in cultures, the essential moment of the reproduction of which is “the constant functioning and transmission of ritual and mythological practice, the performance of the burial rite (80; 134) and, therefore, the connection to the corresponding Strictly speaking, symbolism is, in fact, the very act of making an experience (cf. 101, p. 135). All the important, turning, turning points of human life are always towards their collective acceptance and experience. From this point of view, a widespread field of activity in the psychological study of rituals associated with birth, death, initiation, marriage, etc. (38; 127; 134; 143, etc.).

It must be emphasized that all these provisions are entirely preliminary.

Starting now to analyze a particular case of experience, namely, the experience of Rodion Raskolnikov of his crime, we along with the main goal - to illustrate and specify these provisions - we hope to illustrate a whole range of other provisions put forward in previous parts of the work. But before that, one reservation must be made due to the fact that the object of our analysis is not a real person, but a literary character. What evidence have the data of such an analysis? Can he, in principle, count on identifying real psychological patterns, for example, by virtue of the realism of the image? Can we hope that the writer, without going beyond the limits of psychological certainty in depicting actions and experiences, does not distort the psychological laws anywhere, i.e. that everything described by him is possible in principle and how is psychological reality? Are we engaged in exploring the psychological laws of the behavior of characters, the reconstruction of reality, or just the reconstruction of the artist's hidden concept, his opinions about this reality? (Although it’s so little is “only”, especially when it comes to Dostoevsky?) Or maybe trying to study the psychology of real people in general by analyzing the products of poetic fiction is as meaningless as studying the hydrology of the sea through marine painting?

We leave all these questions open and at our own risk undertake a study of Raskolnikov's experience as if we are dealing with a real person, a certain period of life of which is conscientiously described by the writer.

* * *

It is quite clear that it is necessary to begin research with an understanding of the sources and ways of the emergence of the psychological situation of the “impossibility” that created the need for this experience.

"The feeling of being open and disconnected with humanity" (64, p. 684), which had grown in Raskolnikov long before the crime, is the main inner root of his crime and at the same time a common life problem facing him. On the front pages of "Crime and Punishment" we find the already far-gone process of "isolating the hero, breaking all communication ties that united him with other people: Raskolnikov" ran away from any society ", he developed a" habit of monologues "," with his former comrades now he didn’t like to meet at all. "Although he occasionally still has" some kind of people's thirst, "however, it hardly comes to real contact, Raskolnikov feels" an unpleasant and irritable feeling of disgust for any alien person who touched or wanted only touch his personality. "

The conflict between the tendency to “be out” of people and the opposing, although very weakened, tendency to “be with” resulted in a compromise setting “to be over people”, which exactly corresponded to the balance of forces of these aspirations: after all, although “over” is partly and "together with", but still to a much greater extent "outside." This compromise found its immediate psychological expression in Raskolnikov's heightened pride, and his pithy ideological embodiment embodied in his “theory” of two categories of people. Such was the psychological ground on which the idea of ​​a crime could “take”: pride promised to ensure psychological tolerance of a crime, “theory” - its ethical justification, and the realization of a crime, in turn, looked like proof of the “theory” and certification of the superhuman (54; 59) "rights" of its author, his affiliation to the highest class of people. And already in another, more grounded, plan, the crime seemed to allow both external, material difficulties, and internal problems associated with them, first of all - the reluctance to accept Dunechka's victim, who agreed for the sake of her brother to marry Luzhin.

Leaving aside a detailed analysis of the psychological transition of the "idea" to the "business" (phases of this transition: from the abstract "theory" to the "dream", then to the specifically planned "enterprise", then to the "trial" and, finally, to the actual crime), we note only that this process was accompanied by the hero's agonizing moral struggle with his "damn dream." The closer she came to the "case", the more the final decision of the hero became, "the uglier and more absurd it became in his eyes," the stronger, it means internal resistance to the "idea" from the side of conscience, just as more and more increases the resistance of the spring as it is compressed. This internal dispute was never fundamentally resolved by the consciousness in favor of the crime (it’s enough to remember the state of stupefaction and loss of will Raskolnikov was before the murder, and especially on the way to the house of the old woman, the moneymaker, to understand that it was not a result of a conscious and arbitrary decision ), and even the crime itself not only did not allow it, but the brute force of the accomplished fact only fixed in his soul this spring of moral struggle, compressed to capacity, stopping its fluctuations in the most unbearable field intensity condition.

If before the crime, Raskolnikov was forced to build, life and socializing, "beating" the idea of ​​the crime, the opinion of him and his possible ethical justification and psychological tolerance, now he was burdened by the fact of the murder. From the content of consciousness, from the realization of which it was possible to give up and with which it was possible to argue, it has sprouted into the content of being, with which it is impossible to argue anymore and cannot be removed from life. But to take it into life, as shown by the very first psychological reactions to this fact, is also impossible. Raskolnikov's Theory, which claimed to ensure its acceptance, to make the crime meaning, immediately discovered its complete psychological inconsistency. This “theory”, which substantiated the idea of ​​a crime, being abstracted from the significant layers of the personality of its author and performer, turned out to be unequal to its “practice”: it was broken by a real act that embodied the idea and thereby sensually confronted it with the hero’s entire personality debunked (not at the level of rational consciousness, but at the level of "nature", as Porfiry Petrovich said) claims of the theory, more precisely, the "Napoleon" ideal arising from it, for the role of internally organizing and lnyayuschego "personality start. And since the integrity of the personality is not, generally speaking, a given unity, but a given unity, actively created by the person himself, the loss of the unifying principle allows access to the processes of disintegration and disintegration of the personality and its life.

Raskolnikov felt "in himself a terrible mess." Обрывается временная преемственность сознания: он понял, что не может "о том же самом мыслить теперь, как и прежде, и такими же прежними темами интересоваться, какими интересовался... еще так недавно... В какой-то глубине, внизу, где-то чуть видно под ногами, показалось ему теперь все это прежнее прошлое, и прежние задачи, и прежние темы, и прежние впечатления... и сам он, и все, все..." Нарушается общение с самим собой, с людьми, с миром: "Он как будто ножницами отрезал себя сам от всех и всего..." [ 65 ]

С этого момента начинается переживание героя. В условиях отсутствия новой ценностной системы, на основе которой можно было бы перестроить личность в целом и тем разрешить неразрешимые в наличном жизненном мире внутренние конфликты, сознание, стремясь предотвратить окончательную деструкцию личности, вынуждено прибегнуть к защитным механизмам. Однако психологическая защита хотя и устремлена к достижению некоторого единства, но, подчиняясь, как мы уже знаем, "инфантильной" установке, пытается бороться против сложности не преодолением и разрешением ее, а ее иллюзорным упрощением и устранением. Нечувствительная к целостной психологической ситуации; она действует негибкими средствами, отрицательные последствия применения которых перевешивают его положительные эффекты. Конкретно, в случае Раскольникова, попытки защитного переживания основного конфликта не только не разрешают его позитивно, но, втягивая в зону его действия все новые и новые отношения, порождают целую сеть производных конфликтов, заражая в конце концов весь душевный организм.

Проследим вкратце ход образования этой сети. До преступления центральный конфликт – между идеей преступления и совестью – постоянно пульсировал в сознании, это была непрекращающаяся внутренняя борьба, которая велась всему средствами сознания – рациональными, бессознательными (первое сновидение Раскольникова), эмоциональными. Эмоциональная динамика этого конфликта выражалась в возрастании у героя чувства отвращения к "идее" и к себе как ее носителю по мере принятия все более окончательных решений, т.е. по мере приближения "идеи" к "делу", и в появлении чувства облегчения по мере удаления ее от "дела", отречения от "проклятой мечты". Когда же преступление было совершено, чувство отвращения к самому себе достигло таких угрожающих размеров, стало настолько невыносимым, что возникла необходимость избавиться от него или по крайней мере как-то трансформировать его. Сознание избирает путь защитного проецирования этого чувства на внешний мир. Причем отвращение к объектам внешнего мира распределяется явно неравномерно. Это объясняется тем, что защитный эффект процесса проецирования, как легко понять, тем значительнее, чем больше он снижает напряжение конфликта, ослабляя тот или другой его полюс; а так как идея преступления (один полюс конфликта) "затвердела" в необратимый факт реального убийства и не могла быть уже поколеблена никакой эмоцией, то мишенью защитного процесса становятся моменты опыта, стоящие на стороне второго полюса конфликта, на стороне совести. Это выражается прежде всего в том, что для Раскольникова становится невыносимым общение с близкими ему людьми – матерью, сестрой, Разумихиным, поскольку все их действия и разговоры обращаются к стоящей в противоречии с идеей преступления части его души, самим этим актом живого человеческого обращения питая и усиливая ее, а следовательно, усиливая и внутренний конфликт и его эмоциональное выражение – отвращение и ненависть к самому себе. Защитное проецирование этих эмоций, в результате которого Раскольников начинает ощущать "физическую ненависть", к близким, таким образом, не просто отводит их острие в сторону, но направляет их против порождающей их же причины.

Однако о достижении какого-либо устойчивого равновесия не может быть и речи, поскольку возникшее чувство ненависти к близким, ослабляя один конфликт, порождает новый – оно вступает в противоречие с любовью к ним. Ненависть не дает любить и выражать любовь, любовь препятствует ненависти и ее выражению. Выход у сознания один – не чувствовать и не выражать ни того, ни другого, отстраниться от близких. Это отчуждение осознается героем в квазипространственной форме: "Все-то кругом точно не здесь делается... – говорит Раскольников матери, сестре и Разумихину, – вот и вас... точно из-за тысячи верст на вас смотрю".

Такое "решение" очередного частного внутреннего противоречия в масштабе всей системы сознания оказывается "невыгодным", поскольку отчуждение усиливает старый изначальный конфликт между исконной потребностью в людях, стремлением к ним и отгороженностью, отъединенностью от людей. Таким образом упрочивается замыкание психологического мира Раскольникова, затрудняющее глубокое человеческое, общение, которое одно и способно разорвать круги индивидуально неразрешимых внутренних конфликтов. Напряженный моральный диалог, столкнувший совесть и преступление, – этот стержень внутренней жизни героя оказывается закрытым для всякого слова, взгляда, вмешательства Другого: доступ к одному его полюсу – совести – был прегражден только что описанным механизмом отчуждения, второй – преступление – был закрыт для общения просто в силу своего содержания, предполагающего в социальном контексте тайность. [ 66 ]

Казалось бы чисто внешний факт утаивания на деле отнюдь не безразличен и не безопасен для личности. "Во всем тайном, темном, мистическом, поскольку оно может оказывать определяющее влияние на личность, Достоевский усматривал насилие, разрушающее личность"(23, с.323). Утаивание преступления заряжает и без того сложную картину внутренних конфликтов Раскольникова еще одной парой противоположных сил. Одна из них отталкивает его от близкого, глубокого общения (чтобы сохранить тайну), другая подвигает его к "публикации" тайны (чтобы обеспечить возможность общения). Это противоречие, как и в предыдущих случаях, разрешается некоторыми компромиссными формами: во-первых, тягой к общению с незнакомыми или малознакомыми людьми, во-вторых, косвенными "публикациями" тайны. Раскольников болезненно стремится ко всякой беседе, в которой возможно хоть косвенное, непрямое обсуждение его преступления (наиболее показателен в этом отношении разговор с Заметовым в трактире).

Мы видим, что всякая попытка решения любого из конфликтов в конечном счете ухудшала общее положение дел, давая росток нового конфликта, так что в итоге образовалась многократно переплетенная конфликтная сеть, движение сознания в которой только наводило дополнительное напряжение ее, усиливая страдания героя и все дальше отодвигая реальный выход, действительное разрешение ситуации. В плоскости этой сети выхода не было, жизненная задача была неразрешимой. Для того чтобы решить эту жизненную апорию, пережить создавшуюся психологическую ситуацию, необходимо было разомкнуть ее в какое-то другое измерение, вырваться из порочного круга внутренних конфликтов.

Среди жизненных движений героя мы обнаруживаем особый ряд действий и ситуаций, которые хотя бы на минуту излечивают его, зажигают в нем утраченный смысл существования. Это акты служения людям. Самым знаменательным из них была помощь семье умершего Мармеладова. Отдав все свои деньги и обещав назавтра зайти, Раскольников, уходя, ощутил себя полным "одного, нового, необъятного ощущения вдруг прихлынувшей полной и могучей жизни. Это ощущение могло походить на ощущение приговоренного к смертной казни, которому вдруг и неожиданно объявляют прощение". Но почему именно эти акты оказываются целительными для души Раскольникова? Потому, очевидно, что они по своему смыслу и объективным психологическим следствиям противостоят преступлению и шире – всему психологическому миру, в который он был помещен преступлением. Конкретно: убийству и грабежу противостоит нечто прямо противоположное – милосердие и милостыня. В одном случае – корыстное отнятие, в другом – бескорыстный дар. В одном случае другой человек – средство, в другом – цель. В первом случае единственная безусловная ценность, и вообще подлинная реальность – это Я сам: Я утверждает ее вне отношения к Другому, отъединяет себя от всего и всех; во втором ценностный акцент перенесен на Другого. Эмоциональный строй первого действия – злоба, ненависть и пр., второго – любовь. Такова противоположность внутреннего смыслового состава этих действий. Не менее важна и противоположность их последствий. Преступление, объективно отъединяя преступника от людей, еще и утаивается им и поэтому связано со стремлением еще более отгородиться, замкнуться (Раскольников не раз выражает желание остаться один); дар, наоборот, открывает человека навстречу Другому, вызывает благодарность с его стороны, а любовь и благодарность со стороны Другого и их внешние выражения – объятие и поцелуй, есть то, что извне оцельняет, ценностно утверждает Я, придает ему действительность и жизнь (ср.: 23, с.39). Поленька, догнав Раскольникова, обнимает его и обещает молиться о нем. "Через пять минут он стоял на мосту ровно на том самом месте, с которого давеча бросилась женщина. "Довольно! – произнес он решительно и торжественно, – прочь миражи, прочь напускные страхи, прочь привидения!... Есть жизнь!"

Service to people thus leads to the affirmation of life, from the death sensation that prevailed in Raskolnikov's mind after the crime (suicidal intentions, identifying his room with the coffin, etc.) to experience * the fullness and value of life, or, in other words, we have here a transition from a situation of psychological impossibility of life to a situation of its possibility. In a more pure form, this transition manifested itself before the scene with Polenka. After one of the acts of service, Raskolnikov suddenly remembers reading somewhere, "as one sentenced to death, an hour before his death, he says or thinks that if he had to live somewhere on high, on a rock, and on such a narrow so that only two legs could be put - and abyss, the ocean, eternal darkness, eternal solitude and eternal storm all around - and stay like that, standing on the arshin of space, all life, a thousand years, eternity - it’s better to live like that , what to die now! If only to live, live and live! No matter how you live, only live! ... What a pro Avda! Lord, what a truth! "

However, the thirst for life, which is resurgent in service to people, is a feeling of the possibility of life, “will and power” - not the end of an experience, but only the beginning of it. This is only a general basis, without which there can be no further movement, but the very desire to live does not contain answers to the questions of how to live, for what, what, there are no meaningful solutions to internal problems, there is no overcoming of those reasons that decomposed life from within. , deprived of its integrity and meaningfulness, made impossible. In Raskolnikov's tested sense of rebirth, there is no guarantee of its own continuation in itself; they must be created by a meaningful reworking of consciousness and life, and first of all those life events and relationships that led to the disorder of life. At the beginning, this processing obeys our hero's principle of reality and consists in trying to accept what happened in his life as it is: "... There is life! Have I not lived now? My life has not died yet with the old woman! Kingdom heavenly and - pretty, mother, it's time for peace! ". Dominance in the consciousness of the principle of reality is clearly expressed in nothing, as in the cult of force: "The kingdom of reason and light is now and ... will and power ... and we will see now, we measure now!" He added arrogantly. " And further: "Strength, strength is needed: you will not take anything without power, but force must be obtained by force ..."

Such a “realistic” processing of events does not catch up with the overcoming of “openness and disunity with humanity” begun by acts of service of Raskolnikov, and even acts in the opposite direction, causing a tide of “pride and self-confidence” in it, reaffirming in his mind the setting “to be above people”, fencing off him from the people and closing his psychological world.

In addition to acts of service, two more series of actions in the behavior of Raskolnikov are objectively aimed at overcoming his “disconnection with humanity” - these are the already mentioned indirect “publications” of secrets and impulsive communication with strangers. They also evoke in him positive emotional states, which, however, unlike the joyful and even blissful mood following the ministry, are painful (for example, after talking with Zametov in the Crystal Palace, ”he went out trembling from some a wild hysterical sensation, in which meanwhile there was a part of unbearable pleasure ... ").

The reason for this pain is that these acts are not inherent in a radical reorientation of consciousness (namely, transferring the center of gravity of values ​​to the Other), and therefore, solving some private conflicts of the hero, do not translate it into a new psychological world in which it is even for a minute it is introduced by acts of service, but only touches this world in order to immediately return Raskolnikov's consciousness to the old state, heaping up additional mental complications.

But if we leave aside the differences between the inner content and the consequences of the “publication” of secrecy and impulsive communication, on the one hand, and mercy, on the other, we can say that all these actions were significant for the life process character: do not be them, albeit in small degree and for a short time to alleviate the mental suffering and humble the internal contradictions of the hero, they could cause irreversible changes in consciousness and psyche. And at the same time these actions were of a significant nature, they hinted, each for their part, at some one, not yet identified by the hero, way out of the life situation that had been created, at the way in which these actions would be present, transformed as part of the new holistic form that synthesizes them . (These were, as it were, components of the medicine, which perhaps could have had a slight positive effect, however, at the price of equally strong negative "side effects", but only together acquired the quality of the healing substance.)

This form was a "content-time series" (22): wine-repentance-redemption-bliss. For Raskolnikov to enter and pass through this series was a means of building and affirming that healing psychological world to which he was able to connect for an instant, almost accidentally groping for special actions in resolving the crisis of life, which served as unique symbolic entries into this world .

However, it is one thing to sometimes “fall” into it and quite another to “settle down” in it; for this, it is necessary to correctly recognize, internally accept and extend the new value system for all of their lives. She objectively actualized the above-mentioned actions (acts of service) in Raskolnikov's mind (but, incidentally, was not subjectively recognized as such), it also underlies the above mentioned time-series.

But what does it mean to adopt a new value system? This means first of all abandoning the old, i.e. give up what I have identified myself, i.e. give up on yourself. But this cannot be done by oneself, individually, as it is impossible to lift oneself by the hair; for this, another is fundamentally necessary on whom one could lean. And to rely unconditionally, fully rely on him and trust him. This Other for Raskolnikov was Sonya Marmeladova.

Her image initially confronts Raskolnikov with a crime and an ideology corresponding to him ("I chose you long ago to tell you this, even when my father spoke about you and when Lizaveta was alive ..."); she is a living embodiment of a world view and attitude, directly opposite to the one in which he was immersed. Rapprochement with Sonya is the beginning of entering a new world for Raskolnikov, about which he receives emotional “prediction” twice - first he experienced a feeling of rebirth after the mentioned act of mercy towards Sonya’s family, and then immediately after recognizing her when Sonya "embraced him and squeezed her hands tightly", "a feeling unfamiliar to him long ago has swept over his soul in a wave and at once softened it." This blissful feeling belongs to the new structure of consciousness. In other words, although the given schematization “guilt-repentance-redemption-bliss” is extended in a content-time series, this does not mean that the subsequent elements of the series appear in the consciousness only after passing through the preceding stages. They psychologically echo and are present in the mind all together, like a gestalt, but with a different degree of manifestation in different phases of the passage of a series. Bliss is already given at the beginning of the redemptive path, as it were, with the emotional-semantic advance necessary to overcome it.

In love, Sonya Raskolnikov gets a reliable foothold, with which you can, so to speak, produce work on the value restructuring of your consciousness. First of all, he needed to rethink his crime from the position of the new value system. Confession of a crime is only the first, external step of such a rethinking. It is followed by repentance, the psychological meaning of which is to penetrate into the motives of your act, to find its roots and origins. Carried out individually, this process can be arbitrarily deep, but inside it does not contain any criteria of truth, does not know which of the possible interpretations to stop, threatens to go into the bad infinity of continuous reflexive references, and only in the dialogical form of confession can it be positive completed. Raskolnikov lays out to the Sony court several psychologically accurate explanations of his crime, which she (and he himself) nevertheless rejects, until it comes to realizing by the hero that he “only wanted to dare”:

"Not to help my mother, I killed - nonsense! I did not kill for that, to receive money and power, to become a benefactor of mankind ... And not money, most importantly, I needed, Sonya, when I killed. .. I had to find out then, and quickly find out if I louse like everyone else, or a person? Will I be able to cross or not! Will I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I trembling or do I have the right ... "

But why exactly this “dare” he wanted “with Sonya's cry (“ Oh, be silent, be silent ... You moved away from God, and God struck you, betrayed the devil! ... ”) is recognized as the last and last explanation? Because“ further there is no place ", because in this explanation the most terrible thing from the point of view of the Christian consciousness -" pride "is the beginning and the source of all sin.

As a result of the confession, the hero accepts (though not definitively) Sonino’s attitude to the crime, thereby entering into schematism no longer from the side of bliss, but from the side of guilt and at the same time separating himself from the crime, disagreeing with him ("... the old woman killed this devil , not me"). Not only the murder itself, but also its origins and consequences — the desire to “be above and beyond people”, the prevailing sense of death, disintegration of personality, isolation and secrecy — all of this is implicit in the religious concept of sinfulness. What is the significance of the awareness of "sinfulness" from a psychological point of view? The fact of the murder was meaningless for Raskolnikov, there was no way out of him. From recognizing him as a crime, there was a way to confessing a crime and accepting social punishment. Awareness of him as "sinful" led to a value condemnation of the act and opened up the meaningful perspective for the hero to overcome his origins and consequences.

Since the psychological ground of "theory" and Raskolnikov's crime was the installation "to be above people" (= "pride"), it was necessary to destroy this installation in order to restore the personality. From this, the vertical orientation of Raskolnikov’s redemptive path from the sublime ascendancy to “above” - “downward”, symbolically expressed in three kisses, becomes clear: first the legs of Sonechka, this very “degraded being”, then the mother’s feet and, finally, the ground Sonya's advice: "Go ..., stand at the crossroads, bow (top - down. - FV ), kiss the ground first, which you have defiled, and then bow to the whole world, on all four sides, and tell everyone aloud : “I killed!” Then God will send you life again ". This is at the same time the ultimate opening of the psychological space - the secret must be "published" on the "square", only from here, from the elements of the national bottom, and a true revival to life is possible. "(24)

As a result of all these actions, Raskolnikov's consciousness manages to occasionally connect to “schematism”, each time penetrating deeper and deeper into it. Subjectively, this penetration is expressed in the "soul-softening" feeling, in anticipation of radical changes in oneself, in clarity, in the enlightenment of consciousness.

However, the old structure of consciousness resists these changes. There is a struggle between two systems of consciousness, the old and the new, for the right to determine the world perception and perception of the hero. At some moments, there is a peculiar diffusion of these systems, when in one thought, statement, mood Raskolnikov coexists and ideologically oppose each other ideas and feelings of both systems. Sometimes there are sharp jumps from one system to another (having felt the "caustic hatred" for Sonya, Raskolnikov realizes in the very next moment that it was love and he simply took one feeling for another). Even in hard labor, which in the new structure should have been thought of as the atonement of guilt through suffering, the struggle of the two structures weakens very slowly. And only at the very end of the novel, when Raskolnikov really fell in love with Sonya, there is a turning point in this struggle, and only then the prehistory ends and the story of a man’s gradual renewal, the story of his gradual rebirth, a gradual transition from one world to another begins ...

* * *

Needless to say, the example of the experience of Raskolnikov, and by virtue of literary convention, and by virtue of being non-typical for contemporary reality, its content cannot be the basis of broad generalizations. However, the well-known material and psychological insight of Dostoevsky make this example a very convenient illustration of many mechanisms of experiencing. Therefore, we found it possible to complete the study with a detailed analysis of this individual case, striving, on the one hand, to leave in the reader’s mind a vivid impression of the entire complexity of the inner dynamics of the experience activity, which cannot be reduced to the automatic activation of “defense mechanisms”, and, on the other hand, to demonstrate that The introduced theoretical tools allow even such a difficult thing for an objective psychological approach, such as religious experience, to be included in the scope of a strictly scientific psychological explanation. tions.