2. THE PROCESS OF EXPERIENCE

If in the previous paragraph the subject of our discussion was a critical situation, i.e. that which precedes the experience, we now have to turn to a review of the ideas about the “future” and “present” of this process. First we will look at future-determination, i.e. the goals and motives of the experience, and then the future is a reality, i.e. his results. The next section is about the "real" experience, the way the implementation itself, the technique, or the "engineering" (130) experience is viewed in the psychological literature. The last of the questions in this section is the problem of classifying experiences.

Target determination of experience
"Success" experiences

Although experience, in whatever form it may appear in different concepts, whether in the form of psychological defense, compensation, or coping, is rarely seen as a process guided by a conscious goal, it is considered by all authors to be subject to target determination in one form or another. The analysis of the literature shows that the target determinants attributed to the processes of experiencing coincide with the basic "internal necessities" of life, which we discovered when discussing the problem of a critical situation:

1. Here-and-now satisfaction.
2. The implementation of the motive (satisfaction).
3. Streamlining the inner world.
4. Self-actualization.

Of course, all these "internal necessities" appear in psychological literature under various names, but, as a rule, the goal of the experiencing process postulated in a particular concept refers to one of the listed "necessities" in a fairly obvious way. For example, behind such goals of defense mechanisms as "avoiding suffering" (189), "eliminating an unpleasant state" (208), denying the "painful elements of experience" (195), the same hedonistic tendency towards -now satisfaction.

To classify and analyze existing views on the target determination of experience, it is useful to introduce the idea that this process generally obeys several of the four determinants mentioned, one of which acts as its final goal, or motive, and others as immediate or intermediate goals. If the general target formula of the experience is depicted as the ratio of immediate (and intermediate) goals to the final, we get a fairly large number of combinatorial possibilities. Consider those of them that are most clearly represented in the literature on the problem of experience.

For Z. Freud, the dominant version of the understanding of psychological protection was that which, according to the proposed scheme, can be designated as 3/1. What is the "denominator" of the target formula of psychological protection, i.e. The ultimate goal of defense processes, Z. Freud considered the "pleasure principle", follows, for example, from the fact that repression (153) is the prototype of all special methods of protection, and "the motive and purpose of any repression is nothing but avoidance of displeasure" ( 190, p. 153). This also follows from the fact that the motives behind the defense processes were considered by Freud to be consequences of cognitive (ideational) and emotional infantilism, and the pleasure principle is decisive for infantilism. As for the "numerator" of the formula, or the immediate goals of protecting the processes, they, according to Z. Freud, most often consist in achieving a coherence of inner peace. Repression is a means of getting rid of the inconsistency that has arisen in the inner (ideational) life, i.e. either incompatibility between I and some experience *, idea or feeling, as Freud considered in the early period of creativity (189), or contradictions between conscious and unconscious, as he considered later, or contradictions between Ono, I, and Super-I, how this idea took shape at the time of writing “I and It” (156). [ 16 ]

The scheme proposed in "I and It" was the basis for the further development of ideas about psychological protection in A. Freud's book "I and the Mechanisms of Protection". I defend myself against instincts and against affects. The motives for protection against affects are determined by the motives for protection against instincts, for affect is one of the representatives of the instinctive process. However, "if I do not have anything against this or that instinct and do not reject the corresponding affect on the basis of its belonging to this instinct, then its attitude to this affect is determined entirely by the pleasure principle: I accept pleasant affects and protect myself against the painful" (188, p.66). This variant of the experience in the notation adopted by us can be written as 1/1, the immediate and final goals of the process here coincide, both of which refer to here-and-now satisfaction.

The situation is more difficult with protection against instincts. In all cases, the defense is triggered by anxiety, but anxiety is anxiety; differences are: I’s fear may be associated with different threats, and accordingly the goals of the defense process will differ. When the so-called “super-I alarm” takes place, I protect myself from instincts not because they contradict his own requirements, but for the sake of maintaining good relations with super-I, to whom these instincts seem unacceptable (ibid., P.58-60 ). The target formula of this type of protection can be represented by the double ratio 3/3/1: the protective process seeks to change the internal connections between the I and the instincts (3) in order to achieve consistency between the I and the super-I (3) and thus avoid displeasure (1 ). With the so-called "objective anxiety", the target organization of protection has a slightly different character - 3/2/1: the main motive is to avoid suffering (1) makes I adapt to the requirements of external reality (2), [ 17 ] and to achieve this, achieve certain internal ratios in particular, restrain instincts (3).

Although many types of psychological defenses, as described by Z. Freud and A. Freud, have other “target formulas”, it can still be argued that the dominant in their understanding of this process is the recognition of hedonistic aspirations as its ultimate goal.

Among researchers of coping behavior, the main goal of co-ownership is to achieve a realistic adaptation of the subject to the environment, allowing him to meet his needs. In terms of the symbolism we adopted, the denominator of the target formula for this type of experience should be entered with the number 2. In this case, the protective mechanisms considered by theorists of coping behavior as a subtype of coping mechanisms belong to option 1/2, which means that the immediate goals of the protective mechanisms are to achieve possible in given conditions of emotional well-being, however, this goal is considered in its relation to the considered more essential goal, adaptation to reality . A function that is attributed from this point of view to defensive processes is to provide time for the preparation of other, more productive coping processes (195; 208, etc.).

Among the mechanisms, the main motive of which is the second of the types of “internal necessities” we have identified, let us point out a fairly common variant, formalized as 3/2: these are mechanisms that are due to internal coordination (what is the specific technique of such coordination - this is discussed ahead) seek permission for the direct or indirect implementation of the psychologically forbidden and therefore intrinsically impossible activity. The mechanisms that, according to psychoanalytic descriptions, contribute to sewage, controlling and controlling impulses (213; 238; 241, etc.) can be counted among them. By the way, they are often contrasted with defensive processes (233, p.28; 238, p.161).

In many descriptions of the processes of experiencing them; the main goal is to achieve consistency and integrity of the inner world, and all other goals are considered as intermediate. According to many authors, defense processes serve precisely the integration of self. The need for self in synthesis, harmony, integrity is often recognized as an independent motive of psychological defense and compensation in psychoanalysis (165; 188; 205). The processes of reducing cognitive dissonance described by L. Festinger (181; 187) also respond to this "inner necessity".

The most common variant of the experience, subordinating to this main motive, corresponds to the 3/3 formula (such is, for example, the suppression in the interpretation of C. Horney: "Providing a dominant position of one tendency due to the suppression of others that disagree with it is an unconscious attempt to organize a person" (205 , p.57)), however, the 4/3 and 2/3 variants are quite conceivable. An example of the first case can serve as processes of self-actualization, considered as a means of resolving internal conflicts between the I-real and the I-ideal. The second case (2/3) can be illustrated by a behavior in which the realization of a seemingly self-contained motive as sexual is actually a means of getting rid of the disintegration of consciousness (76, p. 248).

Variants 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, in which the desire for self-actualization is put in the basis of the experiential process, are clearly reflected in the presentation by Yu. S. Savenko (130) on psychological compensatory mechanisms: whatever the immediate goal of the compensatory process is "achieving inner comfort" (1) or streamlining various motives (3), its ultimate goal is to provide opportunities for self-actualization (4).

These are the main types of target determination of experience.

"Success" experiences

One of the most global distinctions, which is carried out in the analysis of the processes of experience, has a pronounced evaluative character and divides them into “successful” and “unsuccessful”.

Researchers for whom the central categories are “coping” or “compensator”, to refer to “unsuccessful” processes, usually attract the notions of “protection”, leaving behind the second type - “successful” processes - the generic term (130, p.99; 195, c .277-278; 228, pp.12-13; 247, pp.598-599). The authors, who consider the concept of psychological protection as a common category for All experiencing processes, either talk about "successful" and "unsuccessful" defenses, or insist on the need to extend the traditional concept of protection, which seems to them to be associated only with "unsuccessful", negative or pathological processes, so that it includes more efficient, positive, healthy processes (17, p. 120; 20, p. 45; 235, p. 28), or, finally, suggest combining "successful" protections under the sublimation heading [ 18 ] (186, p.141). These terminological nuances need to be borne in mind when we discuss below the negative aspects of protective mechanisms.

The concept of "unsuccessful" experiences significantly different from different authors. There is a whole gamut of degrees, at one pole of which we find such estimated soft characteristics of processes of this kind, as an indication that they distort the perception of reality, are based on self-deception, etc. (103; 195; 201; 208; 226, etc.), and on the other, “unsuccessful” experiences qualify as potentially pathogenic (68, p. 147-148; 179, p. 377; 193, p. 763; 233; 247 ) or even "pathological, and not just pathogenic" psychodynamic activity (245, p. 25-26). However, even the most negative qualifications of these processes are always accompanied by an indication of their positive, in particular integrative, functions (ibid.).

The most optimal is the position of those researchers who “accuse” defensive processes not so much for the content of their goals, but for their limitations, because they, figuratively speaking, want too little, are willing to pay for it, are too expensive and unintelligible in means.

We already know what these goals are - defensive processes tend to save an individual from mismatch of impulses and ambivalence of feelings (188), to protect him from understanding unwanted or painful contents (195; 204; 208; 241) and, most importantly, to eliminate anxiety and tension (199 ; 203; 204; 210 et al.). However, the means to achieve these goals, i.e. the defense mechanisms themselves are represented by rigid, automatic, forced, involuntary and unconscious processes that operate unrealistically, without taking into account the holistic situation and long-term perspective (103; 199; 213; 226; 238, etc.). It is not surprising that if the goals of psychological defense are achieved, then at the cost of objective disintegration of behavior (210), at the price of concessions, regression, self-deception (130; 201; 213) or even neurosis.

In a word, according to the formulation of T. Kröber, the biggest thing a person can count on, “having even adequate defense mechanisms, but having nothing more than that, is to avoid hospitalization ...” (213, p. 184).

This effective maximum of protection is at the same time the minimum of what a “successful” experience is capable of. Located at the upper pole of the scale of "success", the highest human experiences leading to the development, self-actualization and improvement of the personality are extremely rarely analyzed in psychology. The limit, which psychologists overwhelmingly put the "success" of the experience, its results, means and character, is not so high. "Successful" coping behavior is described as enhancing the adaptive capabilities of the subject (179, p. 337), as realistic, flexible, for the most part conscious, including free choice, active (178, p. 532; 213, p. 183-184; 226, p.13). Even for those authors who consider self-actualization, the striving for perfection and the realization of their potentiality (130; 171; 223) to be the main inner necessity of the experience, it is in relation to this motive that it usually acts only as a means of eliminating or compensating for self-actualization interference, not as a process capable of making an independent, positive and irreplaceable contribution to the perfection of an individual, capable of not only ridding a person of something negative, but also adding something Yelnya. [ 19 ]

In a number of researchers, we find some hints that the highest human experiences are not carried out in the plane of adaptation, but in the context of learning cultural values ​​(53; 101), that they are creative in their implementation (130), but in their results lead to " expanding the boundaries of individual consciousness to the universal "(149, p.569; 150), but in general, these processes are almost unrevealed page of scientific psychology.

So, in the psychological literature, two types of experiences are globally analyzed in more or less detail, globally evaluated as negative and positive, “successful” and “unsuccessful”. Having taken, although not generally accepted, but the most common meaning of them, respectively, with psychological defense and coping, here is the table. 2 are their main characteristics.

table 2

Characteristics of "successful" and "unsuccessful" processes in the experience