The full title of the book is “Father. Historical, psychological and cultural analysis", i.e. - this is not an instruction on how to be a father. This is the author’s attempt to figure out who this father is, what he does, what he thinks, what he feels? These questions, on the one hand, sound like an attempt by a Jungian thinker and analyst to analyze, but at the same time they are similar to the questions of a child who has not seen his father for days and weeks and is trying to understand who he is, what he does, and similar to the questions of a person who , not finding answers in childhood, grew up and went “in search” of his father - with the same questions - who is he, how does he live... In general, the author is on the same side with people who would like to know this, and together with them goes on a search. He himself says that he has no answers, but only “sketches” made from descriptions in old stories about his father (in the myths of Odysseus, Hector, Aeneas, in John Steinbeck’s novel “The Grapes of Wrath”, etc.), and honestly admits to the suspicion that the father as such no longer exists, and finding him now will mean recreating him according to “sketches”, independently, in oneself.

I won’t be able to endure any further storytelling in this style; I’ll keep it simple. I read the book a long time ago, and the thoughts that I wrote down from there, and now I will retell them in my own words (this will be shorter; the book itself is quite lengthy, for which some people criticize it in reviews, they say, “a lot of water”), were a discovery for me, I liked them , I agree with them. I’m unlikely to be able to explain or argue for the author why he decided one way or another. But I am capable of talking about my attitude towards his ideas, about why I share them. And I will be glad if anyone finds something interesting for themselves here.

I’m posting everything in excerpts (I don’t see the need to link them together).

It all starts with an episode from Freud's biography. When he was little, his father told him how he collided with a passerby on the street. At that time, the sidewalks were so narrow that it was impossible for two people to pass each other on them; someone had to step aside, and when Freud’s father, Jacob, saw a man coming towards him, he, being not a particularly decisive person, stopped and hesitated. The man saw this confusion, tore the hat off Jacob’s head, and shouted, “Out of the way, Jew!” - threw his hat into the mud.

“I stepped off the sidewalk and picked up my hat,” my father answered.

Ernest Jones (Freud's biographer) believes that because of this story, the boy experienced a deep shock: there was nothing heroic, no courage in the man whom he had always considered a role model. Jones believes that this episode later influenced the theory of psychoanalysis, where the son is considered the inevitable rival of the father, and became one of the motives for criticism of religion, where there is also God the Father.

It is so arranged that a child, having seen his mother’s humiliation, does not stop loving her, but if the same thing happens to his father, and he does not answer, does not turn out to be a fearless hero, it will be difficult for the child to bear it. This is the special position of the father: on the one hand, he must be a man, a winner, a male who boldly enters into any battle, and on the other hand, he must remember that, entering into battle, he may die or be crippled, and leave the family in distress, or, in case of victory, he will doom another family to difficulties. In general, ever since humanity had a family, a man is constantly faced with a choice - to be a “father” (thinking about the future) or a “male” (fearless, satisfying immediate desires, who does not care about the future).

Fatherhood as the ability to “think about children, about family” and for the sake of this to patiently endure internal conflicts(for example, the same humiliation) is not instinctive behavior, it is the result of mental activity. It is also not an instinctive behavior to feed and protect one’s children and women, but this intention was “a decision made at the beginning of civilization” and then became a tradition. And the very awareness of oneself as a father is also the result of intellectual constructions: for a woman, the birth of a child occurs in the most obvious way, and a man can realize his involvement in the emergence of a new life only with the help of thinking. In a word, everything that concerns fatherhood (as a culture) is ultimately “the result of thought and will,” i.e., it is a completely artificial construction. And this artificiality turned out to be both the father’s strength and weakness. Strength in the sense that the principles of fatherhood (about which below) made it possible to develop civilization, and weakness in the fact that fulfilling this role, and the very desire to be a father, can be relatively easily destroyed (“killed”) by that inner “male.”

WHO IS THE FATHER

One who teaches his family what is fair and provides opportunities for the implementation of this knowledge;

Who patiently endures internal conflicts, thinking not only about themselves;

Who does not attack, but defends his home, family (which is where the designation of defensive wars as “domestic” came from);

Those who think in projects think about the future;

Who doesn’t say “everyone does this” (and you do it), but his voice inside tells you what you should do.

Why suddenly an inner voice... the fact is that a father is not a specific man, or rather, not only, and not only a role, it is also a principle. Often people grow up “without a father,” even if he actually was, and later on in the place in the psyche where he should have been, they feel unclear or even empty, which is why there is such a phenomenon as the “search for a father” that they are engaged in people have matured, and they are no longer looking for a person, realizing that this will not give them anything, but the principle itself, answers to how to act, therefore there is no difference in whether to call a father a person or a set of ideas that internally strengthen and give strength

FATHER'S GESTURE

In ancient Greece and Rome, this gesture was a simple action - a man took a child in his arms and raised him above him. He showed it to the sky (gods) and to society, saying that now it is not matter (before the gesture, it was believed that the child was an inspiritual being, matter, the product of the mother: the words “mother” and “matter” have the same root in many languages), that his mother gave him life physical, and he gives spiritual life, that from a horizontal relationship, while he was running on all fours under the table and crouching on his mother’s breast, his father now transfers him into a vertical relationship - with society and the gods, and society now knows that the child becomes part of it , and the gods... this gesture symbolized an appeal to them with a request that the son - as he is now - so that in the future he surpasses his father in everything - is smarter than him, stronger, luckier, etc. These were thoughts for the future of the child, and for the future in general.

Some psychologists believe that throwing children over oneself in the form of a game of entertainment is an echo of that archaic gesture. And, perhaps, most importantly, with this gesture the man informed everyone that he would now be a father, he decided so, wanted so, and now undertakes not only to feed and clothe, but also to teach everything. Now the equivalent of the gesture is paternal praise, support, approval, this is also a kind of “lifting”.

PATRIARCHY

I still don’t understand when and how it arose, but the book describes events that dealt blows to patriarchy, gradually destroying it.

The first blow was dealt by Greek comedies, ridiculing the “poor” relationship between a frivolous spendthrift son and a grumpy, distrustful father.

The second blow is Christianity with the thesis that the Father and the Son are one, that is, the father is not more important, not more important than the son.

The third blow was struck Christian church, obliging a man to be the father of all children born in a legal marriage. That is, paternity ceased to be a man’s decision, perhaps even then formal (if not forced) paternity began, carelessly, which is why two forms of parenthood were introduced in Roman law: nutritor (breadwinner) - was obliged to provide shelter and food, and nothing more, the father was obliged to be a nutritionist for all legitimate children, and the pater was the father in the full sense, this could not be forced, it remained a right (and, if you look, even today, full fatherhood remains a right).

The fourth blow was struck by the bourgeois revolution with the idea general education, when fathers were, as it were, excommunicated from teaching their children, they began to teach them in schools.

The fifth blow is the industrial revolution. At first, however, women and children went to the factories, but the owners quickly realized that male labor was more effective, so the children and wives were returned back, and the men were taken away, in general, it is not so important who went where and where they returned, it turned out like this that “the revolution took away their families from the fathers.” And she also took away from them those small workshops and farms where they worked.

Since then, the fathers have not seen their children (not all and not always, but often there were dormitories near factories, and in weekdays the men did not go home, they spent the night there), and the children did not see their fathers, no longer saw how they worked in the workshops where they used to spend time together, and in general the children no longer saw what an adult man actually does, what he thinks about, what he feels , children no longer had “colors for the mental image of an adult man, his skills, his tasks, his strengths, talents, qualities,<…>; and the emptiness that arose in the child’s psyche gradually began to be filled with disturbing fantasies.”

The sixth blow was two world wars; before that, again, perhaps such protracted wars did occur, but not on such a scale, when millions of children did not see their fathers for years.

FEMINISM AND PATRIARCHY

By the time feminism arose, patriarchy was only a smoldering wreckage. The struggle of women against injustice on the part of men, with their reluctance to think about the future, with attempts to forcefully satisfy their momentary needs - this was already a struggle with “males”, a struggle with the principle of “brother” (not father), which by that time had spread and got stronger Therefore, to say that feminism has destroyed (or is destroying) patriarchy, or that it fights it, or causes harm is simply stupid.

"THE BROTHER PRINCIPLE"

The author believes that competition is a sign of the disappearance of the “paternal”, albeit not complete, but a kind of dissolution, that this is the occupation of “brothers”, because if one father kills another, then not one person will suffer, but also all those who are from him it depends, and the fathers understand this among themselves and do not do so; The “brothers” in this sense have no one to worry about, they always killed each other. Likewise, this dream of consumption - to fall to the breast of civilization and suck everything out of it, all the benefits - this is not a “father’s” dream, it seems to “children” a bright dream, a worthy goal, an occupation that does them honor.

PATERNITY IN EUROPE

The author does not consider the co-parenting that is now in Europe as fatherhood, there is no father, there the man kind of duplicates the role of the mother, he is the mother’s friend, he does not take the child out into society, in Big world, and he himself, as it were, withdraws from the world and society into a small world, closes himself there with the child, and it turns out that he does not lift him into the “vertical”, but he himself goes into horizontal relationships, first - figuratively speaking - being washed, disinfected and admitted to child - wraps him in diapers, then tries to become his “buddy”, playing with him in computer games, finding out what memes, music, etc. are relevant now. In general, this is all progressive, but this behavior does not fit into the meaning, the purpose, the principle of the father. Perhaps that is why it is not called fatherhood, but co-parenting, at least this is honest.

___________________

That's all.

Perhaps Zoya’s main idea is not so clearly visible in the passages, that fatherhood (both a phenomenon and a principle) - once emerging like a flash, faded away throughout subsequent history. And now you can only see “pockets” and “pockets” scattered across the planet, individual attempts to revive it. For example, the black population of the United States, approximately a third of which decided to place patriarchal ideas and values ​​at the core of their culture, moved to the so-called. middle class. The rest, who chose the path of the “males,” live in slums or cities like Detroit. In general, everything is not so simple with this patriarchy.

Presenting his book in Moscow, Luigi Zoia admitted that the reason for writing it was the observation: among psychology publications, for every one book about fathers, there are eight books about mothers. Exalting the role of women (both in the development of the child and in society) has become a clear trend in science and culture in general. Modern men disoriented regarding their gender identity: raised by women, they are forced to play by the rules invented for them by their mothers.

The personal discovery that prompted Zoya to write the book was her understanding of the role of the father’s gesture - raising the child with outstretched arms above him. He found the first mention of this gesture in Homer's Iliad (Hector's gesture). IN Ancient Greece it was the father, not the mother, who gave life to the child; biological birth did not play a special role. Much more important was the social birth, that is, the symbolic gesture of declaring the child as his heir. Raising a child to the sky, where the gods live, means creating a connection with the spiritual dimension. The mother gives birth to an animal, and the father gives birth to a human being. Maternal is natural and primary, given to us by default (mother and matter are the same root words in many languages). And the concept of “father,” as Zoya shows with examples from evolutionary biology, arises only in the process cultural development. The father deals with ideals, values, norms, social connections, and designing the future. The mother produces the child, and the father sends it into the world.

Today everything is different: a man helps produce a child, and then is reduced to the role of breadwinner. But from the point of view of psychoanalysis, the breadwinner, the breadwinner, is not a man at all: feeding is the function of the mother. It is not even the mother that is projected onto the man, but the so-called partial object - the mother's breast. There can be no relationship with breasts, they can only be consumed. It is not surprising that men resist becoming surrogate mothers for their wives: they hesitate or refuse to enter into marriages that threaten to castrate masculinity instead of fulfilling it.

That's why detailed analysis ancient patterns of fatherhood are important to us. We want to know how, at what turn of history we lost our father. His role must be restored, otherwise modern Western man faces literal extinction. Zoya's book gives men a sense of the importance of their mission, helps women understand and accept the positive side of patriarchy, and helps readers of both sexes improve relationships with their (bad and absent) fathers, whom they tend to blame for all their troubles.

About the author of the book

Luigi Zoja- Italian psychoanalyst and writer, one of the leaders of Jungian psychology. The book "Father" was awarded the prestigious international award Gradiva has been translated into many languages ​​and has become a world bestseller among humanitarian publications. Luigi Zoia "Father" Historical, psychological and cultural analysis” URSS, 280 p.

* Luigi Zoia took part in the international conference “Fathers and Sons”, organized by the Moscow Association analytical psychology(MAAP) in October of this year.

© Moretti & Vitali Editor, November 1999

© Institute practical psychology and psychoanalysis, 2004

© PERSE, design, 2004

This text is not a monographic study in which an idea is presented, developed and concluded with conclusions. It is rather like an odyssey - a topic very dear to the author - which takes us to places hitherto unknown to our minds, shows us corners of life that we usually avoid due to our inherent laziness, mixed with timidity, leaves us deserted shore, where monsters suddenly appear, a theme that challenges our intellectual or romantic daring.

The path of this book runs through classical world antiquity, and through the current life of European society. Although the modern view of things, as usual, arrogates to itself the right to the “correct” interpretation of antiquity, there is also the opposite point of view, which consists in the fact that the “modern” human soul can be described from an ancient point of view. The motivating reason for human actions is not the passion for knowledge and cognition - Oedipus was endowed with it - but the need to live an intense mental life. Themes such as creation and growth, tragedy and analysis, soul and society are all rooted in the symbolic life of man and appear in it in many ways and in many ways. Along with the change in topic, the style of writing also changes: sometimes the work resembles the work of a craftsman (the etymology is patiently explained, historical facts are painstakingly recreated), in other cases, on the contrary, a word cuts into the consciousness like a guillotine knife, stopping the inertia of thought, disrupting the usual course reflections (“tragedy laughs at our confusion”), and sometimes the same word appears already in an epic narrative, envelops us in sensual images and leads us into the realm of paradox, although we are not aware of this. As in all true odysseys, the limit is not where one arrives at the end, but a continuous modification during the journey. The text includes works (articles, reports at congresses) created by the author over ten years. From their combined reading, a single mental effort arises: the desire to cultivate the soul.

Dedicated to Adolf Guggenbühl-Craig

Preface

One day, psychoanalysts of various schools and directions decided to pretend that they did not know each other as specialists. In doing so, they did something even more difficult and upsetting. Since they always circled around the myth, like dogs around a bone, they decided to use the myth to divide themselves.

Psychoanalysts knew that the precise name of their specialty was “depth psychology.” And they were very familiar with the myth of the Tower of Babel, which ends with everyone having to go their own way because it is no longer possible to understand each other.

So, psychoanalysts decided to reincarnate this myth in an inverted form: imagine a tower being built down into the ground.

Psychological reality develops not upward, but in depth. Moving deeper and deeper in search of psychological truth, they complicated the design of the inverted tower until at some point it became impossible to continue construction. Everyone began to speak their own language. Raise your own family. Deny that the language of others can serve as a means of expression truth(strangely, this lie, this slander looked truthful: and indeed, since we are talking about other languages, the truth is not called “truth”, but by another word). In general, psychoanalysts became aware of what was changing, but they went in different directions and lost awareness of what remained stable and unchanged.

God - or a new god, or a new part of their brain that corresponded to the old concept of divinity - confused their languages, if not their very ideas. And psychoanalysts stopped communicating with each other.

I’ll clarify right away so as not to mislead the reader. This book was born out of the fact of the split that took place. Even if this is a book on Jungian psychology, the break in question was not between Freud and Jung. It's about about something else. This is a difference in psychological tendencies, which is often found among different authors (and even among the same authors, but in different periods their creativity) with comparative analysis. Including in the works of Freud and Jung.

In essence, we are dealing with the opposition of the stable and universal, on the one hand, and the changeable and particular, on the other.

The transition from one of these opposing principles to another does not divide, but unites the leaders of the two schools. Over the years, Freud's interest shifted from purely clinical material to certain types of pathology and individual patients, and then to mythological, biblical themes, to the origin and meaning of culture. Jung, after a brief period of clinical observation and experimentation, turns to the study of archetypes: religion, anthropology, alchemy, myths and fairy tales; to themes common to different peoples, regardless of era and place. Thus, both masters over time switch their attention from pathology (something other than the proper course of things) to models of the norm, which speak exactly of how things should be.

In Zurich they are still telling in a low voice - some with embarrassment, some with reproach - the next episode. One American came to Switzerland to meet the master, and after a while he asked to do analysis with him. After several sessions, Jung looked at him and said: “I'm sorry, but you tell me mainly about your parents, and your dreams talk about the same thing. I understand that you need this, and I feel sympathy for you. But I cannot be your analyst: I am interested in archetypes” 1.

In the twentieth century as a whole - and especially in the second half, after the death of both teachers - the orientation of the main psychoanalytic schools shifted in the opposite direction. Both among Freud's followers and, to a lesser extent, among Jung's followers, all more attention began to be paid to age-related development: that is, specifically to the person who changes, as opposed to what remains unchanged in him. Moreover, they focused on the first stages of life; and since society at this stage has little connection with the child, interest was aroused in his development as an individual person, and not as a subject of culture and history.

However, from what has been said it is impossible to conclude that interest is categorically and exclusively focused on solving issues related to developmental psychology.

We can only point out that today's psychotherapeutic attention to the development of the individual personality prevails in public consciousness, since new circumstances of a legal, professional (not to say corporate) and market nature push us to move in this direction. Indeed, throughout the world the psychotherapeutic market is close to imminent saturation and, therefore, operates according to the laws of competition, which is as intense today as it was previously unknown. This fact, combined with other historical circumstances - for example, the rapid birth of European legislation - subjected analytical schools to norms and involved them in processes of institutionalization that had not previously existed. Returning to our topic, we note that this movement shifted the focus of discussions and debates from the general to the particular, from the stable to the changeable: from a question about what psychoanalysis, or analytical psychology, can say about man and the world to the question about what a particular analyst can say about a particular patient (or better yet: how much time and money it will take to recover). Because these are the questions that interest ministerial officials and representatives of practical psychology.

If, however, the analyst has a strong enough voice to make himself heard as a professional who thinks about the person as a whole, and not just as a specialist in a particular therapeutic school, he can gather unexpected big number listeners. This is the case, for example, of James Hillman, 2 who reconsidered the views of psychologists on the human condition.

At its core, what we are talking about is special case involution of cultural and political debates in the world. After the decline of great ideologies, big topics are no longer discussed at all, no longer noted significant differences between left and right; Minds seem to be affected only by the particular and the mutable, that which has individual significance. However, it is enough to reproduce one of the universal and eternal themes in a new key (Shakespeare in cinema, for example), and you find yourself faced with unexpected success (but why unexpected?).

In general, this book was born like this. One day I received a request from one of my colleagues that seemed not entirely clear to me. My colleague is a Greek Cypriot who lived in South Africa and then taught Jungian psychology at Eastern Europe, was editor of a newspaper on Jungian analysis in the world and now lives in London. He asked me to present my biography and my life interests in a form suitable for publication. I thought that such things were usually practiced in the event of death and therefore, out of superstition, they were left to others. But I also thought that it would probably be unfair to encourage others to write about my life without doing it myself. With some resistance I began to consult my memory and my notes.

I found that after graduating as an analyst, I became committed to clinical cases and private problems: I even returned for several years to Zurich, where I received my diploma; and I did this precisely because I was offered the opportunity to work in the clinic.

However, it turned out that over the past ten years - which, coincidentally or not, have been in recent years century - a growing number of my notes and reports, written seemingly on completely different occasions, expressed a general need to find things that change little over thousands of years: to understand whether some events that seem to us modern and new (we will give as an example the harmful the fascination of television talk shows or the craze surrounding Princess Diana), recurring signs of myth in its persistence.

I tried to rejoice in the fact that, as I set out on this road (which leads to something greater and more stable), I was effortlessly approaching the great founders of psychoanalysis. I didn't really intend to go down this path and didn't realize I was going down it. Perhaps progress along it simply occurs over the years, when we gradually become interested in immortality. And we look for greatness and constancy in our children or in the reflection of immortality.

Myth is one of the few proofs of immortality that appears before our eyes. We use it to remind us of the connection that exists between basic mythological stories and psychological literature. It was not Sophocles who described the Oedipus complex. Not only because the “complex” of Oedipus is only one of the possible explanations of his revenge, associated with a concept that did not yet exist in the time of Sophocles: but also because it is impossible to describe the universal through the particular. So if these pages say more about Freud and Jung, do not think that the desire to talk about timeless and universal issues has gone to our heads so much that we decided to adapt Homer to the needs of this book. On the contrary, the book itself - perhaps like most psychological literature - turns out to be a modest modern mouthpiece through which Homer and his myths still speak. There is a connection between the two worlds: but it is unlikely that depth psychology can in any way complement Homer, who was deeper than any psychology.

1. Psyche and society

1.1. Analytical psychology and knowing another person 3

The expression "bad teachers" is often used in Italian. Basically, it refers to those intellectuals who, after proclaiming revolutionary slogans, became morally involved in the bloody terror unleashed by the “red brigades.” Abstract conversations turned into concrete destinies. The Word became flesh. They could only defend themselves, blaming themselves: you shouldn’t have taken me so literally, I didn’t mean that at all.

I want to emphasize that in Italy bad teachers were often great masters of the greatest, or at least the most famous, art of our century: cinema.

« Rome – open city Rossellini, a film manifesto of neorealism, describes the average Italian as infinitely compassionate and noble: with stunning uncriticality we accept this compliment and remember it. De Sica acquits "Bicycle Thieves": together with him we all justify ourselves, and theft becomes a national archetype. Fellini shows with forgiveness and sympathy our sexual promiscuity and our indifference: we find him delicate and sublime, we begin to proudly demonstrate our freethinking and carelessness. We are sure that this endears us to Europeans and North Americans, and we care little that this sympathy is often accompanied by contempt. We may not be good at choosing friends, but we know which friendships we can benefit from.

The extreme point of this simplification - swallowed up by the masses, although the mass media were still in diapers, and extolled as if it was not about kitsch, but about the revival of cinema - is reached in the remarkable film " Italians are great"(De Santis, 1964). The average Italian is good (moreover, he is a great guy, because a good guy can be taken for a fool, and we have the right to be a little cunning, a little deceiver, while always remaining good). The Italian character is all in the light, there are no shaded areas. The Italian has no real enemies: when he dealt with both the Allied forces and their enemies, he did so not out of duplicity or commercial gain, but out of an innate inability to experience hostile feelings.

So the Italians - and maybe some other happy peoples - do not have a collective Shadow.

By the Shadow, analytical psychology means the part of the unconscious psyche that is rejected by the Ego because it consists of qualities that are morally unacceptable or simply too different from the Ego. This second, broader assumption defines the hypothetical nature of analytical psychology. The latter views neurosis not as a disease, but as a “suggestion”, a “message” about the possibility of growth, which is absent in this moment; and in the same way, she does not perceive the Shadow only as the lower part, immoral and unacceptable for the individual. Jung leaves this point of view to Freud. According to Jung, the entire psychology of his teacher represents the most detailed study of the Shadow that has ever been undertaken. Freud was indeed concerned with a being hidden under the shell of civilized man, which is still governed by instincts and which involves a return to the archaic, and not an attempt to create something new; and such a “being,” in such a context, is inevitably opposed to culture. The shadow in the Jungian, broader sense is the unknown part that hides completeness and completeness: what I must know about myself in order to really know myself, what I must know about the world in order to know the real world.

A very simple consequence follows from all this.

One who does not have a shadow is deprived of a fundamental tool of knowledge, both individually and collectively. If I think that I do not have a shadow (a lower, animalistic and predatory part - or simply different from how I usually see myself), a part that is different from me and my egoism (archetypes that invariably belong to the psychic) ​​does not matter cease to exist. Only internal qualities that are perceived from the outside, in others, cease to exist: in other words, they are projected.

The psyche and its archetypes do not function together - in this case they would already be complete and would not “function”, remaining static - but in pairs of components that complement each other. Puer exists only in contrast to Senex, child with old man. A child does not exist by itself: there is a single archetype with two poles - a child and an old man. Masculine and feminine are not defined in themselves, but as difference from the other gender, and so on. One of the two poles corresponds to the Ego, the other is internal and unconscious. If I am a man, then a woman is hidden in my unconscious, I project this inner figure outward and die with the desire to unite with her. If I am an old man, I suffer from nostalgia for my youth.

To discover this, there is no need to ask Jung every time. Already Plato in his Symposium symbolically told us about these limitations: at first people combined both sexes. Zeus broke them into two separate beings - a man and a woman, who, in fact, are only two halves of one whole. From that moment on, suffering from irresistible melancholy, they are forever looking for each other. In search of something else, we try to restore our own original integrity.

The so-called transference and countertransference in analytical work are also nothing more than metaphors expressing a powerful need to heal the split in the archetypal pair of patient and healer and restore integrity. The therapist, who by virtue of his profession stands on one pole, tries to get closer to the patient because he wants to become whole and find his Shadow, the patient within himself. The patient, forced to the other pole by illness, wants to connect with the analyst in order to symbolically find his inner healer, the only one who can restore him to stable balance. As long as the other within oneself remains unconscious, it is projected and recognized only in others. But this projection is already the beginning of knowledge and the path to gaining integrity.

These facts were well explained by Adolf Guggenbühl-Craig 5 , who also supplemented them with a paradoxical statement. Analysts who succumb to the temptation to manipulate the patient in order to gain power over him or seduce him inevitably get stuck: they have neglected the importance of symbols even before professional ethics, the goal of analysis is to find the two split poles of the healer-patient archetype, rather than the two personifying their people.

However, other analysts who never get carried away by such manipulations (in which the patient is trying to involve them) and maintain a distance, those whose work lacks erotic tension, are flawed in their own way. They are not only static, and therefore difficult to change anything in the patient: they spread a cult of self-sufficiency and indifference to differences, incompatible with our ideal of the psyche as an organ in constant motion, always interested, a component that constantly strives for integrity . They are “excellent psychotherapists” – discouraging professional variety"great guys."

If we stop the first ones who want to dominate the patient, then such analysts - we hope - will admit their mistake, in which lies a creative indication of the need to recognize the other and assimilate it. And then, having paid for the mistake, they get the opportunity to purchase a ticket for a more fulfilling life.

There is nothing to criticize the second, self-sufficient analysts for, because those who do not move do not make mistakes in choosing the path: but they will not make the journey itself. In the future, they may turn out to be more dangerous than the first, since the need for confrontation with the “other half” may arise unexpectedly and take them by surprise.

The collective psyche can be thought of in similar terms.

The ideal would be to live in a society that is tolerant of differences, conscious and responsible for its existence both within itself and in relation to neighboring peoples. Since such conditions are little more than a wish, in reality we find many countries in which there are national, sexual and other minorities, marginal groups, foreigners, whom the majority tries to manipulate and suppress; There are also some countries in sufficiently homogeneous and influential in order to allow themselves such a life, which, from a psychological point of view, carries within itself the characteristics of autism, consisting of ignorance and deliberate ignorance of the existence of another.

Among them, Italy is in the first row. The Jewish diaspora in it is small and absorbed in Christianity; there are traditionally few immigrants from other continents due to the lack of colonies; Italy is unfamiliar with others on its territory. Unlike other languages European countries– English, French, German, Spanish and even Portuguese – Italian is spoken only in Italy. However, the territory of the country and the Italian-speaking population are large enough that there is no special need to learn other languages ​​and know other peoples. Unlike, for example, the Dutch or Scandinavians, in whose countries navigation is developed and who, because of this, are well acquainted with many other peoples; Due to the small distribution of their languages, they learn to use other languages ​​from childhood.

Externally, for the last few centuries, the country called Italy has not come face to face with communities of others, either externally or internally. The absence of such practice has given rise to the maxim that Italians are not racists, an exception in Europe, which invented racism; A vicious circle is forming in the country with the statement about “well done.” Through a falsification that suited everyone, what was only a lack turned out to be an advantage.

Other books by the author:

See also in other dictionaries:

I. INTRODUCTION II. RUSSIAN ORAL POETRY A. Periodization of the history of oral poetry B. Development of ancient oral poetry 1. The most ancient origins of oral poetry. Oral poetry creativity ancient Rus' from the 10th to the middle of the 16th century. 2.Oral poetry from the middle of the 16th century to the end... ... Literary encyclopedia

RSFSR. I. General information The RSFSR was founded on October 25 (November 7), 1917. It borders on the north-west with Norway and Finland, on the west with Poland, on the south-east with China, the MPR and the DPRK, as well as on the union republics that are part of the USSR: to the W. from... ...

I Medicine Medicine system scientific knowledge And practical activities, the goals of which are to strengthen and preserve health, prolong the lives of people, prevent and treat human diseases. To accomplish these tasks, M. studies the structure and... ... Medical encyclopedia

Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky Date of birth: November 5 (17), 1896 (1896 11 17) Place of birth: Orsha, Mogilev province, Russian empire Date... Wikipedia

LIFE- Jesus Christ the Savior and Giver of Life. Icon. 1394 ( Art Gallery, Skopje) Jesus Christ the Savior and Giver of Life. Icon. 1394 (Art Gallery, Skopje) [Greek. βίος, ζωή; lat. vita], christ. theology in the doctrine of J.... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

Asia- (Asia) Description of Asia, countries, states of Asia, history and peoples of Asia Information about Asian states, history and peoples of Asia, cities and geography of Asia Contents Asia is the largest part of the world, forms together with the mainland Eurasia... Investor Encyclopedia

The term, insufficiently defined, is sometimes identified with history (see), is understood: 1) as the study of the historical literature of any subject (for example, I. french revolution the same as a critical review of sources and manuals on the history of French... encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron

- (Polska) Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa), Poland. I. General information P. socialist state in Central Europe, in the river basin. Vistula and Odra, between the Baltic Sea in the north, the Carpathians and ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

"Nizami" request is redirected here; see also other meanings. Nizami Ganjavi pers. نظامی گنجوی‎ Kurdish. Nîzamî Gencewî, نیزامی گه‌نجه‌وی Azerbaijan. Nizami Gəncəvi ... Wikipedia

War- (War) Definition of war, causes of wars, classification of wars Information about the definition of war, causes of wars, classification of wars Contents Contents Definition in the history of mankind Causes of hostilities ... Investor Encyclopedia