Cultural restrictions. Culture as a regulating factor of social relations
By regulating relations between the sexes, society had to ensure the production of the most healthy, viable offspring possible. There is a tradition in cultural theory to present anomalies sex life as defined phases social development. Lang, Atkinson, Freud and others considered the harem family to be the initial stage of social organization. Morgan, Faison, Engels and many Soviet ethnographers were convinced of the originality of promiscuity (from promiscuis - “mixed”, “universal”) relations. Yu. Semenov made an attempt to describe the harem family and promiscuity as successive stages. All these approaches do not seem convincing. What is an anomaly could not be a phase of social development. Neither the absolute monopolization of sex nor complete promiscuity was found in any ethnic group, except where general decay foreshadowed the inevitable death of the entire civilization. (A certain orderliness exists even in the sexual life of perverted, degraded communities, for example, in places of imprisonment among criminals. This life is also subject to special, very strict rules, which, however, in their content and spirit are very far from the norms of the civilized world and in which -somewhat similar to the stereotypes of baboon “harems”.)
By the way, the authors of the concept of its originality did not allow complete promiscuity. Man can oppose the laws of nature only rules, but not arbitrariness. After all, arbitrariness does not have any internal law that would allow human society to survive by relying on it. Chaos in sexual life would lead to degradation with the same irreversibility with which all entropic processes occur. Promiscuity destroys the social hierarchy, and without it, society loses its dynamic potential and disintegrates.
In a word, we can talk about promiscuity and monopolism in sexual life only in a relative sense, as trends, one of which can temporarily prevail over the other, and not as independent phases of social development. We would like to join those authors who, without engaging in bold and witty speculation, consider the paired family to be the initial state and norm of human sexual life, and promiscuity and harems to be only exceptions and deviations from the norm. Human culture has sought to find ways to combine opposing tendencies, introducing sexual life into the framework of existing social structures. The most effective of them were, obviously, exogamy, individual marriage and love. They made sex both selective and public.
Exogamy and the prohibition of incest. IN In the clan system, the basis for the regulation of sexual relations was marriage and exogamy - the obligation to choose a wife or husband outside the framework of one’s clan group (clan, sub-clan, marriage class, etc.) and, accordingly, a ban on marriage within the clan. Violation of the exogamous prohibition was regarded by primitive culture as the most destructive form of promiscuity. Adultery ("adultery") was generally a less vicious but still condemned course of action.
Exogamy is a purely human, cultural phenomenon, because it was not possible to discover anything similar to it in the animal world. Some higher animals have biological mechanisms that prevent mating of closely related individuals. For example, in monkey herds, sexual contact between members is very limited. different generations. In a chimpanzee colony, sexual relations between brothers and sisters are extremely rare (while willingly allowing other males to approach her, the female energetically protests against getting closer to her brothers), and between sons and mother they are completely absent. But such private preferences and restrictions only have external resemblance with exogamy, not coinciding with it.
The problem of the origin of this institution has not been unambiguously resolved by ethnographic science. Many of the existing explanations for the essence of exogamous prohibition are seriously questionable. The introduction of exogamy cannot be explained by either a conscious or instinctive desire to avoid harmful biological consequences incest - consanguineous sexual relationship. The point here is not only that such consequences are problematic and not only that the savages who practiced exogamy did not yet have, as B. Malinovsky argued, a clear understanding of the connection between sexual intercourse and the birth of children. Exogamy hardly arose from the desire to avoid inbreeding (the appearance of offspring from closely related individuals that have obvious signs of degeneration), because in the forms in which it existed, it did not exclude incest. The matrilineal kinship system eliminated inbreeding between relatives of all generations on the maternal side, but not on the paternal side. So-called "cross-cousin marriages" (with the daughters of the father's sister or mother's brother) were a system among many primitive peoples, while in the biological sense they are incestuous. In addition, if the exogamous prohibition was based only on concern for the health of future offspring, then the invention of reliable contraceptives should have put an end to the condemnation of incestuous relationships. However, in the era of mass use of contraceptives, morality has not changed its negative attitude towards incest, although exogamy itself as an institution has long ceased to exist. In addition, to suppress hereditary anomalies, exogamy is not at all necessary if the infanticide described above is practiced in the community. In short, the reason for the emergence of exogamy and the prohibition of incest should be sought not in the biological sphere.
The needs of reproduction of a healthy population, apparently, were not the leading reason for the establishment of exogamy at all. The concept of incest, as well as the prohibition of incest, do not precede exogamy, but are generated by it. Instinctive aversion to incest, if it existed in ancient man, could, at most, exist simultaneously with the exogamous prohibition and to some extent stimulate it, but could not give rise to exogamy as a complex social institution. However, it is more likely that nature did not provide person (at least a man) with clear indications of the inadmissibility of incest. People began to avoid him thanks to a culture that arouses burning shame in those who did not find a more suitable partner for their sexual life. Orgiastic celebrations and rites of passage, in which incest was legally committed, indicate that if social prohibitions are lifted, then the prejudice against sexual intercourse with a daughter, niece, cousin, etc. disappears.
The cultural origin of the incest prohibition is also confirmed by the variability of its content. In societies with matrilineal filiation, the relationship between a brother and sister is considered the most blasphemous crime. But among the ancient Persians, such marriages in royal families even looked preferable. In the clan system, marriages of “parallel cousins” (with the daughters of the mother’s sister) were prohibited, and the European culture of class society did not find any difference between parallel and cross cousins, allowing marriage between both equally. Such variations would hardly be possible if the prohibition against incest had a natural origin.
In the concept of incest, primitive culture expressed and consolidated the special status of kinship. The emerging social structure required further differentiation of interhuman relations, including more selective sexual behavior. In relation to a woman, he became not a male, satisfying his organic instincts whenever, wherever and with whomever he wanted, but a father, son, brother, namely a person maintaining a strictly prescribed distance and bearing clearly defined responsibilities. Kinship between people arose not naturally, but culturally. It was built over centuries in order to bind people with strong ties, to make them necessary for each other. Obviously, related feelings, with the exception of mother's love, is a later superstructure over artificially established relationships.
The extremely harsh reaction to incest, characteristic of primitive culture, is explained not by the fact that this form of promiscuity carried a potential threat to the offspring, but by the fact that it symbolized the undermining of the entire tribal way of life. Anyone who has sexual intercourse with his sister destroys the established and traditionally sanctified order, the system of mutual obligations. He does not behave as is customary among people and therefore deserves the most merciless punishment: murder, castration. The main thing is that such behavior brings chaos to the system of kinship relations. This circumstance is very important for understanding the attitude towards incest in subsequent, non-tribal culture. Incest remains incest, that is, an exclusively shameful and shameless act, regardless of whether it is committed by a natural father or stepfather, whether there is a danger of inbreeding, or whether sexual intercourse is carried out in a way that obviously excludes the birth of offspring. The difference here is both qualitative and purely quantitative. In both cases, the sanctity of family relationships, the deepest basis of morality, is desecrated. The most radical way a culture condemns that which destroys its foundation.
Exogamous regulation of marriage played important role in the development of humanity. Firstly, by prohibiting sexual desires in relation to relatives, it contributed to the creation of previously unprecedented, purely human connections - family responsibilities and attachments. Their development ultimately led to enrichment inner world person. Along with the system of domination, a completely new system of mutual support and patronage arose: fatherhood, brotherhood, marriage, etc. The combination of human efforts and abilities became possible without violence and coercion, on the basis of a generally accepted order preserved by traditions..
Secondly, exogamy served to limit intergroup hostility. Thanks to her, the possibilities of turning “strangers” into “ours” have expanded. In a primitive society, a stranger, paradoxically, could be the object of murder, consumption, or the realization of matrimonial intentions. The alternative between the possibility of being eaten and the possibility of marriage was considered an ordinary matter.
Mysterious nature shame. In the clan system, the hierarchical principle of community organization continued to operate, as was said, but changed its character. An individual’s place in the hierarchy began to be determined not so much by a real confrontation of forces, but by an assessment of public opinion. Under these conditions, the individual’s dependence on his immediate environment and, therefore, sensitivity to its judgments and instructions acquired paramount importance. All this contributed to the strengthening of the role of shame in social life in general and in relations between the sexes in particular.
According to the well-known conclusion of the Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyov, the feeling of sexual shame does not depend on any practical human needs. “The independent and original meaning of the feeling of shame would be eliminated if it were possible to connect this moral fact with some material benefit for the individual or for the species in the struggle for existence. In this case, shame could be explained as one of the manifestations of the instinct of animal self-preservation - individual or social. But it is precisely such a connection that is impossible to find" (Soloviev V.S. Justification for good. Moral philosophy // Op. In 2 vols. M., 1988. T. 1. P. 124-125).
Indeed, the mysterious phenomenon of shame cannot be derived directly from the needs of human practice. A bashful, shy person more often loses than wins in the struggle to achieve certain life benefits with less scrupulous and sensitive competitors. It’s not for nothing that Shakespeare spoke about the power of shamelessness. However, this power does not mean that shame is completely devoid of practical significance. The meaning of this behavioral mechanism is to maintain qualities, abilities, appearance and actions of the subject at the level of demands of public opinion. Shame is practically significant, but not in a narrowly utilitarian, but in a broader sociocultural sense. V.S. Solovyov’s mistake was that he, following the luminaries of idealistic ethics Kant and Hegel, believed that man is ashamed of his material nature, natural inclinations and functions of his body (see ibid. p. 123). In fact, a person is not ashamed of his physicality, but losing control over her(and over mental functions too), and in situations where public opinion orders it to be preserved, and other people can do it.
It is directed directly against what is assessed as licentiousness, that is, internal imperfection, inferiority, depending on the subject himself.
The connection between shame and exogamy can be found in the peculiar custom of mutual avoidance or “mutual non-speaking” practiced by many primitive peoples. The kinship system, which determined standards of behavior, contained, among other things, requirements to avoid someone, limit relationships with someone, be careful in communication, etc. Among the Australian aborigines, a man must avoid his mother-in-law, father-in-law, wife's brother or sister's husband and wife's mother's brother. Persons who are in such a relationship, or rather, property, should avoid meeting face to face, not talk and not pronounce each other’s names. The restrictions were sometimes so severe that for communication between son-in-law and mother-in-law a special language. Avoidance extended not only to actual relatives, but also to classified relatives.
Shame and the value of chastity.
The presence of young people of low social rank, forced to live as bachelors for some time, creates a demand for extramarital sex. This demand can again be satisfied in two ways: either by the favors of influential persons who voluntarily give up their wives as a sign of goodwill or patronage, as well as by secret adultery; or relationships with women outside of marriage. But the first path was shaking family bonds, and the second led to ejection individual women from the family circle to the sphere of disordered relationships. Civilization preferred the second path and formed a layer of women whose sex life was built on a promiscuous basis.
There is a clear pattern here that the monopolization of sex not only does not exclude promiscuity, but even stimulates it. When the opportunity to start a family is not real for everyone, but only for a select few, the losers are forced to be content with surrogates. For the sake of strengthening the family, humanity sacrificed some of its representatives, making them a kind of “scapegoats” and rewarding them with idleness and luxurious clothes. This process began in primitive times, but acquired complete forms in class society, when religion exalted chastity as such - not only marital fidelity, but also premarital virginity.
Primitive culture has not yet attached such importance to chastity. This is evident, in particular, from the fact that a woman who was previously married and had marriage experience was sometimes valued higher than one who was getting married for the first time. Some natives have girlfriends certain time were at the disposal of men's clubs, where each member could lay claim to them at any time; and then, after a few years, they got married, most often to one of the club members. An indifferent attitude towards chastity is evidenced by the so-called “Nasamonian custom”, according to which all guests present at the wedding take turns possessing the bride, and the custom of pre-marital defloration (deflowering) of girls by fathers, sorcerers, leaders, etc. Finally, on this is indicated by the practice of yielding one's wives to guests as a sign of hospitality.
Since chastity meant nothing more than nothing, trading oneself or one’s loved ones in order to achieve any benefits was not considered shameful in primitive society. With all his penchant for mythology, the savage or barbarian looked at such things extremely simply. The sexual need was as natural for him as the need for food or rest. Of course, no self-respecting savage would make love in public, but some of them considered eating food to be such a delicate matter that it could not be done in the presence of strangers.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Moscow 2015
Abstract on the academic discipline: “Culturology”
Topic: “The role of regulations and prohibitions in the formation of culture. S. Freud's view"
Introduction
1. History of culture of Z. Freud
2. Culture as a system of prohibitions
3. History of the cultural development of humanity according to S. Freud
4. Dissatisfaction with the culture of S. Freud
Conclusion
List of sources
Introduction
Freud's teachings, already in the first stages of its development, far exceeded the scope of medicine. Literally a few years after Freud presented the basic ideas of psychoanalysis, a small circle formed around him, where general psychoanalytic problems were hotly discussed.
Later, tracing the history of the emergence and development of psychoanalysis, Freud wrote that his works on the interpretation of dreams, on wit and a number of others showed from the very beginning that psychoanalytic teaching is not limited to the field of medicine, but can also be used in various sciences about the spirit.
Starting with a consideration of the history of the development of primitive society, Freud tried to sketch a sketch of the historical development of human culture and civilization as a whole. Freud considered one of the main factors of cultural development to be the gradual renunciation of the natural unconscious passions and drives inherent in primitive man.
Trying to survey the cultural and social institutions of humanity through the prism of mental processes, Freud starts from the personality model he created. He believes that the mechanisms of mental interaction between various levels of personality find their analogue in social and cultural processes society.
The purpose of the work is to consider the culture of S. Freud.
1. ANDhistory of culture. Freud
One of the areas of application of Freud's psychoanalytic teachings was the philosophy of history and culture. Believing that with the help of psychoanalytic research individual person can illuminate many mysteries of human history, Freud used psychoanalysis to construct his own philosophy of history. Wherein
Freud proceeded from the fact that mental development of an individual person briefly repeats the course of development of all humanity, and the course of unconscious processes determines the specifics of the emergence of both ethical and moral norms of human behavior and social relations, cultural achievements and social institutions, testifying to the progress of human civilization from primitive primitive communities to the modern organization of bourgeois society.
A psychoanalytic picture of the history of the development of the primitive state of humanity was first given by Freud in his work “Totem and Taboo” (1913), where, from the standpoint of his teaching, he tried to explain the process of formation of the mental life of primitive man.
The explanation of many phenomena characteristic of primitive society (mechanisms of functioning of the psyche of primitive man, the formation of primitive prohibitions - taboos, the emergence of animism and totemism) was carried out by Freud on the basis of data obtained from the study of typical childhood neuroses - the so-called phobias (fear) of children, and The theoretical setting in this case was again the “Oedipus complex.”
Neuroses that arise in children, called phobias, are expressed in the fear of a particular animal. In this case, as a rule, a dual attitude of the child is revealed: on the one hand, he is afraid of the animal, and on the other, he shows every interest in it, fixing his attention on it and imitating it. These ambivalent feelings towards the animal are, according to Freud, nothing more than unconscious substitutions in the psyche of those hidden feelings which a child experiences in relation to his parents (a boy – towards his father).
Thanks to this substitution, according to Freud, intrapsychic conflicts are resolved. This unconscious substitution is intended to hide the real causes of children's fear, which is caused not so much by the father's attitude towards his son (severity, severity), but rather by the unconscious and contradictory attitude of the child himself towards his father. The boy both loves and hates his father: he wants to become as strong as his father, and at the same time eliminate him in order to take his father’s place in his relationship with his mother. Such unconscious drives of the child contradict the attitudes that he receives in the process of upbringing. The resolution of this intrapsychic conflict playing out in the child’s soul is precisely carried out through an unconscious shift from one object to another: those drives of which the child is ashamed are repressed from consciousness and in an unconscious form are directed to an allegorical object, in relation to which it is possible to openly way to express your feelings.
In constructing a psychoanalytic philosophy of history, Freud also relied on hypotheses that existed at that time in biology and ethnology. From Darwin he borrowed ideas about a primitive human horde controlled strong father; from the Scottish ethnographer Atkinson - ideas about the so-called Cyclopean family, when sons, united among themselves, rebel against the tyranny of their father and kill him; from Robertson Smith - ideas about the emergence of totemism. The fantastic picture of primitive society described by Freud based on the use of all these hypotheses looked as follows.
At the dawn of his formation, man lived in a primitive horde, in which the father played the leading role. All sons obeyed his strength and will. He alone had the right to own a woman, and those of his sons who, growing up, tried to lay claim to their rights, were simply expelled by their father from the primitive horde. The possibility of conflict situations arising due to the conquest of women was prevented by the decisive actions of the father, who, thanks to his physical strength, defended his right to monopoly possession of them. However, this situation could not last forever. The brothers expelled by their father united among themselves, killed and ate their father, thereby putting an end to their father's primitive horde. But the brothers were dominated by ambivalent feelings that are still found today in children and neurotics: they hated their father and admired him. Having satisfied the feeling of hatred by killing their father, they found themselves in the grip of tender family feelings, on the basis of which arose consciousness of guilt and repentance. This prompted them to forever imprint the image of their father in the form of a totem, declaring the inadmissibility of killing the father's deputy. The awareness of guilt for the committed act also forced the brothers to abandon the women they desired and establish an incestuous ban. This is how the main taboos of totemism arose, coinciding with the repressed desires of the “Oedipus complex.”
Human culture, according to Freud, began with this great event, which constantly reminds man of the crime of his ancestors. “Society now rests on complicity in a crime committed together, religion on the consciousness of guilt and repentance, morality partly on the needs of this society, partly on the repentance required by the consciousness of guilt.”
Thus, in a psychoanalytic interpretation, it turns out that the entire modern culture with its moral prescriptions and ever-increasing restrictions rests on the consciousness of guilt for a committed crime, which is invisibly present in the soul of every person.
The psychoanalytic interpretation of the philosophy of history proceeds from the fact that religion, morality, and social feelings initially constituted one whole: they were developed phylogenetically on the basis of the “Oedipus complex,” namely: religion and morality - through the suppression of this complex, social feelings - as a result of the need to overcome rival feelings between sons for the right to possess women in the primitive horde.
However, having taken such a point of view in interpreting the origin of religion, morality and social relations between people, the founder of psychoanalysis immediately encountered a number of problems. For example, the question arose which part of the savage’s psyche - “I” or “It” - served as the basis for the creation of religion and morality. If the latter arose from the “I”, then we should talk about heredity remaining in the structure of the “I”. If religion, morality and morality follow from “It”, then it is necessary to reveal the mechanism of the emergence of religious ideas, ethical and moral prescriptions, based not on a person’s awareness of guilt, but on something else. The question also begged how legitimate it is to extend the differentiation of the psyche of a cultured person, its component parts - “I”, “It” and “Super-Ego” - to a human being living in a primitive society.
Freud tried to answer these questions. He recognizes the differentiation of the psyche into “I” and “It” not only in modern or primitive man, but also in more primitive living beings. Such differentiation, in his view, is a necessary condition for the possibility of the external world influencing a living organism. But since the unconscious “It,” according to Freud, cannot experience and experience reality otherwise than with the help of the “I,” which replaces the external world for it, moral and religious aspects flow, as it were, from the “I” and have significance only for “ I". However, this does not mean that Freud recognizes direct heredity in the “I” (in this case, a gap would be revealed between a specific person and the concept of the human race). Let us remember that the difference between Freud's "I" and "Id" is relative, since the "I" is a differentiated part of the "Id". Therefore, the experiences of the “I” are considered by Freud as having turned into experiences of the “Id”, which are preserved and passed on by inheritance. In other words, although the Freudian “I” draws the “Super-Ego” (conscience) from the “Id,” nevertheless, this only indicates that old formations, originally preserved in the “I” itself, are surfacing, that hereditary unconscious drives in their concrete manifestations they reveal the sediments of a certain a priori moral law.
In a word, the founder of psychoanalysis comes to the conclusion that there are moral and moral foundations of human mental life, from which all cultural and social achievements of mankind grow.
But such an understanding of the nature of morality does not agree with the original principles of psychoanalysis, according to which the progress of mankind is entirely connected with the activity of the unconscious mental forces of man, focused on the “Oedipus complex.”
To free his teaching from this internal contradiction, Freud had to abandon one of two premises. But he did not have the courage or scientific objectivity to do this.
Ontogenetically, the first such renunciation, in his opinion, occurred in the primitive horde, when, having killed their father and experiencing a feeling of guilt, the sons renounced the right to own women.
The subsequent development of culture and the process of humanization of a living being, according to Freud, followed his conscious refusal of immediate satisfaction of desires in favor of obtaining delayed, but more reliable pleasure. Moreover, the conscious refusal to directly satisfy natural passions, initially based on external coercion in order to preserve the human race, gradually turned into an internal attitude of the individual, observing the moral norms and moral prescriptions of the corresponding culture.
Thus, the entire culture seems to Freud to be built on the external or internal suppression of the unconscious drives of a person who has sacrificed part of his natural heritage, subjecting his original sexual aspirations to sublimation.
2. Culture as a system of prohibitions
According to S. Freud's concept, as culture develops, the number of prohibitions increases. The once holistic psyche, which acted under the influence of momentary aggressive and erotic impulses, is increasingly forced to refuse to satisfy them. With the growth and complexity of the world of culture, the conflict between man (his unconscious) and culture increases. S. Freud especially clearly described the meaning of the conflict between man and culture in his work “The Inconveniences of Culture” (1930), where he noted the ever-increasing displacement of man’s natural drives by culture. These critical positions of S. Freud are in many ways reminiscent of the ideas of L. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche and other thinkers of the “philosophy of life”. The process of cultural acculturation, or personal enculturation, is regarded as a derogation of human happiness and leads to the development of unmotivated feelings of fear, guilt, social discomfort, and sometimes mental disorders: “It has been found that a person becomes neurotic because he cannot bear restrictions, imposed on him by society for the sake of the ideals of his culture; and from this they concluded: if these restrictions were removed or significantly reduced, this would mean the return of the lost possibilities of happiness." Thus, at its core, culture is a set of unconscious prohibitions and restrictions imposed on instincts. All these forms social attitudes imperfect and do not guarantee universal happiness. The assertion that this is possible is an illusion, although humanity is looking for various ways to improve culture.
Repressed or forbidden (taboo) by censorship of the preconscious (I) attractions are looking for other ways of realization that are acceptable to society and culture. This implementation is carried out in various ways: for some people it leads to mental disorders - neuroses and psychoses; for the majority it manifests itself in dreams, fantasies, slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue; For some, it is carried out in the form of creative activity - in science, religion, art, other socially significant activities, i.e. sublimated. Sublimation (from Latin sublimo - to elevate, elevate) is a fundamental category within psychoanalytic theory, meaning mental process, as a result of which the energy of natural sensual instincts and drives, raging in the unconscious sphere of a person, finds access to the spheres of consciousness and action, switching, transforming into human creative energy in various cultural phenomena. The concept of “sublimation” in this sense is not an invention of S. Freud. It appeared in German literature at the end of the 18th century. and was already used by A. Schopenhauer and especially F. Nietzsche as generally accepted in psychology. The psychoanalytic theory of art is based on the concept of sublimation and art criticism. However, this concept is not uncontroversial. Let us refer to its rejection by the previously mentioned French researchers, who are convinced that a person should completely trust his own desires, and not “repertoires of imaginary satisfaction.”
So, the general explanatory principle of psychoanalysis is to show how combinations and collisions of psychic forces give rise to sociocultural phenomena. As for the individual, the only thing psychoanalysis can advise is moderation, economy vital energy, which should be evenly distributed among various goals and activities in accordance with their importance. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the statement of S. Zweig, according to which Freud does not make humanity happier, he makes it more conscious. According to S. Freud, just as the meaning of growing up is the development of the mind, thanks to which a person learns to control his desires, the meaning of history is the growth of social, altruistic feelings, the development of science, and the curbing of instincts by culture. Speaking in defense of culture and advocating for the emancipation of man, J. Deleuze and F. Guattari note that “the culmination of psychoanalysis is found in the theory of culture, which takes on the old role of the ascetic ideal.”
3. History of cultural timesdevelopment of humanity according to Z. Freud
In his works of the 20s and 30s, when considering the history of the cultural development of mankind, Freud already takes into account social factors human existence, tries to reveal the material and spiritual aspects of culture in their mutual interweaving. This approach to understanding the history of culture was, of course, more fruitful.
The critical tendency of his theory intensified. Freud noted that while humanity has achieved significant success in understanding the laws of natural phenomena and in subordinating natural forces, “the same progress cannot be made in the field of regulating human relations.” At the same time, since the material achievements of civilization, testifying to the victories of man over nature, have not eliminated the consequences that are destructive both for the individual and for civilization as a whole, which lead to mental disorders and mental breakdowns of the individual, to that extent, according to Freud, theoretical and practical research should focus primarily on the human psyche.
Even the treatment of human labor processes in society did not fundamentally change this position, which in itself was a significant step forward compared to his early works, in which he focused on the sexual activity of the individual.
Freud recognizes that no other human activity connects him with social reality in the way that passion for work does. Professional activities of people can bring such satisfaction to a person that he cannot get in the sphere of sexual relations: this is possible when professional activity freely chosen by a person. But in modern society, Freud states, most people work only out of necessity and, therefore, do not receive any satisfaction from work, with the exception of monetary reward.
Since a person does not exist in isolation from other people, in his mental life there is always an “other” with whom he comes into contact, to the extent that personality psychology, in the understanding of the founder of psychoanalysis, is at the same time social psychology. Hence his conclusion that the psychoanalytic method can be used not only in the study of individual-personal, but also cultural-social problems, that is, he unjustifiably elevates this method to the rank of universal.
Considering the historical process of cultural and social formations from a psychoanalytic position, Freud resorts to scientifically unsubstantiated generalizations: he considers the antagonisms between the individual and society, which he observed in bourgeois culture, to be an integral part of all human civilization. The illegality of transferring the laws of development of bourgeois society to others social systems It is all the more obvious that Freud’s analysis in this case was limited to identifying only those “cultural and social deprivations” that were imposed by bourgeois society on a person, causing him emotional distress and trauma.
Man seems to Freud to be by no means a soft-hearted, loving creature: among his instinctive drives there is an innate tendency to destruction and an unbridled passion for torturing himself and other people. It is precisely because of these intrapsychic qualities of a person that culture and civilization are constantly under threat of destruction.
Freud's conclusion was largely based on empirical observations related to the First World War, as well as his personal reflections caused by the death of people close to him.
Shocked by human cruelty and the tragic outcome of any human destiny in life, he unconditionally includes in his psychoanalytic teaching the concepts of the aggressiveness of a human being and the “death instinct” inherent in him. The development of culture has been considered since that time by Freud from the point of view of curbing human aggressive inclinations and the continuously ongoing struggle between the “life instinct” and the “death instinct”.
Cultural achievements are designed, he believes, to help muffle aggressive human instincts. In cases where a culture succeeds in this, aggression can become part of a person’s inner world, which inevitably leads to neuroses. Since culture is the property of not just one person, but of a mass of people, the problem of “collective neuroses” arises. In this regard, Freud poses the question: are some cultural eras"neurotic" and is humanity not becoming "neurotic" under the influence of modern cultural and social restrictions? Speaking about psychoanalysis of “social neurosis” as a valid means of treating social ills of society, Freud nevertheless left his question unanswered. He only draws an analogy between the development of culture and the development of the individual, between the nature of social and individual neurosis, expressing the hope that perhaps someday it will be possible to study the pathology of culture.
4. Dissatisfaction with the culture of S. Freud
S. Freud argued that our research on happiness has so far given us little that is not generally known. Even if we continue our research by asking why people have such a hard time being happy, it doesn't seem to improve our chances of getting anything new. We have already answered this question by pointing to three sources from which our suffering arises: superior forces nature, the frailty of our own body and shortcomings in the establishment that regulate our relationships with each other in the family, in the state and in society. As for the first two, there is no reason for great hesitation in making a judgment: we must recognize these sources of suffering and submit to the inevitable. We can never achieve complete dominance over nature; our body - itself a part of this nature - will always remain a transitory structure and limited in its possibilities of adaptation and activity. Far from discouraging consequences flowing from this statement, on the contrary, it provides guidance for the direction of our activities. Thousands of years of experience have convinced us that if not all, then at least some suffering we can eliminate and mitigate others. Otherwise, we relate to the third, social source of our suffering. We generally ignore it; we are unable to understand why the institutions we ourselves created should not become rather a protection and benefit for all of us. However, if we pay attention to how poorly we managed to create protection for ourselves from these sufferings, then a suspicion arises: perhaps some part of the invincible forces of nature, in this case our own mental properties, is hiding here too.
Freud noted that when we begin to consider this possibility, we come across one statement that is so striking that we should dwell on it. This statement states that so-called culture bears a large share of the blame for our misfortunes: we would be much happier if we abandoned it and restored primitive conditions. I find this statement astounding, because whatever we mean by the concept of culture, one thing is certain: everything with which we try to protect ourselves from the sources of suffering that threaten us belongs precisely to this culture.
According to S. Freud, how did so many people arrive at this point of view, this strange hostility towards culture? I believe that a long-standing deep dissatisfaction with the corresponding state of culture created the basis on which, under certain historical conditions, grounds then arose for its condemnation. It seems to me that I can establish the last and penultimate of these reasons; I do not have sufficient erudition to expand this chain far enough into the history of the human race. A similar factor of hostility to culture should have played a role already with the victory of Christianity over pagan religions. He was close to the devaluation of earthly life that followed as a result of Christian teaching. The penultimate occasion arose when the development of exploratory expeditions brought us into contact with primitive peoples and tribes. Due to insufficient observation and misunderstanding of their manners and customs, it seemed to many Europeans that these people lived a simple, unpretentious and happy lifestyle, unattainable by their culturally superior visitors.
Further experience has corrected some judgments of this kind; in many cases a certain amount of ease in life has been mistakenly attributed to the absence of Western cultural demands, when it was due to the generosity of a rich nature and the ease of satisfying basic needs. The last reason is well known to us; it appeared after becoming familiar with the mechanisms of neuroses that threaten to take away from a civilized person even the little happiness that he has. It has been found that a person becomes neurotic because he cannot bear the amount of restrictions imposed on him by a society pursuing its cultural ideals; from this it was concluded that the lost possibilities of happiness could be regained if these restrictions were removed or significantly lowered.
Added to this is another moment of disappointment. During recent generations, people have made extraordinary progress in the field of natural sciences and their technical applications, human domination has established itself over nature in a way that was previously difficult to imagine. Some details of this progress are well known and are hardly worth listing. People are proud of their achievements and have the right to be so. But it seemed to them that all this recently achieved mastery over space and time, this subjugation of the forces of nature, the fulfillment of the aspirations of a thousand years ago did not increase the measure of satisfaction of the thirst for pleasure that they expected from life, and did not, in their opinion, make them happier. Given this statement, one should be satisfied with the conclusion that power over nature is not the only condition of human happiness, just as it is not the only goal of cultural aspirations, and not come to the conclusion that technology is useless for the balance of happiness. But one could argue: isn’t it a positive achievement for pleasure, an undoubted gain for our sense of happiness, that I have the opportunity to hear the voice of my child, who is hundreds of kilometers away from me, as often as I like, or that I the shortest possible time upon the arrival of a friend, can I find out that he safely endured a long and tiring journey? Doesn't it matter at all that medicine has been able to so incredibly reduce the mortality of young children and the risk of infection in women during childbirth, and that in general the average life expectancy of a civilized person has increased by a significant number of years? To the list of these benefits that we owe to the much condemned era of scientific and technical progress, much more could be added, but here again we hear the voice of a pessimistic critic reminding us that most of these satisfactions are modeled on the “cheap pleasures” praised in the famous joke. You can give yourself such pleasure by pulling your leg out from under the blanket in the dead of winter and then hiding it back. After all, if it weren’t for railways overcoming distances, the child would never leave hometown and then we wouldn't need a telephone to hear his voice. If steamship communication across the ocean had not been opened, then the corresponding sea travel my friend would not have undertaken, and I would not have needed the telegraph to receive a reassuring message from him. What good is it to us to reduce infant mortality if it is precisely this that forces us to extreme abstinence in childbearing, so that we now raise no more children in total than in pre-hygienic times, while burdening our sex life in marriage with harsh conditions and acting, perhaps, in defiance of the beneficent laws of natural selection? And why, finally, do we long life, if it is so hard, so poor in joys and full of suffering, that we are ready to welcome death as a liberator?
Therefore, we can perhaps say that in our modern culture we feel bad, although it is very difficult to make a judgment about whether and how much happier people of earlier times felt and what role the conditions of their culture played in this. We will always be inclined to consider unhappiness objectively, that is, to transfer ourselves, with our demands and receptivity, to the appropriate conditions in order to check what motives might be found there for our feelings of happiness or unhappiness. This method of reasoning seems objective, since it presupposes abstraction from fluctuations in subjective receptivity, but in fact this method is the most subjective, since it is applicable only by replacing another and unknown mental position with one’s own position. But happiness is something purely subjective. We can be horrified as much as we like by a certain situation in which there were ancient slaves on galleys, peasants during the Thirty Years' War, victims of the Holy Inquisition, a Jew in anticipation of a pogrom, but we cannot get used to the spiritual world of these people and comprehend the changes that have occurred in their susceptibility through in relation to sensations of pleasure and trouble, due to innate insensitivity, gradual dullness, loss of hope, rude or soft forms Datura. In the event of the most severe trials, certain mental defense mechanisms come into play; It seems to me fruitless to further explore this aspect of the problem.
Freud noted that now is the time to deal with the essence of that culture, whose value as a source of happiness has been questioned. Let us not strive to find a formula that defines this essence in a few words before we know something from our research. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to repeating that the term “culture” denotes the entire sum of achievements and establishments that distinguish our life from the life of our ancestors from the animal world and serve two purposes: the protection of man from nature and the regulation of relations between people. For a better understanding, let's look at it in detail character traits cultures as they manifest themselves in human groups. At the same time, without fear, let us allow ourselves to be guided by ordinary word usage or, as they say, we will follow the feeling of language in the hope that in this way we will be able to take into account the internal content that still resists expression in abstract terms.
Conclusion
Sigmund Freud always dreamed of having “the entire human race” as a patient, and research into the history of human development led to this. However, Freud was unable to identify the true causes and ways to eliminate “social neuroses and mental breakdowns of the personality.”
Freud considered the main and at the same time fatal problem of humanity to be the establishment of an appropriate balance between a person’s unconscious drives and the moral demands of culture, between the mental organization of the individual and social organization society. IN last years In his life, he questions many of the achievements of civilization, considering it impossible to predict whether such a balance is achievable or whether the conflict between these institutions remains, in principle, irremovable. culture freud humanity
Highly appreciating the achievements of mankind in its dominance over nature, the founder of psychoanalysis sees another side historical progress: “People have such power in their dominance over the forces of nature that, using it, they can easily destroy each other down to the last person. They know this - hence a significant part of their current anxiety, their despondency, their gloomy foreboding arises.”
List of sources
1. http://studme.org/1754090611938/kulturologiya
2. http://www.bibliofond.ru
3. Philosophy / Ed. CM. Yashkina.M.: UNITY-DANA, 2004.
4. Freud 3. Libido. M.: UNITY-DANA, 1996.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Freud's philosophy and cultural history, the emergence and development of psychoanalysis in Freud's works. History of the cultural development of mankind according to S. Freud. Balance between the expedient unconscious drives of a person and the moral demands of culture.
test, added 10/27/2010
History of the development of culture, its main features. Two sides of culture according to Z. Freud. Conflict between the values of culture and state. Features of the communal and public type of social relations. "Laws of historical development" according to N. Danilevsky.
test, added 09/03/2012
Consideration of the multifaceted nature of the concept of culture and its features. Familiarization with fundamental differences between material and spiritual culture. Studying the theory of the origin of culture in Russian philosophical thought, determining its connection with a religious cult.
abstract, added 09/20/2010
The emergence of culture as the primary role of communication. Ancient evidence of the existence of human culture. Early stages of culture formation. Concepts of language in the cultures of the ancient Near East. Anthropogenesis and prerequisites for the development of culture.
abstract, added 10/26/2008
Culture and religion in Freud's philosophy. The role of culture in the development of social relations. The role of personality in culture. Religion as a social neurosis. C. Jung's views on issues of culture in general. The concept of archetypes by K. Jung. Fromm's cultural ideas.
abstract, added 07/15/2008
Religion as the fundamental basis of culture. Determining factors of Russian life, culture and morality. Faith is the most important component of any culture. Culturological views of P. Sorokin. Psychoanalysis of S. Freud and C. Jung.
test, added 08/03/2007
The relationship between culture and society. Analysis of the main approaches to understanding culture and its functions. Social functions of culture. Improving man as a spiritual and moral subject of culture. Cultural differences and mutual understanding between people.
abstract, added 02/18/2010
Psychological school Sigmund Freud. Max Weber's concept of "ideal types". Oswald Spengler's theory of culture. The cycle of “local civilizations” by Arnold Joseph Toynbee. Game concept of Huizinga culture. Differences in ideological positions.
test, added 06/27/2016
The origin of culture as a philosophical and cultural problem. Analysis and evaluation of theories of the origin of culture. Social mechanism of reproduction human activity. A system of moral prohibitions that regulate all aspects of human life.
abstract, added 02/24/2015
Problems of the historical development of culture, various concepts of the historical dynamics of culture are analyzed: the theory of cultural cycles, the linear dynamics of culture, the concept of cultural progress. Concepts of cultural development of Danilevsky, Spengler.
As a far-from-important characteristic of culture, we must pay attention to the way in which relationships between people and social relations concerning a person are regulated. Here it is impossible to move away from certain ideal requirements and grasp what generally belongs to culture in this case. Freud thinks that perhaps it should be stated from the very beginning that the element of culture is already present in the first attempt to regulate social relations. Without such an attempt, these relationships would be subject to arbitrariness, that is, they would be established depending on the interests and inclinations of a physically strong individual. Living together first became possible only with the formation of a majority - stronger than any individual, and united against each individual separately. The power of such a society is now opposed as “right” to the power of the individual, now condemned as “brute force.” The replacement of the power of the individual with the power of society was a cultural step that was decisive in its significance. Its essence is that members of society limit themselves in their possibilities for satisfying their drives, while the individual does not recognize any restrictions.
The next cultural requirement considered by Freud is the requirement of justice, that is, the guarantee that the once established legal order will not be violated in favor of an individual. Further cultural development was aimed at ensuring that law does not turn into the arbitrariness of a small community (caste, estate, tribe), which would occupy the position of an individual ruling through violence in relation to the wider masses. The end result that there should be a right extending to all who sacrifice their instinctive inclinations, and no one should become a victim of brutal violence.
According to Freud, individual freedom is not a cultural good. It was the maximum of any culture, although at that time it did not have any special value, since the individual could not protect it. Freedom is limited along with the development of culture, and justice requires that none of these restrictions can be evaded. What declares itself in human society as a desire for freedom may be a rebellion against existing injustice and thus favor further development culture, get along with culture. But this same desire can stem from the remnants of the original personality, untamed by culture, and become the basis of hostility towards culture. The desire for freedom is thus directed either against certain forms and the claims of culture, or against culture in general. As a result, a considerable part of the struggle of mankind is concentrated around one task - to find an expedient, that is, a happy balance between individual claims and the cultural demands of the masses, from which one of the fatal problems of mankind follows.
As a result, we came to the idea that culture is equivalent to perfection or the path to this perfection. Let's look from the other side now.
Culture begins with prohibitions.
Yuri Lotman
Freud notes that one cannot fail to notice one of the most important properties of culture - as much as culture is built on the renunciation of drives, its prerequisite is the dissatisfaction of powerful drives. These “cultural prohibitions” dominate a vast area of social relations between people. It is known that they are the cause of hostility with which all cultures are forced to struggle. It is not easy to understand what generally has the power to cause desire to deviate from satisfaction. This is completely unsafe: if there is no economic compensation, then serious violations can be expected.
The tendency to limit sexual life on the part of culture is no less clearly manifested than its other tendency, leading to the expansion of the cultural circle. Already the first phase of culture, the phase of totemism, brought with it a ban on incest - a ban that probably inflicted the deepest wound of all time on a person’s love life. Through taboos, law, and custom, further restrictions are introduced affecting both men and women. The economic structure of a society also influences the amount of sexual freedom remaining. Culture acts through the compulsion of economic necessity, thereby depriving sexuality of a significant part of the psychic energy that culture uses for its own purposes. The fear of an uprising of the oppressed forces us to introduce the strictest precautions. The highest point of this development is found in Western European culture. Prohibitions and restrictions succeed only in organizing the unhindered flow of sexual interests through acceptable channels Modern culture makes it clear that sexual relations are permissible only in the form of a single and indissoluble bond between one man and one woman. Culture does not want to know sexuality as an independent source of pleasure and is ready to tolerate it only as an indispensable means of reproduction.
Culture is not satisfied with already existing unions; it wants to bind members of the community libidinally, uses any means for this purpose, and encourages the establishment of strong identifications between members of the community. Culture mobilizes all the forces of the libido inhibited by purpose in order to reinforce public unions relationships of friendship. To fulfill this intention, she inevitably limits her sex life.
Since culture requires the sacrifice of not only sexuality, but also a person’s aggressive inclinations, it becomes clearer why it is not easy for people to consider themselves “happy” with it. A cultured man has exchanged part of his possible happiness for partial security. It should not be forgotten, however, that in a primitive family only its head enjoyed such freedom to satisfy his desires; all the others lived enslaved. The contrast between the minority enjoying the benefits of culture and the majority deprived of these benefits was, therefore, maximum at the beginning of cultural existence. A careful study of tribes living in a primitive state, as Freud noted, indicates that the freedom of their instincts cannot be envied: it is subject to restrictions of a different kind, but, perhaps, even more stringent than that of a modern cultured person.
“The combination of humiliation with certain spiritual qualities, mainly, as we will see later, with falling out of cultural tradition, leads to the fact that the desire to humiliate another is complemented by the desire to destroy. This is the kind of complex that we often see: senseless destruction. [...]
M. Gorky repeatedly emphasized that the root of hooliganism is boredom, and boredom is generated by lack of talent. The combination of lack of talent with social abandonment, with humiliation gives rise to a “slum complex” - a destructive complex; it breaks out in the form of rudeness. [...]
Culture is a very good thing, of course, but it constrains us all: don’t do this, don’t do that, it’s a shame to do that. After all, where does culture begin? Historically - from prohibitions.
A law arises in society, and the first law is: you cannot marry your sister and mother - physically it is possible, but the culture prohibits it. You can’t, say, eat something, let’s say it’s forbidden, according to the Bible, to eat rabbits. In some countries it is forbidden to eat rotten eggs, and in others it is forbidden to eat rotten eggs, but still it is forbidden to eat something.
Do you see what strange thing: the most necessary, simple, natural things are food and sex, and they are prohibited. This is where culture begins.
Of course, the further you go, the more culture requires greater refusals, greater embarrassment, it ennobles feelings and turns a simple person into intelligent person. And therefore, certain people, especially people with little culture or oppressed by their dullness and social humiliation, really want to throw it all off. Then what appears in the 20th century is the interpretation of freedom as complete freedom from human limitations. This is rudeness. [...]
For people with an intelligent psychology, the regulating property is shame, and for people who are shameless, the regulating property is fear: I don’t do it because I’m afraid.
I would hit the child, but I’m afraid that a policeman will be nearby, or I’m afraid that someone else will hit me even harder.
Shame is the feeling of a free person, and fear is the feeling of a slave. Both belong to ethical feelings, to the sphere of prohibitions. But fear is a forced prohibition, external, and shame is a voluntary prohibition.
When people of the privileged classes rise to the level of high intelligence and realize that they are not leading a life that would satisfy their mental and moral level, they feel ashamed. Their existence is guided by a feeling of guilt, guilt before those who feed them, guilt before history, before the country, before themselves. By the way, a developed sense of shame is a trait of the noble intelligentsia; it is one of the best psychological traits that were created by culture.
Very often, a person emerging from the people was imbued with demands - they didn’t give me, I will achieve, I will snatch, I will receive, there are obstacles on my way. An intelligent, highly cultured person from a noble background thought, very early (often from childhood), that it was unfair, that he was taking advantage of what he had no right to, and he felt ashamed. The feeling of shame regulated a lot, as we will see. It determined the courage of people going to their death, in particular, military courage.”
Lotman Yu.M., Series of lectures “Culture and Intelligence”, Lectures 1-6, cited in: Personality Psychology / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter et al., M., “Ast”; "Astrel", 2009, p. 563 and 569.
According to S. Freud's concept, as culture develops, the number of prohibitions increases. The once holistic psyche, which acted under the influence of momentary aggressive and erotic impulses, is increasingly forced to refuse to satisfy them. With the growth and complexity of the world of culture, the conflict between man (his unconscious) and culture increases. S. Freud especially clearly described the meaning of the conflict between man and culture in his work “The Inconveniences of Culture” (1930), where he noted the ever-increasing displacement of man’s natural drives by culture. These critical positions of S. Freud are in many ways reminiscent of the ideas of L. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche and other thinkers of the “philosophy of life”. The process of cultural acculturation, or personal enculturation, is regarded as a derogation of human happiness and leads to the development of unmotivated feelings of fear, guilt, social discomfort, and sometimes mental disorders: “It has been found that a person becomes neurotic because he cannot bear restrictions, imposed on him by society for the sake of the ideals of his culture; and from this they concluded: if these restrictions were removed or significantly reduced, this would mean the return of the lost possibilities of happiness." Thus, at its core, culture is a set of unconscious prohibitions and restrictions imposed on instincts. All these forms of social attitudes are imperfect and do not guarantee universal happiness. The assertion that this is possible is an illusion, although humanity is looking for various ways to improve culture.
Repressed or forbidden (taboo) by censorship of the preconscious (I) attractions are looking for other ways of realization that are acceptable to society and culture. This implementation is carried out in various ways: for some people it leads to mental disorders - neuroses and psychoses; for the majority it manifests itself in dreams, fantasies, slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue; For some, it is carried out in the form of creative activity - in science, religion, art, other socially significant activities, i.e. sublimated. Sublimation (from the Latin sublimo - to elevate, elevate) is a fundamental category within the framework of psychoanalytic theory, denoting a mental process as a result of which the energy of natural sensual instincts and drives, raging in the unconscious sphere of a person, finds access to the spheres of consciousness and action, switching, transforming into human creative energy in various cultural phenomena. The concept of “sublimation” in this sense is not an invention of S. Freud. It appeared in German literature at the end of the 18th century. and was already used by A. Schopenhauer and especially F. Nietzsche as generally accepted in psychology. The psychoanalytic theory of art and art criticism are based on the concept of sublimation. However, this concept is not uncontroversial. Let us refer to its rejection by the previously mentioned French researchers, who are convinced that a person should completely trust his own desires, and not “repertoires of imaginary satisfaction.”
So, the general explanatory principle of psychoanalysis is to show how combinations and collisions of psychic forces give rise to sociocultural phenomena. As for the individual, the only thing that psychoanalysis can advise is moderation, saving vital energy, which should be evenly distributed among various goals and activities in accordance with their importance. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the statement of S. Zweig, according to which Freud does not make humanity happier, he makes it more conscious. According to S. Freud, just as the meaning of growing up is the development of the mind, thanks to which a person learns to control his desires, the meaning of history is the growth of social, altruistic feelings, the development of science, and the curbing of instincts by culture. Speaking in defense of culture and advocating for the emancipation of man, J. Deleuze and F. Guattari note that “the culmination of psychoanalysis is found in the theory of culture, which takes on the old role of the ascetic ideal.”
