Fundamentals of general psychology. S l rubinstein self-awareness of the individual and her life path

Rubinstein's definition of the psyche as the unity of reflection and relationship, knowledge and experience, reveals the relationship in it between the ideal and the real, the objective and the subjective, i.e. represents the psyche in the system of various philosophical and methodological qualifications. Definition of consciousness as objective and as subjective, i.e. as expressing the attitude of the individual to the world, the interpretation of consciousness as the highest level of organization of the psyche, which, unlike other levels, is characterized by ideality, “objective meaning, semantic, semantic content”, the understanding of consciousness as determined simultaneously by the social existence of the individual and social consciousness reveals the productive contradictions of its movement . The genesis and dialectics of the subject’s three relations – to the world, to others and to himself (these relations were identified by Rubinstein as constitutive back in 1935 in “Fundamentals of Psychology”) – reveal the basis of self-awareness and reflection of the individual’s consciousness. Finally, the correlation of consciousness with the underlying levels of the psyche allows us to understand its role as their regulator, as well as as a regulator of the holistic activity of the subject in its relationship with the world.

This statement about the regulatory function of consciousness is also hallmark Rubinstein's concepts. Consciousness can act as a regulator of activity only due to its non-identity with the latter, due to its special modality: all objective reality is represented in consciousness (in any case, the ideality inherent in consciousness allows the individual to be guided by everything that is remote in time and space, which is not lying on the surface essence of being). Precisely because everything that exists in the world, everything remote in time and space, everything with which a person has never come into direct contact and cannot come into direct contact is given in consciousness, the personality is not locked in the narrow world of his “I” and is able to go out endlessly far beyond this "I". She can set her own coordinate system regarding what is significant for her in this world and thereby regulate her actions and realize her experiences. The idea of ​​the regulatory role of consciousness goes back to the Marxist philosophical understanding of its activity, on the one hand, and, on the other, to natural scientific ideas about the regulatory role of the psyche. However, Rubinstein began to substantiate the latter dependence as a fundamental continuous line of Russian psychology in detail after the publication of the second edition of “Fundamentals of General Psychology,” i.e. from the mid-40s

First, through the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity, Rubinstein seeks an approach to the objective study of personality, to through what And How it manifests itself in activity. This approach was implemented in a series of studies on the problems of raising a child by S.L. Rubinstein and his colleagues back in the 30s. in Leningrad. Almost simultaneously, he outlined another direction of research - the path of active formation of personality and its consciousness through activity. Tracing the connection between consciousness and activity, Rubinstein shows that consciousness is such a higher mental process that is associated with the individual’s regulation of the relationships that develop in activity. Consciousness is not just a higher personal formation; it carries out three interrelated functions: regulation of mental processes, regulation of relationships and regulation of the subject’s activities. Consciousness is thus the highest ability of the acting subject. Consciousness takes him out into the world, and does not close him in on himself, since his goals are determined not only by himself, but also by society. The determination by the subject of his activity also takes place in a special process - the life path of the individual.

Fundamental for Rubinstein is the question of the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness: consciousness does not develop from self-awareness, the personal “I,” but self-awareness arises in the course of the development of the individual’s consciousness, as it becomes an independently acting subject. Rubinstein considers the stages of self-awareness as stages of isolation, separation of the subject from direct connections and relationships with the outside world and mastery of these connections. According to Rubinstein, consciousness and self-awareness are the construction by a person of relationships with the world through his actions and at the same time the expression of his attitude to the world through the same actions. From this understanding of the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness, S.L. Rubinstein develops his concept of action: “At the same time, a person realizes his independence, his isolation as an independent subject from the environment only through his relationships with people around him, and he comes to self-awareness, to the knowledge of his own "I" through the knowledge of other people." Self-awareness in this sense is not so much a reflection of one’s “I” as an awareness of one’s way of life, one’s relationships with the world and people.

At the intersection of all the above definitions of consciousness - epistemological, socio-historical, anthropogenetic, actually psychological, socio-psychological (the relationship between individual and collective consciousness), and finally, value-moral - its volumetric integral characteristic arises. It is formed precisely through genetic examination. Only consideration of consciousness in development makes it possible to correlate, distinguishing the historical (anthropogenetic) and ontogenetic processes of the development of consciousness, to show the unity and specificity of individual and social consciousness, to define consciousness as a stage in the development of a child’s personality, then as a stage in the life path and a new quality in the formation of personality, as a way and a new quality of life and correlation of oneself with reality. The stage of a conscious attitude towards life is a new quality of consciousness itself, arising in connection with a new way of life for the individual. A person becomes a subject of life not because he has consciousness, character, abilities, but therefore to the extent that he uses his intellect, his abilities to solve life problems, subordinates his lower needs to higher ones, and builds his life strategy.

S.L. Rubinstein deeply revealed the genesis of the communicative functions of consciousness, manifested in speech and realized in it: “Thanks to speech, the consciousness of one person becomes a given for another.” Speech is a form of existence of thought and an expression of attitude, i.e. in the functions of speech the unity of knowledge and attitude can also be traced. Extremely important, according to Rubinstein, is the genesis of those functions of speech that are associated with the child’s need to understand and with the desire to be understood by others. His analysis of this need, accompanied by convincing criticism of J. Piaget, is partly close to Bakhtin’s idea of ​​dialogue. However, the fundamental feature of Rubinstein’s position is that, unlike M.M. Bakhtin, who insisted, following the founder of hermeneutics F. Schleiermacher, on the importance of intersubjectivity, “Socratic conversation,” Rubinstein explores the intrasubjective aspect of this need.

The genetic-dynamic aspect of consciousness receives its most concrete embodiment when S.L. Rubinstein considers emotions and will. It is in them that consciousness appears as an experience and attitude. When a need from a blind attraction becomes a conscious and objective desire aimed at a specific object, a person knows what he wants and can organize his action on this basis. In the genesis of the circulation of needs, the switching of their determination from internal to external factors Rubinstein's concept comes closer to the concept of objectification by D.N. Uznadze.

Thus, the revelation of the genesis and structure of consciousness as a unity of cognition and experience, as a regulator of human activity, made it possible to imagine different qualities of the mental - cognitive processes in their unity with experience (emotions) and the implementation of relations to the world (will), and relations to the world should be understood as regulators of activity in its psychological and actually objective social structure, and all these multi-qualitative features of the psyche should be considered as processes and properties of the personality in its conscious and active attitude towards the world.

Collection output:

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AND ITS DETERMINANTS

Faleev Alexey Valentinovich

Ph.D., applicant, NSPU, Novosibirsk

The problem of self-awareness has centuries-old history development and at the same time on modern stage development of psychological science has not lost its relevance and is not fully resolved. Such famous psychologists as J. Mill, W. Wundt, M. James, Z. Freud, K.G. were involved in the development of this problem. Jung, K. Rogers, A.N. Leontyev, S.L. Rubinstein, I.S. Kon, V.V. Stolin, A.A. Nalchadzhyan and others. Each of these authors proposed their own approach to solving the problem of self-awareness.

Turning to the problem of research into self-awareness in the field of psychology, we can highlight several of the most important lines: the phenomenology of self-awareness and its determinants.

The specifics of defining the phenomenology of self-consciousness entirely depend on the philosophical positions of the concepts within which it is interpreted.

Today, in the study of self-awareness, two main trends can be distinguished: subjective-idealistic trends and didactic-materialistic ones.

A. Pfänder’s concept of self-awareness is typical for the subjective idealistic approach. According to his ideas, the subject creates his own idea of ​​himself - “himself”. When one's own self becomes an object of consciousness, a special mental act arises - self-consciousness. A person’s self-awareness is revealed in the fact that he determines his attitude towards other people, thereby being determined in a system of relationships and realizing his independence.

Without deviating from the ideas of the subjective-idealistic approach, T. Lipps proposed an introspectionist interpretation of feelings; for him, the “feeling-I” is the “grain” of any consciousness of the I, i.e. self-awareness. T. Lipps does not assign specificity to consciousness and self-awareness. Self-awareness is a special objective consciousness.

This approach was characteristic not only of introspective psychology in Europe (especially Germany). The methodological positions of official Russian psychology were similar. As an example, we can cite the works of E. Bobrov. But his point of view is distinctive feature: if Pfender and Lipps separated the phenomena of self-consciousness and I, then for E. Bobrov they are identical.

At the present stage of development of psychological science, echoes of these interactionist tendencies are also found in a transformed form in a number of concepts. First of all, this is humanistic psychology, where the problem of the true Self, “selfhood,” etc., which appear primarily in self-consciousness, comes to the fore.

The dialectical-materialistic approach is characterized by other principles for the analysis of self-awareness: one of the initial questions is to clarify the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness. By their origin, these are single-order mental phenomena, the essence of which can only be understood on the basis of the theory of reflection. These processes can only be separated in abstraction, since in the real life of an individual they are internally unified, i.e. in the processes of consciousness, self-awareness is present in the awareness of the attribution of the act of consciousness specifically to my Self, in addition, the processes of self-awareness can only be carried out on the basis of consciousness.

It is these postulates that formed the basis for resolving the issue of the phenomenology of self-awareness by domestic psychologists (L.I. Bozhovich, A.N. Leontiev, S.L. Rubinstein) and a number of foreign researchers (A. Vallon, R. Zazzo), who interpret self-awareness from the position dialectical-materialist philosophy.

In contrast to the dialectical-materialistic approach, representatives of introspectionism ignored the role of objective reality in the emergence and development of self-awareness. The mental was identified with consciousness, and consciousness with self-consciousness. The latter was considered as the self-reflection of the psychic in the psychic.

Proponents of behaviorism and neobehaviorism, on the contrary, tried to identify and emphasize the influence of the surrounding reality on human mental activity (Skinner, Watson). However, misunderstanding of the dialectics of the material and spiritual led them to the elimination of consciousness, and especially self-awareness, from the sphere of mental life, to deny the role of consciousness in human behavior. They abandoned these concepts as unscientific. All mental activity was reduced by them to mechanically interpreted reactions of the body to external stimuli.

Regardless of different theoretical approaches in the study of self-awareness domestic psychologists are unanimous in the opinion that, firstly, the object of self-awareness is the personality itself as a cognizing subject, who is aware of his personal, individual and social characteristics of communication and professional activity (B.S. Merlin, T.L. Mironova, A.G. Spirkin, V.V. Stolin, S.L. Rubinstein, P.R. Chamata, etc.)

Secondly, the main function of self-awareness is to know oneself, improve oneself and search for the meaning of life (self-improvement, self-awareness), although, of course, this does not exhaust all forms of work of self-awareness.

Thirdly, in the works of domestic psychologists, the narrow understanding of self-awareness only as the ability to reflect was overcome. The concept of “self-awareness” takes on a broader meaning and is interpreted, firstly, as “the complete presence of one’s revealed “I” in consciousness” and, secondly, as “self-esteem of an individual according to superpersonal ideas accumulating in consciousness, and its active transformation according to these ideas."

Psychologists (S.L. Rubinshtein, P.D. Yurkevich) consider reflection or self-reflection as a psychological “trigger device” for self-awareness. As a result of self-reflection, a self-image or self-concept is formed. On the other hand, based on the understanding of self-awareness of S.L. Rubinstein, it should be recognized that self-awareness is not so much a reflection of one’s self as an awareness of one’s way of life, one’s relationships with the world and people (K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, A.V. Brushlinsky). Thus, self-awareness is a person’s conscious attitude to his needs and abilities, drives, motives, behavior, experiences and thoughts.

Thus, self-awareness is a person’s conscious attitude towards his needs, experiences and thoughts (A.G. Spirkin). Self-awareness is also expressed in an emotional and semantic assessment of one’s subjective capabilities, which serves as the basis for expedient actions and actions (V.V. Stolin, I.I. Chesnokova, P.R. Chamata). Self-awareness is a person’s awareness of his social status and his vital needs (I.S. Kon). Self-awareness is the highest level of development of consciousness - the basis for the formation of mental activity and independence of the individual in his judgments and actions (S.L. Rubinstein).

There is also no consensus regarding the determination of the place of self-consciousness among other mental phenomena. Thus, within the framework of the psychoanalytic concept, consciousness and self-awareness act as one specific sphere of life, distinct from the unconscious. Z. Freud divides the psyche into three systems: “It” ( innate instincts, unconscious mental drives and impulses), “I” (the center that regulates the process of conscious adaptation) and “Super-I” (a kind of moral censorship). At the same time, consciousness and self-awareness are not clearly distinguished. They occupy a secondary place in relation to the unconscious sphere, which essentially controls them.

In Russian psychology, self-consciousness is considered as a special, qualitatively unique form of the psyche. It is closely related to consciousness, but not identical to it. The point of view according to which “self-awareness” characterizes a more complex level of mental life than objective consciousness, and therefore in the process of personality development it arises somewhat later (S.L. Rubinshtein, E.V. Shorokhova) is becoming increasingly recognized.

In some studies, self-awareness is identified with the concept of “I”, and the latter is considered as synonymous with the concept of personality. There is also another point of view, according to which self-awareness is a broader concept than personality. This is argued by the fact that self-awareness arises much earlier than personality.

Thus, self-consciousness is not an independent phenomenon of the psyche. It is the same consciousness, only with a different orientation. A person not only realizes the impact of objects in the real world and expresses his attitude towards them through his experiences. But, having isolated himself from this world and opposing himself to it, he realizes himself as a person and in a certain way refers to himself. If consciousness is oriented toward the entire objective world, then the object of self-consciousness is the personality itself. In self-consciousness, it acts both as a subject and as an object of knowledge (B.G. Ananyev, A.N. Leontiev, A.A. Smirnov, B.M. Teplov, S.L. Rubinstein, etc.).

In line with the consideration of the determinants that determine the development of self-awareness, the positions of researchers different directions also diverge significantly. As the main determinants of self-awareness, researchers identify: biological (S. Freud), social (L.S. Vygodsky, I.S. Kon, D.T. Mead, G. Sullivan, K. Horney, E. Fromm, etc.) , personal (D.N. Leontiev, V.V. Stolin, S.L. Rubinstein). Let us dwell in more detail on these positions.

The psychoanalytic concept considers self-consciousness in isolation from the objective conditions and causes that give rise to it. S. Freud divides the entire psyche into three systems, different in the laws of their functioning. First of all, it is an unconscious id system, which is based on subjective needs of a biological or affective order. Then, the Ego system is the center that implements the process of conscious adaptation. The self is the force that balances the deep unconscious drives and demands of society. Finally, the “Super-ego” is a kind of moral censorship, the content of which is the norms, prohibitions accepted by the individual, this is his conscience. A relationship of constant tension is established between “I” and “IT”. IT puts pressure on the “I”, and the “I” must restrain this pressure, taking into account the demands of society. In Freud's concept, “I”, consciousness, self-awareness are unambiguous phenomena.

S. Freud identified innate biological instincts, irrational, unconscious forces as the determining determinants of the development of self-awareness. He underestimated the importance of the socio-historical conditions of human existence and his practical activities in the formation of self-awareness.

Neo-Freudians recognize the dependence of self-awareness on existing living conditions and interpersonal relationships; they allow the possibility of the influence of the social environment on the formation of personality, but only to a certain limit, when internal mental factors, such as fear, anxiety, and the need for tenderness, come into force (G. Sullivan, E. Fromm, K. Horney). What they have in common is that they view self-consciousness only as a mechanism that “balances” the subject with the environment, and the hostility of this environment is emphasized.

He was the first to emphasize the importance of subjectively interpreted feedback, which we receive from other people, as the main source of data about our own “I” C.H. Coolie. The author proposed the “mirror self” theory, arguing that an individual’s ideas about how others evaluate him significantly influence his “Self-concept.” The “mirror self” arises from the individual’s symbolic interaction with the various primary groups of which he is a member and includes three components: the idea of ​​how I appear to another person, the idea of ​​how that other evaluates me, and the associated self-esteem, feeling of pride or humiliation.

Supporters of behaviorism and neobehaviorism tried to identify and emphasize the influence of the surrounding reality on human mental activity, but later they came to exclude consciousness and self-awareness from the sphere of mental life, to deny the role of consciousness in human behavior. All mental activity was reduced by them to mechanical reactions of the body to external stimuli.

The formation of the human “I” in the process of real interaction of an individual with other people within certain social groups was studied by D. Mead. He argued that self-awareness is a process that is based on the individual's practical interaction with other people. To successfully interact with other people, you need to anticipate your partner’s reaction to a particular action.

J.G. Mead believed that the formation of the human “I” as an integral mental phenomenon is nothing more than a social process occurring “within” the individual, within the framework of which the “I-conscious” and “I-as-object” first identified by W. James arise. Through cultural acquisition, one is able to predict both the behavior of another person and how that other person exhibits our own behavior. J. Mead believed that a person’s self-determination as a bearer of a particular role is carried out through “awareness and acceptance of those ideas that other people have regarding this person. The individual develops the ability to react to himself, and an attitude towards himself is formed in accordance with his attitude towards a person values ​​himself to the extent that he experiences a negative and disdainful attitude towards himself from others. Thus, the individual perceives himself in accordance with the characteristics and values ​​that others attribute to him.

Without denying the influence of social determinants, domestic psychologists primarily pay attention to the personal determinants of self-awareness, which are considered to be a person’s own practical activities and his interaction with people around him, through which he assimilates the experience accumulated by humanity (L.I. Bozhovich, L.S. Vygotsky, I.S. Kon, A.N. Leontyev, S.L. Rubinstein, etc.)

In contrast to idealist psychologists, who are of the opinion that self-awareness is innate, domestic psychologists recognize not self-awareness as innate, but only the prerequisites for its development.

So, S.L. Rubinstein believes that the formation of the psyche under the influence of social experience occurs indirectly, refracting through individually outlined internal conditions person. The author believes that the defining typological feature is the end-to-end presence at all levels of personality of a certain emotional-dynamic pattern, manifested by one or more leading tendencies. The leading trend in line with this concept is a stable, core personality quality that gives an individual coloring to the style of experience, interpersonal behavior, and thinking. These stable individual-personal tendencies create a certain channel that limits the number of degrees of freedom in the formation of more high levels organization of personality - social orientation, hierarchy of values, motivation, moral guidelines. The integrative center of this construct is self-awareness, which includes the conscious “I” in the context of social relations. The balance between the “I” itself and the environment is realized through self-esteem and self-control.

L.S. Vygotsky in his works defines self-consciousness as social consciousness transferred internally, and memory is the basis that preserves the integrity of self-consciousness, the continuity and continuity of its individual components.

Continuing the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky, L.I. Bozhovich believes that the prerequisites for the formation of self-awareness should be sought not in innate factors, but in the increasing real independence of the individual, expressed in a change in his relationships with people around him. Regulation of the child’s connection with the environment, with his upbringing, thereby plays a leading role in the development of self-awareness of the child’s personality.

A.N. Leontyev introduces the concept of personal meaning, which arises in the real life of the subject and reflects the relationship of the goals and circumstances of the action to the motives of the activity. At the same time, the unit of self-awareness is personal meaning, which contains cognitive, emotional and behavioral components, and is associated with the subject’s activity occurring outside his consciousness, that is, with his social activity.

Within the framework of V.V. Stolin’s approach, the author argues that the units of a person’s self-awareness are not the images themselves, but the conflicting meaning of “I,” reflecting the collision of various life relationships of the subject, the collision of his motives and activities.” According to the author, the process of self-attitude is triggered not only by motives, but also by various internal barriers: conscience, expectation of negative social and family sanctions, timidity, the need for well-being, the need for freedom and creativity, weakness of will, joy, pride. Each of these barriers manifests itself in certain situations. Thus, the multiplicity of activities leads to a multiplicity of meanings of the “I”, the intersection of activities leads to actions, actions lead to conflicting meanings of the “I”, the conflicting meaning of the “I” triggers further work self-awareness, taking place in the cognitive and emotional spheres.. At the same time, the conflict meaning as an attitude towards oneself is determined by participation in one’s own action, triggers self-knowledge and emotional experience about oneself.

We find a different approach to self-awareness in the studies of E.T. Sokolova, who focuses not on the contradiction between motives (which can also be seen in the works of V.V. Stolin), but on the nature of the motives, on the attitude inherent in them towards oneself, the Other and the world as a whole. The nature of this relationship determines the variant of the semantic position of self-consciousness - a dependent semantic position, characteristic of the borderline type of personal organization and presupposing a rigid opposition and conditional relationship between “I” and “Other”, a manipulative attitude towards the world.

Meanwhile, as emphasized by I.S. Con - factors that are taken as prerequisites or determinants of self-awareness must be considered not in isolation, but systemically, and necessarily in connection with the activities of the subject himself. I.S. Cohn notes the social nature of self-awareness. The set of mental processes through which an individual realizes himself as a subject of activity is called self-consciousness, and his idea of ​​himself is formed into certain images of “I”.

Thus, the opinions of representatives of domestic and foreign psychological schools regarding the determination of self-consciousness are ambiguous. If in foreign psychology primary attention is paid to biological (instincts, irrational unconscious forces) and social factors(interaction with other people, assimilation of culture by a person), then domestic scientists point to the mediation of the social situation of the development of self-awareness by individual internal conditions of a person, among which the leading role belongs to the core qualities and values ​​of the individual, motives.

Summarizing the material reviewed, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. The problem of self-awareness does not have an established thesaurus; there is no single conceptual apparatus. The point is probably that in most cases the use of certain concepts is not accompanied by an explanation of the specific meaning that is embedded in them. Typically, self-awareness is described in terms that are themselves complex and require explanation.

2. Self-awareness is determined by many factors: biological, social and personal. However, we adhere to the opinion of domestic authors who mainly pay attention to personal determinants.

3. The functioning of self-awareness is determined by such personal characteristics as narcissism, optimism, rigidity, pessimism, masculinity-femininity, impulsivity, neurotic overcontrol, emotional lability, anxiety, social introversion, etc.

The essence of self-awareness lies in the individual’s comprehension of numerous images of himself in different situations activity and behavior, in all forms of interaction with other people and in combining these images into a single holistic formation - the Image of “I”; in an emotional-value attitude towards oneself as a person, formed as a result of the correlation of ideas about oneself real and in an ideal way"I"; and regulation on this basis of behavior and activity. Psychological mechanism self-awareness has an integrative nature. Each act of self-awareness involves not only individual mental processes in their various combinations, but also the entire personality as a whole - the system of its psychological properties, features of motivation, and acquired experience.

Bibliography:

1.Ananyev, B.G. Selected psychological works. In 2 volumes. T1. / B.G. Ananyev. - M.: “Pedagogy”. - 1980. - 232 p.

2.Ananyev, B.G. On the problems of modern human science. / B.G. Ananyev. - M.: “Science”. - 1977. - 380 p.

3. Burns, R. Development of self-concept and education. / R. Burns. - M.: Progress. - 1998. - 263 p.

4. Burns, R. What is Self-concept. / R. Burns. // Psychology of self-awareness. Reader. - Samara: Publishing House “BAKHAR-M”. - 2003. - 672 p.

5. Bozhovich, L.I. Psychological analysis of the conditions for the formation and structure of a harmonious personality. / L.I. Bozovic. // Psychology of personality formation and development. - M.: Science. - 1981.- P. 257-284.

6.Vygotsky, L.S. Lectures on psychology. / L.S. Vygotsky. - St. Petersburg: Soyuz. - 1999. - 87 p.

7.Kon, I.S. Discovery of "I". / I.S. Con. - M.: Politizdat. - 1978. - 367 p.

8.Kon, I.S. Psychology of self-awareness. / I.S. Con. // Psychology of self-awareness. Reader. - Samara: Publishing House “BAKHAR-M”. - 2003. - 672 p.

9.Leontyev, A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. / A.N. Leontyev. - M.: Terra. - 1997. - 231 p.

10.Leontiev, A.N. Selected psychological works. In 2 volumes. T.1. / A.N. Leontyev. - M.: Pedagogy. - 1983. - 392 p.

11. Leontiev, D.A. Methodology of ultimate meanings. / YES. Leontyev. - M.: MPS. - 1992. -33 p.

12. Maklakov, A.G. General psychology./ A.G. Maklakov. - SPb.: Peter. - 2000. - 592 p.

13.Merlin, B.C. Personality structure: character, abilities, self-awareness: A textbook for specialists. course "Fundamentals of personality psychology." / V.S. Merlin. - Perm: PGPI. - 1990. - 110 p.

14. Mead, M. Culture and the world of childhood. Selected works. / M. Mid. - M.: “Science”. - 1988. - 429 p.

15.Mukhina, B.S. The problem of motherhood and the mentality of women in prison. / V.S. Mukhina // Personality development. - 2003. - No. 1. - p. 141 -154;

16. Nalchadzhyan, A.A. Self-concept. / A.A. Nalchadzhyan. //Psychology of self-awareness. Reader. - Samara: Publishing House “BAKHAR-M”. - 2003. - 672 p.

17. Nalchadzhyan, A.A. Socio-psychological adaptation of personality. / A.A. Nalchadzhyan - Yerevan: Yerevan State University. - 1984. - 204 p.

18.Orlov, A.B. "Empirical" personality and its structure. / A.B. Orlov // Psychology of self-awareness. Reader. - Samara: Publishing House “BAKHAR-M”. - 2003. - 672 p.

19.Rogers, K.R. A look at psychotherapy. The Becoming of Man. / K.R. Rogers - M.: Progress. - 1994. - 480 p.

20. Rubinshtein, S.L. Fundamentals of general psychology. / S.L. Rubinstein - St. Petersburg: Peter. - 1999. - 705 p.

21.Sullivan, G.S. Self-esteem and personal maturity / G.S. Sullivan. // Personality Psychology: Reader. - Samara: Publishing house. House "Bakhrakh - M". - 2002. - T.1. - With. 502-504.

22. Sarzhveladze, N.I. Self-attitude of the individual. / N.I. Sarjveladze. // Psychology of self-awareness. Reader. - Samara: Publishing House “BAKHAR-M”. - 2003. - 672 p.

23. Skinner, R. Family and how to survive in it / R. Skinner, D. Kliiz. - M.: Independent Firm Class - 1995. - 272 p.

24. Sobchik, L.N. SMIL (MMPI). Standardized multifactorial method personality research. / L.N. Sobchik. - SPb.: Speech. - 2006. - 218 p.

25. Stolin, V.V. Levels and units of self-awareness. / V.V. Stolin. //Psychology of self-awareness. Reader. - Samara: Publishing House “BAKHAR-M”. - 2003. - 672 p.

26. Stolin, V.V. Personal self-awareness. /V.V. Stolin. - M.: Moscow University Publishing House. - 1983. - 285 p.

27. Stolin, V.V. Self-knowledge and attitude towards oneself in the structure of a person’s self-awareness: Diss. ... doc. psychol. Sciences / V.V. Stolin. - M.: Moscow State University named after. V.M. Lomonosov. - 1985. - 530 p.

28. Freud, 3. Introduction to psychoanalysis: Lectures. / Z. Freud - M.: Science. - 1989. - 456 p.

29.Fromm, E. Man for himself. / E. Fromm - Minsk: Collegium. - 1992. - 253 p.

30.Horney, K. Women's psychology. / K. Horney - St. Petersburg: East European Institute of Psychoanalysis. - 1993.-224 p.

31. Chesnokova, I.I. The problem of self-awareness in psychology. - M.: Institute of Psychology RAS. - 1977. - 287 p.

32. Shamshikova, O.A. Transformations of narcissism as dynamic tendencies of self-awareness / O.A. Shamshikova, E.O. Shamshikova, S.E. Sokolov // Sociocultural problems modern man. Materials III International scientific-practical conference. - Novosibirsk: Publishing house. NSPU, 2009. - 4.2. - pp. 457-468.

Psychology, which is something more than a field for the idle exercises of learned bookworms, a psychology that is worth it for a person to give his life and strength to it, cannot limit itself to abstract study individual functions; it must, passing through the study of functions, processes, etc., ultimately lead to real knowledge of real life, living people.

The true meaning of the path we have traveled lies in the fact that it was nothing more than a sequential, step-by-step path of our cognitive penetration into the mental life of the individual. Psychophysiological functions were included in a variety of mental processes. The mental processes that were first subjected to analytical study, being in reality aspects, moments of concrete activity in which they are actually formed and manifested, were included in this latter; in accordance with this, the study of mental processes turned into the study of activity - in that specific ratio that is determined by the conditions of its actual implementation. The study of the psychology of activity, which always actually comes from the individual as the subject of this activity, was, in essence, the study of the psychology of the individual in his activity - his motives (impulses), goals, tasks. Therefore, the study of the psychology of activity naturally and naturally turns into the study of personality properties - its attitudes, abilities, character traits that manifest themselves and are formed in activity. Thus, the entire diversity of mental phenomena - functions, processes, mental properties of activity - enters the personality and closes in its unity.

Precisely because every activity comes from the personality as its subject and, thus, at each given stage the personality is the initial, initial, personality psychology as a whole can only be the result, the completion of the entire path traversed by psychological knowledge, embracing all the diversity -sie of mental manifestations, consistently revealed in it by psychological knowledge in their integrity and unity. Therefore, with any attempt to begin the construction of psychology with the doctrine of personality, any specific psychological content inevitably falls out of it; personality appears psychologically as an empty abstraction. Due to the impossibility of revealing its mental content at first, it is replaced biological characteristics organism, metaphysical reasoning about the subject, spirit, etc. or social analysis of personality, social nature which is thus psychologized.

No matter how great the importance of the problem of personality in psychology, personality as a whole cannot be included in this science. Such psychologization of personality is unlawful. Personality is not identical with either consciousness or self-awareness. Analyzing the errors of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”, K. Marx notes among the main ones that for Hegel the subject is always consciousness or self-consciousness. Of course, it is not the metaphysics of German idealism - I. Kant, I. Fichte and G. Hegel - that should form the basis of our psychology. Personality, the subject is not “pure consciousness” (Kant and the Kantians), not always an equal “I” (“I + I” - Fichte) and not a self-developing “spirit” (Hegel); it is a concrete, historical, living individual involved in real relations to the real world. The essential, determining, leading for a person as a whole are not biological, but social patterns its development. The task of psychology is to study the psyche, consciousness and self-awareness of the individual, but the essence of the matter is that it studies them precisely as the psyche and consciousness of “real living individuals” in their real conditioning.

But if personality is not reducible to its consciousness and self-awareness, then it is impossible without them. A person is a person only insofar as he distinguishes himself from nature, and his relationship to nature and to other people is given to him as a relationship, i.e. because he has consciousness. The process of formation of a human personality therefore includes, as an integral component, the formation of his consciousness and self-awareness: this is the process of development of a conscious personality. If any interpretation of consciousness outside the personality can only be idealistic, then any interpretation of the personality that does not include its consciousness and self-awareness can only be mechanistic. Without consciousness and self-awareness there is no personality. The personality as a conscious subject is aware not only of the environment, but also of himself in his relationships with the environment. If it is impossible to reduce a personality to its self-consciousness, to the “I,” then it is impossible to separate one from the other. Therefore, the last final question that confronts us in terms of the psychological study of personality is the question of its self-awareness, of personality as an “I”, which, as a subject, consciously appropriates to itself everything that a person does, attributes to himself all the deeds and actions emanating from him and consciously accepts responsibility for them as their author and creator. Problem psychological study personality does not end with the study of the mental properties of the individual - his abilities, temperament and character; it ends with the revelation of the individual’s self-awareness.

First of all, this unity of personality as a conscious subject possessing self-awareness does not represent an initial given. It is known that a child does not immediately recognize himself as “I”: During the first years, he often calls himself by name, as those around him call him; he exists at first even for himself, rather as an object for other people than as an independent subject in relation to them. Awareness of oneself as “I” is thus the result of development. At the same time, the development of a person’s self-awareness occurs in the very process of formation and development of the individual’s independence as a real subject of activity. Self-awareness is not externally built on top of the personality, but is included in it; self-awareness therefore does not have an independent path of development, separate from the development of the personality; it is included in this process of development of the personality as a real subject as its moment, side, component.

The unity of the organism and the independence of its organic life are the first material prerequisite for the unity of the personality, but this is only a prerequisite. And according to this, the elementary mental states of general organic sensitivity (“senesthesia”) associated with organic functions are obviously a prerequisite for the unity of self-consciousness, since the clinic has shown that elementary, gross violations of the unity of consciousness in pathological cases of so-called splitting or Personality disintegration (de-personalization) are associated with disturbances of organic sensitivity. But this reflection of the unity of organic life in a common organic sensitivity is only a prerequisite for the development of self-consciousness, and in no way its source. The source of self-awareness does not have to be sought in the “relationship of the organism with itself,” expressed in reflex acts that serve to regulate its functions (in which, for example, P. Janet seeks them). The true source and driving forces for the development of self-awareness must be sought in the growing real independence of the individual, expressed in changes in his relationships with others.

It is not consciousness that is born from self-consciousness, from the “I”, but self-awareness arises in the course of the development of personality consciousness, as it becomes an independent subject. Before becoming a subject of practical and theoretical activities, “I” itself is formed in it. The real, not mystified history of the development of self-awareness is inextricably linked with the real development of personality and the main events of its life path.

The first stage in the formation of personality as an independent subject, standing out from the environment, is associated with mastery of one’s own body, with the emergence of voluntary movements. These latter are developed in the process of forming the first objective actions.

A further step on this same path is the beginning of walking, independent movement. And in this second, as in the first, case, it is not so much the technique itself that is important, but that change in the individual’s relationship with other people, which is caused by the possibility of independent movement , as well as independent mastery of an object through grasping movements. One, like the other , one together with the other generates some independence of the child in relation to other people. The child really begins to become a relatively independent subject various actions, really standing out from its surroundings. The emergence of a person’s self-awareness, his first idea of ​​his “I”, is connected with the awareness of this objective fact. At the same time, a person realizes his independence, his isolation from the environment only through his relationships with the people around him, and he comes to self-awareness, to the knowledge of his own “I” through the knowledge of other people. There is no “I” outside of the relationship to “you,” and there is no self-awareness outside of the awareness of another person as an independent subject. Self-awareness is a relatively late product of the development of consciousness, presupposing as its basis the child’s becoming a practical subject, consciously separating himself from the environment.

An essential link in a number of major events in the history of the formation of self-consciousness is the mastery of speech, which is a form of existence of thinking and consciousness in general. Playing a significant role in the development of the child’s consciousness, speech at the same time significantly increases the child’s effective capabilities, changing his relationships with others. Instead of being the object of the actions of surrounding adults directed at him, a child, mastering speech, acquires the ability to direct the actions of the people around him at will and, through the mediation of other people, influence the world. All these changes in behavior child and in his relationships with others generate, realizing, changes in his mind , and changes in his consciousness in turn lead to changing his behavior and his internal attitude towards other people.

The question of whether an individual is a subject with developed self-awareness and distinguishes himself from the environment, aware of his relationship to it as a relationship, cannot be resolved metaphysically. There are a number of stages in the development of personality and its self-awareness. In a series of external events in a person’s life This includes everything that makes a person an independent subject of public and personal life: from the ability for self-service to the start of work, making him financially independent. Each of these external events also has its internal side; an objective, external, change in a person’s relationship with others, reflected in his consciousness, changes the internal, mental state of a person, rebuilds his consciousness, his internal attitude both to other people and to himself.

However, these external events and the internal changes that they cause in no way exhaust the process of formation and development of personality.

The independence of the subject is in no way limited to the ability to perform certain tasks. It includes a more significant ability to independently, consciously set oneself certain tasks, goals, and determine the direction of one’s activities. It takes a lot internal work, presupposes the ability to think independently and is associated with the development of an integral worldview. Only in a teenager, in a young man, does this work take place: critical thinking is developed, a worldview is formed, since the approaching time of entering an independent life poses with particular urgency the question of what he is suitable for, what he has special inclinations and abilities for; this makes you think more seriously about yourself and leads to a noticeable development of self-awareness in a teenager and young man. The development of self-awareness goes through a number of stages - from naive ignorance regarding oneself to an increasingly in-depth self-knowledge, which is then combined with an increasingly definite and sometimes sharply fluctuating self-esteem. In the process of developing self-awareness, the center of gravity for a teenager is increasingly transferred from the external side of the personality to its internal side, from more or less random traits to the character as a whole. Associated with this is the awareness - sometimes exaggerated - of one’s uniqueness and the transition to the spiritual, ideological scale of self-esteem. As a result, a person defines himself as a person at a higher level.

At these higher stages of development of personality and its self-awareness, individual differences are especially significant. Every person is a person, a conscious subject, possessing a certain self-awareness; but not every person has those qualities by virtue of which he is recognized by us as a person, represented in equal measure, with the same brightness and strength. In the case of some people it is precisely this impression, that in a given person we are dealing with a personality in some special sense of the word, that dominates everything else. We will not confuse this impression even with that seemingly very close feeling that we usually express when we say about a person that he is an individual. “Individuality,” we say about a bright person, that is, someone who stands out for a certain uniqueness. But when we specifically emphasize that this person is a person, it means something more and different. A personality in the specific sense of the word is a person who has his own positions, his own clearly expressed conscious attitude to life, a worldview to which he came as a result of a lot of conscious work. A personality has its own face. Such a person not only stands out in the impression he makes on another; he consciously distinguishes himself from his surroundings. In its highest manifestations, this presupposes a certain independence of thought, non-banality of feeling, willpower, some kind of composure and inner passion. At the same time, in any person of any significance there is always some kind of departure from reality, but one that leads to a deeper penetration into it. The depth and richness of a personality presuppose the depth and richness of its connections with the world, with other people; the severance of these ties and self-isolation devastate her. But a personality is not a being that has simply grown into the environment; A person is only a person who is able to isolate himself from his environment in order to contact him in a new, purely selective way. A person is only a person who relates in a certain way to the environment, consciously establishes this attitude in such a way that it is revealed in his entire being.

A true personality, by the certainty of his attitude to the basic phenomena of life, forces others to determine themselves. A person in whom personality is felt is rarely treated indifferently, just as he himself does not treat others indifferently; whether he is loved or hated; he always has enemies and true friends. No matter how peacefully outwardly the life of such a person may be, internally there is always something active, offensively affirming in him.

Be that as it may, each person, being a conscious social being, a subject of practice and history, is thereby a person. By determining his attitude towards other people, he determines himself. This conscious self-determination is expressed in his self-awareness. Personality in its real existence, in its self-awareness, is what a person, realizing himself as a subject, calls his “I”. “I” is the personality as a whole, in the unity of all aspects of existence, reflected in self-consciousness. Radical idealistic trends in psychology usually reduce personality to self-awareness. W. James built up the self-awareness of the subject as a spiritual personality over the physical and social personality. In reality, personality is not reduced to self-awareness, and the spiritual personality is not built on top of the physical and social. There is only one person - a person of flesh and blood, who is a conscious social being. He acts as “I” because with the development of self-awareness he realizes himself as a subject of practical and theoretical activity.

A person considers his body to be his personality, since it masters it and the organs become the first instruments of influence on the world. Taking shape on the basis of the unity of the organism, the personality of this body appropriates it to itself, relates it to its “I”, since it masters it, takes possession of it. A person connects his personality more or less firmly and closely with a certain appearance, since it contains expressive moments and reflects the way of his life and style of activity. Therefore, although both the human body and his consciousness are included in the personality, there is no need to talk (as James did) about the physical personality and the spiritual personality, since the inclusion of the body in the personality or its attribution to it is based precisely on relationships, between the physical and spiritual sides of the personality. To no less, if not more, degree, this also applies to the spiritual side of the personality; there is no special spiritual personality in the form of some pure disembodied spirit; it is an independent subject only because, being a material being, it is capable of exerting a material impact on its surroundings. Thus, the physical and spiritual are aspects that enter into the personality only in their unity and internal interconnection.

A person, to an even greater extent than his body, refers to his “I” as his internal mental content. But he does not include all of it equally into his own personality. From the mental sphere, a person attributes to his “I” mainly his abilities and especially his character and temperament - those personality properties that determine his behavior, giving it originality. In a very broad sense, everything experienced by a person, the entire mental content of his life, is part of the personality. But in a more specific sense, relating to his “I,” a person recognizes not everything that is reflected in his psyche, but only what was experienced by him in the specific sense of the word, entering the history of his inner life. Not every thought that visits his consciousness is equally recognized by a person as his own, but only one that he did not accept in a ready-made form, but mastered and thought through, that is, one that was the result of his own activity.

Exactly the same not every feeling that fleetingly touched his heart is equally recognized by a person as his own, but only the one that determined his life and activity. But all of this - thoughts, feelings, and likewise desires - a person, for the most part, at best, recognizes as his own; in his own “I” he will include only the properties of his personality - his character and temperament, his abilities and add to them He is perhaps the thought to which he gave all his strength, and the feelings with which his whole life became intertwined.

A real personality, which, reflected in its self-awareness, recognizes itself as “I”, as the subject of its activities, is a social being included in social relations and performing certain social functions. The real existence of a person is essentially determined by his social role: therefore, reflected in self-consciousness, this social role is also included by the person in his “I”.<...>

This personality attitude is also reflected in psychological literature. Having asked the question of what a person’s personality includes, . James noted that a person’s personality is the total sum of everything that he can call his own. In other words: a person is what he has; his property constitutes his essence, his property absorbs his personality. <...>

In a certain sense, we can, of course, say that it is difficult to draw a line between what a person calls himself and some of what he considers to be his. What a person considers to be his own largely determines what he himself is. But only this position acquires a different and in some respects opposite meaning for us. A person considers his own not so much those things that he has appropriated for himself, but rather the work to which he has given himself, the social whole in which he has included himself. A person considers his area of ​​work to be his, he considers his homeland to be his, he considers its interests, the interests of humanity, to be his: they are his, because he is theirs.

For us, a person is determined primarily not by his relationship to his property, but by his relationship to his work.<...>That's why his self-esteem is determined by what he, as a social individual, does for society. This conscious, social attitude towards work is the core on which the entire psychology of the individual is rebuilt; it becomes the basis and core of her self-awareness.

Human self-awareness, reflecting the real existence of the individual, does this - like consciousness in general - not passively, not mirror-like. A person’s idea of ​​himself, even of his own mental properties and qualities, does not always adequately reflect them; the motives that a person puts forward, justifying his behavior to other people and to himself, even when he strives to correctly understand his motives and is subjectively quite sincere, do not always objectively reflect his motives that actually determine his actions. A person’s self-awareness is not given directly in experiences; it is the result of cognition, which requires awareness of the real conditionality of one’s experiences. It may be more or less adequate. Self-awareness, including this or that attitude towards oneself, is closely related to self-esteem. A person’s self-esteem is significantly determined by his worldview, which determines the norms of assessment.

Human consciousness is generally not only theoretical, cognitive, but also moral consciousness. It has its roots in the social existence of the individual. It receives its psychologically real expression in the inner meaning that everything that happens around him and by himself acquires for a person.

Self-awareness is not an initial given inherent in man, but a product of development; At the same time, self-consciousness does not have its own line of development separate from the personality, but is included as a side in the process of its real development. In the course of this development, as a person gains life experience, not only more and more new aspects of existence open up before him, but also a more or less profound rethinking of life occurs. This process of its rethinking, passing through a person’s entire life, forms the most intimate and basic content of his being, determines the motives of his actions and the internal meaning of the tasks that he solves in life. The ability, developed in the course of life in some people, to comprehend life in the grand scheme of things and recognize what is truly significant in it, the ability not only to find means to solve problems that randomly arise, but also to determine the tasks and purpose of life themselves so that - to truly know where to go in life and why is something infinitely superior to any learning, even if it has a large reserve special knowledge, this precious and rare quality is wisdom.

The study of personality does not end with the study of its mental properties - temperament, motives, abilities, character. The final stage is the study of the individual’s self-awareness. Long years self-awareness was the Cinderella of Russian psychology. And only with the active penetration of ideas humanistic psychology the problem of self-awareness began to be actively developed.

Self-awareness is a necessary condition existence of personality. Without it there is no personality. A person is aware not only of the surrounding reality, but also of himself in his relationships with others. Therefore, S.L. is right. Rubinstein, when he noted that the study of personality “ends with the revelation of the individual’s self-awareness.”

The formation of self-awareness is included in the process of personality formation and therefore it is not built on top of it, but is one of the components of personality. In this regard, it is possible to understand the structure of self-consciousness and the stages of its formation during the formation and development of the personality itself, starting from its first steps in life.

The goal of developing self-awareness is for a person to realize his “I”, his separation from other people, which is expressed in the growing autonomy and independence of the subject.

A person’s self-awareness is the totality of his ideas about himself, expressed in the “concept - “I”, and the person’s assessment of these ideas is self-esteem.

About the mechanisms of self-awareness

The first of these is the ability to understand mental phenomena.

Already during the first year of life, the child develops the ability to separate himself from his visual images, i.e. to realize that the world exists independently of him, but is perceived through images. This ability, which is formed during the first year of life and develops subsequently, constitutes the very possibility of a person’s awareness of his mental processes, experienced mental states, mental properties and qualities.

According to V.V. Stolin, the basis of consciousness is splitting, i.e. a person’s ability to distinguish from the environment what he now perceives as seeing”), then through what visible signs he perceives and distinguishes an object from the environment (“I understand what I see”), and the observer’s own position associated with the body diagram ( “I somehow relate to what I see”). This ability allows a person to realize himself, his separation from the world, other people, that is, to highlight his phenomenal “I”.

However, having distinguished itself from environment, the child, interacting with the environment itself and people, somehow manifests himself, in other words, his acting “I” contributes to the formation of his phenomenal “I” or “I”-concept.

The main mechanism for the formation of the “I” concept, i.e. The actual self-awareness of the individual are the phenomena of subjective assimilation and differentiation. V.V. Stolin identifies the following phenomena:

1) acceptance of another’s point of view on oneself (direct assimilation or indirect assimilation of another point of view);

2) direct and indirect indoctrination to the child by the parents, as ways for the child to assimilate the assessments, norms, standards, ways of behavior, etc., transmitted to him;

3) transmission of specific assessments and standards to the child by the parents, which forms the child’s level of expectations and level of aspirations;

4) child monitoring system;

5) system of inter-complementary relations (system of transactions according to E. Bern);

6) family identity, i.e. involving the child in real relationships in the family;

7) identification mechanism.

The action of these mechanisms helps answer the question: how does the process of filling the “I” concept take place, i.e. through which ideas about oneself are acquired and appropriated. Let us give a brief comment on the actions of these mechanisms.

1) Acceptance of another's point of view on oneself.

“A person’s self-consciousness is the transformed and internalized point of view of others about the subject,” is the opinion of J. Mead, the author of the theory of symbolic interactionism.

Indeed, in the process of interpersonal interaction, the child assimilates the points of view of other people that are significant to him and, appropriating them for himself, forms self-awareness. In the process of accepting the point of view of others, it is important to evaluate yourself based on the attitude of other people. What does a child learn?

This:

a) values, parameters of assessments and self-esteem, norms;

b) the image of oneself as a bearer of certain abilities and qualities;

c) parents’ attitude towards themselves, expressed by them through emotional and cognitive assessments;

d) self-esteem of the parents themselves, i.e. the self-esteem of the parents or one of them can become the self-esteem of the child;

e) a way of regulating a child’s behavior by parents and other adults, which becomes a way of self-regulation.

2) Direct and indirect suggestion.

What do they want to instill and do they instill in their child? It is impossible to list everything; let’s name just a few phenomena: volitional and moral qualities, discipline, interests, abilities, evaluative characteristics.

3) Broadcasting grades and standards to the child.

Parents always equip their child with specific assessments, behavioral goals, ideals, plans, and standards for performing actions. If all of them are realistic, that is, they correspond to the child’s capabilities, then by achieving them, he increases his self-esteem, his level of aspirations, thereby forming a positive “I” concept.

4) Control system.

We are talking about the influence of the child control system and the parenting style chosen by the parents on the child’s self-concept. Control over a child’s behavior can be exercised either through granting autonomy to the child or through strict control. In addition, control itself can be exercised in two ways: either by maintaining fear of punishment, or by inducing feelings of guilt or shame. Finally, control can be absolutely consistent, or random and unpredictable. From the point of view of developing self-awareness, it is important to be aware of how the control system used by parents is transformed into a system of self-control over behavior in the child himself.

For example, strict discipline turns into self-discipline, and control through fear turns into self-control by constantly looking at the opinions of others and avoiding negative opinions about oneself. Predictable or unpredictable character parental control can be transformed into such a personal quality as internality-externality of behavior.

5) System of complementary relations.

We are talking about the nature of the relationship between parents and child, which may involve:

a) equality of communication;

b) functional inequality, i.e. inequality determined by the situation, the status of those communicating, etc.;

c) a system of transactions - actions of a subject aimed at another in order to evoke in him the state and behavior desired by the subject (transactions according to E. Berne).

Obviously, most often the relationship between parents involves functional inequality, but with age they can change to equal.

6) Involving the child in real relationships in the family.

We are talking about the role of the family in shaping the child’s self-awareness. First of all, we should characterize the so-called family identity, i.e. a set of ideas, plans, mutual responsibilities, intentions, etc. that create the family “WE”. It is this, this family “WE” that is included in the content of the individual “I” of the child. In addition, the child's self-awareness will be determined by psychological structure families, i.e. that invisible network of demands made by family members on each other. In this regard, families differ in:

Families with rigid, impassable boundaries between its members. Parents most often know nothing about the child’s life, and only some dramatic event can activate intra-family communication. This structure is a barrier to the formation of a family identity in a child. The child is, as it were, excluded from the family;

Families with diffuse, confused boundaries (pseudo-mutual families). They encourage the expression of only warm, loving, supportive feelings, and hostility, anger, irritation and other negative feelings are hidden and suppressed in every possible way. Such an undifferentiated family structure creates difficulties for the child in self-determination, in the formation of his “I”, and in the development of independence.

Presented characteristics different families– these are two opposite poles, and in the center between them is a normally functioning family.

7) Identification.

One of the mechanisms for the formation of self-awareness is identification, i.e. likening Oneself in the form of experiences and actions to another person. Identification is both a mechanism for the formation of personal attitudes and a mechanism of psychological defense. The action of this mechanism is well illustrated by 3. Freud in his theory of psychosexual development of the child, in particular at the third - phallic stage of development.

Stages of development of self-awareness, its structure and functions

The stages of self-awareness formation coincide with the stages mental development child – the formation of his intellectual and personal spheres, which unfold from birth to adolescence inclusive.

The first stage is associated with the formation of a body diagram in the baby - a subjective image of the relative position of the state of movement of body parts in space. This image is formed on the basis of information about the position of the body and its parts in space (proprioceptive information and the state of movement of organs (kinesthetic information). The body diagram extends beyond the physical body and may include objects that have been in touch with it for a long time (clothing) The sensations that arise in a child on the basis of proprioceptive and kinesthetic information create in him an emotionally charged impression of comfort or discomfort, i.e., what can be called the body’s well-being. Thus, the body diagram is initially the first component in the structure of self-awareness.

The next step in the formation of self-awareness is the beginning of walking. At the same time, it is not so much the technique of mastery that is important, but rather the changes in the child’s relationships with the people around him. The relative autonomy of the child in his movement gives rise to some independence of the child in relation to other people. The child’s first idea of ​​his “I” is associated with the awareness of this objective fact. S.L. Rubinstein emphasized that there is no “I” outside of the relationship to “YOU.”

The next stage in the development of self-awareness is associated with the child’s gender-role identity, i.e. identifying oneself as a gender and awareness of the content of the gender role. The leading mechanism for acquiring a gender role is identification, i.e. likening oneself in the form of experiences and actions to another person.

An important stage in the development of self-awareness is the child’s mastery of speech. The emergence of speech changes the nature of the relationship between a child and an adult. By mastering speech, the child gains the opportunity to direct the actions of other people at will, that is, from the state of an object of influence from others, he moves into the state of a subject of his influence on them.

About the structure of self-awareness

In the structure of self-consciousness it is customary to distinguish: “I” - the real, i.e. a set of ideas about oneself in the present, “I”-ideal – i.e. what I would like to be in general, “I” is the past, i.e. a set of ideas about one’s past “I”, “I”-future, i.e. a set of ideas about oneself in the future.

About the function of self-awareness

The leading function of self-awareness is the self-regulation of individual behavior. It is the totality of ideas about oneself and the assessment of these ideas that represents the psychological basis of an individual’s behavior. A person can only allow himself to behave as much as he knows himself. This formula largely determines the self-sufficiency of the individual, the degree of self-confidence, independence from others, freedom in behavior and awareness of the limitations of this freedom.

S. L. Rubinstein. Self-awareness of a person and his life path

The process of formation of a human personality includes, as an integral component, the formation of his consciousness and self-awareness. The personality as a conscious subject is aware not only of the environment, but also of himself in his relationships with the environment. If it is impossible to reduce a personality to its self-consciousness, to the Self, then it is impossible to separate one from the other. Therefore, the question that confronts us in terms of the psychological study of personality is the question of its self-awareness, of personality as an I, which, as a subject, consciously appropriates to itself everything that a person does, attributes to itself all deeds and actions emanating from him, and consciously accepts assume responsibility for them as their author and creator.

First of all, this unity of personality as a conscious subject possessing self-awareness does not represent an initial given. It is known that a child does not immediately realize himself as an “I”; During the first years, he often calls himself by name, as those around him call him; he exists at first even for himself, rather as an object for other people than as an independent subject in relation to them. Awareness of oneself as an “I” is thus the result of development.

The unity of the organism as a single whole and the real independence of its organic life are the first material prerequisite for the unity of the individual, but this is only a prerequisite. And according to this, the elementary mental states of general organic sensitivity (“synesthesia”), associated with organic functions, are obviously a prerequisite for the unity of self-consciousness, since the clinic has shown that elementary, gross violations of the unity of consciousness in pathological cases of the so-called split, or disintegration of personality ( depersonalization), are associated with disorders of organic sensitivity. But this reflection of the unity of organic life in general organic sensitivity is only a prerequisite for the development of self-consciousness, and in no way its source. The true source and driving forces for the development of self-awareness must be sought in the growing real independence of the individual, expressed in changes in his relationships with others.

It is not consciousness that is born from self-consciousness, from the Self, but self-consciousness arises in the course of the development of the consciousness of the individual, as it actually becomes an independent subject. Before becoming a subject of practical and theoretical activity, the Self itself is formed in it. The real, not mystified history of the development of self-awareness is inextricably linked with the real development of the individual and the main events of her life path.

The first stage in the real formation of personality as an independent subject, standing out from the environment, is associated with mastery of one’s own body, with the emergence of voluntary movements. These latter are developed in the process of forming the first objective actions.

The next step on the same path is the beginning of walking and independent movement. And in this second, as in the first case, it is not only the technique of this matter itself that is significant, but also the change in the relationship of the individual with the people around him, which leads to the possibility of independent movement, as well as independent mastery of an object through grasping movements . One, like the other, one together with the other gives rise to some independence of the child in relation to other people. The child really begins to become a relatively independent subject of various actions, really standing out from the environment. The awareness of this objective fact is associated with the emergence of a person’s self-awareness, his first idea of ​​his Self. At the same time, a person realizes his independence, his separation as an independent subject from the environment only through his relationships with the people around him, and he comes to self-awareness, to knowledge own Self through knowledge of other people. There is no I outside the relationship to YOU, and there is no self-awareness outside the awareness of another person as an independent subject. Self-awareness is a relatively late product of the development of consciousness, presupposing as its basis the real formation of the child as a practical subject, consciously standing out from the environment.

An essential link in a number of major events in the history of the formation of self-awareness is the development of speech. The development of speech, which is a form of existence of thinking and consciousness in general, playing a significant role in the development of the child’s consciousness, at the same time significantly increases the child’s capabilities, thus changing the child’s relationships with others. Instead of being only an object of actions directed at him by the adults around him, a child, mastering speech, acquires the ability to direct the actions of the people around him at will and, through the mediation of other people, to influence the world. All these changes in the child’s behavior and in his relationships with others give rise, being realized, to changes in his consciousness, and changes in his consciousness, in turn, lead to changes in his behavior and his internal attitude towards other people.

There are a number of stages in the development of personality and its self-awareness. In the series of external events in a person’s life, this includes everything that really makes a person an independent subject of social and personal life, such as: first, a child develops the ability to self-service and, finally, a young man, an adult, begins his own life. labor activity, making him financially independent; each of these external events also has its own internal side; objective, external change a person’s relationship with others, reflected in his consciousness, changes the internal, mental state of a person, rebuilds his consciousness, his internal attitude both to other people and to himself.

However, these external events and the internal changes that they cause in no way exhaust the process of formation and development of personality. They lay only the foundation, create only the basis of personality, carry out only its first, rough molding; further completion and finishing are associated with other, more complex internal work, in which the personality is formed in its highest manifestations.

The independence of the subject is in no way limited to the ability to independently perform certain tasks. It includes an even more significant ability to independently, consciously set oneself certain tasks, goals, and determine the direction of one’s activities. This requires a lot of internal work, presupposes the ability to think independently and is associated with the development of an integral worldview. Only a teenager, a young man, does this work; critical thinking is developed, a worldview is formed; Moreover, the approaching time of entering an independent life involuntarily poses with particular urgency the question of what he is suitable for, what he has special inclinations and abilities for; this makes you think seriously about yourself and leads to a significant development of self-awareness in a teenager and young man. The development of self-awareness passes through a number of stages - from naive ignorance about oneself to an increasingly in-depth self-knowledge, which is then combined with an increasingly definite and sometimes sharply fluctuating self-esteem. In the process of this development of self-awareness, the center of gravity for a teenager is increasingly transferred from the external side of the personality to its internal side, from the reflection of more or less random traits to the character as a whole. Associated with this is the awareness - sometimes exaggerated - of one’s uniqueness and the transition to the spiritual, ideological scale of self-esteem. As a result, a person defines himself as a person on a higher plane.

In a very broad sense, everything experienced by a person, the entire mental content of his life, is part of the personality. But in a more specific sense, a person recognizes as his own, relating to his, not everything that is reflected in his psyche, but has just been experienced by him in the specific sense of the word, entering the history of his inner life. Not every thought that has visited his consciousness is equally recognized by a person as his own, but only one that he did not accept in a ready-made form, but mastered and thought through, that is, one that was the result of some of his own activities. In the same way, a person does not equally recognize every feeling that fleetingly touched his heart as his own, but only those that determined his life and activity. But all this - thoughts, feelings, and likewise desires - a person, for the most part, at best, recognizes as his own; in his own Self he will include only the properties of his personality - his character and temperament, his abilities - and to them he will add perhaps the thought to which he devoted all his strength, and the feelings with which his whole life became intertwined.

A real personality, which, reflected in its self-awareness, is aware of itself as I, as the subject of its activities, is a social being included in social relations and performing certain social functions. The real existence of a person is essentially determined by his social role: therefore, reflected in her self-awareness, this social role is also included by the person in his Self.

Human self-awareness, reflecting the real existence of the individual, does this - like consciousness in general - not passively, not mirror-like. A person’s idea of ​​himself, even of his own mental properties and qualities, does not always adequately reflect them; The motives that a person puts forward, justifying his behavior to other people and to himself, even when he strives to correctly understand his motives and is subjectively quite sincere, do not always objectively reflect his motives that actually determine his actions. A person’s self-awareness is not given directly in experiences; it is the result of cognition, which requires awareness of the real conditionality of one’s experiences. It may be more or less adequate. Self-awareness, including this or that attitude towards oneself, is closely related to self-esteem. A person’s self-esteem is significantly determined by his worldview, which determines the norms of assessment.

Self-awareness is not an initial given inherent in man, but a product of development. In the course of this development, as a person gains life experience, not only more and more new aspects of existence open up before him, but also a more or less profound rethinking of life occurs. This process of its rethinking, which goes through a person’s entire life, forms the most intimate and basic content of his inner being, determining the motives of his actions and the inner meaning of the tasks that he solves in life. The ability, developed in the course of life in some people, to comprehend life in the grand scheme of things and recognize what is truly significant in it, the ability not only to find means to solve problems that randomly arise, but also to determine the very tasks and purpose of life so as to truly to know where to go in life and why is something infinitely superior to any learning, even if it has a large stock of special knowledge, this is a precious and rare property - wisdom.