A human individual is called marginal. Marginal: meaning and examples

You can often hear that people who are free from stereotypes and the usual majority of dependencies are called “marginal”. The meaning of the word can confuse many, since this concept may include homeless people, immigrants, intellectual free artists, and new wave oligarchs. These are completely different segments of the population, different people. What unites them? Who are considered marginalized?

Man overboard"

For some reason, these individuals and groups find themselves “overboard” because they do not fit into the framework of the prevailing traditions for a particular society. It turns out that any person who, by his own will or against it, avoids the usual attitudes or denies them, does not live like everyone else, and does not join society can be considered marginalized. Originality, inability to communicate, and a special craving for loneliness also immediately place a certain personality beyond the peculiar edge of the usual boundaries.

Let's look at what the word “marginal” means. According to the interpretation of encyclopedic dictionaries, this is a person who is on the border of different social systems, cultures, groups and experiences the impact of conflicting rules, norms and values. This concept is synonymous with representatives of the social “bottom”.

It turns out that if you have one of such characteristics as originality, inability to communicate, or a special craving for loneliness, you already find yourself outside the peculiar edge of the usual boundaries, you are already marginalized. Who is it - “living on the margins” or “cultural hybrid”? How to divide people “outside the framework” - into marginalized people of the highest and lowest levels? At the same time, the first include those who have left the lower class and remain at high levels, and the second include those who have degraded or, conversely,
found comprehensive answers to all the main questions of existence?

"Living on the Sidelines"

People who live differently from everyone else, who disregard social standards, but do not go beyond the legal framework, are marginalized. The meaning of the word does not imply anything offensive, but rather means someone who is in the minority. This term first became widespread at the beginning of the 20th century. It was used by Chicago School of Sociology researcher Robert Park. It was made in one of his essays entitled “Human Migration and the Marginal Man” in relation to immigrants to North America who did not find a use for themselves in new country who have not accepted the new norms and continue to adhere to their traditions.

All shades of meaning

The background to the emergence of the term can be considered the concept of “intermediate element”, used in works studying the life of immigrant groups in urban social organization. They described the situation of individuals balancing on the border of completely different cultures, and the consequences of their failure to adapt to the new society. These immigrants were the first to be dubbed the marginalized. The meaning of the word has acquired new shades over time. Its peculiar vagueness introduced some confusion in understanding the meaning of the term. This is how they began to call people outside the usual society, people with the imprint of physical or mental illnesses.

What does the word “marginal” mean, missing from the dictionaries of Ozhegov, Brockhaus and Efron, in the TSB? In some sources you can only find the etymology of the single-root word “marginalia” - notes or headings written in the margins of a magazine, book or other printed product. Later, in the “Soviet Encyclopedia” the word “marginality” appears, meaning the intermediate position of an individual in a certain society.

In modern Russian, individuals, social strata or groups located on the “margins”, outside the framework of structural divisions and traditions characteristic of a particular society, are referred to as marginals. The meaning of the word is rather vague, but recently quite fashionable.

"Non-systemic"

The concept of the word “marginal” is somehow non-evaluative. It is on the border between “good” and “bad”. After all, what today is perceived as being outside the framework of the system, tomorrow may well enter it, or may not enter it, remaining “outside” the social structure.

Positive and negative marginalism

The word “marginal” can be analyzed in two aspects: positive and negative. After all, the values ​​inherent in a “non-systemic” personality do not necessarily have to oppose everything that is established and philistine. They may well complement it.

Marginalized people are often seen as “weirdos.” The serious passion for classical music of a person from among businessmen makes him strange and special among his colleagues, since the values ​​of high art are rarely valued among them. He is in the minority in his company. And there are many such people in history who feel like strangers in their environment. These are A.I. Solzhenitsyn, A. Einstein, Thomas Mann and a number of other famous personalities. Many of their ideas were not understood and not accepted by their contemporaries, but were highly appreciated in the future. It is impossible to list all the names, but the uniqueness of these individuals always creates favorable conditions for the emergence of an unforeseen, original and unaccounted for case.

And there are marginalized people who rather hinder development. Due to their low intellectual abilities, they cannot adapt to generally accepted conditions; it is easier for them to deny established norms and lead an asocial lifestyle.

Understanding the phenomenon of marginality is often attempted to be interpreted in terms of negative attitude. Or you can philosophize and try to find the line between the extraordinary manifestation of the individuality of the average person and the usual perception of the word “marginal,” which is quite difficult.

Term

Marginality (Late Latin marginalis - located on the edge) is a sociological concept denoting the intermediate, “borderline” position of a person between any social groups, which leaves a certain imprint on his psyche. This concept appeared in American sociology in the 1920s to refer to the situation of immigrants’ failure to adapt to new social conditions.

Individual marginality is characterized by the individual's incomplete inclusion in a group that does not fully accept him, and his alienation from the group of origin that rejects him as an apostate. The individual turns out to be a “cultural hybrid” (Park R.), sharing the life and traditions of two different groups.

Group marginality arises as a result of changes in the social structure of society, the formation of new functional groups in economics and politics, displacing old groups, destabilizing their social position.

However, marginalization does not always lead to “settling to the bottom.” Natural marginalization is associated primarily with horizontal or upward vertical mobility. If marginalization is associated with a radical change in the social structure (revolution, reform), partial or complete destruction of stable communities, then it often leads to a massive decrease in social status. However, marginal elements are making attempts to reintegrate into the social system. This can lead to very intense mass mobility (coups and revolutions, uprisings and wars). And it can lead to the formation of new social groups fighting with other groups for a place in social space. Thus, the flourishing of ethnic entrepreneurship is explained precisely by the marginal position of ethnic minorities, for whom the usual ways of achieving high status (through inheritance, government and military service, etc.) are difficult and who find effective ways to develop entrepreneurship (including criminal ones). vertical mobility channels.

Links

see also

• Marginalia - inscriptions and drawings in the margins of a book, the original meaning of this term.

Links

• Marginality as a remedy for postmodernism. Interview with Marusya Klimova

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Synonyms:

See what “Marginal” is in other dictionaries:

- (from Latin margo, inis edge). Relating to the edges, marginal. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. MARGINAL [fr. marginal side] secondary, peripheral, insignificant, insignificant (for example ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

1. MARGINAL, oh, oh. Book 1. Not of significant importance; secondary. This phenomenon is marginal in nature. // Minor, insignificant. My group. These signs are marginal. 2. In sociology: located behind... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Incidental, insignificant, marginal Dictionary of Russian synonyms. marginal adj., number of synonyms: 7 marginal (9) ... Synonym dictionary

marginal- oh, oh. marginal, e adj. 1. Written on the field. Poppy. 1908. Written in the margins of books, manuscripts. BAS 1. 2. Secondary, peripheral, insignificant, insignificant (for example, not related to the fundamental or conceptual provisions of science).… … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

Close to the limit, almost unprofitable. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001... Dictionary of business terms

- (from French marginal, Latin margo edge, border), located on the border of two environments; a person who, due to his position, finds himself outside a certain social stratum or group (marginal person, marginal). Often used as... Modern encyclopedia

- (from the French marginal collateral in the margins), insignificant, insignificant, secondary; intermediate... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

MARGINAL, marginal, marginal (book). Representing marginalia; written in the margins of a book or manuscript. Marginal amendment, note. Dictionary Ushakova. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Marginal- (from Latin, edge) means opposite to the central, edge, boundary, boundary. Marginal does not mean peripheral (provincial, backward), peripherality is a special case of marginality. Boundary energy-information exchange... ... Geoeconomic dictionary-reference book

marginal- oh, oh; flax, linen, special 1) full f. Written in the margins, located on the edge of something. Complex deciphering problems arise when studying marginal drawings of a bottomless well of symbolism (Darkevich). 2) Side, not main, peripheral,... ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

Books

• Reverend Maxim the Greek. Essays. Volume 2, Rev. Maxim the Greek. In the second volume of the new edition of the works of Rev. Maxim the Greek (the first volume was published in 2008) publishes the first lifetime collection of “selected works” of this author, left by himself and...

Who are the marginalized? Quite often we come across this concept and, as a rule, it has a negative connotation, bordering almost on insult. So who are the marginalized? The etymology of the term comes from the Latin "marginalis", which literally translates as "from the edge". Modern sociology understands by this concept a person (sometimes a group of people) who is not fully included in any society, but is in a borderline state between different socio-cultural layers.

IN modern meaning this term was born in the 1920s among sociologists who noted the problems of socialization of migrants who found themselves in a new society. Finding themselves in an alien socio-cultural environment, many of them could not adapt to its conditions - learn the language, behavioral norms, and so on. These people literally found themselves thrown out of social processes and were on the edge of society. The most striking example of the marginalized of the modern world are the descendants of migrants in today's France. Heirs of immigrants from the Maghreb countries (Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco), they were born outside the homeland of their ancestors and were no longer able to socialize properly. They speak Arabic poorly and have never been to Muslim countries. At the same time, the majority of them are not accepted by French society itself. Living, as a rule, in the outlying areas of Lyon, Marseille or Paris, such people also found themselves on the margins of social processes, not to mention painful social problems. There is even a special term for the descendants of migrants in the second and third generations; they are called bers (beurs - a derivative of arabics). But the marginalized are not only migrants and their heirs. A person may find himself outside of society for other reasons - cultural, social or some other reason.

Who are the marginalized? in a consumer society?

The main characteristic of the so-called consumer society, which is talked about a lot today, is the fact that the main value of a person in the eyes of production is not his ability to work and create any goods or services (as it was before), but the purchasing ability that allows manufacturer to sell their product. High level manufacturability creates conditions in which there is no longer a need for a large number of workers, but goods produced in huge volumes must be constantly sold somewhere. Hence the fashion, which changes with each season for literally everything, and the deliberately low quality of goods, and instilling a feeling of inferiority in the owners of somewhat inappropriate devices. Thus, the marginalized in modern society are those people who cannot or do not want to constantly buy. This is what reduces their social prestige and turns them into eccentrics. At the same time, this does not mean that a person does not actually have purchasing power; he can have as many goods as he likes, but it is important that he does not realize them when possible.

Who are the marginalized in other societies?

At the same time human history knows many examples of social values. But marginalization has always been defined by the lack of opportunity or desire to be useful in any way in this society.

Today we will give a definition to one interesting concept that is found even in people’s colloquial speech. So, who is the marginalized? The meaning of the word: marginal (from Latin margo - edge) is a person who is outside a social group, who does not fit into it because of his position in society, lifestyle, origin or worldview.

Who are the marginalized, and what is their role in society? Initially, the term “marginal” was used to designate notes in the margins. But the word had another meaning - “unprofitable, economically close to the limit.” This term was first used by the American sociologist and one of the founders of the Chicago school Robert Ezra Park in 1928. For Park, marginality meant the position of individuals who were on the border of two conflicting cultures. So first main problem marginality was a cultural conflict. But in the 1940s-1960s, the concept of marginality began to be actively developed in American sociology and was no longer limited to cultural and racial hybrids.

Social marginals

To understand who the marginalized are, you need to know what marginality is. Marginality is a state in the process of displacement of an individual or group, as well as a characteristic of social groups that are in an intermediate position of the social structure. Marginality also includes a break in social ties between society and the individual. According to sociologists, the reason for the emergence of social marginals is the transition of society from one socio-economic system to another. At the same time, due to the uncontrolled movement of a large mass of people, the stability of the previous social structure is destroyed. In this regard, there is a devaluation of traditional norms and a deterioration in the material standard of living. Thus, people who avoid or deny social principles are considered marginalized in society.

Modern marginalized people are individuals, social strata or groups that are outside the framework of the socio-cultural norms and traditions characteristic of a given society.

There are many marginalized groups in society, here are some of them:

• ethnomarginals: national minorities;
• sociomarginals: groups of people in the process of unfinished social displacement;
• political marginals: such people are not satisfied with legitimate rules and legal opportunities for socio-political struggle;
• biomarginals: their health ceases to be a matter of concern to society;
• age marginals: formed when ties between generations are broken;

Currently, marginalization is not a progressive process, but it is worth paying attention to in order to keep abreast of developments public life.

Marginal is a person whose position in society, lifestyle, worldview, origin, etc. do not fit into the total mass.

A marginal person, a marginal element (from the Latin margo - edge) is a person who is on the border of various social groups, systems, statuses, cultures and is influenced by their contradictory norms, values, etc. In modern Russian, this word is often also used to designate a “declassed element,” a scumbag, an outcast.

Marginality (Late Latin marginali - located on the edge) is a sociological concept that denotes the intermediate, “borderline” position of a person between any social groups and statuses, which leaves a certain imprint on his psyche. This concept appeared in American sociology in the 1920s to refer to the situation of immigrants’ failure to adapt to new social conditions.

The concept of the “marginal person” was introduced into scientific use in 1928 by the American sociologist Robert Ezra Park (1864–1944), who dealt with the problems of immigrants who flooded the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. People rushing into the New World at the turn of the century, they were unable to overcome the crisis of identity and were in complete confusion, believing themselves to be left to the mercy of fate. Not wanting to part with traditional values ​​and at the same time not accepting alien stereotypes of behavior, the newcomers fell out of all sorts of frameworks. Having failed to properly anchor themselves on a foreign shore, they had already largely lost intimate ties with the immovable canon of their fathers, so the inert community rejected them like a foreign body. According to Park, such a peculiar lack of intelligence gives rise to a special socio-psychological type of intermediate, marginal person who does not know how to behave, what to be and what to rely on.

At the same time, Park did not at all consider unrooted newcomers to be second-class citizens. Guessing their latent potencies with an upper instinct, he wrote:

“A marginalized person is a type of personality that appears at a time and place where new communities, peoples, and cultures begin to emerge from the conflict of races and cultures. Fate condemns these people to exist in two worlds at the same time; forces them to accept the role of cosmopolitan and stranger in relation to both worlds. Such a person inevitably becomes (in comparison with his immediate cultural environment) an individual with a broader horizon, a more refined intellect, and more independent and rational views. A marginalized person is always a more civilized being.”

By the way, the same Park describes the marginalized as follows: “...serious doubts about one’s personal worth, uncertainty about connections with friends and a constant fear of rejection, a tendency to avoid uncertain situations so as not to risk humiliation, painful shyness in the presence of other people, loneliness and excessive daydreaming, excessive worry about the future and fear of any risky undertaking, inability to enjoy and the belief that others are treating him unfairly.”

A marginalized group of people is a group that rejects certain values ​​and traditions of the culture in which this group is located and asserts its own system of norms and values.

Feature age marginality is movement in time and slow adaptation to social roles, which does not keep up with physical development. Age-related marginality, for example, is characteristic of young people who are in a state of incomplete socialization.

Individual marginality characterized by the individual's incomplete integration into a group that does not fully accept him and his alienation from the group of origin that rejects him as an apostate. The individual turns out to be a “cultural hybrid”, sharing the life and traditions of two or more different groups.

Group marginality arises as a result of changes in the social structure of society, the formation of new functional groups in economics and politics, displacing old groups, destabilizing their social position.

Cultural marginality arises in a situation (forced or consciously chosen by the individual) of the simultaneous and single-dimensional existence of a group or individual in the context of conflicting sociocultural demands.

In all cases, cultural marginality is intertwined with social stratification and determined by social processes. The objective conditions for the formation of this marginality are the processes of transformation of the social system (modernization, “perestroika”, etc.), the intensification of social movements within society, and the development of intercultural interactions.

One of the most important factors in the emergence of cultural marginality is the process of migration.

Along with the influence of objective factors, when certain groups/individuals, against their will, find themselves in the role of marginalized (impoverished, disabled, forced emigrants, etc.), purposeful activity can also lead to the acquisition of cultural marginality. One of its grounds is, for example, rejection of socially approved goals, ideals, and methods of achieving them.

The main types of reactions leading to the emergence of subcultures, incl. and marginal, may include:

• innovation (agreement with the goals of society, but denial of socially approved ways to achieve them);
• ritualism (denial of the goals of society, but agreement to use socially approved means);
• retreatism (simultaneous rejection of both the goals and means of society - tramps, drug addicts, etc.);
• rebellion (also total denial, but leading to the formation of new goals and means, a new ideology).

Subjects of cultural marginality are “random” individuals whose cultural roots were cut off as a result of certain social processes. They are in a state of forced alienation from the traditional ethnic, national, religious and moral values ​​of their ancestors. The drama of their situation is that they are unable to assimilate and assimilate the values ​​and spirit of the culture around them, which continues to remain “foreign” to them.

Cultural marginality is also inherent in people and groups who consciously accept cultural traditions, norms, and behavioral patterns of different nature (ethnic, religious, etc.) and strive to follow them in their lives - in situations of mixed marriages, missionary work, etc. However, the bearer of this marginality, when choosing one of the orientations, always causes dissatisfaction or irritation with representatives of a different cultural tradition, which is a constant potential source of personal problems and disorders.

Cultural marginality can characterize the status of a group or individual and their internal characteristics, socio-psychological characteristics. The sociocultural status of marginal subcultures is determined by their location on the “outskirts” of the corresponding cultural systems, partial intersection with each of them and, in this regard, only partial recognition on the part of each of them.

Marginal subcultures have particular specificity, in which the presence of norms and orientations that are clearly expressed, different from socially recognized, officially approved standards, defining distance in relation to them, which gives rise to a position of rejection, rejection or disapproving condescension on the part of representatives of the dominant culture (for example, the position ethnic minorities).

The cultural “divination” of personality, characteristic of cultural marginality, the “interculturality” of its orientation as a result of the internalization of diverse values, norms, standards, borrowed from different (and often conflicting) sociocultural systems, predetermines the complexity of the process of cultural self-identification. The heterogeneity and inconsistency of the characteristics that are reference for the individual in sociocultural groups, the loss of the integrity of self-awareness are manifested in the emergence of internal discomfort and tension of the individual, in external forms of behavior corresponding to this state. This can be either a compensatory increased activity (often in aggressive forms) with a focus on self-affirmation, the desire to gain significance in social movements (nationalist, class, confessional, countercultural, etc.), or a reaction of detachment, passivity, leading to the individual’s loss of developed sociocultural connections.

Cultural marginality, as a product of value and normative ambivalence, leads to instability and eclecticism in the structural characteristics of those subcultures and individuals who are its carriers. At the same time, the combination of elements of different cultures (often a combination of “incompatible”), their interaction with each other often leads to the emergence of non-trivial and non-standard in various types activities, creates a rich palette for the development of new directions and ideas.

Given the cultural pluralism of modern society, each person is in a situation of interaction with various reference cultural systems, included in various social worlds that present him with divergent and often contradictory demands. However, the possibility of spatio-temporal separation of actions to satisfy them allows the individual in each of the spaces to maintain his cultural integrity and uniqueness.

Moral marginality- this is the position of a person between two different sociomoral systems, when, due to objective or subjective reasons, he has become separated from one system moral values, but has not entered into interpenetrating contact with the other and remains in the axiological space of immoral emptiness, where she has nothing to rely on except herself and her “will to live.” Most often, this marginality is a consequence of social and cultural marginality.

Political marginality: 1. Separation from the original social substrate, cessation of social ties that determine the essence of the individual and group, as well as the fundamental impossibility of resuming such integration ties. 2. Social quality of consciousness and behavior of an individual, layer, subgroup.

The main sign of political marginality is the rupture and entropy of social ties that form civil society. Means of turning individuals into marginals: alienation from property, strict state control, policies of universal internal migration and resettlement.

Marginal strata are the main social base of totalitarian regimes.

Marginality arises in the “clearance”, “gap” between social structures and reveals its borderline nature with any change, shift or mutual transition of structures. The so-called “ cultural hybrids”, balancing between the dominant group in society, which never fully accepts them, and the group from which they separated. It is characteristic of ethnic and racial minorities formed as a result of migrations.

Marginality is associated with the duality of ethnic identity. On a personal level, it causes mental stress and can lead to duality, even fragmentation of personal identity. In many cases, the marginal mental type was distinguished by creative potential; people of this type became leaders of ethnic groups, national movements, prominent cultural figures, etc.

Marginality is synonymous with the desire for something new on the path of denying all kinds of cultural stereotypes and prohibitions that unify the power of universality, “indifference” over individuality and uniqueness, the legitimation of pleasure and pleasure, the rehabilitation of the cultural tradition of the subject of desire - and is important point in the fight against the tyranny of power discourse.

Marginality characterizes the specificity of various cultural phenomena, often asocial or antisocial, developing outside the rules of rationality that dominate in a particular era, not fitting into the contemporary dominant paradigm of thinking and thereby quite often revealing the contradictions and paradoxes of the main direction of cultural development.

Marginality has a disorienting effect on its representatives (the marginalized). The main negative consequence of marginality is the inability of individuals to find culturally appropriate ways to resolve internal, motivational conflicts and, as a result, an increase in alienation, aggressiveness and readiness for various deviations.

Marginal is the name given to a person who cannot or does not want to live the way the overwhelming majority of society, which is the crowd, lives. You are a marginalized person in any case if you deny or avoid social norms. Denial is very important in this case. There have always been such people in human society. Among the uniform majority, people had different attitudes towards such “abnormals”: ​​some considered them eccentrics and doomedly condescending, other members of society were irritated by such otherness, and they considered themselves entitled to make every effort to either fit them into the generally accepted standard, especially without being interested in the attitude of the object of correction to this, or to expel this “human garbage” from society as a threat to its quiet life.

It has always been difficult for such originals to live among people. Representatives of the dominant majority in society could teach a person to exist successfully only in their own image and likeness. But educators usually did not set themselves the task of teaching the original to live harmoniously in society, preserving its originality. “If you don’t want to be like everyone else, live as you know, just don’t bother us. And God will be your judge...” So such eccentrics suffered as a result of their inability or unwillingness to use the practical life skills of those around them, making their way through trial and error, for which “normal” people often punished them with pleasure. The marginalized people were often subject to the aggression of irritated neighbors who did not want to put up with the need to seek an individual approach to some of their fellow tribesmen.

The division of society into the crowd and the marginalized, “us” and “strangers,” is not initial, but arises as a result of certain social mechanisms of interaction between members of the emerging society. The main one among them is the mechanism for grouping the most similar friends on other people.

These members of society, united in a group that constitutes its majority, establish group values ​​and norms of behavior. Anyone who is different from the average person in the crowd is automatically considered abnormal. Then, using its majority power, the group begins to extend its rules to other members of society, who for the time being remained psychologically independent. The majority forces individuals to strictly comply with their group norms of behavior and values, turning them into the laws of the entire society. However, the newly formed crowd exerts pressure not only on those who find themselves on its border or beyond (hence the origin of the word “marginal” - the Latin word “margo” is translated as “edge, border”, which denotes a person located on the periphery of the social structure society), but also for each of its members. Any person who wants to harmoniously merge with the masses must give them part of their personal and behavioral freedom.

This turns out to be psychologically unacceptable for some members of society who, by their nature, are not clearly original, but would like to maintain their personal freedom. Because of their resistance to group pressure, the crowd can push such people to the periphery of society, as a result of which they become forced marginals, joining the ranks of the true marginals. The last are those primary marginalized people who resisted the pressure of the crowd in order to preserve their otherness.

In addition to this, in a crowd, a psychological reaction arises among its members to the group's suppression of individual identity. As a result of this, some people, who are in spirit and essence members of the crowd, display protest behavior, shocking those around them with an emphasized disregard for group norms and values. However, they are not real marginals, since they remain psychologically dependent on the crowd. They can be called pseudo-marginals (or false marginals).

In addition to the mechanism of the natural formation of primary marginals, the formation of forced renegades is possible, when a person who initially found himself in the core of society, in order to preserve the freedom of his personality, prefers to stand out from the emerging crowd. A person may also be pushed toward forced marginalization by the role assigned to him in the crowd by its leaders. In any group, some kind of hierarchy always develops, and someone inevitably gets a place “at the bucket”. Those who do not want to put up with this situation, but do not have enough influence to improve their place in the hierarchy, also become forced marginals.

And finally, the false marginals. If one of them is tired of ostentatious shocking for the sake of attracting the attention of people around him and he begins to feel the strength and desire to free his personality from the psychological chains of the crowd, then here he will find recipes on how to do this.

Not all primary marginalized people are capable of resisting the crowd, and some of them join the crowd, betraying their original essence. Such people can be called broken or unfulfilled marginalized.

The true marginalized, who resisted the pressure of the crowd in order to preserve their otherness, are a phenomenon that arouses considerable interest in society. The true marginalized, as a rule, include talented scientists and artists. Everything seems to be clear with them. With their creations they fully “pay for” their own independent position in society. You can break the spears as much as you like regarding the mental health of the greats of this world, shuffle the endless deck of their psychopathological flaws, but the fact remains: unkempt and unwashed outcasts, completely breaking out of the framework, often change the face of the discipline in which they work beyond recognition, and almost reign supreme on the airless heights of abstract knowledge, where to an ordinary person As a rule, there is nothing to do. Often it is they who unmistakably determine the main paths of civilization. Moreover: if we interpret the concept of marginality somewhat more broadly, it turns out that the entire organic world on planet Earth has always developed under the sign of this radical.

However, there are still marginalized people who do not have pronounced talents. What is their psychology? How do they manage to survive as a minority?

Let us briefly consider the psychology of such people. This will be useful to us in the future to understand how a warrior differs from an outcast. By going the other way - by showing who the warrior is not - we can describe the essence of the warrior more deeply.

So, what views do the true marginalized people hold?

Psychology of differences between the average person and the marginalized

Neuroticism. Anyone who is different from the average person in the crowd is automatically considered abnormal. But if you think about it, it is precisely the people of the crowd who are characterized by total neuroticism, while the marginalized are distinguished by a rare mental health and harmony.

Neurosis is a deviation from the norm. The question rests on the definition of this norm. Here in science there are two different approaches. One comes down to determining the arithmetic mean standard of a given society using statistical methods. The essence of such “normality” is a person’s ability to comply with generally accepted standards of behavior. Any discrepancy with it is qualified as a pathology. Another approach is based on the concept of a harmoniously developed personality, and harmony is determined not by the generally accepted standards of good in a particular society, but by the internal factors of human nature as biological species. This concept of “normality” is aimed at maximizing human development and happiness. If modern society offered best opportunities for the happiness of each individual person, then both points of view would have to coincide. However, reality is far from ideal. But official psychiatry assumes that the existing society is completely harmonious and correct. And if so, then a person who is poorly adapted to life in it is inferior to her. And vice versa: psychiatrists qualify a well-adjusted individual as a role model. It turns out that the individual who has abandoned his human nature, self-realization and happiness is considered in society to be a mentally healthy, “harmoniously developed” person, although in fact it is generally difficult to find at least some semblance of a personality in him.

Thus, it turns out that we should distinguish between two types of neurosis common in modern society: the neurosis of the crowd man and the “neurosis” of the marginal. The crowd man is neurotic at his core, since the society of Western civilization is built on false values ​​- wealth, fame, power, social success, masked by conversations about mercy, philanthropy, altruism and other beautiful words. Those few who dare to live differently, caring for the purity and natural development of their souls, are instantly labeled with various medical labels. Some of the people in the crowd are also recognized as neurotic, since they turn out to be losers in the struggle for a “place in the sun,” but this is only an open form of the disease that affects the entire crowd.

Since the literature on the neuroses of modern man is extremely numerous and varied, and this book only partially touches on this issue, here I will give only one illustration of the confusion described above in society with the concept of “normality”. In his Social Psychology, David Myers talks about the surprising phenomenon of depressive realism. He quotes Shelley Taylor, who explains it this way: “Normal people exaggerate how competent and good looking they are, but depressed people do not. Normal people remember their past in a rosy light. People who are depressed (unless severely depressed) remember their successes and failures more impartially. Normal people describe themselves mostly positively. Depressed people describe their positive and negative qualities. Normal people accept praise for a successful outcome and tend not to take responsibility for failure. Depressed people take responsibility for both success and failure. Normal people exaggerate their control over what happens around them. Depressed people are less vulnerable to the illusion of control. Normal people have incredible faith that the future will bring a lot of good and little bad. Depressed people are more realistic about the future. In fact, unlike normal people, depressed people are always free from the prejudices of exaggerated self-esteem, the illusion of control and an unrealistic vision of the future." It turns out that a person who has an adequate perception of the world and himself in it is recognized as sick (in a state of mild depression). And all only because psychiatrists recognize the collective neurosis of the vast majority of people in society, manifested in the form of unjustified optimism, as a social norm.

The generally accepted understanding of normal in society must be treated very critically. If someone tells you that you, your words or actions are abnormal, ask the question: “What is the norm?” If you ask this question to yourself, then by trying to answer it you will be able to throw off the burden of the psychological status of an abnormal person. If you decide to voice this question to your interlocutor’s face, then, most likely, you will get rid of his subsequent moralizing, since most people in the crowd are not ready for a meaningful conversation on this topic. After all, they blindly accept group norms for fulfillment, without even thinking about their possible inadequacy to a specific situation or the present moment.

If, in your spare time, you manage to analyze the entire range of behavioral restrictions imposed by society on its members through the concept of normal, then you may unexpectedly discover new spaces for self-realization, realizing the pointlessness of following certain norms or realizing that they are inherently wrong.

The meaning of life and attitude towards death. In our society, the life of the average person consists of endless bustle, interspersed with periods when he tries to stun himself with chemicals (alcohol, tobacco, drugs) or sensory (affecting the senses - dancing, rhythmic music, music videos with a continuously flashing and frequently changing picture on the screen , gambling and computer games, etc.) drugs. Such a life seems absolutely meaningless to the marginalized and he does not want to follow the crowd in this. The marginalized are those people who try to get maximum pleasure from every moment of life, not agreeing to long-term suffering with vanity for the sake of some illusory goal of getting great pleasure in the distant bright future, which, as a rule, never comes.

There are three reasons for the wrong attitude of the average person towards his life.

The first of them is that a person does not know how to enjoy life according to the “here and now” principle. He gets so involved in the pursuit of the “horizon” that when he reaches his goal, he finds himself at a loss. This happens because the state of freedom from vanity is so unusual and uncomfortable for him that he is ready to invent his next goal, just to quickly move into the familiar state of “squirrel in a wheel”, with which he has long become accustomed.

At first, such a person sets himself a specific goal in life: “I’ll build myself the house of my dreams, drop everything, fall into a rocking chair on the veranda and enjoy life.” When the house is already built, it turns out that this concept organically includes a swimming pool in the yard. Then an underground garage, a greenhouse, a sauna, etc. are added to it one by one. After some time, it turns out that the house is too small (the children are already grown!) and an extension needs to be built. And so the construction process of the “dream house” never ends, as a result of which idleness in the rocking chair never occurs. Vladimir Orlov depicted such people in a grotesque form in “Violist Danilov,” calling them Khlopobuds (short for “worried about the future”).

Fromm spoke about this perfectly in his book “Man for Himself”: “Modern man believes that reading and writing are arts that should be learned, that becoming an architect, engineer or skilled worker is possible only through serious training, but LIVING is something so simple that no special effort is required to learn it. Simply because everyone “lives” in their own way, life is considered a matter in which everyone is an expert. ...A person is under the illusion that he is acting in his own personal interests, but in fact he is serving anything but the interests of his real self. Modern man lives by the principle of self-denial and thinks from the point of view of personal interest. He believes that he is acting in his own self-interest, when in reality his primary interests are money and success; he is not aware that his most important human potential remains unrealized.”

The second reason why a person loses the meaning of his life in the language of psychology is called a shift of motive to goal. We quote Fromm again: “One of the most characteristic psychological traits of present life is that actions, which are means to an end, more and more took the place of ends, until the latter themselves became something illusory and unreal. People work in order to make money, and they make money in order to buy pleasures with it. Work is the means, pleasure is the goal. But what's really going on? People work to make more money; they use this money to make even more money, and the goal - enjoying life - is lost sight of. People are in a hurry and invent different things that save time. Then they use the saved time again to hastily save even more time, and so on until they are so exhausted that they no longer need the saved time. We are caught in a web of means and have lost sight of our goals.”

And here is how Oscar Wilde defines this purpose of life, lost by the crowd, in his novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray”: “The purpose of life is self-expression. To manifest our essence in its entirety is what we live for. And in our age, people have become afraid of themselves. They forgot that the highest duty is a duty to oneself. Of course they are merciful. They will feed the hungry and clothe the poor. But their own souls are naked and starving. We have lost our courage. Or maybe we never had one. Fear of public opinion, this basis of morality, and fear of God, the fear on which religion rests, is what rules over us.”

Another example of a crowd imposing a shift of motive to a goal on a person, as well as his defense against such “charity,” is demonstrated by an anecdote told by 3. Freud in his work “Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious”: “One man who was prone to drunkenness earned himself livelihood by giving lessons. But his vice became gradually known, and as a result he lost most of his lessons. One of his friends was entrusted with the task of correcting him. “Look, you could have the best lessons in town if you gave up drinking. So, do it." - “What are you offering me? - was the indignant answer. - I give lessons so that I can drink; Should I give up drinking so that I can get my lessons?!”

Ultimately, a person finds himself in old age facing death with money in his hands, from which he now has no benefit except for buying an expensive place in a prestigious cemetery, and a wasted life behind him, in which there was no place for true pleasure from being. A person feels unhappy because he was looking for his happiness in the wrong place. Here is what Myers writes in Social Psychology on this matter: “In recent decades, accompanied by rapid economic growth, people in the Western world have begun to earn many times more. For example, the average American's income is twice what it was in the 1950s and yet has half as many children. Double your income means twice as many purchases. ...Although today people for the most part have enough money and things, they have not become happier. For example, modern Americans, according to surveys, are no happier or more satisfied with their lives than those who answered the same question in the 1950s.” “...Of 800 graduates of American colleges, those who professed the values ​​of “yuppie” (yuppie is an American abbreviation from the first letters of the words: “young” - young, “urban” - urban, “professional” - professional, - that is, young urban residents pursuing a career and aspiring to a luxurious life) were twice as likely as their former classmates to feel “considerably” or “very” unhappy.”

Many Eastern sages had a completely different attitude towards such “happiness”: “I cannot say whether what everyone calls “happiness” is actually happiness or not. All I know is that when I watch people achieve it, I see them being carried along in the general flow of the human herd, gloomy and obsessed, unable to stop or change the direction of their movement. And all this time they claim that a little more - and they will find this very happiness. My opinion is this: you will not see happiness until you stop pursuing it.” – Zhuang Tzu (Quoted from: Nisker V. Crazy wisdom).

The psychological mechanism of happiness is generally expressed by the formula “satisfaction is equal to what was received minus what was expected.” Since it is common for a crowd person to want a lot from life (for this he “tears his veins”), but in reality receives much less than what he wants, a chronic feeling of being unhappy is natural for him. It may seem that a marginal person should be different from a crowd person in the lack of desire to enjoy life. In fact, a marginal person also strives for happiness in life, it’s just that his motivation is completely different. If a crowd person wants specific pleasures from life, which, as a rule, are formalized in the mind in the form of materialized results of his active activity, then a marginal person tends to strive for a pleasant life in general as a continuous process. This approach allows the marginalized to abandon the pursuit of specific goals. The tactics of behavior of the marginalized is to find a pleasant life through trial and error: if you don’t like life at the moment, change it. If you don’t like it again, change it again! And so on until you find satisfaction in the process. And once you get hooked on it, gradually increase the pleasure to the level of complete happiness. That is why in the first half of life, marginalized people are characterized by a constant change in lifestyle, work, profession, social circle, habitat and other factors of existence.

The third reason for the wrong attitude of the average person towards his life is the person’s flight into vanity from his internal problems. When a person is passive, various thoughts begin to penetrate into his consciousness, one way or another affecting some of his personal problems, once unresolved and postponed “for later.” And so the thoughts “believe” that now this very “later” has come, and persistently “climb into the head” of their owner. But earlier he had already run away from these problems precisely because he was afraid to take on their solution. Since nothing has changed in the intervening time and the reasons for hiding from thoughts about unresolved problems have not disappeared, an unbearable desire arises to continue this escape. And the best proven way to do this is increased activity. To do this, you should load your consciousness so much with the objective environment of some very active activity that there is no room left in it for any “stupid thoughts”: about the neglected upbringing of a son sliding into the criminal environment of drug addicts; about elderly parents abandoned to the mercy of fate; about the complete absence of real friends; about marital relationships that have turned into coexistence of people who are completely strangers to each other, etc.

Analysis of this third reason reveals one distinctive feature marginalized people: they are never afraid to be left alone with themselves in a state of passivity, when they want to think about themselves, about the meaning of their life, about their relationships with people around them and the world as a whole. Thanks to such contemplation, marginalized people usually have very well developed psychological intelligence and worldly wisdom. And if so, then they absolutely do not need various companies and parties in order to somehow “kill” their free time, which is typical for a crowd person. If marginalized people are drawn to contact with someone, then they prefer some noisy company to communicate deeply in content and interest in the partner with another marginalized person as a unique personality.

Having this attitude towards life, the marginalized person, as a rule, is not afraid of its ending, unlike the crowd person. The marginalized person, in the face of death, thanks his life for all the pleasure it has provided him, while the crowd man realizes with horror that he lived his life meaninglessly, having taken nothing good from it. Therefore, the modern representative of Western civilization is usually tormented by a longing for immortality: “Perhaps the most significant fact is the deep-rooted thirst for immortality, which is manifested in many rituals and beliefs aimed at preserving human flesh. On the other hand, the modern, purely American form of denying death through “embellishment” of the body also testifies to the suppression of the fear of death simply by camouflage. ...As Epicurus said, death has nothing to do with us, for “when we exist, then death is not yet, and when death comes, then we are no longer” (Diogenes Laertius).” (Fromm E. To have or to be).

Appeal life into the future deprives it of meaning in the present. At the same time, the pursuit of distant goals gets so used to everyday bustle that a person is no longer able to stop for the sake of getting long-awaited pleasure. And just as a horse, which has walked in a harness all its life in a circle, once free, continues to spin in an open field, so a person, who has fallen out of the usual cycle of affairs, begins to invent worries for himself in order to return to a hectic way of life. Therefore, analyze your life to see if there are grandiose plans for the future. When you discover distant goals that define your current life and force you to now deny yourself the happiness available, think about whether the game is worth the candle. If, nevertheless, you consider it necessary to leave some goals in your future, then at least try to avoid drawing yourself into the pursuit of the horizon, when some achieved goals are replaced by others, making your refusal of momentary happiness chronic. Make your goal setting process finite.

As for escaping into vanity from realizing one’s psychological problems, so common among people in the crowd, then try testing yourself in this regard. If your life is busy with endless troubles, check the objectivity of their occurrence by running away from them for a couple of days in some deserted wilderness, where you will be left alone only with your thoughts. And don’t let any active activity distract you from this - complete physical passivity and continuous soul-searching. As a result of such a test, you will either get pleasure, and then you can calmly return to your old life, or you will be overcome by the realization of once unresolved personal problems that have finally overtaken you thanks to this artificial stop of yours in the middle of your endless flight. And then all you have to do is take on their solution, and all the previous everyday fuss will turn out to be an analogue of sand, where you, like an ostrich, hid your consciousness.

Natural behavior. Relations between people in modern society are mainly built on hypocrisy, and recently the so-called political correctness has also become the norm of behavior of public people. Hypocrisy is a mask, a socio-psychological role with which people cover their true thoughts and desires, preventing them from breaking out. The main reason for hypocrisy in a crowd is the orientation of its members towards the expectations of those around them. Hypocritical man in order to comply with group norms of behavior, he is forced to say and do something completely different from what his own soul wants. For fear of being exposed, the crowd man suppresses his true motives and drives them deep inside. In contrast to this behavior, the marginal does exclusively what his own soul tells him. This becomes the basis for sincerity and spontaneity of behavior, but this is precisely what often creates tension and conflicts in the relations of the marginalized person with the people around him, since his words and deeds often do not coincide with their expectations.

It cannot be said that the people of the crowd “forgot how” to build sincere relationships with each other; no, they never knew how to do this, since the natural spontaneity in a child is cruelly suppressed already in the first years of his life. Here is how Fromm describes it in “Flight from Freedom”: “Already at an early stage of upbringing, a child is taught to express feelings that are not his feelings at all. He is taught to love people (necessarily everyone), to be uncritically friendly, to smile, etc. If in the process of upbringing in childhood a person is not completely “broken”, then subsequently social pressure, as a rule, completes the job.

If you do not smile, then they say about you that you are “not very nice man”, and you must be pleasant enough to sell your services as a salesman, waiter or doctor. Friendliness, fun and all the other feelings that are expressed in a smile become an automatic response; They are turned on and off like a light bulb. Of course, often a person realizes that this is just a gesture; however, in most cases he ceases to be aware of this and at the same time loses the ability to distinguish such a pseudo-feeling from spontaneous friendliness. It is not only hostility that is directly suppressed, and it is not only friendliness that is killed by forced counterfeiting. A wide range of spontaneous emotions are suppressed (and replaced by pseudo-feelings). In our society, emotions are generally suppressed. There is no doubt that creative thinking - like any other creativity - is inextricably linked with emotion. However, today the ideal is precisely to live and think without emotions. “Emotionality” has become synonymous with imbalance or mental illness. By accepting this standard, the individual weakened himself enormously: his thinking became poor and flat. At the same time, since emotions cannot be completely suppressed, they exist in complete isolation from the intellectual side of the personality; the result is cheap sentimentality that feeds millions of emotion-starved consumers of cinema and popular song.

And here is the post-war syndrome, when people who have known happiness sincere relationships with those around them, rebelling against the return to the musty swamp of falsehood and hypocrisy of “normal” society, only clearly exposes this vice of modern Western society (such a conflict is quite skillfully shown in the American film “Rambo: First Blood”). Any attempt by a marginalized person to be honest and frank in relations with crowd people leads to the fact that they qualify him either as a psychopath (does not hide his dislike for bad person), either as a cynic, or as a person “not of this world,” which is tantamount to a psychiatric diagnosis, or as a “bull in a china shop,” which is tantamount to bad manners. But the same cynicism is when a person consciously does not share in word and deed any aspect of generally accepted morality and rules of etiquette and openly and honestly demonstrates his position to others, thereby refusing to “play the fool.” An example of such behavior is the act of Diogenes, who once masturbated on the steps of the Parthenon and invited those passers-by who did this secretly at home to honestly and openly join him. The hypocritical concealment of one's unsightly inner essence is considered by the crowd to be a model of decency.

The behavior of the average person is determined primarily by two motives.

The first is a reflection of the market basis of modern society of Western civilization and lies in the fact that every person is concerned with how to sell himself at a higher price. Moreover, this applies not only to business relationships. For example, marriage in our time for many people has actually turned into a mutually beneficial transaction. Or, let’s say, a person no longer raises his children, he “invests” in them, expecting to receive some form of profit from this in the future! Politicians lead a righteous (naturally, in public, since in their true form many of our politicians usually cause only disgust) lifestyle only in order to create for themselves election campaign resource in the form of a good location of the electorate. This is precisely what underlies political correctness, which is just populism, a mercantile desire to “sell” oneself to as many people as possible.

The second motive that forces a crowd person to play roles that hide his true essence is “conscience,” which is only a reflection of the expectations of his environment. And since everyone expects a person to effectively strive for social success, many diligently play the role of the “soul of society”, which succeeds in everything in life. The real conscience is unknown to the man of the crowd, since it is a manifestation of the deep structures of his soul, which can force him to act contrary to the expectations of the crowd, and this is already fraught with trouble. Therefore, the real conscience of the crowd man is mercilessly suppressed and driven into the darkest basements of the psyche. And only for the marginalized, true conscience remains the main imperative in his behavior, since action against conscience will lead him to mental anguish and deprive life of pleasure, which is unacceptable for him. “How can conscience develop if conformity is the principle of life? Conscience by its very nature is nonconformist; she should be able to say no when everyone else says yes.

To the extent that a person adapts, he is unable to hear the voice of his conscience and even less able to follow it. Conscience exists only when a person feels like a person, and not a thing, not a commodity (Fromm E. Healthy Society).

The described motives are united by a person’s orientation towards the external factors of his life, towards the crowd. But a person also has internal motives, when he does something not because others might like it, but because something stirred in his soul that has nothing to do with the crowd. And these internal motives often come into conflict with the two external ones described above, when a person wants to do something because his soul asks for it, but he understands that the people around him expect something completely different from him. And the development of our society according to the Western model is going precisely in the direction when these conflicts of motives arise more and more often and are almost always resolved in favor of the interests of the crowd. Ultimately, the modern crowd person simply loses the ability to hear his own part of the soul, independent of the environment, and, as a result, completely loses spontaneity in his behavior. Whatever desire arises inside his soul, it is doomed to dissatisfaction.

This leads to the experience of personal unhappiness, even in cases where the person is outwardly quite prosperous.

Each person should decide for himself what or whom to focus his behavior on. The choice is limited: either focus on the crowd, on the expectations of the people around you; or on your own soul. The first will give relative harmony in relationships with people around you, but will give rise to a total conflict with your own soul, fraught with the formation of a neurotic personality. The second path will ensure internal psychological harmony, harmony with your own soul, but you will have to pay for this with the dissatisfaction of those around you with your behavior, since the desires of your own soul will not always coincide with their expectations.

If you nevertheless choose sincerity and spontaneity as your norm of behavior, which, for example, was not always given to you before, then you will have to start by correcting your own conscience. Conscience can be different. For a crowd person, conscience is an internal censor that contains all the generalized group norms of behavior and values. It is this controller that forces a person to act as is customary in his society. But there is another conscience - the opinion of one’s own soul, which is independent of the expectations of the environment. In a crowd person, this true conscience is completely replaced by an internal censor, and then it begins to seem to the person that he is acting this way not because those around him want it, but according to the dictates of his conscience. But this is self-deception, allowing the crowd man to somehow reduce the severity of his internal conflict.

Therefore, a person who wants to become more sincere and spontaneous in his behavior will have to fight his inner censor, whom he is accustomed to perceive as his conscience. And all this will have to be done in order to revive the desires of one’s own soul, which, if it continues to cast its voice in the process of deciding what to say or do, then it is barely audible, devoid of hope for attention to itself and timid due to fear Lose the opportunity to speak out altogether. Every time you want to do or say something in interaction with people around you, ask yourself the question: “Is this what my soul really wants?” - and listen carefully to see if a thin voice will be heard from the depths of your soul, contradicting the already familiar commander’s bark of the internal censor. The more carefully you listen to the voice of your own soul, the stronger and more confident it will become over time. And the internal censor, on the contrary, will lose its influence until one day it becomes completely silent.

Attitude towards yourself and people. The orientation of the marginalized person in his behavior primarily towards himself gives, at first glance, grounds for those around him to accuse him of selfishness. However, a careful analysis shows that true selfishness is inherent precisely in the people of the crowd, while the marginalized are characterized by self-love, which is far from the same thing.

The man of the crowd who suffers from selfishness does not really love himself. And those who do not love themselves are deprived of the ability to love other people. That is why in modern society there is indifference to each other and even cruelty, generated by competition for “a place in the sun.”

As for the marginalized, he, loving himself, turns out to be able to love another person, which should be distinguished from such a well-known neurosis called “altruism”. Altruism, or love for all people at once, usually has nothing in common with real love. The love of a marginalized person always manifests itself towards some specific people who are interesting to him and worthy of his love. In the same way, the marginalized person turns out to be capable of showing mercy to a specific person who is really in trouble, but not to a professional beggar hypocritically acting out a dramatic scene.

The difference between a crowd person and a marginal person in their attitude towards themselves and people is understandable by definition: a marginal person is basically self-sufficient, and a crowd person cannot live without others around them even for a short time. That is, the marginalized person is so valuable and interesting to himself that he can long time do without contact with other people. Many readers will immediately declare that this is selfishness - a bad personal quality. But everything is not as simple as it seems at first glance. The fact is that usually people are very confused about such concepts as selfishness and self-love. Let's try to understand the differences between them.

Egoism (or egocentrism) is a personal position when a person puts himself at the center of the world and believes that everything around him exists only for him, only for his sake. And if so, then the egoist is convinced that he should be the happiest, the richest, the most beautiful, etc. and so on. Such an attitude towards the world and people gives rise to the following: firstly, the egoist begins to look at those around him as his slaves, whose purpose is to please him in everything. Secondly, he considers himself to have the right to claim the property of other people. Thirdly, he constantly compares himself with all other people in order to receive confirmation of his superiority. This gives rise to greed and competition in him, since no one around him should be superior to him in any way. Since all the people around him become his competitors, he involuntarily begins to treat them with hostility. This hostile attitude towards all people, complemented by a lack of respect for them (how can you respect your slave!), makes it impossible for an egoist to develop love for anyone around him. But he is not able to love himself either, since he is constantly dissatisfied with the results of comparing himself and his successes with the people around him, among whom there will always be a more successful rival. One is more beautiful than an egoist, another is smarter, the third is richer... How can you love yourself, such a loser!

A marginalized person will never be an egoist, since it would never occur to him to put himself at the center of the world, because then he will automatically find himself in the center of the crowd, which is unacceptable for him. The marginalized does not need the world of the crowd around him, since he finds his happiness inside his soul. The happiness of the marginalized lies in the ability to receive pleasure from such a life and from such a world as they are. And no one can help him in this, since tuning into such an emotional state is a deeply intimate process. A person does not need to be the center of the world, since he himself is, by and large, this very world, consisting of feelings of himself and his connections with nature. Such harmony with oneself gives the marginalized the ability to experience love not only for himself, but also for another person, whose world will be no less interesting to him than his own. And if the egoist’s positive attitude towards other people is inversely proportional to their human qualities and their material wealth, then the marginal shows a direct relationship. An egoist compares himself with others and hates them the more, the better they are. The marginalized person shows the greater interest in a person, the richer that person turns out to be in the content of his inner world. This is the basis of the ability of a marginalized person to show love to another person. This is where " Golden Rule Bible - “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And just as an egoist, in whom one can discern a man of the crowd, spreads his self-hatred to the people around him, so the marginalized person turns out to be capable of love not only for himself, but also for others.

For example, Myers in “Social Psychology” cites many real events in which a large number of people did not come to the aid of the unfortunate pleading passers-by or observers. Here is one such case: “Eleanor Bradley accidentally fell and broke her leg while shopping in a store. In a semi-conscious state, suffering from pain, she begged for help. For 40 minutes, streams of customers flowed past her.” Most of us ourselves can recall from our own lives enough examples of the indifference of others towards victims of accidents or violent crimes. Someone might argue that they know of cases when those in need of help still received it from strangers. But the main thing here is not this, but the statistics: how many people pass by among those few who still respond to calls for help? If you collect statistics on many cases, it turns out that the share of sympathetic people is at most a few percent, but this is precisely the share of marginalized people in society! It turns out that helping a stranger is a marginal behavior that is not characteristic of the vast majority of society!

Naturally, the hypothesis arises: is mercy really connected with other manifestations of marginality?

So, the same Myers cites research results that indicate that crowd people are not inclined to help people who are not like them (i.e., marginalized people), while marginalized people, when helping strangers, do not pay attention to the presence or the victim has no signs of resemblance to them. Crowd people exhibit a mechanism of moral exclusion, while marginalized people exhibit moral inclusion. Crowd people tend to consider everyone around them as “strangers”, unworthy of their care and attention, and the marginalized are ready to consider as “their own” any person who is actually in trouble (this does not mean professional beggars and hypocritical philanthropists, but victims of accidents when a needy person experiences genuine pain and his life or health is in real danger), even despite his obvious signs of difference. Elsewhere in the same book, I came across this phrase: “Preliminary evidence suggests that individuals who are highly emotional, empathic, and self-determining are more capable of empathy and helping.” Well, why not describe the marginalized!

Why are the people of the crowd so callous even to each other? Here again the property of selfishness manifests itself, leading to the fact that in modern society competition between everyone and everyone becomes the norm. The man of the crowd builds his relationships with others according to the principle “man is a wolf to man.” Therefore, due to chronic wariness towards people, he is not capable of any warm and close relationships, even with those whom he is accustomed to consider friends. Such a fear of deep communication is somewhat similar to a person’s reluctance to let a guest into a cluttered and dirty apartment, an analogue of which in in this case his soul emerges. Who among the people of the crowd likes to show others his inner essence, so different from the role he plays as a prosperous member of society!

The marginalized approach to this issue is completely different: their social circle is as narrow as possible, but the relationships are deeper. In one evening, a marginal person is able to realize truly mutually interested contact with at most one person. Even in numerous companies, marginalized people tend to communicate in a narrow circle: in pairs, or maximum of three. If we return to the comparison of the soul with an apartment, then the marginalized person is similar to the householder who considers his home (soul) to be the most interesting place in the world and will be happy to introduce his guest to him in all details. And he, naturally, is ready to do this not like a museum guide, wearily repeating the same lecture to crowds of visitors about the exhibits under his jurisdiction, but holding his guest by the hand and looking into his eyes, so as not to lose personal contact with him for a second, tracking the interest shown in the demonstrated wealth of the apartment-soul. That is why a marginalized person usually has very few friends, since such insightful communication with many is impossible, especially considering that he spends most of his time communicating with himself. A marginalized person can only contact those with whom he is in direct contact at the personal level. As soon as a person begins to contact the group in general, as with an impersonal subject, he turns into a person of the crowd.

Many people suffer due to the lack of real love in their lives, not realizing that the reason for this lies in the lack of self-love. The situation is even worse if, instead of it, egoism, which is a form of neurosis, has taken root in a person’s soul. Therefore, the path to the appearance of love in your life begins with clearing away the manifestations of selfishness in your soul for self-love. Since the main manifestations of selfishness are a consumer attitude towards other people and greed for material goods, which gives rise to competitive relationships with others, then first of all you need to start fighting them in your soul. After you manage to eradicate manifestations of selfishness, the time comes to cultivate self-love. The basis of this feeling is the willingness to hear any of her movements and your desire, if possible, to satisfy her desires on the “here and now” principle. Any delay in fulfilling the desire of your soul usually does not give the desired effect. Either satisfy your desire immediately, or never, since the desire for delayed gratification drags a person into vanity, preventing him from hearing the subsequent desires of his soul.

As you learn to love yourself, you will discover that among the many desires of your soul there is also an interest in other people, although not in all of them at once. By following this interest, you will find your love.

Attitude to work and rest. In modern society, the honor and respect of the people around us usually goes to the so-called workaholics. And not for the results of their heroic labor - this is a separate conversation, but only for the zeal shown, which is expressed in the fact that a person’s life mainly consists of long work, short sleep and short periods of time spent on food, travel, and minimally necessary everyday life . That is, it turns out that the crowd values ​​precisely the lifestyle associated primarily with work.

The reasons for such a life choice are discussed below, but here it is only worth saying that a crowd person in such an attitude towards his work actually loses the very meaning of this occupation. Logically, a person must work in order to obtain the material resources he and his family need to enjoy life. However, this logic is inaccessible to a representative of the crowd, and he lives to work. The marginalized, in contrast to generally accepted patterns of behavior, works in order to live precisely in accordance with the logic just mentioned. Therefore, as a rule, the crowd labels him a slacker for his lack of work zeal. It especially infuriates the crowd when the fringe doesn’t work at all. But if a person has the means to live, why else should he earn money?! This question is unacceptable to the environment, since they believe that a respectable person should work Always, regardless of life circumstances.

For the crowd man of modern society, workaholism has become the norm. In fact, the life of most people now consists of one continuous work, interspersed with occasional short rest. A different picture is observed in the case of marginalized people. Here, a significant part of life already consists of the enjoyment of being, from which the marginalized sometimes has to be distracted by earning a “piece of bread” at a minimum, just enough to maintain himself in good condition to enjoy life. As a result of this, the crowd usually considers the marginalized to be lazy and idle, and the marginalized perceive the people of the crowd as half-witted, wasting their only life.

Why do crowd people work so hard to the detriment of rest? Four reasons can be identified. The first of them - the most important - is the struggle of everyone with everyone for social status. We will look at this in more detail below. The second reason comes down to the fact that many people simply have no alternative to work. They would be happy to relax, but they don’t know how or with whom. Such people usually live in only one world - their professional sphere. For such people, the work collective is their only social circle. Therefore, they simply cannot imagine themselves outside of their work. Such unfortunate people come home only to sleep.

The third reason is the vicious circle in which many people in the crowd find themselves when they try to organize some kind of decent vacation for themselves. But because of their inability to rest, they remain dissatisfied with it. They react to this failure simple conclusion: leisure services purchased on the entertainment market were of insufficient quality. This means that next time you should not skimp and buy something more expensive. Do you need more money for this?! It doesn’t matter, we’ll take on additional amounts of work, if necessary, we’ll sit in the office and on weekends, but somehow we’ll manage to increase the cost of our vacation. Such tactics are usually unsuccessful, since the reason for dissatisfaction with one’s vacation is incorrectly determined. You need to be able to rest! And above all, this skill lies in the correct switching from work to rest and back.

The transition from work to active leisure always takes some time. You need to tune in to it, since receiving from active rest pleasure requires fresh senses. Sense organs and the brain, overworked by work, need passive rest to restore their performance, necessary to enjoy active recreation. That is, for the nervous system, active recreation is the same load as professional activity! Therefore, it needs restoration both during the transition from work to rest, and vice versa. Without it, a person will both work and rest ineffectively. In modern society, very busy people practice a continuous alternation of phases of work and active rest without any noticeable pauses of passive rest. This happens most often because passive rest, as we discussed above in the section on the meaning of life, is very dangerous for a crowd person, since during it all sorts of “bad” thoughts about various unresolved personal problems enter the head. So such workaholics end up in a vicious circle of meaningless life. You can, of course, drink until you pass out as a form of passive relaxation, but I doubt that nervous system while fully resting.

The fourth reason for workaholism could be called ideological, since in society there is a dogma that work itself is a benefit both for the worker himself and for humanity as a whole. Somerset Maugham quite aptly spoke about the psychological background of such a generally accepted attitude towards labor relations: “We often hear about the ennobling effect of labor; however, there is nothing noble about work as such. If you look at the history of the development of human society, you will notice that when wars raged, work was despised, and military service was revered as valor. The point is that people who consider themselves the crown of creation, in every historical period, consider their occupations to be the noblest destiny of man.

Work is praised because it distracts a person from himself. Fools get bored when they have nothing to do. For most, work is the only salvation from melancholy; but it’s simply ridiculous to call labor ennobling just for this reason. Idleness requires a lot of talent and effort - or a special mindset."

The approach of the marginalized to the relationship between work and rest is expressed by the motto “We work in order to live, and not vice versa.” But the marginalized person does not need much to live, since he is guided by the principle of reasonable sufficiency.

Solution this issue associated with finding the right meaning in life. When work turns out to be the very meaning of life, joy leaves it. If you think that you should live for the sake of enjoying the current moment, then do not let extraneous fuss interfere with this. It is foolish to spend your life earning resources for future happiness if this deprives you of the opportunity to enjoy life now. In relation to work, the principle of reasonable sufficiency must be observed - you need to work enough to provide your life with the minimum necessary for affordable happiness. And the rest of the time from work you need to enjoy real life. And under no circumstances should you allow others to drag you into senseless workaholism.

Attitudes towards wealth, fame and power. In any more or less stable crowd, a hierarchy is formed over some time social roles and associated statuses. For some people, the struggle for a place in this hierarchy becomes the meaning of life.

To achieve a high social status, the most important are three types of resources: wealth, fame and power, which are relatively easy to transform into each other in modern society. That small part of the crowd that manages to occupy significant places in the social hierarchy becomes the elite of society. However, they find little satisfaction from the achieved result, especially given the complete indifference of many members of society to their situation. Then the elite begins, using its dominant position in the crowd, to propagate its values ​​to the masses. Wealth, fame and power in public consciousness become an intrinsic value, and the vast majority of people begin to strive for them. But at the same time, they begin to respect those who have already achieved success in this field, i.e. the elite, which is what she needed.

The marginalized person is the member of society who shows insensitivity to this manipulation of public consciousness. He is indifferent to high social status in any of its manifestations, since he knows how to enjoy life in simpler ways.

These three social phenomena in modern society are the main factors that give the crowd man the purpose of his life - high social status. Moreover, all three of these resources for obtaining the coveted status are very easy to convert into each other: for money you can glorify yourself through the media, which automatically gives you a good chance of winning some elections and breaking through to power; wide fame, in addition to access to power, can perfectly feed a person through show business; the holder of power usually easily gets rich thanks to the mechanisms of corruption and theft and easily creates publicity for himself through the “pocket” media. Therefore, in order to understand the attitude of the crowd man to these three “pillars” on which modern society rests, we must first understand the meaning of social status for him.

If you analyze the history and culture of the entire human civilization, it will become obvious that in the society of almost all nations there were quite a lot of people main goal whose life was to obtain the status of an earthly god. In many powerful states, the title of supreme ruler directly denoted either the divine nature of its bearer or the viceroyship of the heavenly gods on earth. And although the most pronounced was the deification of the ruling persons, this social process was not limited to them only and was replicated at the local level on a smaller scale in forms accessible to the capabilities of local princes.

Most religious ideas about heavenly gods, invented by man, were in one way or another a development limited by the framework of mundane fantasy, ideas about what an earthly god should be like. It can be assumed that most religions were invented by people (or at least modified by priests on the orders of influential persons) not so much to solve some psychological problems common man, how much to instill in him the correct attitude towards earthly gods through the example of veneration of abstract images of divinity.

I can single out four such manifestations of earthly divinity: omnipotence, power, glory, imitation of immortality. The first aspect - omnipotence - is very accurately conveyed by the word itself: I can afford everything available to a person in this world. Power implied a sense of permission to decide the fate of other people. Glory was expressed in the universal worship of the surrounding people. With immortality it was more difficult, because it is real immortal life It was not given to the powers that be, despite all their attempts. Therefore, in order to preserve their image in the public consciousness, they went to all sorts of tricks in the form of monumental structures, works of art and methods of physically preserving their ashes. At present, the mentality of mankind has not changed at all, even with the advent of astronautics or the Internet: there are still a huge number of people in society striving to obtain the status of an earthly god. Changes occurred only in the form of manifestations of divinity. If previously omnipotence was ensured by tyranny, now everything can be bought for money. Other aspects have changed even less, except that deep freezing, cloning and DNA preservation have been added to mummification and embalming of the body. The fame of some Bill Gates or Michael Jackson is no different from prehistoric worship of spirits, so much so that the crowd’s attitude towards them has lost all hints of any rational feelings such as respect for an outstanding person. They are called in modern society nothing more than idols of computer or musical world. I want to talk even less about power because I want to experiment the mighty of the world They stopped this with the ability to destroy or make any person happy at their whim a long time ago, having become convinced of its ease.

What are the reasons for such an all-consuming desire to obtain the status of an earthly god of at least a “local spill”? This is due to a person’s dissatisfaction with his real life. Religious fantasies in such a situation draw perfect image heavenly happiness, and activity to achieve the status of an earthly god gives a person the opportunity to partake of these coveted mirages. Therefore, it turns out that precisely those people who absolutely do not know how to live their real life and receive completely earthly pleasure from it strive to become earthly gods.

Based on all of the above, we can conclude that the mania for being earthly gods is highest form neurosis of modern man in its destructiveness and harmfulness for humanity.

How does the position of the marginalized differ from that just described? First of all, because the marginalized person does not need to dream of heavenly happiness, since he fully enjoys his current life. This means that his attitude to wealth, fame and power is fundamentally different from their fetishization among the crowd, whose simple members have been imposed an earthly religion by the divine neurotics just described. It’s like in A. Tarkovsky’s film “Stalker”, when the Writer asks the Stalker: “Didn’t you want to use this room yourself?” To which he indifferently replies: “And I’m fine as is!” And this is said by a man who, by the standards of modern society absolute zero! Therefore, it remains for us in our consideration to descend from “heaven” to earth.

The living conditions of the marginalized must be reduced in importance to the limit of the struggle for existence. That is, a person should be provided with material wealth only enough so that he does not have to spend money on getting a piece of bread. All its time, but nothing more. Having provided himself and his family with a living wage, a person should have enough time and opportunity to enjoy life, self-improvement and raise children. As for power and fame, the first distorts a person’s psyche, which a real outcast will never agree to, and the second deprives him of his freedom, since a famous person cannot appear anywhere without numerous security, without risking encountering: annoying fans; paparazzi recording his every move on film in the hope of selling it later to the media; with some psycho who wants to immortalize his name by stabbing a celebrity with a knife.

If, after delving into your soul, you find a positive attitude towards something in this trinity - wealth, fame and power, then try to think about what caused this. Is it really caused by the needs of your true soul, or is it brought into it from the outside as a result of some psychological manipulation of your consciousness? And just as in the house from time to time it is necessary to clean and inspect everything that is available, throwing all the rubbish into a landfill, so it is useful to carry out similar cleaning in the soul, removing from it all foreign elements that are useless for your enjoyment of the current moment. And you need to be especially careful in getting rid of various psychological implants that turn you into someone’s slave.

Attitude to freedom. A person’s personal freedom is manifested primarily in the fact that he turns out to be either insensitive to the psychological pressure of other people on him, or capable of resisting it through the effort of his will to independence. Psychological experiments show that in society the proportion of people who exhibit personal freedom, according to various estimates, ranges from a few percent to a third (it all depends on the degree of psychological pressure exerted and the seriousness of yielding to this pressure). That is, most people show conformism - a willingness to succumb to public opinion and authority. And only a few are ready to go against or across the current. But even among these few, one must distinguish between truly free people and false marginals. The first ones make their way based on an internal goal, and they only take into account the currents existing in society in order to make the appropriate amendment and, in the end, still sail exactly to their goal. As for the false marginals, they always row only against the current, thereby attracting attention to themselves, which, in fact, is their true goal. This is not personal freedom, since their movement is still always determined by the current existing in society. The crowd changed the direction of its movement, and the false marginals are forced to immediately turn around in order to again stand towards the flow - a sort of anti-weather vane (physically, a weather vane and an anti-weather vane are the same thing, since they differ only in the direction of the arrow drawn on them). And a completely free person, on occasion, can swim with the flow if, by the will of circumstances, it temporarily carries him straight to his chosen goal.

The question of freedom, as a rule, comes down to the choice of one of two options for the development of the situation: you recognize the restrictions imposed on you - you receive such and such a reward; if you don’t recognize it, you have the corresponding Negative consequences. In the first case, a person receives a certain benefit for his lack of freedom, which can consist either in the form of a useful acquisition or in the form of the absence of repression. In the second case, a person gains freedom at the cost of either refusing remuneration or some kind of loss due to the punitive influence of the imposed restrictions on the part of the subject. For example, hunting is prohibited in the reserve. The hunter is free in his choice: either he will ignore the ban and pay a price for this act of freedom, which will be determined by law enforcement agencies and the justice system; or he will give up his freedom to hunt anywhere and be spared a potential conviction for breaking the law.

Restrictions on human behavior can be imposed by official laws, rules of etiquette, and norms of behavior. Let's focus on attitudes towards unofficial social norms of behavior in society.

Among violations of unofficial social norms, three types of manifestation of freedom can be distinguished: violation of the rules of etiquette; disrespect for authority; opposing oneself to the majority of society (or any group that is a reduced model of society). If the rules of etiquette are at least spelled out in specialized literature, then few people will even verbally declare such social norms as the need to respect authority and focus on the majority. However, for each of the listed three acts of freedom from following these generally accepted rules of behavior in society, the subject of freedom faces the condemnation of the crowd. And this already gives rise to certain consequences for the renegade: communicative isolation and negative prejudice of the people around him, aimed at returning the troublemaker to the role of a respectable member of society. Thus, it turns out that each member of society finds himself in a kind of force field that keeps his behavior within the framework of social norms. And the further their violator moves away from the permissible limits, the stronger the returning effect of this force field turns out to be.

Any person who desires freedom in his behavior from restrictions by social norms understands that after the first step towards protest, the crowd will increasingly raise the question point-blank: “Are you with us or against us?” And either he will someday have to “break” in his love of freedom and receive punishment from those around him for all previous steps of protest (and the crowd’s revenge on such failed rebels is especially cruel and merciless! It cannot forgive them for its own cowardice, since any member of the crowd secretly wants to be free, but is afraid of even the thought of rebellion), or the escalation of the confrontation between him and the crowd may lead him to a final break with society. And this is already a question absolute freedom! The image of such freedom is the behavior of a sailor who believes in his strength, his crew and his ship. Such a captain in a storm always tries to go to the open sea away from dangerous shores, on which waves and wind can break his ship. The cowardly sailor (if you can call him that, since the words “shoreman” or “countryman” are more suitable for him!) always tries to huddle closer to the shore, seeing in it his salvation in the person of people who can, if necessary, come to the rescue.

Most members of the crowd do not feel ready to go through this path of liberation to the end, if necessary, so, fearing the revenge of the crowd, they do not even try to take it. But the road of freedom turns out to be not so scary for those who are mentally strong and flexible enough to calmly walk back and forth along it, without ever approaching its dangerous ends: the complete loss of freedom in merging with the crowd and the final break with society . Such fighters are able to protest moderately, without breaking under the pressure of the crowd and avoiding its revenge, and without bringing the matter to the last choice: “Are you with us or without?” Such “walking on the razor’s edge” is the lot of flexible outcasts who are capable, if not of harmonious and conflict-free coexistence with the crowd, then at least not of conducting open hostilities. All other members of society are subject to so-called conformism. The Dictionary of Foreign Words defines this concept as follows: “conformism - opportunism, passive acceptance of the existing order, prevailing opinions, etc., absence own position, uncritical adherence to general opinions, trends, authorities.”

At least two-thirds of our society consists of people who are ready to completely submit to the pressure of the crowd in the person of its authority or the determining majority, suppressing their personality. This is how Fromm described conformism in his book “A Healthy Society”: “Conformism is the mechanism by which anonymous authority rules. I should do what everyone else is doing, which means I should adapt, not be different from others, not “stick my head out.” I need to be ready to change in accordance with the changes in the pattern and desire it. There is no need to wonder whether I am right or wrong; the question is different - have I adapted, am I “special” in some way, am I different? The only thing that is constant in me is this willingness to change. No one has power over me except the herd, of which I am a part and to which I am nonetheless subordinate.”

Thus, we understand that it is conformity that is the main basis for the division of society into the crowd and the marginalized. That is, a marginal can be defined as a person who is not subject to conformity. But there is a pitfall here! The fact is that in society they often use the term “nonconformist”, calling it false marginals - people who oppose themselves to the crowd, but are not true marginals. False marginalized people are an organic component of the crowd, just as a celestial body and its satellite form a single cosmic system. If we remain within the framework of this cosmic analogy, then the image of a wandering planet, which is not connected by the forces of gravity with any other cosmic object, will correspond to the marginal. And the false marginalized are not free in their essence, since their life style is still determined by the crowd: “Everyone wears tight trousers, but I will wear wide ones! How? Has everyone changed into wide pants?! Well, then I’ll wear tight ones.” And the marginalized person in such a situation does not care what others wear. If he likes to wear a Scottish kilt, he will not give it up even when men’s skirts suddenly become fashionable among the crowd. And he will continue to not give a damn about the fact that all the men around him are like him in that they wear skirts.

False marginalized people always oppose themselves to the crowd, while being part of it. And a true outcast can get along well with the crowd if they are tolerant of his eccentricities and leave him alone. That is, for the false marginalized, the main thing is precisely the protest against the fashion of the crowd, and for the true marginalized, the most important thing is his own taste, regardless of how the people around him react to him.

An example of false marginality can be some admirers of avant-garde art who cannot stand the so-called mainstream. They are always keen on some particularly rare type of, say, music, for example, noise (banal noise - in Russian), the fans of which can be counted on one hand. But as soon as the crowd shows interest in this clanging and roaring and it becomes mainstream, they will immediately lose interest in noise and immediately rush to look for some new exotic stuff. A true marginalized person, being an independent person, will remain faithful to his preferences in art or anything else until he gets tired of them or is crowded out by his new hobby. But all this interest and its changes will be determined solely by the movements of his soul, independent of anyone else. And it is better not to confuse the real individuality of the marginalized with the fashion in the crowd for ostentatious individuality, which is essentially a cover for spiritual impersonality and is adjacent to the renunciation of one’s personality, replaced by the role of the “right” person, tuned to social expectations.

If you want to increase your personal resistance to the psychological pressure of other people, then you must first learn to detect this very pressure, since it can be skillfully disguised by a skilled manipulator. And the main support in this will again be your own soul, its perhaps still very weak voice. And the key question will still be “Do you really want this?” When you discover her objections or at least doubts, you should analyze your own motivation, the reasons pushing you to this decision. So gradually learn to detect the protruding ears of manipulators. And when you see your opponent in person, it’s easier to fight him.

Another type of personal lack of freedom - protest behavior, characteristic of false marginals, is more difficult to eradicate, since it is based on some neurotic problems. The main one is the need for the general attention of the crowd, which can already be qualified as a desire for fame. Scandalous fame is also fame, which gives certain gains in the crowd. Therefore, someone who likes to shock the public, absorbing their attention like an emotional drug, must first deal with his internal conflict. The choice will mainly be made between the need for fame and the desire for personal freedom. Together, these psychological characteristics will not coexist in the soul.

And finally, on your path to personal freedom it is important not to overstep the limits of what is reasonable. It is one thing to be free from the psychological influence of other people, and quite another to take into account their possible reaction or opposition to your behavior. This is already an objective factor, independence from which is achieved only by the life of a hermit. If you live among people, then most likely you will not be able to be physically independent from them. Try to walk along the streets wherever you please - you will quickly get run over by a car or go broke with fines.

Search for an alternative behavioral strategy. Downshifting

The idea of ​​success is one of the key ones in modern developed societies. The desire for success, the achievement of certain goals and benefits lies at the heart of consumer culture. Western mass culture, associated with the market economy, the proclamation of personal and civil freedoms, as well as the desire for “achievement” and consumption, has formed its own image of a successful person. The concept of “success” has become one of the basic ones, reflecting the main values ​​of this type of culture - social status, possession of material wealth, access to information, etc.

The system of large corporations, forming their own codes of prescribed behavior and rhythm of life, has actively developed in the West. In the 1990s. the main features of corporate ethics and culture are formed. Requiring from the employee maximum involvement in work, identification of his own aspirations with the interests of the company, life in the harsh rhythm of constant competition, work in a corporation claims to have a leading role in the hierarchy of values ​​of its employee. With obvious important advantages: high stable salary, career growth (and with it growth not only in income, but also in status), social package and other attributes of a stable life - the corporate model of success has a number of strong side effects. The main one is the lack of time to communicate with loved ones, to realize one’s own creative potential in areas other than professional. If, for some reason, work becomes monotonous, too overloaded with responsibility and stress, the benefits of a high income no longer seem so significant in comparison with the feeling of being trapped and losing important components of one’s own identity. This feeling accumulates gradually and can lead to a deep personal crisis. It may coincide with a midlife crisis (or other age-related crisis), which only aggravates its severity. The model of success that seemed “correct” and the only possible one no longer brings satisfaction to the individual. This means that the a priori desired “happiness” is not achieved - a cultural concept, in this case closely related to the concept of “success”. Hence the need arises to search for alternative behavioral strategies and value priorities that can provide an individual with a sense of self as a successful and at the same time happy person (the significance of “success” remains unshakable; it is not its expediency that is called into question, but its semantic content).

Downshifting concept. This is how the phenomenon of downshifting is born. It is named by analogy with automobile terminology (slow down, slow down, shift into a lower gear) and is understood as the opposite of the desire to climb higher and higher on the career ladder. There is a contradiction in the designation “downshifting”. On the one hand, we are talking about lowering the level: the metaphorical semantics of referring to the bottom characterizes this phenomenon as negative, “lower” means worse, since the downward orientation corresponds to a negative linguistic connotation. On the other hand, downshifting is perceived as slowing down, i.e. choosing a more cautious, aware and thoughtful movement. Thus, the demotion is also assigned a positive characteristic. A contradiction in the meaning of a phenomenon manifests contradictions in its assessment and interpretation by society and its various groups.

Downshifting (from the English Downshifting) is a transition from a highly paid job, but associated with excessive stress, workload and taking up all the free time, to a quieter job, although lower paid compared to the previous one. Successful managers give up their stress-filled and time-troubled jobs for a calm and leisurely life somewhere in the wilderness with their family. The true meaning of downshifting is a return to yourself, to your desires and dreams. Downshifting is both a social phenomenon and an individual one. The main external sign of downshifting is a voluntary renunciation of a career, of endless consumption, of demonstrating one’s high status, level and lifestyle imposed by society.

Contrasting careers with others interesting things has been around for a long time: the acceptability of the “price” for success, wealth, luxury has been questioned since biblical times. Modern Western ideologists of downshifting often formulate the task not as “giving up a career”, but as “a way to live more simply, happier and in harmony with the environment.”

Downshifters began to call themselves people who had achieved some success in their careers, but at some point decided to “quit the game”, abandoning a successful but stressful job in favor of a less prestigious, but calmer one, allowing them to realize their own dreams. At the same time, they consciously accepted a possible reduction in status and income, defining other life priorities for themselves. Downshifters are not adventurers, they simply abandoned other people’s goals and desires, and ceased to be cogs in the system.

The phenomenon began to quickly spread in different countries and among different social strata. Interest in downshifting is rapidly and steadily growing both among supporters of this movement and in the media, among marketers looking for new markets for products, and among personnel selection specialists faced with unusual behavior of employees who have achieved certain successes in career growth. If in the early 2000s. The first articles and discussions about downshifting began to appear mainly in specialized business publications; today the topic has moved from the special category to the popular level. The entertaining glossy press writes about downshifting, and the image of a downshifter is becoming popular in works of art.

Today it is already legitimate to talk about a special community of downshifters, whose members share common values ​​and form basic principles behavior. In this regard, we can talk about the sociological aspect of the problem: how this community is built and reproduced, what its prospects seem to the downshifters themselves and other groups, how strong the influence of this community is in society and what are the channels of such influence.

Downshifters are often women who prefer to be housewives not in the office, but at home. They switch to low-paid jobs, updating the previously discarded model of role relationships in the family “housewife and mother – breadwinner and protector.” When both spouses decide to pay more attention to each other and their children, the only way out there is a decline in the standard of living of the family.

The desire to save a family and raise healthy offspring is one of the most common reasons for downshifting. But not the only one. It is no less common to hear about how people refused career prospects not for the sake of relatives, but for themselves.

Moving to the provinces is one of the most popular downshifting strategies in those places where the standard of living in the country does not fall below a certain level acceptable for a modern person.

Danshifting is most widespread in England, France, North America and Australia.

According to 2003 data from the British Market Research Bureau, 25% of the UK population aged 30-59 consider themselves downshifters. The key question of the survey was the following: over the past ten years, have respondents made such voluntary changes in their own lifestyle that led to long-term consequences, including a decrease in earnings, but an increase in free time for recreation. This figure does not mean that a quarter of UK residents are downshifters, but the fairly active desire of respondents to emphasize their need for lifestyle changes, even if they entail a decrease in social status, indicates the relevance of the problem for the population.

From 2002 to 2005, the Australia Institute conducted a series of studies into changes in the employment structure and value attitudes of Australians. According to 2003 data, 23% of Australians aged 30 to 59 years consciously decided to reduce their earnings and came to the idea of ​​​​the need for downshifting in their lives. The authors of the study emphasize that the idea of ​​slowing down the rate of employment is often dictated by the realization that an individual is not able to provide all his needs, no matter how much he earns. The reason for the change in priorities may also be a change in value systems caused by disappointment in the ideals dictated by the consumer culture. According to 2005 data, more than 62% of the Australian population believe that no matter how hard they work, they will not be able to earn enough money to meet all their needs. The numbers, as we see, are quite large, but they speak not so much about downshifting as about a wider range of phenomena related to the development of modern societies and consumer culture, their differentiation and complexity.

Researchers indicate that over two years (2003–2005), interest in downshifting in Australia has grown significantly, both from people seeking to change their lives and from the media seeking to document the phenomenon and calling it the trend of the year8. Demand creates supply, so already in 2004, companies began to appear in the country that, for a lot of money (according to the authors, more than $5,000), were ready to help organize a downshifting plan.

In Australia, as in other countries, downshifters unite, helping each other achieve new goals. Their common task– by 2015, convert every second Australian. This will not be easy, because often such people are not understood by others. Even relatives suspect them of selfishness rather than the desire to devote more time to others. What can we say about employers? Can we expect them to entrust a serious matter to a person so preoccupied with his inner world?

Although the idea of ​​downshifting involves finding your own path in life and individualizing your choices, people who call themselves downshifters often do not strive for isolation and exclusion from public fields of discussion. They need to consolidate around a common idea, an authoritative person whose manifesto they are ready to follow and whose values ​​they share. Therefore, entire communities of downshifters are emerging, Internet portals and forums are being created where people can exchange experiences, be inspired to change their own lives, or encourage those who are just thinking about the advisability of making changes in their own way of life. Usually in such a community there is a group leader whose path is considered a model, recommendations are considered a guide to action, and the Internet page is a center for the exchange of opinions.

Thus, in the UK, one of the largest Internet communities in terms of size (the page traffic on the site http://www.thedownshifter.co.uk is about 100,000 views) is headed by Richard Cannon. A former top manager of British Rail, after leaving the company he created his own website, the pages of which contain texts “for” and “against” the idea of ​​changing life, and tells the story of happy transformations in the life of the author himself. Cannon made his downshift in 2000. His story is this: all his life he worked very hard, earned good money, was a respected person, a decent family man, the father of three children. True, due to his very stressful work, Cannon had no time to communicate with his family. By the age of 50, he began to have health problems, and then there was a car accident in which one of his daughters died. A severe life crisis led to a revision of life priorities; it became clear that work no longer brings satisfaction, that the most precious thing is family, and it remains without due attention and care. Then Cannon began planning his downshift. He writes that he planned it in advance, like an escape. First of all, a vegetable garden was planted in the garden, then chickens were brought in. Cannon took a leave of absence, received additional benefits, but never returned to work. Today he does not work five days a week, but lives on temporary earnings, writing articles and not very responsible and serious work at a cricket club, of which he has long been a fan. Cannon no longer has the income he once had. And although he says that the “new” life turned out to be harder than one might have expected, he is absolutely happy, as he can spend most of his time with his family, communicate with his grandchildren and do his favorite things. This story can be considered one of the examples of a downshifting scenario.

In France, Tracey Smith can be considered such a leader and authority. Her story is similar in many ways to Richard Cannon's. Leaving quite successful career, which did not allow her to spend time with her family, Tracy, along with her husband and children, moved to a small village in southwestern France, where she began a new life, which she herself characterizes as “simple green living” (simple life in nature). Over time, when Tracy’s family realized that they had managed to cope with the initial difficulties of a not-so-simple life in unusual, less comfortable conditions than before and with less money, Tracy decided to generalize her experience and help those who had just decided to start a new life. She created a downshifting manifesto, developed a whole step-by-step system on how to find balance in life, wrote a book of advice, and created several films about the “green” downshifting strategy. In 2005, the first national downshifting week was held in France, founded by Tracy Smith. Today, downshifting weeks have acquired an international status. Tracy Smith has become one of the world's recognized authorities in the field of downshifting. Getting to know the official website of the international downshifting weeks http://www.downshiftingweek.com Tracy Smith provides a wealth of material for interpretation and comprehension.

Let's take a closer look at the test survey given on the start page of the site; it can clarify the basic ideas about downshifting laid down by the ideologists of the movement. Here are the proposed positions (you had to choose one answer):

1. What is your main motivation for doing a “small downshift”?
A) Considerations regarding your own health.
B) Spend more time with family and loved ones.
Q) I realized that there is something more to life than the pursuit of money.
D) I want a better job and a more balanced life.
D) I would like to find time for social life (volunteer in my community).

2. What do you strive for most? What do you like most about your downshifting?
A) Find time to cook, using more fresh ingredients.
B) Grow something edible and eat the fruits of your own garden.
C) Just enjoy a life with less stress.
D) Do not respond to the alarm clock.
D) Have time to develop your own creative ideas.
E) Restore connections with people you haven’t had the opportunity to see for a long time.
G) None of the above.

3. What comments have you received from others about your downshift?
A) You're crazy.
B) They thought it was a fad (fad).
Q) They couldn't understand why I wanted to leave the 9-5 model (meaning a five-day work week with an eight-hour workday and an hour's commute).
D) This is abnormal behavior.
D) They wish they had the courage to try it themselves.
E) None of the above.

4. What age group do you belong to?
A) Up to 29 years old.
B) 30–39 years old.
B) 40–49 years old.
D) 50–59 years old.
D) 60–69 years old.
E) 70 or more.

5. Where are you from? (“Where are you in the world?»)
A) United Kingdom (UK).
B) Another European country.
B) Africa.
D) America (in the original – plural
number).
D) Asia. Pacific region.
E) Middle East.
G) South Asia.

What do the proposed questions provide for constructing the image of the community being studied? The first question regarding motivation already contains a clause designed to encourage and strengthen the respondent on the path to acquiring a new ideology. “What's your primary motivator for doing a little downshifting"?", i.e., in order to feel like a downshifter, you don’t have to give up everything and go to a remote village. It’s enough to feel the need for change and make at least some progress in this direction It is precisely this, not yet “inveterate” downshifter, who only slightly slows down (a frequent metaphor used in automotive topics), who may be most receptive to advice and discussions held by the community.

It is noteworthy that the “tips” to the questions clearly emphasize the negative characteristics of the outside world, in which it is necessary to “chase” money, where people do not have the opportunity to spend time with family and loved ones, lose contact with friends, and cannot develop their creative quality and do not have time to enjoy life. Moreover, such a flawed position is the norm for “ordinary people” (non-downshifters). They react with emphasized aggressiveness (“you’re crazy.”, “this is just a whim,” “this is not normal”) to a person’s attempts to stop and try to get out of vicious circle races for income, status and prestige. Thus, a distinction is made between “ordinary people” (negative characteristics) and “new chosen ones” - those who have already decided or at least thought about the advisability of downshifting as the only the right way finding harmony and personal success. This mechanism of constructing one’s own positive identity and distinguishing between groups “us” - “strangers”, “we” - “others” is characteristic of the organization of subcultural groups.

The second significant point: in the answers about the motivations that prompted downshifting, there is a point about the desire to allocate time for public service. This point is very characteristic of the Western model of downshifting, mastering the values ​​​​accepted in society. In D. Drake’s book “Downshifting,” volunteer participation in various social and religious communities is also given considerable space. This value is on a par with family and friends (i.e. the field of privacy). It is interesting to see how these attitudes can (and can?) take root in Russia, where belonging to public associations is not typical for the majority of the population and many times
inferior to the importance of family and circle of loved ones.

Third characteristic feature This survey is focused on the formation of environmental consciousness. The environmental component is important for the Western understanding of downshifting as the desire for a “simple life” (the ideal of simple life). This phenomenon is reminiscent of the search for a new naturalness during the Enlightenment, but the specifics of modernity give rise to a different understanding of what is considered “natural” and desirable. First of all, this is the desire to reduce stress (an invariable component of the “life is a race” construct), acquire an independent schedule (not react to the alarm clock), and consume environmentally friendly products. The ecological worldview has been actively developing in Western culture in recent decades, gradually reaching a leading position.

The final question about place of residence is “Where are you in the world?” – is formulated so that when reading, the respondent thinks about what place he belongs to, what role he is assigned, etc. Thus, an attempt is made here to provoke a person into a frank conversation, to put him in a philosophical mood. In general, the test questions are designed to help organizers of downshifting weeks learn more about the participants in the process, understand their motivations and aspirations. But since the test questions have ready-made answer options, it is apparently important for the initiators of the survey not so much to obtain new information about the life circumstances that prompted a person to downshift and search for like-minded people (the need to find a group with similar interests is indicated by the very fact of searching on the topic on the Internet), how much confirmation of existing attitudes and assessments that allow you to construct your own image of a downshifter, downshifter and society. Such models are intended to become a starting point in the ideas of a person who wants to join a given cultural group. The answer option “None of the above” leaves some room for maneuver and alternative scenarios, but implies a certain marginality.

Cultural legitimation of downshifting. Speaking about the phenomenon of downshifting, it is impossible not to mention two people who had a significant impact on the understanding of this phenomenon. These are Americans John Drake and Daniel Pink. The first is the author of the book “Downshifting”, this is a detailed guide to action, replete with examples and aimed at a wide audience of potential followers. The second is known for the book “Free Agent Nation. How New Independent Workers Are Changing America's Life." Daniel Pink's work combines several important trends in the development of modern business relations– desire for greater freedom of action and movement on the part of the employee, awareness of the value of one’s own privacy as a higher, in comparison with corporate values, desire for creative fulfillment. Pink talks about the tendency to increase the distance between the employer and the performer (mobile office, work from home, contract-fee projects that do not require constant direct contact between all participants in the work process).

One of the basic categories of the idea of ​​free agents is freelancing (from the English freelance - free earnings). The idea of ​​freelancing is close and in some ways coincides with the idea of ​​downshifting. Downshifting with freelancing brings together the desire for greater freedom
personal time planning, the ability to work remotely outside the office with a choice of convenient time and workload intensity. But at the same time, working as a freelancer does not always mean a significant increase in free time. A person may never free up time to communicate with family and friends and to realize his own creativity, since instead of the office he will have to spend the whole day at the computer at home, an Internet cafe or any other place. In addition, there are other possible models in downshifting, so freelancing cannot be completely identified with downshifting. Due to the large commonality of values, attitudes, stable behavior scenarios (the “customer-executor” relationship model, the fee basis for executing private orders, etc.), many of the provisions put forward.D. Kicks when discussing free agents can be applied when studying downshifting. Thus, it can be assumed that with the spread of the idea of ​​downshifting, changes occur in the normative models of organizing corporate culture, both internal in the company (to prevent the radical departure of a valuable employee “to free bread”), and its relations with the outside world. In the “customer – free performer” pair, the customer no longer perceives a single person who independently builds his own work schedule as a business outsider and a loser. A normative definition has been developed for the “free agent” strategy, which means that he is already, as it were, legitimized in his desire to work freely, not being tied to a permanent employer by a long-term contract.

The same mechanism of legitimation occurs with the introduction of the word “downshifter” into the active business lexicon. Initially, it was necessary to identify the marginal environment of people who behave inappropriately, from the point of view of the dominant ideology of success, career growth and the desire to achieve certain material benefits, lifestyle as markers of status. The word that has appeared does not contain a radical verdict on a new phenomenon (it is not “loser”), it does not have direct correlations with negative definitions of a person as a loser who has not reached the top and has broken down along the way. However, the designations “downshifter” and “downshifting”, as already mentioned, still contain a dual assessment, including a certain indication of orientation
down, sliding.

Basic strategies. Two main groups of downshifting strategies can be distinguished - “light downshifting”, which does not require a complete break with the usual way of life and environment, allowing even if necessary to restore the situation left behind, and the conventionally called “deep downshifting”, which involves radical changes in lifestyle and place of residence , occupation.

Joining the downshifter community occurs according to different scenarios, which can be divided into the following groups:

1. involving a change of location (for example, moving from a city to a village, living in Goa or Bali);
2. change of occupation (for example, leaving a career as an accountant and becoming a diving coach, doing what you love);
3. changing the time spent on work, increasing freedom in decision making (the ideology of freelancing or creating your own business);
4. “planning an escape” suggests that a person has not yet decided to make changes, but has already felt the need for them in his life and the need to join a group of downshifters in order to gain approval for his own life choice.

On the way to optimal energy

Optimal energy is the ability for mental and personal development, self-realization and self-improvement without the occurrence of mental disorders.

If by mental development we understand the natural process of development of higher mental functions as socialization, the result of which is normal adaptation to society, then by personal development we mean the process of development of individuality (individualization), the result of which is adequate adaptation to one’s self. Socialization is understood as a process of assimilation and active reproduction by an individual of social experience, carried out in communication and activity. Individualization is the process of a person’s search for spiritual harmony, integration, integrity, and meaningfulness. In the process of individualization, a person creates his own qualities, realizes his own uniqueness as a value and does not allow others to destroy it. Individualization is defined as the process of developing a unique and inimitable self, the acquisition by an individual of increasing independence and autonomy.

These two processes - socialization and individualization - begin at birth and, normally, balance and complement each other due to different vector their orientation. Socialization is a “movement towards WE”, individualization is a “movement towards I”. The predominant development of one of them leads to the weakening of the other. Extreme variants of such development can be, for example, conformism (excessive socialization) and negativism (excessive individualization).

What can act as indicators and criteria for the identified levels of development? If we talk about the norm of mental development, then there are no special problems here. The question of the criteria for the norm of mental development has been considered quite fully in both domestic and foreign psychology. There are periodizations of mental development, the content of which includes a description of the norm of this development at each age stage. Much more difficulties arise when determining the criteria for the norm of personal development, since the very concept of “personality” presupposes the properties of individuality and uniqueness, which often do not fit into the framework of existing norms. The combination of terms such as “personality” or “individuality” and “norm” and “ average value“This is a combination of two terms that are essentially completely inconsistent with each other. The word “personality” specifically emphasizes individuality and is the opposite of the scheme, the norm, the middle.

In this case, it is necessary to turn to criteria that could characterize mental health from the perspective of the person himself. One of these concepts is the concept of self-identity, which appears for each person in the form of a question to himself “Who am I?” and describing his inner world.

The concept of self-identity refers to concepts that consider mental reality as a holistic, dynamic formation. By self-identity we understand the process of a person experiencing his Self as belonging to him. Self-identity acts as one of the manifestations of the content of mental reality, makes it possible to highlight one’s own Self, its non-identity with the Other.

Self-identity is a continuous, changing flow of a person's experiences of his identity. This is a dynamic, holistic formation, which is normally in the process of constant refinement, construction of the image of one’s Self, inscribed in the context of the external environment - the world and other people and represents a systemic procedural unity. Its function is the process of clarification, correction and self-construction of the image of oneself, other people and the world as a whole. The result of this process is a self-concept defined for a given moment, built into the concept of the Other and the concept of Life, which are structural components of the “self-identity” system. Consequently, self-identity as a dynamic property of personality can be considered as a structure and as a function, as a process and as a result. Structurality and integrity, dynamism and staticity - these are the dialectical properties of self-identity. Only the presence of these contradictory properties at the same time makes it possible to talk about the existence of true self-identity.

Thus, mental development can be viewed as both a process and a result. As a process – the development of higher mental functions. The procedural criterion is socialization. Socialization is a movement towards WE (I am like others, I am for others). The result is adaptation to society. The determining criterion is the level of adaptability.

Personal development can also be viewed as both a process and a result. As a process – the development of subjectivity. The procedural criterion is individualization. Individualization is a movement towards the Self (I as Self, Self for Self). The result is adaptation to the Self. The determining criterion is the level of self-identity.

Mental health can be represented by the following model:

Optimal energy is mental and personal health.

If we take the optimality of human energy as a basis, then all people can be classified as follows:

1. ordinary people
2. marginalized
3. warriors.

The inhabitants of their vital energy managed least efficiently. Marginal people tend to have a more rational energy system compared to ordinary people. True, this happens due to the “dropout” of the marginalized from society. The most effective energy is that of a warrior. In terms of socialization, a warrior is somewhere in the middle between an ordinary person and an outcast.

The average person, by his very nature, cannot be outside of society for a minute. Society is habitat the average person to whom he owes everything. Social status and well-being, which are so important for the average person, are given to him by society. Left alone, the average person feels lost, useless to anyone. This makes him worry about his fate. At the same time, society often places an unbearable burden on his shoulders in the form of hard work or excessive responsibility, which causes the average person to lose peace and bring himself to stress. We can say that the average person lives in eternal bustle. He has to keep his “finger on the pulse” all the time, constantly react to numerous events happening around him, and, of course, there are always a lot of such events. There is no need to talk about any efficient energy here.

The marginalized, on the contrary, reduces its contacts with society to a minimum. This releases his strength. However, he is forced to spend his free energy only on himself and his loved ones, which does not allow him to fully realize himself. To some extent compensate for their isolation from public life, marginalized people unite in informal societies, but this only partially helps them in satisfying their need for socialization. They don’t want to return to a full-fledged society - after all, this is a return to what they left.

In general, the marginal is antisocial element. At the same time, he can live quite happily, without being anxious and restless at all. This may be a completely self-sufficient person with his own set of values. But if he does not realize himself in society, then his energy cannot be called optimal.

Thus, antisocial individuals cannot have optimal energy. To possess such energy, a person should not artificially limit his contacts with society. At the same time, his contacts should not go beyond reasonable limits.

A person can have minimal contacts with society, and yet his creativity can be in demand by society. Such a person can no longer be called marginal. Most likely, he will belong to the category of warriors. If his work is not in demand by society, then the person is probably marginalized.

A warrior has all types of needs from A. Maslow’s pyramid, and not one of these needs is hypertrophied. The warrior self-actualizes, but does not resort to excessive socialization for this.

As is known, excessive socialization leads to rigidity of thinking, lack of flexibility and mobility of perception, dependence of health on stress and emotional outbursts, premature deterioration of health and early aging.

For a more detailed acquaintance with the characteristic features of a warrior, you should familiarize yourself with the “Becoming a Warrior” methodology.