CC BY
5V. A. Medintsev
Personal cultural space and personality as its integral quality
About the author
Annotation. The article outlines the main ideas and principles of analyzing the structure and functioning of the cultural space of a person. Such a space consists of specialized cultural agents—they form its sub- and paracultural spheres. It is shown that personality can also be considered as an integral quality of the indicated space. I will explain the last thing: not only the person is a part of the external society, but this external society is also represented in the internal world of the person, is a part of it—and so on any large-scale level of the entire subject field of psychology. In the proposed model, it is possible to reproduce all kinds of psychological interpenetrations, which is methodologically similar to the field interpretation of the physical world.
Keywords: cultural space of a person, subculture, paraculture, person, personality.
Citation: Medintsev V. A. Personal cultural space and personality as its integral quality. Теоретичш до^дження у психолога: монографiчна серiя. Сост. В.О. Медшцев. Том 19. 2023. С. 45-55.
I consider the approach, the main ideas and provisions of which will be briefly outlined below, as one of the possible way to the further development of the integrative-per-sonal approach. When developing the latter, preference was given to the interpretation that closely connects the category of personality with the cate space of the person gory of culture, that is, the embodiment of culture in a human individual is characterized by the category of personality (for details, see [1], [2]). Such an interpretation is carried out in an integrative way and in two aspects: a) epistemological (aiming at the synthesis of components of various concepts of personality adequate to the scientific task to be solved); b) ontological (considering the human individual in the unity of his somatic, psychological and spiritual properties). It was noted that, just as the human body not only functions
Personal s]
Within the framework of the subject-dialogic approach to the modeling of the person's space developed by the author of the article, the internal sociality of a person was considered to be somewhat similar to the structures of the external social world [8]. It seems fruitful to consider this space also in context concept of "culture". Among the scientific discourses related to the issues of culture, a certain place is occupied by those in which the authors consider the
in the natural environment, but is itself a part of nature, so the individual as a carrier of personality (as a person) is not only in a cultural environment, but is a carrier and " co-author" (one of the creators) of culture. Therefore, in the context of the integrative-personal approach, personality was considered as a mode of culture and as an integrative quality of person.
On the basis of my previous research, in particular, the subject-dialogic approach [8; 9; 10; 11], it seems possible to propose an updated, coordinated simultaneously with the latter and integrative-personal approaches interpretation of both the "mode of culture" (which is embodied in the person) and dimensions of integrability. The concept of "cultural space of a person" is central to this approach.
as a culture
connection between the understanding of culture as a system of qualities of human communities and the understanding of the human individual as a bearer of cultural forms. The reasoning of the Soviet philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov that a person can be considered as a single embodiment of culture, that is, the embodiment of the universal in the singular [6]. Developing this provision, as well as formulated by D.A. Le-
ontiev's definition of personality, G.O. Ball proposed the interpretation of the latter as such an integrative quality of a person, which allows this person to be a relatively autonomous and individually distinctive subject of culture. Ideas similar in content to the above are also expressed in the works of Yu.M. Lotman, in which he talks about the possibility of considering culture as collective intelligence, as well as the isomorphism of the latter with individual intelligence. In this regard, Lotman sees a new methodological perspective in the research of individual intelligence, the advantage of which is based on the fact that collective intelligence is much more explicable, its mechanisms are revealed in the languages of culture and fixed in numerous texts, in contrast to the hidden languages of the human brain [7].
When developing a dialogic approach, one cannot fail to take into account the provisions of the dialogic doctrine of V.S. Bibler. The triple definition of culture proposed by him is known: (1) "Culture is a form of simultaneous existence and communication of people of different— past, present and future— cultures, form of dialogue and intergeneration of these cultures (each of which is... See the beginning of the definition)" [4, p. 289]; (2) "Culture is a form of self-determination of an individual within the horizon of personality, a form of self-determination of our life, consciousness,
thinking; that is, culture is a form of free decision and redetermination of one's fate in the consciousness of its historical and general responsibility." [ibid]; (3) "Culture—in his works—allows us—the author and the reader—to re-create the world, the existence of objects, people <...> as the objective basis of all "slices" and "projection" of the idea of culture is represented by the sphere of works as indivisible units ("atoms", "monads") of infinite cultural existence" [ibid., p. 290].
According to the first definition, culture is the dialogi-cally interacting forms of existence of people in synchronic and diachronic human communities, each culture carries subcultures. Similarly, in the subject-dialogical model, we consider the sociality (one of the components of culture) of a person, its internal complexity and embeddedness in the external social hierarchy. Accordingly, the cultural space of a person will now be considered as "inscribed" in the multilevel system of human culture, as one of its components.
In connection with the second definition, I would like to note that the approach developed by the author of this article envisages a broader interpretation of culture as an individual and psychological form of human existence. The space of the individual is psychologically "wider" than the horizon of the individual , with which V.S. Bibler relates only the most significant events of a person's inner world: the
decision and redetermination of one's fate. In the space of a person , we will assume that all psychological acts take place without exception, including unconscious ones, all that one of the characters of F.M. Dostoevsky called (in the original language): "... the manifestation of all life, that is, all human life, both with reason and with all scratching." [5, from p . 471]. Remarkable in this statements is word "brushing", which corresponds to the idea of the origin of culture from acts of bodily self-cleansing [17].
According to the third definition, the subject components of cultures are works , which are opposed by Bibler to products (consumption) and tools (labor)-also objects of cultural existence. A property of a cultural work is its address to the listener, the reader, the author's existence is embodied in the addressed work. We are talking here, as it seems, primarily about works of art, science and religion (which you can see for yourself by reading the works of V.S. Bibler). In the context of psychological issues of personal space as a component of personal culture, it makes sense to interpret this concept more broadly and at the same time almost literally (to create—work) as everything created, produced by a person in various spheres and forms of his
life. All works, we will assume, are also addressed and can be considered, among other things, as a kind of replicas in external and internal dialogues of persons.
The results of cultural processes are works of culture, and the process, accordingly, art. If we consider "creativity" in a more or less generally accepted scientific interpretation, then the main meaning of this concept is the process of human creation of something new, in particular, new cultural forms, qualities (the aspects of the problem of creativity, which were drawn attention by G. A. Ball in [3]). This cultural creative process, if considered in a dialogical paradigm, is dialogical (the formation of the new takes place in the dialogue of cultures). The cultural space of a person is a sphere within which new cultural forms, including new forms of this space itself, are created in the process of dialogues between cultural agents. Cultural spaces persons "intersect" with their external components—each person, as an agent of the creative process, is involved in the creation of not only his own works produced within his cultural space—as long as he has the cultural space of a person, he participates in the creation of many cultures.
Spheres of a person's cultural space
In the subject-dialogical approach, a person was considered as an agent of various cultural communities external to him and a unique—to the extent that each person can be considered unique—form of his own internal cultural space. An important feature of this approach to understanding personal attributes are modeling not only internal subcultures , but also external paracultures . The latter are such cultural formations that represent a given person in the subcultures of other people.
Therefore, the subcultural component (principle) of the person's space is formed by the internal society (see [8] for more details), which has a unique structure and character of (cultural) creativity for a specific person. The forms and results of the creative process can be considered as works (facts cultures).
Paracultural realm of personal space is formed by various forms of representation subcultural space in internal cultural spaces others people That is, I as owner—in for some reason typical in for some reason unique—cultural space also exists (presented) in internal cultural in the spheres of people who know me, I am involved in the processes of the functioning of their inner worlds and am partially responsible forthem responsibility. The proposed interpretation of
two spheres of person's cultural space I think it can also be considered as a kind of development of W. James's idea that a person has as many social selves as there are people who carry his image in their minds, and, in addition, how many social groups exist, whose members think about themselves this person cherishes [19]. It should be noted that a significantly different development of the same idea was proposed by H. Hermans in his theory of the dialogic Self: while remaining unified, the latter can only alternately occupy external and internal positions [18].
Subcultures. In humanitarian scientific literature (in cultural studies, in particular), a more or less stable terminology for types of cultures has developed, despite the fact that there are different approaches to typology criteria, and the number of such studies is constantly growing (for recent works on this topic, see [13] ; [14]). Without going into the details of the problems of typology of cultures, I will note that the following are the widely used predicate terms for them: historical, ethnic, professional, household . To those mentioned, it is worth adding the type that recently began to be analyzed in studies of a cultural nature—"somatic" (or "bodily") cultures [15; 16]. Thanks to this, in the structure of the subculture it makes sense to distinguish not only all the
named types of cultures, but also those new ones that will later become subjects of study (for more details on the structure of the components of the cultural space of an individual, see [10]). Currently, it is necessary to briefly outline the main possible varieties subcultures.
Somatic . From a fundamental methodological point of view, the problem of somatic culture (body culture) is, perhaps, key in modern anthropology, if we consider the idea, according to M.N. Epstein, "nature as conditions of culture" [17]. Different versions and aspects of this problem are already quite widely presented in the scientific literature (see an overview of approaches to this issue, for example, in [16]). In view of what has been said, we will assume that: a) in the subculture there is a somatic subgroup or a certain number of them, the functioning of which determines the forms of somatic manifestations of a person; b) creativity in internal interactions within the somatic subgroup is embodied in the forms created in this process, in which a person performs somatic actions, starting from various types of the simplest to the forms of performance of multi-component systems. It can be said that together with the physical and psychological development of a person, the cultivation of at least part of the physiological mechanisms of his body takes place, starting with the reflexes of some systems of muscle
contractions, in particular, sneezing, eating, facial expressions and gestures, gait.
Household . These include the circle of persons (and, accordingly, internal agents) and systems of interactions related to food, housing, maintaining physical fitness, leisure and other such mandatory aspects of life for most people. The list, understood even as mandatory, of the components of household culture can differ significantly among people of different wealth, in different situations (peacetime, war, imprisonment, etc.), and more broadly, among people who belong to different historical , ethnic, religious, etc. cultures.
Professional . A person performs his professional duties as part of a certain small social group. As a cultural entity (one of "centers" of Culture) this group produces works corresponding to its specialization. IN to the subcultural space of the individual, this—meta-social for her—group corresponds to a certain subgroup, the composition of which may differ significantly from the first one due to various internal agents of Others, necessary for the successful performance of their professional duties.
Optional. It makes sense to separate the performance of a whole range of civil functions—participation in self-government, in the political life of society, in the life of a denomination, in raising children—from both professional
and everyday forms of socio-cultural functioning of a person. In these, located according to formal criteria outside the framework of any specific professional culture, forms of human existence, of course, certain, close to professional, qualities are also necessary. The scope and composition of the optional subculture largely depends, among other things, on the harmonious functioning of both the cultural space of the individual and his life activities in the social surroundings.
Ethno-historical. As part of subcultures of this type, we will consider internal agents—representatives of the relevant metacultures of the present and past. A person usually has an idea about certain ethnic and historical cultures, and this means that in his subcultural space there are relevant subgroups that, in the process of dialogues within his subgroup and dialogues with other subgroups, produce specific works. The personal composition of these subgroups is formed and replenished in the course of education (systematic and self-education), in situations of perception of works of art, materials from mass media, experience of interpersonal communication and others.
Personality
Therefore, it is proposed to consider the cultural space of a person as consisting of subcultures physically internal to him and paracultures physically external . The latter become localized in the cultural spaces of other people—in this way the interpenetration (connection, intersection, etc.) of the inner world of a person and his immediate and remote soci-ocultural environment (at the level of metacultures ), a person contributes to the creative processes taking place in his environment and temporarily enriches the content of his own cultural spaces. As for the connection between concepts "personality" and "cultural space of a person", then
now the specified connection can be stated in several theses.
1. The model of a person's cultural space is a theoretical and methodological tool for the analysis of: its structure and functioning; their transformations; works produced by the agents of this space (in the interpretation of the latter adopted here).
2. The cultural space consists of culture agents of different scale levels who jointly carry out creative processes, including self-organization processes.
3. An integrative personality is an integral quality (see the
interpretation of the latter according to [2]) of a set of certain characteristics persons
4. A person, if considered as a carrier of cultural space, has many agents in his composition, and each one is the carrier of his own integrative personality—integrative personality, in such a context, is an integral product of the functioning of the specified agents.
5. Personality as a holistic characteristic of a person is an integral quality of his cultural space I draw attention to the fact that in this interpretation of integrality a double meaning (or dimension) is given. This is, firstly, the integrality of the psychological qualities of each individual agent of a person's cultural space, and secondly, the defined space as a whole.
It should also be noted that the model of the cultural space of a person can be considered as a kind of development of the idea of V.A. Petrovsky about the three-level
Coi
Within the framework of the cultural-spatial approach outlined in the article, the human individual appears to be more clearly inscribed in the modern scientific picture of the world, according to which it is formed by interacting elements—elementary particles, biological
construction of the personal space, in which he distinguished the intra-individual , inter-individual and meta-individual levels [12]. I will draw attention to another idea of V.A. Petrovsky. It is about the thesis according to which a person is present in the psychological one spacious, what she may master physically or thinking [there itself]. I would like to note that a person with the help of his para-cultures is also present in those spaces that he has not mastered even with thought—"in the minds and hearts" of people he does not know. It seems to me that it is methodologically unproductive to limit the space that a person as a polysyllabic system of cultures can master in principle. It would be more productive to consider the space already mastered by the person and, for example, the space of the nearest mastering (by analogy with the well-known principle of L.S. Vygotsky).
cells, living beings, natural and man-made material things, planets, cosmic systems. In the world structure understood in this way, man takes his ontological and evolutionary place as an interacting element formed
from interacting elements. The subject area of psychological sciences covers both individuals (individual psychology), and, on the one hand, human communities (social, cross-cultural, etc.), and on the other, biological components of a person (modern cognitive sciences). In a number of classic psychological approaches, the psyche as a whole—or only consciousness, or only thinking—is considered as poly-agent formations (Mead, Jung, James, Hermans, authors of dialogical approaches in psychotherapy). In line with the ideas of the cultural-dialogical approach, it is possible to gradually complete the links that would connect the social organism , the human organism , and the organisms of the human microcosm . The concept of cultural space is a necessary theoretical construct for this (compare, for example, "Lifetomind joint point <...> Mindtoculture joint point." [20]).
In the proposed model, it is possible to reproduce all kinds of psychological interpenetrations, which is methodologically similar to the field interpretation of the
physical world. And we are talking about all forms psychological interpenetrations: ontological and genetic; less into more and more into less . I will explain the last thing: not only the person is a part of the external society, but this external society is also represented in the internal world of the person, is a part of it—and so on any large-scale level of the entire subject field of psychology.
Further development of the approach , as it now appears, should be conducted in several directions: 1) find a form of a compact presentation of the system of agents, in which the interactions between them, interpreted as types of dialogues, would also be reflected; 2) to consider the possibility of using the methods of the assignment of mathematical spaces to model the cultural space of a person; 3) to show the similarities and distinctive features of the cultural-dialogical approach, on the one hand, and existing cognitive approaches and theories of personality, on the another.
References
1. Балл Г.О. 1нтегративно-особиспсний тдхвд у психологи: впорядкування головних понять / Г.О. Балл // Психолопя i суспшьство. - 2009. - № 4. - С. 25-53.
2. Балл Г.А., Мединцев В.А. Личность как модус культуры и как интегративное качество лица / Г.А. Балл, В.А. Мединцев // Мир психологии. 2010. № 4. С. 167-178.
3. Балл Г.О. Чи е творчють атрибутом особистосл? / Г.О. Балл / Гумашстичш орiентири в методологи психолопчно! науки: Монографш / За ред. Г.О. Балла. - К.: Педагогчна думка, - 2007. - С. 88-96.
4. Библер В.С. От наукоучения - к логике культуры / В.С. Библер. - М.: Издательство политической литературы, 1991. - 413 с.
5. Достоевский Ф.М. Собрание сочинений в 15 томах / Ф.М. Достоевский. - Л.: Наука, 1989. - Т. 4. -726 с.
6. Ильенков Э.В. Диалектическая логика. Очерки истории и теории / Э.В. Ильенков. 2-е изд., доп. - М.: Политиздат, 1984. - 320 с.
7. Лотман Ю.М. Семиосфера / Ю.М. Лотман. - С.-Петербург: Искусство-СПБ, 2000. - 704 с.
8. Мединцев В.А. Матрица культурного пространства лица // Актуальш проблеми психологи: Збiрник наукових праць 1нституту психологи iменi Г.С. Костюка НАПН Украши. - Житомир. Вид-во ЖДУ ш. 1.Франка, 2011. - Том II. Психолопчна герменевтика. - Випуск 7. - С. 58-78.
9. Медшцев В.О. Внутршнш соцiум шдиввда: суб'ектно-дiалогiчний пiдхiд / В.О. Медшцев // Соцiальна психолог1я. - 2007. - №6 (26) - С. 17-31.
10. Медшцев В. О. Деяю теоретичш джерела дiалогiчного тдходу у психологи // Практична психолопя та сощальна робота. - 2002. - №9-10. - С. 107-109.
11. Медшцев В. О. Категорiя „культура" у розбудовi дiалогiчного шгегративного пiдходу до вивчення особистостi / В. Медшцев // Сощальна психолопя. - 2008. - №5. - С. 23-38.
12. Петровский В.А. «Существование личности» как психологическая проблема / В.А. Петровский // Петровский А.В., Ярошевский М.Г. Теоретическая психология. - М.: Издат. центр «Академия», 2001. - С. 286-294.
13. Сараф М.Я. Опыт типологии культуры / М.Я Сараф. - Голицыно, 2003. - 100 с.
14. Теоретическая культурология. В горизонте классической идеи культуры / Сб. ст. под ред. Румянцева О.К. - М.: Академический проект, 2005. - 606 с.
15. Чебанов С.В. Динамика центра и периферии как проявление формы культуры: бытовое и профессиональное как предмет культурологии / С.В. Чебанов // Теоретическая культурология / Сб. ст. под ред. Румянцева О.К. - М.: Академический проект, 2005. - С. 293-304.
16. Чебанов С.В. Интерпретация тела и постижение жизни / С.В. Чебанов // Логос живого и герменевтика телесности / Сост. Румянцев О.К. - М.: Академический проект, 2005. - С. 339-406.
17. Эпштейн М.Н. Самоочищение. Гипотеза о происхождении культуры / М.Н. Эпштейн // Вопросы философии, - 1997. - №5. - С. 72-79.
18. Hermans, H. The Construction and Reconstruction of a Dialogical Self / H. Hermans // Journal of Constructivist Psychology. - 2003. - 16 (2). - P. 89-130.
19. James, W. The Principles of Psychology / W. James. - Dover publications, 1950. - Vol. I. - 696 p.
20. Henriques, G.R. The Problem of Psychology and the Integration of Human Knowledge / G.R. Henriques // Theory & Psychology. - 2008. - Vol. 18(6) - P. 731-755.
